Granted case dismissed
By agreement of the parties, the case of Ali v. Achim, et al. (06-1346) has been dismissed by the Supreme Court. Granted review on Sept. 25, the case involved the question whether a criminal conviction must be an “aggravated felony” to qualify as the kind of crime that bars a convicted alien from remaining in the U.S.
I am a regular visitor to your blog and appreciate the information you provide. However, I am just an average citizen with no training in the law. This post “Granted Case Dismissed” is one that highlights my lack of knowledge. I have no idea what this means both in terms of the individuals involved and on U. S. law. It would be helpful to me and hopefully others if the blog would elaborate on the impact of the Courts findings, or provide links to appropriate sources for that information.
Comment by Ron Hager — December 27, 2007 @ 9:58 pm
It basically means that the Supreme Court will not issue a ruling on the case, since the parties have agreed that there is no more controversy at hand. If the “convicted alien” that wanted to remain in the United States changed his/her mind and decided to leave for their homeland after all, then there would be no need for a decision in this matter and the case should be dismissed. I’m guessing that is what happened here.
Comment by James N. Markels — December 28, 2007 @ 8:57 am
It turns out that Ali is not leaving the United States. Instead, he has received deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), thereby avoiding any need for withholding of removal under INA 241(b)(3), the relief that was at issue in the Supreme Court case. The characterization of his conviction is irrelevant for purposes of CAT; no conviction, no matter how serious, can ever disqualify an otherwise-entitled alien from deferral of removal under CAT. The grant of CAT relief is described by the National Immigrant Justice Center (which was representing Ali) at
http://www.immigrantjustice.org/news/litigation/nijc-reaches-settlement-for-somali-refugee-in-u.s.-supreme-court-case.html
Comment by Alan Viard — January 2, 2008 @ 12:38 pm