Expedited removal

Last updated

Expedited removal is a process related to immigration enforcement in the United States where an alien is denied entry to and/or physically removed from the country, [1] without going through the normal removal proceedings (which involve hearings before an immigration judge). [2] The legal authority for expedited removal (in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA)) allows for its use against most unauthorized entrants who have been in the United States for less than two years. [3] Its rollout so far has been restricted to people seeking admission and those who have been in the United States for 14 days or less, [3] and excludes first-time violators from Mexico and Canada. [2]

Contents

History

Expedited removal was first introduced in United States immigration law as part of the IIRIRA, passed by the 104th U.S. Congress and signed into law by then U.S. President Bill Clinton. [3]

The IIRIRA gave the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (the name for the umbrella organization responsible for immigration enforcement at the time) the authority to remove from the United States, without the need for a hearing before an immigration judge, people who: [3] [4]

  1. are either applicants for admission to the United States or satisfy the following conditions: have entered the United States without admission or advance parole, and have been continuously physically present in the United States for less than two years,
  2. are inadmissible under certain statutory grounds primarily due to failure to comply with visa or other entry document requirements, and/or fraud or misrepresentation,
  3. make no claim to lawful permanent resident status, and
  4. do not seek asylum or express a fear of persecution.

Initial implementation at ports of entry (1997)

Starting April 1997, when the IIRIRA came into force, the INS implemented expedited removal only against noncitizens seeking admission at designated ports of entry (such as airports and sea ports).

Expansion to arrivals by sea and formalization of credible fear screening (2002)

In November 2002, the INS expanded the application of expedited removal to people satisfying these three conditions: [3] [5]

  1. entered the U.S. by sea, either by boat or other means,
  2. were not admitted or paroled into the U.S.
  3. have not been continuously present in the U.S. for at least two years.

Given that expedited removal now included people who were already present in the United States, and therefore might affect people eligible for asylum, the INS also introduced a credible fear screening process for those who indicated that they might be eligible for asylum. [6]

Expansion to a 100-mile border zone and all people within 14 days of arrival (2004)

In 2004, the United States Department of Homeland Security published an immediately effective notice in the Federal Register expanding the application of expedited removal to aliens who are encountered within 100 miles of any land or sea border and who entered the U.S. without inspection less than 14 days before the time they are encountered. [3] U.S. Customs and Border Protection could therefore identify possible immigration violators anywhere in this 100-mile border zone and process them for expedited removal if they had been in the country for less than 14 days.

The notice clarified that, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, the DHS would apply the expansions only to:

  1. third-country nationals (not from Mexico or Canada)
  2. Mexican or Canadian nationals with histories of criminal or immigration violations, such as smugglers or aliens who have made numerous illegal entries.

It also indicated that officers could exercise discretion not to commence expedited removal proceedings based on individual equities.

Rollout of expansion to border zone

Due to resource constraints, the expansion of expedited removal to the entire border zone did not happen immediately. The implementation was done in three phases: [3]

  1. Initially, the DHS implemented expedited removal against aliens in the Tucson (Arizona), McAllen (Texas), and Laredo (Texas) Border Patrol Sectors.
  2. In September 2005, expedited removal was expanded to all nine Border Patrol Sectors along the southwest border.
  3. In March 2006, it was announced that expedited removal had been implemented in the entire border zone.

Expansion nationwide up to two years after entry

In July 2019, it was announced that expedited removal would be implemented to include "(1) aliens who did not arrive by sea, who are encountered anywhere in the United States more than 100 air miles from a U.S. international land border, and who have been continuously present in the United States for less than two years; and (2) aliens who did not arrive by sea, who are encountered within 100 air miles from a U.S. international land border, and who have been continuously present in the United States for at least 14 days but for less than two years." [7]

Exceptions and government discretion

A number of de facto and de jure exceptions apply to expedited removal. [2]

Asylum seekers

Those who request to apply for asylum, or express a fear of persecution or torture when they make contact with immigration enforcement, are referred for a credible fear interview with a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services officer. If they are able to demonstrate to the officer that they have a credible fear of persecution or torture, they may no longer be subject to expedited removal, but go through a regular immigration hearing before a judge. [2] If they fail to convince the USCIS officer that they have a credible fear of persecution or torture, they may be subject to expedited removal.

