Latest news with #ConventionAgainstTorture
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump admin may not deport migrant to Congo during immigration proceedings, federal judge rules
A federal judge in Maine has ruled that a 43-year-old migrant man who came to the U.S. at age 7 cannot yet be deported to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) while his immigration appeals continue. Eyidi Ambila, who was taken into custody in September under the Biden administration, argues that his full immigration case has not been heard and that his continued detention is unlawful. Judge Nancy Torresen on Monday granted a motion to postpone a scheduled habeas hearing, a legal request asking a court to determine whether a person's detention or imprisonment is lawful. The habeas petition challenges the legality of his ongoing detention, not the deportation itself. Federal Judge Orders Ice Not To Remove Trans Migrant Seeking Asylum From Washington Detention Facility Torresen, a President Barack Obama appointee and the first female judge to serve in the District of Maine, wrote that there are "many unanswered questions" about the case, including about his ability to be deported and the outcome of his immigration case. He will remain in custody while his case proceeds. The American Civil Liberties Union of Maine argues that Ambila has no current connection to the Congo and that deporting him would make him vulnerable to detainment, torture and even death. Read On The Fox News App "This ruling ensures that Mr. Ambila receives what due process requires: his day in immigration court and the opportunity to fully pursue his argument for Convention Against Torture protection," said Anahita Sotoohi, a staff attorney at the ACLU of Maine. Federal Judge Refuses To Reconsider Order To Facilitate Deportee's Return To Us The ACLU of Maine filed a habeas corpus petition on Ambila's behalf last month challenging his indefinite ICE detainment and asking for his release. The government argued that Ambila's deportation was imminent, but Torreson said that the government had failed to convince the court that deportation was actually likely in the near future. Ambila has filed emergency motions with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) seeking to reopen his case and halt removal. Torresen's ruling pauses the federal court proceedings until the BIA rules on those article source: Trump admin may not deport migrant to Congo during immigration proceedings, federal judge rules
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge says man held by ICE at Cumberland County Jail to stay in US pending deportation appeal
Jun. 9—A federal judge in Portland has paused a Maine resident's challenge against his immigration detention while the nation's highest immigration court considers his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture as a native of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Eyidi Ambila, 44, has been in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement since September when he finished serving a criminal sentence for two misdemeanors. The American Civil Liberties Union of Maine filed a habeas corpus petition on Ambila's behalf on May 23, arguing his detention at the Cumberland County Jail was unlawful because the ACLU didn't believe ICE was able to deport him. An attorney for the Department of Justice recently said they've had the paperwork since March to deport Ambila, who they said was confirmed for a flight to the DRC before a federal judge temporarily halted the removal process on May 27. "The DRC is ready and willing to accept him," Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Lizotte wrote in court records. "It has issued travel documentation to that effect." Ambila's attorneys have said they are not swayed that those temporary travel papers — which expire in September — were enough. On Monday, U.S. District Judge Nancy Torresen ruled that Ambila's habeas corpus case — and his removal — will remain on pause while the Board of Immigration Appeals considers his larger request for protection under the United Nations' Convention Against Torture, which prevents the U.S. from sending people to places where they would suffer torture. Ambila is represented in that court by lawyers at the Refugee and Human Rights Clinic through the University of Maine School of Law. The attorneys said Ambila is entitled to protection "because it is more likely than not that he will be tortured or killed" due to his status as a "deportee from the U.S. with a criminal record who has spent decades outside of the country," according to filings provided by the ACLU. Ambila was 7 years old when he arrived in the United States with his sister and father, the latter of whom was tortured in the DRC as a result of his political activities, according to the filing. After coming to the United States, Ambila's grandfather was "brutally murdered by poisoning as a result of his political beliefs," the filing states. He and his family were granted asylum based on political persecution. His lawyers say he has spent most of the last three decades in Maine and Massachusetts. The Department of Homeland Security issued a final order of removal against Ambila in 2007 for a felony conviction in 2005. Yet he has legally remained in the United States under an order of supervision requiring him to report regularly to ICE. He was also required to apply for the appropriate travel permission from the DRC, the ACLU said, but was always denied because that country hasn't recognized his citizenship. Ambila's legal team wrote in court records that they were concerned by the temporary status of the embassy travel papers and his lack of citizenship. Coupled with existing conflict in the DRC and his years away, they wrote that Ambila "is likely to face torture by government officials or by violent non-state actors to whom the government turns a blind eye if returned to the DRC." "Not only has the DRC government failed to prevent torture by non-state actors, the government itself arbitrarily arrests, detains, and tortures vulnerable people and those perceived as a threat to the government," the lawyers said. Copy the Story Link We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others. We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion. You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs. Show less
