The Supreme Court of Justice on Monday ruled that undocumented immigrants who have been detained for more than six months, pending their deportation proceedings, do not have the right to be released on bail.
The question, reviewed by the Supreme Court of Justice, was whether a foreigner detained under Title 8 of the United States Code, Section 1231, is entitled by statute after six months of detention to a bond hearing in which the government is an immigration Proves before the judge that the alien may be absconding or may be a danger to the community.
The reply issued by most of the magistrates was clear: no.
“The Court Said” Those who remain in custody pending their deportation proceedings are not entitled to bail after six months of detention. Jose Guerrero, an immigration attorney practicing in Miami, Florida, explains.
The court also noted that “nowhere does the law state that you have a right to a bail trial, but that there are mechanisms for release, but the relevant immigration section does not imply that you have a right to a bail hearing.” ” This man,” he said.
Guerrero also explained that “many immigrants who were expected to be released while their cases await the resolution of their cases have been given the discretion of the Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to make decisions on a case-by-case basis.” Will have to wait. Accepted.”
The ruling responded to an immigrant of Mexican origin, Antonio Artega-Martinez, who was deported in July 2012 and returned to the country again without authorization in September of that year. ICE agents detained him again in 2018 and reinstated the 2012 deportation order.
“In this case, Arteaga-Martinez argued that, to avoid a due process violation, he and certain other immigrants should be entitled to a bond hearing after six months of detention,” said Professor Stephen Yale-Lohr in Practice. Told. Immigration from Cornell University School of Law, New York.
“Even then, In 2021 the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that immigrants returning to the United States illegally after being deported must be held without bond. While waiting for the second deportation hearing,” he recalled.
Yale-Lohr previously said the case was important, partly because of a backlog in immigration court. “There are over 17 lakh immigrant cases pending with the Immigration Review Office (EOIR),” he indicated.
“It can take years to make a decision. If immigrants had to be detained for so long, the monetary and social costs would be enormous,” he said.
The court also issued a second judgment on Monday related to a similar case.
The court said that, in another case of bond hearings for detained immigrants, district courts do not have jurisdiction to issue class injunctions.
The lawsuit was filed in a consolidated case on behalf of Esteban Alemán González and Edwin Omar Flores Tejada. First, also of Mexican descent, like Artega, the federal government initiated a deportation process, but asylum agents (from the Office of Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS) determined that he had a reasonable fear of persecution or torture. (CAT) in Mexico.
Aleman Gonzalez requested a bond hearing before an immigration judge after being detained for 180 days, but the request was denied.
Yale-Lohr said “two lower courts have held that, in some cases, immigrants have the right” to request a bond hearing after six months in prison.
“But the conservative majority of the Supreme Court may disagree with those decisions,” he warned earlier this year when the court announced it would take up the matter.
The warning was met with a majority decision this Monday.
One migrant dies every six days in the Rio Grande: Thousands are risking their lives to reach the United States
On this occasion, the Supreme Court answered two important questions:
- If a foreigner detained under Title 8 of the United States Code, Section 1231, is entitled by statute to a bond hearing, after six months of detention, the government must prove to an immigration judge that the foreigner was a flight attendant. is a risk or danger to a community; You
- Yes, under Title 8 of United States Code section 1252(f)(1), the courts below had jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief to the entire class.
“The answer was clearly no,” Guerrero said.
For immigration attorney Rebecca Sanchez-Roig, who practices in Miami, Florida, the Supreme Court’s decision this Monday “robs of an important opportunity for non-citizens to challenge the erroneous decisions of immigration agencies and/or judges.” Immigration. It deprives the defendant of the possibility of wrong decisions, refutation of false facts, by ignoring the explicit expression of the statute, which prohibits review of sentences relating only to the giving of precautionary measures. ,
“This decision will have a negative impact on the lives of thousands of immigrants who have lived in the United States for many years, and who have been victims of objectively wrong decisions,” he said.
Sánchez-Roig further stated that “Judge Gorsuch’s disagreement on this decision clearly indicates problems with the decision and, with the atrocious argument of the majority, I repeat, ignores the statute, fitting it to a predetermined conclusion.” I reverse-engineered to do it.”
Justice Gorsuch wrote: “The majority concludes that the courts are powerless to correct an agency decision that disqualifies a person for relief from removal on the basis of an error of fact, no matter how serious the error., The denial of any possibility of correcting the agency’s errors in processing green card applications outside the context of deportation has the additional consequence of the interpretation of the majority.”
Gorsuch continued that, “Even the government cannot bring itself to support the shocking findings of the majority. For good reason. Those findings are at war with all the evidence before us. They read the language of the statute and They destroy the clear two-step structure of law. They ignore the lessons of neighboring provisions and even ignore the title of the law. They have no understanding of the history of law.”
And I add: ” Taken together, the majority’s novel extension of a limited statutory exception swallowing up the general rule of law gives people the opportunity to seek judicial review to correct obvious bureaucratic errors. It is a conclusion that turns an agency that was earlier accountable to the rule of law and becomes an authority in its own right. Perhaps some would welcome such a world. But this is hardly an ordered World Congress. ,
what is the meaning of judgment
According to Sánchez-Roig, “For example, USCIS may deny an adjustment of status without evidence that the individual, who was a member of the parent-teacher union of his son’s school, has physically committed terrorism.” Supported. These false facts cannot be investigated and reviewed.”
He also said that “to appeal such a denial, the challenge would have to be a constitutional issue (violation of due process, the legal definition of a terrorist group). But even in the latter case, a more restrictive court would Would say that this is an un-reviewable factual finding. Unfortunately, it opens the door to all kinds of lies.”
Finally, the lawyer, who served as an immigration prosecutor for the Department of Justice (DOJ) for more than 15 years, indicated that “it’s not a good decision, but unfortunately I’m not sure it’s the case before.” What was the best to present. What is a really important issue that the Supreme Court has faced by all of us.”
“Bad deeds make bad matters. How this will eventually pan out remains to be seen; But having encountered this statute quite often, I think it will lead to a fast and furious denial of many appeals,” he concluded.