The Supreme Court vacates 9th circuit decision that sided with illegal immigrants

The Supreme Court stopped an attempt to treat the testimony of asylum-seekers as credible siding with the federal government against people seeking refuge, according to The Washington Examiner

According to the publication, the court sided against the California-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit which ruled that in cases of immigration noncitizens’ testimonies must be treated as credible or true.

The nation’s high court proceeded to vacate the 9th Circuit’s decision and the case lives on, headed back to lower courts for more consideration on the issue.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote, opinions on two cases before the court, saying that the 9th Circuit was wrong to interfere with the technical question.

According to Gorsuch’s analysis, the court overstepped when it imposed it’s rules on administrative requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act when immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals govern that area:

“The Ninth Circuit’s rule has no proper place in a reviewing court’s analysis,” Gorsuch wrote of the circuit’s decision to presume credibility on the part of two men.

The case concerned two men, Cesar Alcaraz-Enriquez and Ming Dai, who hoped to stay in the United States but were denied due to discrepancies in testimony. Additionally, Alcaraz-Enriquez was accused of lying about beating and raping his girlfriend, according to the examiner and Dai reportedly neglected to report a visit to China, the country he claimed to be fleeing.

“When it comes to questions of fact — such as the circumstances surrounding Mr. Alcaraz-Enriquez’s prior conviction or Mr. Dai’s alleged persecution — the INA provides that a reviewing court must accept ‘administrative findings’ as ‘conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary,'” Gorsuch wrote.

The United States judicial system has a unique approach to innocence and guilt, and many no doubt appreciate the court’s decision to allow less leniency to those who have proven they’re willing to repeatedly break the law to stay in the land of the free.