Criminal Defense of Immigrants
§ 17.27 (B)
For more text, click "Next Page>"
(B) Procedure. The statute provides for a hearing, followed by a cease and desist order with a civil monetary penalty, followed by administrative appellate review, and finally judicial review in the federal court of appeals. After judicial review, the order would be final, and deportation proceedings could be initiated on the basis of the final administrative order. The administrative law judge need only find the necessary facts by a “preponderance of the evidence” that an alien has committed document fraud. Counsel can argue that an order in a civil document fraud case, based on a preponderance of the evidence, cannot be res judicata for a removal order, because strong constitutional considerations requiring proof by clear and convincing evidence in deportation cases preclude a document fraud violation from automatically making a noncitizen removable.
 INA § § 274C(d)(2)-(5), 8 U.S.C. § § 1324c(d)(2)-(5).
 INA § 237(a)(3)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(3)(C)(i).
 INA § 274C(d)(2)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1324c(d)(2)(C). See C. Gordon, S. Mailman, & S. Yale-Loehr, Immigration Law and Procedure § 111.07[f][ii][A] (2004).
 Cf. Hiroshi Motomura, Immigration Law After a Century of Plenary Power: Phantom Constitutional Norms and Statutory Interpretation, 100 Yale L.J. 545, 572 (1990) (Supreme Court in Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276 (1966), was guided by a “strong constitutional due process norm”).