Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act’s (IIRIRA) limitations on asylum seekers seeking habeas review is constitutional and does not violate due process.

Respondent, a Sri Lanka national, was stopped by a border patrol agent shortly after illegally crossing the southern border. The district court dismissed Respondent’s petition holding that case law barred review of the removal order in this case. The court also rejected Respondent’s argument the IIRIRA, which Congress enacted to clear out meritless fraudulent claims of asylum seeker, unconstitutionally placed restrictions on the ability of asylum seekers to get review of their habeas case. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, holding that IIRIRA, was unconstitutional and violated his right to due process. The Supreme Court stated that “[h]abeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive detention” and that what these individuals wanted was not “simple release” but an order requiring them to be brought to this country. Munaf v. Geren, 553 U. S. 697, 693 (2008). The Court found that Respondent’s Suspension Clause argument failed because it did not show that a Petitioner could claim the right to enter or remain in a country or to obtain administrative review potentially leading to that result. Respondent’s due process argument also failed because the rights of an alien who attempted to enter the country illegally and was captured 25 yards from the border are not the equivalent as those of aliens who has established relations in the country. REVERSED.