Court rules aliens who overstay can remain to appeal

• Article
• Comments ()
• Click-2-Listen
• Videos

By Tom Ramstack

The Supreme Court decided Monday to make it easier for foreigners to overstay their visas while they defend their right to stay in the United States.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court said that foreigners can withdraw their voluntary agreements to leave and remain in the U.S. while they challenge the government's efforts to remove them.

Voluntary agreements give foreign visitors who overstay their visas time to challenge their deportation if their circumstances show a need to remain.

Until the court's decision, foreigners could use administrative procedures to stay in the country, but they still had to leave when their visas expired or at a time listed in their voluntary agreements.

The issue arose from the case of Samson Dada, a Nigerian who stayed in the U.S. after his tourist visa expired in 1998. He married an American the following year, then submitted documents to immigration officials asking to remain as the spouse of a U.S. citizen.

After he and his wife failed to submit documentation on time, Mr. Dada was ordered to leave the country. Later, he was given a new date to leave under a voluntary agreement but continued to seek a visa.

The court ruled that Mr. Dada could withdraw his voluntary agreement and remain in the U.S. while he seeks legal authority to stay.

David Frederick, a D.C. lawyer who filed an amicus brief in the case, said the ruling would apply to a small number of immigrants, adding that the ruling interpreted a technical provision of immigration law.

In a separate decision, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal by a horse slaughterhouse that was shut down by the state of Illinois.

Illinois forbids the sale of horse meat and shut down a horse slaughterhouse run by Cavel International, an affiliate of a Belgian company.

Cavel said in its appeal that the state lacks authority to shut down slaughterhouses because horse meat is sold in international commerce, which falls under federal jurisdiction.

The high court let stand an appeals court ruling that rejected Cavel's argument in September, saying the company failed to prove that shutting its slaughterhouse would damage international commerce.

In a third decision, the court refused to hear an appeal of Exxon Mobil Corp. as it tries to block a lawsuit stemming from violence by Indonesian soldiers the company hired as security guards at a natural-gas plant.

The lawsuit by public interest groups says government soldiers in Indonesia's Aceh province killed, kidnapped and abused people on Exxon Mobil property during a time of separatist unrest.

Exxon Mobil argued that it could not be sued for the acts of the Indonesian military. An appeals court disagreed in a 2005 ruling that the Supreme Court let stand. The lawsuit now will be heard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.