Supreme Court Overturns Deportation Order in Mellouli v. Lynch
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Moones Mellouli, a lawful permanent resident who was deported to his home country of Tunisia after pleading guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia.
Mellouli was arrested in 2010 for driving under the influence with a suspended license. When police found Adderall pills in his socks, Mellouli plead guilty to DWI and possession of drug paraphernalia – not for the pills, but for the sock that contained them. After his one year probation, ICE arrested Mellouli and an immigration judge ordered him deported. Though possession of drug paraphernalia is a minor offense not listed in federal law, the deportation was upheld by the Board of Immigration Appeals and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The University of Minnesota’s Center for New Americans took on Mellouli’s case and presented it before the Supreme Court, arguing that drug paraphernalia is not listed under the Federal Controlled Substance Act and therefore not grounds for deportation. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mellouli, establishing that the government cannot deport legal permanent residents for minor drug paraphernalia offenses not covered under the Federal Controlled Substances Act. The court’s decision is a victory for Mellouli and many other immigrants who currently face deportation orders for minor drug-related charges.
Mata v. Lynch: Supreme Court Rules that Fifth Circuit Must Review
The Supreme Court ruled 8-to-1 in Mata v. Lynch that federal district courts have the authority to review immigration decisions denying motions to reopen removal orders.
When Noel Mata failed to file a motion to reopen his immigration petition on time due to ineffective assistance of counsel, he asked the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to “equitably toll” or waive the filing deadline. Equitably tolling allows courts to waive a deadline in instances where an individual acted in due diligence but was nevertheless unable to file on time. When the BIA denied Mr. Mata’s motion, the case was brought before the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit side stepped the issue, claiming that it did not have the authority to revisit immigration decisions made by the BIA.
In the final ruling of Mata v. Lynch, the Supreme Court found that while federal courts like the Fifth Circuit have limited authority over certain immigration decisions, they do have the authority – and the responsibility – to review immigration decisions denying motions to reopen removal orders.
U.S. Settles in Wrongful Detention Case
In 2011, four-year-old U.S. citizen “E.R.” was detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) when her plane landed at a Virginia airport. She and her grandfather were detained for twenty hours, during which time E.R. was given only a cold floor to sleep on and a soda and a cookie to eat. She was deprived of contact with her parents, who awaited her in New York, and flown back to Guatemala. When she reunited with her family in the United States three weeks later, she was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder related to her detention. E.R.’s father, Leonel Ruiz, sued the U.S. government for damages for his daughter’s suffering.
Though the government claimed that CBP’s actions fell within Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy, the court found that CBP’s treatment of E.R. during her detention directly violated terms agreed upon by CBP in Flores v. Reno regarding the detention of minors. Now four years after the incident, the government has agreed to settle the case and pay $32,500 in damages to the Ruiz family.
Supreme Court Upholds Visa Denial in Kerry v. Din
In the final ruling of Kerry v. Din, the Supreme Court upheld the visa denial for Mr. Kanishka Berashk.
In 2009 Mr. Berashk’s visa was denied, according to the State Department, for his participation in terrorist activity. Mr. Berashk, who worked as a civil servant in Afghanistan, and wife Fauzia Din pressed for a more detailed answer, but due to consular nonreviewability – a legal doctrine which states that a consular officer’s decision in a visa petition is not subject to judicial review – Mr. Berashk and Ms. Din were unable to pursue the matter further.
When the case was brought before a California appellate court, Ms. Din – an American citizen – argued that the visa denial interfered with her fundamental right to marriage. The appellate court agreed with Ms. Din, ruling that she at least deserved a legitimate reason for the denial. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court found that Mr. Berashk’s visa denial did not interfere with Ms. Din’s right to life, liberty, or property and upheld the State Department’s denial. According to the Supreme Court, the government had already gone above and beyond its due process requirements.
Ultimately the decision was split 5-4 with no majority opinion. Justice Stephen G. Breyer of the dissent wrote, “The reason given is analogous to telling a criminal defendant only that he is accused of ‘breaking the law’; telling a property owner only that he cannot build because environmental rules forbid it; or telling a driver only that police pulled him over because he violated traffic laws.”
Disclaimer: This newsletter is provided as a public service and not intended to establish an attorney client relationship. Any reliance on information contained herein is taken at your own risk.