Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Reading the fine print in the Abrego-Garcia Case
I’m beginning to wonder how many of the judges, lawyers, law professors, and reporters who have such strong views on the Trump administration’s removal of “a Maryland father” to El Salvador have actually read the underlying Immigration Court decisions with any degree of care.
Guessing not many. Maybe even none.
Well, I’ve read it. It’s only 14 pages long.
The October 2019 decision that granted his request for withholding of removal to El Salvador discusses all of the dangers he claims he’d face if he returned there.
But then the immigration judge concludes — and maybe this is a typo? — that it would be too dangerous to return him to (wait for it) GUATEMALA!
Probably a mistake by the judge, since the entire rest of the decision focuses on El Salvador. But the fact is that the decision does not clearly prohibit his return to El Salvador. If anything, it appears to prohibit his removal to Guatemala.
Maybe at some point, some of the lawyers defending the Trump administration, the judges considering the case, or the reporters covering it will pick up on this.
I’m not holding my breath.
Published in Immigration
Interesting bit. You’d think a Jonathan Turley or the like, would have picked up on that by now.
This is a case of being careful what you ask for. Since the 1980s Article III courts have been ruled by the “Chevron Doctrine” of deference to administrative judges such as the Immigration Courts*. SCOTUS just recently put this on its head. In his concurring opinion last June Mr. Justice Thomas argued that Chevron had required judges to give up their constitutional power to exercise their independent judgment, and it allows the executive branch to “exercise powers not given to it.” The court giveth and the court taketh away.
*Immigration judges are term limited and appointed by the Attorney General and do not receive confirmation from the Senate.
Chevron deference had to do with statutory interpretation, requiring courts to defer to an agency’s plausible interpretation of its empowering statutes. It never applied to factfinding. And under the applicable immigration statutes, judicial review is very limited when reviewing decisions of Immigration Judges and the Board of Immigration Review.
Or maybe it is something else . Could the defense attorneys have made up this rival gang that was from Guatemala?
Would you please post a link to the judgment?
I’d love to, but I was only able to read it buy accessing the US District Court of Maryland’s docket system, which is generally only accessible to attorneys. I’ll keep looking to see if I can find it publicly available somewhere on the internet.
As I understand it, the danger of his return was because of gang presence. His family moved from El Salvador, I believe to Guatemala, to avoid reprisals for keeping him out of a gang situation. Fast forward and he’s hanging out with MS-13 members in the US. The reasoning of the judge may have been that his presence where the family was put them in danger, but that would only cover Guatemala, as the ruling says.
Bottom line: he came here illegally. He was deported to his home country where his presence was no longer a threat to the rest of his family. The fact pattern that supposedly prevented his deportation in 2019 no longer existed.
Still, if someone fears for his life in El Salvador or Guatemala, there’s no reason he has to come here. Go be scared in Mexico or somewhere. It’s closer.
Why does everyone with problems always seem to think that the only solution is to pick up ant relocate to America?
If the ruling actually says Guatemala rather than El Salvador, I don’t get why Homan, Rubio, Trump, etc aren’t “shouting from the rooftops?”
It says Guatemala at the end, but it’s pretty clear throughout that the IJ also recognized dangers in El Salvador.
Even the dangers in El Salvador seemed to be from “rival gangs” which would seem to be MORE reason to deport him, not less. If he needed to be protected from rival gangs, that would be El Salvador’s responsibility, not ours.
Danger from rival gangs MIGHT be relevant to an asylum claim (I’m not sure, as I’m not an immigration lawyer, but “danger” can be a basis for an asylum claim). But Mr. Garcia does not appear to have sought asylum, having not brought the danger issue up until he was ordered deported. Even if he did claim asylum, the rules of asylum say he should have done so in the first available country. As noted by The Scarecrow, just because he feels he is in danger in one place does not require that the United States let him in when he has skipped over several closer places in which he could seek refuge.
Ultimately, none of this matters to these judges. All they want to do is reflexively thwart anything that Trump does. The whole thing is really tiresome and SCOTUS needs to step in and put an end to this judge-shopping nonsense. It seems to me to be an easy call, but Roberts needs to demonstate that under those robes he has the cojones to do something serious. I seriously doubt that he would have much trouble getting the support of at least four other justices.
Isn’t citing danger from a “rival gang” at least implicitly admitting membership in a gang?
Maybe Trump should change strategy and insist that they all stay here indefinitely. Then the crazy judges might start arranging deportations immediately.
I read the judge’s stay on Abrego Garcia’s deportation order. I thought that “Guatemala” was a mistake but didn’t think further about it. Good point in this post.
The danger was due to extortion from a gang, not due to membership in a gang.
You can get it off of courtlistener, which is a free alternative to PACER: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69777799/1/1/abrego-garcia-v-noem/
Then why was it described as “rival” gang? It’s only a “rival” gang for someone who’s a member of a DIFFERENT gang.
Yes, key word there is “rival”, not “gang”.