|
|
Newsletter of the Madison County Virginia Republican Women
|
|
IRLI shows that district court cannot stop removal proceedings |
WASHINGTON – The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) has filed a brief in the federal district court for New Jersey opposing an effort to short-circuit congressionally mandated removal procedures in a case involving an alien whose presence or activities in the United States Secretary Marco Rubio has determined compromises United States foreign policy interests. The alien has also been charged with being deportable on a separate and independent basis--that he obtained his green card by misrepresenting material facts in his application to adjust status.
Congress has barred federal district courts from hearing challenges to actions taken to remove aliens from the country and has prescribed that all such challenges must be brought only in the courts of appeals at the completion of administrative removal proceedings. Petitioner claims that the district court can and should enjoin the government from seeking to remove him and others under the foreign policy ground of deportability, claiming that to do so would violate his First Amendment rights.
In its brief, IRLI shows that the petitioner has no chance of success in his argument because the district court has no jurisdiction or power to enjoin removal proceedings. Any review would be premature before the removal proceedings have concluded, with the brief noting that the statute protects petitioner's lawful speech absent compelling government interests to the contrary. To prevent piecemeal litigation and streamline the removal process, Congress requires aliens to exhaust their administrative remedies before seeking judicial review of their claims in a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals. This means, IRLI shows, that district courts cannot review any government action taken to commence removal proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders.
"Congress has understandably restricted federal district courts from hearing challenges to removal proceedings prior to completion of the administrative process," said Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of IRLI. "By restricting judicial review to administratively final removal orders in the courts of appeals, Congress prevents questions of removability from being litigated in two forums at once—the administrative proceedings and the district courts. As for petitioner's claims here, they must fail, because Congress did not want district courts to short-circuit the administrative process. We hope the court recognizes its lack of jurisdiction over this matter and dismisses petitioner's case."
The case is Khalil v. Joyce, 2:25-cv-01963, (D.N.J.). |
|
|
|
"By the way, the word democracy appears in none of our founding documents.
"The Founders of our nation recognized that we need government, but because the essence of government is force, and force is evil, government should be as small as possible. The Founders intended for us to have a limited republican form of government where human rights precede government and there is rule of law. Citizens, as well as government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government intervenes in civil society only to protect its citizens against force and fraud, but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange."
Walter Williams
___________________________
We Believe . . .
That the free enterprise system is the most productive supplier of human needs and economic justice
That all individuals are entitled to equal rights, justice, and opportunities and should assume their responsibilities as citizens in a free society
That fiscal responsibility and budgetary restraints must be exercised at all levels of government
That the Federal Government must preserve individual liberty by observing constitutional limitations
That peace is best preserved through a strong national defense
That faith in God, as recognized by our Founding Fathers, is essential to the moral fiber of the Nation