Court Upholds Civil Fines in Immigration Cases

A hearing officer who works for the Justice Department and is not a judge can impose fines for the use of forged immigration documents, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

In a 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the fines were civil penalties, not criminal punishment, and did not have to be imposed by a federal judge with life tenure.

Federal immigration law since 1924 has made it a crime to forge immigration documents or to knowingly possess or use forged documents. A 1990 law added civil penalties of between $250 and $2,000 for each forged document that was used to evade the ban on employment of illegal immigrants.

The penalties are imposed by an administrative law judge, a hearing officer who works for the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which like the INS is part of the Justice Department. If payment is refused, the government must go to federal court for enforcement.

The system was challenged by Alberto Noriega-Perez, who was charged in San Diego in 1992 with conspiring to possess false immigration documents. He pleaded guilty, was sentenced to 18 months in prison and was fined $5,000.

Two months after his plea, the INS sought additional civil penalties for the same violations, forging eight immigration documents and possessing more than 300 other forged documents. An administrative law judge granted the INS’ request for a $96,000 fine, twice the agency’s estimated cost of the investigation.

The appeals court ruled 3 to 0 that the fine did not violate the constitutional ban on double punishment for the same crime but split 2 to 1 on whether the hearing officer exceeded the constitutional limits of his authority.

The court majority said the fine was civil, not criminal, and was imposed for the nonpunitive purposes of reimbursing government, ensuring that Noriega did not profit from his fraud and regulating immigration.