Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam
Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam, whose home country is Sri Lanka supported a political candidate from Tamil. In June 2016, Thuraissigiam traveled from Sri Lanka to Mexico. After staying for about seven months, he entered the United States through the border of Mexico-California. He got arrested when he was four miles heading west of the boundary of San Ysidro. He was arrested by the Customs and border patrol (C.B.P.) agents of the United States. After Thuraissigiam was arrested, the issue that the court was to sort out was whether 8 U.S.C. and section 1252(e)(2) was unlawfully beneath the suspension clause.
Thuraissigiam was placed under accelerated removal proceedings by the Department of Homeland Security (D.H.S.). Thuraissigiam had claimed a prosecution fear from Sri Lanka. This made C.B.P. let Thuraissigiam interview an officer of asylum who is from the United States and Immigration Services (USCIS). The officer from USIS made a conclusion that Thuraissigiam did not show a believable panic of prosecution (Schusterman, 2019). The supervisor seconded and approved the determination made. Thuraissigiam requested his case to be reviewed by the immigration judge who didn’t study but instead sent the case back to D.H.S. for proceedings of his removal.
In January 2018, 11 months later, Thuraissigiam filed an appeal in the United States Court of Southern District of California for habeas entity. Thuraissigiam, in his appeal, explained how the intelligent officers of Sri Lanka fought against him by supporting a specific political candidate. He also told how the officers detained and tormented him. He then declared that the United States violated his rights during his removal proceedings. Thuraissigiam notably claimed that the asylum officer of USCIS had blundered to properly obtain the information that was necessary to decide the acceptability of his panic of prosecution. This is mainly because there were errors in communication between the Thuraissigiam, his translator, and the officer. Moreover, Thuraissigiam had fears over the information he had shared with the asylum officer, and the judge would be given out to the Government of Sri Lanka.
Due to the dismissal, Thuraissigiam went on to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In the appeal, the Ninth Circuit claimed that section 1252(e)(2) of the constitution did not give authority to the subject matter of Jurisdiction habeas corpus appeal of Thuraissigiam. With this regard, the Ninth Circuit described out that the suspension clause, at its minimum, does not guarantee the petitioner’s vital chance to show that he is held agreeable to the application of relevant law.
In evaluating the whole process of proceedings of the accelerated removal activities, the Ninth Circuit focused on different procedures like lack of chance to request significant assistance, extremely rushes natures, and also the immigration judge can directly tick the box in the form on behalf of giving out a reasonable decision. The Ninth circuit went on and declared that section 1252(e)(2 of the constitution disadvantaged Thuraissigiam of a vital chance to review; therefore, it violated the suspension clause (Hasbrouck, 2019).
Appeals from C.B.P., USCIS, D.H.S., and the Government claimed that Thuraissigiam had entered the country on a secret. This meant that Thuraissigiam did not have any critical ties with the United States, and he was thus placed under seeking initial entry. The Supreme court did hold in Landon v. Plasencia declared that those who aren’t the citizens of the United States and find the initial entry don’t have the constitutional right. The GovernmentGovernment, therefore, continued to argue that Thuraissigiam did not have the rights of the process regarding his removal activities.
When responding to the question, if the suspension clause is entitled to secret entering of those who aren’t citizens to habeas corpus review, the GovernmentGovernment defended the speed up removal activities by claiming that the suspension clause does not need to involve courts to review cases like those of Thuraissigiam on habeas corpus appeals. The GovernmentGovernment is firm that the habeas corpus review is a processing device that is meant to give more enforcement to the process protection. The GovernmentGovernment reasons out that if the due process underlying habeas corpus is not present, then it means that the procedural process is also missing (Schusterman, 2019).
In conclusion, answering the question if permitting habeas corpus review will benefit or harm the states, the state of Arizona, getting support from the GovernmentGovernment, argued that the decision if the Ninth circuit will turn upside down the process of accelerating removal. This will result in significant adverse effects on the federal GovernmentGovernment and other states which lack enough resources to manage the immigration activities (Hasbrouck, 2019). Arizona focused the attention on the recent years where there was removal of noncitizens from the country. In the due process many noncitizens were harmed from the process because those who were to be removed were around 30 or 40 of the non citizens. Arizona stresses that the federal GovernmentGovernment still lacks resources that are required to detain the entering of noncitizens.
The Illinois states and the states around, in hold up to Thuraissigiam, counter-attacked by arguing that the decision on the Ninth Circuit to reverse would bring more harm to the rules and the citizens around. Illinois observed that most of the children of the citizens in the United States either live with a family member who is not authorized to live in the United States or have a family member who is not allowed to live in the United States.
Reference
Hasbrouck, B. (2019). Saving Justice: Why Sentencing Errors Fall within the Savings Clause, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 (e). Geo. L.J., 108, 287.
Schusterman, L. (2019). A Suspended Death Sentence: Habeas Review of Expedited Removal Decisions. Mich. L. Rev., 118, 655.