Haitian Immigrant Makes Rescue Plea

Sections

Neighborhoods

Features

NHI Newsletter

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

by Melissa Bailey | Jan 29, 2010 8:58 am

(16) Comments | Commenting has been closed | E-mail the Author

Posted to: Immigrants

Melissa Bailey Photo Clerde Pierre asked a federal judge to save him from being sent back to his earthquake-stricken homeland. His Yale lawyers sought to make new law in order to help him.

Lawyers for Pierre, who is 31 and moved here from Haiti 16 years ago, made the plea Thursday before Judge Janet Bond Arterton in U.S. District Court on Church Street.

Members of the Yale Law School legal clinic (including students Rebecca Scholtz and Alice Hwang, left to right in photo) are trying to free Pierre. He has been locked up by immigration officials for the past 15 months pending deportation proceedings.

The legal team claim Pierre is a U.S. citizen who is being unconstitutionally detained. In their suit, they ask the court to proclaim Pierre a citizen and order him released.

Click here to read their suit, filed Dec. 23 in U.S. District Court against the federal Department of Homeland Security.

Pierre’s case is unusual for two reasons: his criminal record, and a disputed citizenship claim stemming from his out-of-wedlock birth.

Thursday’s hearing came on the heels of a move by the Obama administration to allow Haitian nationals who were in the U.S. at the time of the recent devastating earthquake to stay here for another 18 months. Pierre won’t be saved by that gesture, a federal prosecutor said Thursday.

He doesn’t qualify for Temporary Protective Status (TPS) because he classifies as an “aggravated felon,” said Lana L. Vahab, a trial attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Immigration Litigation.

“ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] plans to continue to remove all non-TPS aliens to Haiti,” Vahab reported.

“That’s sort of a grim prospect, isn’t it?” remarked Judge Arterton.

Vahab argued that the Connecticut court was the wrong place for Pierre to try to gain his freedom. If he wants to prove his citizenship, he needs to wait and appeal his case at the end of an administrative hearing, she said.

Federal law “limits the alien to one bite of the apple,” Vahab explained.

Pierre didn’t appear in court Thursday. He remained locked up in the Franklin County Jail and House of Corrections in Massachusetts, under orders by federal immigration officials.

His team of lawyers, two students and two professors from Yale Law School’s Jerome Frank legal clinic, tried to convince Judge Arterton to take up his request for freedom. They’re asking for a writ of habeus corpus so Pierre can be freed from detention.

At the heart of their argument is a constitutional challenge to a federal statute defining when foreign-born kids are granted U.S. citizenship. They claim the old law – since updated, but still applicable to some immigrants before a cutoff date – discriminates based on gender.

Pierre claims he is a U.S. citizen because of his father’s status. The federal government disagrees.

Pierre was born out of wedlock in Petite Riviere de L’Artibonite, Haiti. He grew up in Port-au-Prince, the capital city that’s now reeling from a devastating earthquake on Jan. 13. After his mother abandoned him, his father “acknowledged and legitimated him” at age 2. Pierre’s father came to the U.S. when Pierre was still young, leaving him to be raised by relatives in Haiti. His father became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1992, and brought Pierre to Connecticut shortly thereafter.

Pierre entered Connecticut as a lawful permanent resident. Then he got in trouble with the law. He served two years in prison for a robbery and another 30 months for gun and drug possession. When he came out of prison in November, 2008, ICE moved to kick him out of the country because of his criminal conduct.

Pierre is currently fighting an effort from ICE to boot him from the country. ICE successfully won a order of removal. But the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has reopened his case in light of a new claim that Pierre has schizophrenia and would be in danger of torture if he is returned to Haiti.

He claims that his mental illness, “in combination with the dreadlocks he wears as a matter of religious conviction and his lack of family members in Haiti, would make him a target for torture in a Haitian prison,” according to court records.

Of course, that was before the Haitian capital’s main jail collapsed in the quake, setting 5,000 prisoners free.

The BIA will examine those arguments and determine whether to follow through with ICE’s request to send Pierre back to Haiti. If Pierre loses the case, immigration officials would take another look at how dangerous it is before sending him there, according to Vahab.

Meanwhile, lawyers discussed with Judge Arterton the basis of the Dec. 23 lawsuit. The government tried to get the case thrown out, arguing that it is not the right time or place to make this claim.

Vahab charged that the suit should be brought in Massachusetts, where the prisoner is being held. She added that Pierre can’t make his citizenship claim until the federal government issues an order of removal. No such order has been made yet because the BIA is still considering Pierre’s case. If he loses, he can appeal the case in 2nd Circuit Court.

