Enwonwu v. Gonzales, No. 05-2053, discusses the constitutional contours of immigration and oppression, the REAL ID Act, and the Suspension Clause. Read on, if you like .
It holds:
- An alien has no valid substantive due process argument because “an alien has no constitutional substantive due process right not to be removed from the United States, nor a right not to be removed from the United States to a particular place.” The court concludes it would violate separation of powers principles for the court to hold that, as a constitutional matter, a alien must stay in the US because it is really dangerous where he came from. (And the court notes that Congress and the Executive have provided statutory remedies for aliens that come from bad places.)
- The Real ID Act is constitutional, and doesn’t violate the suspension clause because even though habeas isn’t available the statute allows Courts of Appeal to consider all constitutional issues.
- But, despite this Valenties Day card to the executive, the court concludes that the BIA’s reversal of the IJ was “insufficiently reasoned as a matter of law” because it didn’t address (in reversing the IJ) an alternative grounds for the IJ’s decision.
Finally, Waweru v. Gonzales, No. 05-1100, affirms the denial of CAT relief (petitioner was from Kenya) and notes that the IJ did not abuse his discretion in rejecting Waweru's request for humanitarian asylum; this is granted only in cases of "extraordinary suffering,"
Comments