Tam v. Department of Homeland Security (BICE)
Filing
13
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; DIRECTING the Clerk of the Court to close this case. Signed by William M. Skretny, Chief Judge U.S.D.C. on 9/30/2011. (MEAL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
HO KAI TAM (A 46-157-614),
Petitioner,
v.
DECISION AND ORDER
05-CV-473S
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (BICE),
U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement,
Respondent.
I. INTRODUCTION
On July 7, 2005, pro se1 Petitioner Ho Kai Tam filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his continued detention pending ongoing
removal proceedings against him.2 (Docket No. 1.) Petitioner sought release from custody
and a declaration that he is a national of the United States.
On March 28, 2006, this Court dismissed Petitioner’s challenge to his continued
detention, denied his request for a declaration that he is a national of the United States,
and transferred his nationality claim to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(5). (Docket No. 6.)
On February 19, 2009, the Second Circuit denied Petitioner’s nationality claim and
1
Cognizant of the distinct disadvantage that pro se litigants face, federal courts routinely read their
subm issions liberally, and interpret them to raise the strongest argum ents that they suggest. See Haines
v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 596, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); Burgos v. Hopkins, 14 F.3d 787,
790 (2d Cir. 1994). As Petitioner is proceeding pro se, this Court has reviewed his subm issions and
argum ents accordingly.
2
In response to the petition, Respondent filed a Motion to Dism iss and an Answer and Return,
along with the Declaration of Pam ela J. Korzak, with attached exhibits. After rem and, Respondent filed a
m em orandum of law and the Declaration of Christina M. Bonnette, with attached exhibits. Petitioner failed
to file a reply to Respondent’s post-appeal subm issions.
transferred the case back to this Court for consideration of Petitioner’s claim — first raised
in Petitioner’s appellate brief — that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service
(“INS”) improperly delayed adjudication of his nationality claim. The Second Circuit’s
Mandate was filed in this Court on June 2, 2009. (Docket No. 9.)
For the reasons stated below, Petitioner’s remaining claim is dismissed and the
Petition is denied in its entirety.
II. BACKGROUND
A.
Facts
The pertinent facts are undisputed. Petitioner is a native and citizen of Hong Kong.
(Administrative Record (“A.R.”) 8.3) He entered the United States as a lawful permanent
resident on or about July 2, 1996. (A.R. 8.)
On December 31, 2002, the government filed a criminal complaint against
Petitioner, charging him with mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. (Declaration of
Christina M. Bonnette (“Bonnette Decl.”), Docket No. 12, ¶ 6.)
On January 1, 2003, Petitioner signed a completed Application for Naturalization (N400). (Bonnette Decl., ¶ 7.) Two days later, on January 3, 2003, he was arrested on the
mail fraud charge. (Bonnette Decl., ¶ 8.) The next day, January 4, 2003, the INS Vermont
Service Center received Petitioner’s N-400 Application for Naturalization. (Bonnette Decl.,
¶ 9.) United States Probation and Pretrial Services notified INS of the criminal charges
pending against Petitioner on January 7, 2003. (Bonnette Decl., ¶ 10.)
On May 27, 2004, Petitioner pled guilty to committing mail fraud in violation of 18
3
The adm inistrative record is attached to the Korzak Declaration as Exhibit A.
2
U.S.C. § 1341. (A.R. 38-54.) He was sentenced to a 3-month term of imprisonment on
September 24, 2004. (A.R. 39.) Based on this criminal conviction, removal proceedings
were initiated against Petitioner. (A.R. 3-7.)
On December 17, 2004, ICE served Petitioner with a Notice to Appear. (A.R. 3-7.)
Therein, Petitioner was charged as removable from the United States based on his
conviction for an aggravated felony (the mail fraud conviction) pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §
1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). (A.R. 5.)
On June 1, 2005, Petitioner filed an Application for Certificate of Citizenship (N-600),
claiming derivative citizenship through his grandfather. (Bonnette Decl., ¶ 15.) Petitioner’s
application was denied two days later, on June 3, 2005.
(Bonnette Decl., ¶ 16.)
Petitioner’s appeals of this decision, including to the Second Circuit, were all denied.
(Bonnette Decl., ¶¶ 17, 20.)
On or about July 11, 2005, an Immigration Judge ordered Petitioner removed from
the United States to Hong Kong based on the charges in the Notice to Appear. (A.R. 1.)
Petitioner did not file an appeal of the Immigration Judge’s decision within the allotted 30day time period for appeals. (Korzak Decl., ¶ 12.) Consequently, the Immigration Judge’s
July 11, 2005 Order of Removal is the final order of removal in this case. See 8 C.F.R. §
241.1; 8 C.F.R. § 1241.1(c).
III. DISCUSSION
As noted, all that remains is Petitioner’s claim that the INS improperly delayed
adjudication of his N-400 Application for Naturalization. Presumably, Petitioner believes
that he would have avoided removal from the United States if the INS had immediately
acted upon (and granted) his application.
3
An applicant for naturalization must demonstrate, among other things, that he or she
is a person of good moral character and has been so during the five years immediately
preceding the filing date of his or her application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1427. A person
convicted of an aggravated felony, which includes “an offense that . . . involves fraud or
deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000,” shall be found to lack
good moral character. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (f)(8); 8 C.F.R. § 316.10 (b)(1)(ii); 8 U.S.C. §
1101 (a)(43)(M)(I).
The INS received Plaintiff’s N-400 Application for Naturalization on January 4, 2003.
(Bonnette Decl., ¶ 9.) Three days later, the United States Probation and Pretrial Services
faxed the INS documentation (the complaint and supporting affidavit) that Petitioner was
the subject of a pending felony criminal complaint charging him with mail fraud in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. (Bonnette Decl., ¶ 10.) The supporting affidavit indicated that
Petitioner admitted engaging in the criminal conduct during an interview with law
enforcement on August 29, 2002. (Bonnette Decl., Exhibit A, p. 33.)
Because a conviction for an aggravated felony on or after November 29, 1990, is
a permanent bar to naturalization, see 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (f)(8), the INS postponed
disposition of Petitioner’s application. This was in keeping with the agency’s practice of
either postponing action until disposition of the charges or denying the application outright
on the basis that an applicant charged with an aggravated felony cannot establish the
required good moral character. (Bonnette Decl., ¶ 21.) Here, Petitioner actually received
the benefit of postponement, rather than outright denial of his application. In any event,
once Petitioner was convicted of mail fraud on May 27, 2004, he became permanently
precluded from establishing good moral character for purposes of naturalization because
4
his mail fraud involved loss to victims that exceeded $10,000.4
(a)(43)(M)(I).5
8 U.S.C. § 1101
Consequently, there is no merit to Petitioner’s claim that the INS
unreasonably or improperly delayed adjudicating his N-400 Application for Naturalization.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Petitioner’s remaining claim is dismissed and his
Petition is denied in its entirety.
V. ORDERS
IT HEREBY IS ORDERED, that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(Docket No. 1) is DISMISSED.
FURTHER, that the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 30, 2011
Buffalo, New York
/s/William M. Skretny
WILLIAM M. SKRETNY
Chief Judge
United States District Court
4
See United States v. Tam , 04-CR-109S, Docket No. 20.
5
The INS also becam e statutorily barred from considering Petitioner’s application on Decem ber
23, 2004, when he was placed into rem oval proceedings after a warrant issued for his arrest. See 8
U.S.C. § 1429; Bonnette Decl., ¶¶ 13, 14, Exhibit A, pg. 1.
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?