Scholtz and Hwang, both second-year students at Yale Law School, argued the bulk of Pierre’s case. In an extensive back and forth with Arterton, they tried to convince the judge to take up the case, instead of making him wait “who knows how long” for his case to go through administrative proceedings.

Pierre “has been detained for 15 months, despite being a citizen, because of the government’s erroneous belief that he is an alien,” Hwang said.

Yale Professor Muneer Ahmad stepped in a couple times to aid his students in explaining the case to the judge.

After two hours of careful questioning, Arterton adjourned court for the day. She said she would consider the motions and issue an opinion at a later time.

In future hearings, the Yale lawyers hope to get to the thrust of their argument: a constitutional challenge to a citizenship statute that denies Pierre citizenship.

The federal government does not consider Pierre to be a U.S. citizen because he falls under an old statute that allows out-of-wedlock children to inherit U.S. citizenship only from their mothers, not their fathers, Scholtz said.

That gender distinction was eliminated when the law was updated and renamed the Child Citizenship Act of 2000. Under the new law, children of U.S. citizens automatically become U.S. citizens when they enter the country as a legal resident.

However, Pierre is not helped by the new law because he was too old when it was passed, Scholtz said. The Yale team plans to claim he is being unlawfully denied the right to citizenship based on a discriminatory law.

After court, Ahmad accused the government of “throwing up a series of procedural roadblocks” so that the lawyers’ central point can’t “see the light of day.”

Comments

posted by: Bill on January 29, 2010 10:31am

If the old law is discriminatory the logical thing to do is to throw it out, making neither gender citizens. What these lawyers are asking the court to do, is to rewrite the law making both genders citizens. The is activism at it’s finest asking the courts to rewrite laws. No one ever accused lawyers of being logical.

posted by: City Hall Watch on January 29, 2010 11:02am

This is a good reason to hate lawyers and those that fill these young heads with mush. The goal here is to unleash Pierre on the American public again - a man with a history of robbery, drugs and guns, and do so by trying to make new law via the courts. How sweet.

posted by: Townie on January 29, 2010 12:52pm

Yale should mind its own business and stay OUT of these affairs. Just what we need…more do-good liberals. These students will “do their time”, pad their resumes and move on to lucrative jobs with large law firms where they will represent major corporations screwing the American public. Great.

posted by: Funky Chicken on January 29, 2010 1:26pm

Why would we want Pierre on the streets of New Haven? Would the law students want to meet Pierre in a dark alley? Here the state is given an opportunity to get rid this criminal, let them! We got enough of our own homegrown criminals.

posted by: Media Hounds on January 29, 2010 1:52pm

I remember back in the day when the Yale Law School clinic was diligently and modestly doing client based representation in the community, turning to the media when it was in their client’s best interest. Now all we see is a lot of ambulance chasing and shameless self promotion.

What next, a reality show?

posted by: Do-good liberal on January 29, 2010 4:47pm

Bravo to these students for arguing the case of a man whom everyone else has summarily dismissed. The judge may decide for or against Pierre, but at least he will have had careful representation.

There’s nothing like picking on the few YLS students doing public-service law to convince them all to become the “public-screwing corporate lawyers” you all despise.

posted by: streever on January 29, 2010 5:04pm

I think the reviews of these two hard-working volunteers are harsh & unnecessary critical. How nice it must be to be able to sit behind a pseudonym while you tear apart others. Reminds me of the rush to blame “yalies” for the atticus protest, despite there being 0 yalies involved in the protest according to the paper.

Bill, allow me to speculate. In your rush to comment first, you missed the part of the article that explains the old law. The lawyers do NOT want to change the law—the law ALREADY changed, in 2000. However, because Pierre was already born, it did not retroactively cover him. That is the lawyer’s issue.

Kudos to these two for working hard for someone despite his criminal record. News flash to the commentators, this is what lawyers do. You may not like it but you have no reason to bash these volunteers, especially when you can’t even put your own name on your words, and they are putting their names & identities out there. It’s a bit funny when grown men are too afraid to admit their identity while they criticize young women students.

posted by: Katie Rohner on January 29, 2010 5:47pm

The clinicians and students at Yale’s Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Clinic have always sought to protect the rights of the most marginalized people in our society who would otherwise have no recourse to seek legal relief for themselves ... and they have always done this work without seeking personal glory, riches, or publicity in the process.