Cuban nationals

Prior to President Obama's re-formalization of diplomatic relations with Cuba, the United States followed a "wet feet, dry feet policy". Cubans already present in the United States were eligible to stay, and weren't subject to expedited removal proceedings. However, those who arrived at a designated port of entry could be subject to expedited removal. [2]

As part of the re-normalization of diplomatic relations, on January 12, 2017, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson announced the following change: [8]

"Beginning today, DHS has rescinded certain policies unique to Cuban nationals. Specifically, DHS has eliminated a special parole policy for arriving Cuban nationals commonly known as the 'wet-foot/dry-foot' policy, as well as a policy for Cuban medical professionals known as the Cuban Medical Professional Parole Program. It is now Department policy to consider any requests for such parole in the same manner as parole requests filed by nationals of other countries."

"DHS is also eliminating an exemption that previously prevented the use of expedited removal proceedings for Cuban nationals apprehended at ports of entry or near the border. The existing Cuban Family Reunification Parole Program is not affected by this announcement and remains in effect."

Status claimants

Anybody who states under oath to a border agent that they are a citizen, lawful permanent resident, or asylee cannot be subject to expedited removal and gets an opportunity to appear before an immigration judge. Lying about one's status in these circumstances may make one inadmissible and could even lead to a lifetime bar to U.S. admission. [2]

Voluntary return

The officer at a designated port of entry may discretionarily give people being turned back the option of "voluntary return" as an alternative to expedited removal. A voluntary return also goes on the person's immigration record, but has fewer serious legal consequences for attempted future entry than an order of removal. [2]

Procedure

Order of expedited removal

After an immigration enforcement official (working for U.S. Customs and Border Protection) comes in contact with the person believed to be eligible for expedited removal, the official asks the person if they want to apply for asylum or fear persecution or torture if returned to their home country. [9]

Contesting an expedited removal order

An expedited removal order cannot be appealed. However, it is possible to submit a challenge to the order to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to reconsider an expedited removal order. [2] The challenge should be filed within 30 days of the decision. Based on the information and evidence provided, the CBP may exercise its discretion and overturn its prior expedited removal order. [10] If an expedited removal order was issued at a designated port of entry such as an airport, the affected party may also file a complaint with the DHS's Traveler Redress Inquiry Program. [10]

Effects on future admissibility to the United States

As far as the effects on future admissibility to the United States, expedited removal is treated similarly to ordinary removal. [2] For first-time offenders who have not committed an aggravated felony and did not lie under oath, the typical ban length is five years. However, the ban could be a five-year, ten-year, twenty-year, or permanent ban based on the circumstances. [11]

A "Just Facts" summary by the Immigration Policy Center identified a few other summary removal practices similar to expedited removal: [12]

Other procedures related to expedited removal include:

Reception

Criticism from civil rights, constitutional rights, and immigrant rights perspectives

A number of immigrant rights advocates have expressed concern about the lack of due process involved with expedited removal, both at designated ports of entry and for people in the border zone. [13]

The National Immigration Law Center expressed concern about the expansion of expedited removal to the entire border zone considering that the concerns expressed by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom regarding protections for asylum-seekers had not been adequately addressed. [3] Similarly, the American Civil Liberties Union has argued that expedited removal can lead to many people who would qualify for asylum getting deported. [14] The Immigration Policy Center noted that expedited removal proceedings and other rapid deportation decisions "often fail to take into account many critical factors, including whether the individual is eligible to apply for lawful status in the United States, whether he or she has long-standing ties here, or whether he or she has U.S.-citizen family members." [12]

The American Civil Liberties Union has noted that the 100-mile "border zone" within which expedited removal can be carried out houses roughly 2/3 of the United States population, and has expressed concern about the implications of these broad enforcement powers for civil rights and constitutional protections. [15]

Support from groups concerned with combating illegal immigration

The Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates reduced immigration to the United States (both legal and illegal), has noted that expedited removal, as authorized by the IIRIRA, gave the executive branch sufficient power to deport a large fraction of illegal immigrants, but that the executive branch had been exceedingly cautious with its application. [4]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Immigration and Naturalization Service</span> Former immigration service of the United States (1933–2003)

The United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) was an agency of the U.S. Department of Labor from 1933 to 1940 and the U.S. Department of Justice from 1940 to 2003.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wet feet, dry feet policy</span> US policy on Cuban migrants between 1995 and 2017

The wet feet, dry feet policy or wet foot, dry foot policy was the name given to a former interpretation of the 1995 revision of the application of the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 that essentially says that anyone who emigrated from Cuba and entered the United States would be allowed to pursue residency a year later. Prior to 1995, the U.S. government allowed all Cubans who reached U.S. territorial waters to remain in the U.S. After talks with the Cuban government, the Clinton administration came to an agreement with Cuba that it would stop admitting people intercepted in U.S. waters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996</span> Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 Key Provisions

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 made major changes to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). IIRIRA's changes became effective on April 1, 1997.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Parole (United States immigration)</span> Official permission to enter and remain temporarily in the U.S.

