US Supreme Court Rules for Expedient Removal of Asylum Seeker From Sri Lanka

Must Read

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years...

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA)....

Follow us

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Asylum Seekers will have to prove in their initial determination that they need Asylum. They will also not be required to give hearing in Federal Court before being removed. If the claim fails, they do not have rights for writ of Habeas Corpus.

Background

Vijaykumar Thuraissigiam is a Sri Lankan national. He was stopped 25 yards after crossing the US border. He was bought under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act, 1996. Also, he was detained for expedient removal. The Asylum Officer rejected his demonstration of credible fear of prosecution. The Immigration Judge affirmed the same. He then filed a habeas corpus petition. This was for fear of persecution on his Tamil ethnicity and political views. The District Court rejected it while the Ninth Circuit reversed it. The Court held that there is a violation of Suspension Clause and also the Due Process Clause. Thus, they appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Act’s Summary

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act, 1996 was designed to improve the Border Security and Control. The Act allows deportation of illegal or undocumented immigrants. There is also a provision to apply against expedient removal in way of seeking asylum. The applicant will have to prove to the Asylum Officer a credible fear of persecution. That, full entitlement is given to him. This is to the extent of a full consideration in a standard removal hearing.
There is also a chain of appeal over the decision of the Asylum Officer. The rejection of credible fear by the asylum officer will be under the review of the Supervisor. An appeal to the Immigration Judge is the next step. The act limits review of the Federal Court. The Court may not review the determination that the applicant lacks credible fear of persecution.

Respondent’s Arguments

Many issues came up about the expedient removal decision by the Asylum Officer. The decision has unchecked authority. The Immigration Officer serves both as Prosecutor and Judge. The council for Vijaykumar also stated that he was the textbook example of Tamil repression in Sri Lanka. Many experts affirmed this, when asked to comment on this issue. The process went about in the absence of a lawyer and a translator. This caused discrepancies in interviewing and the decision making of the Asylum Office.

The Court’s Opinion

The Court interpreted the two main issues of the Suspension Clause and Due Process Clause. The Suspension Clause provides that the writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be suspended. This is only in cases of rebellion or invasion and public safety. The Court also held that the writ provides for the release from unlawful detention. But the respondent is seeking an opportunity for asylum rather than mere release. Therefore, his claims fall outside the scope of the writ.
 The Court held Due Process Clause as non-violative in nature. The Clause establishes that for aliens seeking initial entry, the decision of the Administrative Officers, acting within the powers is the due process of law.
The respondent argued against this. He contended that he was already 25 yards into the territory, the rule would be ineffective. Thus, the Court held that the intent of the Clause is not to become ineffective as soon as unlawful entry of the alien into US soil.

The Court’s Decision

Justice Samuel Alito gave the decision. J. Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented from the judgment. Justice Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader agreed with the decision so far as it concerns with Mr. Vijaykumar’s case.

The Court ruled that the suspension clause is not in violation. The asylum seeker doesn’t have to give hearing in the federal court before removal. The failure of initial claim is enough for removal from the country. It held that the due process clause is also not in violation. The decision of the ninth circuit was reversed and remanded.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News,InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA). It prayed that severe restrictions...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -