No. 21- IN THE Supreme Court of the United States MOHAMMAD SHARIF KHALIL, Petitioner, v. UR JADDOU, et al., Respondents. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CouRT OF AppEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRcuIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI KATHRYN H. BRADY Counsel of Record ALLIE J. HALLMARK FRANCHEL D. DANIEL CHARLES D. SWifT, Director CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CENTER FOR MUSLIMS IN AMERICA 100 North Central Expressway, Suite 1010 Richardson, TX 75080 (972) 914-2507 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner 305353 A (800) 274-3321 • (800) 359-6859 i QUESTION PRESENTED The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) identifies various “terrorist activities” that render a noncitizen inadmissible. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B). The REAL ID Act of 2005 amended the INA to, among other things, add a ground of inadmissibility for receipt of “military-type training . from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)).” Id. § 1182(a) (3)(B)(i)(VIII). No other terrorism-related grounds of inadmissibility under § 1182 include the language “at the time” to describe the conduct at issue. In the early–mid 1980s, Petitioner Mohammad Sharif Khalil fought against the Soviets with the U.S.-backed and trained war-time ally known as Jamiat-i-Islami (Jamiat). Mr. Khalil disclosed his background with Jamiat and was granted asylum in 2000. In its 2019 denial of Mr. Khalil’s application to adjust status, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services claimed that beginning in the late 1980s, Jamiat qualified as an undesignated “Tier III” terrorist organization under § 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) of the INA, as amended by the PATRIOT Act of 2001. The question presented is: Whether the INA, as amended by the REAL ID Act, permits the government to retroactively deem a noncitizen inadmissible for receiving military-type training from or on behalf of a group that the United States did not consider a terrorist organization “at the time” of his training. ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING Petitioner Mohammad Sharif Khalil was the Plaintiff- Appellant below. Francis Cissna, in his official capacity as Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; Kevin McAleenan, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and Loren K. Miller, in his official capacity as Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Nebraska Service Center, were the Defendants in the District Court. Kenneth Cuccinelli, in his official capacity as Acting Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and Chad Wolf, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, were substituted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d) and were the Appellees in the Circuit Court. Ur Jaddou, in her official capacity as Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and Alejandro Mayorkas, in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, are currently in the respective positions and have been substituted pursuant to Rule 25(d). Accordingly, Ur Jaddou, Alejandro Mayorkas, and Loren K. Miller are the Respondents before this Court. iii RELATED CASES There are no related cases other than the opinions identified below in this matter: Khalil v. McAleenan, et al., No. 2:18-cv-07903-DMG- KS, United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. Judgment entered Jan. 21, 2020. Khalil v. Cissna, et al., No. 20-55323, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judgment entered Mar. 12, 2021. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED .......................i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING ............... ii RELATED CASES .............................iii TABLE OF CONTENTS.........................iv TABLE OF APPENDICES ......................vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................... vii INTRODUCTION................................1 OPINIONS BELOW..............................3 JURISDICTION .................................3 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED .....................3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ....................5 A. Statutory and Legal Background .............5 B. Factual and Administrative Background .....8 C. Lower Court Proceedings . 11 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION.....14 v Table of Contents Page I. THE DECISION BELOW CONFLICTS WITH JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS OF IDENTICAL LANGUAGE . .14 II. THE DECISION BELOW BUILDS ON AN EXISTING CIRCUIT SPLIT...........16 III. THE DECISION BELOW IS WRONG ......19 IV. THE DECISION BELOW BETRAYS WAR-TIME ALLIES AND MAKES AMERICA LESS SAFE ...................28 CONCLUSION .................................32 vi TABLE OF APPENDICES Page APPENDIX A — OPINION OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, FILED MARCH 12, 2021 ....1a APPENDIX B — ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FILED JANUARY 21, 2020 ....................5a APPENDIX C — DECISION OF THE U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, DATED MARCH 21, 2019 .........13a APPENDIX D — 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)..........32a APPENDIX E — NOTICE OF INTENT TO DENY OF THE U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, DATED NOVEMBER 16, 2018 ........................37a APPENDIX F — NOTICE OF INTENT TO DENY OF THE U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, DATED FEBRUARY 14, 2019 .........................47a vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) SUPREME COURT CASES Barber v. Gonzales, 347 U.S. 637 (1954)............................19 Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438 (2002) ...........................19 BFP v. Resol. Tr. Corp., 511 U.S. 531 (1994) ............................22 Bostock v. Clayton Cty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) ..........................21 Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 (1917) ............................20 Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009)............................19 Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)............................27 Dep’t of Revenue of Or. v. ACF Indus., 510 U.S. 332 (1994) ............................14 Fong Haw Tan v. Phelan, 333 U.S. 6 (1948)..............................27 viii Table of Authorities Page(s) Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432 (1999)............................21 INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987)............................27 INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001)........................ 24, 25 Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827 (1990)............................23 Landgraf v. Usi Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994) ........................ 24, 25 Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997)............................25 Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683 (2020)...........................5 New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, 139 S. Ct. 532 (2019)...........................21 Pa. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare v. Davenport, 495 U.S. 552 (1990)............................22 Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37 (1979) .............................21 ix Table of Authorities Page(s) Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 138 S. Ct. 816 (2018) ...........................22 Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018)..........................27 United States v. Curtiss-Wright Exp. Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936)............................30 United States v. Ron Pair Enters., 489 U.S. 235 (1989)............................20 Vartelas v. Holder, 566 U.S. 257 (2012)............................25 CIRCUIT COURT CASES Adrien v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 194 F. App’x 748 (11th Cir. 2006) ................15 Amrollah v. Napolitano, 710 F.3d 568 (5th Cir. 2013)................passim Janjua v. Neufeld, 933 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2019)...............passim McAllister v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 444 F.3d 178 (3d Cir. 2006) ......................7 Moran v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2005) ...................15 x Table of Authorities Page(s) Muratoski v. Holder, 622 F.3d 824 (7th Cir. 2010).....................15 Sanchez v. Holder, 560 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2009) ...................15 Soc’y for the Propagation of the Gospel v. Wheeler, 2 Gall. 105, 22 F. Cas. 756, F. Cas. No. 13156 (C.C.N.H. 1814) ...............................24 Ventura v. Sessions, 907 F.3d 306 (5th Cir. 2018).....................24 STATUTES 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) ..............................12 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(v) .........................9 8 U.S.C. § 1182 .............................passim 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a).................................5 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3).........................5, 23, 31 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B) ........................4, 5, 6 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(I) .....................9, 10 xi Table of Authorities Page(s) 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(VII) .....................7 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(VIII)...............passim 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(V) ......................7 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI) .....................7 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi) ......................4, 23 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) .....................6 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C) ...........................23 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(II) ..................15, 16 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)...........................14 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(iii)........................14 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(11)..........................14, 15 8 U.S.C. § 1227................................5, 28 8 U.S.C. § 1229a.................................28 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)................................5 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)................................5 xii Table of Authorities Page(s) 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) ........................12