Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

VARTELAS v. HOLDER

Docket No.: 10-1211
Certiorari Granted: 09/27/11
Argued: January 18, 2012
Decided: 03/28/12

Topics:

212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Article I, Bill of Rights, Contract Clause, Due Process, False Claims Act, Fifth Amendment, IIRIRA, Immigration and Nationality Act, Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets, RICO, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, SORNA, Sixth Amendment, Takings Clause, Title VII, immigration, murder, sentencing guidelines

PartyNames: Panagis Vartelas v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General
Petitioner: Panagis Vartelas
Respondent: Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Citation: 620 F.3d 108

Panagis Vartelas
v.
Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General
Background:

Prior to the effective date of the Illegal Immi-gration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act ("IIRIRA"), 110 Stat. 3009 (1996), April 1, 1997, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(13), provided: The term "entry" means any coming of an alien into the United States, from a foreign port or place or from an outlying possession, whether voluntarily or otherwise, except that an alien having a lawful permanent residence in the United States shall not be regarded as making an entry into the United States for the purposes of the immigration laws if the alien proves to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that his departure to a foreign port or place or to an outlying possession was not intended or reasonably to be expected by him or his presence in a foreign port or place or in an outlying possession was not voluntary. In Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449 (1963), this Court held that a lawful permanent resident ("LPR") who made an "innocent, casual, and brief" trip across an international border did not "intend" a "departure" within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13). However, effective April 1, 1997, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v) repealed 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13). The amended 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v) provides: (C) An alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States shall not be regarded as seeking an admission into the United States for the purpose of the immigration laws unless the alien, (v) has committed an offense identified in section 212(a)(2), unless since offense the alien has been granted relief under section 212(h) or 240A(a). (Emphasis added) Two other Circuit Courts of Appeals have held that the amended 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v) cannot be retroactively applied to an alien who pled guilty to a crime involving moral turpitude prior to the effective date of IIRIRA.

Question Presented:

Should 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v), which removes LPR of his right, under Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449 (1963), to make "innocent, casual, and brief" trips abroad without fear that he will be denied reentry, be applied retroactively to a guilty plea taken prior to the effective date of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act ("IIRIRA"), 110 Stat. 3009 (1996)? CERT. GRANTED 9/27/2011

Question:

Can 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v) be applied retroactively to a Lawful Permanent Resident who pleads guilty to a crime of moral turpitude prior to the effective date of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act?

VARTELAS v. HOLDER
ORAL ARGUMENT

01/18/12

Listen to Oral Argument in VARTELAS v. HOLDER
Holding: REVERSED AND REMANDED
Vote: 6-3
Majority: Ginsburg,Roberts,Kennedy,Breyer,Sotomayor,Kagan
Dissenting: Scalia, Thomas, Alito
Opinion By:

VARTELAS v. HOLDER
Case Documents

1VARTELAS v. HOLDER Oral Argument Transcript (HTML)
2Opinion in VARTELAS v. HOLDER
3VARTELAS v. HOLDER Oral Argument Audio (January 18, 2012)
4VARTELAS v. HOLDER Oral Argument Transcript (PDF)
5VARTELAS v. HOLDER Oral Argument Audio
6REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONER
7BRIEF FOR PETITIONER
8BRIEF FOR ASIAN AMERICAN JUSTICE CENTER, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA, LATINOJUSTICE PRLDEF, DRUG POLICY ALLIANCE, UNITED SIKHS, SOUTH ASIAN AMERICANS LEADING TOGETHER, ASIAN LAW ALLIANCE, SIKH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, ASIAN LAW CAUCUS, ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LEGAL CENTER OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, NORTHERN MANHATTAN COALITION FOR IMMIGRANT RIGHTS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER
9BRIEF OF THE AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION AS AMICUS CURIAE
10BRIEF OF THE NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER
11BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT