Ragbir v. United States
| Decision Date | 23 March 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:17-cv-1256-KM,2:17-cv-1256-KM |
| Parties | RAVIDATH RAGBIR, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
:
Ravidath Ragbir, originally from Trinidad and Tobago, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in February 1994. In November 2000, he was convicted of wire fraud and conspiracy, and sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment. On the basis of his conviction of that aggravated felony, in August 2006 he was ordered removed from the United States. He was granted multiple stays of removal, but on January 11, 2018, was detained in anticipation of removal. Mr. Ragbir has petitioned for a writ of coram nobis in this court. He seeks to vacate his conviction (or alternatively, modify his sentence). The issues now before the court are (1) whether I have the authority to issue a stay, and (2) whether to issue a stay of Mr. Ragbir's removal while this action is pending. I have determined to grant the stay for a limited period, so that within 30 days a hearing can be held on the merits of the coram nobis petition.
This, I emphasize, is not an immigration case; it is a criminal matter. True, the request for a stay potentially implicates the scope of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), a provision that strips the federal courts of jurisdiction to overturn the Attorney General's exercise of discretion in certain matters related to removal of aliens. This case, however, is not a challenge to the actions of the immigration authorities; it is a petition to vacate a criminal conviction, which, in other proceedings, may have the indirect effect of vitiating the basis for Mr. Ragbir's order of removal. The stay sought here is not a creature of immigration law; it is a component of a federal court's power to preserve the status quo pending the resolution of a criminal case that is properly before it. That power inheres in the judicial function. And that inherent power has a constitutional dimension, in that it permits the court to maintain a party's access to the court and preserve the court's ability to adjudicate the case fully and fairly. Ordinarily this would not be controversial; if the item in controversy were not a human being but a valuable painting, few would quarrel with an order that the artwork be kept within the jurisdiction while the case is pending.
Section 1252(g) was not intended to be turned loose upon the federal court system like a sorcerer's apprentice. It was intended to operate within the scheme of federal court review of immigration orders. It is a part of section 1252, a section concerned with "judicial review of final orders of removal." 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (Title); see also § 1252 (a)(1). This proceeding is not one to review actions of the immigration authorities. I think that the concerns underlying § 1252(g) are at their weakest, and the inherent judicial power at its strongest, in this non-immigration proceeding relating to the validity of a criminal conviction.
That this is a petition within a criminal case strengthens my determination, in this limited context, to give the bar of § 1252(g) a narrow reading. No one doubts the court's jurisdiction to decide this coram nobis petition, irrespective of the petitioner's immigration status. Inseparable from that jurisdiction is the jurisdiction to grant a stay pendente lite. I would not lightly surrender that essential judicial function; the government's proposed limit on the inherent powers of the judiciary, if it is to come, must come from a higher authority than this trial-level court.
The stay, moreover, will be granted. The merits are sufficient to justify preservation of the status quo; deportation would constitute irreparable harm;and a stay is necessary to ensure due process and meaningful access to the court.
In saying that this is not an immigration case, I do not blind myself to the reality that, for deportable persons, a stay may be the object of, rather than an incident of, litigation. The court will not allow such a stay to be pressed beyond its proper purpose. To that end, I will schedule a hearing on the merits of the coram nobis petition within 30 days.
Mr. Ragbir is originally from Trinidad and Tobago. (Gov't Ex. 1). He was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident on February 15, 1994. (Gov't Ex. 1). Since September 23, 2010, he has been married to Amy M. Gottlieb, a U.S. citizen. (Castle Cert. ¶¶ 3, 15 & Ex. 1). A community activist, he is, for example, the Executive Director of the New Sanctuary Coalition of New York City, a network of interfaith organizations that works with individuals facing deportation. (Castle Cert. ¶ 13; Pet'n Ex. B ¶ 3).
On November 29, 2000, Mr. Ragbir was convicted of wire fraud and conspiracy based on his work at HFC, a mortgage lending company. (Gov't Ex. 2; Castle Cert. ¶¶ 5-6). For Sentencing Guidelines purposes, the parties stipulated that the loss was more than $350,000 but less than $500,000. See U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1. Ragbir was sentenced to thirty months' imprisonment and was ordered to pay $350,001 in restitution. (Gov't Ex. 2). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed his conviction on direct appeal. United States v. Ragbir, 38 F. App'x 788 (3d Cir. 2002).
