Sunday, June 16, 2024

Supreme Court Erases Loophole That Kept Foreigners Inside The U.S. Illegally; Supreme Court Ruling Makes It Harder for Illegal Immigrants to Oppose Deportation; SCOTUS Rules 5-4 Against Illegal Aliens Fighting Their Deportations from U.S.

Jonathan McIntosh/Flickr/CC BY 2.0
Supreme Court Erases Loophole That Kept Foreigners Inside The U.S. Illegally:
“[The law] does not allow aliens to seek remission of removal orders in perpetuity based on arguments they could have raised in a hearing that they chose to skip”
In a 5-4 ruling Friday, the Supreme Court erased a loophole that allowed foreigners to avoid deportation proceedings by citing a paperwork technicality.
The case centered on three illegal immigrants: Moris Esmelis Campos-Chaves, an El Salvador native who entered the country illegally in 2005 through Texas; Varinder Singh, a man from India who illegally entered the U.S. in 2016 by “climbing over a fence” in California; and Mexico-native Raul Daniel Mendez-Colín, who illegally entered the U.S. in 2001 in Arizona.
The trio argued that their deportation notices did not meet the criteria for a proper notice as prescribed by the law.
Title 8 USC § 1229 (a) describes two types of notices. The first is a general initial notice to appear that shall include, among other specificities, a “time and place” for the proceeding. The second notice regards a “change or postponement in the time and place of such proceedings.” The Supreme Court previously ruled in 2021 that “this information must be provided in a single document in order to satisfy [the law].”
If an alien does not appear at his removal proceeding, the government has the authority to remove him. If the alien, however, can prove he did not receive the notice, he can seek to have the removal order rescinded.
The Supreme Court was technically hearing three separate cases, as one case stemmed from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that ruled in favor of the government while the other two, from the 9th Circuit, ruled in favor of the illegal immigrants.
The trio were ordered to be deported after they failed to appear at their deportation hearings. But the three illegal immigrants argued that the notices they received were improper since they initially lacked a specific date and time.
Campos-Chaves was served a notice to appear three days after he illegally entered the country. The notice to appear indicated the location of the hearing but said a “date” would be provided at a later time. Months later, Campos-Chaves received a notice that the hearing had been set for September 20, 2005, the Court wrote. Campos-Chaves did not show and a judge ordered him removed in absentia. Campos-Chaves filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings in 2018, arguing he didn’t receive a proper notice to appear. --->READ MORE HERE
John Moore/Getty Images
Supreme Court Ruling Makes It Harder for Illegal Immigrants to Oppose Deportation:
‘This reading aligns with common sense,’ Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority in a decision that could have big implications for deportation proceedings.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday issued a decision that makes it harder for illegal immigrants subject to a deportation order to challenge their removal from the country on the grounds that the government sent them an initial notice to appear that lacked a time and place for their hearing even though it followed up with a second notice that contained this information.
In a 5–4 decision issued on June 14, with Justice Neil Gorsuch joining the liberal minority in dissent, the high court sided with the government in upholding the legitimacy of what amounts to a two-step notification system in the process of deporting illegal immigrants that effectively removes one basis for them to get their removal order rescinded.
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act mandates that the government issue “written notice” to illegal immigrants who are either “inadmissible” or “deportable” informing them about the removal proceedings they are being subjected to.
The law requires that illegal immigrants be given a written notice to appear (NTA) that must set out, among other things, the time and place at which proceedings will be held. The regulation also stipulates that in case of any change or postponement to the time and place of such proceedings, another written notice must be provided, with the second notice having to specify the new time and place of proceedings and the consequences of failing to attend.
Illegal immigrants who have been so notified and fail to attend their hearing are ordered removed in absentia, meaning a deportation order is issued for them even though they’re absent from the hearing.
The law allows three conditions under which illegal immigrants subject to in absentia removal orders can get them canceled. The first is when they can prove that their failure to appear was due to “exceptional circumstances,” the second is when they were in federal or state custody and so couldn’t attend the hearing, and the third is if they didn’t receive a notice to appear in line with the law.
In the consolidated case known as Campos-Chaves v. Garland, several illegal immigrants each argued that their deportation orders—entered in absentia when they failed to show up at their respective hearings—should be rescinded because the first notice to appear that they received lacked a time and place for the hearing, in alleged violation of the law.
In all cases, the government eventually provided each of the illegal immigrants with a second notice that specified the time and place of the removal hearing, and an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) refused to reopen their proceedings, prompting them to file petitions in federal court for review.
Following competing appellate court rulings on whether the second form of notification meets the statutory requirements if the government fails to specify a time and date in the first notice, the Supreme Court took up the case, heard oral arguments on Jan. 8, and decided the case on Friday.
During oral argument, Justice Gorsuch noted that around a third of cases in immigration proceedings are in absentia removals, so the case could have significant implications for the deportation of illegal immigrants from the United States. --->READ MORE HERE
Follow link below to a relevant story:

+++++SCOTUS Rules 5-4 Against Illegal Aliens Fighting Their Deportations from U.S.+++++

If you like what you see, please "Like" and/or Follow us on FACEBOOK here, GETTR here, and TWITTER here.

No comments: