Sessions limits U.S. judges' ability to dismiss deportation cases

[webfact]

Sessions limits U.S. judges' ability to dismiss deportation cases

By Kristina Cooke and Reade Levinson

 

United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions speaks at Valor Survive and Thrive Conference in Waukegan, Illinois, U.S., September 19, 2018. REUTERS/Kamil Krzaczynski

 

SAN FRANCISCO/NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced new limits on the ability of immigration judges to terminate deportation cases on Wednesday, the latest in a series of decisions to facilitate the removal of immigrants in the country illegally.

 

Unlike the federal judiciary system, U.S. immigration courts fall under the Department of Justice and the attorney general can rewrite opinions issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Sessions, a Republican former U.S. senator appointed by President Donald Trump, has been unusually active in this practice compared to his predecessors.

 

In his most recent decision, Sessions said judges can only terminate or dismiss cases in “specific and circumscribed” circumstances. Judges “have no inherent authority to terminate removal proceedings even though a particular case may pose sympathetic circumstances,” he said.

 

The decision laid out specific circumstances under which immigration judges can terminate deportation proceedings, including in cases where the government cannot prove its case for removal. Judges can also terminate proceedings if the government asks for a dismissal or to allow an immigrant time for a final hearing on a pending petition for naturalization when the matter involves “exceptionally appealing or humanitarian factors.”   

 

Having a deportation case terminated does not confer legal status on an immigrant, but it does give them time to pursue other avenues of remaining in the country legally. The Department of Homeland Security can place immigrants whose cases are dismissed back into deportation proceedings with a new charging document.

 

“The decision is the next step in a concerted effort by the A.G. to undermine judicial independence and to minimize the role of judges in immigration court,” said Kate Voigt, associate director of government relations at the American Immigration Lawyers’ Association.

 

Dana Leigh Marks, president emeritus of the National Association of Immigration Judges, said the decision “shows again the amount of pressure being applied to judges to move cases forward towards removal as quickly as possible.”

 

The Department of Justice declined to comment.

 

(Reporting by Kristina Cooke in San Francisco and Reade Levinson in New York; Editing by Tom Brown)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-09-20

[Boon Mee]

Good move on Sessions part. 

[Chomper Higgot]

37 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

Good move on Sessions part. 

Plays well with Trump’s diminishing illiberal and racist base.

 

Tge rest of America will give its opinion in November.

[habanero]

13 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Plays well with Trump’s diminishing illiberal and racist base.

 

Tge rest of America will give its opinion in November.

What is racist about deporting illegals?

[Thaidream]

3 hours ago, habanero said:

rest of America will give its opinion in November.

Yes- and the opinion of the people will put the Democrats in Congress back in power and will be a severe check to Trump and his ultra Nationalist  movement.

 

The interference of the Attorney General is disgusting.  Even though someone entered America illegally- there is such a thing as due process and a fair hearing.  Sessions  is attempting to thwart this system by telling a judge what they can do or not.  It is the law which  should be foremost at a hearing as well as the personal circumstances of the defendant when making their case.The Attorney Genral does not make laws- the US Congress does.

 

The real problem is that Donald Trump is pushing his own version of the Immigration law when he should be working with Congress to develop a new Immigration law that provides for a system in which people can enter America legally. Since most come for work- how about a temporary work visa.   The current system is broken and Sessions is breaking it even further.

[Srikcir]

34 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

Sessions  is attempting to thwart this system by telling a judge what they can do or not. 

Actually Sessions is using this system - immigration judges are not part of an independent judiciary.

Essentially, normal assumptions about judicial independence and freedom from political influence do not apply in immigration proceedings.

The judge is from the Department of Justice, which has law enforcement duties determined by the attorney general. Since the government's prosecutor comes from Immigration and Customs Enforcement—a Department of Homeland Security agency tasked with immigration enforcement—their political priorities may overlap.

https://psmag.com/social-justice/how-does-immigration-court-work

 

[mejomini]

43 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

The real problem is that Donald Trump is pushing his own version of the Immigration law when he should be working with Congress to develop a new Immigration law that provides for a system in which people can enter America legally. Since most come for work- how about a temporary work visa.   The current system is broken and Sessions is breaking it even further.

That's been tried before. Congress is incapable of coming together with a bipartisan immigration plan.  Come in legally or stay out.

[sukhumvitneon]

The US isn't a flophouse.  Come legally or get deported.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, sukhumvitneon said:

The US isn't a flophouse.  Come legally or get deported.

You mean it used to be a flop house, now those who flopped first are trying to pull up the ladder on those stillseaking the American Dream.

[Chomper Higgot]

13 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Actually Sessions is using this system - immigration judges are not part of an independent judiciary.

Essentially, normal assumptions about judicial independence and freedom from political influence do not apply in immigration proceedings.

