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
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.
WASHINGTON
The Supreme Court made it harder Monday for an immigant to defend himself against a charge of unlawful entry, even though he was wrongly sent out of the country more than 20 years ago based on a DUI conviction.
The ruling will have a particular impact in California because the 9th Circuit Court based in San Francisco had allowed immigrants to win a reprieve from a federal judge if their deportation order was “fundamentally unfair.”
The high court overruled that approach Monday and said federal judges are usually not authorized to take up such complaints.
Federal law calls for deporting noncitizens who are convicted of an “aggravated felony” that is a “crime of violence.” But in 2004, the high court ruled that driving under the influence is not a crime of violence because it involves negligence rather than an intent to do harm.