CA - Court orders fresh hearing for deported father
Court orders fresh hearing for deported father
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, January 21, 2010
A federal appeals court reopened the case Wednesday of a Bay Area man who was deported to Mexico in 2005 and struck down a regulation that prevented him from presenting evidence that his son, a U.S. citizen, had been diagnosed with mental illness just before he was sent out of the country.
The Justice Department's rule applied to illegal immigrants who have been ordered deported but claim to have new evidence supporting their right to remain in the United States, such as recent family hardship. The regulation prohibited them from introducing such evidence after a judge ordered them deported.
Robert Jobe, a lawyer for the deportee in the case, said the ruling by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco would affect "hundreds, if not thousands" of cases.
The case involved Rafael Martinez Coyt, who entered the United States illegally from Mexico in 1984. Jobe said Martinez Coyt was living in the Bay Area in 2001 when immigration authorities moved to deport him.
An immigration judge ordered deportation in 2004, finding that Martinez Coyt's U.S. citizen children would suffer some hardship, but that he had not shown exceptional circumstances that would allow him to remain.
After an appeals board upheld the order, Martinez Coyt sought to reopen the case in September 2005, saying one of his sons had developed mental health problems and had attempted suicide.
He was deported later that day, before the appeals board could consider the evidence.
The federal court opened the door Wednesday for Martinez Coyt to present his evidence to the immigration board and seek to overturn his deportation.
The 3-0 ruling said the Justice Department's regulation conflicts with a 1996 federal law that was intended to speed up deportations while preserving immigrants' right to challenge orders.
Before 1996, Judge Sidney Thomas said, an immigrant who appealed a deportation order was entitled to remain in the United States until the courts ruled on the appeal. The 1996 law allowed immediate deportation but "anticipated that (deportees) would be able to pursue relief after departing from the United States," Thomas said.
E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... 1BL7OH.DTL
This article appeared on page C - 3 of the San Francisco Chronicle
