Supreme Court rules against immigrant who was denied the opportunity to argue against deportation


WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Thursday against an immigrant who has lived in the country illegally for 25 years and who claimed to have wrongly faced deportation for a relatively minor felony of using a fake social security card.

Deputy Judge Neil Gorsuch wrote the 5-3 advisory and was joined by four of the court’s curators. The High Court ruled that the immigrant, Clemente Pereida, failed to meet the burden required to show that he should have been allowed to present his case to avoid deportation.

“Those seeking redress from a legal removal order carry a heavy burden,” Gorsuch wrote. “Mr. Pereida failed to carry this burden.”

Although Pereida’s journey through the American legal system began before President Donald Trump, the case is one of many to be taken to court at a time when federal immigration policies are likely to change under President Joe Biden.

Following: Biden administration could allow families separated at the Mexican border to reunite in the United States

The court announced last month that it would take up a case over a Trump settlement allowing federal officials to refuse green cards and visas to immigrants whether they believe that beneficiaries will receive public benefits such as food stamps, Medicaid or housing vouchers. Another case, debated last month, deals with what happens when a migrant seeking asylum does not convince an immigration judge of their case, but that judge also fails to draw a specific conclusion putting in question. doubts his credibility.

But in this case, Pereida arrived in the United States from Mexico in 1995 and was deported in 2009. He requested that his deportation be set aside but was denied consideration by an immigration judge. on a felony charge of attempted identity theft, for which he paid a fine of $ 100. .

An immigrant threatened with deportation can apply to the Attorney General to “quash” a removal order if he meets certain conditions, including that he has not been convicted of certain criminal offenses of “moral turpitude”. Under federal law, the Attorney General can overturn up to 4,000 removal orders each year.

Federal authorities, including an immigration judge, have ruled that Pereida was not eligible to present his case because he had committed a disqualifying crime when he was arrested in Nebraska in 2009 for using a debit card. fraudulent social security to get a cleaning job.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the St. Louis-based 8thCircuit said it was not clear whether the crime was reaching the threshold to prevent it from presenting its case. But the appeals court ruled that the onus was on Pereida to demonstrate that he could meet the eligibility requirements to have his deportation overturned and that he had not done so.

Pereida allegedly argued that his deportation presented an extraordinary hardship for his son, an American citizen, and other members of his family, according to court records.

Associate Judge Stephen Breyer disagreed with the majority opinion and was joined by Associate Justices Sonia sotomayor and Elena kagan. Deputy Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who was not yet seated when the case was argued in October, was not part of the decision.

“Today’s decision may make the administration of immigration law less fair and less predictable,” Breyer wrote.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that other circumstances involving relatively minor crimes do not automatically lead to deportation. In 2015, for example, the court overturned an attempted deportation of a green card holder arrested on drug paraphernalia for wearing a sock with four prescription drug pills.

The Supreme Court building on November 2, 2020, in Washington, DC

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court rules in case involving immigrant with citizen son


Comments are closed.