These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
Viewing entries tagged
expedited removal orders
The Ninth Circuit has found that it lacks jurisdiction to review any constitutional challenges to an expedited removal order, including any credible fear proceedings.
The full text of Mendoza-Linares v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/10/24/20-71582.pdf
The court has declined to rehear the case en banc:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/07/05/20-71582.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that it has no jurisdiction to determine if a non-citizen was deprived of his right to counsel in a credible fear review because it lacks the authority to review constitutional claims related to expedited removal proceedings.
The full text of Guerrier v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/08/16/20-70115.pdf
An amended opinion was issued on November 9, 2021, and can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/11/09/20-70115.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that the Suspension Clause requires that an individual placed in expedited removal proceedings be given a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate that he is being held pursuant to the erroneous application or interpretation of relevant law, and the current limited review provided for by statute does not satisfy this requirement, as it only allows for review of whether an individual is a non-citizen, whether he was actually removed via the expedited removal process, and whether he is a lawful permanent resident or other status that exempts him from the expedited removal process.
The court noted that at its historical core, the writ of habeas corpus has served as a means of reviewing the legality of Executive detention, and it is in that context that its protections have been strongest. Therefore, when evaluating whether a substitute is adequate, the court must consider the rigor of any earlier proceedings and the intended duration of the detention and the reasons for it.
In the instant case, the petitioner contended that the government denied him a fair procedure, applied an incorrect legal standard to his credible fear contentions, and failed to comply with the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. “The core of his claim is that the government failed to follow the required procedures and apply the correct legal standards when evaluating his credible fear claim.” The court concluded that the Suspension Clause requires review of these issues because the existing statutory review does not meaningfully address these issues. Past “cases suggest that the Suspension Clause requires review of legal and mixed questions of law and fact related to removal orders, including expedited removal orders.”
The full text of Thuraissigiam v. USDHS can be found here:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/03/07/18-55313.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has held that an individual expeditiously removed by Customs and Border Protection has no right to counsel during the expedited removal process. This analysis focuses heavily on the idea that expedited orders of removal only apply to individuals who cannot prove they have been present in the United States for 14 days, and thus, not to individuals with strong ties to the United States. In light of the Trump administration's proposal to expand expedited orders of removal to individuals who cannot prove 2 years of presence in the United States, this finding may be up for review again quite soon.
The court declined to determine if a failure to advise an individual of their right to withdraw their application for admission in expedited removal proceedings violates due process, finding that the petitioner could not prove that it was plausible that such relief would have been granted.
The full text of US v. Peralta-Sanchez can be found here:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/07/14-50393.pdf
