Quantcast
Connect with us

US courts abruptly tossed 9,000 deportation cases

Published

on

Liliana Barrios was working in a California bakery in July and facing possible deportation when she got a call from her immigration attorney with some good news.

The notice to appear in court that Barrios had received in her deportation case hadn’t specified a time or date for her first hearing, noting that they would be determined later. Her lawyer was calling to say that the U.S. Supreme Court had just issued a ruling that might open the door for her case, along with thousands of others, to be dismissed.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Supreme Court case involved Wescley Fonseca Pereira, a Brazilian immigrant who overstayed his visa and was put into deportation proceedings in 2006. The initial paperwork he was sent did not state a date and time of appearance, however, and Pereira said he did not receive a subsequent notice telling him where and when to appear. When he failed to show up in court, he was ordered deported.

The Supreme Court ruled that paperwork failing to designate a time and place didn’t constitute a legal notice to appear in court.

The ruling sparked a frenzy of immigration court filings. Over ten weeks this summer, a record 9,000 deportation cases, including Barrios’, were terminated as immigration attorneys raced to court with challenges to the paperwork their clients had received, a Reuters analysis of data from the Executive Office for Immigration Review shows. The number represents a 160 percent increase from the same time period a year earlier and the highest number of terminations per month ever.

Then, just as suddenly as they began, the wave of case terminations stopped. On August 31, in a different case, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) ruled that charging documents issued without a date and time were valid so long as the immigrant received a subsequent hearing notice filling in the details, as is the usual procedure.

ADVERTISEMENT

A Department of Justice official said that as a result of the BIA decision, the issues “have been solved.”

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not respond to requests for comment, but the agency laid out its thoughts on the terminations in court documents opposing the motions to terminate. In a San Diego case, DHS wrote that the motions were based on a “misreading” of the Supreme Court decision. “If read in a manner most favorable to the respondent, the practical impact would be to terminate virtually all immigration proceedings.” The Supreme Court decision “nowhere purports to invalidate the underlying removal proceedings,” DHS wrote.

The dueling interpretations will now be weighed by a federal appeals court, which could uphold or overturn the BIA decision in coming months. The case could ultimately end up before the Supreme Court.

ADVERTISEMENT

“ONE GASP”
Having a removal case terminated, as Liliana Barrios and many others did over the summer, does not confer legal status, but it does remove the threat of imminent deportation and provide an immigrant time to pursue legal ways of staying in the country, such as asylum or by accruing enough time in the country to be eligible to stay through a process known as cancellation of removal.  

The Supreme Court ruling provided a “brief glimmer of hope”, said immigration lawyer Aaron Chenault, “like when you are almost drowning and you get one gasp.”

The Department of Homeland Security can appeal the case dismissals or it can restart deportation proceedings by issuing a new notice to appear. By the end of August, the most recent date for which records are available, government attorneys had appealed only 2,100 of the cases terminated in the wake of the decision, according to a Reuters analysis.

ADVERTISEMENT

Roxie Rawls-de Santiago, an immigration attorney in New Mexico, said that for some of her clients, even a few months of not being in active deportation proceedings could make a difference. One woman whose case was terminated, for example, has a U.S. citizen daughter who turns 21 next year, the age at which she can sponsor her mother for permanent residency, and the woman is now hopeful she can stave off deportation proceedings until then.

CHAOS IN THE COURTS
At the Department of Justice, which administers the immigration courts, chaos reigned in the weeks following the June decision. Immigration judges and officials struggled to agree on an interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling, according to internal emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by immigration attorney Matthew Hoppock and shared with Reuters.

“The issue has VERY large implications, in that DHS has put the actual “time and date” on VERY, VERY few NTA’s, if any. Any guidance would be helpful,” wrote Memphis immigration judge Richard Averwater in an email to an assistant chief immigration judge days after the ruling. Averwater declined to discuss the email further.

ADVERTISEMENT

In San Francisco alone, immigration judges terminated 2,000 cases between June 21 and August 31, sometimes more than 100 a day, according to a Reuters analysis. In San Antonio, more than 1,200 cases were terminated.  

“The court was getting dozens and dozens and dozens of those a day,” said Ashley Tabaddor, president of the immigration judges’ union. “The large number of terminations that happened were directly a result of Pereira.”

The door to mass dismissals for such cases could be reopened or remain closed depending on how the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules on the Board of Immigration Appeals decision that stopped them.

For Barrios, 20, who was caught crossing the Southern border illegally with her toddler two years ago, her dismissal has meant more time to file for a special visa for immigrants under the age of 21 who have been abandoned or neglected. Barrios said she was abandoned by her mother.

ADVERTISEMENT

Having her case terminated “lifted the pressure a bit,” said Barrios, who makes cream for cookies at a wholesale bakery in California during the day and studies English at night. The Department of Homeland Security has appealed her case termination.

Reporting by Kristina Cooke and Reade Levinson; Editing by Sue Horton and Paul Thomasch


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Trump has figured out how to get taxpayers to renovate one of his golf courses: MSNBC panel

Published

on

President Donald Trump has figured out how to have taxpayers pay to renovate his Trump National Doral Miami golf course, according to an analysis by MSNBC's Stephanie Ruhle.

"Before setting himself on fire on Ukraine yesterday, Mick Mulvaney came into the White House briefing room to break to the nation the fact the that the Trump Doral golf resort turns out to be -- in his estimation, organically, just sitting there -- the best possible place to have a G-7 Summit of world leaders," MSNBC's Brian Williams reported. "That was provision number one. There’s no better place that we can find. Number two was, the president will not profit from said G-7."

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Bill Maher reveals plan to ‘bribe’ Trump with one billion dollars — for him to leave office

Published

on

The Constitution has two mechanisms to remove President Donald Trump from office prior to his term ending on January 20, 2021: impeachment and the 25th Amendment.

HBO "Real Time" host Bill Maher noted that Trump could also choose to resign.

Maher waved around a $1 million check that he said he would give to Trump to quit.

He said he also knew 1,000 people who would do the same -- which would land Trump over $1 billion.

Maher said even poor people would pawn their wedding rings to add to the pot.

Watch:

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Trump can’t fire Mulvaney because nobody else wants to be his chief of staff: report

Published

on

White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney will likely stay on at the White House despite his public confession of a quid pro quo in the Ukraine scandal at the center of the impeachment inquiry, The New York Times reported Friday.

"But Mr. Mulvaney’s job has been anything but normal since the news conference on Thursday at which he seemingly undermined the Trump administration’s strategy for avoiding impeachment by acknowledging that Mr. Trump had sought a quid pro quo for providing Ukraine with American aid," the newspaper reported. "In the chaotic aftermath, the president’s Republican allies are questioning Mr. Mulvaney’s savvy and intelligence even as the Trump campaign is defiantly turning one of his lines from the news conference into a T-shirt."

Continue Reading
 
 
Help Raw Story Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1 and go ad-free.
close-image