Krotova on account of her being Jewish compelled the finding that she suffered past persecution. This is just one example. The letter also talks about a woman who was ordered removed while her husband was serving overseas in the Texas National Guard and whose deportation would have left her U.S. citizen children no parent to care for them. And there are others. If my amendment is not adopted. these are the types of people who will be affected. who will be sent back to countries where they could be killed or torn from their families. I assume those who support this provision want to ensure immigrants cannot file frivolous appeals in order to delay their deportation. and I wholeheartedly agree with that goal. But this provision is not necessary to accomplish that worthy goal. The Federal courts do not grant stays of removal when immigrants have little likelihood of success. In fact. several of the appellate decisions that have rejected the clear and convincing evidence standard at issue here have gone on to apply the fourpart test I discussed earlier and denied stays of removal pending appeals. Nonetheless. they have denied these stays in some cases because the immigrants had little likelihood of success or because the immigrant could safely return to their home countries and await the outcome. So this provision is really just a solution in search of a problem. This amendment is about basic due process and fairness. It is about giving individuals who have been turned down at the administrative level the opportunity to seek meaningful judicial review. And it is about making sure that those who seek asylum in this country and who have meritorious claims are not returned to persecution or even murder in their home countries before they can present their case to a Federal court. That is why a long list of organizations have come out in support of this amendment. including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Keywords matched
immigrant deportation seek asylum immigrants