Skip to main content

Can the gov. be sued for illegally deporting a legal permanent resident?

New York, NY |

They deported him against the law, by joining 2 entirley separate misdemeanor offenses to create a single offense and use this as "an offense relating to"... § 101(a)(43)(R) of the Act, 8 USC § 1101(a)(43)(R), which requires minimum 1 year imprisonment.

According to the 1-page sentence document, it provides a recommended sentence for each offense as "0 to 11 and half" months. At the bottom of the document, however, it states "total confinement" 23 months, which was served as probation.

He was a legal permanent resident and has no felony conviction on his record. The government purposely avoided discussion in the entire deportation process, they appearantly knew he was not deportable but wanted to deported him anyway. The 2 offenses they used against him are actually "summary offenses".

+ Read More

Attorney answers 3

Posted

An individual cannot sue the U.S. Government. Agencies or individuals within the U.S. government can be sued but not the United States itself. Anyway, having cleared up that little distinction, didn't the LPR have competent representation at the removal proceedings? Or did he go about it pro se? There is always the appeals route -- BIA and then federal appeals. You did not give any information about whether appeals were done. You should consult an immigration lawyer with criminal alien expertise to advice you on options moving forward.

An attorney-client relationship is not formed by my responses to questions on Avvo. My responses are not intended to be legal advice and must not be relied upon as legal advice.

Asker

Posted

Yes I know, there is a Federal statue that says any charges can be brought against any US government employee... I have explained everything in my comment to Gintare Grigaite above. The repondent in this case is very sure that there was a personal vendetta against him and he knows exactly who the government employee involved in this conspiracy to deport him is so this is a lawsuit matter.

Posted

I wonder whether he was represented by counsel or not, and whether all of these issues you are discussing now were raised in court, or on appeal. All of this matters because it is important to know whether he exhausted all of his appeal rights before he was deported. Consult with an experienced immigration attorney to find out what he can do at this time.

Contact immigration attorney Gintare Grigaite at 646-407-2331. Answers on AVVO do not constitute legal advice and do not form attorney-client relationship. Always consult an attorney for a legal advice.

Asker

Posted

I've read 100s of cases but never seen one like this before. From day one with the NTA instead of LPR, it said he was a "refugee" convicted of an "aggravated felony" but did not specify which one from A to U. The immigration court hearings lasted 3 years, his counsel said to the judge clearly that the respondent is prima facie eligible for "cancellation of removal", but the judge wouldn't let the counsel continue the oral argument... the judge told the counsel to explain instead in writing why it is not an aggravated felony and then he will consider it... the respondent and his councel didn't know where to start because the court wouldn't explain which aggravated felony from A to U applied. The immigration authorities were taking advantage of the situation, they were completely silent about this and never spoke a word regarding the conviction or the aggravated felony. On the last and final hearing the IJ for the first time specified which aggravated felony (1101(a)(43)(R)) but it became too late, the judge wouldn't schedule another hearing. The respondent got angry with his counsel and fired him, and retained another one and that attorney made a bigger mistake. This is what the BIA wrote: "We note that an attorney filed the respondent’s appeal brief. The attorney, however, failed to file a Notice of Appearance (Form EOIR-27)." The respondent decided to go pro se after this and filed "motion to reopen/motition to reconsider", which was granted and pending a final decision, the authorities deported him at that point. He prepared a 13 page argument to prove himself innocent but it never made it to the BIA and it's just sitting.

Gintare Grigaite

Gintare Grigaite

Posted

This is certainly a serious matter warranting consideration. The respondent should have also filed a Motion to Stay Removal while his appeal was pending, but of course, I do not expect him to have known it when proceeding pro se. When there is no Stay of Removal filed with the Board, ICE is free to deport the person, since there was a final order from the IJ, and the case was not yet reopened by the Board. However, I would highly recommend consulting a very experienced immigration attorney on this matter, as there is some signficant case law that may assist the person deported.

Asker

Posted

He knew about the "Emergency Stay of Removal" (ESR), as soon as ICE took him into custody he hired yet a 3rd attorney and paid him over $10,000 to quickly file the ESR and submit the argument he had prepared to the BIA but that 3rd attorney, instead of the ESR, wrote a very simple one-page bond request which of course was denied. One thing I didn't mention is that the deported person has already suffered 10 years living outside the US, his parents are US citizens along with his siblings and relatives, and he has no family or relatives in his birth country. If they didn't deport him he could have been a US citizen by now, so this case is more like a US citizen has been wrongfully deported.

Gintare Grigaite

Gintare Grigaite

Posted

Given the circumstances of this case, I highly recommend contacting an experienced immigration attorney for a formal consultation.

Asker

Posted

Ok, thanks. He's been dealing with severe post-traumatic stress disorder for the past 10 years. I will pass these messages to him.

