“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
.
What’s at stake in this case?
An immigrant was ordered removed and deported even though an immigration officer had earlier stamped “admitted” on her passport.
What happened in this case?
Alejandra Cisneros was born in El Salvador and initially came to the US in 1985 and was granted temporary protected status (“TPS”). When TPS for El Salvador expired, she applied for and received Deferred Enforcement Departure (DED), which allowed her to travel abroad and nevertheless return and be protected from deportation. When she re-entered the US in 1994, an immigration officer stamped “admitted” on her passport and wrote on it “DED until Dec. 30, 1994.” She made several more trips later, and her passport was stamped “paroled” and “DED” when she returned. In 2006, she received lawful permanent resident status under a law providing relief for Central Americans. In 2013, she pleaded guilty to petit larceny in Virginia.
Not much happened for several years. In late 2016, however, the Department of Homeland Security contended that she was subject to removal because of her conviction and, in September 2017, after Trump became president, she appeared before an immigration judge. She applied for cancellation of removal under a law that required her to demonstrate seven years of continuous residence after having been “admitted in any status.” The judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals denied her application, and she filed a petition with the Fourth Circuit.
Trump judge Julius Richardson wrote a 2-1 decision, joined by George W Bush judge Steven Agee, that upheld the order deporting Cisneros in July, 2026 in Cisneros v Blanche. They ruled that Cisneros was not “admitted in any status” notwithstanding the immigration officer’s “admitted” stamp on her passport in 1994, explaining that DED is “not an immigration status.” Obama judge Stephani Thacker dissented.
Why did Judge Thacker dissent?
Judge Thacker strongly disagreed. She explained that the immigration officer in 1994 chose to “exercise discretion” and stamp Cisneros’ passport “admitted.” Following decisions by the Fifth and Ninth Circuit, moreover, she ruled that admission “in any status” included admission pursuant to the DED program. As a result, she concluded, the court should have granted Cisneros’ request for cancellation of removal.
Why is the decision harmful?
Trump judge Richardson’s ruling obviously harms Alejanrda Cisneros, who is now being deported despite years of lawful residence in the US. It also sets a bad precedent concerning people who have benefitted from the DED program, particularly in the Fourth Circuit, which includes Maryland, North and South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. In addition, the decision illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.