Everything that Is Wrong with Immigration Proceedings in One Case
Why are there backlogs? Five-plus years and counting for an alien ineligible for relief
By Andrew R. Arthur on September 5, 2019
On August 29, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a decision in Romero v. Barr, in which it rejected former Attorney General (AG) Jeff Sessions' decision in Matter of Castro-Tum. That latter decision held that immigration judges (IJs) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) lack the authority to suspend immigration proceedings indefinitely by administrative closure. The Fourth Circuit in Romero held that, to the contrary, IJs and the BIA have inherent regulatory authority to administratively close cases. That circuit court decision, and the underlying case, encapsulate everything that is wrong with immigration proceedings.
Here is the history of the case, from that decision: Removal proceedings commenced against Romero "for being illegally present United States without being admitted or paroled" in 2013.
Interestingly, the court cited as the ground of removability 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(ii), that is, section 212(a)(9)(B)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Most aliens who enter the United States illegally are charged with removal under section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the INA ("Aliens present without admission or parole"), or section 212(a)(7)(A)(i) of the INA (immigrant seeking admission not in possession of a valid immigrant document). Here is section 212(a)(9)(B) of the INA:
https://cis.org/Arthur/Everything-Wrong-Immigration-Proceedings-One-Case