Gintare Grigaite

Gintare Grigaite

Posted

Great, thank you. But if you really want to help him, and it seems that you do, as it appears that you are very knowledgeable about his case, you should consult an immigration attorney.

Asker

Posted

I'm going to post this long text to clarify the situation of the case for everyone who come across this comment section. 1. Immigration authorities charged the Respondent by writing on the NTA that: "On * 199*, you were convicted of false application for certificate of title or registration, altered and forged or counterfeit documents and plates in violation of title 75, sections 7121, 7122(1), (2), and (3) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, and sentenced to not less then 2 nor more 23 months incarceration. Section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the INA, as amended, in that, any alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony (as defined in section 101(a)(43) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)) at any time after admission is deportable." 2. Respondent’s counsel disputed the charges by saying “Your Honor, I just wanted for my own clarification that I know he (the Respondent) is prima facie eligible for cancellation of removal and…” but the immigration judge (IJ) quickly interrupted and didn’t want to listen to more of this. 3. Immigration authorities notified the court in writing that the Respondent was “not convicted of a particularly serious crime.” 4.The IJ stated: “If this gentleman gets sent back to …, notwithstanding his present criminal record, he could be killed there… My opinion is the practical, common sense is after being here for 18 years, despite his criminal record in this country, I don’t think it’s going to be wise to send him back to… If this gentleman is sent back to... is going to face a grave threat to his life… I think the respondent probably would have a problem with… If they ever get their hands on him, he‘s a likely candidate to be tortured… He would be given work permission and could stay in the country as long as there is the possibility or the clear probability of torture in… which may be a long time… The order is not final. He‘ll be able to keep his green card while the case is on appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals cause it‘s only when they get done with it that the order is administratively final… He can remain in the country as long as… is in control in… and that could be a very long. He has not thus far been involved in any violent crimes in this country. To remove him from the United States, exposing him to the dangers of life in…, is a tremendous responsibility, not justified by the present record of criminal conduct that the respond has accumulated in this country to the present time.” 5. The United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT) was Granted to the respondent. 6. The BIA wrote that: “On * 199*, the respondent was convicted of false application for certificate of title or registration, altered and forged or counterfeit documents and plates (3 counts) in violation of title 75, sections 7121(a), 7122(1), (2), and (3) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes… and sentenced to not less than 2 months, but no more than 23 months of incarceration. An Immigration Judge determined that the respondent’s 199* offense constitutes an aggravated felony, as defined in section 101(a)(43)(R) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(R), since it related to counterfeiting, forgery… We agree with the Immigration Judge’s determination that the respondent was convicted of an aggravated felony and that he is ineligible for withholding of removal under the Act. We note that neither party disputes these conclusions…. the Immigration Judge‘s order is vacated and the respondent is ordered removed from the United States.” The first major error is this -----> “false application for certificate of title or registration, altered and forged or counterfeit documents and plates (3 counts) in violation of title 75, sections 7121(a), 7122(1), (2), and (3) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes.” This is wrong and against the law because it is playing around with the law by joining together or combining multiple different offenses to create a single offense in a misleading and deceiving way. Plus, section 7122 does not say “altered AND forged…” it s

Asker

Posted

I forgot to mention that the IJ determined that "it" (2 separate statutes) constitutes an aggravated felony simply because the words "forged or counterfeit documents" were used in one of the statute and because of the total confinement of 23 months, which is more than the required minimum 1 year for 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(R). In other words, ICE, IJ and the BIA all turned blind eyes to the words "altered and license plates", and the fact that the sentencing document clearly mentions "0 to 11 and half months" as the recommended term of imprisonment for each offense. This is unjust and against the immigration law.

Asker

Posted

**Plus, section 7122 does not say “altered AND forged…” it rather says "altered OR forged..." The BIA should have decided that the IJ’s finding was inadequate for proper review and remand this matter for further proceedings since the Respondent was not given adequate notice of the charge of removability. Anyway, this case requires a team of determined lawyers to teach government servents a lesson that it's the law that decides not the person in charge. This is how the founding fathers of the United States set up this country.

Asker

Posted

I must add one last thing. The Respondent's probation officer came to court and lied that the Respondent had arrests in Connecticut and Virginia but this later proved to be false, there are no arrests in neither of those states. These lies by the probation officer affected the case.

Posted

It may be possible but there are many loopholes created when suing the government. Contact an attorney ASAP as in certain cases there are statutory deadlines for filing. My firm handles these types of cases.
Regards,
Nick Misiti
Misiti Global
212 537 4407

Legal disclaimer: The statement above is general in nature, as not all the facts are known. You should retain an attorney to review all the facts specific to your case in order to receive advise specific to your case. The statement above does not create an attorney/client relationship.