The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two deportation cases Monday.
The first case, Nasrallah v. Barr, poses the question of whether an appeals court can assess factual findings of an administrative agency regarding asylum denial relief. Immigrants who are denied asylum may seek relief to stay in the US if deportation endangers the immigrant. In this case, a Lebanese immigrant fearing Hezbollah violence appealed against the US Attorney General to allow an appeals court to reassess his factual scenario for asylum denial relief.
During oral arguments, the counsel for the Lebanese immigrant asserted that an appeals court should permissively review factual findings in to maintain separation of powers. Additionally, counsel argued that to exclude such review would create jurisdictional gaps for reviewing asylum denial relief rejection cases.
The counsel for the government countered that courts should not allow appeals courts to review factual findings in denying asylum relief. Counsel argued that no court has ever endorsed allowing appeals court such review and that denying relief is a final order of deportation.
The second case, Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, challenged whether undocumented, border-crossing immigrants who are deemed not to have credible fear of persecution for asylum purposes are entitled to a writ of habeas corpus after a government deportation order.
The counsel for the government argued to the Supreme Court that congress granted border control forces to determine deportation based on at-the-border assessments. Accordingly, an immigrant that does not present a fear of imminent threat for asylum purposes is not entitled to habeas corpus.
Opposing counsel, for an immigrant denied habeas corpus, countered that an immigrant would have habeas rights even if the fear of danger required for asylum is not present. Counsel reasoned that the courts should be able to review deportations, and Congress does not have the writ to exclude judicial review under separation of powers principles.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor particularly took hold of this argument when questioning the government’s counsel upon rebuttal:
We have the great writ. It was there to ensure that the executive acts according to the law. What’s left if you tell me that there are laws but there’s no judicial review of whether those laws are being followed or not? That’s my question.
Both cases have the potential to affect procedures at the southern border.
