Opinion ID: 2610
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Termination of Deferral of Removal Proceedings before IJ Iskra

Text: In July 2003, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) [4] filed a motion to terminate Ali's deferral of removal, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1208.17(d)(1). [5] DHS asked the Immigration Court to reinstate Ali's case to its calendar to consider new evidence, evidence that would show that country conditions in Guyana no longer supported Ali's CAT claim. [6] DHS attached to its motion its new evidence, which included the results of a State Department inquiry, conducted at DHS's request, into the specific conditions for returning criminal aliens. On the basis of an exchange with the U.S. Embassy in Guyana, the State Department wrote a letter to DHS indicating that it d[id] not know of any cases of systematic abuse of criminal deportees upon their return to Guyana or instances of singling out of criminal deportees for abuse by police, nor did it know of any cases of abuse by the immigration police in Guyana. DHS also attached two letters that Ali allegedly sent to the Guyanese Embassy in Washington (the same letters referenced in the July 16, 2002 hearing). These stated, in substance, that Ali had no family left in Guyana and would make trouble there if the Embassy gave U.S. immigration officials travel documents for him. The DHS motion also argued that Ali remained a danger to the community if released, and that DHS will not be allowed to detain him indefinitely because [t]he INA contains an implicit limitation on detention. The detention period allowed is only that which is reasonably necessary to bring about removal; [o]nce removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable, continued detention is no longer authorized under the INA. IJ Iskra held a preliminary hearing on the motion in November 2003. He convened a hearing on the merits on February 3, 2004, but then granted a continuance until March 25, 2004, to allow counsel for DHS to seek State Department review of some of Ali's submissions and to arrange for State Department witnesses to testify telephonically (IJ Iskra implied that he would otherwise give the State Department letter limited weight). On March 5, 2004, however, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York started criminal proceedings against Ali, charging him with illegal re-entry. [7] Accordingly, the U.S. Marshals Service in New York took Ali into custody and IJ Iskra, upon DHS's motion, closed Ali's proceedings until a time when [Ali] can be returned to DHS custody.