Dada v. Mukasey, 554 U.S. 1 (2008)
Primary Holding
An alien who has been granted voluntary departure from the United States must adhere to that election and depart within the prescribed time, but may withdraw the request for voluntary departure before the departure period expires in order to preserve the right to file a motion to reopen removal proceedings.
In the case of Dada v. Mukasey, the Supreme Court decided that if someone from another country (an alien) is allowed to leave the U.S. voluntarily, they must leave within a set time. However, they can change their mind and withdraw that request to leave before the time is up, which lets them keep their right to ask for their removal case to be reopened. This ruling is important because it gives individuals more control over their immigration situation, allowing them to pursue legal options without losing their chance to stay in the country. This case is relevant for anyone facing removal from the U.S. who has been granted voluntary departure. It means they can still seek to challenge their removal while having the option to leave if they choose, providing a safety net in their immigration process.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
In Dada v. Mukasey, 554 U.S. 1 (2008), the underlying dispute involves Samson Taiwo Dada, a Nigerian national who entered the United States in April 1998 on a temporary nonimmigrant visa but subsequently overstayed. In 1999, Dada married an American citizen, who filed an I-130 Petition for Alien Relative on his behalf. Dada faced removal proceedings and was granted voluntary departure, which allowed him to leave the U.S. without certain penalties. However, this voluntary departure required him to leave within a specified period, which posed a dilemma for Dada because he also had a pending motion to reopen his removal proceedings. The procedural history of the case began when Dada sought to withdraw his request for voluntary departure in order to keep his motion to reopen active. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied his request, stating that departing the U.S. would automatically withdraw the motion to reopen. Dada appealed this decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the BIA's ruling. Subsequently, Dada petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case to resolve the conflict between the statutory provisions regarding voluntary departure and the right to file a motion to reopen removal proceedings. The relevant background context includes the provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), which allows an alien ordered removed to file one motion to reopen their removal proceedings. However, if an alien is granted voluntary departure, they must leave within a maximum of 60 days, or they become ineligible for certain forms of relief for a decade. The case raises significant questions about the interplay between these statutory rights and the consequences of choosing voluntary departure, highlighting the challenges faced by individuals navigating the immigration system.
Whether an alien who has requested and been granted voluntary departure from the United States must adhere to that election and depart within the prescribed time, even if doing so causes the alien to forgo a ruling on a pending, unresolved motion to reopen removal proceedings.
The judgment is vacated and remanded.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- January 7, 2008
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Majority Author
- Kennedy
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005)
Consumer LostThe Supreme Court held that the Secretary of Homeland Security does not have the authority to continue detaining an inadmissible alien beyond the 90-day removal period mandated by 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A) unless the alien is subject to a specific exception under the law.
Jama v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 543 U.S. 335 (2005)
Consumer LostThe provision of 8 U.S.C. §1231(b)(2) does not require the advance consent of the destination country for the removal of an alien; therefore, an alien can be removed to a country even if that country has no functioning government to provide such consent.
Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 548 U.S. 30 (2006)
Consumer LostThe statute governing the reinstatement of removal orders for illegal reentrants applies to individuals who reentered the United States before the effective date of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, and this application does not retroactively affect any rights or impose burdens on those continuing to violate the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvare, 549 U.S. 183 (2007)
Consumer LostThe term "theft offense" in the Immigration and Nationality Act includes the crime of "aiding and abetting" a theft offense, thereby subjecting aliens convicted of such crimes to removal from the United States.