Tazu v. Attorney Gen. of United States

In 1993, Tazu left his native Bangladesh, traveled to Mexico, and crossed into the United States without inspection. He promptly applied for asylum based on political persecution. Eight years later, in his removal proceeding, an immigration judge denied that application. But rather than ordering his removal, the immigration judge granted his request to depart voluntarily. Tazu appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. In 2003, the Board denied his appeal but gave him thirty days to depart. Because he did not leave, his grant of voluntary departure became an order of removal. Nearly six years later, immigration agents detained him to remove him. While detained, Tazu filed his first motion to reopen his removal proceedings. The Board denied it. The Government then tried to execute the removal order by releasing him on a plane to Bangladesh. But because his passport had expired, the airline would not let him board the plane. The Government asked the Bangladeshi consulate to issue Tazu a new passport, but it seemed '[un]likel[y] that a passport w[ould] be issued in the foreseeable future.' So in 2009, the Government let him go on supervised release. For the next decade, Tazu complied fully with the terms of his supervised release. He 'never missed' any of his required appointments to check in with the Government. He held a steady job, paid taxes, raised his three children, and followed the law. During this time, he also learned of a way to stay in the United States lawfully: by getting a provisional waiver. Without one, Tazu's eventual removal would likely prevent him from reentering the United States for years. In 2017, one of his sons, a U.S. citizen, filed a Form I-130 for him. It was approved later that year. But Tazu did not file a Form I-212 right away. In early 2019, the Government finally got Tazu's renewed passport. Three days later, it re-detained him to execute his removal order.