A federal immigration statute prohibits the appeal of an order by the federal government’s immigration agency to remove an undocumented immigrant from the United States, unless the immigrant raises either a Constitutional issue, or a “question of law” with respect to his or her removal order. In Wilkinson v. Garland, decided on March 19, 2024, the Court relied on a caselaw precedent to rule that an appealable “question of law” included all “mixed questions of law and fact” raised in the immigrant’s challenge to the removal order. Under this ruling, all issues arising from the immigration agency’s application of a legal principle to an “established set of facts” are appealable to a federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The vote on the Court was 6-3 in favor of this ruling, with only Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, and Justice Thomas dissenting.
COMMENT: Final judgments, whether by courts-of-law or by administrative agencies, always resolve, subject to appeal, one or more “mixed questions of law and fact.” The function of a legal “judgment” is to apply a rule-of-law to an “established set of facts.” The Court’s ruling here substantially modifies the immigration statute that prohibits most appeals from the immigration agency’s final removal orders. The Court’s ruling allows appeals from the agency’s findings of fact in most cases. The Court has no authority to modify a statute enacted by Congress in the exercise of its Constitutional authority. The caselaw precedent on which the Court relied was easily distinguishable, both on its facts, and on the law that it applied.
A reader of the Court’s Opinion here would be hard pressed to deny the harshness of the immigration agency’s decision to force the removal of Mr. Wilkinson from the United States. From the facts that appear in the Court’s Opinion, Mr. Wilkinson was a long-term, law-abiding resident of the United States, a financially responsible husband to his wife, and a responsible, loving father to his child who had enormous mental and physical health needs that his father provided. The facts of his case, in other words, probably would not justify his removal from the United States in the minds of most Americans, with one exception. He overstayed the tourist visa that brought him into the United States from his native country.
In a democracy, and under the United States Constitution, the choice of policy toward undocumented immigrants is up to the people’s elected lawmaking representatives in Congress, not the courts.
Dan Rhea
RECENT RULINGS 