Illegals Caught a 2nd Time Can Challenge Deportation

WASHINGTON — In a decision further expanding the legal rights of illegal immigrants in the United States, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that deported aliens who are later apprehended again in this country have a right to challenge their original deportation order.

The Reagan Administration contended that deported aliens have no legal rights because they are here in violation of a court degree.

On a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled that deportation proceedings are often so hasty and so confusing to aliens that their decisions should not be viewed as final.

The ruling was the second Supreme Court victory for aliens this year, and immigration lawyers said it shows that a court majority will insist on fair treatment for immigrants.

“This is a fairly significant decision since a lot of people are unrepresented in deportation proceedings,” said Lee O’Connor, staff attorney for the National Center for Immigrants’ Rights Inc., in Los Angeles. “It can be a bewildering process. They don’t understand their rights at all.”

In March, the court rejected arguments by the Administration when it ruled that the government must grant asylum to aliens who have a “well-founded fear” of returning to their native country.

Until Tuesday’s decision, aliens who were once deported were presumed guilty of a felony if they were caught again in the United States.

The case in question involved Jose Mendoza-Lopez and Angel Landeros-Quinones, two Mexican natives who lived for seven years in Lincoln, Neb., before being apprehended by federal agents in October, 1984. They were flown to Denver to appear before an immigration judge and were ordered deported. Neither had an attorney.

Six weeks later, however, they were apprehended again in Lincoln. This time, they were indicted on felony charges for violating the deportation order.

However, with the aid of attorneys, the two aliens appealed the indictment on the grounds that they did not understand the original proceeding.

A District Court reviewed their original deportation proceeding and concluded that it lacked “fundamental fairness.” In 1985, the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this decision.

Administration attorneys, in arguments before the high court, said this case was similar to that of a convicted felon who is prohibited from owning a firearm. If later caught with such a weapon, the felon may not use this proceeding as a means to attack his original conviction, government lawyers said.

But Justice Thurgood Marshall saw this case differently because the aliens, unlike the convicted felon, did not have an adequate chance for a higher court review of their deportation order.

“Persons charged with crime are entitled to have factual and legal determinations upon which convictions are based subjected to the scrutiny of an impartial judicial proceeding,” Marshall wrote for the court in the case (U.S. vs. Mendoza-Lopez, 85-2067).