The judge is from the Department of Justice, which has law enforcement duties determined by the attorney general. Since the government's prosecutor comes from Immigration and Customs Enforcement—a Department of Homeland Security agency tasked with immigration enforcement—their political priorities may overlap.

https://psmag.com/social-justice/how-does-immigration-court-work

 

But the Constitution overridestge lot.

[underlordcthulhu]

4 hours ago, habanero said:

What is racist about deporting illegals?

It's only 'racist' when Western countries do it.

You don't hear a peep from the soyed out members of society when other countries do it. 

[Thaidream]

I am not arguing not to deport people- but if they use the system to get a hearing- the hearing needs to be based upon a fair and equitable law that is designed in a way that adheres to responsible and fair laws.  Nothing like this exists in US Immigration law or procedures. Most people cannot and do not understand the law and how it works. The system is overburdened and the fact that judges can be given direction on how to rule by the Attorney general makes a mockery of the system/

 

When a so called civilized country like America takes minor children from illegals and separates them from their mother and father and then deports the parents while the children languish in a detention camp is blatantly unfair.  Then a US court orders that the process be stropped and the families re-united and the US Immigration Department admits that it's record keeping is flawed and cannot re-unite Mom and Dad with their children.  The system is not only broken but is inhumane and a blemish on the United States.

 

There are by most accounts 11 million illegal aliens in America- the majority gainfully employed doing jobs that Americans refuse to do because they are minimum wage jobs or the job is  overly dirty or physically challenging.  American industry needs to fill the jobs. Does anyone really believe if everyone was deported that Americans would work these jobs.

 

What is so hard about coming up  with a real Immigration Law- that allows much needed labor to fill these kind of jobs by proving Temporary Visas. What is so hard about providing legitimacy to children brought in as illegals by their parents?  They had no way to refuse or even understand the consequences.

 

You want border security?  Go ahead do it.  However, a useless $25 Billion Wall is simply a cosmetic approach.  No wall needed- spend the money on technology; more border agents and intelligence.  

 

Once you do all of the above and provide a legal way for people to come into the US- there will be  much less people who will even try to enter illegally.

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, Thaidream said:

What is so hard about coming up  with a real Immigration Law

More Immigration Would Mean More Democrats?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/10/immigration-democratic-party-republican-party-dream-act-party-affiliation-conservatives-limited-government-traditional-values/

 

[Thaidream]

17 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

More Immigration Would Mean More Democrats?

Yes and therein lies the rub.  However, come November- after the vote-the House will switch to Democrats and possibly the Senate.  Actually, I dislike both- no one ever puts the country above partisanship.  There are so many tings wrong with America- stating with a system that would allow Donald Trump to become President when he lost the popular vote. The interesting thing though is Trump actually knows what the problems are- it's his solutions that are disastrous.

[usacb500biker]

New requirement 4- 6 years college. Send them back HOME. Why the USA takes 5- 10 years to deport 

[puck2]

I learnt in school about the judiciary that it is one of the three shelters of a democracy and should be nonpartisan.

 

In the USA under Trump and Sessions it is intensively regulated by the executive. This is evidently shown day by day.

 

This is another proof for what I said before: the US political and state system and especially the judiciary is like a Swiss cheese – full of holes.

[Esso49]

3 minutes ago, puck2 said:

I learnt in school about the judiciary that it is one of the three shelters of a democracy and should be nonpartisan.

 

In the USA under Trump and Sessions it is intensively regulated by the executive. This is evidently shown day by day.

 

This is another proof for what I said before: the US political and state system and especially the judiciary is like a Swiss cheese – full of holes.

And if you leave Swiss cheese out too long it starts to stink

[Srikcir]

27 minutes ago, puck2 said:

In the USA under Trump and Sessions it is intensively regulated by the executive.

It is not.

Immigration court does not belong to the Judiciary branch but to the Executive branch.

You learned correctly.

[bendejo]

My bet is that after Nov. 6th Li'l Jeffro is out, regardless of the election outcome.

 

 

[bendejo]

6 hours ago, puck2 said:

I learnt in school about the judiciary that it is one of the three shelters of a democracy and should be nonpartisan.

 

This myth was debunked during the outcome of the 2000 election.

 

 

[puck2]

On 9/20/2018 at 8:37 PM, Srikcir said:

It is not.

Immigration court does not belong to the Judiciary branch but to the Executive branch.

You learned correctly.

Please help me to understand this nonsense.

If a judiciary branch belongs to the executive then there is no independent third shelter in a democracy!  And that is how democracy is defined: 3 independent (!) powers in a state !!!

Therefore I repeat it, the US judiciary is like a Swiss cheese. Don't let me talk about the US Supreme Court, stinking cheese.

[puck2]

18 hours ago, bendejo said:

 

This myth was debunked during the outcome of the 2000 election.

 

 

Do you think of Bush vs. Gore - election results?

 

I think more disastrous was its decision to open the flood gates for party donations. Since this time cash/money is king in the US elections.