As ever, when Tangerine / Miller / Noem / Rubio are confronted with a loss -- because they plainly violated our laws, and our Constitution [here, in Abrego Garcia's case -- repeatedly]. . . they simply try to rewrite the history of the case, in a fraudulent fashion. It will not work.
Here, six years later -- and after being repeatedly warned by the courts that the government's OWN record plainly indicated that Abrego was here LAWFULLY -- these jamokes claim he is deportable, as they vainly try to reach back six years to "correct" what they disingenuously call a "scriveners' error" -- and enter an entirely NEW order. That is simply. . . insane -- and a banana dictator's move, unbecoming a nation of limited governemental authority over her peoples. Here's the deal, from this evening:
. . .[Last night, at] approximately 7:01 p.m., an immigration judge issued a document with the heading “Order of the Immigration Judge,” and the subheading “Immigration Court’s Sua Sponte Order Correcting Scrivener’s Error.” Ex. B. This sua sponte order states that, in the October 10, 2019, order granting Petitioner withholding of removal, “the order of removal to El Salvador, which should have preceded the order granting him withholding of removal to El Salvador, was erroneously omitted.” Id. at 4.
It then goes on to state: “The Immigration Court now corrects that scrivener’s error and amends the written decision in this case by adding the following: The Respondent is ordered removed to El Salvador based on the charge contained in the Notice to Appear, but the Respondent’s application for withholding of removal to El Salvador pursuant to INA § 241(b)(3) is granted.”
The Order further states that “These corrections are hereby issued nunc pro tunc to the Immigration Court’s written decision and order of October 10, 2019. . . .”
The Government’s attempt to manufacture a removal order sua sponte through an ex parte proceeding, without notice to Petitioner and without any opportunity to be heard, violates the INA and due process. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a. The opportunity to be heard is essential to due process. Sagastizado v. Noem, 2025 WL 2957003, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 10, 2025) (“Noncitizens have a right to meaningful notice and opportunity to be heard before being deported to a third country.”); see also ECF No. 110 at 30 (citing Nguyen v. Scott, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2025 WL 2419288 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 21, 2025) (granting immediate release and enjoining removal absent meaningful opportunity to be heard in reopened removal proceedings).
The Government had six years to identify and correct any alleged “scrivener’s error,” and Petitioner has repeatedly pointed out the lack of an Order throughout these proceedings. See ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 54, 68–69; ECF No. 32 at 3, 9, 10, 20; ECF No. 87 at 11, 18. The Government chose to pursue this path only after losing on habeas and only through a process that denied Petitioner any opportunity to be heard. . . .
Detention is also inconsistent with Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). Yesterday, this Court held that Petitioner’s removal could not be considered “reasonably foreseeable, imminent, or consistent with due process” because the government lacked statutory authority to remove him absent a final order of removal. . . .
Tangerine 2.0 mostly runs. . . a crime syndicate -- not a. . . government, under any recognized principles. This gambit will of course. . . fail. And Abrego is safe at home, tonight -- he will remain there. Bank on it. Out.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment