Taiwanese man living in the United States accuses the U.S Court of discrimination against non-citizens, New York Appeals Court rejects

A Taiwanese man, Sheng-Wen Cheng, was sentenced to 6 years in prison in 2021 for defrauding COVID-19 relief funds and illegally obtaining millions of dollars. After serving his sentence, he will be deported back to Taiwan.

Cheng challenged the “time credits” provision in the First Step Act (FSA). This provision allows certain inmates to accumulate credits by participating in programs or work plans aimed at reducing recidivism, enabling them to leave high-security prisons early. However, the law explicitly excludes non-citizen inmates with final deportation orders from enjoying this incentive. Cheng argued that this provision was unfair and filed a lawsuit.

At the age of 29, Cheng initially went to the United States on a student visa to study at Pennsylvania State University. Following his involvement in multiple fraud schemes, including falsely obtaining $2.8 million in federal small business relief funds and allegedly lying to investors in a securities fraud scheme, he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 6 years in prison.

In his appeal, Cheng contended that the FSA provision unlawfully discriminates against non-citizens, depriving them of protected interests and violating equal protection and due process clauses, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). However, the New York Second Circuit Court rejected his arguments and upheld the lower court’s decision.

Cheng argued that the district court incorrectly applied “rational basis review” and should have employed a stricter “heightened scrutiny” because the treatment of non-citizen inmates with final deportation orders under the FSA differed from that of other inmates.

However, the appeals court disagreed. It stated that “heightened scrutiny” is only required when state or local governments discriminate against aliens based on non-citizen status, whereas federal government distinctions based on citizenship generally do not face the same level of scrutiny. Therefore, whether the FSA distinguishes between citizens and non-citizens or within non-citizens (distinguishing between those with and without final deportation orders), it does not trigger heightened scrutiny. The appeals court concluded that using “rational basis review” by the district court was correct.

The court further noted that the FSA provision excluding non-citizens with final deportation orders from receiving time credits had a rational basis, such as reducing flight risks and ensuring immediate deportation of non-citizens after serving their sentences. Therefore, under a “rational basis review,” the provision does not raise constitutional issues, and Cheng’s equal protection claim failed.

Cheng also argued that the provision deprived him of protected interests, violating due process clauses. However, the court emphasized that protected interests must arise from clear statutory rights, not just individual expectations or hopes. As the FSA clearly stipulates that non-citizens with final deportation orders are not eligible for time credits, Cheng did not possess a protected statutory right, and his due process claim was dismissed.

Furthermore, the court found that Cheng’s complaint did not allege any illegal institutional behavior, therefore failing to constitute a valid APA complaint. Ultimately, considering all his arguments, the court found no legal basis and upheld the original verdict, dismissing the appeal.