## Facts

- Don Beharry, a lawful permanent resident admitted from Trinidad in 1982 at age seven, lived continuously in the United States and had a relationship with his U.S.-citizen minor daughter and other close family members in the United States.
- In 1996, he was convicted in New York of second-degree robbery involving approximately $714 and sentenced to 2¼ to 4½ years’ imprisonment.
- After 1996 statutory amendments expanded the INA’s “aggravated felony” definition, his conviction was treated as an aggravated felony for immigration purposes, making him removable and restricting eligibility for discretionary relief.
- The INS commenced removal proceedings while he was incarcerated.
- Before the immigration judge, Beharry sought relief including former INA § 212(c) discretionary relief, asylum, and withholding of deportation, emphasizing hardship to his U.S.-citizen child and family.
- The IJ found him statutorily ineligible for § 212(c), asylum, and withholding based on the aggravated-felony conviction and the 1996 amendments; the BIA affirmed.
- Beharry filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging the legality of removal and the denial of any discretionary-relief hearing, relying in part on treaty-based and customary international law protections of family unity and children’s interests.

## Issues

1. Whether the INA, as amended in 1996, rendered Beharry categorically ineligible for discretionary relief (including former § 212(c)) and related protections.
2. Whether international law norms and U.S. treaty obligations required an individualized hearing to consider the family consequences of removal of a long-term lawful permanent resident parent of a U.S.-citizen child.
3. Whether the INA should be construed, under the canon against construing statutes to violate international law where possible, to permit an opportunity to seek discretionary relief despite the agency’s interpretation.

## Decision

- The district court granted the § 2241 habeas petition.
- The court ordered immigration authorities to provide Beharry a hearing at which he could apply for discretionary relief from removal and present evidence regarding hardship to his family and ties to the United States.
- The court reasoned that immigration statutes should be read, if possible, consistently with international law protections of family unity and the interests of children; if domestic law were read to foreclose any such hearing, the court stated international law would control that conflict.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts may apply the canon that statutes should not be construed to violate international law when an alternative construction is reasonably available (the Charming Betsy principle).
- International instruments and customary international law norms concerning family unity and the interests of children may inform interpretation of immigration statutes in removal cases involving long-term residents and U.S.-citizen children.
- Where the agency’s reading of the INA would deny any individualized consideration of severe family consequences, a court may construe the statute to allow a discretionary-relief hearing to avoid conflict with international-law obligations.

## Conclusion

The district court granted habeas relief and required a discretionary-relief hearing, construing the immigration laws to permit individualized consideration of removal’s impact on family unity and a U.S.-citizen child in light of international law norms and interpretive canons.


Beharry v. Reno, 183 F. Supp. 2d 584 (E.D.N.Y. 2002)