Latest Case: Ricketts v. Attorney General of the United States (Immigration Law)

When Children Stay Home—A COVID-19 Consequence

KATHRYN ROBB

Kathryn Robb, executive director of CHILD USAdvocacy, describes how the COVID-19 pandemic uniquely endangers children who are being sexually abused by people close to them. Robb describes ways in which teachers, coaches, and other adult figures in children’s lives must do to ensure the safety of children in this time when schools and other safe spaces are shut down.

Read More

Ricketts v. Attorney General of the United States

Docket: 10-1875

Opinion Date: April 8, 2020

Judge: Jordan

Areas of Law: Immigration Law

In 1992 Ricketts pled guilty to embezzlement and transporting a minor in interstate commerce with the intent to engage in sexual activity. The government maintained that Ricketts was a citizen of Jamaica. Ricketts argued that he was a U.S. citizen. The IJ rejected that claim; the BIA dismissed his appeal. While his petition for review was pending, Ricketts was removed to Jamaica. His petition and motion were “procedurally terminated without judicial action” in 2000. Ricketts persuaded the Jamaican Constabulary Force to investigate his citizenship; they agreed with him and he was returned to the U.S. in 2003. In 2005, while Ricketts was in state custody for a criminal theft conviction, DHS reinstated his order of removal. Based on the Jamaican report stating that he is an American citizen, he moved to reopen his removal proceedings. The BIA dismissed his motions, citing the post-departure bar. The Eastern District of New York rejected Ricketts's claim that he was born in Brooklyn in 1964 as Paul Miles and changed his name for religious reasons. He had submitted various official records, including a birth certificate, with Miles's name crossed out and “Junior Mohammed Ricketts” written above it. The Second Circuit affirmed. The Third Circuit then rejected his petition for review from the BIA dismissal. Ricketts’s citizenship claim is the only basis on which he says he is entitled to relief from the order of removal and he cannot now rely on that claim.