Page 35 - The Indian EYE 032825

IMMIGRATION MARCH 28, 2025 | The Indian Eye 35

power to the executive, stating that the State’s letter alone “was conclusive and held that “the plain language of section card holders to express them without
provision: “represents a breathtaking dispositive on the issue of deportability, 241(a)(4)(C)(i) [predecessor to INA fear. Even if one does not agree with the
departure both from well established and that the Immigration Judge erred in 237(a)(4)(C)] requires that the Service speech, and finds it repugnant, so long
legislative precedent which commands requiring the Service to provide some- prove (1) the Secretary’s belief; (2) the as the speech is lawful, the government
deportation based on adjudications of thing more than the Secretary’s letter Secretary’s concern regarding the re- should not have the power to retaliate
defined impermissible conduct by the to satisfy its burden of proving, accord- spondent’s presence in this country; and by detaining and deporting a noncitizen.
alien in the United States, and from ing to the language of the statute, that (3) the ‘reasonable ground to believe’ If the government has the power to re-
well established precedent with respect ‘the Secretary of State has reasonable that the respondent’s presence would taliate against noncitizizen green card
to extradition which commands extra- ground to believe [that the respondent’s have serious adverse foreign policy con- holders, even US citizens will no longer
dition based on adjudications of prob- presence] would have potentially serious sequences.” be immune from similar retaliation.
able cause to believe that the alien has adverse policy consequences.’” Board It is important that Khalil success-
engaged in defined impermissible con- Members Rosenberg and Schmidt in- fully challenges the deportation ground *Kaitlyn Box is a Partner at Cyrus D.
duct elsewhere.” The court’s holding stead argue in the dissent that the deci- against him in order to uphold the right Mehta & Partners PLLC.
was later reversed by the Third Circuit sion of the IJ should be adopted, which to free speech and the rights of green
Court of Appeals on other grounds. If ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the Trump administration prevails, who Cyrus D. Mehta, a graduate of Cambridge University and Columbia Law School, is the Managing Partner of Cyrus D. Mehta
is to stop them from using it, for exam-
ple, against a noncitizen who promotes & Partners PLLC in New York City. Mr. Mehta is a member of AILA’s Administrative Litigation Task Force; AILA’s EB-5 Com-
green technology because if undermines mittee; former chair of AILA’s Ethics Committee; special counsel on immigration matters to the Departmental Disciplinary
the policy objective of promoting fossil Committee, Appellate Division, First Department, New York; member of the ABA Commission on Immigration; board member
fuels of this administration? of Volunteers for Legal Services and board member of New York Immigration Coalition. Mr. Mehta is the former chair of the
While Khalil has an uphill climb, he Board of Trustees of the American Immigration Council and former chair of the Committee on Immigration and Nationality
does have opportunities for challenging Law of the New York City Bar Association. He is a frequent speaker and writer on various immigration-related issues, including
his deportation in Immigration Court
first, the Court of Appeals, and even on ethics, and is also an adjunct professor of law at Brooklyn Law School, where he teaches a course entitled Immigration and
in the Supreme Court. The robust dis- Work. Mr. Mehta received the AILA 2018 Edith Lowenstein Memorial Award for advancing the practice of immigration law
sent of BIA members Rosenberg and and the AILA 2011 Michael Maggio Memorial Award for his outstanding efforts in providing pro bono representation in the
Schmidt will also provide ammunition immigration field. He has also received two AILA Presidential Commendations in 2010 and 2016. Mr. Mehta is ranked among
to attack the statute in the Court of Ap- the most highly regarded lawyers in North America by Who’s Who Legal – Corporate Immigration Law 2019 and is also ranked
peals. The dissent disagreed with the in Chambers USA and Chambers Global 2019 in immigration law, among other rankings.
majority’s position that the Secretary of

www.TheIndianEYE.com