Court ruling upholds Conn. pardon system, AG says
An appeals court ruling in the case of a Connecticut resident facing deportation after he was given a full pardon has helped reaffirm the state’s system of pardons, state Attorney General William Tong’s office said.
The ruling, made Monday, remanded the deportation case of Kimanie Tavoy Graham back to the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals, essentially giving him a second chance at staying in the U.S.
Kimanie, a native citizen of Jamaica, has a wife and children who are U.S. citizens. He is a lawful permanent resident living
in Connecticut, the attorney general’s office said.
“This decision affirms once again that Connecticut’s pardons count. Kimanie Graham was granted a pardon and given a second chance by the state of Connecticut.
Based on our agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice, it is my hope that the Board of Immigration Appeals will rescind its removal order and allow Graham to remain here, at home, with his wife and children,” said Attorney General Tong.
On March 16, 2020, the state’s Board of Pardons and Paroles granted a full pardon to Graham for crimes committed in Connecticut, Tong’s office said.
Prior to the pardon, Graham, had faced deportation, but the pardon would allow the deportation to be cancelled under a clause in the Immigration and Nationality Act, the attorney general’s office said.
But instead, the Board of Immigration Appeals didn’t reopen the case, based on what Tong’s office described as an “illogical and unsupported reading” of the state’s pardon system.
“In Graham’s case, and several others, federal authorities had singled out Connecticut residents for harsher treatment merely because Connecticut pardons are issued by the governor-appointed Board of Pardons and Paroles rather than directly by the governor,” Tong’s office said in a news release Tuesday.
Tong’s office ultimately sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice under the Trump Administration. The suit sought a ruling that would affirm “that Connecticut’s pardons were indeed executive pardons under federal law,” the office said.
Graham also appealed the Board of Immigration Appeals decision to the federal Second Circuit appeals court. Tong’s office filed an amicus brief in the case, a type of court filing made by a separate party with interest in a case. In it, Tong’s office defended “the legitimacy of Connecticut’s pardons,” the office said.
A summary order from the Second Circuit appellate court entered Monday remanded Graham’s case back to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Before the decision, the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut reached an agreement with Connecticut that Homeland Security would recognize full and unconditional pardons for people facing deportation.
The agreement also extends to recognizing Connecticut’s pardons for people applying for visas, the attorney general’s office said.
That agreement was cited in Monday’s order remanding Graham’s case to the Board of Immigration Appeals.