Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hinds v. Lynch

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit

June 24, 2015

ROGELIO BLACKMAN HINDS, Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General of the United States, [*] Respondent

As corrected July 1, 2015.

Page 260

D. Zachary Hudson, with whom Bancroft PLLC was on brief, for petitioner.

Dror Ladin, Judy Rabinovitz, ACLU Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project, Matthew R. Segal, and ACLU Foundation of Massachusetts on brief for American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project and The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, amici curiae.

Beth Werlin and American Immigration Council on brief for American Immigration Counsel and the Post-Deportation Human Rights Project, amici curiae.

Sarah H. Paoletti, Diepiriye A. Anga, Mariam Khokhar, Law School Representatives and Transnational Legal Clinic, University of Pennsylvania Law School on brief for International and Human Rights Law Professors and Clinicians, amici curiae.

Shayana Kadidal and Sunita Patel on brief for The Center for Constitutional Rights, amicus curiae.

Aimee J. Carmichael, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, with whom Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division and Jennifer L. Lightbody, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, for respondent.

Before Howard, Chief Judge, Thompson, Circuit Judge, and Laplante,[**] District Judge.

OPINION

Page 261

PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

HOWARD, Chief Judge.

In this case, we must determine whether the Supreme Court's description of deportation in Padilla v. Kentucky as " an integral part . . . of the penalty that may be imposed on noncitizen defendants who plead guilty to specified crimes," 559 U.S. 356, 364, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), has altered the longstanding notion that removal is non-punitive and thus does not implicate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment or related constitutional protections. Petitioner Rogelio Blackman Hinds was convicted of a felony requiring his removal, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (" BIA" ) affirmed an order that he be removed. Blackman challenges the BIA's decision by arguing that, because Padilla described deportation as a " penalty," his removal violates the Constitution unless a court conducts an individualized assessment to determine whether his order of removal is a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.