Miami Immigration Case Sets Solid Precedent For Potential Use In Terrorism & Security Arena

By Bill West

Lionel Jean-Baptiste is now a Haitian citizen who is a lawful permanent resident alien of the United States. He is also a convicted drug trafficker who is detained at the Krome Detention Center near Miami, Florida pending removal (deportation) proceedings based upon his drug crimes. Until recently, Jean-Baptiste was a naturalized U.S. citizen.

The U.S. Government, originally the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and later Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as well as the Department of Justice (DOJ) pursued the revocation of Jean-Baptiste’s naturalized citizenship in Federal civil court proceedings in what has become a unique and now precedent-setting case, reaching all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Last October, the Supreme Court denied Jean-Baptiste’s petition for a writ of certiorari and allowed the ruling of the Federal 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to stand.

That 11th Circuit ruling affirmed the revocation of Jean-Baptiste’s U.S. citizenship based upon the Government’s contention that he lacked “Good Moral Character” before and during the time he applied for U.S. citizenship, due to his drug trafficking activities, and that he misrepresented that good moral character in the naturalization process. Once the Supreme Court issued its ruling and the citizenship revocation became final, ICE began removal proceedings against Jean-Baptiste because he was then an alien convicted of a drug trafficking violation and also an aggravated felony. As such, Jean-Baptiste will likely remain detained while his removal proceedings are adjudicated, a process that could literally take several years if he chooses to appeal adverse decisions, with appellate rights ranging from the Board of Immigration Appeals, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (again) and the U.S. Supreme Court (again) on the deportation issues.

I first wrote about this case in March of last year and predicted the Supreme Court would refuse to hear Jean-Baptiste’s appeal. I noted then the potential importance of this case, if the Supreme Court upheld the 11th Circuit’s ruling, since it would allow the Government to pursue similar cases, particularly national security cases against naturalized citizens wherein evidence of pre-naturalization misrepresentation about good moral character is developed. In cases where no other viable prosecutorial course of action is possible, the civil naturalization revocation process may present a “sterile” alternative.

As in the Jean-Baptiste case, once de-naturalization is accomplished, the suspect legally reverts to the immigration status they held before naturalization. That is usually a lawful permanent resident alien. However, the grounds for revocation of naturalization, as in Jean-Baptiste, often also may be the basis for removal charges. Since all these proceedings are civil and administrative, double jeopardy, potentially encountered in criminal proceedings, is not an issue.

Of particular interest in the Jean-Baptiste 11th Circuit decision is the appellate court ruled a District Court, in finding sufficient reason to revoke naturalized citizenship based on lack of good moral character, had no discretion not to revoke the citizenship. This is a potentially powerful investigative and prosecutorial tool for the Government, especially since rules of evidence in civil proceedings are less stringent than in criminal proceedings.

While most of the news on the immigration front is negative nowadays, occasionally we hear about a win for the good side like this one. The Feds should be commended for aggressively pursuing this case as they have. Hopefully, they will use their success and build upon it and now go after similar targets, especially those with links to terror organizations and who are involved in other serious security threats to the country.

TrackBack