WHAT IS EXPEDITED REMOVAL?
“Expedited removal” is a policy that allows low-level immigration officers the ability to quickly deport specific non-citizens who are undocumented or have been suspected to have committed fraud or some sort of misrepresentation. The policy, enacted as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act in 1996, denies these non-citizens the due process of a normal removal proceeding. The rights included with a normal deportation and removal proceeding include the right to an attorney, and the right to a hearing in front of a judge. The Act specifically states that undocumented non-citizens are not entitled to these same rights to due process that American citizens enjoy. Expedited removal prevents these noncitizens from ever seeing a courtroom or understanding what possible remedies or defenses they may have. Expedited removal has been used more often in recent years reaching as high as 35% of all removals in 2017. A dramatic expansion of the expedited removal policy was ordered by President Trump in July 2019, and it is expected to result in thousands of additional people being removed without any due process.
THE CASE OF DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY V THURAISSIGIAM
Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam is an asylum seeker from Sri Lanka, who as a ‘Tamil’ is part of an ethnic minority. Thuraissigiam escaped from Sri Lanka and made his way to the United States and entered through the United States-Mexico border in February of 2017. Thuraissigiam was arrested shortly after he entered and found himself put into expedited removal proceedings. During an interview with an asylum officer, Thuraissigiam expressed his fears of returning to Sri Lanka. He explained how he was arrested and beaten by Sri Lankan officials because of his support for a Tamil political candidate. Incredibly, the asylum officer believed Thuraissigiam’s account, but didn’t feel that his fears satisfied the legal elements necessary to receive asylum status, or even a further hearing. Because he hit a dead end with general legal options, Thuraissigiam filed a habeas petition in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California claiming he was not given a meaningful right to apply for asylum and did not get a meaningful opportunity to establish his claims. The District Court dismissed Thuraissigiam’s habeas petition due to lack of jurisdiction. The case made its way to the United States Supreme Court after Thuraissigiam had a successful appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which led to the government being granted a petition for certiorari. The Supreme Court ruled in a 7-2 decision that Thuraissigiam does not have a constitutional right to habeas review that the government violated any of his rights in ordering his expedited removal.
HOW DOES THIS AFFECT ME?
If you are an undocumented non-citizen in the United States, then this can affect you directly. You may find yourself in expedited removal proceedings if an immigration officer suspects your asylum claim to be fake, or suspects that you have committed fraud or some sort of misrepresentation in relation to your entry into the United States. The decision in Thuraissigiam leaves uncertainty in knowing which is the point where a non-citizen has made it past the “threshold of initial entry” into the United States which results in the ability to have proper due process and the ability to have habeas petition heard by a judge. It also leaves a vast majority of government issued removal orders without any check or accountability from anyone. If you are an undocumented non-citizen in the United States, then it is important to seek the advice of an experienced deportation and removal attorney who can help you understand what potential options you may have to remain here legally and avoid deportation.
