January 2014 - Gibbs Houston Pauw

In a recent decision, the Ninth Circuit concluded that there is jurisdiction to review the merits of a challenge to an “expedited removal order”. Smith v. CBP, ___ F.3d ____, 2014 WL 91915 (Jan, 9, 2014). Although the court ultimately rejected the petitioner’s merits argument, the case opens the door to future challenges by other individuals with different facts.

Under the “expedited removal” process, 8 U.S.C. §1225(b)(1)(A), an immigration officer at the border can issue an expedited order of removal against certain noncitizens applying to enter. This can be done immediately, while the person is at the border, and is completely at the discretion of the immigration officer if the officer believes that the person has made a false statement or does not have the proper immigration documents. The applicant is turned away and is also banished from coming back to the United States for five years.

By Robert H. Gibbs

Sponsors of family members are surprised to discover that their sponsorship includes significant and long term financial obligations, even after a divorce. In order to immigrate a family member to the U.S., the citizen or permanent resident petitioner, and possibly other cosponsors, must usually submit an I-864 affidavit of support to the U.S. government. For a family of two, the support obligation to the applicant is currently about $19,387/yr.

Once the application is approved for the immigrant, the I-864 cannot be withdrawn and is enforceable by either the immigrant, or any government welfare agency. The immigrant can enforce the support requirement, less any earnings on their part, in state or federal court. A welfare agency can seek reimbursement of welfare benefits paid to the immigrant, such as SSI, food stamps, or Medicaid.

Ninth Circuit Finds Limited Review for Expedited Removal Orders

Services