While perhaps not as clear-cut as the “sole and unreviewable” issue in Make the Road N.Y., Jackson’s superficial approach is on full display. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to stop using certain educational materials to train officers on whether aliens in expedited removal proceedings who seek asylum have a “credible fear” of persecution. Wolfe, our second case, Jackson ordered U.S. Moreover, the expansion of expedited removal wrongly held illegal by Jackson was prompted by reasonable concerns, including, as the notice explains, removing an important incentive for illegal immigration - an inadmissible alien’s knowledge that he or she can avoid summary removal by making it into the interior of the U.S. Still, policy by Ouija board is preferable to this administration’s immigration policies, which have led to record illegal immigration numbers while enriching Mexican drug cartels and human smugglers. If a Ouija board was used, a court still would have no say. Resisting the conclusion that DHS’s discretion is unfettered, Jackson offered the example that DHS wouldn’t be permitted “to use a Ouija board” in expedited removal determinations. Jackson’s political grievances masquerading as process concerns, recycled and rehashed throughout her tediously long opinion, underscore why Congress placed expedited removal designations within DHS’s sole and unreviewable discretion - namely, to prevent anti-immigration enforcement activist groups from getting an anti-immigration enforcement activist judge (like Jackson) to block such designations. ![]() Congress said “sole and unreviewable discretion,” not “sole and unreviewable discretion, subject to judicial approval.”īut DHS, Jackson complains, didn’t consider the “burdens,” “significant and consequential risks,” “potential serious implications,” “potential devastation,” etc., as to inadmissible aliens affected by expanding expedited removal. “Even if Congress has granted DHS broad discretion,” her opinion reads, “that grant does not necessarily carry with it the freedom to make the ultimate discretionary determination however the agency wants to.” Jackson’s political grievances masquerade as legal concerns. In any case, according to Jackson, DHS didn’t “ask the right questions,” “look at all the facts,” and “evaluate, fully, the best course of action with respect to the expedited removal process.” Jackson, Rao convincingly explained, made the threshold error of not dismissing the lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction. The panel’s best judge, Trump appointee Neomi Rao, agreed with her colleagues that the law prevents judicial meddling, but dissented on the grounds that the designation is among the class of decisions over which Congress has stripped federal courts of jurisdiction. ![]() ![]() ![]() Millett and Edwards are both liberals, incidentally. “There could hardly be a more definitive expression of congressional intent to leave the decision about the scope of expedited removal, within statutory bounds, to the Secretary’s independent judgment,” observed Appeals Court Judges Patricia Millett and Harry Edwards in their opinion reversing Jackson’s ruling. (READ MORE: Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Judicial Off-Roading) You also may be more qualified to serve on the United States Supreme Court than Jackson - who blocked the designation.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |