Apparently, a single-word technicality was “the key” in the way they solved this mystery…
Thursday’s case presented before the Supreme Court ended up with a shocking verdict when the high law officials ruled in favor of the illegal alien, Augusto Nix-Chavez in a matter of deportation. According to Federal law,
“an illegal alien may be eligible for discretionary relief if, among other things, they can establish their continuous presence in the country for at least 10 years.” But, there is this “stop-time” rule, which proclaims that “the period of continuous presence ‘shall be deemed to end . . . when the alien is served a notice to appear in a removal proceeding.”
Thus, interpreting this sentences, the Supreme Court ruled that the written accusation, or, notice must include “the charges against the alien and the time and place at which the removal proceedings will be held … A notice that omits any of this statutorily required information does not trigger the stop-time rule.”
Augusto Niz-Chavez entered the States back in 2005.
According to the report published by Fox News,
“Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the court’s opinion. He was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Amy Coney Barrett.
“At one level, today’s dispute may seem semantic, focused on a single word, a small one at that. But words are how the law constrains power,” he wrote.
“In this case, the law’s terms ensure that, when the federal government seeks a procedural advantage against an individual, it will at least supply him with a single and reasonably comprehensive statement of the nature of the proceedings against him.”
“At first blush, a notice to appear might seem to be just that — a single document containing all the information an individual needs to know about his removal hearing. But, the government says, supplying so much information in a single form is too taxing.
“It needs more flexibility, allowing its officials to provide information in separate mailings (as many as they wish) over time (as long as they find convenient). The question for us is whether the law Congress adopted tolerates the government’s preferred practice.”
“The Court says that Niz-Chavez did not receive proper notice of his removal proceedings because he received notice in two documents rather than one.”
“The Court so holds even though Niz-Chavez (i) received all the statutorily required information about his removal proceedings, including the time and place of the removal hearing; (ii) was not prejudiced in any way by receiving notice in two documents rather than one; and (iii) in fact appeared with counsel at his scheduled removal hearing.”
What’s your personal opinion about this?
Are the DOJ and the Supreme Court the sunflowers that are turned to the left nowadays?