Sixteen immigrants and seven lawyers from New Haven burst into applause outside of the Hartford Federal Court building, celebrating a small victory in their battle against deportation.
After being arrested during the June 2007 ICE raids that targeted undocumented immigrants in New Haven, the 16 face deportation for living and working in the United States without legal status. The targets argue that the feds violated their constitutional rights in the raids. Now they’ll have the chance to make that case in court.
At 10:30 a.m. on Monday, the 16 undocumented immigrants appeared in federal immigration court. They were represented by a group of lawyers and students from the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization, a law clinic at the Yale Law School.
In briefs to the court, the immigrants’ lawyers, led by attorney Mike Wishnie (pictured), have argued for the dismissal of the case, saying that that evidence put forward by ICE should be suppressed because ICE’s actions during the raids violated the constitutional rights of the immigrants. The lawyers argue that their clients’ Fourth and Fifth amendment rights were violated by ICE officers’ illegal entry into their homes, unlawful searches, and a lack of due process.
Judge Michael Straus ruled on Monday that the attorneys have successfully made the first stage of this argument, moving the case forward into an evidentiary hearing, in which Straus will decide whether ICE’s evidence should be suppressed or not.
In Monday’s short proceedings, Straus told the courtroom that for 11 of the 16 immigrants he would move forward with a hearing on the suppression of the evidence. The next step will be for these 11 respondents to testify about the how the raids of June 6, 2007, were carried out in their homes. These hearings will take place on Oct. 20 and 27 at 9 a.m.
Five of the 16 respondents, those who were arrested at 199 Atwater St., were not granted an evidentiary hearing. Four of these five were granted voluntary dismissal and one — the only female of the group of 16 — is seeking asylum. All five plan to appeal the judge’s decision.
The immigrants’ lawyers had hoped that the judge would rule that ICE officials would take the stand first, before their clients. But they nevertheless counted the judge’s decision as a qualified victory.
Hearing
The small hearing room on the fifth floor of the Hartford Federal Court was filled to capacity Monday, its several benches occupied mostly by the 16 respondents and their team of attorneys. Shortly after 10:30 a.m. Judge Michael Straus entered with a small bottle of orange juice and a handful of overstuffed blue folders, which he added to an already teetering stack of files on his desk.
“Let’s cut to the chase,” Straus said, after reading of the names and case numbers of all the respondents. Straus announced that with the exception of the “Atwater cases,” he would be allowing the lawyers to move forward with an argument to suppress the evidence offered by ICE that the respondents are illegal immigrants.
The “Atwater cases” are those of the five respondents who were arrested at the raid on 199 Atwater St.. Four of the Atwater cases immediately filed for, and were granted, voluntary departure. They will have 60 days to leave the country after the court proceedings are finished.
Yale law student Stella Burch (pictured in top photo, at right) said that the attorneys will be appealing Judge Straus’ decision against evidence suppression in all of the Atwater cases.
Straus said that he would like to start the hearings quickly, beginning with the testimony of the respondents.
Attorney Chris Lasch told the judge that it was his understanding that the burden of proof is now on the government and that ICE officers should be the first to take the stand for questioning.
“No. That’s incorrect.” said Straus. “The respondents will testify first.”
Speaking through an interpreter, Straus told the respondents that they were to appear in court on October 20. Failure to do so, he warned, could make them subject to deportation.
Debriefing
After the hearing, the attorneys and clients gathered outside of the federal court building for a short debriefing that ended with the round of applause.
“All of our clients are delighted to be able to have a chance to tell their story,” Burch said. She went on to say that they want to speak up “not just on behalf of themselves but on behalf of other similarly situated individuals.”
Burch, a third-year law student, said that she has been working on the case since June 6, 2007, the day of the raids.
Lasch said that he and the other lawyers will be preparing a short brief about the conduct of the hearings in advance of the first hearing date. The brief will cover the immigrants’ potential to exercise their Fifth Amendment right to refuse to give testimony that may incriminate themselves.
“Our concern is that the the government will try to elicit the very same evidence that we’re trying to suppress,” Lasch said.
An immigration court is run differently from a criminal court, Burch explained. The Board of Immigration Appeals falls under the Department of Justice, rather than the judicial branch, It devises its own rules and procedures.
“As a general rule of thumb,” Burch said, “there are less formal legal protections in immigration proceedings than in criminal proceedings.”