Voluntary departure (United States)

Last updated

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). [1]

Contents

There is a related process called voluntary return or, in more formal parlance, administrative voluntary departure. This refers to a case where an alien is stopped from entering at a land border (by United States Border Patrol) and agrees to voluntarily return instead of undergoing expedited removal. A key difference between voluntary departure and voluntary return is that in the case of voluntary return, the alien never enters the United States, and therefore accrues no unlawful presence. The time between the alien arriving at the port and agreeing to return voluntarily can vary between a few hours and a few days, and throughout that duration the alien is under the supervision of either U.S. Customs and Border Protection or the carrier. Nonetheless, a number of commentators use the term voluntary return to refer to both voluntary departure and voluntary return. To add to the confusion, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) uses the term "return" when reporting the number of voluntary departures. [2]

Voluntary departure should also not be confused with withdrawal of application for admission, that occurs when an Arriving Alien who would be denied entry at a port of entry or deferred inspection site is asked to withdraw his or her application instead of receiving an order of removal.

The term voluntary departure is also used in immigration enforcement in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, with a broadly similar meaning. [3] However, the precise meaning and details surrounding the term differ significantly by country. This page is specifically about voluntary departure in the United States context.

Types of voluntary departure

There are three stages at which voluntary departure may happen:

In addition, it is possible for an alien to proactively contact the ICE office and request voluntary departure despite not currently being in removal proceedings. As in the other cases, the ICE may not grant the voluntary departure request and may instead put the alien in removal proceedings. This option is therefore rarely used, but it can help aliens who wish to leave the United States after a brief unauthorized entry establish more clearly the duration of their stay, and make for a more transparent immigration record for the future.

Voluntary departure while in removal proceedings prior to the hearing

This form of voluntary departure is used after the alien has been given a Notice to Appear (NTA) for removal proceedings, along with a list of charges against the alien. At this point, the responsibility for the alien falls with the ICE. In some cases, the ICE may detain the alien at a detention center. In other cases, the alien may be free on parole but still required to show up for the court hearing.

The ICE may, in its discretion, offer the alien the option of voluntary departure. From the perspective of ICE, the reasons for offering this option could include: [4]

From the perspective of the alien, the main reason to accept voluntary departure is:

However, it is important to note that if an alien voluntarily departs at this stage, unlawful presence accrued up to that point is part of the alien's immigration record, and may create bars to re-entry depending on the length of unlawful presence. In particular, if the alien believes that his or her presence was not unlawful, or the alien believes that he or she may be eligible for some relief from removal (such as cancellation of removal or asylum) or may be eligible for Adjustment of Status despite unlawful presence (for instance, through the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act), then voluntary departure could be a bad choice from the alien's perspective. This is because these forms of relief or adjustment of status are only available if the alien is physically present in the United States.

Another option offered to some aliens, that is sometimes confused with voluntary departure, is stipulated removal. Stipulated removal means that the alien is removed prior to the hearing, and requires the consent of both the alien and the Immigration Judge. However, unlike voluntary departure, stipulated removal carries with it all the penalties associated with a removal order, including a five-year re-entry bar and the possibility of reinstatement of removal upon subsequent re-entry.

Voluntary departure during the Master Calendar Hearing

During the Master Calendar Hearing (the first day of the alien's appearance before the IJ) the alien may request to depart voluntarily. The Immigration Judge can decide whether to grant this request. As part of the request for voluntary departure, the alien concedes removability.

Voluntary departure at the conclusion of court proceedings

Here, the IJ allows the alien to depart voluntarily after concluding, at the end of the court proceedings, that the alien is indeed removable. This form of voluntary departure is the hardest to obtain. In order to be eligible for this, the alien must:

Steps

Alien and the authorities agree that the alien will depart voluntarily

The original suggestion for voluntary departure may come from the authorities or from the alien. Either way, both the alien and the authorities must agree to the voluntary departure. The order of voluntary departure has a date that may be determined flexibly based on the alien's request (but a maximum of 120 days after the date that the order is issued), giving the alien enough time to arrange his or her affairs prior to departing the United States.

