1) Albert Bensusan filed a § 2241 petition seeking relief from a deportation order and arguing he was entitled to relief from deportation under former INA § 212(c).
2) Bensusan challenged the application of AEDPA § 440(d), which eliminated § 212(c) relief for certain criminal offenses, to his deportation proceedings as impermissibly retroactive.
3) The Fourth Circuit recently held in Tasios v. Reno that § 440(d) is inapplicable where the alien pleaded guilty or conceded deportability before AEDPA's enactment, but found it did not offer Bensusan relief since he pleaded not guilty and was convicted after trial rather than con
Herman J. Jones, As Administrator of The Estate of Lawrence P. Jones, Deceased Herman J. Jones and Genevieve Jones v. United States, 421 F.2d 835, 2d Cir. (1970)
1) Albert Bensusan filed a § 2241 petition seeking relief from a deportation order and arguing he was entitled to relief from deportation under former INA § 212(c).
2) Bensusan challenged the application of AEDPA § 440(d), which eliminated § 212(c) relief for certain criminal offenses, to his deportation proceedings as impermissibly retroactive.
3) The Fourth Circuit recently held in Tasios v. Reno that § 440(d) is inapplicable where the alien pleaded guilty or conceded deportability before AEDPA's enactment, but found it did not offer Bensusan relief since he pleaded not guilty and was convicted after trial rather than con
1) Albert Bensusan filed a § 2241 petition seeking relief from a deportation order and arguing he was entitled to relief from deportation under former INA § 212(c).
2) Bensusan challenged the application of AEDPA § 440(d), which eliminated § 212(c) relief for certain criminal offenses, to his deportation proceedings as impermissibly retroactive.
3) The Fourth Circuit recently held in Tasios v. Reno that § 440(d) is inapplicable where the alien pleaded guilty or conceded deportability before AEDPA's enactment, but found it did not offer Bensusan relief since he pleaded not guilty and was convicted after trial rather than con
1) Albert Bensusan filed a § 2241 petition seeking relief from a deportation order and arguing he was entitled to relief from deportation under former INA § 212(c).
2) Bensusan challenged the application of AEDPA § 440(d), which eliminated § 212(c) relief for certain criminal offenses, to his deportation proceedings as impermissibly retroactive.
3) The Fourth Circuit recently held in Tasios v. Reno that § 440(d) is inapplicable where the alien pleaded guilty or conceded deportability before AEDPA's enactment, but found it did not offer Bensusan relief since he pleaded not guilty and was convicted after trial rather than con
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ALBERT BENSUSAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 98-7342 JANET RENO, U.S. Attorney General; DISTRICT DIRECTOR, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-98-872-A) Submitted: June 27, 2000 Decided: August 2, 2000 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. _________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Michael M. Hadeed, Jr., BECKER, HICKS, IRVING & HADEED, P.C., Springfield, Virginia, for Appellant. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Brenda E. Ellison, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c). _________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Albert Bensusan appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2241 (1994) petition. Bensusan sought relief from a deportation order, arguing that he was entitled to relief from deportation under former 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). See 8 U.S.C. 1182(c) (1994). Bensusan challenged the application of 440(d) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), which eliminated 212(c) relief for aliens convicted of certain criminal offenses, including aggravated felonies and most drug offenses, to his deportation proceedings. Bensusan argued that the application of 440(d) to his deportation proceedings had an impermissible retroactive effect. We have reviewed the record and affirm the court's order denying relief on the petition. This court recently decided Tasios v. Reno, 204 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2000). The court held in Tasios that 440(d) is inapplicable to cases where the alien pleaded guilty or conceded deportability before the enactment date of the AEDPA because it "would upset reasonable, settled expectations and change the legal effect of prior conduct." 204 F.3d at 552. Bensusan pleaded not guilty to his charges and was convicted after a finding of guilt by a jury. He denied all three charges of deportability and put the INS to its test to prove the charges. Thus, the Tasios decision does not offer relief to Bensusan from application of 440(d) to his deportation proceedings. We therefore affirm the district court's order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Herman J. Jones, As Administrator of The Estate of Lawrence P. Jones, Deceased Herman J. Jones and Genevieve Jones v. United States, 421 F.2d 835, 2d Cir. (1970)