D.N.M. on Habeas, Court-Stripping, Suspension Claus, Expedited Removal, Artesia: M.S.P.C v. CBP

"[T]he plain language of Section 1252 strips this Court of jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s claims. ... This Court recognizes the harsh consequences that this statutory scheme places on aliens who may receive an erroneous negative fear determination by both the asylum officer and immigration judge. While this Court sympathizes with Petitioner’s plight, nothing in the statute or case law indicates that Congress did not intend this result when it severely restricted judicial review of section 1225(b)(1) orders in section 1252(e). ... [T]he Court finds that any rights the petitioner may have under the Suspension Clause are not violated in this case. ... The federal courts have often been pressed upon by desperate immigrants seeking a judicial remedy to avoid a return to their homeland. See, e.g., Haitian Centers Council, 509 U.S. at 188. The sheer numbers of such cases have often resulted in policies by the Executive Branch aimed to stem the immigrant flow and turn away the masses in light of the economic, political, and social concerns of the nation. The case at hand presents a tragic situation of an immigrant reaching these lands in an attempt to escape the dangerous, potentially life-threatening conditions in El Salvador. Petitioner has sought the protections of our nation’s asylum laws, but Congress, within its sovereign and constitutionally granted powers, chose to place the asylum determinations in the hands of experienced professionals within the Executive Branch to ensure an expedited process that would not overwhelm the resources of that branch. Petitioner, detained near the border within 30 minutes of illegal entry, does not have sufficient ties to this country to change her status from that of an arriving alien, and thus, this Court cannot thwart Congressional intent and find jurisdiction under the Suspension Clause to second-guess in habeas the administrative decisions of the executive officers to exclude her. The substitute habeas procedures are sufficient to ensure the legality of Petitioner’s exclusion, and thus the restrictions on habeas review do not offend Petitioner’s rights under the Suspension Clause. As the Supreme Court has found itself compelled to note in such cases, “Although the human crisis is compelling, there is no solution to be found in a judicial remedy.” Id. (quoting Haitian Refugee Center v. Gracey, 809 F.2d 794, 841 (D.C. Cir. 1987)). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal (ECF No. 2) is DENIED." - M.S.P.C. v. CBP, Oct. 16, 2014.

[See excellent reporting on the case by Scott Sandlin at the Albuquerque Journal, Oct. 23, 2014.]