Alien departs the United States

The alien must depart the United States by the date stated on the order of voluntary departure.

Failure to depart the United States has significant consequences for the alien

If the alien fails to depart on time, the following happen:

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 eliminated some exceptional circumstances where the penalties were waived. The only permissible exceptions are where the alien was not properly notified of the voluntary departure order.

History

Prior to the IIRIRA

Voluntary departure began as an administrative process and was incorporated into the statutes in 1940. The 1940 statute provided for voluntary departure before removal proceedings in lieu of deportation to any alien "who has proved good moral character for the preceding five years." The alien could then "depart the United States to any country of his choice at his own expense." The Attorney General was granted the right to deny such relief to any individual whom the Attorney General reasonably believed fell into statutorily specified categories, including drug dealers, document falsifiers, subversives, criminals, and participants in Nazi persecutions. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 additionally precluded the grant of voluntary departure to an alien convicted of an aggravated felony. Voluntary departure orders had a set date and most of them stated that, if the alien did not depart by the set date, the order would become a deportation order.

The Immigration Act of 1990 amended the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 to indicate that anybody who failed to depart by the date specified on the voluntary departure order would be ineligible for discretionary forms of relief such as voluntary departure, suspension of deportation (that would later be called cancellation of removal), Adjustment of status, registry, and change of nonimmigrant status for 5 years after the scheduled date of departure or the date of unlawful entry.

Changes with the IIRIRA

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 imposed dramatic restrictions on voluntary departure. This included the addition of civil penalties for failure to depart voluntarily, an increase in the ineligibility period for various forms of relief from 5 to 10 years, and a removal of various exceptional circumstances.

Substitution away from voluntary departure towards removal

In the mid-2000s, the United States, under President George W. Bush and U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, made a number of changes to ramp up immigration enforcement. Examples of this ramp-up included completing the rollout of expedited removal to the entire border zone, phasing out catch and release, and starting Operation Streamline for criminal prosecution of repeat unlawful entrants and unlawful entrants with criminal backgrounds. These changes were continued by the next President, Barack Obama, with the support of DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement director John T. Morton. [5] [6]

A consequence of these change was an increasing degree of substitution away from voluntary departure and towards various forms of removal (included expedited removal and stipulated removal). Due to these changes, the total number of people who were subject to removal from the United States increased significantly, while the number of people "returned" (which includes voluntary departure) decreased; the total of the number of people removed and returned appears to have fallen since the recession of 2008. [2] [6] [7]

Reception

Reception of the existence of voluntary departure as an option

Voluntary departure as an option is highlighted by sources of legal advice as a better option than being removed. Commentators have pointed out that voluntary departure is not really voluntary and that in some cases it can be a bad option to exercise.

Reception of the decrease in use of voluntary departure

Groups supportive of greater rights for immigrants and expanded opportunities for immigration have been critical of the move away from voluntary departure and towards the use of removal. [2] [5] [7]

Correspondingly, groups interested in combating illegal immigration welcome the shift away from voluntary departure towards removal orders. [4]

Effect on the interpretation of deportation statistics

Groups supportive of greater rights for immigrants have viewed the increase in removals since the mid-2000s, that started under Bush and continued under Obama, as problematic, even though the total of removals and returns declined. The reasoning is that an order of removal carries significantly greater penalties than a voluntary departure. [2] [6]

On the other hand, groups interested in combating illegal immigration, while supportive of the shift away from voluntary departures to removals, have been critical of looking only at the increase in removal numbers rather than looking at the total of removals and returns, arguing that the sharp increase in removal numbers overestimates the increase in immigration enforcement under Obama. [8]

See also

Related Research Articles

The National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) or INS Special Registration was a system for registering certain non-citizens within the United States, initiated in September 2002 as part of the War on Terrorism. Portions were suspended as of April 27, 2011, and the entirety of the regulation was removed on December 23, 2016.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996</span> US federal immigration legislation

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, enacted as division C of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, made major changes to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). IIRAIRA's changes became effective on April 1, 1997.

