 | This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page . (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
In the United States, removal proceedings are administrative proceedings to determine an individual's removability under federal immigration law. Removal proceedings are typically conducted in Immigration Court (the Executive Office for Immigration Review) by an immigration judge (IJ). [1]
Prior to the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 ("IIRIRA"), deportation proceedings were used to determine whether a person could be deported from the United States. When IIRIRA took effect in 1997, deportation proceedings were replaced by removal proceedings, though any cases begun before IIRIRA's effective date continue to be processed as deportation proceeding.
Persons in removal proceedings are called "respondents." Cases are decided by immigration judges, who are appointed by the Attorney General and are part of the Department of Justice. Removal proceedings are prosecuted by attorneys from the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), or more specifically, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. [1]
Removal proceedings begin when an immigration attorney files a NTA with the immigration court. The respondent (typically an alien) is served with an administrative summons called a "Notice to Appear." The Notice to Appear is a dated document served by a U.S. immigration official (typically U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or U.S. Customs and Border Protection) to a person suspected of entering the United States without inspection, remaining in the United States beyond the terms permitted by a visa, committing certain crimes which result in removability even if in lawful status, or otherwise being present in the United States unlawfully. [1]
Among other things, a Notice to Appear contains a numbered list of factual allegations against the respondent. For example, a typical Notice to Appear might state:
These factual allegations may also list any crimes allegedly committed by the respondent in the United States, whether the respondent previously filed any applications with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services and their disposition, and if the respondent presently holds or previously held any lawful status. The Notice to Appear also contains a charge of removability, which is often a reference to which section of the Immigration and Nationality Act that DHS is attempting to use to remove the respondent. The Notice to Appear may or may not contain a court date for the respondent to appear and answer the charges contained therein. If no court date is listed, the respondent may be notified of the court date by mail or in person at a future date.
Failure to appear for a removal hearing will result in an in absentia order of removal being entered by the Immigration Judge absent extenuating circumstances for the respondent's failure to appear, such as a serious illness.
On the date of the removal hearing, also known as a master hearing or Master Calendar Hearing (sometimes abbreviated as MCH), before the immigration judge, the respondent may be represented by an attorney of his or her choosing. However, an attorney will not be provided by the court if the respondent does not secure his or her own counsel. [1]
The respondent will be expected to answer the charges against him or her by pleading to the factual allegations and charge of removability contained in the Notice to Appear. Thereafter, if the respondent is eligible to apply for any relief from removal (such as asylum or cancellation of removal, among others), the respondent may request such relief and file any applications required for the relief. If the respondent is not eligible for any form of relief or if the respondent refuses to request relief from removal, the immigration judge may order the respondent removed from the United States. [1]
The immigration judge will set a merits hearing date when respondents file an application for relief or express to the immigration judge seeking a specific form of relief not precluded by law. The merits hearing may be a matter of days or perhaps even more than a year later, depending on the type of relief requested and the particular court's docket. However, if the only form of relief from removal available or requested is voluntary departure, the immigration judge will most often grant or deny the respondent's request for voluntary departure on the same date of the request.
At the merits hearing, also known as the "individual hearing," the respondent will be able to present his or her documentary evidence (which is typically required to be submitted to the court prior to the date of the merits hearing) for the court's consideration. The respondent may also testify in support of his or her application for relief, and may call witnesses. The Department of Homeland Security also questions the respondent and witnesses, and DHS may also call its own witnesses in some cases. At the conclusion of the merits hearing, the immigration judge issues a decision. This decision might be oral and given on the same day as the merits hearing, or written and served by mail on all parties at a later date. [1]
If a respondent's application for relief from removal is denied by an immigration judge, the respondent may be eligible to appeal that decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") within 30 days of the date of the decision. If appealed, the respondent's removal proceedings continue at the appellate level at the BIA. If no appeal is filed and the immigration judge has ordered a respondent to be removed, the order removing the respondent becomes final 30 days after it has been entered by the immigration judge. A respondent with a final order of removal from an immigration judge is susceptible to being arrested and deported from the United States at any time. [1]
There are three categories of aliens who appear in removal proceedings: [2]
In criminal proceedings, the legal burden of proof always falls on the prosecutor, i.e., the state. However, in removal proceedings, as is the case with other administrative proceedings, the legal burden of proof may fall on either side depending on the specifics of the charges. Specifically: [2] [3]
Regardless of the category, if the alien is claiming any relief from removal (such as asylum or cancellation of removal) the legal burden of proof for demonstrating eligibility for that relief falls on the alien. [3]
For criminal proceedings in the United States (and in most other countries), the state has a responsibility to provide a public defender for the accused. However, removal proceedings are not criminal proceedings, and the state does not provide a public defender or compensate the respondent for the costs of an attorney. Respondents are allowed to defend themselves without the help of an attorney.
