Attorney Gregory Paul Copeland's Legal Cases

Immigration

Blake v. United States AG, Nos. 19-14316, 20-11335, 21-12334, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 19598 (11th Cir. July 15, 2022)

Jul 15, 2022

OUTCOME: Petition for review granted, decisions vacated, and case remanded.

[1]-The petitioner’s claim that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) erred by denying his motion to reopen removal proceeding to apply for protection under United Nations Convention Against Torture a ... nd Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) was meritorious because the record showed the BIA first decision flatly stated that changes in personal circumstances cannot help establish changed country conditions, however, the regulation it cited in support of this statement did not prohibit consideration of personal circumstances pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i); moreover, the BIA’s second decision misstated the record, and its third decision relied on such misstatement.

Constitutional

Joshua M. v. Barr, 439 F. Supp. 3d 632 (E.D. Va. 2020)

Feb 20, 2020

OUTCOME: The court denied the government's motion to dismiss Joshua's habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction.

The court found that Joshua can invoke the Suspension Clause because he has sufficient ties to the U.S. through his SIJ status. It also found that the administrative review process is not an adequate a ... lternative for Joshua to challenge his removal order because he would lose his SIJ status if removed from the U.S. The court concluded that § 1252(g) is unconstitutional as applied to Joshua because it would deprive him of habeas review without an adequate alternative.

Constitutional

Sean B. v. McAleenan, 412 F. Supp. 3d 472 (D.N.J. 2019)

Sep 03, 2019

OUTCOME: The court granted a limited stay barring the petitioner's removal until 14 days after the BIA renders its final decision.

Although § 1252(g) would ordinarily bar habeas jurisdiction over a stay of removal, here the lack of a stay would render administrative review meaningless because the petitioner plausibly alleges he wo ... uld likely be killed if removed to Jamaica before exhausting review. Therefore, the Suspension Clause requires the court to retain limited habeas jurisdiction to grant a temporary stay.

Immigration

Emeli v. Edwards, Civil Action No. 18-15029 (SRC), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118585 (D.N.J. July 17, 2019)

Jul 19, 2019

OUTCOME: The court granted Petitioner's habeas petition and ordered the government to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing within 7 days.

Petitioner's nearly four-year detention without a bond hearing has become unreasonably prolonged under the standards set forth in Diop and Chavez-Alvarez. There is no evidence Petitioner is challenging ... his removal in bad faith. The length of detention and conditions of confinement in county jails weigh in favor of finding the detention unreasonable.

Constitutional

S.N.C. v. Sessions, 325 F. Supp. 3d 401 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)

Aug 28, 2018

OUTCOME: Petition granted

[1]-Where petitioner presented a mixed-application habeas relief, the Attorney General was the proper respondent for "non-core" claims challenging orders of removal; therefore, the district court had j ... urisdiction over the non-claim as the Attorney General was subject to long-arm jurisdiction under New York law because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the district pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1391(e)(1)(B); [2]-The Southern District of New York did not have jurisdiction over her "core" claims challenging her detention and possible transfer to another facility, because the proper respondent for these claims was the warden of petitioner's detention facility in New Jersey; [3]-The TRO was granted as to the stay of removal, because petitioner made a sufficient showing that she would succeed on the merits of her claim.

Immigration

Brissett v. Decker, 324 F. Supp. 3d 444 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)

Aug 16, 2018

OUTCOME: The petition for habeas corpus is granted in part. The government must provide Petitioner an individualized bond hearing within 14 days where it bears the burden of proving flight risk/dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence.

Petitioner's due process rights were violated because his mandatory detention under § 1225(b) has become unreasonably prolonged based on the length of detention, lack of responsibility for delays, asse ... rtion of defenses to removal, detention exceeding time served for conviction, and penal nature of detention facility.

Immigration

You v. Nielsen, 321 F. Supp. 3d 451 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)

Aug 02, 2018

OUTCOME: Petition for stay of removal granted.

[1]-The petitioner's request for stay of removal release from custody pending the resolution of his habeas petition was warranted given that the Court rejected all of respondents' jurisdictional argume ... nts since it had already provided all the guidance necessary to interpret 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252 (a)(5), (b)(9), and (g), and, as properly interpreted, § 1252 did not strip district courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas claims that were independent from judicial review of a final order of removal. 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(a)(2)(B) did not eliminate review of legal errors in the denial of an application for adjustment of status; [2]-With respect to respondent's venue claim, the Southern District of New York was the proper venue given that the only immediate custodians with legal control over petitioner were Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials located in that district.

Constitutional

Villavicencio Calderon v. Sessions, 330 F. Supp. 3d 944 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)

Aug 01, 2018

OUTCOME: The petition for a writ of habeas corpus was granted. The court ordered respondents to stay removal of petitioner from the United States and to release petitioner from custody.

[1]-In the immigration context, when a petitioner is detained in a local facility pursuant to an IGS A with a federal agency, and the immediate custodian must seek the agency's authorization for admiss ... ion or release of detainees, and further has neither knowledge nor interest in key questions, then legal custodians are proper respondents to both core and non-core challenges. Under this rule, the named respondents, who were legal custodians of petitioner, were proper respondents to this petition; [2]-The named respondents were subject to the court's jurisdiction, and the court had jurisdiction over this habeas petition; [3]-Respondents violated the Administrative Procedure Act and petitioner's due process right by executing petitioner's order of removal with no explanation or justification notwithstanding petitioner's right to apply for a provisional waiver.

Immigration

Lopez v. Sessions, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98712 (S.D.N.Y. June 12, 2018)

Jun 12, 2018

OUTCOME: The court grants the habeas petition and orders Petitioner's release under the terms of the prior Sponsorship Agreement.

ICE violated the APA and TVPRA by re-arresting Petitioner without considering the least restrictive setting as required for former unaccompanied minors who turn 18. The TVPRA requires DHS to consider l ... ess restrictive placements for such individuals. Petitioner's prolonged detention without a bond hearing violates procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment. The private interest in liberty is high, and the risk of erroneous deprivation is manifest given the lack of process. Petitioner's indefinite detention without justification violates substantive due process under the Fifth Amendment. There is no evidence of changed circumstances from when Petitioner was deemed suitable for release by ORR.

Immigration

Maldonado v. Lloyd, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75902 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2018)

May 04, 2018

OUTCOME: The court granted the habeas petition and ordered EHE's immediate release to his mother.

EHE does not meet the HSA's definition of a UAC because his mother is physically present in the U.S. and available to provide care and custody. Without statutory authority over EHE, ORR cannot detain h ... im. Even if ORR had authority, its opaque decision-making process, inexplicable delays, and improper burden shifting violate EHE's due process rights under Mathews v. Eldridge.

Gregory Paul Copeland's Legal Cases (12)

Blake v. United States AG, Nos. 19-14316, 20-11335, 21-12334, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 19598 (11th Cir. July 15, 2022)

Joshua M. v. Barr, 439 F. Supp. 3d 632 (E.D. Va. 2020)

Sean B. v. McAleenan, 412 F. Supp. 3d 472 (D.N.J. 2019)

Emeli v. Edwards, Civil Action No. 18-15029 (SRC), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118585 (D.N.J. July 17, 2019)

S.N.C. v. Sessions, 325 F. Supp. 3d 401 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)

Brissett v. Decker, 324 F. Supp. 3d 444 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)

You v. Nielsen, 321 F. Supp. 3d 451 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)

Villavicencio Calderon v. Sessions, 330 F. Supp. 3d 944 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)

Lopez v. Sessions, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98712 (S.D.N.Y. June 12, 2018)

Maldonado v. Lloyd, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75902 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2018)