An illegal immigrant who was sentenced to be deported has been awarded “discretionary relief” due to a “technicality” with his court documents.
Despite his illegal status and order of extradition, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that illegal immigrant Agusto Niz-Chavez can avoid deportation due to a technicality. Additionally, the court ruled that he is due discretionary relief because the government made a mistake. Incredibly, the court ruling revolved around the word “a.”
A nation without a well-structured legal system cannot stand, and the U.S. is no exception. However, when simple semantics can circumvent jurisprudence altogether, it’s evident that the ordinances become too numerous and complex to execute justice.
Federal law dictates that an illegal immigrant receives “a notice to appear” with the information about their case and court date. However, Niz-Chavez was sent multiple documents regarding his hearing. As such, the court ruled that since the law explicitly states there must be “a” notice, which entails only one document, the deportation must be halted, Fox News reports.
The court established that Niz-Chavez is entitled to discretionary relief, which can range from cancellation of deportation to asylum to being granted lawful permanent resident status. The court justices ruled 6-3 in favor of Niz-Chavez.
“At one level, today’s dispute may seem semantic, focused on a single word, a small one at that,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the court’s opinion. “But words are how the law constrains power. In this case, the law’s terms ensure that, when the federal government seeks a procedural advantage against an individual, it will at least supply him with a single and reasonably comprehensive statement of the nature of the proceedings against him.”
Niz-Chavez illegally entered the U.S. from Guatemala in 2005 and was ordered for removal in 2013. He was told to leave the U.S. voluntarily or face deportation by authorities when he received two notices, one with his charges and another with his court date and location. It was this discrepancy that eventually led to the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Gorsuch was joined by Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Amy Coney Barrett, and Clarence Thomas. However, along with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed his opposition to the decision.
“I find the Court’s conclusion rather perplexing as a matter of statutory interpretation and common sense,” Kavanaugh wrote in his dissent, noting that Niz-Chavez had received all of the necessary information by May 2013, well within the 10-year period.
Before the ruling, the government argued that it is nearly impossible to send all of the information regarding certain court cases in a single notice since the date or location of a hearing may change. Still, the majority of the justices maintained that this is no excuse for deviating from the law.
“But as this Court has long made plain,” Gorsuch countered, “pleas of administrative inconvenience and self-serving regulations never ‘justify departing from the statute’s clear text.'”
Bolstering his decision, Gorsuch blamed the government for placing an undue burden on the public, citing the fact that asylum seekers must complete a 12-page application to request residency.
“If the government finds filling out forms a chore, it has good company,” he wrote. “The world is awash in forms, and rarely do agencies afford individuals the same latitude in completing them that the government seeks for itself today.”
The case proves that following the law for the sake of the law is a dangerous principle. Just because it’s a law doesn’t make it moral or even enforceable, which is evident in this case.
Thanks to muddled legislation, justice is sidestepped and the pathway is paved for more lawbreakers to get away with their offenses.
Source: Tap Worthy Happenings
0 Comments