Source: http://postdeportation.org/legal-materials/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 23:02:09+00:00

Document:
For the past decade, the International Law Commission of the United Nations – charged with creating and developing international law – has undertaken the study and analysis of the topic of expulsion of aliens (deportation of noncitizens). In June 2014, the International Law Commission adopted the Draft Articles on the Expulsion of Aliens. In doing so, it recommended that the General Assembly assist in the dissemination of the articles and consider the creation of an international convention based on the draft articles. You can read more about the drafting process here.
M.A. v. Cyprus (Case No. 41872/10, ECtHR 2013) (violation of Art. 13’s right to an effective remedy taken together with Art. 2’s right to life and Art. 3’s prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment due to lack of an effective remedy with automatic suspensive effect to challenge the applicant’s deportation).
Maslov v. Austria (Case No. 1638/03, ECtHR 2008) (Art. 8 violated because expulsion was disproportionate to legitimate aim of prevention of disorder or crime given length of lawful residence, family and social ties and lack of ties to country of origin).
DeSouza Ribeiro v. France (Case No. 22689/07, ECtHR 2012) (Art. 13 and 8 require States to provide procedural safeguards when expulsion would cause irreversible damage to migrant’s right to family life).
Üner v The Netherlands, (Case No. 46410/99; ECtHR 2007) (Followed criteria set forth in Boultif v Switzerland, (2001) 2 FLR 1228 in determining whether expulsion would be a violation of Art. 8, and added consideration of the best interests of children of the applicant and the extent and depth of applicant’s social, cultural and family ties with the returning and receiving states).
Sec. of State for the Home Dept. v. CS (Case C-304/14) and Alfredo Rendon Marin v. Administracion del Estado (Case C-165/14) (non-EU national having sole care and control of a minor child who is a citizen of the EU may not be expelled from a member state or be refused a residence permit simply because he has a criminal record).
Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v. Office national de l’emploi (Case C-34/09) (non-EU national with dependent EU citizen children cannot be refused residence or work permit as doing so would deprive children of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights attaching to the status of citizen of the EU).
Skerdjan Celaj (Case C-290/14) (the Return Directive does not preclude a Member State from imposing a criminal sanction on a third-country national who unlawfully re-enters in breach of an entry ban following return).
Mohamed M’Bodj v État belge (C-542/13) (removal of a seriously ill person could in exceptional circumstances amount to a breach of Art. 3 ECHR, however Member States not required to grant the social welfare and health care benefits to a third country national who has been granted leave to reside in the territory).
Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic (Ser. C, No. 282, Court) (the Dominican Republic’s systemized practice of expulsions, denial of personal identity documents and denial of citizenship to Dominicans of Haitian descent violated the right to a nationality (Art. 20), the right to legal personality (Art. 3), the right to personal liberty (Art. 7), the right to equality before the law (Art. 24), rights of the family and of the child (Arts. 17 and 19), as well as fair trial guarantees (Art. 8) and judicial protection (Art. 25) as guaranteed by the American Convention on Human Rights).
Case of the Pacheco Tineo Family v. Plurinational State of Bolivia (Ser. C, No. 272, Court) (Bolivian government’s return of a family to Peru, where they were subject to detention, was a violation of Art. (fair trial), 22.7 (right to seek asylum) and 22.8 (prohibition on return if threat to life or freedom) of the American Convention on Human Rights).
Wayne Smith and Hugo Armendariz v. The United States of America (Case No. 12.561 and 12.562, Commission) (U.S. deportation policy violates fundamental human rights because it fails to consider evidence concerning the adverse impact of the destruction of families, the best interest of the children of deportees, and other humanitarian concerns).
Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa v. Republic of Angola (Comm. No. 292/2004, 2008) (finding numerous violations of the African Charter in the expulsion of Gambian workers, affirming that member states may not “unnecessarily and without due process deal with non-nationals to such an extent that they are denied the basic guarantees enshrined under the African Charter” and that due process requires an opportunity to challenge the expulsion and have access to legal counsel).
Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (on behalf of Andrew Barclay Meldrum) v. Republic of Zimbabwe (Comm. No. 294/2004, 2009) (deportation of journalist who was charged and acquitted for “publishing falsehood” was a violation of numerous articles of the African Charter, and court ordered journalist be allowed to return to Zimbabwe and resume his status as a permanent resident).
Kenneth Good v. Republic of Botswana (Comm. No. 313/05, 2010) (deportation of an Australian professor deemed an “undesirable inhabitant” after authoring article criticizing the presidential succession in Botswana violated several articles of the African Charter including right to due process and protection of the family unity).
Complete listing of decisions on the topic of expulsion of aliens.
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (Sixth Amendment of US Constitution requires criminal defense counsel to advise noncitizen defendant regarding the immigration consequences of a guilty plea); Chaidez v. US, 133 S.Ct. 1103 (2013) (rule announced in Padilla not retroactive).
Torres v. Lynch, 136 S. Ct. 1619 (2016) (state crime counts as “aggravated felony” leading to mandatory removal when it corresponds to federal offense even when it lacks interstate commerce element).
Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47 (2006) and Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563 (2010) (narrowed what constitutes drug trafficking “aggravated felony” leading to mandatory removal).
Descamps v. US, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013); Mathis v. US, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016); Mellouli v. Lynch, 135 S.Ct. 1980 (2015) (reaffirm strict application of the categorical approach).

References: v. 
 Art. 13
 Art. 2
 Art. 3
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 8
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 3
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.