Opinion ID: 2802982
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Alleged Violation of the Covenant

Text: Mtoched argues that he cannot be removed because the extension of the INA to CNMI violated the terms of the Covenant and thus cannot have the force of law. Essentially similar arguments were made by the CNMI government itself 8 MTOCHED V. LYNCH when it sought to enjoin application and enforcement of United States immigration laws to the Commonwealth after Congress adopted the legislation extending those laws to CNMI. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia rejected that effort in Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands v. United States, 670 F. Supp. 2d 65 (D.D.C. 2009), holding that the extension was lawful in a decision that substantially relied upon and quoted from our court’s decision in Richards. Id. at 80–91. We agree with that decision and adopt its reasoning. “Congress was authorized to enact the challenged provisions of the CNRA by the plain and unambiguous terms of Section 503 of the Covenant.” Id. at 91.