With certain limited exceptions (see Jama v. ICE regarding Somalia), INS cannot remove you to a country that will not accept you and provide travel docs.
This really only comes up in situations where people are ordered removed to a country that will not accept or provide travel docs. - e.g. Iran, Vietnam, etc. In those situations, or in withholding of removal cases, DHS has the right to remove the person to any country that will accept them. (To most any country if they are simply being removed and their country will not accept them, and to certain countries if pursuant to withholding of removal.)
For a regular removal (not withholding) case, as part of this gamelike ritual, the detainees must send in requests to emigrate to something like six different countries. The detainees just pick these at random, and the countries come back and always say NO we will not accept or do not respond at all.
For withholding cases the DHS goes through a flowchart of possible countries to try and remove, such as any where the guy had established residence, may have a blood tie from one parent, etc.
All I can think of is if this story is true, the guy was in that kind of situation and put down Haiti as a choice of country and for whatever reason they accepted him. Maybe he had established residence there before. I cannot imagine Haiti or any other country accepting a non citizen with no ties, so he must have had some tie to Haiti, such as one parent coming from there, lived there or some other tie of some sort that persuaded the country to issue travel docs.
Where the guy's story falls apart is that pursuant to Zadvydas v. Davis no one (not even non-permanent residents) can be detained longer than six months. If no one will take them after six months, unless they are a danger to society they must be released back to the streets of the U.S.
This really only comes up in situations where people are ordered removed to a country that will not accept or provide travel docs. - e.g. Iran, Vietnam, etc. In those situations, or in withholding of removal cases, DHS has the right to remove the person to any country that will accept them. (To most any country if they are simply being removed and their country will not accept them, and to certain countries if pursuant to withholding of removal.)
For a regular removal (not withholding) case, as part of this gamelike ritual, the detainees must send in requests to emigrate to something like six different countries. The detainees just pick these at random, and the countries come back and always say NO we will not accept or do not respond at all.
For withholding cases the DHS goes through a flowchart of possible countries to try and remove, such as any where the guy had established residence, may have a blood tie from one parent, etc.
All I can think of is if this story is true, the guy was in that kind of situation and put down Haiti as a choice of country and for whatever reason they accepted him. Maybe he had established residence there before. I cannot imagine Haiti or any other country accepting a non citizen with no ties, so he must have had some tie to Haiti, such as one parent coming from there, lived there or some other tie of some sort that persuaded the country to issue travel docs.
Where the guy's story falls apart is that pursuant to Zadvydas v. Davis no one (not even non-permanent residents) can be detained longer than six months. If no one will take them after six months, unless they are a danger to society they must be released back to the streets of the U.S.
Comment