However, most immigration courts have set up programs where pro bono (free, volunteer) attorneys are available on the day of the master calendar hearing.
The pro bono attorney helps the respondent in the following ways:
If the respondent's situation is complicated, the pro bono attorney may request a continuance on the respondent's behalf, so that the respondent can secure an attorney.
The pro bono attorney does not typically continue to represent the respondent for the merits hearing. Rather, the respondent is expected to find (and pay for) an attorney by that time.
Immigration decisions may be appealed by either side with the Board of Immigration Appeals. However, the BIA does not generally accept new evidence regarding the original case, but instead, simply aims to determine whether the previous court made an incorrect judgment based on the law or the facts available to it at that time. It is therefore critical that all the arguments and facts be presented in the original removal proceeding. BIA appeals are generally handled through paper, with physical hearings very rare. [4]
Beyond the BIA, decisions may be appealed in the United States court of appeals for the jurisdiction where the removal proceeding was held. There is more flexibility regarding the sort of evidence that may be presented in these appeals but the court generally focuses on whether the original BIA decision was made correctly based on the information available, rather than re-adjudicating the facts involved.
The following are ways people may be removed without removal proceedings: [5]
Removal proceedings also should not be confused with Operation Streamline, that involves the use of federal criminal charges being pressed against aliens for unlawful entry. People who are found guilty through Operation Streamline courts generally have to spend a few months in prison, after which they are handed over to immigration enforcement. Generally, those found guilty under Operation Streamline are removed through expedited removal, but some of them may go through removal proceedings.
Some alternatives to removal that may be granted in some circumstances include:
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.
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Predrag Stevic, 467 U.S. 407 (1984), was a Supreme Court of the United States decision that held if an alien seeks to avoid deportation proceedings by claiming that he will be persecuted if he is returned to his native land, he must show a "clear probability" that he will be persecuted there.
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case that decided that the standard for withholding of removal, which was set in INS v. Stevic, was too high a standard for applicants for asylum to satisfy. In its place, consistent with the standard set by the United Nations, the Court in held that an applicant for asylum in the United States needs to demonstrate only a "well-founded fear" of persecution, which can be met even if the applicant does not show that he will more likely than not be persecuted if he is returned to his home country.
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415 (1999), examined a doctrinal question last presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca. In Aguirre-Aguirre, the Court determined that federal courts had to defer to the Board of Immigration Appeals's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court shifted the balance toward adjudications made by the INS and away from those made by the federal courts of appeals when aliens who had been ordered deported seek to present new evidence in order to avoid deportation. The Court ruled that courts must review the Board of Immigration Appeals's decision to deny motions to reopen immigration proceedings—the name of the procedural device used to present new evidence to immigration officials—for abuse of discretion.
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.
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is a sub-agency of the United States Department of Justice whose chief function is to conduct removal proceedings in immigration courts and adjudicate appeals arising from the proceedings. These administrative proceedings determine the removability and admissibility of individuals in the United States. As of January 19, 2023, there were sixty-eight immigration courts and three adjudication centers throughout the United States.
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.
Judulang v. Holder, 565 U.S. 42 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving deportation law and procedure. The case involved a rule adopted by the Board of Immigration Appeals for determining the eligibility of certain long-term resident aliens, when they are facing deportation because of a prior criminal conviction, to apply to the Attorney General for relief. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Elena Kagan, the Court invalidated the BIA's "comparable-grounds rule" as arbitrary and capricious, holding that it had no rational relation to the merits of an alien's claim for remaining in the United States, nor to the policy and purposes of the immigration laws.
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.
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.
Boika v. Holder, 727 F.3d 735, is a precedent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressing an alien's motion to reopen after the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) had denied her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and for relief under the convention against torture. Judge David F. Hamilton wrote the opinion for the three-judge panel which granted the petition for review and remanded the case to the BIA for further proceedings.
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.
Deportation of Americans from the United States is the wrongful expulsion, return or extradition of Americans to other countries, often after being convicted of a crime. These individuals in removal proceedings include Americans by birth and legal immigrants that were naturalized under 8 U.S.C. § 1427 or admitted as nationals of the United States under the Child Citizenship Act of 2000. A U.S. citizen cannot legally be deported, and thus can return to the United States at any time.
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.
Pereira v. Sessions, Attorney General, no. 17-459, 585 U.S (2018), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding immigration. In an 8-1 majority, the Court reversed a lower court’s decision by ruling that a Notice to Appear which does not inform a noncitizen when and where to appear for a removal proceeding is not valid under 8 U.S. Code § 1229(b) and therefore does not trigger the stop-time rule which is used to calculate the ten year continuous presence requirement for non-lawful permanent residents. The majority opinion was authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor while the dissent was authored by Justice Samuel Alito.
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.
