Supreme Court stops judicial review of immigration judgments | Univision Immigration News

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that foreigners who falsely declare during proceedings and confirm their permanent status that they do not have can not appeal the decisions of the Judiciary (DOJ). When you are denied a benefit And / or issue a deportation order.

The verdict was handed down in a legal dispute filed by Pankaj Kumar Patel, a citizen of Indian descent who entered the country illegally with his wife in the 1990s.

Patel then applied for legal permanent residence, optional adjustment under the Immigration and Citizenship Act (INA), which would make him and his wife legal permanent residents (green cards).

But the Georgia Immigration Service rejected Patel’s application after finding that he had falsely claimed to be a U.S. citizen. And could not prove that he was legally authorized to enter the United States.

“In some cases, the law allows the courts to reconsider certain decisions, but not the preferred ones,” explained Jose Guerrero, an immigration lawyer trained in Miami, Florida.

“In this case, Patel appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal, but the court did not reconsider it because it had no jurisdiction over the record. The judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court,” he added.

Falsely claiming that a person is an American citizen not only authorizes the government to reject the application for benefit, but also does not allow that person to legally benefit. When he is not there.

At the time, Patel argued before an immigration judge that he had mistakenly checked the “citizen” box in the state application, so there was no subjective motive required to violate federal law.

But the judge, who did not accept that explanation, rejected his application for adjustment of status and ordered the deportation of Patel and his wife.

Following the issuance of the deportation order, Patel appealed to the Immigration Board (BIA), which dismissed the appeal.

Patel asked the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal to reconsider the case, but the three-judge panel “did not have the authority to consider his request.”

The Supreme Court noted that federal law prohibits “judicial review of any relief aid” under the Immigration Act.

In turn, the panel argued that “the fundamental truth about an Indian who has lived in the United States for 30 years” is that the judiciary “is not entitled to relief from deportation once he has misrepresented his citizenship.” Driving License Form. “

In view of this, the Supreme Court ruled that the courts had no jurisdiction to reconsider this type of case and, therefore, “he (Patel) and those in similar circumstances could not appeal the decision of the Judiciary in the Supreme Court”.

Removal of the relief path

Following the verdict, the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) challenged the Supreme Court’s decision, Patel said. Garland, this is a “spoiler” that provides relief to non-citizens during wrong decisions.

“This decision removes an important relief route for non-citizens after the erroneous decisions of the immigration judges. It does so by ignoring the simple language of the law, which narrowly prohibits the reconsideration only of rulings relating to the granting of injunction relief,” said AILA President-elect Jeremy McKinney.

He added, “Many of those facing deportation have lived in our communities, raised families and contributed to our shared prosperity over the years; in this case, an innocent bug should be reviewed on a DMV form. It is against the fundamental duty of our nation to do justice regardless of the country. “

Eden Hayes

"Wannabe gamer. Subtly charming beer buff. General pop culture trailblazer. Incurable thinker. Certified analyst."

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back to top