Opinion analysis

Congress stipulates that non-citizens who have been deported but found in the United States should be deported again quickly. The second eviction is carried out by restoring the first eviction order and usually does not require further hearings, procedures or review. A narrow exception allows people in this situation to apply for “detention” relief, which will not reduce non-citizens’ deportation or otherwise give them the right to stay in the United States. Suffer torture or persecution.in a View Tuesday at Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, The court ruled that a group of non-citizens applied for withholding relief and sought a hearing to determine whether they can be released on bail while immigration authorities review their withholding claims.

The court is divided into conservatives and liberals. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion with a six-member majority. Justice Stephen Breyer disputed herself and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Specifically, the question is whether, as non-citizens argue, a more tolerant and neutral connection process 8 USC § 1226 Subject to jurisdiction; it applies to “waiting for the decision of whether to deport the foreigner” and allows non-citizens the opportunity to hold a bail hearing before an immigration judge. The government argued that 8 USC § 1231 controlled. This part usually applies to “when a foreigner is ordered to be expelled”, and the order is “administratively final.” According to this section, non-citizens will be expelled within 90 days, and if the expulsion is not carried out within that period, the immigration manager will grant or refuse the guarantee. In practice, non-citizens are much less likely to be released under Article 1231. In view of the divergence of the circuit court on this issue, it can be said that the question of which one applies in this particular case is difficult.

Alito first inferred that non-citizens who were subject to the reinstatement of the deportation order had been “deported” and that these orders were “administratively final.” Therefore, the literal language of Article 1231 applies. Non-citizens can apply for detention relief does not change the existence of the deportation order and is the final administrative conclusion.The point is that the nature of the withholding relief is limited: “It involves where is it An alien may be removed,” Alito wrote. “However, it does not address the previous problem regardless A foreigner will be expelled from the United States. “Alito did not consider the objections and considerations considered by the lower courts-that is, in fact, most people who receive withholding tax relief stay in the United States indefinitely:”[T]The fact that repatriation by alternative countries is rare does not mean that it is legally unauthorized. “For Alito and most others, the reinstatement of the deportation order means that the deportability of the non-citizen has been finalized-although the withholding requirement means that the person may never be deported from the United States in practice.

Most people also rejected the paradox proposed by non-citizens and accepted by dissidents: Article 1231 considers expulsion within 90 days after the expulsion order ends. In the case of a reinstatement order, 90 days usually expire shortly after the initial order and the initial removal. This date is usually long before the non-citizen returns to the United States or is arrested. Non-citizens and dissidents argue that Article 1231 does not apply because Congress cannot consider that a person will be expelled within 90 days of the past few years. However, Alito did not find any inconsistencies and concluded that this section contains exceptions that cannot be removed within the specified time.

Alito also considered the arrangement of statutory terms, which “mainly follow the sequential steps of the removal process”. “Article 1226 applies before the alien goes through the expulsion procedure and obtains a decision,” he pointed out, while Article 1231 “applies after”. He concluded that the court’s decision is consistent with Congress’s obvious policy: “Foreigners who have not been ordered to be expelled are less likely to abscond, because they may be considered acceptable but have been ordered to expel. Of foreigners are usually unacceptable” and therefore are more likely to escape.

Breyer’s dissent began with a policy argument based on actual reality that a suspension of litigation usually delays: “Why does Congress refuse to hold a bail hearing for individuals who are reasonably afraid of persecution or torture, and as a result they will face potentially continuing litigation? Months or Years[?]”Breyer’s text argues that the deportation order is not administratively final until the immigration judge and the immigration appeals board resolve the withholding claim, because the withholding claim constitutes “the seeking is actually a modification, modification or detention, a’prior deportation order'” . “According to this interpretation, Article 1231 will not apply, and Article 1226 will apply. But again, most people disagree with the dissident’s concept of the nature of withholding claims and believe that this will not affect the effectiveness of the basic reinstatement of the deportation order. Sexuality or finality.

Justice Clarence Thomas agreed, and Justice Neil Gorsuch joined. Thomas argued that since this case does not involve the review of the final deportation order, nor is it based on another clear jurisdictional grant, the Immigration and Nationality Act does not grant jurisdiction to the federal courts, and non-citizens’ claims should have been based on that basis. . The other four judges in the majority and three dissenting persons disagreed.

There are also differences in terminology. Both Alito and Thomas use the term “alien” to refer to people who are not American nationals or citizens. This term is often used in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Breyer used “non-citizen”, which is a nomenclature preferred by those who think “alien” is inhuman.Justice Brett Kavanaugh is one of the justices I prefer the term “non-citizen”. The Office of the Attorney General also Recently, “non-citizens” have been used to replace “aliens.”