Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said each ‘alien’ was provided all the details they needed for their immigration hearing. One immigrant brought his case 13 years after being deported.
Addressing a potential new immigration battlefront, the Supreme Court has blocked immigrants from challenging their deportation orders − even when the government’s initial hearing notices are incomplete.
In a 5-4 decision on Friday, the high court sided with the federal government and said immigrants can be ordered deported “in absentia” if they don’t show up for their immigration hearings as long as the government provides a notice at some point.
Three immigrants challenged their deportation orders after missing their hearings, claiming the government didn’t provide adequate information about the place and time of the proceedings.
In separate cases that were rolled into one before the court, Esmelis Campos-Chaves, Varinder Singh and Raul Daniel Mendez-Colín each asked the courts to rescind an “in absentia” deportation order and allow them to stay in the country.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied one of the petitions, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the other two.
‘Notice to Appear’ in immigration court
When migrants seek asylum or other protection at the southern border, and they clear a criminal background check, Border Patrol agents typically provide them with a “Notice to Appear,” or NTA, with a hearing date in immigration court.
The notice is typically for a hearing in their destination city – in Chicago, Dallas or New York, for example – not at the U.S. border.
“Though the facts vary, the key details are the same in each case,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion. “The Government failed to provide a single document NTA, but eventually provided each alien with a notice specifying the time and place of the removal hearing.”
The U.S. code uses the word “alien” to describe foreigners, though immigrant advocates view the term as pejorative.
In one of the cases, Campos-Chaves, who is from El Salvador, didn’t show up for his immigration hearing in 2005. An immigration judge ordered him removed. Thirteen years later, Campos-Chaves challenged the immigration judge’s “in absentia” order of removal on the grounds that he didn’t receive a proper Notice to Appear.
Get the Susan Page newsletter in your inbox.
Get the latest story from Susan Page right in your inbox.
Delivery: VariesYour Email
But the Board of Immigration Appeals said he had received a subsequent, complete notice – a fact Campos-Chaves didn’t dispute.
The Supreme Court found immigrants without lawful status can have their “in absentia” deportation orders rescinded only if they can demonstrate they never received notice of the proceeding.
Conservative Supreme Court majority rules against the immigrants
Alito was joined in his majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered a dissenting opinion and was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Neil Gorsuch and Elena Kagan.
For years, the government has failed to ensure its Notices to Appear contain even basic information for immigration hearings such as the time or date, Brown Jackson wrote.
“Although Congress allows the Government to seek removal of noncitizens in absentia, it tempers that power with process,” Brown Jackson wrote in her dissent. Twice before, “this Court made clear that when the Government issues an NTA, that document must contain the time-and-place particulars that the statute requires.”
Alito wrote that the Court’s decision doesn’t mean the government is free of its obligation to provide hearing notices that are complete and compliant with the law.
But immigrants may not “seek rescission of removal orders in perpetuity based on arguments they could have raised in a hearing that they chose to skip,” Alito wrote.
Author:: Bagombeka Job
CREDIT:: USA TODAY
