Recent Immigration Court Cases

December 21, 2007

There were two noteworthy immigration cases decided yesterday.

In Doe v. Attorney General, the Third Circuit held that

“The government recognizes that there is objective evidence in the record that the conditions for homosexual men in Egypt may have deteriorated since Doe left that country. The government argues that this change in conditions is material to Doe’s claims for withholding of removal and CAT protection, that neither the BIA nor the IJ has properly considered that issue, and that thus the agency should evaluate the issue in the first instance. … [W]e will vacate the decision of the BIA and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Doe is the latest in a growing body of cases in which the noncitizen seeks relief from removal because of feared punishment for homosexuality.

A district court in New York dismissed a suit challenging the denial of a visa to Muslim scholar Tariq Ramadan:

“The Court finds that the reason provided by the Government for the exclusion of Professor Ramadan is facially legitimate and bona fide. The Court recognizes the limits on its authority in this case. The question of admissibility of aliens is a political question, a question which is best left to the Legislative and Executive branches. Having articulated a facially legitimate and bona fide reason to exclude Professor Ramadan, Mandel makes clear that the Court has no authority to override the Government’s consular decision.” American Academy of Religion v. Chertoff, S.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2007.

Tariq Ramadan sought to enter the United States from his home in Switzerland in 2004 after being hired to teach an Islamic ethics course at Notre Dame. Judge Crotty said the government’s decision was made because, in a four-year period, Ramadan had given a little over $1,000 to a charity later designated as a terrorist group by the U.S. government.

According to the N.Y. Times, Ramadan is a respected academic and a grandson of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. The American Civil Liberties Union filed the suit on his behalf as well as on behalf of the American Academy of Religion, the American Association of University Professors and the PEN American Center. For the N.Y Times story on the case, click here.

The Ramadan case illustrates the broad definition of “terrorist activity” in the immigration laws, which many scholars, including Gerald Neuman, has thoughtfully analyzed and critiqued.