Why US abruptly tossed 9,000 immigration cases
Migrant caravan marches on
WASHINGTON, Oct 17, (Agencies): 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 US Supreme Court had just issued a ruling that might open the door for her case, along with thousands of others, to be dismissed.
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 Aug 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.
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.
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.
Honduran migrants march on:
A caravan of some 2,000 migrants hoping to reach the United States marched deeper into Guatemala as President Donald Trump threatened to cut off aid to Central American countries that don’t stop them.
The weary Hondurans covered some 30 miles Tuesday to arrive in Chiquimula after crossing the border into Guatemala a day earlier. Some hitched rides, while others walked. They expressed faith that obstacles would be removed and were generally undeterred when told of Trump’s exhortations.
As stifling daytime heat gave way to an evening downpour, Norma Chacon, 31, prepared to sleep on the floor of a town auditorium with her 18-monthold son, who was barefoot and clad in overalls. Town residents brought the migrants bread, beans, cheese and coffee.
Chacon said she had tried selling Avon beauty supplies in Honduras, but “people are so poor they can’t buy.” She left two other children in Honduras, but said she had to bring her youngest because he is still nursing.
As she was settling in, Trump unleashed fresh messages via Twitter saying the US had told the governments of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador that aid will be stopped if they allow people to travel from or across their countries intending to enter the United States without authorization.
“Anybody entering the United States illegally will be arrested and detained, prior to being sent back to their country!” he tweeted.
Late Tuesday, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights called on Honduras, Guatemala and Mexico to respect the rights and ensure the safety of the Honduran migrants traveling in the caravan. Estimates of their numbers ranged up to 3,000.
The group’s numbers have snowballed since about 160 migrants departed Friday from the Honduran city of San Pedro Sula, with many people joining spontaneously while carrying just a few belongings. A Guatemalan priest estimated more than 2,000 were fed at three shelters run by the Roman Catholic Church in Esquipulas, the group’s first stop in Guatemala.