The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act was a United States Senate bill introduced in the 109th Congress (2005–2006) by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) on April 7, 2006. Co-sponsors, who signed on the same day, were Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Sen. Mel Martínez (R-FL), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS).

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

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.

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.

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 by an immigration judge (IJ).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bhutanese nationality law</span>

Bhutanese nationality law is the law governing the acquisition, transmission and loss of Bhutanese citizenship. The Bhutanese Citizenship Act of 1985 was introduced by the Druk Gyalpo Jigme Singye Wangchuck, on June 10, 1985, modifying the definition of a Bhutanese citizen. The Act was implemented as part of a new national policy of Driglam Namzha, national customs and etiquette. Because of its emphasis on Bhutanese culture, the Act is also referred to as the "One Nation, One People Act." The 1985 Act was amended by the Immigration Act of 2007 and then superseded in 2008 by the Constitution of Bhutan insofar as previous laws are inconsistent; where not inconsistent, the provisions of the 2007 Act, the 1985 Act, and previous Acts relating to immigration continue in effect.

United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253 (1905), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court conceded its right to judicial review over immigration matters. The case held that "a citizen of Chinese parentage seeking admission to the United States" could be excluded by the administrative immigration authorities, even when being denied a hearing before a judicial body on the question whether they were indeed a citizen. The Court determined that refusing entry at a port does not deny due process and held that findings by immigration officials are conclusive and not subject to judicial review unless there is evidence of bias or negligence. This case marked a shift in the court in respect to habeas corpus petitions and altered the judicial landscape for citizens applying for admission into the United States as well as for those facing deportation.

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.

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.

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. 106–553 (text)(PDF).

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.

Deferred inspection is a procedure in immigration enforcement in the United States for Arriving Aliens. Here, the final decision on whether to admit the Arriving Alien, instead of being conducted at the port of entry where the alien arrived, is deferred to be carried out later at a deferred inspection site, while the alien is paroled into the United States. The guidelines followed at the deferred inspection site are largely the same as those followed by the officers at the port of entry, and are described in the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Inspector's Field Manual. Aliens do not accrue unlawful presence between the time of arrival and the date of deferred inspection, but they do begin to accrue unlawful presence after their parole ends, if they are not successfully admitted at the deferred inspection site by then. The officers at both the port of entry and the deferred inspection site are part of the CBP Office of Field Operations.

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.

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.

Velazques v. Garland is a pending United States Supreme Court case on whether a 60-day voluntary departure period that ends on a weekend or public holiday is automatically extended to the following business day for the purposes of filing a post-decision motion to reopen or reconsider immigration removal proceedings.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 8 U.S.C.   § 1229c ("Voluntary departure"); Hashish v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 572, 577-78 (7th Cir. 2006); Matter of Arguelles, 22 I&N Dec. 811 (BIA 1999) (en banc).
  2. 1 2 3 4 Goodman, Adam (January 24, 2014). "How the deportation numbers mislead. The US is deporting fewer people — but using harsher tactics". Al Jazeera America. Retrieved February 13, 2016.
  3. ↑ "Deportations, Removals, and Voluntary Departures from the UK". The Migration Observatory. Retrieved February 13, 2016.
  4. 1 2 Reasoner, W.D. (July 1, 2011). "Deportation Basics". Center for Immigration Studies . Retrieved February 13, 2016.
  5. 1 2 "Removal Without Recourse: The Growth of Summary Deportations from the United States". Immigration Policy Center. April 28, 2014. Retrieved July 19, 2015.
  6. 1 2 3 Lind, Dara (April 11, 2014). "Removals vs returns: how to think about Obama's deportation record". Vox . Retrieved February 13, 2016.
  7. 1 2 "The Growth of the U.S. Deportation Machine". Immigration Policy Center . Retrieved February 13, 2016.
  8. ↑ Vaughan, Jessica (October 1, 2013). "Deportation Numbers Unwrapped". Center for Immigration Studies . Retrieved February 13, 2016.
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.