James Corpuz v. Eric H. Holder Jr.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18506
9th Cir.2012Background
- Corpuz, a Philippine citizen, immigrated to the U.S. as a minor in 1983 and later killed his mother in 1989.
- He spent civil confinement at Lake’s Crossing to determine competence to stand trial, totaling about 392 days in that facility.
- He pled guilty in 1991 to voluntary manslaughter and received an eight-year sentence with credit for time served, including civil confinement time.
- A 1991 INS memorandum placed Corpuz as not amenable to deportation at that time.
- Corpuz was released from prison in 1994 after serving 1,251 days of post-conviction imprisonment, with unclear applicability of good time credit for prior civil confinement.
- In 2003, Corpuz was served with a Notice to Appear alleging removability for an aggravated felony, and he sought relief under former § 212(c); the BIA denied, and Corpuz petitioned for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| How to interpret ‘term of imprisonment’ under § 212(c) | Corpuz argues civil confinement must be counted to the five-year limit | The government argues time spent in civil confinement should be counted as part of the term | Count civil confinement time, with constructive good time, to approximate actual prison time |
| Whether pre-trial civil psychiatric confinement can be counted toward § 212(c) | Pre-trial civil confinement should be counted since credit is given against sentence | Such confinement is not ‘imprisonment’ under plain meaning and prior law | Yes, count with constructive good time credit to approximate prison time |
| Method for calculating constructive good time credit | Use a precise, straightforward calculation based on Nevada good time rules | Constructive good time is unknowable and impracticable to determine | Apply a fair approximation by crediting the pre-trial period proportionally to actual prison good time earned; remand to determine precise constructive good time |
Key Cases Cited
- INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (Supreme Court, 2001) (statutory interpretation of § 212(c) post amendments; retroactivity)
- Moreno-Cebrero v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 395 (7th Cir. 2007) (time served as basis for § 212(c) relief)
- Spina v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 470 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2006) (discussion of § 212(c) eligibility)
- Makal v. Arizona, 544 F.2d 1030 (9th Cir. 1976) (civil confinement not punishment; APD credit issue)
- United States v. Combs, 379 F.3d 564 (9th Cir. 2004) (avoid formalistic readings; equitable interpretation)
- Allen v. Illinois, 478 U.S. 364 (Supreme Court, 1986) (distinction between civil and criminal confinement)
- Gomez-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2005) (statutory interpretation starting with plain meaning)
- Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824 (9th Cir. 2003) (standard of review for BIA decisions)