Page 44 - The Indian EYE 041924

IMMIGRATION APRIL 19, 2024 | The Indian Eye 44

Lock Up Falsely Arrested Adjustment

Applicants and Teenage Shoplifters, or Be

Sued: the House’s “Laken Riley Act”

DAVID ISAACSON of Homeland Security to take they suspect them of a petty conviction, only that one be unless their asylum status is
into custody aliens who have crime.” As it turns out, how- “charged with” or “arrested terminated). That scenario
n March 7, 2024, the been charged in the United ever, some of the details are for” the crimes in question. would at least bear some dis-
Republican-led U.S. States with theft”. even worse than that press Mandatory detention fol- tant, tenuous resemblance
OHouse of Represen- Perhaps because the release suggests. lowing an arrest or charge to the cases that the authors
tatives passed the “Laken Laken Riley Act has little The text of the Laken that need not even lead to of H.R. 7511 presumably
Riley Act”, H.R. 7511. The chance of passing the Senate Riley Act would add a new a conviction would be bad thought they were trying
bill was named after a mur- or becoming law, there has paragraph (1)(E) to the list enough if it only applied to to address, although the
der victim from Georgia, been little public analysis of of those subject to mandato- people who one would other- thought of an asylee, grant-
whose “alleged murderer”, its details, although its initial ry detention during removal wise reasonably expect to be ed permission to stay in the
as the bill describes him, had passage by the House was proceedings in INA § 236(c), placed in removal proceed- United States for safety from
been paroled into the United covered by major media such 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), covering ings, since even they are en- persecution, being subject to
States from Venezuela and as the New York Times and “any alien who . . . titled under the Constitution mandatory detention due to
had previously been arrested CNN. At least one press re- (i) is inadmissible under to due process of law—and potentially false charges of
for driving a scooter without lease has correctly observed paragraph (6)(A), (6)(C), or there has been at least one theft or shoplifting, is none-
a license (with a child who that “Under the Laken Riley (7) of section 212(a), and recent and notorious inci- theless horrifying. But the
was not wearing a helmet) Act, a Dreamer who lives in (ii) is charged with, is dent of an asylum-seeker reach of H.R. 7511’s cited
and for shoplifting. The bill a hostile state could be sub- arrested for, is convicted of, being accused of a more se- grounds of inadmissibility is
describes its primary purpose ject to indefinite detention admits having committed, rious crime than shoplifting even broader, and stranger,
as “To require the Secretary simply because someone says or admits committing acts before being exonerated. But than this.
which constitute the es- for reasons that may be less The ground of inadmissi-
sential elements of any obvious, the Laken Riley Act bility under INA § 212(a)(7),
burglary, theft, larceny, would go significantly farther which applies to documen-
or shoplifting offense,” even that that. tation requirements such as
H.R. 7511, § 3(1). It One problem is the having a proper immigrant or
would require that “The breadth of the inadmissibil- nonimmigrant visa or pass-
Secretary of Homeland ity grounds which, together port, was presumably includ-
Security shall issue a with any charge or arrest ed in the Laken Riley Act
detainer for an alien de- for burglary, theft, larceny order to capture parolees, as
scribed in paragraph (1) or shoplifting, would trigger Laken Riley’s alleged mur-
(E) and, if the alien is not the mandatory detention. derer had been paroled into
otherwise detained by The reference to one “in- the United States. While the
Federal, State, or local admissible under paragraph bill’s authors may have had
officials, shall effectively (6)(A). . . of section 212(a)” in mind those who first arrive
and expeditiously take would cover anyone who in the United States on pa-
custody of the alien.” entered without inspection, role, however, the language
Id. § 3(3). In addition, it even if they have since been, of the bill is broad enough to
would allow lawsuits by for example, granted asylum, cover those who use advance
“The attorney general of at least as the law has been parole to leave and re-en-
a State, or other autho- interpreted by the Board of ter the United States while
rized State officer” to Immigration Appeals. INA they have a pending appli-
file lawsuits challenging § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) states that cation for an immigration
m of the release of aliens in “An alien present in the Unit- benefit, most commonly an
CYRUS D. MEHTA & PARTNERS PLLC alleged violation of INA ed States without being ad- application for adjustment
§ 236 and various other mitted or paroled . . . is inad- of status to that of a Lawful

sections of law relating missible”, and the BIA held Permanent Resident (green
to immigration. Id. at § in Matter of V-X-, 26 I&N card holder). They, too, will

  4(a.)-(f.). Dec. 147 (BIA 2013), that a upon their return be tech-
   
­
€
‚   The most obvious grant of asylum is not an “ad- nically inadmissible for lack
problem with this new mission” for these purposes, of an immigrant visa, until
language would be that, leaving asylees subject to the their applications for adjust-
as the above-quoted grounds of inadmissibility ment of status are granted,
press release flagged, (although with the proviso and so INA § 212(a)(7) is
2 6th Floor

    it does not require a that they cannot be removed the ground of inadmissibility

www.TheIndianEYE.com