Skip to content
Customize Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

DMCA CHALLENGES ORDERS REINSTATING REMOVAL

Immigration Blog

DMCA CHALLENGES ORDERS REINSTATING REMOVAL

In oral argument today before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, DMCA attorney Juan Carlos Rodriguez argued that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) wrongly entered an order reinstating a prior order of removal against his client. ICE is only supposed to reinstate a prior order of removal when they are confronted with a person who was (1) previously removed and who (2) subsequently illegally re-entered the country. These reinstatement proceedings almost always involve a short proceeding between the immigrant and an ICE officer. The immigrant rarely fully understands the proceeding and is almost never allowed the right to speak to an attorney. Not surprisingly, the reinstatement proceeding sometimes results in a wrongful deportation.

DMCA attorneys regularly challenge ICE’s decision to reinstate a removal order. The challenge can be made directly to ICE or, as in the case argued today, by filing a petition for review to the Circuit Court. Recent challenges have involved situations where ICE is attempting to reinstate a removal order against an immigrant who reentered the country legally. Also, if the initial removal order violated due process of law, it should be challenged because to reinstate the order might result in a gross miscarriage of justice. Finally, if a person in a reinstatement proceeding will be persecuted in their home country, they have a right to a reasonable fear interview to determine whether they should be returned or not. If an immigrant demonstrates a reasonable fear, their case will be forwarded to an immigration court for further consideration.

Although a reinstatement proceedings include very little protections for immigrants, DMCA has successfully navigated clients through them in the past. A successful case involves early legal intervention and creative lawyering. Even short delays by the lawyer can result in an immigrant’s removal and there are strict deadlines for filing appeals. Attorneys need to carefully review both the underlying order of removal for a violation of due process and the reinstatement order itself to ensure that ICE follows its own regulations and procedures. The stakes are high; the time is short–having the right law firm on your side is key.

Archive
Follow us on Facebook
© 2024 De Mott, Curtright & Armendáriz, LLP. All rights reserved. Headquartered in San Antonio: 8023 Vantage Drive, Suite 800, San Antonio, 78230
Powered By: DMS