St. John v. McElroy, 917 F. Supp. 243 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)

N/A

OUTCOME: Ms. St. John was found statutorily eligible for parole because INA § 236(e) was unconstitutional as applied to returning permanent residents who retained due process rights despite their absence from the country. I was awarded $88,000 fin EAJA fees.

Ms. St. John, a returning lawful permanent resident, was detained by the INS pending a final determination by the Board of Immigration Appeals as to whether she could be excluded from the United States ... due to her drug conviction in Bermuda. I represented her on a "pro bono" basis.

Henderson v. INS, 157 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 1998)

N/A

OUTCOME: The provision of the AEDPA that limits the availability of INA § 212(c) waivers does not apply retroactively to noncitizens whose deportation or exclusion proceedings were pending on the date of its enactment.

Calcano-Martinez v. INS, 533 U.S. 348 (2001)

N/A

OUTCOME: The Supreme Court held that IIRIRA expressly precluded the court of appeals from exercising jurisdiction to review a final removal order, but that petitioners may pursue their claims in a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

This case concerned petitioners who were lawful permanent residents subject to administratively final removal orders because they were convicted of aggravated felonies. Each filed a petition for review ... in the Second Circuit pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and a habeas corpus petition in the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in order to challenge the Board of Immigration Appeals’ determination that, as a matter of law, they were ineligible to apply for a discretionary waiver of deportation under former § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.