“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 from Jamaica tried to prevent his deportation because he feared he would be tortured. deported.
What happened in this case?
Winston Hayles, an immigrant from Jamaica, was in the process of being deported because he had committed several felonies. During the proceedings, he told an aylum officer he feared he would be tortured if deported, which could qualify him for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). An immigration judge and the BIA denied him relief. In separate administrative proceedings, Hayles was ordered to be deported. Acting without a lawyer, Hayles filed a petition for judicial review of the CAT decision with the Eleventh Circuit, although he did not specifically contest the deportation order. In fact, Hayles was deported under that order.
Hayles’ CAT-related petition remained on the Eleventh Circuit docket, and it appointed lawyers at the University of Miami law school immigration climic to represent him. Trump judge Andrew Brasher issued a 2-1 ruling, joined by George W Bush judge William Pryor, that the court did not have jurisdiction to review the denial of CAT relief in Hayles v Attorney General. Biden judge Nancy Abudu dissented in the June decision.
What was the majority’s rationale?
Trump judge Brasher agreed with the Trump Administration position that an immigrant may challenge an immigration-related order in a court of appeals only if it includes a final removal order, which this one did not. A court can consider a related denial of CAT relief, Brasher went on, but it “may not review the denial of CAT relief alone.” Brasher noted that there is a split in the circuits on the issue, with the Ninth Circuit accepting the government’s position while the Third Circuit has done the opposite.
Why did Judge Abudu dissent?
Judge Abudu explained that contrary to the majority’s view, under past precedent and the statutory structure, a CAT-related challenge is “inherently a challenge to the execution of a final order of removal and, thus, triggers our jurisdiction to review that order,” A CAT determination that an immigrant cannot be deported to a particular country because of the risk of torture, she went on, thus “does not sit apart” from a removal order but instead “targets the order’s execution.” She concluded that under the law, appellate courts “should exercise jurisdiction” over petititions for review of denial of CAT relief.
Why is the ruling harmful?
Trump judge Brasher’s ruling obviously harms Winston Hayles and his effort to obtain CAT relief from torture. It also sets a troubling precedent concerning judicial review of CAT-related orders, adding to the current circuit split on the issue and in the Eleventh Circuit itself, which includes Florida, Georgia, and Alabama. In addition, it illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.