Tahiraj-Dauti Panel Rehearing Ordered Involving Forced Drugging And Motions To Reopen After Departing
Tahiraj-Dauti v. Holder
April 29, 2009 -- granting panel rehearing
No. 07-1925
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/071925npo.pdf
In a decision dated January 30, 2009, the panel of Judges Chagares, Hardiman and visiting Senior District Judge Thomas Selby Ellis III from the Eastern District of Virginia denied the appeal of someone who was suffered forced drugging while being deported.
The petitioners asked for panel rehearing and so did amici curiae of the ACLU, the ACLU of NJ, and the ACLU of Southern California. On April 29, 2009, the Third Circuit panel granted panel rehearing based on the reasons raised by the amici, which probably focused on the forced drugging during deportation.
Next, the Third Circuit panel reissued a decision at http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/071925np.pdf which focused on the peculiar and controversial departure bar that appears in a regulation, but arguably not grounded in the INA and perhaps violates the statute and therefore is invalid.
It's not clear now whether the panel rehearing will focus just on the forced drugging issue or whether it will tackle the controversial regulation that purports to bar motions to reopen after someone leaves the country, even if the person only left because he was forcibly deported by ICE.
April 29, 2009 -- granting panel rehearing
No. 07-1925
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/071925npo.pdf
In a decision dated January 30, 2009, the panel of Judges Chagares, Hardiman and visiting Senior District Judge Thomas Selby Ellis III from the Eastern District of Virginia denied the appeal of someone who was suffered forced drugging while being deported.
The petitioners asked for panel rehearing and so did amici curiae of the ACLU, the ACLU of NJ, and the ACLU of Southern California. On April 29, 2009, the Third Circuit panel granted panel rehearing based on the reasons raised by the amici, which probably focused on the forced drugging during deportation.
Next, the Third Circuit panel reissued a decision at http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/071925np.pdf which focused on the peculiar and controversial departure bar that appears in a regulation, but arguably not grounded in the INA and perhaps violates the statute and therefore is invalid.
It's not clear now whether the panel rehearing will focus just on the forced drugging issue or whether it will tackle the controversial regulation that purports to bar motions to reopen after someone leaves the country, even if the person only left because he was forcibly deported by ICE.
posted by Rex at 9:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home