SCOTUS

Department of State v. Muñoz

by
no right to marriage

In State Department v. Muñoz, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a U.S. citizen who said her constitutional rights were violated by the federal government when it denied a visa to her Salvadoran husband. Munoz and her husband, who she married in 2010 and has a child with, have been separated since 2015 while they were going through the visa process. After several interviews, a consular officer denied Asencio-Cordero’s application, citing a provision that renders inadmissible a noncitizen whom the officer believes seeks to engage in unlawful activity. Asencio-Cordero and Muñoz sued the Department of State, claiming that it had abridged Muñoz’s constitutional liberty interest in her husband’s visa application by failing to give a sufficient reason why Asencio-Cordero is inadmissible under the “unlawful activity” bar, because the consulate did not provide any further explanation for the decision. Visa denials are not reviewable in court unless the government violates an applicant’s constitutional rights in the process.The Supreme Court on Friday rejected Munoz’s claim that the delay in explaining the denial violated her due process rights by interfering with her fundamental right to marry. The claim “involves more than marriage and more than spousal cohabitation — it includes the right to have her noncitizen husband enter (and remain in) the United States,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the court. Justice Sotomayor (joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson) wrote, “There is no question that excluding a citizen’s spouse burdens her right to marriage, and that burden requires the Government to provide at least a factual basis for its decision.”

SCOTUS Limits Ability To Reopen & Rescind In Absentia Removal Orders

by
return to sender

The Supreme Court issued a decision limiting the ability of noncitizens to reopen and rescind in absentia orders of removal issued against them in their June 14, 2024 decision, Campos-Chaves v Garland, 602 U.S. ___ (2024). The relevant portions of the Court’s decision are quoted below. You can read the entire decision at the Supreme Court’s Website. FACTS OF THE CASE The facts of the case involved noncitizens who received a defective NTA that lacked the time and place of the hearing. Each later received a notice of hearing containing the time and place of the hearing.  Mr. Campos-Chaves moved to rescind his in absentia removal order because the Department of Homeland Security never gave him a valid NTA with notice of the date and time of his hearing. SCOTUS said that because DHS later gave him a “Notice of change in time or place of proceedings,” that counts as proper notice and cures the defective NTA, so he could not reopen his deportation order. THE COURT’S DECISION With this decision, the Court backtracked from two recent decisions that had emphasized the importance of a complete NTA in immigration proceedings. In Niz-Chavez and Pereira , SCOTUS said that an NTA must include a wide range of information in a single document, including the removal charges, the facts to support those charges, notice of the right to be represented by an attorney, and the time and place of removal proceedings. The dissenting opinion noted this unexplained departure from their prior precedent. The decision also seems to contradict BIA case law. Matter of Fernandes, 28 I&N Dec. 605 (BIA 2022) (a respondent may timely object to a deficient NTA prior to the closing of pleadings and need not show any prejudice caused by the missing time and place information); Matter of Aguilar Hernandez, 28 I&N Dec. 774 (BIA 2024) (DHS cannot remedy a defective NTA by filing an I-261). Indeed, in dicta, the majority opinion states that: “[a]lthough an alien who receives only paragraph (2) notice must still attend the hearing or face in absentia removal, he can raise issues regarding incomplete notice at that time.”   GOING FORWARD Respondents can and should continue to object to proceedings taking place based on a defective NTA. They can cite Matter of Fernandes and Matter of Aguilar Hernandez to preserve a timely objection to the defective NTA. Niz-Chavez and Pereira remain good law and are not overruled by this decision as to the stop-time rule. So a statutorily compliant NTA is still required in order to trigger the stop-time rule for cancellation of removal.                          The Court’s Decision: To initiate the removal of an alien from the United States who is either “inadmissible” under 8 U. S. C. §1182 or “deportable” under §1227, the Federal Government must provide the alien with “written notice” of the proceedings. §§1229(a)(1), (2). Two types of “written notice” are described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of §1229(a): Paragraph (1) provides that the alien be given a written “ ‘notice to appear,’ ” or NTA, which must set out, among other things, “[t]he time and place at which the proceedings will be held.” Paragraph (2) states that “in the case of any change or postponement in the time and place of such proceedings,” the agency must provide “a written notice” specifying “the new time or place of the proceedings” and “the consequences” of failing to attend. An alien who fails to attend a hearing despite receiving notice “shall be ordered removed in absentia” if the Government “establishes by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence” that “the written notice” was provided and that “the alien is removable.” §1229a(b)(5)(A). Three scenarios permit the rescinding of an in absentia removal order, one of which is when an alien “demonstrates that [he] did not receive notice in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2)” of §1229(a). §1229a(b)(5)(C (ii). In these consolidated cases (one from the Fifth Circuit, and two from the Ninth), aliens Esmelis Campos-Chaves, Varinder Singh, and Raul Daniel Mendez-Colín, each moved to rescind his in absentia order of removal on the ground that he did not receive proper notice of the removal hearing. In each case, the Government provided an initial NTA, but the NTA did not specify the time and place of the removal hearing. Eventually, the Government provided each alien with a notice of hearing under §1229(a)(2) which set out the specific time and place of the removal hearing. None of the aliens showed up for his hearing, and each was ordered removed in absentia by an Immigration Judge. Each then sought to rescind the removal order, arguing that he did not receive a proper NTA under §1229(a)(1). The Fifth Circuit considered and denied one of the petitions, but the Ninth Circuit granted the other two. Held: Because each of the aliens in this case received a proper §1229(a)(2) notice for the hearings they missed and at which they were ordered removed, they cannot seek rescission of their in absentia removal orders on the basis of defective notice under §1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii). Pp 7–16. (a) These cases turn on whether Campos-Chaves, Singh, and Mendez-Colín can “demonstrat[e]” that they “did not receive notice in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a).” §1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii). The Government reads that provision to permit rescission only when the alien did not receive notice of the hearing he failed to attend. Campos-Chaves, Singh, and Mendez-Colín, on the other hand, urge a reading of the provision’s word “or” that would distribute the phrase “did not receive notice in accordance with” across “paragraph (1) or (2).” They argue that because each can “demonstrat[e]” that he “did not receive” an NTA, they each can seek rescission of their in absentia removal orders. Pp. 7–8. (b) The Government’s provision of a single notice under either paragraph (1) or (2) defeats rescission under §1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii). The word “ ‘or’ ” is “ ‘almost always disjunctive.’ ” Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 584 U. S. 79, 87. Thus, §1229a(b)(5)’s ordinary meaning … Read more

