Term: 2019
Docket: 19-161
Department Of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam
- Pro
19-161 DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY V. THURAISSIGIAM DECISION BELOW: 917 F.3d 1097 CERT. GRANTED 10/18/2019 QUESTION PRESENTED: Respondent is an inadmissible alien who was apprehended almost immediately after illegally crossing the U.S. border and was placed into expedited removal proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(l). An asylum officer conducted a credible-fear interview and found that respondent lacked a credible fear of persecution on a protected ground or a credible fear of torture. Upon de novo review, an immigration judge reached the same conclusions and respondent's expedited-removal order became final. Respondent then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which the district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it did not raise the kinds of habeas challenges to expedited-removal orders that are permitted under 8 U.S.C. 1252(e)(2). The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Section 1252(e)(2) violated the Suspension Clause, U.S. Const. Art. I, § 9, Cl. 2, as applied to respondent. The question presented is whether, as applied to respondent, Section 1252(e)(2) is unconstitutional under the Suspension Clause. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 18-55313
The U.S Supreme Court case Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam in 2019 revolved around the issue of asylum seekers and their right to judicial review. Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam, a Sri Lankan national, was apprehended shortly after entering the United States without inspection. He sought asylum claiming fear of persecution if he returned home but was denied by an immigration officer during his credible fear interview under expedited removal proceedings. The Ninth Circuit Court granted him habeas corpus relief which allowed him to challenge his removal order in court arguing that it violated his constitutional rights for due process. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision with a 7-2 vote stating that as per federal law (8 U.S.C §1252(e)(2)), non-citizens who are on American soil but have not been legally admitted do not have full constitutional protections regarding deportation matters unless they can prove legal error or unconstitutional actions from authorities involved in their cases. This ruling upheld limitations on reviewing decisions made by executive branch officials about whether immigrants seeking protection meet threshold requirements for proving credible fear of persecution or torture back home.
In the dissenting opinion for the Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam case, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the majority's ruling undermines constitutional protections and erodes due process rights for asylum seekers. She contended that denying habeas corpus review to individuals like Thuraissigiam, who challenge their expedited removal orders as unlawful under federal law, is a significant departure from historical practices and principles. The decision effectively strips such individuals of any meaningful opportunity to prove their legal claims before an impartial judge or tribunal. Furthermore, she expressed concern about how this ruling could potentially affect U.S citizens mistakenly targeted by immigration authorities since they would also be denied access to judicial review in similar circumstances.
