Thread: Supreme Court to review rules for some deportations

Court to review rules for some deportations

The Associated Press
Published: Tuesday, Sep. 27, 2011 - 7:47 am

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Obama administration's appeal of lower court rulings in favor of immigrants who were seeking to avoid being deported.

The justices said Tuesday they would review two rulings by the federal appeals court in San Francisco that allowed immigrants accused of crimes to try to stop their deportations.

Both cases hinge on a provision of immigration law that allows people who have been in the United States legally for more than five years or illegally for more than seven years to seek leniency. The appeals court said immigrants who came as children could count their parents' years in the United States.

The Obama administration opposes that rule, saying it conflicts with its "high-priority efforts to remove criminal aliens."

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/09/27/394216 ... -some.html

The Obama administration opposes that rule, saying it conflicts with its "high-priority efforts to remove criminal aliens."

Wow, a glimmer of intelligence.

Justices to rule on deportations

Mcclatchy Newspapers Mcclatchy Newspapers
Wednesday, September 28, 2011 12:00 am

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court will decide whether the government is free to deport illegal immigrants who came to this country as children and whose parents became lawful residents in the United States.

The issue before the high court has echoes of last week's debate among Republican presidential contenders, when Texas Gov. Rick Perry was criticized for his state's policy of giving in-state tuition to students who are illegal immigrants. Perry argued that students who came to Texas through "no fault of their own" should not be denied the benefits of low tuition in the state's colleges.

The case before the high court concerns whether U.S. immigration officials should avoid deporting illegal immigrants who came to this country as minors and, as Perry said, through no fault of their own. The government says it mainly targets criminals for deportation, and the immigrant in this case was arrested for trying to smuggle children across the border.

Courts on the West Coast have blocked deportation orders for some illegal immigrants because their parents had gained "permanent residence" status and lived in the United States for more than seven years. Federal law cites these two factors as reasons for halting a deportation. And the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has taken it a step further, deciding that a "parent's status as a lawful permanent resident is imputed" to the "children residing with that parent."

But Obama administration lawyers said the 9th Circuit is the only appeals court to adopt that view, and it is wrong as a matter of law. They urged the Supreme Court to rule that immigrants cannot "rely on a parent's status" to avoid deportation.

In appealing the issue, U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. said the 9th Circuit's approach "precludes uniform administration of the immigration laws (and) also impedes the government's high-priority efforts to remove criminal aliens."

The government said it did not have statistics on how often this issue arises. However, it said more than 40 percent of "all cancellation of removal applications" were filed last year in California and the other eight states where the 9th Circuit had jurisdiction.

The case before the court concerns a Mexican native who came to California in 1989 when he was 5. Carlos Martinez Gutierrez went to school in Santa Clara County and has worked since then at a K-mart and a Costco Wholesale store. In 2005, however, he was arrested after crossing into the United States with three undocumented children. He was charged with attempted alien smuggling and was slated for deportation.

But an immigration judge canceled the deportation, citing the fact that Martinez's father had been a lawful permanent resident in 1991 and that Martinez had grown up in his father's home.

Disputing this decision, Verrilli said Martinez cannot rely on his father's permanent residence to ward off deportation.

Washington lawyer Stephen Kinnaird, who has urged the court to uphold the 9th Circuit's decision, said its approach "is important for maintaining the family-unity policy in our immigration laws."

The high court said it will hear the case of Holder v. Martinez Gutierrez early next year.

http://azstarnet.com/news/national/govt ... z1ZHDMzDvx

Related

Supreme Court to decide deportation issue

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-251201.html

U.S. Supreme Court case raises issues for children of illegal immigrants
Share

By Michael Doyle

WASHINGTON – Carlos Martinez Gutierrez got caught smuggling three Mexican children into California. Now, his travails have reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

On Tuesday, the court agreed to hear Gutierrez's case, which raises questions potentially crucial for other children of illegal immigrants.

If Gutierrez wins, some immigrants may find it easier to avoid removal and stay in the United States.

"The case is significant," Gutierrez's appellate attorney, Stephen Kinnaird, said Tuesday, adding that "you can have possible breakups of families" in certain circumstances.

Gutierrez's attempted alien smuggling through the San Ysidro port of entry in December 2005 does not, by itself, concern the court. Gutierrez's subsequent efforts to avoid being kicked out of the country, however, matter a great deal.

An immigration judge agreed with Gutierrez, a legal permanent resident, that he had lived legally in the United States long enough to deserve another chance after his 2005 arrest. The judge, later supported by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, rejected Department of Homeland Security efforts to remove Gutierrez.

In calculating Gutierrez's legal residency in the United States, the immigration judge and the 9th Circuit included the years he spent with his family before he gained legal status on his own. The Obama administration argues this was too generous. Only Gutierrez's time since he gained independent legal status should count, the administration says.

"The practical consequences of the 9th Circuit's aberrant … rule are significant," U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. stated in a brief, adding that "it also impedes the government's high-priority effort to remove criminal aliens."

For good or for ill, the consequences will be particularly felt in California, Washington, Idaho and other Western states covered by the 9th Circuit, where Verrilli noted that nearly half of all so-called "cancellation of removal" applications arise. These are cases, like Gutierrez's, in which immigrants seek to avoid being removed from the United States.

When the Department of Homeland Security wanted to kick Gutierrez out of the United States, he sought protection under a law that turns on how long someone has been in this country.

The law permits a judge to cancel removal proceedings and let an immigrant stay in the United States if, among other conditions, the immigrant has been "lawfully admitted for permanent residence for not less than five years."

Gutierrez's family entered the United States illegally in 1988 or 1989, when he was 5. In 1991, his father attained legal U.S. residence status. The family eventually ended up in the Bay Area, where Gutierrez attended high school near San Jose.

In October 2003, Gutierrez attained legal U.S. residency at age 19. Two years after that, with his father disabled and his mother unemployed, he agreed to smuggle several minors into the United States in exchange for $1,500.

Nonetheless, a judge ruled Gutierrez can stay in this country, in part because he met the legal residency requirement.

"The parent's admission for permanent residence (in 1991) was also imputed to the parent's minor children," Immigration Judge Zsa Zsa C. DePaolo reasoned.

The Obama administration retorts that the clock for Gutierrez really only started ticking in 2003, as "the actions and status of others, including the alien's parents, are irrelevant" in counting eligibility.


http://www.sacbee.com/2011/09/28/394378 ... ni_popular

This is the crap that bogs down the courts and deportation process.
The laws are clear. Deport the whole lot of them.

"Gutierrez's family entered the United States illegally in 1988 or 1989, when he was 5. In 1991, his father attained legal U.S. residence status."

Never should of happened. "legal U.S. residence status." Illegal alien with felony, simple. Jail em, deport em!