Immigration Removal Order

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Sarbjit Singh v. Jefferson B. Sessions III

Case No.: 17-1579; 17-2852

Officials: EASTERBROOK and SYKES, Circuit Judges, and REAGAN, District Judge.

Focus: Immigration Removal Order

Sarbjit Singh, an Indian citizen and lawful permanent resident, faces removal from the United States for the second time. He was first removed in 2006 based on a 2004 Indiana felony conviction for corrupt business influence. IND. CODE § 35-45-6-2. Singh reentered the country in 2010 to pursue postconviction relief in Indiana. Three weeks later a state judge vacated the conviction and accepted his guilty plea to the crime of deception (a misdemeanor) in its stead. Id. § 35-43-5-3. Singh thereafter asked the Board of Immigration Appeals to reopen and reconsider the removal order. The Board granted the motion and remanded the case to an immigration judge.

A second round of removal proceedings ensued. The government initially conceded that the deception offense did not support removal and sought Singh’s removal on other grounds. It later changed course and issued a new charge alleging that Singh was removable based on the deception conviction, which it argued was “a crime involving moral turpitude … for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed.” 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i). Singh responded that the government’s initial concession was binding and, regardless, deception is not a removable offense because it is not punishable by a sentence of “one year or longer.” The immigration judge entered a new removal order, reasoning that the government’s concession was not binding because the Department of Homeland Security has express regulatory authority to lodge new or additional charges in removal proceedings “[a]t any time.” See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.30, 1240.10(e). And because the deception offense carries a possible sentence of “not more than one (1) year,” IND. CODE § 35-50-3-2, the judge held that it qualifies as a crime for which a sentence of “one year or longer may be imposed.” The Board affirmed the removal order.

Singh seeks review of both orders, arguing first that the Board abused its discretion in refusing to reopen his case based on the vacatur of the deception conviction. In the alternative he argues that deception does not carry a possible sentence of “one year or longer” and that the government’s concession to that effect is binding. These arguments are meritless, so we deny both petitions for review.

Denied

Full Text

Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.