Thread: Undocumented immigrant has burden of proof to challenge deportation order, Supreme Co

Undocumented immigrant has burden of proof to challenge deportation order, Supreme Court rules



By Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter 13 mins ago

---

The Supreme Court ruled against an undocumented immigrant on Thursday who has been living in the United States for more than 25 years but faces deportation because of a misdemeanor conviction in state court.





© Robert Alexander/Getty Images


WASHINGTON, D.C. - APRIL 19, 2018: The U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C., is the seat of the Supreme Court of the United States and the Judicial Branch of government. (Photo by Robert Alexander/Getty Images)


In a 5-3 opinion, penned by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court held that Clemente Pereida, who was born and raised in Mexico but came to the United States illegally in 1995, bears the burden under immigration law to prove that he is eligible to have his deportation canceled.

Federal law, Gorsuch wrote, "expressly requires individuals seeking relief from lawful removal orders to prove all aspects of their eligibility."

The court's opinion will make it more difficult for some undocumented immigrants who have lived a substantial time in the United States to challenge deportation orders, especially because they are often poor and unable to afford counsel.

Pereida was convicted in November 2009 of using another person's Social Security card, a misdemeanor, and his conviction led the Department of Homeland Security to issue a deportation order. Pereida applied to have his deportation canceled but was denied by an immigration judge who ruled that his underlying crime involved "moral turpitude."

The US attorney general has the discretion to cancel an order of removal unless the individual has been convicted of a crime involving "moral turpitude."

Pereida's lawyers appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that there is ambiguity on whether his crime did in fact involve "moral turpitude" and because of that, he should not be deported.

The court disagreed on Thursday, holding that Pereida must prove that he does "not stand convicted of a disqualifying criminal offense."

Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by his liberal colleagues Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented.

Breyer noted that Pereida has been in the states for "roughly 25 years" and has raised three children with his wife. He said that the majority's decision "risks hinging noncitizens' eligibility for relief from removal on the varied charging practices of state prosecutors."

Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not participate in the decision because she was not yet on the court when the case was argued.



https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/un...?ocid=msedgdhp

They come here and STEAL our identities and cause great harm to their victims.

Deport him out of here today. His "family" is free to leave with him.

We are sick of these LYING criminal trespassing illegal aliens destroying our lives, while we have to pick up the pieces, and destroying our country.

This person is a THIEF, get it off our soil.

The only reason we should be deporting illegal immigrants is because they are here illegally and for no other reason. If establishing priority for deporting illegals is because they run afoul of the law, then this is acceptable, but only if they are deported only because they are here illegally, and only after they are charged and tried for other crimes they may have committed to come under scrutiny by law enforcement.

But in the end, we are up against the vast corruption of sanctuary administered law enforcement. Nobody who is here illegally should ever imagine that they are immune from being seized and deported, ever. Law enforcement should always be on the lookout for illegal immigrants and move to have them deported in an instant at any occasion.