Sapoundjiev v. Ashcroft

Decision Date22 July 2004
Docket NumberNo. 04-1435.,04-1435.
PartiesVassil SAPOUNDJIEV, Encheva Sapoundjiev, and Hristo C. Sapoundjiev, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Appeal from the Court of Appeals, Easterbrook, Circuit Judge.

Saadia Siddique (submitted a brief), Azulay, Horn & Seiden, Chicago, IL, for Petitioners.

George P. Katsivalis (submitted a brief), Department of Homeland Security, Office of the District Counsel, Chicago, IL, Jennifer J. Keeney, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before EASTERBROOK, MANION, and KANNE, Circuit Judges.

EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge.

An immigration judge concluded that Vassil Sapoundjiev, a citizen of Bulgaria, is not entitled either to asylum or to withholding of removal. On January 28, 2004, the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed that decision, which affected not only Vassil but also his wife Encheva and son Hristo, for their applications are derivative from his. Immigration officials sent the three Sapoundjievs notices (often called bag-and-baggage letters) directing them to report for custody and removal on May 13, 2004. Six days before that date arrived, the Sapoundjievs filed an application for stay of removal. On May 12 a judge entered a temporary stay of removal pending a response by the Attorney General. This order did not affect the Sapoundjievs' obligation to surrender, so that removal could be implemented if the stay should be lifted. Nonetheless, the family did not report as directed. Contending that the Sapoundjievs are fugitives, the Attorney General has asked us to vacate the temporary stay and deny any further relief.

Every circuit that has considered the issue has concluded that the fugitive-disentitlement doctrine applies to immigration cases, and that aliens who avoid lawful custody forfeit judicial review. See Bar-Levy v. INS, 990 F.2d 33 (2d Cir.1993); Arana v. INS, 673 F.2d 75 (3d Cir.1982); Antonio-Martinez v. INS, 317 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir.2003); Zapon v. Department of Justice, 53 F.3d 283 (9th Cir.1995). Litigation entails reciprocal obligations: an appellant (or petitioner) who demands that the United States respect a favorable outcome must ensure that an adverse decision also can be carried out. See, e.g., Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States, 507 U.S. 234, 113 S.Ct. 1199, 122 L.Ed.2d 581 (1993); Smith v. United States, 94 U.S. 97, 24 L.Ed. 32 (1876). When an alien fails to report for custody, this sets up the situation that Antonio-Martinez called "heads I win, tails you'll never find me". 317 F.3d at 1093. A litigant whose disappearance makes an adverse judgment difficult if not impossible to enforce cannot expect favorable action. See Degen v. United States, 517 U.S. 820, 116 S.Ct. 1777, 135 L.Ed.2d 102 (1996). We observed in Sarlund v. Anderson, 205 F.3d 973 (7th Cir.2000), that after Degen a practical question dominates: has flight made the litigation a one-way street? Someone who cannot be bound by a loss has warped the outcome in a way prejudicial to the other side; the best solution is to dismiss the proceeding. That proposition is as applicable to the fugitive alien as it is to the fugitive criminal defendant (or, in Sarlund, the fugitive civil plaintiff).

Counsel representing the Sapoundjievs contends that, because immigration officials know where the family lives, they are not trying to have things both ways. Now it is far from clear that the Sapoundjievs will choose to be at home when agents arrive to arrest them, and hard to see how the judiciary could tell whether to believe a promise to show up if the case should be decided adversely. The point of custody is to end the guessing game. That's why anyone who is told to surrender, and does not, is a fugitive. See Bar-Levy, 990 F.2d at 34. This court issued a temporary stay of removal, not a grant of bail pending removal. That agents may be able to locate an absconder does not make him less a fugitive. Likewise a prisoner who walks away from a camp that lacks walls has committed the crime of escape, even if it is easy to track him down — indeed, even if he returns before he is missed. See United States v. King, 338 F.3d 794 (7th Cir.2003). A corporate executive who fails to report at the start of a sentence for antitrust offenses is a fugitive, and his appeal will be dismissed, even if it turns out that he has been relaxing at his country estate and does not plan to put up a fight when apprehended. Just so with an alien who, by failing to report as ordered, retains the option of going underground if the judicial decision is adverse.

We are unimpressed by counsel's argument that aliens are entitled to ignore bag-and-baggage letters because custody "prevents Petitioners from having a meaningful opportunity to be heard" on their claims for relief. An appeal in a criminal case remains meaningful even if the defendant is incarcerated while the matter is under advisement. A convict who asserted that he is entitled to appellate review before spending the first day in custody would not fare well. Likewise with aliens. Time in administrative custody differs from removal. Doubtless there is a risk of erroneous removal while the litigation continues, but we have no reason to think that errors are common; immigration officials in this circuit have taken steps to make sure that even after-hours stays will be implemented. See Dimitrov v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 960 (7th Cir.2004). The Sapoundjievs received their interim stay the day before they were to report; they...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • Armentero v. I.N.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 21 Junio 2005
    ...tails you'll never find me' quality that justifies disentitlement in other contexts." 317 F.3d at 1093; see also Sapoundjiev v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 727, 729 (7th Cir.2004). All we would be deciding for now is who the proper respondent is to Armentero's habeas petition; whether the case shoul......
  • Odonnell v. Harris Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • 16 Diciembre 2016
    ...820, 116 S.Ct. 1777 ; Bright v. Holder , 649 F.3d 397, 400 (5th Cir. 2011) ; Giri , 507 F.3d at 835–36 (quoting Sapoundjiev v. Ashcroft , 376 F.3d 727, 728–29 (7th Cir. 2004) ). This case is not a criminal appeal, and Ms. ODonnell's failure to appear in County Court will not permit her to e......
  • Frank v. Yates
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 7 Agosto 2012
    ...F.2d 587, 589 (9th Cir.1982) (appeal from decision of tax court arising from criminal conviction for tax fraud); Sapoundjiev v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 727, 729 (7th Cir.2004) (immigration). Although the doctrine has been primarily applied where the individual is presently a fugitive, the Suprem......
  • Figueroa v. Attorney Gen. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • 19 Mayo 2021
    ...F.3d 833, 835–36 (5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam); Garcia-Flores v. Gonzales , 477 F.3d 439, 441–42 (6th Cir. 2007) ; Sapoundjiev v. Ashcroft , 376 F.3d 727, 728–30 (7th Cir. 2004) ; Antonio-Martinez v. INS , 317 F.3d 1089, 1091–93 (9th Cir. 2003) ; Bar-Levy v. U.S. Dep't of Just. , 990 F.2d 33......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT