ag DHANMATTIE BEEKHAN, also known as Singh Leena v. ERIC H. HOLDER JR., United States Attorney General

* The Honorable Joseph F. Bianco, of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, sitting by designation.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
____________________
August Term, 2010
(Argued: February 10, 2011 Decided: February 25, 2011)
Docket No. 09-3129-ag
____________________
DHANMATTIE BEEKHAN, also known as Singh Leena,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER JR., United States Attorney General,
Respondent.
_____________________
Before: POOLER and HALL, Circuit Judges, and BIANCO, District Judge.*
Petition for review of a June 22, 2009 order by Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”) reinstating Petitioner’s January 29, 1997 order of exclusion. We hold that ICE did not
err in reinstating Petitioner’s order of exclusion because, even if we consider Petitioner’s post-
Order affidavit that she entered the United States using another person’s passport, Petitioner is
an alien who reentered the United States illegally after having been removed. Petition denied.
____________________
Andres C. Benach, Duane Morris LLP, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner.
Puneet Cheema and Daniel E. Goldman (on the brief), for Tony
West, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C, for Respondent.

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
PER CURIAM:
In January 1997, Beekhan, a native and citizen of Guyana, was ordered removed from the
United States and was physically removed. In February 1997, Beekhan reentered the United
States.
About ten years later, Beekhan applied for adjustment of status to lawful permanent
resident, stating that she had entered the United States without inspection along the Canadian
border. After interviewing Beekhan, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”)
found that Beekhan was “a previously deported alien who entered the United States without
authorization from the Attorney General” and transferred Beekhan into the custody of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). On June 22, 2009, ICE reinstated Beekhan’s
prior removal order. ICE found that Beekhan was an alien subject to a prior order of exclusion,
who was removed in January 1997 and later illegally reentered the United States. Beekhan
received written notice of these findings and signed the form provided by ICE, choosing not to
make a statement contesting ICE’s determination.
On July 15, 2009, Beekhan sent a letter to ICE, requesting that ICE vacate its June 22,
2009 reinstated order of removal. Beekhan enclosed in the letter a signed affidavit stating that
she reentered the United States in 1997 with another person’s passport that she purchased from a
smuggler. Beekhan argued that this conduct did not constitute an illegal reentry into the United
States for the purposes of reinstating a prior removal order. ICE granted Beekhan a 6-month
stay of removal but did not otherwise respond to her letter.
On July 22, 2009, Beekhan petitioned this Court for review of ICE’s reinstatement order,
arguing in part that (1) ICE erred by failing to consider Beekhan’s affidavit sent after the
reinstatement order; (2) ICE erred by failing to include the affidavit in the administrative record;
and (3) an evidentiary hearing is necessary, for purposes of due process, to determine whether

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
Beekhan is eligible for reinstatement because the relevant facts are disputed. We need not
resolve these questions. Even if Beekhan’s affidavit were considered as part of the
administrative record and fully credited, Beekhan would remain eligible for reinstatement of
removal.
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, a prior order of removal shall be reinstated
“[i]f the Attorney General finds that an alien has reentered the United States illegally after
having been removed or having departed voluntarily, under an order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. §
1231(a)(5).
Petitioner argues that knowingly using another person’s passport to reenter the United
States is not an illegal reentry under the INA’s reinstatement provision, id. § 1231(a)(5). We
reject this argument. Under the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), an alien who was removed and
reenters the United States without the Attorney General’s express consent, using a passport that
is not her own, commits an illegal reentry. E.g., United States v. Rodriguez, 416 F.3d 123, 124-
25 (2d Cir. 2005) (requiring intent to reenter United States but not knowledge of permission
requirement); United States v. Oladipupo, 346 F.3d 384, 385-86 (2d Cir. 2003). The same is true
for the INA’s reinstatement provision. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). An alien is eligible for
reinstatement of her prior removal order if she was removed and reenters the United States
without the Attorney General’s express consent, using a passport that is not her own.
We have considered Petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
For the foregoing reasons, we DENY the petition for review.

-- 3 of 3 --