Activist set back in fight to halt deport

IMMIGRATION ACTIVIST Ravi Ragbir has lost his bid to block his deportation on the grounds that the feds want to muzzle his advocacy work.

Ragbir, 53, wanted to delay deportation on the grounds that Immigration and Customs Enforcement wrongly targeted him for his efforts to reform the immigration system.

But Manhattan Federal Court Judge Kevin Castel wrote in a decision Wednesday that Ragbir had not shown that his order of removal from the U.S. was based on bad evidence or flawed legal arguments.

“Political speech is worthy of the highest protection, and so long as Ragbir remains in the United States, the First Amendment guarantees him the freedom to speak and associate on any subject of his choosing,” Castel wrote.

“But his decision to speak does not confer upon him an immunity from the enforcement of a preexisting final order of removal.”

A stay of Ragbir’s deportation remains in effect through a separate case in New Jersey seeking to vacate his 2001 conviction for wire fraud. His next check-in with ICE is scheduled for July 27, one of his lawyers, Jessica Rofe said.

“We’re hopeful we’ll prevail because we believe we’re on the side of justice,” Rofe said.

Ragbir (photo), who is married to a U.S. citizen and has a daughter, got a green card in 1994. In 2001, he was sentenced to 30 months behind bars for his role in a scheme using stolen identities to score fraudulent mortgage loans.

After that, ICE initiated his deportation back to Trinidad and Tobago and an immigration judge entered a final “order of removal” in 2006.

Yet ICE — following the more lenient immigration policies of previous administrations — granted Ragbir a so-called stay of removal. He became a prominent immigration activist.

On Jan. 11, ICE took Ragbir into custody for deportation due to his criminal record, sparking a rowdy protest in Lower Manhattan.

Judge Katherine Forrest ordered Ragbir’s release on Jan. 29, so he could get his “affairs in order,” “There is, and ought to be in this great country, the freedom to say goodbye,” Forrest wrote.

“It ought not to be — and it has never before been — that those who have lived without incident in this country for years are subjected to treatment we associate with regimes we revile as unjust.”

But her order was only temporary.

“The Supreme Court concluded that as a general matter ... an alien unlawfully in this country has no constitutional right to assert selective enforcement as a defense against his deportation,” Castel wrote.

Ragbir said he continues to assist immigrants in a similar predicament to the one he faces.

“I cannot allow my fears to stop what I need to do,” he said.