Parole, in the immigration laws of the United States, generally refers to official permission to enter and remain temporarily in the United States, under the supervision of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), without formal admission, and while remaining an applicant for admission.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Asylum in the United States</span> Overview of the situation of the right for asylum in the United States of America

The United States recognizes the right of asylum for individuals seeking protections from persecution, as specified by international and federal law. People who seek protection while outside the U.S. are termed refugees, while people who seek protection from inside the U.S. are termed asylum seekers. Those who are granted asylum are termed asylees.

Title 8 of the United States Code codifies statutes relating to aliens and nationality in the United States Code.

Cancellation of removal is a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of the United States that allows some aliens who are in removal proceedings, who have lived in the United States for a long period of time and meet certain other conditions, to apply to remain in the United States and have the removal proceedings terminated. Cancellation of removal was crafted by the U.S. Congress to replace "suspension of deportation," a similar form of relief available prior to April 1, 1997.

The term aggravated felony was used in the United States immigration law to refer to a broad category of criminal offenses that carry certain severe consequences for aliens seeking asylum, legal permanent resident status, citizenship, or avoidance of deportation proceedings. Anyone convicted of an aggravated felony and removed from the United States "must remain outside of the United States for twenty consecutive years from the deportation date before he or she is eligible to re-enter the United States." The supreme court ruled 5-4 in Sessions v. Dimaya that the residual clause was unconstitutionally vague limiting the term.

Removal proceedings are administrative proceedings to determine an individual's removability under United States immigration law. Removal proceedings are typically conducted in Immigration Court by an immigration judge (IJ).

The Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) is an agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security under the Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans.

Credible fear is a concept in United States asylum law whereby a person who demonstrates a credible fear of returning to their home country cannot be subject to deportation from the United States until the person's asylum case is processed.

In United States immigration enforcement, "catch and release" refers to a practice of releasing a migrant to the community while he or she awaits hearings in immigration court, as an alternative to holding them in immigration detention. The migrants whom U.S. immigration enforcement agencies have allowed to remain in the community pending immigrant hearings have been those deemed low risk, such as children, families, and those seeking asylum.

Reinstatement of removal refers to an immigration enforcement procedure in the United States in which a previously deported immigrant can be again deported for subsequent illegal entries with no required judicial review except in very limited circumstances.

Stipulated removal is a summary deportation procedure used in immigration enforcement in the United States. Stipulated removal occurs when a noncitizen who is facing removal proceedings and is scheduled for a hearing with an immigration judge signs a document stipulating that he/she is waiving the right to trial and to appeal, and is prepared to be removed immediately. The stipulation of removal must still be signed off by the judge before whom the hearing is to take place, but the noncitizen need not be physically presented to the judge. It is authorized under Section 240(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 According to the United States Code of Federal Regulations: "A stipulated order shall constitute a conclusive determination of the alien’s removability from the United States." Stipulated removal applies only to those who are scheduled for regular removal proceedings, and does not apply to people who are being removed through other summary procedures such as expedited removal, reinstatement of removal, or administrative removal for aggravated felons.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Operation Streamline</span>

Operation Streamline is a joint initiative of the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice in the United States, started in 2005, that adopts a "zero-tolerance" approach to unauthorized border-crossing by criminally prosecuting those perpetrating it. Up to 70 people are tried at the same time, sometimes wearing shackles in the courtroom. Entering without inspection is a misdemeanor, and re-entering after deportation is a felony.

Voluntary departure in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of the United States is a legal remedy available to certain aliens who have been placed in removal proceedings by the former U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) or the now Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Withdrawal of application for admission is an option that U.S. Department of Homeland Security might offer to an Arriving Alien whereby the alien chooses to withdraw his or her application to enter the United States, and immediately departs the United States. Unlike an order of removal, a withdrawal of application for admission does not create a bar to future entry.

Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which limits habeas corpus judicial review of the decisions of immigration officers, violates the Suspension Clause of Article One of the U.S. Constitution. In the 7–2 opinion, the Court ruled that the law does not violate the Suspension Clause.

Federal policy oversees and regulates immigration to the United States and citizenship of the United States. The United States Congress has authority over immigration policy in the United States, and it delegates enforcement to the Department of Homeland Security. Historically, the United States went through a period of loose immigration policy in the early-19th century followed by a period of strict immigration policy in the late-19th and early-20th centuries. Policy areas related to the immigration process include visa policy, asylum policy, and naturalization policy. Policy areas related to illegal immigration include deferral policy and removal policy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Immigration policy of the Joe Biden administration</span>

Joe Biden's immigration policy is primarily based on reversing many of the immigration policies of the previous Trump administration. During his first day in office, Biden reversed many of Trump's policies on immigration, such as halting the construction of the Mexican border wall, ending Trump's travel ban restricting travel from 14 countries, and an executive order to reaffirm protections for DACA recipients. The Biden administration and Department of Homeland Security, under leadership of Alejandro Mayorkas, dramatically reined in deportation practices of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), prioritizing national security and violent crime concerns over petty and nonviolent offenses. However, Biden has also faced criticism for extending Title 42, a Trump administration border restriction that arose due to the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as restarting the use of expediting families in Central America, which can cause families to be sent back in weeks, compared to years for an average immigration case. In the fiscal year 2021, the US Border Patrol confirmed more than 1.6 million encounters with migrants along the US-Mexico border, more than quadruple the number in the previous fiscal year and the largest annual total on record. In January 2023, Biden announced a program to strengthen the admission of immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, while at the same time his administration will crack down on those who fail to use the plan's legal pathway and strengthen border security. In May 2023, the Biden Administration approved sending 1,500 more troops to the U.S.-Mexico border following Title 42's expiration.

References

  1. ↑ 8 U.S.C.   § 1225
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 "Expedited Removal" (PDF). American Immigration Council. 20 February 2017. Retrieved 17 December 2017.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 "DHS Announces Latest in Series of Expedited Removal Expansions. Entire U.S. Border Now Covered". National Immigration Law Center. March 23, 2006. Archived from the original on July 22, 2015. Retrieved July 19, 2015.
  4. 1 2 Reasoner, W.D. (July 1, 2011). "Deportation Basics. How Immigration Enforcement Works (or Doesn't) in Real Life". Center for Immigration Studies . Retrieved July 19, 2015.
  5. ↑ "ACLU Comments on INS Notice to Expand Expedited Removal". American Civil Liberties Union . Retrieved November 13, 2016.
  6. ↑ "Key Statistics and Findings on Asylum Protection at the U.S.-Mexico Border" (PDF). Human Rights First. June 1, 2014. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 4, 2015. Retrieved June 3, 2015.
  7. ↑ "Notice to Federal Register". Federal Register: The Daily Journal of The United States Government. National Archives. July 23, 2019. Retrieved July 26, 2019.
  8. ↑ "FACT SHEET: CHANGES TO PAROLE AND EXPEDITED REMOVAL POLICIES AFFECTING CUBAN NATIONALS" (Portable Document Format (PDF)). Department of Homeland Security. United States Department of Homand Security. January 12, 2017. Retrieved 14 February 2017.
  9. ↑ "What to do if You are in Expedited Removal or Reinstatement of Removal" (PDF). Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project. October 1, 2011. Retrieved July 23, 2015.
  10. 1 2 "Things to Know About the Expedited Removal Order Process". Mshale. February 29, 2012. Retrieved July 19, 2015.
  11. ↑ "Returning to the United States After Deportation" (PDF). Center for Human Rights and International Justice. Boston College. August 2011. Retrieved 17 December 2017.
  12. 1 2 "Removal Without Recourse: The Growth of Summary Deportations from the United States". Immigration Policy Center. April 28, 2014. Retrieved July 19, 2015.
  13. ↑ Caplan-Bricker, Nora (April 14, 2014). "Deported Without Seeing A Judge: One of the Worst Parts of the Immigration System". The New Republic . Retrieved July 19, 2015.
  14. ↑ "ACLU Comments on INS Notice to Expand Expedited Removal". American Civil Liberties Union . Retrieved July 19, 2015.
  15. ↑ "Know Your Rights: The Government's 100-Mile "Border" Zone - Map". American Civil Liberties Union . Retrieved July 19, 2015.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.