After completing his sentence, Mr. Ragbir was transferred to the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"). (Pet'n Ex. B ¶¶ 15-24). On August 8, 2006, an immigration judge determined that his conviction of a fraud in excess of $10,000 constituted an "aggravated felony" and thus ordered him removed. (Castle Cert. ¶¶ 7-8; Gov't Ex. 1). The IJ's decision was upheld by the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") on March 14, 2007, and summarily affirmed by the Second Circuit on August 12, 2010. (Gov't Exs. 3, 4). In December 2011, Mr. Ragbir was granted a stay of removal by the ICE field office in New York City. (Castle Cert. ¶ 17). That stay was renewed in February 2013, March 2014, and January 2016. (Pet'n Ex. I).
Meanwhile, on March 15, 2012, Mr. Ragbir requested that the BIA reopen his removal order and adjust his status. The BIA denied that request on May 15, 2012. (Castle Cert. ¶ 18). On March 4, 2016, the Second Circuit denied Mr. Ragbir's appeal of that BIA decision. Ragbir v. Lynch, 640 F. App'x 105 (2d Cir. 2016). (See Castle Cert. ¶ 19.)2
There was a second prong to Mr. Ragbir's 2012 attack on the removal order. On November 30, 2012, he filed a petition for a writ of coram nobis here in the District of New Jersey, the district of his conviction. (12cv380, ECF No. 1).3 That writ provides for a collateral attack on a criminal conviction for a person who is no longer "in custody" and therefore cannot seek habeas relief.4
On May 30, 2013, I administratively terminated the coram nobis action without prejudice on consent, to accommodate settlement discussions that were then underway. (Castle Cert. ¶ 20; 12cv7380, ECF No. 12). On February12, 2015, Mr. Ragbir filed an amended petition. (12cv7380, ECF No. 13). Mr. Ragbir and the U.S. Attorney's Office again consented to dismiss the petition without prejudice, this time so that Mr. Ragbir could pursue an application for a presidential pardon. (Castle Cert. ¶ 22; 12cv7380, ECF No. 30). On February 22, 2017, having received no communication regarding the disposition of his pardon application, Mr. Ragbir refiled his petition for coram nobis in this court. (Castle Cert. ¶ 23; 17cv1256, ECF No. 1).
The coram nobis petition in its current form challenges Mr. Ragbir's conviction on three main grounds: that the jury instructions included fundamental errors, that his conviction is based on a no-longer-valid theory of honest services fraud, and that he was prejudiced by ineffective assistance of counsel. (Pet'n Br. 11-15). He asks that this court vacate his conviction or, alternatively, vacate his sentence and provide him with a Fatico hearing to reevaluate the dollar loss for sentencing purposes. (17cv1256, ECF No. 1).
Now before the court is the question of whether I have the authority to issue a stay of Mr. Ragbir's removal order pending the resolution of his coram nobis petition. The Government argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) prevents a district court from issuing such a stay. Mr. Ragbir's removal is currently subject to a temporary stay in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which may expire as early as March 26, 2018. He faces imminent deportation when the temporary stay expires. Thus I do not regard the stay application before me as redundant or moot.
In the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), Congress has specified classes of aliens who may be removed from the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1227. An alien may be deportable for a number of reasons, including conviction of an aggravated felony. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227-28. An aggravated felony includes "an offense that . . . involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim exceeds $10,000." 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i). See Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29, 42,129 S. Ct. 2294, 2303 (2009) ().
The deportation of aliens, however, is subject to the Attorney General's broad discretion. "Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all." Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 396 (2012) (internal citation omitted). The Attorney General has the discretion to decline to institute removal proceedings, to terminate proceedings, or to decline to execute a final order of deportation. Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 484 (1999).
This commendable exercise in administrative discretion, developed without express statutory authorization, originally was known as...
To continue reading
Request your trial