in United States v. Palomar-Santiago the Court held that defendants charged with unlawfully reentering the United States following an order of removal can collaterally attack the validity of the prior removal order only when three statutory prerequisites are met.
On May 24, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided
United States v. Palomar-Santiago, No. 20-437, holding that each of the statutory requirements for bringing a collateral attack against a removal order under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d) is mandatory.
In 1998, Refugio Palomar-Santiago was removed from the United States based on a conviction for felony driving under the influence (DUI) after a hearing before an immigration judge. Palomar-Santiago waived his right to appeal.
In 2017, Palomar-Santiago was found again in the United States and was indicted on one count of unlawful reentry after removal. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d), defendants facing unlawful-reentry charges can challenge their original removal orders only if they satisfy three statutory requirements: “(1) the alien exhausted any administrative remedies that may have been available to seek relief against the order; (2) the deportation proceedings at which the order was issued improperly deprived the alien of the opportunity for ju
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States issued the following two decisions:
Guam v. United States, No. 20-382: The Territory of Guam and the United States have been involved in a long-running dispute over clean-up-related costs regarding the Ordot Dump, which was first constructed and used by the Navy, and later ceded to Guam which used the dump as a public landfill. The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) later brought suit against Guam related to the dump under the Clean Water Act, which resulted in a 2004 consent decree under which Guam paid a civil penalty and agreed to close and cover the dump. Over a decade later, Guam sued the United States under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”), for claims of cost-recovery under §107(a) and for contribution under §113(f). The D.C. Circuit found that Guam had possessed a CERCLA contribution claim based on the 2004 consent decree, but that the claim was time-barred
The court rejected non-citizens’ challenge to criminal charges of re-entry
At 7:21 p.m.
Supreme Court Monday Unanimous rule Against a non-U.S. citizen who is defending his prosecution for the crime of re-entering the country.
case,
United States v. Palomar-San Diego, Involving a Mexican citizen, Refugio Palomar-Santiago, who became a legal permanent resident (ie, green card holder) in 1990. Eight years later, an immigration judge discovered that he was convicted of a felony for being affected in California. Federal immigration law. Palomar-Santiago gave up the right to appeal and was soon deported.But six years after being deported, the Supreme Court ruled
Latest Articles freerepublic.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from freerepublic.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.