US v. Ortiz-Perez
Decision Date | 28 July 1994 |
Docket Number | C.R. No. 94-026ML. |
Citation | 858 F. Supp. 11 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Jose ORTIZ-PEREZ, alias Jose Perez, alias Mario Lopez, alias Johnny Rendon, alias John Doe. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island |
Michael P. Iannotti, Asst. U.S. Atty., Providence, RI for plaintiff.
John H. Ruginski, Jr., Providence, RI for defendant.
The defendant Jose Ortiz-Perez (Ortiz) was charged in a one-count indictment with violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 — unlawful reentry into the United States after a prior order of deportation without first seeking the permission of the Attorney General of the United States. Ortiz filed a motion to dismiss the indictment. For the reasons discussed herein, Ortiz's motion is denied.
Ortiz, a native of the Dominican Republic, was deported from the United States on December 23, 1987. The deportation order followed from his conviction of the attempted possession and sale of a controlled substance. Ortiz was found in the United States on April 19, 1994. He admits that he reentered the United States without inspection on or about January 14, 1994.
Upon Ortiz's deportation he was given Form I-294 by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Form I-294, printed in six languages including English and Spanish, warned Ortiz that:
(Emphasis added.)
Ortiz contends that because he reentered the United States more than five years after he was deported the government should be estopped from prosecuting him for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Ortiz avers that the time-limiting language contained in Form I-294 restricts government prosecution for violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 to reentries occurring within a five-year period from the date of deportation. The government concedes that the information contained in Form I-294 does not comport with the provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Section 1326 of Title 8 does not contain any time-limiting language.
Although Ortiz's initial argument was based upon his bare assertion that a prosecution under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 would be a "violation of his rights," his argument is better described in substance as one of equitable estoppel. He contends that the government should be estopped from bringing an action under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 because at the time of his deportation he was informed that he would be committing a crime only if he returned to the United States within five years. The government avers that if the doctrine of equitable estoppel applies in this instance, Ortiz is not entitled to the equitable relief that he seeks.
This is an issue of first impression in this District. Section 1326 of Title 8 provides:
As noted above, 8 U.S.C. § 1326 does not contain any time-limiting language. A violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 occurs when a deported individual reenters the United States without the Attorney General's permission at any time after that individual has been deported. United States v. Joya-Martinez, 947 F.2d 1141, 1144 (4th Cir.1991). The reasoning for the inclusion of the five-year limitation in Form I-294 appears to be "buried in the history of immigration law * * *." United States v. Vieira-Candelario, 6 F.3d 12, 13 (1st Cir.1993).1
Ortiz claims that Form I-294 only warned him that reentry into the United States within five years of his deportation would be a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The defect claimed by Ortiz is one with form I-294 and not with 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Consequently the defect exists in "a provision of a document with no relevant legal force." United States v. Perez-Torres, 15 F.3d 403, 406 (5th Cir. 1994). Form I-294 clearly adverts to 8 U.S.C. § 1326, which unambiguously articulates the consequences of any reentry without...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Griffin v. Reich, Civil Action No. 95-054L.
...did the government's misconduct induce the petitioner to act in a way he or she would not otherwise have acted." United States v. Ortiz-Perez, 858 F.Supp. 11, 12-13 (D.R.I.1994), aff'd 66 F.3d 307 (1st Cir.1995) (citing Akbarin v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv., 669 F.2d at 843.) It i......
-
Griffin v. Reich, C. A. No. 95-054L (D. R.I. 2/__/1997)
...the government's misconduct induce the petitioner to act in a way he or she would not otherwise have acted." United States v. Ortiz-Perez, 858 F.Supp. 11, 12-13 (D.R.I. 1994), aff'd 66 F.3d 307 (1st Cir. 1995) (citing Akbarian v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv., 669 F.2d at 843.) It is......
-
US v. Aquino-Chacon
...hand, has no legal force, and a defect in the form cannot serve as the basis for a due process challenge. See United States v. Ortiz-Perez, 858 F.Supp. 11, 12 (D.R.I.1994) (citing United States v. Perez-Torres, 15 F.3d 403, 406 (5th Quite apart from that distinction, even if Pennsylvania In......