Reinstatement of removal

Last updated March 05, 2024

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.^[1]^[2]^[3]

History

Existence before IIRIRA

Prior to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, reinstatement of removal only applied to people previously deported (not excluded) on grounds relating to certain criminal convictions, failing to register, falsification of documents, or security or terrorist related grounds.^[1]

Formalization in IIRIRA (1996, active since April 1997)

Reinstatement of removal was introduced in legislation as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, passed by the 104th United States Congress and signed into law by then-United States President Bill Clinton, and active as of April 1, 1997.^[4]

Subsequent changes and refinements

The practice of reinstatement of removal has refined and evolved through a mix of legislation, guidelines by immigration enforcement agencies, and court decisions. These include:

The Legal Immigration Family Equity Act of 2000 established that those who had a pending application for adjustment of status in various categories could not be subject to reinstatement of removal.^[1]
In three decisions between 2003 and 2005, various courts of appeals held that those who had affirmatively applied for adjustment of status prior to April 1, 1997, could not be subject to reinstatement of removal.^[1]
In Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales (2006), the United States Supreme Court ruled that reinstatement of removal applied even for people who had re-entered the United States prior to April 1, 1997, if they had made no effort to adjust status prior to that date.^[1]^[5] This was in contrast to the general belief in the immigration law community at the time, that reinstatement of removal applied only if the most recent re-entry was on or after April 1, 1997.^[4]

Procedure and conditions

Applicability

Reinstatement of removal may apply to aliens (people who not United States citizens or permanent residents) who satisfy all these conditions:^[2]

The alien received a prior order of removal (or deportation or exclusion). This may have been expedited removal, stipulated removal, or removal or deportation through regular court proceedings.
The alien departed the United States after receiving the order. This includes both voluntary departure and forcible removal. The key requirement is that the alien received an order of removal, deportation, or exclusion (Note that if the alien did not depart, then the reinstatement of removal does not apply. However, the earlier removal can still be executed).
The alien subsequently re-entered the United States without authorization.
The alien is not currently in authorized status.
None of the exceptions discussed in the Exceptions section apply to the alien.

Although the language of the statute refers only to prior orders of removal, section 309(d)(2) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 clarifies that any reference in law to an order of removal should be interpreted to include orders of exclusion and deportation. Thus, reinstatement of removal applies to orders of removal, deportation, and exclusion.^[1]

Notice and opportunity to contest

An immigration officer who establishes that the alien meets all these requirements may decide to pursue a reinstatement of removal. This involves the following steps:^[2]^[1]

The officer provides the alien with a written notice of his or her determination (on Form I-871).^[1]^[3]
The officer advises the alien that he or she may make a written or oral statement contesting the determination.
If the alien wishes to make such a statement, the officer allows the alien to do so and considers whether the alien's statement warrants reconsideration of the determination.

After the officer has determined that the alien meets the conditions for deportation, the officer reinstates the previous order of exclusion, deportation, or removal.^[2]

Appealing the reinstatement order

The immigration officer's decision is considered final and there is no scope for appeal within the immigration enforcement bureaucracy. However, courts of appeals in all jurisdictions in the United States have ruled that a noncitizen may appeal a reinstatement order to the court of appeals in the jurisdiction within 30 days of the reinstatement being issued. Filing an appeal does not automatically grant a stay of deportation, and the person must file a stay of removal. Conversely, being deported does not preclude a person from filing, or proceeding with, an appeal challenging the reinstatement.^[3]^[1]

If the DHS reinstatement order was issued in a different jurisdiction from that where the original order of removal being reinstated was issued, the person appealing may have a choice of which court of appeal to appeal the case in.^[1]

Exceptions

There are two main kinds of exceptions:^[2]

Reasonable Fear: If the alien expresses a fear of persecution or torture in his or her home country, the alien is referred to a reasonable fear interview with a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services officer. If the fear determination is unfavorable, the alien is subject to reinstatement of removal. If the determination is favorable, the alien is scheduled for a hearing before an immigration judge.
Those with pending applications for benefits or adjustment of status: The immigration officer cannot reinstate an earlier order of removal while an application of any of these types is pending. The order may be reinstated after a final decision to deny the application for adjustment has been made.^[2]^[1] The eligible types of applications include:^[1]
- Some types of adjustment of status under INA 245A, covered by class action lawsuits, as described in the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act (LIFE act), Section 1104(g).
- Section 202 of Public Law 105-100, the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act, applies to people from Nicaragua and Cuba, as described in the LIFE Act, section 1505(a)(1).
- Section 203 of NACARA (applies to people from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Eastern Europe), as described in the LIFE Act, Section 1505(c).
- Section 902 of the Haitian Refugee Immigrant Fairness Act, as described in the LIFE Act, Section 1505(b)(1).

Prior to the passage of LIFE Act, exceptions were carved out only for HRIFA and NACARA Section 202 applicants.^[2]

Related procedures

A "Just Facts" summary by the Immigration Policy Center identified a few other summary removal practices similar to reinstatement of removal:^[6]

Expedited removal: This applies to noncitizens who arrive at a designated port of entry, or those who have recently entered without authorization.
Stipulated removal: Here, the person is formally charged and placed in immigration court proceedings before an immigration judge. However, the person does not actually appear before the judge, but rather agrees (or “stipulates”) to deportation and gives up his or her right to a hearing. The immigration judge may enter the order of removal without seeing the person and asking him or her whether the stipulation was entered into knowingly and voluntarily.

