Justices limit federal court review of some deportations

A sharply divided Supreme Court has ruled that federal courts are powerless to review immigration officials’ decisions in some deportation cases, even when they have made what a dissenting justice called “egregious factual mistakes.”

Via AP news wire
Monday 16 May 2022 18:04
Supreme Court
Supreme Court

A sharply divided Supreme Court on Monday ruled that federal courts are powerless to review immigration officials' decisions in some deportation cases, even when they have made what a dissenting justice called “egregious factual mistakes.”

The court ruled 5-4 against Georgia resident Pankajkumar Patel, who checked a box indicating he was a U.S. citizen when renewing his Georgia driver’s license in 2008.

An immigration judge, who is a Justice Department employee, concluded Patel intended to misrepresent his status for the purpose of getting his license, even though Georgia law entitled a noncitizen in Patel’s situation to a license to drive.

Patel and his wife, Jyotsnaben, concede they entered the U.S. illegally roughly 30 years ago since leaving their native India. In 2007, Patel applied for a “green card,” legal permanent residency status, with the support of his employer. The Patels have three children. One is a U.S. citizen and the other two are green-card holders who are married to Americans.

But Patel's quest for legal status foundered on the license application, and the immigration judge's decision that Patel had intentionally misrepresented his citizenship status. The judge ordered Patel and his wife deported.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for five conservative justices that federal courts can't review such decisions under immigration law. The U.S. attorney general can grant protection from deportation, but people must first be eligible and the result of the immigration judge's decision was that Patel was ineligible.

“Federal courts have a very limited role to play in this process,” Barrett wrote concluding that immigration law “precludes judicial review of factual findings that underlie a denial of relief.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch joined with the court's three liberal justices in dissent. “As a result, no court may correct even the agency’s most egregious factual mistakes about an individual’s statutory eligibility for relief,” Gorsuch wrote, noting the agency itself sided with Patel at the Supreme Court.

While the high-court case dealt with deportation, Gorsuch wrote that the decision could foreclose court review when immigration officials make errors of fact in other contexts, “the student hoping to remain in the country, the foreigner who marries a U. S. citizen, the skilled worker sponsored by her employer.”

Pointing to government statistics, Gorsuch wrote that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services rejected 13,000 green-card applications in the last three months of 2021 and has a backlog of nearly 790,000 pending cases.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in