District Court Judge Brian Murphy wrote that the DHS “has adopted a policy whereby it may take people and drop them off in parts unknown,” which is “not fine, nor is it legal.”
A Biden-appointed judge has ruled that the Trump administration’s policy of removing illegal immigrants from the country and deporting them to third countries, or countries other than those designated on an illegal immigrant’s order of removal, is unlawful.
District Court Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts wrote that the Department of Homeland Security "has adopted a policy whereby it may take people and drop them off in parts unknown," which is "not fine, nor is it legal." He wrote that he would "vacate the March Guidance as 'not in accordance with law.'"
Guidance issued by the DHS in March stated that prior to third-country removals, it must "determine whether that country has provided diplomatic assurances that aliens removed from the United States will not be persecuted or tortured. If the United States has received such assurances, and if the Department of State believes those assurances to be credible, the alien may be removed without the need for further procedures."
The policy allows for illegal immigrants to challenge their removal to such countries only in cases where they "affirmatively" state a fear. If the DHS determined that the illegal immigrant would "more likely than not" be persecuted or tortured in the country of removal, the DHS could then designate another country for deportation or refer the case to immigration court.
The judge wrote that an illegal immigrant "cannot bear his burden as to a 'proposed country of removal' that has not been proposed as a country of removal," citing a 2014 case that states "an applicant is not entitled to have the agency adjudicate claims of relief that relate ‘to a country that nobody is trying to send them to.’" He added, "Defendants are thus wrong to suggest that 'an alien need not await any DHS designation before seeking protection.’"
He declared that the law "requires Defendants, before effecting removal of a class member to any third country, to first seek removal to that class member’s designated country of removal or specified alternative country or countries of removal, as provided in that class member’s final order of removal," and that Defendants are reuqired, before effecting removal, "to first seek removal to that class member’s designated country of removal or country or countries of citizenship, if any."
He also ruled that "class members have the right to meaningful notice before removal to any third country," and "class members have the right to a meaningful opportunity to raise a country-specific claim against removal before removal to any third country."
Libby’s Desk
Commentary and must-reads from Libby’s desk, straight to your inbox.
TPM Newsletter
The Post Millennial’s top stories, delivered to your inbox.
