Jama v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Jama, a Somalian refuge, pled guilty to third degree assault in Minnesota state court. As a result of the conviction, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) initiated removal proceedings against him as an alien who had been convicted of a “crime involving moral turpitude.” The INS relied on 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(2)(E) (“Part E”) to determine Jama’s destination country. Part E is a list comprised of seven clauses detailing “additional removal countries.” The statute requires acceptance by the destination country in only clause seven, but not clauses one through six. Upon consulting the statute, the INS determined that clause six governs Jama’s removal and he should be returned to Somalia, the “country in which [he] was born.” After the INS issued a warrant of removal to Somalia, Jama filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to prevent his deportation. He argued that under Part E, the INS could not remove him to Somalia without first establishing that Somalia, the destination country, would accept his return.
The district court granted habeas relief in favor of Jama and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. The court concluded that, “as a matter of simple statutory syntax and geometry,” the acceptance requirement is confined to clause seven, and does not apply to clauses one through seven. Therefore, the INS did not need to establish Somalia would accept Mr. Jama and his removal to Somalia was in accord with Part E.
Question Presented:
Whether the Attorney General can remove an alien to one of the countries designated in 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(2)(E) without obtaining that country’s acceptance of the alien prior to removal.
