Suspension of DACA Would Pose Legal Challenges for DREAMers

Add caption

Last Friday, Daniel Ramirez, who had been granted deferred action and work authorization pursuant to President Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, was seized by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, who raided his house to arrest Ramirez's father.  Ramirez's work authorization was still valid.  But this did not deter ICE agents from seizing him, as ICE contends that Ramirez admitted to being associated with a gang.  Ramirez claims he has no gang association, and that he was pressured by ICE to make such statements.

Ramirez has now initiated suit against the Untied States' Government. But his arrest and detention should serve as a warning to the thousands of young people who have applied for, and received, protection pursuant to DACA.

DACA is simply a promise made by President Obama that his Administration would not seek the removal of young people who were brought to the United States by their parents when they were children.  The President did this by granting deferred action.  Once the President grants deferred action, the recipient is entitled to apply for legal authorization to work in the United States.  But deferred action is not a legal status.  It is simply a promise from the Government not to seek removal.

DACA was not authorized by statute.  In fact, President Obama only created DACA when Congress failed to pass the DREAM Act, which would have created a path to legal residency and possibly citizenship for the young people who were brought to this country as children, but grew up knowing America as their home.  The people who would have qualified for status under the DREAM Act are affectionately known as DREAMers.

But because DACA is not a creature of statute, it is a very fragile promise.  The President is under no obligation to extend protection pursuant to DACA once the current protection expires.  Moreover, because it is a matter of executive discretion, an applicant is unable to challenge the denial of DACA protection in U.S. courts.

But once a DREAMer has been granted DACA protection, that person has an expectation to continue to receive protection from removal until the program expires.

This is the expectation that ICE violated when it took Ramirez into custody.  Ramirez, who has no other legal immigrant status, will now face proceedings in Immigration Court where the United States will seek his removal.

In many instances, Immigration Court can grant relief from removal.  There are some programs, such as asylum or cancellation of removal, which the Immigration Court by law can grant after a hearing.  However, because DACA is not a legal program, but an exercise of executive discretion, the Immigration Courts have no power to issue a ruling on whether DACA protection was improperly suspended for any individual.

This does not leave DREAMers without a remedy.  Because DACA recipients have an expectation of a governmental benefit, that benefit cannot be rescinded arbitrarily or capriciously.  That is, DACA recipients have a due process right to have their protection honored until the expiration of the program.  But to enforce this right, DACA recipients may need to go to federal district court.

That is, if ICE arrests a person who has been granted DACA protection, and seeks that person's removal, the DACA recipient will need to file a lawsuit in a U.S. District Court alleging constitutional violations, such as due process.  Such a lawsuit is expensive and can become complicated.  In Ramirez's case, he will have to address ICE's claims that Ramirez admitted to being associated with street gangs.  There will be discover and a hearing.

The availability of such a process may not be comforting news to other DACA recipients.  Many are not in a position to spend thousands of dollars on legal expenses to fight over weak legal promise which will expire anyway in a little more than a year.  Indeed, the current Administration could be counting on that level of vulnerability to pick off DACA recipients one by one, making tenuous claims of gang association, knowing that they are forcing the DACA recipients into an expensive legal battle.  In that way, the Administration can claim that it is merely going after the "bad hombres" and highlighting its argument that President Obama overstepped his authority when he instituted DACA.  This is a position that would play well with many of President Trump's supporters.

DACA recipients need to be prepared to defend their rights.  All immigrants should know that ICE cannot issue warrants to itself that allow entry into a dwelling.  Only a judge can issue such a warrant.  Before letting ICE into your house, make sure everyone knows that they need to ask to see the warrant, and to check whether it is judge-issued.  All residents of your home should also know that they are under no obligation to answer any question posed by ICE agents, except their name.  If asked anything by ICE agents, demand your right to consult a lawyer.  Sign nothing without consulting a lawyer.  Do not be intimidated by ICE.  Spread the word.