Those of you who are so quick to criticize seem to have lost your sense of humanity. How sad.

posted by: Get it right on January 29, 2010 6:23pm

Streever:

I don’t know how you reach the conclusion that they are “hard working” - do you know this for a fact? As to the label of “volunteer” - they are not volunteers - they are students who are doing this work in order to get a law degree.
....

posted by: City Hall Watch on January 29, 2010 9:55pm

Streever:

What name one chooses to use in commenting on stories is immaterial and doesn’t add or diminish the legitimacy of the comment. It’s simply an opinion. You and others don’t have a lock on the truth simply because you use your own name. To proffer otherwise, is to exhibit an eogtistical self-righteousness that is unwarranted.

Do Good Liberal:

This is not public service law. It is no public service to do your best to unleash a person with a violent history on American citizens. It is one thing to represent and justifiably so, a criminal defendant in our court system. It is quite another to pick apart the law, to allege gender bias and a kitchen sink defense in order to circumvent deportation because of actions and decisions Pierre made or to use his case to change what is now the law. He is no victim. He creates victims.

Katie Rohner:

Pierre is not being marginalized by the system or this country. He has benefitted from it having parachuted in on the back of his naturalized father. He was embraced by this country and given all the hope and opportunity associated with it. In return, he became a violent felon and abused our citizenry. Quite frankly, the Jerome Frank Legal Services has grossly expanded its view of those it thinks are marginalized. I wonder if Jerome Frank who sought equal pay for sharecroppers would find your view of humanity equally compelling or just.

posted by: streever on January 30, 2010 9:04am

City Hall Watch, Get It Right:

It’s not a lock on the truth, but on not being bullies. If my objection to you being bullies & behaving like ... (I’ll censor this so paul doesn’t have to) offends you as being “self-righteous” or treating you like children—that is exactly how you do behave.

Nothing egotistical about criticizing you for picking on two women in their early 20s via an anonymous identity. Just pointing out what a creep you are.

Get It Right:
Yes, I do believe they are hard-working. That is apparent from the fact that they are doing something instead of sitting on the internet & anonymously bashing other people who are doing things. I haven’t seen any articles about “Get It Right” so I can only assume you’re an internet troll who enjoys picking on others.

posted by: streever on January 30, 2010 9:10am

Get It Right:

If you don’t like me chastising, say it to my face next time you see me.

You actually think it’s OK to tear apart individuals who have done nothing wrong, because of your lame duck political agenda? Or do you just hate that I call out people for behaving so obnoxiously?

Not everyone behaves like an adults. The grown men who use pseudonyms to attack young people are cowards who act like children.

The difference between you & CHW & me is that I’m not afraid to put my name on it when I call out your behavior.

Oddly the only thing that either of you have to say bad about me is that I’m “Egotistical” and have an inflated sense of self-worth. I assure you, an ego is not what it requires to tell you both what absolute asses you’re being, and that your anonymous bullying is shit.

posted by: Seung Kim on February 1, 2010 2:52am

Wow, what a sad world we live in. Why would anyone spend so much time defending this individual. I sincerely hope that these two law students were assigned this case. I know there is a need to have old, antiquated laws changed. But I am sure they could have found a better candidate.

Katie and Streever - I am sure your opinions would DRASTICALLY change if Pierre had stuck a gun into your face or of someone in your family.

posted by: Bill on February 1, 2010 10:25am

Steever, ... [T]ry not to speculate and put words in other people’s mouths. I base my conclusion on the fact that the article states “They claim the old law – since updated, but still applicable to some immigrants before a cutoff date – discriminates based on gender.” and “he is being unlawfully denied the right to citizenship based on a discriminatory law. “
So yes do imply they want to change the old law which is still in affect, since the new law is not discriminatory. If this is not true then the article was poorly written and you should complain to the author.

posted by: streever on February 1, 2010 11:15am

Bill,

Incorrect. You can look at your own comment. You’re the one seeking to rewrite laws. The lawyers want him to be treated by the current law on the books—a law which would give him citizenship. You would like to eliminate this law based on your own comment.

Seung Kim: you are incorrect. I believe people deserve second chances, and I believe that we ALL have a right to fair treatment. If the law was changed based on it’s discriminatory nature, then that change should be applied to all people. I support the constitution & the bill of rights.

posted by: City Hall Watch on February 1, 2010 12:32pm

New law or old law? The second sentence of this article makes it clear: “His Yale lawyers sought to make new law to help him.”

Here’s why: The statute as amended extends automatic U.S. citizenship if the child is 1)under the age of 18; 2)is living with the parent in the U.S. who is a citizen by birth or naturalization. Pierre is 31 and was well past 18 when the law was amended and when he began his crime spree.

New Haven Independent

New Haven Independent Login Form