Beharry v. Reno
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
183 F. Supp. 2d 584 (2002)
Facts
Don Beharry (plaintiff) immigrated to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1982 at the age of seven. In 1996, Beharry was convicted of robbery and incarcerated. After Beharry’s conviction, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) (defendant) classified Beharry as an aggravated felon and commenced deportation proceedings. Because of the 1996 amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), Beharry’s crime was not classified as an aggravated felony when it was committed, but it was reclassified as an aggravated felony by the time Beharry was convicted. At a deportation hearing, under the INA, Beharry petitioned for a discretionary deportation-waiver hearing on compassionate grounds. At the time, most of Beharry’s immediate family lived in the United States, and he had a minor daughter who was a United States citizen. Beharry’s deportation would break up Beharry’s immediate family and separate him from his minor child. The immigration judge denied Beharry’s request, holding that he was ineligible for a deportation-waiver hearing because he was classified as an aggravated felon. Beharry filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the federal district court, arguing that, as a longtime permanent resident, he should not be denied a deportation-waiver hearing simply because his crime had been reclassified post-commission as an aggravated felony under INA’s updated standards.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Weinstein, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 709,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.