WASHINGTON—The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) has filed a brief in the First Circuit Court of Appeals urging the court to reverse a lower court’s injunction stopping the removal of a group of dangerous alien criminals to the nation of South Sudan.
The aliens—who have been convicted of such crimes as child sexual assault, sexual abuse of the mentally disabled, and murder—claimed that if they were removed to their home countries, they would face torture. But when federal officials asked them if they would consent to being removed to South Sudan—a country that has agreed to take them—instead, they said yes. Nevertheless, the federal district court in Massachusetts enjoined their removal as inconsistent with this country’s treaty obligations under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
As IRLI shows in its brief, however, the district court did not show how the removals were inconsistent with CAT. Instead, it rewrote and added to the regulations under which the removals were carried out according to the court’s own notions of fair play. These regulations, however, implement CAT as directed by Congress, and therefore have the force of law. And neither the alien plaintiffs nor the lower court ever showed that these regulations were not followed here.
Also, IRLI shows that Congress has removed jurisdiction from district courts to hear CAT claims, which can only be brought alongside a petition challenging an order of removal in a court of appeals.
“If President Trump and Border Czar Tom Homan are to deport dangerous alien criminals who have been protected by sanctuary states, they need the full use of the tools Congress has given them,” said Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of IRLI. “In trying to break these tools, the district court here forgot that it has no authority either to rewrite regulations made at the direction of Congress or to ignore limitations on its own jurisdiction. We hope the Court sees this injunction as the lawless usurpation of power it is, and reverses.”
The case is D.V.D., et al., v. DHS, No. 25-1393 (First Circuit).
