Shunaula v. Holder
732 F.3d 143
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- In 1997 Walter Manuel Shunaula arrived in Miami on a tourist visa; INS found counterfeit documents on him, he admitted knowledge, and he was removed via expedited removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1).
- Shunaula reentered the United States unlawfully in 1998 and remained in the country.
- In 2007 USCIS issued a Notice to Appear charging removability for (1) having sought admission by fraud or willful misrepresentation (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i)) and (2) presence without admission (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i)).
- At the 2010 immigration hearing Shunaula conceded possessing false documents in 1997 but argued the 1997 expedited removal was invalid because he had a valid visa then and was denied procedural protections (notice, counsel, understandable documents).
- The IJ and BIA declined to entertain a collateral attack on the 1997 expedited removal order and denied adjustment of status; Shunaula appealed to the Second Circuit arguing due-process invalidity of the 1997 order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear a collateral attack on a prior expedited removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A) | Shunaula: § 1252(a)(2)(A) does not permit collateral attack denial here; due process requires review of the 1997 order | Gov't: § 1252(a)(2)(A) strips courts of jurisdiction over challenges "arising from or relating to" expedited removal implementation or operation | The court lacks jurisdiction under § 1252(a)(2)(A); petition dismissed |
| Whether Mendoza‑Lopez requires judicial review of the 1997 expedited removal on due‑process grounds | Shunaula: Mendoza‑Lopez requires meaningful review when an administrative determination critically affects later proceedings | Gov't: Mendoza‑Lopez is limited to cases where the administrative result is used as an element of a criminal offense; not applicable here | Mendoza‑Lopez does not override § 1252(a)(2)(A) because the 1997 order is used to establish inadmissibility, not a criminal element |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mendoza‑Lopez, 481 U.S. 828 (Sup. Ct. 1987) (administrative findings that play a critical role in subsequent criminal sanctions require meaningful review)
- United States v. Sosa, 387 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2004) (discussing Mendoza‑Lopez limits)
- Delgado v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2008) (addressing inadmissibility and adjustment of status after prior removal)
- Khan v. Holder, 608 F.3d 325 (7th Cir. 2010) (§ 1252(a)(2)(A) bars collateral attack on expedited removal)
- Garcia de Rincon v. DHS, 539 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2008) (same)
- Lorenzo v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1278 (10th Cir. 2007) (same)
- United States v. Lopez, 445 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2006) (statutory framework for collateral attack in illegal‑reentry context)