HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Supreme Court Justices Ag... » Reply #7

Response to JI7 (Reply #3)

Mon May 24, 2021, 02:20 PM

7. He was convicted of an "aggravated felony" DUI in 1988.

In 2004, SCOTUS made a separate ruling in another case, and California removed the 'aggravated felony' status from non-violent DUI offenses, and it became a misdemeanor.

The ruling goes on:

Although the Court acknowledged that this immigrant’s removal order “never should have issued,” that error alone was not enough to warrant a ruling in his favor. Rather, the criminal re-entry statute requires that a person wishing to challenge an underlying removal order must demonstrate three things: “(1) they have ‘exhausted any administrative remedies,’ (2) they were ‘deprived . . . of the opportunity for judicial review,’ and (3) ‘the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair.'” Palomar-Santiago did not meet those requirements — and the lower courts were not authorized to excuse them.


Basically, Palomar-Santiago shouldn't have been deported, but because he was, and he doesn't meet these 3 criteria, he cannot appeal his deportation.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Please login to view edit histories.