|
 |
 |
 |
|
 | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT:
PASADENA, CA - In a federal appellate court in California today, the
American Civil Liberties Union is arguing that the government is violating
the law and the court's prior rulings by incarcerating immigrants in
detention centers for prolonged and indefinite periods of time while they
fight their immigration cases.
In November 2006, the ACLU of Southern California, the ACLU Immigrants'
Rights Project and the Stanford Law School Immigrants' Rights Clinic filed
lawsuits in federal district court on behalf of four immigrant men who were
being held indefinitely in the Terminal Island Federal Detention Center in
San Pedro, California, while they pursued legitimate legal challenges to
their pending deportations. All four had been detained for prolonged
periods of time and yet had never received a bond hearing to determine if
their detentions were justified. Shortly after the lawsuits were filed, the
district court ordered the government to provide the men with bond hearings.
By February 2007, all four were released.
The government appealed the district court's decision in three of the four
prolonged detention cases. Two of these cases - involving the Reverend
Raymond Soeoth and Amadou Lamine Diouf - are being argued before the court
today. In addition, two separate cases of immigrants Luis Felipe
Casas-Castrillon and Manuel Prieto-Romero are being argued today.
Casas-Castrillo and Prieto-Romero have been illegally detained for six and
three years respectively. The ACLU filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the
those two cases which are being argued today by attorneys from the Federal
Defenders Office of San Diego and the Northwest Immigrant and Refugee Rights
Project in Washington.
"Locking people up for years without bond hearings is un-American," said
Ahilan Arulanantham, an attorney with the ACLU of Southern California
arguing today on behalf of Diouf and Soeoth. "The constitutional guarantee
of due process applies to all persons in this country, not just to U.S.
citizens. The government does not have unfettered authority to imprison
people - without hearings - for as long as it takes to determine their
cases."
Diouf, one of the released detainees, initially came to the United States
when he was 21 years old to study information systems at California State
University, Northridge. After he graduated, he overstayed his student visa
because he became involved with, and subsequently married, his present wife.
Although he is eligible to become a lawful permanent resident based on his
marriage to a U.S. citizen, the government detained him after his former
immigration attorney failed to file important legal papers on time. His
attorney acknowledged his error, but the government refused to release Diouf
or to provide him with a bond hearing while he fought his case. Diouf had
been incarcerated for almost two years before he was finally provided with a
bond hearing before an immigration judge who ordered his release.
"I was separated from my wife and career for almost two years because of an
innocent mistake in the filing of my immigration papers," said Diouf. "I'm
not a danger to society. All I want is to be with my wife and get a job."
Soeoth, the other released detainee whose case is being argued today, is a
Christian who fled Indonesia with his wife in 1999 to escape persecution for
practicing his faith. He was initially allowed to work in the United States
while applying for asylum and eventually became the assistant minister for a
church. However, when his asylum application was denied in 2004, the
government arrested him at his home and took him into detention.
For the next two and a half years the government refused to consider his
release, even though he filed a motion to reopen his asylum case on the
grounds that his new role as a pastor placed him at increased risk of
persecution in Indonesia, and even though the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
stopped his deportation to allow him to pursue his case. Soeoth was
imprisoned for two and a half years before he was finally ordered released
on bond by an immigration judge last February.
"This has been very hard for my wife and for my parish," said Soeoth. "I
can't understand why in America I must choose between two evils: going back
to Indonesia to face persecution or being detained while I fight for
asylum."
Although neither Diouf nor Soeoth is a danger to society or a flight risk,
the government claims they never should have been released on bond and
should go back into detention until their cases are decided, regardless of
how long this may take.
"The government's detention policy is not only unlawful and inhumane; it is
also irrational," said Judy Rabinovitz, senior staff counsel with the ACLU
Immigrants' Rights Project, who is also arguing before the court today. "The
government is spending millions of dollars locking up people whose detention
serves no purpose. These individuals are ready to comply with conditions of
supervision and even electronic monitoring if necessary. There is no reason
for them to be locked up for years while their cases make their way through
the courts."
Over the past few years, the ACLU has filed multiple lawsuits on behalf of
individual immigrants who have been held for prolonged periods of time while
fighting their immigration cases, winning the release of more than a dozen
individuals who were being unlawfully detained.
Today's cases are being argued in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.
Lawyers on the case include Rabinovitz and Cecillia D. Wang of the ACLU
Immigrants' Rights Project, Arulanantham and Ranjana Natarajan of the ACLU
of Southern California, and Jayashri Srikantiah of the Stanford Law School
Immigrants' Rights Clinic.
More information on the lawsuits, Soeoth v. Mukasey, Mukasey v. Diouf,
Casas-Castrillon v. Lockyer, and Prieto-Romero v. Clark is available online
at:
www.aclu.org/immigrants/detention/33519res20071029.html