Related Research Articles

A green card, known officially as a permanent resident card, is an identity document which shows that a person has permanent residency in the United States. Green card holders are formally known as lawful permanent residents (LPRs). As of 2019, there are an estimated 13.9 million green card holders, of whom 9.1 million are eligible to become United States citizens. Approximately 18,700 of them serve in the U.S. Armed Forces.

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.

An Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility is an application for legal entry to the United States made by an individual who is otherwise inadmissible on one or more grounds. The application is submitted to the consular office, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office or immigration court considering the immigrant visa or adjustment of status application.

A Form I-766 employment authorization document or EAD card, known popularly as a work permit, is a document issued by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) that provides temporary employment authorization to noncitizens in the United States.

Adjustment of status in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of the United States refers to the legal process of conferring permanent residency upon any alien who is a refugee, asylee, nonpermanent resident, conditional entrant, parolee, and others physically present in the United States.

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

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001), is a United States Supreme Court case involving habeas corpus and INA § 212(c) relief for deportable aliens.

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).

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.

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, without going through the normal removal proceedings. The legal authority for expedited removal allows for its use against most unauthorized entrants who have been in the United States for less than two years. 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, and excludes first-time violators from Mexico and Canada.

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.

Consular nonreviewability refers to the doctrine in immigration law in the United States where the visa decisions made by United States consular officers cannot be appealed in the United States judicial system. It is closely related to the plenary power doctrine that immunizes from judicial review the substantive immigration decisions of the United States Congress and the executive branch of the United States government.

The Legal Immigration Family Equity Act of 2000, also known as the LIFE Act and as the Legal Immigration and Family Equity Act, along with its Amendments, made some changes to laws surrounding immigration for family members of United States citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents, as well as people eligible for employment-based immigrant visas, in the direction of making it easier for family members and immigrant workers to move to and adjust status within the United States. It was passed on December 21, 2000, as title XI of Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law 106–553 (text)(PDF).

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.

Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution forbid the imprisonment at hard labor without a jury trial for noncitizens convicted of illegal entry to or presence in the United States.

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.

The U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 was a legislative bill that was proposed by President Joe Biden on his first day in office. It was formally introduced in the House by Representative Linda Sánchez. It died with the ending of the 117th Congress.

Pereida v. Wilkinson, 592 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) an alien seeking to cancel a lawful removal order bears the burden of showing that he has not been convicted of a disqualifying offense. An alien has not carried that burden when the record shows he has been convicted under a statute limiting multiple offenses, some of which are disqualifying, and the record is ambiguous as to which crime formed the basis of his conviction.

United States v. Palomar-Santiago, No. 20-437, 593 U.S. ___ (2021) was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the three requirements under which a deportation order may be dismissed, as listed in 8 USC § 1326(d). The question brought before the Court was whether Palomar-Santiago may be excused from meeting all three requirements, given that the offense he was initially deported for was subsequently found no longer deportable. The Court held that all three requirements must be met in order to dismiss a deportation order.

References

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Realmuto, Trina (April 29, 2013). "Reinstatement of Removal: Practice Advisory" (PDF). American Immigration Council Legal Action Center, as part of the National Immigration Project. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 26, 2015. Retrieved July 23, 2015.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "8 CFR 241.8 - Reinstatement of removal orders". Legal Information Institute . Retrieved July 22, 2015.
1 2 3 "Expedited Removal, Reinstatement of Removal, and Administrative Removal Proceedings" (PDF). University of Miami School of Law Immigration Clinic. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 20, 2014. Retrieved July 22, 2015.
1 2 Mehta, Cyrus; Walker, Lin. "Reinstatement Of Removal". Immigration Daily.
↑ Joaquin, Linton (August 23, 2006). "Supreme Court finds reinstatement of removal applies to pre-IIRIRA entries". National Immigration Law Center. Archived from the original on July 24, 2015. Retrieved July 23, 2015.
↑ "Removal Without Recourse: The Growth of Summary Deportations from the United States". Immigration Policy Center. April 28, 2014. 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.

[nip-1] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Realmuto, Trina (April 29, 2013). "Reinstatement of Removal: Practice Advisory" (PDF). American Immigration Council Legal Action Center, as part of the National Immigration Project. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 26, 2015. Retrieved July 23, 2015.

[lii-2] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "8 CFR 241.8 - Reinstatement of removal orders". Legal Information Institute . Retrieved July 22, 2015.

[miami-3] 1 2 3 "Expedited Removal, Reinstatement of Removal, and Administrative Removal Proceedings" (PDF). University of Miami School of Law Immigration Clinic. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 20, 2014. Retrieved July 22, 2015.

[ilw-4] 1 2 Mehta, Cyrus; Walker, Lin. "Reinstatement Of Removal". Immigration Daily.

[nilc-gonzales-5] Joaquin, Linton (August 23, 2006). "Supreme Court finds reinstatement of removal applies to pre-IIRIRA entries". National Immigration Law Center. Archived from the original on July 24, 2015. Retrieved July 23, 2015.

[ipc-just-facts-6] "Removal Without Recourse: The Growth of Summary Deportations from the United States". Immigration Policy Center. April 28, 2014. Retrieved July 19, 2015.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]