Supreme Court Temporarily Blocks Texas Immigration Law

by
supreme court of the usa

Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed the measure, Senate Bill 4, into law in December 2023, granting local law enforcement the power to arrest migrants and judges the ability to issue orders to remove them to Mexico. This was just after US Customs and Border Protection announced it would be temporarily suspending operations at the international railway crossing bridges in Eagle Pass and El Paso, Texas, due to a surge in border crossings by migrants. Texas law, S.B. 4, is an unprecedented measure for a State to enforce immigration law and even have the ability to remove noncitizens from the country. Immediately the legal community questioned whether Texas had the authority to enforce federal immigration law or to remove noncitizens from the country. The Supreme Court of the United States will be answering that question shortly as they have. While we wait to hear what the Supreme Court has to say Texas will be blocked from implementing the new law according to the decision Justice Samuel Alito made on Monday, March 4, 2024. The law was delayed from taking effect for seven days by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in order to give the Biden administration time to appeal the matter to the Supreme Court, which they did. Now Justice Alito has delayed the implementation of the law until March 13, 2024, though the Supreme Court can extend that if they need additional time. In 2012 the Supreme Court struck down a measure that was passed by Arizona that did not go nearly as far as Texas’ S.B. 4. In Arizona v. U.S., the court’s 5-3 ruling upheld the authority of the federal government to set immigration policy and laws. The Supreme Court has a very different makeup now than it did in 2012, so it is entirely possible they will come to a different conclusion in this case. If they did allow the Texas law to stand it would change the the landscape of border security and enforcement of immigration law in the southern border states. There are very serious concerns about how Texas’ law could lead to racial profiling or instigate racial tensions in the State. Some advocates have said that the law would put Hispanics in danger and make them a target for unlawful stops and harassment by law enforcement as well as by anti-immigrant civilians. Earlier this year in Department of Homeland Security v. Texas the Court took up the issue of whether the Supreme Court should block an order by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that generally bars federal Border Patrol agents from cutting or moving razor wire installed by Texas along a portion of the U.S.-Mexico border. In that case the Supreme Court granted a request from the Biden administration to allow federal Border Patrol agents to cut or move razor wire installed by Texas along a portion of the U.S.-Mexico border. We should be hearing from SCOTUS on this matter prior to the expiration of SCOTUS’ current injunction on March 13, 2024.

Supreme Court Issues Decision on UNITED STATES v. HANSEN

by

Respondent Helaman Hansen promised hundreds of noncitizens a path to U. S. citizenship through “adult adoption.” But that was a scam. Held: Because §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) forbids only the purposeful solicitation and facilitation of specific acts known to violate federal law, the clause is not unconstitutionally overbroad.