Okey Okpala v. Matthew Whitaker
908 F.3d 965
| 5th Cir. | 2018Background
- Okpala, a Nigerian national, became a lawful permanent resident in 1986, was naturalized in March 1992, and convicted in October 1993 of heroin offenses and unlawful procurement of citizenship (18 U.S.C. §1425). His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal and certiorari was denied.
- Following the §1425 conviction, the district court revoked Okpala’s naturalization pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1451(e); DHS initiated removal proceedings in 1994 that were administratively closed while Okpala served his sentence and were recalendared in 2016.
- The IJ denied Okpala’s motions to terminate, concluded he had been denaturalized and that the heroin convictions were aggravated felonies, and ordered removal to Nigeria.
- The BIA affirmed, applying collateral estoppel to the denaturalization judgment and holding Okpala amenable to deportation under 8 U.S.C. §1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).
- Okpala petitioned for review arguing §1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) does not apply because he was a U.S. citizen when convicted; he also challenged the denaturalization, asserted due-process defects, and argued collateral estoppel/res judicata barred the removal proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) applies to a person who was a naturalized citizen at time of conviction but later denaturalized | Okpala: statute does not apply because he was a U.S. citizen when convicted | Government: ab initio denaturalization makes him an "alien" for deportation under §1227 | Court: Costello controls; ab initio denaturalization does not retroactively make one an alien at time of conviction; §1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) does not apply |
| Validity of the denaturalization decree | Okpala: denaturalization void for procedural/substantive defects; thus remains a citizen | Government: §1451(e) mandates revocation after §1425 conviction; denaturalization valid | Court: Denaturalization was mandatory and valid; Okpala’s challenge fails |
| Application of collateral estoppel/res judicata and related due-process claim | Okpala: DHS barred by prior proceedings; BIA’s sua sponte use of collateral estoppel denied opportunity to rebut | Government: Prior denaturalization and affirmed convictions preclude relitigation; DHS may proceed | Court: Collateral estoppel properly applied to preclude relitigation of issues already decided; even assuming a process defect, Okpala failed to show substantial prejudice |
| Classification of heroin convictions as aggravated felonies for removal | Okpala: argues 1993 convictions not qualifying criminal convictions for immigration purposes | Government: convictions qualify as aggravated felonies related to controlled substances | Court: Substantial evidence supports aggravated-felony finding; BIA/IJ determination affirmed on that point for purposes of collateral issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Costello v. INS, 376 U.S. 120 (1964) (ab initio denaturalization does not retroactively render one an alien for deportation statutes that apply only to aliens convicted while aliens)
- United States ex rel. Eichenlaub v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 521 (1950) (rejection of relation-back fiction in deportation context)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (deference to agency statutory interpretations)
- United States v. Moses, 94 F.3d 182 (5th Cir. 1996) (statutory mandate under §1451(e) requiring revocation of naturalization following §1425 conviction)