Guyanese deported from U.S. for second time

– had re-entered using false passport

Guyanese woman who was deported from the United States in 1997, but later returned using a false passport, has been ordered deported again despite challenging a court decision to reinstate the first order.

In court papers seen by this newspaper, in January 1997 Dhanmattie Beekhan, also known as Leena Singh, a native and citizen of Guyana, was ordered removed from the United States, and was physically removed. In February 1997, Beekhan re-entered the United States, the court documents said.

About ten years later, Beekhan applied for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident, stating that she had entered the United States without inspection along the Canadian border. After interviewing Beekhan, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) found that Beekhan was “a previously deported alien who entered the United States without authorisation from the Attorney General” and transferred Beekhan into the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). On June 22, 2009, ICE reinstated Beekhan’s prior removal order.

ICE found that Beekhan was an alien subject to a prior order of exclusion, who was removed in January 1997 and later illegally reentered the United States. Beekhan received written notice of these findings and signed the form provided by ICE, choosing not to make a statement contesting ICE’s determination, the court papers stated.

On July 15, 2009, Beekhan sent a letter to ICE, requesting that ICE vacate its June 22, 2009 reinstated order of removal. Beekhan enclosed in the letter a signed affidavit stating that she re-entered the United States in 1997 with another person’s passport that she purchased from a smuggler. She argued that this conduct did not constitute illegal re-entry into the United States for the purposes of reinstating a prior removal order.

ICE granted Beekhan a 6-month stay of removal but did not otherwise respond to her letter.

On July 22, 2009, Beekhan petitioned the court for review of ICE’s reinstatement order, arguing in part that (1) ICE erred by failing to consider Beekhan’s affidavit sent after the reinstatement order; (2) ICE erred by failing to include the affidavit in the administrative record; and (3) an evidentiary hearing is necessary, for purposes of due process, to determine whether Beekhan is eligible for reinstatement because the relevant facts are disputed. The U.S. Appeal Court however ruled that: “even if Beekhan’s affidavit were considered as part of the administrative record and fully credited, Beekhan would remain eligible for reinstatement of removal.”

The court argued that under the Immigration and Nationality Act, a prior order of removal shall be reinstated “if the Attorney General Eric Holder finds that an alien has re-entered the United States illegally after having been removed or having departed voluntarily, under an order of removal.”

However, Beekhan argued that knowingly using another person’s passport to re-enter the United States is not illegal re-entry under the INA’s reinstatement provision. “We reject this argument. Under the INA, 8 USC 1326(a), an alien who was removed and re-eters the United States without the Attorney General’s express consent, using a passport that is not her own, commits an illegal re-entry…” the court countered. It added that the same is true for the INA’s reinstatement provision. 8 USC 231(a)(5). “An alien is eligible for reinstatement of her prior removal order if she was removed and re-enters the United States without the Attorney General’s express consent, using a passport that is not her own. We have considered the petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, we deny the petition for review,” the court said in its ruling.