News & Insights

Facts

• The case involved four Central American children and their mothers, fleeing severe abuse and violence in their home countries.
• Upon arrival in the U.S., they were detained and issued expedited removal orders after their asylum claims were denied at the preliminary “credible fear” stage.
• While in detention, the children applied for and were granted SIJ status. This status gives them specific protections, including eligibility to apply for lawful permanent residence (green cards), exemptions from certain grounds of inadmissibility, and procedural safeguards.
• Despite this, immigration authorities continued efforts to remove them under their expedited removal orders.

Analysis

Jurisdiction and Legal Protections

• The INA limits judicial review of expedited removal orders to extremely narrow grounds, effectively barring courts from reviewing whether the removal of these children, now with SIJ status, was lawful.

Suspension of Habeas Corpus

• The court noted that SIJ designees have developed significant ties to the U.S. through their dependency on state courts and their eligibility for permanent residence.
• These connections make them eligible for constitutional protections, including the right to challenge unlawful detention and removal under the Suspension Clause.

Incompatibility with SIJ Status

• The court emphasized that SIJ status comes with Congressional intent to protect vulnerable children, a process that expedited removal would entirely undermine by removing children to the very countries where they face harm.

Outcome

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the INA’s jurisdiction-stripping provisions, as applied to SIJ designees, violate the Suspension Clause. It held that these children are entitled to seek habeas corpus relief and judicial review of their expedited removal orders. The court reversed the lower court’s decision and ordered further proceedings, granting the children relief from expedited removal.