Page 41 - The Indian EUE111326

IMMIGRATION NOVEMBER 13, 2026 | The Indian Eye 41

viewing a final removal order. After the later jointly sought termination of the BIA VIS, the school terminated the student’s Conclusion
State Department revoked her F-1 visa proceedings as part of a settlement. The record, or some combination occurred. A visa revocation does not ordinarily
and ICE arrested her in March 2025, she government acknowledged that Öztürk Each action has a different decisionmaker erase a nonimmigrant’s status, but Con-
pursued parallel challenges: a habeas had been in lawful nonimmigrant status and legal consequence. gress has made the revocation itself a pos-
and constitutional action concerning her when DHS terminated her SEVIS record Pin down the charge. If the NTA sible ground of deportability. When DHS
detention, a district-court challenge to and had remained in lawful status while in relies solely on the visa-revocation lan- uses that ground alone, Congress has
DHS’s termination of her SEVIS record, the United States; her SEVIS record was guage in § 237(a)(1)(B), invoke § 221(i)’s also preserved review. The immigration
and a defense to removability in immigra- to be treated as though the termination express review proviso. If DHS alleges a judge must first adjudicate the charge and
tion court. had never occurred. She completed her separate status violation, require proof of should be asked to assess the legal effec-
A federal district court ordered her doctorate and returned to Turkey volun- that independent charge. tiveness of the revocation; the BIA must
released in May 2025; the Second Cir- tarily in April 2026. Contest removability before the IJ. then be given the opportunity to correct
cuit’s reported decisions in Öztürk v. Öztürk’s case demonstrates that a Challenge the fact, authorization, final- any error; and a court of appeals reviews
Hyde, 136 F.4th 382 (2d Cir. 2025), and respondent can prevail before the immi- ity, and legal validity of the revocation; the resulting final order through a petition
Öztürk v. Hyde, 155 F.4th 187 (2d Cir. gration judge by requiring DHS to prove object to hearsay or conclusory database for review. As a practical matter, nonim-
2025), concerned habeas jurisdiction and a legally sufficient ground of removability evidence; and insist that DHS carry its migrants whose visas have been revoked
detention—not review of the visa revoca- despite the prior visa revocation. Second, clear-and-convincing burden. while they remain in the United States
tion under § 221(i). the case does not answer the ultimate Create and exhaust the record. Raise generally do not appear to be placed in
On January 29, 2026, Immigration appellate question posed here: there was statutory, regulatory, and constitutional removal proceedings based solely on the
Judge Roopal Patel terminated Öztürk’s no final BIA removal order and hence no objections before the IJ and BIA, even revocation. The absence of reported deci-
removal proceedings after concluding that petition for review asking a circuit court if the agency claims it lacks authority to sions may reflect the relative rarity of such
DHS had not met its burden of proving to define the scope of review preserved by grant affirmative relief against DOS. cases. It may also reflect a reluctance by
File a timely petition for review. Af-
removability. See Petitioner-Appellee’s § 221(i). ter the BIA’s final order, seek review in the government to pursue a charge that
Rule 28(j) Letter Regarding Removal Preserving the Visa-Revocation Challenge the court of appeals and request a stay of could produce precedent confirming a
Proceedings, Öztürk v. Hyde, No. 25-1019 Separate visa revocation from status removal where necessary. Frame the issue respondent’s ability to challenge the revo-
(2d Cir. Feb. 9, 2026). Because the IJ’s termination. Determine whether DOS re- as review expressly preserved by § 221(i) cation when it supplies the sole ground of
decision and the immigration-court re- voked only the visa, DHS terminated SE- in the context of the final removal order. deportability under INA § 237(a)(1)(B).
cord have not been made public, it is not
known whether the IJ rejected the legal ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
basis for the visa revocation, found DHS’s Cyrus D. Mehta, a graduate of Cambridge University and Columbia Law School, is the Managing Partner of Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners
evidence of revocation insufficient, con- PLLC in New York City. Mr. Mehta is a member of AILA’s Administrative Litigation Task Force; AILA’s EB-5 Committee; former chair of
cluded that revocation did not establish AILA’s Ethics Committee; special counsel on immigration matters to the Departmental Disciplinary Committee, Appellate Division, First
the charged statutory ground, relied on
the restoration of Öztürk’s SEVIS record, Department, New York; member of the ABA Commission on Immigration; board member of Volunteers for Legal Services and board member
or identified some other deficiency in of New York Immigration Coalition. Mr. Mehta is the former chair of the Board of Trustees of the American Immigration Council and former
DHS’s case. chair of the Committee on Immigration and Nationality Law of the New York City Bar Association. He is a frequent speaker and writer on
The ruling therefore demonstrates various immigration-related issues, including on ethics, and is also an adjunct professor of law at Brooklyn Law School, where he teaches
that DHS’s reliance on an F-1 visa revo- a course entitled Immigration and Work. Mr. Mehta received the AILA 2018 Edith Lowenstein Memorial Award for advancing the practice
cation did not automatically establish re- of immigration law and the AILA 2011 Michael Maggio Memorial Award for his outstanding efforts in providing pro bono representation in
movability in Öztürk’s case, but it cannot the immigration field. He has also received two AILA Presidential Commendations in 2010 and 2016. Mr. Mehta is ranked among the most
presently be cited for a specific construc-
tion of INA §§ 221(i) or 237(a)(1)(B). highly regarded lawyers in North America by Who’s Who Legal – Corporate Immigration Law 2019 and is also ranked in Chambers USA
DHS appealed to the BIA, but the parties and Chambers Global 2019 in immigration law, among other rankings.

www.TheIndianEYE.com