Results 1 to 3 of 3
Like Tree4Likes
  • 1 Post By MW
  • 3 Post By philipbrown

Thread: Prior Deportee Claims ‘Extreme Hardship’ Due Process Right

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Administrator Jean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    62,831

    Prior Deportee Claims ‘Extreme Hardship’ Due Process Right

    by LANA SHADWICK
    21 Apr 2018

    A noncitizen who was deported after he was convicted of an aggravated felony is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to find that the Constitution gives him a due process right to be informed that he has the right to allege “extreme hardship” before being deported.

    Emilio Estrada is challenging the validity of the original removal order saying that the “entry of the order was fundamentally unfair.”

    Federal officials removed Estrada after he was charged and pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by an unlawful user of a controlled substance – an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. section 1101(a)(43)(E)(ii). He illegally reentered the United States after he was deported, was discovered, and then charged with two counts of illegal reentry.

    Estrada is now appealing the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and has filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his case. He is asking the Court to find “that the entry of his removal order was fundamentally unfair because he was deprived of the opportunity to seek discretionary relief from removal.”

    His lawyers urge our nation’s highest court to hear the case because there is a split in opinions from the Sixth (Cincinnati), Second (New York City), and Ninth Circuits (San Francisco). They add that the Second and Ninth Circuits “decide the vast majority of immigration appeals.” The Ninth Circuit has been criticized for its left-of-center rulings and is noted for striking down President Trump’s ban on travel from several terrorist-prone countries.

    Lawyers for Estrada argue that Estrada was a lawful permanent resident (green-card holder), is married, and has four children who are U.S. citizens. They say he lived in Tennessee for 17 years and is the breadwinner for the family.

    In his petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, Estrada complains that his lawyer rendered ineffective assistance of counsel because he did not raise the issue that “his removal would cause ‘extreme hardship’ to his family.”

    When he illegally reentered the country and was charged for the same, Estrada sought to dismiss the indictment arguing that the deportation order violated the Due Process Clause “in light of his lawyer’s deficient performance and the immigration judge’s failure to inform him of the possibility of discretionary relief from removal.” The federal district court rejected his argument, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

    The petitioner urges that:

    For Mr. Estrada and many noncitizens, this issue is critically important. Nearly one hundred thousand individuals face removal every year. For many, discretionary relief-which is granted not infrequently-is the only hope of remaining in this country.

    The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Solicitor General, has until May 4th to file a response to Estrada’s petition for a writ of certiorari.

    The U.S. Supreme Court has the discretion to decide whether or not to hear a case.

    The case is styled: Emilio Estrada v. United States, No. 17-1233.

    http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2018/...process-right/
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #2
    MW
    MW is online now
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    21,622
    In his petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, Estrada complains that his lawyer rendered ineffective assistance of counsel because he did not raise the issue that “his removal would cause ‘extreme hardship’ to his family.”
    Duh, probably because he knew it wasn't a justifiable argument in your defense.
    artist likes this.

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    26
    In his petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, Estrada complains that his lawyer rendered ineffective assistance of counsel because he did not raise the issue that “his removal would cause ‘extreme hardship’ to his family.”
    When a person goes to a foreign country, are they not responsible for learning the basic laws including the immigration laws? I could understand the courts taking the person's lack of experience into account, but everyone visiting another country should be aware of the requirements of being there. If he failed to educate himself on the basics of immigration law, how is that our fault? Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
    MW, artist and Beezer like this.

Similar Threads

  1. Angela Merkel being sued by migrants for taking too long to process asylum claims
    By European Knight in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-22-2016, 11:12 AM
  2. For poor whites in US, hardship grows
    By Newmexican in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-29-2013, 06:52 PM
  3. MA-Illegals tell of hardship -288 comments
    By FedUpinFarmersBranch in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-19-2009, 10:29 PM
  4. A hardship for employers? Just show me the money
    By zeezil in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-18-2008, 09:09 AM
  5. Illegal Workers Face Hardship in Big Easy
    By ConcernedCitizen in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-08-2006, 07:58 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •