Paul Maas Risenhoover filed motions for writ of habeas corpus relief and coram nobis in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of Antonieta B. Aguon.
Risenhoover said he filed the motions without prior consultation with Aguon and that he does not know if those were already docketed as of press time.
He said the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Padilla v. Kentucky that a non-U.S. citizen like Aguon is entitled to effective assistance of counsel regarding the consequences of criminal proceeding pleas involving or relating to deportation as a consequence of a conviction as defined under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
“Whether Congress intended to amend Section 506(c) by the [Consolidated Natural Resources Act] is unclear, since neither CNRA nor the hearing discussed Section 506(c)’s continuing validity, and no court has decided the question, it remains of first impression,” Risenhoover told the Variety.
“Also, there is nothing in Section 506 which says explicitly that the U.S. can deport an immediate relative, even if a court would find such by implication since the Covenant Section says ‘all the provisions of the Act shall apply’ and this could be construed and interpreted by the Court and [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] to mean that the provisions regarding deportation of lawful permanent residents or other immediate relatives,” he added.
Aguon pleaded guilty in 2007 to conspiracy to commit offenses against the U.S. by submitting false, fictitious and fraudulent claims on the Internal Revenue Service.
After her plea, she was imprisoned in Washington, D.C. and later to Tacoma.
When her prison time was over, she was sent back to Saipan instead of the Philippines because she is an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen.
Aguon has been a resident of Saipan for the past 23 years but has no U.S. immigration status.
Risenhoover said the U.S. Constitution prohibits double jeopardy or trying a defendant twice over the same charges.
In Aguon’s case, Risenhoover said double deportation is similar to double jeopardy.
“Although the U.S. will claim deportation is not a criminal penalty or punishment even when imposed as part of a sentence of criminal punishment and penalty after conviction, a court might be willing to see things more reasonably, and agree that double deportation is a double penalty, and that Congress cannot enact ex post facto laws or bills of attainder which would retroactively apply another penalty for an existing conviction enhancing the sentence,” said Risenhoover.
Last year, Risenhoover, on behalf of the Robin Hood International Human Rights Legal Defense Fund, asked the Ninth Circuit to declare the federalization law, or the Consolidated Natural Resources Act, unconstitutional.
A U.S. judge once called Risenhoover a “fraudulent opportunist.”
