Lauria v. Sessions
681 F. App'x 49
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Salvatore Lauria, an Italian national and U.S. lawful permanent resident, was treated as an applicant for admission based on a 2004 RICO conviction when he returned to the U.S. in 2007.
- The government applied 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v) (IIRIRA) to render Lauria removable and to deny CAT relief.
- Lauria argued that applying IIRIRA was impermissibly retroactive because his underlying RICO criminal conduct was completed before IIRIRA’s April 1, 1997 effective date.
- The BIA rejected Lauria’s retroactivity challenge, relying on a reading of Vartelas v. Holder to conclude the statute could apply because his conviction occurred after IIRIRA’s effective date (per the government’s position).
- The administrative record lacked the plea allocution/plea agreement and the IJ made no factual finding on the date Lauria actually committed the predicate RICO acts; the BIA purported to find the crime’s commission dates but the court treated that as improper factfinding on the existing record.
- The Second Circuit granted review, vacated the BIA decision, and remanded for the agency to develop the record on the date of commission of Lauria’s RICO crime (without resolving whether Vartelas looks to commission or conviction).
Issues
| Issue | Lauria's Argument | Sessions' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether applying IIRIRA § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v) to Lauria was impermissibly retroactive | IIRIRA’s application is retroactive because Lauria’s criminal conduct was completed before April 1, 1997 | Vartelas permits applying the statute because Lauria’s conviction occurred after IIRIRA’s effective date; alternatively, some predicate acts continued past 1997 | Court did not decide retroactivity on the merits; remanded for factual development on when the crime was committed because that date is potentially dispositive |
| Whether the BIA improperly engaged in factfinding about the crime’s commission dates | BIA lacked adequate record basis and exceeded its authority by making factual determinations not made by the IJ | Government relies on criminal information to support later end-dates for the predicate acts | Court held the BIA may not make new factfindings on appeal; remanded for the IJ/agency to develop and find facts about commission dates |
Key Cases Cited
- Vartelas v. Holder, 566 U.S. 257 (interpreting retroactivity principles for immigration consequences)
- Padmore v. Holder, 609 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 2010) (BIA exceeds authority when it conducts de novo factfinding on appeal)
- Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006) (standards for reviewing IJ and BIA decisions)
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (standard of review for mixed questions of law and fact)
- Lianping Li v. Lynch, 839 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2016) (remand appropriate where factual development could be dispositive)