Here’s the opinion in Duran-Ortega v. U.S. Attorney General, including the lengthy concurring opinion by Judge Martin:
11th Cir. Stay of Removal in Duran-Ortega, Pereria-based
Here’s the “key quote” from Judge Martin:
Although one meritorious argument is enough to satisfy the first Nken factor, Mr. Duran- Ortega’s emergency motion for a stay presents a second, equally compelling argument that the agency’s in abstentia removal order must be rescinded in light of Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). The governing statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(G)(i), requires that a notice to appear (“NTA”) “specify[] . . . [t]he time and place at which the proceedings will be held.” Once a charging document, such as an NTA, is filed with the immigration court, the court may then exercise jurisdiction over a petitioner’s removal proceedings. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14 (“Jurisdiction vests, and proceedings before an Immigration Judge commence, when a charging document is filed with the Immigration Court by the Service.” (emphasis added)). The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Pereira appears to suggest, as Duran-Ortega argues, that self-described “notice to appears” issued without a time and place are not, in fact, notice to appears within the meaning of § 1229. 138 S. Ct. at 2113–14. In particular, Pereira emphasized that § 1229 “does not say a ‘notice to appear’ is ‘complete’ when it specifies the time and place of the removal proceedings.” Id. at 2116. “Rather,” the Supreme Court explained, § 1229 “defines a ‘notice to appear’ as a ‘written notice’ that ‘specifies,’ at a minimum, the time and place of the removal proceedings.” Id. (alteration omitted) (emphases added). In other words, just as a block of wood is not a pencil if it lacks some kind of pigmented core to write with, a piece of paper is not a notice to appear absent notification of the time and place of a petitioner’s removal proceedings.
Pereira’s reasoning has led some district courts to conclude that a self-styled “notice to appear” lacking the requisite time and place of the hearing is legally insufficient to vest an immigration court with jurisdiction. See, e.g., United States v. Zapata-Cortinas, 2018 WL 4770868, at *2–3 (W.D. Tex. 2018); United States v. Virgen-Ponce, 320 F.Supp.3d 1164, 1166 (E.D. Wash. 2018). Other district courts have disagreed. See, e.g., United States v. Romero- Colindres, 2018 WL 5084877, at *2 (N.D. Ohio 2018). Most recently, the BIA issued a published decision holding that a defective NTA is sufficient to vest jurisdiction in an immigration court “so long as a notice of hearing specifying this information [on time and date] is later sent to the alien.” Matter of Bermudez-Cota, 27 I. & N. Dec. 441, 447 (BIA 2018). This Court, however, need not defer to Bermudez-Cota if the agency’s holding is based on an unreasonable interpretation of the statutes and regulations involved, or if its holding is unambiguously foreclosed by the law. See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843–45, 104 S. Ct. 2778, 2782–83 (1984); see also Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461, 117 S. Ct. 905, 911 (1997). In light of Pereira and the various regulations and statutes at issue here, it may well be the case that deference is unwarranted.
As a result, it is clear to me that Mr. Duran-Ortega has presented “a substantial case on the merits” sufficient to satisfy the first Nken factor, given the other three factors “weigh[] heavily in favor of granting the stay.” Ruiz v. Estelle, 650 F.2d 555, 565–66 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981).2
Here’s the SPLC summary of the case:
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay of removal today for Spanish-language journalist Manuel Duran.
Without the stay, Duran – who was unlawfully arrested and detained in retaliation for reporting on controversial issues related to law enforcement in Tennessee – could have been deported at any time.
Earlier this month, the court granted a temporary, two-week stay that expired today. The stay that the court issued today will remain in place until Duran’s appeal has concluded.
“We are grateful and pleased that the court acted to stay Mr. Duran’s deportation so that his appeal may be fully heard,” said Kristi Graunke, senior supervising attorney for the SPLC. “As a journalist who has dedicated his career to reporting on government misconduct, Mr. Duran faces serious danger if he is deported to El Salvador. We will continue to fight for his freedom and to ensure he receives a fair hearing on his asylum claims.”
Duran has been detained for over seven months at LaSalle Detention Facility in Jena, Louisiana, after working as a reporter in Memphis, Tennessee, for more than 10 years. The SPLC took his case after he was placed in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody following his arrest by Memphis police in April.
Duran is a respected reporter who wrote for the Spanish-language publication he founded: Memphis Noticias. He was known for his investigative journalism. His work frequently highlighted issues of importance to Memphis’ Spanish-speaking community, including local law enforcement’s collaboration with ICE.
On April 3, Duran was covering a Memphis event relating to the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination. The demonstration included a protest of local law enforcement’s practice of detaining suspected immigrants and handing them over to ICE.
During the event, Duran wore his yellow press badge and did not engage in the protest. He was following police orders to step away from the protesters when an officer pointed to him and yelled, “Get him, guys.”
Because his reporting exposed ties between local police and ICE in detaining immigrants, Duran was singled out and arrested amid a pool of other journalists covering the protest. He was falsely accused of disorderly conduct and obstructing traffic.
Duran is like thousands of other immigrants facing deportation, who face lengthy detention even if they have meritorious claims. Held captive in detention centers for months and sometimes years, they are forced to endure terrible conditions and separation from loved ones and their communities.
**********************************************
As Attorney General, Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions used every tool at his disposal to destroy Due Process in the U.S. Immigration Courts, discriminate against asylum seekers and their (often pro bono) hard-working lawyers, and artificially “jack up” the court backlog to increase pressure on Immigration Judges to cut corners and ultimately to collapse the system entirely (thus, presumably, leading to calls for an unconstitutional “summary removal system” without any court hearings). I estimate that 75% to 80% of the cases in the current 1.1 million “backlog” (largely the result of management interference by DOJ politicos over the past three Administrations leading to “Aimless Docket Reshuffling”) were probably commenced in violation of the Supremes’ “Pereira reading” of required statutory notice.
Ironically, Sessions’s “gonzo-like” fixation on ruining the system and punishing migrants, rather than taking the reasonable steps necessary to improve Due Process and efficiency, could have the effect of drastically cutting the backlog by removing the vast majority of “backlogged” cases from the docket without compromising anyone’s Due Process. And, once off the docket, most of those cases, which represent long-time residents with good character and substantial equities, should properly remain off-docket pending a Congressional legalization program. That would actually rationalize the system and enable the enlarged Immigration Court to “keep current” on a more realistic and appropriate docket of 200,000 to 300,000 new cases per year (provided the Immigration Court is removed from the DOJ and put under independent, professional, apolitical court management stemming from the judges themselves).
Another notable point — by allowing itself to make decisions based on politically preferred outcomes, typically anti-immigrant, rather than sound and fair legal reasoning, the BIA is rapidly depriving its decisions of so-called “Chevron deference” from the Article III (“real”) Courts.
PWS
12-01-18