United States Second Circuit

Though habeas relief was granted on improper grounds, alien correctly argues that section 440(d) of AEDPA, which eliminates eligibility for discretionary relief per INA section 212(c), disrupts his reasonable reliance and settled expectations that he would be able to apply for 212(c) relief "affirmatively" at a later time. Remanded to determine whether he himself is entitled to the benefit of this argument.

Appellate Information

• Decided 04/01/2004
• Published 04/01/2004

Judges

• CALABRESI, Circuit Judge., Before:  CALABRESI, KATZMANN, B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Second Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Matthew L. Guadagno,Bretz & Coven, LLP (Kerry William Bretz, Jules E. Coven, on the brief), New York, NY, for Petitioner-Appellee., Margaret Kolbe, Assistant United States Attorney, for Roslynn R. Mauskopf, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York (Varuni Nelson, Assistant United States Attorney, and Dione M. Enea, Special Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Respondent-Appellant.