As the dolt Kristi Noem is finding out -- she is not in the Dakotas anymore. There is no one party rule, for her here. Admin. Judges cannot overrule full federal district court orders. Not at all.
Here's that latest six pages of muscular argument, from Mr. Khalil's fine lawyers.
. . .Requiring the IJ’s full and immediate compliance with this Court’s preliminary injunction is appropriate and necessary to remedy the irreparable harms flowing from the Secretary of State’s determination. Federal district courts exercising habeas jurisdiction enjoy broad authority over immigration judges. See, e.g., German Santos v. Warden Pike Cnty. Corr. Facility, 965 F.3d 203, 214 (3d Cir. 2020) (remanding habeas suit with instructions for district court to order immigration judges to redo bond hearing and place burden of proof on government); Smith v. Ogle, 21-CV-1129, 2023 WL 3369154, at *7 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 3, 2023) (ordering that “immigration judge conduct a bond hearing in accordance with Santos”), report and recommendation adopted, 21-CV-1129, 2023 WL 3362597 (M.D. Pa. May 10, 2023); Angel A.A. v. Edwards, 19-CV-9135, 2022 WL 4001247, at *1 (D.N.J. Mar. 22, 2022) (ordering “that an Immigration Judge shall provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing” in accordance with district court’s opinion); Onosamba-Ohindo v. Barr, 483 F. Supp. 3d 159, 178 (W.D.N.Y. 2020) (ordering immigration judges in Buffalo to reconsider class members’ bond hearings with several additional procedural protections after district court dismissed all defendants other than immediate custodian); Franco-Gonzalez v. Holder, 10-CV-02211, 2014 WL 5475097, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2014) (ordering among other things that immigration judges conduct competency inquiries to determine if class members are competent to represent themselves in removal proceedings). In sum, because her decision impermissibly seeks to remove Mr. Khalil based on the Secretary of State’s determination, which this Court foreclosed as presumptively unconstitutional, the IJ must reverse, vacate, or amend her decision. . . .
If the June 20 IJ decision is not corrected by July 18, Petitioner’s timely notice of appeal to the BIA would divest the IJ of jurisdiction. See ECF 343 at 2. Petitioner intends to notice his appeal by Sunday, July 20, to not risk filing on the very last day, Monday, July 21. Should the IJ require more time to rewrite her decision, all she must do by July 18 is vacate her decision and schedule the waiver hearing on a later date. No administrative appeal would then be necessary. . . .
Now you know. Stick it, Noem.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment