U.S. District Court Judge Mark Goldsmith
U.S. District Court Judge Mark Goldsmith
U.S. District Court Judge Mark A. Goldsmith in Detroit recently issued a stay halting the deportation of Iraqis in Metro Detroit and around the country while he determined if he had jurisdiction to rule in the case.
On Tuesday night, he took it a step further, ruling that he has jurisdiction to halt the imminent deportations of 114 detained Iraqis in Metro Detroit and approximately another 85 around the country to make sure they have a chance to argue their case before the immigration court and the U.S. Court of Appeals if necessary.
But his ruling stopped short of a permanent injunction in the case, concluding:
In the interim, the Court’s July 6, 2017 Order staying the removal orders of all class members remains in effect in accordance with its terms until July 24, 2017, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.
A status conference is set for Thursday to discuss the next move with the lawyers, including the ACLU's forthcoming petition for a preliminary injunction.
The compelling case has surfaced as a result of President Donald Trump's crackdown on immigration.
In this instance, the Iraqis detainees were rounded up June 11. They have criminal records ranging from murder to marijuana possession, and have been ordered deported. The ruling also covers more than 1,000 others who have been ordered deported but are not currently detained.
The U.S. Justice Department in Washington, which is overseeing the case, declined comment Tuesday night.
The Justice Department has taken the stance that the District Court does not have jurisdiction. The ACLU has argued that the judge does have jurisdiction, and that Iraqis should be able to argue that returning home might result in death or torture.
Goldsmith wrote in his 24-page opinion that Congressional laws normally would prevent the U.S. District Court's jurisdiction in a case like this. However, he noted that the plaintiffs in the case, represented by the ACLU, rightfully have argued that extraordinary circumstances exist that "will likely render their habeas claims meaningless, unless this Court intervenes to stay their deportation while review of their removal orders proceeds before the immigration courts and the courts of appeals."
In other words, he noted, if he did not step in, detainees could be deported before they were afforded their right to appeal their case before the immigration court and possibly the court of appeals.
Since their deportation orders were issued -- some were decades ago -- Iraq has deteriorated and become a much dangerous place for them to return to. The judge writes that they could face "death, torture, or other grave persecution" if they return home.
In further explaining the situation, he writes:
Most of the Iraqi nationals facing removal have been subject to final orders of removal for many years, resulting from criminal convictions and overstaying visas. However, the Government was unable to execute these removal orders due to Iraq’s longstanding policy not to issue the requisite travel documents for repatriation. It was not until the United States agreed to remove Iraq from the list of countries set forth in Executive Order 13780 (the Trump travel ban), issued March 6, 2017, that Iraq agreed to issue travel documents.
Many of the detainees are Chaldean, who are Iraqi Christians.
The judge writes:
"ISIS forces in Iraq have directed Christians, in particular, to “pay a protection tax, convert to Islam, or be killed...Sectarian violence in Iraq is by no means limited to Christian minorities. The U.S. State Department’s website paints a bleak picture of the country, noting that “[t]he murder rate remainshigh due to . . . religious/sectarian tensions.” The current International Religious Freedom Report, also published by the State Department, notes that “Yezidi, Christian, and Sunni leaders continued to report harassment and abuses” by certain regional governments.
The judge concluded that he "has jurisdiction to grant Petitioners the limited relief they request, i.e., an injunction against enforcement of the orders of removal so that their habeas rights can be meaningfully asserted and addressed before other courts.
"The next steps in this litigation remain to be determined. As will be detailed in a separate order to be issued, the Court will convene a status conference with counsel on (Thursday) July 13, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. to discuss those steps."
"In the interim, the Court’s July 6, 2017 Order staying the removal orders of all class members remains in effect in accordance with its terms until July 24, 2017, unless otherwise ordered by the Court."
