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.). |
Posts
