Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
No. 94-40255.
Parkash Ram ATTUL, A38-118-133, Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
Jan. 24, 1995.
Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Before REAVLEY, DUHÉ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Parkash Ram Attul petitions us to review his deportation order
handed down by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). He contends
that he is ineligible for deportation because of Congress's
amendment to the statute under which the INS seeks to deport him.
We deny his petition.
BACKGROUND
Attul, an Indian citizen, has been a permanent resident of the
United States for eleven years. In December 1985, in response to
charges that he participated in a fraudulent marriage scheme, Attul
pleaded guilty to making false statements under penalty of perjury,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(5)
(1988) (amended 1990), violation of § 1546 is grounds for
deportation. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)
commenced deportation proceedings, and an immigration judge
declared Attul deportable in July 1987. During Attul's appeal to
the BIA, a fire destroyed the records of his proceedings.
1

The INS renewed deportation proceedings in January 1989. On
February 26, 1991, an immigration judge again found Attul
deportable, but granted a waiver on the basis of unusual and
outstanding equities. The INS appealed to the BIA, which affirmed
the deportation order and vacated the waiver. Attul petitions us
for review.
DISCUSSION
The BIA found Attul deportable under the pre-1990 version of
8 U.S.C. § 1251. Congress amended this statute in 1990, but the
amended statute does not apply to Attul because he received notice
of the deportation proceedings prior to March 1, 1991. See
Pritchett v. INS, No. 93-5546, slip op. at 7 (5th Cir. July 6,
1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 421, 130 L.Ed.2d 336
(1994). Furthermore, the amended statute does not affect a
deportation order granted under the old statute. Id.
Nevertheless, Attul would have us construe the amended statute
to determine his deportability. He cites In re B---, 5 I. & N.
Dec. 255 (BIA 1953), to demonstrate that the BIA will not deport an
alien under a statute that is no longer effective. In B---, the
BIA withdrew the deportation order of a German national whose basis
for deportation was his membership in the German Nazi Party.
Congress had recently amended the statute to limit deportation to
members of organizations that advocate such a regime in the United
States. The BIA applied the new statute and concluded that the
alien should not be deported, despite the existence of a valid
savings provision. Id. at 257-58. The BIA considered its
2

conclusion consistent with other decisions in which it refused to
deport aliens that were racially barred from entry into this
country after the racial bar had been removed. Id. at 258.
In the present case, the INS has commenced deportation
proceedings against Attul because of his act of perjury, not
because of his race or his party membership. The BIA has not
applied B--- outside of cases in which the repealed exclusion was
based on race or politics. Cf. United States v. Gruttadauro, 818
F.2d 1323, 1325 n. 2 (7th Cir.1987) (explaining that the General
Savings Clause, 1 U.S.C. § 109, requires application of a
pre-amendment statute dispensing a penalty unless Congress has
substituted a right for what was a crime). We decline the
invitation to extend B--- in the face of the 1990 congressional
enactment which states that the 1990 version of § 1251 will not
apply to cases in which the alien has been provided with notice of
the deportation proceedings prior to March 1, 1991. Immigration
Act of 1990, Pub.L. No. 101-649, § 602(d), 104 Stat. 4978, 5082
(1990), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1161 note (Supp. III 1991). We
determine that the amended version of § 1251 is irrelevant to the
issue of Attul's deportation.1
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Attul's petition is DENIED.

1The BIA determined that Attul was deportable under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1251(a)(3)(B)(iii) (Supp. III 1991). Because of the conclusion
we reach, we need not address this issue.
3