Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Angel Arevalo-Lopez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
Citations: 104 F.3d 100; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 1680Docket: 96-1754
Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; January 30, 1997; Federal Appellate Court
Angel Arevalo-Lopez, a Mexican national born on August 8, 1948, immigrated to the United States at the age of two and has since resided there. He has a history of drug abuse beginning at age 10 and four felony convictions, including assault and manslaughter. After serving six years in prison for two of these convictions, he was paroled in 1974. He faced deportation proceedings initiated by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in October 1988 due to his convictions for crimes involving moral turpitude. In 1992, an immigration judge granted him discretionary relief from deportation under Section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. However, in March 1996, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) overturned this decision, citing insufficient evidence of rehabilitation and the weight of his criminal history. Despite his claims of having been drug-free since 1988 and efforts to reform, the BIA ordered his deportation to Mexico. Arevalo-Lopez filed a petition for review of the deportation order in March 1996. The INS later moved to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction, which the court upheld, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction over the case. In September 1996, Congress amended Section 440(a) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 through Section 306(d) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which removes jurisdiction from the court in cases where an alien is deportable due to two or more crimes of moral turpitude not stemming from a single criminal scheme, provided the alien has served a year or more in prison. This amendment applies to the petitioner, stripping the court of jurisdiction over the case. The petitioner cites Reyes-Hernandez v. INS, which states that Section 440(a) does not apply if an alien conceded deportability before the law's enactment and had a valid defense. However, the petitioner contested deportability at a hearing in August 1992 and had no valid defense, as four certified conviction records were provided by the Service, which the petitioner admitted. Thus, Reyes-Hernandez is not applicable. The petition for review is dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner argues he 'constructively' conceded deportability based on the immigration judge's suggestion to contest it, claiming this aligns with the intent of Reyes-Hernandez to prevent 'mousetrapping' of aliens. However, the court rejects this reasoning, asserting that the immigration judge's suggestions do not influence the determination of whether the petitioner conceded or contested deportability.