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
For an appointment, call (703) 837-8832
(571) 551-6069 (español)

Federal Judge Violates Separation of Powers to Issue an Opinion on Separation of Powers

From The New York Times to The Washington Times to CNN, headlines about the case of United States v. Juarez-Escobar all emphasized that a federal judge had found President Obama's immigration program unconstitutional.  Upon reading the articles, none of the major news outlets asked the question, how could a program that was announced less than a month ago and that not yet been implemented ever come to a point this quickly where a federal judge is issuing an opinion on it?

Keep in mind that Article III of the Constitution provides that the judicial power of the United States extends to cases arising under the Constitution and the laws of the United States.  That is, unlike some other countries, the U.S. federal courts cannot issue an opinion on a law or police ad hoc.  There must be an actual case or controversy before them; a party must actually be aggrieved by some action.

So what is the case or controversy involved in Juarez-Escobar?  The case involved a man who was ordered deported in 2005.  He left the United States, but returned without obtaining a visa to work with his brother, who is a U.S. citizen.  The man has a U.S. citizen child.  He was pulled over in Western Pennsylvania for driving under the influence.  While in state custody, the Federal Government was informed of his incarceration.  He was criminally charged in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania with re-entering the United States after having been deported without a proper visa.  After first pleading not guilty, the defendant changed his plea to guilty and was in the process of being sentenced by the court.  The court was about to follow its own practice of sentencing the defendant to time served plus one year of supervised probation with an order that the defendant obtain a proper visa before re-entering the United States.  The change of plea hearing took place in October of 2014.  Before the court passed sentence, President Obama made his announcement of the deferred action program for parents of U.S. citizens.  A few days later, on its own motion, the court requested briefing on how the President's program would affect the defendant's case.

It was in this posture that the court issued its opinion that the President's program was unconstitutional because it violated separation of powers.

The problem here is that issues of whether a particular defendant would be deported or whether they qualify for some form of immigration relief never go before a U.S. District Court.  Almost all immigration matters are appealed to the U.S. Circuit Courts directly from the administrative agency in charge of making the decision.  The only exceptions are cases where the Government denies a petition for naturalization (citizenship) or when the Government has taken so long to issue its decision that a party finds it necessary to seek a Writ of Mandamus.  U.S District Courts, in the context of a criminal sentencing, just do not have jurisdiction to consider immigration relief.  Indeed, in this very opinion the judge recognizes that he would have no jurisdiction to pass on issues of whether a defendant would qualify for some sort of immigration relief.

More troubling is that deferred action is a matter of pure discretion by the Executive Branch.  That is, no one has a right to receive deferred action.  It can be denied by the Executive Branch for any reason.  Thus, because no one has a right to deferred action, no one can sue the Government if deferred action is denied.

The fact that President Obama had announced his intention to grant deferred action to a number of parents of U.S. citizens or permanent residents, therefore, had no relevance to the sentencing of the defendant in Juarez-Escobar.  It is not an issue that a U.S. District Judge would have any jurisdiction to address.  Accordingly, the U.S. District Judge in this case, Arthur J. Schwab simply had no power or authority to issue this opinion.  Indeed, the opinion itself will have no legal effect beyond the case before the court.  Indeed, inexplicably, after writing an elaborate opinion finding the deferred action program unconstitutional, Judge Schwab then gives the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his guilty pea in order to consider if he would want to apply for the very program the judge found unconstitutional.

Why them would Judge Schwab, a Bush appointee, issue such an opinion?  The ultimate action by the court could have been accomplished very simply.  The court could simply have ordered that in light of the pending Executive action, the defendant could consider whether to withdraw his guilty plea and leave it at that.  The fourteen pages of the opinion which analyze the President's action in light of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers simply had no bearing on the court's ultimate action.  This leads to the inescapable conclusion that Judge Schwab issued this opinion for purely political reasons.

And thus, we are left with the ultimate irony in this case.  In order to find that the President violated Separation of Powers, the judge himself had to violate Separation of Powers and issue an opinion on a topic over which he had no jurisdiction. 

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832
(571) 551-6069 (ESP)
wkovatch@kovatchlegalservices.com