Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

paroledue processliens
paroledue processliens

Related Cases

Yogi Metals Group v. Garland
View Case »
Velazquez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Salgado-Toribio v. Holder
View Case »
Martinez v. Attorney Gen. of U.S.
View Case »
Medina-Morales v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Tovar-Landin v. Ashcroft

Facts

On March 1, 1999, petitioner entered the United States without having been admitted or paroled. Nine months later, on November 30, 1999, the INS served a Notice to Appear on petitioner charging him with being subject to removal. The IJ denied the alien's request for voluntary departure, ruling that the alien was statutorily ineligible for that relief because he had not been physically present in the U.S. for at least one year when the proceedings were initiated against him.

On March 1, 1999, petitioner entered the United States without having been admitted or paroled. Nine months later, on November 30, 1999, the INS served a Notice to Appear on petitioner charging him with being subject to removal. The IJ denied the alien's request for voluntary departure, ruling that the alien was statutorily ineligible for that relief because he had not been physically present in the U.S. for at least one year when the proceedings were initiated against him.

Issue

Whether the denial of voluntary departure violated the petitioner's due process and equal protection rights.

Whether the denial of voluntary departure violated the petitioner's due process and equal protection rights.

Rule

Voluntary departure is a form of discretionary relief, and aliens have no fundamental right to discretionary relief from removal for purposes of due process and equal protection.

Voluntary departure is a form of discretionary relief. It is a privilege created by Congress. 8 U.S.C. 1229c(b)(1). We have held that aliens have no fundamental right to discretionary relief from removal for purposes of due process and equal protection.

Analysis

The court found that the one-year physical presence requirement for voluntary departure did not violate the petitioner's constitutional rights. The court reasoned that voluntary departure is discretionary and does not provide a constitutionally protected liberty interest. Additionally, the court held that the one-year requirement was not wholly irrational as it served a legitimate government purpose.

The court found that the one-year physical presence requirement for voluntary departure did not violate the petitioner's constitutional rights. The court reasoned that voluntary departure is discretionary and does not provide a constitutionally protected liberty interest. Additionally, the court held that the one-year requirement was not wholly irrational as it served a legitimate government purpose.

Conclusion

The court denied the alien's petition for review.

The court denied the alien's petition for review.

Who won?

The United States Government prevailed because the court found that the denial of voluntary departure did not violate the petitioner's constitutional rights.

The United States Government prevailed because the court found that the denial of voluntary departure did not violate the petitioner's constitutional rights.

You must be