Yahoo
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge says man held at Cumberland County Jail to stay in US pending deportation appeal
Jun. 9—A federal judge in Portland has paused a Maine resident's challenge against his immigration detention while the nation's highest immigration court considers his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture as a native of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Eyidi Ambila, 44, has been in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement since September when he finished serving a criminal sentence for two misdemeanors. The American Civil Liberties Union of Maine filed a habeas corpus petition on Ambila's behalf on May 23, arguing his detention at the Cumberland County Jail was unlawful because the ACLU didn't believe ICE was able to deport him. An attorney for the Department of Justice recently said they've had the paperwork since March to deport Ambila, who they said was confirmed for a flight to the DRC before a federal judge temporarily halted the removal process on May 27. "The DRC is ready and willing to accept him," Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Lizotte wrote in court records. "It has issued travel documentation to that effect." Ambila's attorneys have said they are not swayed that those temporary travel papers — which expire in September — were enough. On Monday, U.S. District Judge Nancy Torresen ruled that Ambila's habeas corpus case — and his removal — will remain on pause while the Board of Immigration Appeals considers his larger request for protection under the United Nations' Convention Against Torture, which prevents the U.S. from sending people to places where they would suffer torture. Ambila is represented in that court by lawyers at the Refugee and Human Rights Clinic through the University of Maine School of Law. The attorneys said Ambila is entitled to protection "because it is more likely than not that he will be tortured or killed" due to his status as a "deportee from the U.S. with a criminal record who has spent decades outside of the country," according to filings provided by the ACLU. Ambila was 7 years old when he arrived in the United States with his sister and father, the latter of whom was tortured in the DRC as a result of his political activities, according to the filing. After coming to the United States, Ambila's grandfather was "brutally murdered by poisoning as a result of his political beliefs," the filing states. He and his family were granted asylum based on political persecution. His lawyers say he has spent most of the last three decades in Maine and Massachusetts. The Department of Homeland Security issued a final order of removal against Ambila in 2007 for a felony conviction in 2005. Yet he has legally remained in the United States under an order of supervision requiring him to report regularly to ICE. He was also required to apply for the appropriate travel permission from the DRC, the ACLU said, but was always denied because that country hasn't recognized his citizenship. Ambila's legal team wrote in court records that they were concerned by the temporary status of the embassy travel papers and his lack of citizenship. Coupled with existing conflict in the DRC and his years away, they wrote that Ambila "is likely to face torture by government officials or by violent non-state actors to whom the government turns a blind eye if returned to the DRC." "Not only has the DRC government failed to prevent torture by non-state actors, the government itself arbitrarily arrests, detains, and tortures vulnerable people and those perceived as a threat to the government," the lawyers said. Copy the Story Link We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others. We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion. You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs. Show less
Vox
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Vox
Trump asks the Supreme Court to neutralize the Convention Against Torture
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. President Donald Trump shakes hands with Justice Brett Kavanaugh before delivering the State of the Union address at the US Capitol in Washington, DC, on February 5, 2019. Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images Federal law states that the United States shall not 'expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture.' This law implements a treaty, known as the Convention Against Torture, which the United States ratified more than three decades ago. Federal regulations, moreover, provide that even after an immigration judge has determined that a noncitizen may be deported to another country, that judge's order 'shall not be executed in circumstances that would violate Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture.' And those regulations also establish a process that immigrants can use to raise concerns with an immigration judge that they may be tortured if sent to a specific country. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. The Trump administration, however, claims it has discovered a loophole that renders all of these legal protections worthless, and is now asking the Supreme Court to explicitly give it the authority to make use of that loophole in order to enact its immigration policies. According to President Donald Trump's lawyers, the administration can simply wait until after an immigration judge has conducted the proceeding that ordinarily would determine whether a particular noncitizen may be deported to a particular country, and then, if that noncitizen is allowed to be deported, announce that the immigrant will be deported to some previously unmentioned country — even if that immigrant reasonably fears they will be tortured in that nation. Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., the case where the Trump administration asks the justices to neutralize the Convention Against Torture, is unlike some of the more high-profile deportation cases that reached the Supreme Court — such as the unlawful deportation of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to El Salvador — in that no one really questions that the immigrants at the heart of this case may be deported somewhere. D.V.D. involves immigrants who have gone through the ordinary process to determine whether they can be removed from the country. The Trump administration even claims that some of them were convicted of very serious crimes. According to the administration, 'all were adjudicated removable.' But the Convention Against Torture and the federal law implementing it forbid the government from deporting anyone to a country where there is good reason to believe they will be tortured. And federal immigration law and regulations lay out the process that should be used to determine if an immigrant may be deported to a particular country. How immigration hearings are supposed to work As the district judge who heard this case explained in his opinion ruling that Trump must comply with the Convention Against Torture, when the government wishes to deport a noncitizen, that individual is typically entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge. That hearing determines 'not only whether an individual may be removed from the United States but also to where he may be removed.' In these proceedings, the immigrant is given an opportunity to name where they want to be deported to, if the immigration judge determines that they should be removed. If the immigrant does not do so, or if the United States cannot deport them to their designated country, federal law lays out where they may be sent. The United States may deport someone to a country where they have no ties only as a last resort, and only if that nation's government 'will accept the alien into that country.' The immigration judge will generally inform the noncitizen which nations they could potentially be sent to, giving that noncitizen an opportunity to raise any concerns that they may be tortured if sent to a particular country. The immigration judge will then decide whether those concerns are sufficiently serious to prohibit the United States from sending the immigrant to that particular country. The D.V.D. case concerns noncitizens who have been through this process. In many cases, an immigration judge determined that they could not be deported to a particular country. According to the immigrants' lawyers, for example, one of their clients is a Honduran woman. An immigration judge determined that she cannot be sent back to Honduras because her husband 'severely beat her and the children after his release from prison' and she fears that he would find her and abuse her again. And that brings us to the loophole that Trump's lawyers claim he can exploit to bypass the Convention Against Torture. Related The Supreme Court signals it might be losing patience with Trump Ordinarily, if the government wants to deport someone to a country that did not come up during their hearing before an immigration judge, it can reopen the process. The government will inform the immigrant where it wishes to deport them. The immigrant will again have the opportunity to object if they fear being tortured, and an immigration officer and, eventually, an immigration judge, will determine if this fear is credible. But the Trump administration claims it can bypass this process. If a country 'has provided diplomatic assurances that aliens removed from the United States will not be persecuted or tortured,' the Trump administration claims it can deport people to that country 'without the need for further procedures.' In other cases, it claims that it can give the immigrant such a brief period of time to raise an objection that it would be exceedingly difficult for them to find legal counsel, much less compile enough evidence to show that their fears are justified. So Trump's lawyers claim that the government can wait until after a noncitizen has received a hearing before an immigration judge, and only then reveal where it intends to send that noncitizen — even if that country is one of the most dangerous locations on Earth. And the immigrant may receive no process whatsoever after they learn about this decision. Can Trump actually deny due process to people who might be tortured? Recently, in A.A.R.P. v. Trump (2025), the Supreme Court ruled that a different group of immigrants that Trump hoped to deport without due process 'must receive notice…that they are subject to removal…within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek' relief from a federal court. The district judge that heard the D.V.D. case determined that a similar rule should apply to noncitizens the Trump administration wants to deport to a surprise third country. The Trump administration, however, primarily argues that three provisions of federal law governing which courts are allowed to hear immigration disputes mean that the district judge lacked jurisdiction to hear the D.V.D. case in the first place. One of these provisions generally forbids federal courts from second-guessing the government's decision to bring a removal proceeding against a particular immigrant. It also typically prohibits judges from intervening in the government's decision to execute an existing removal order once that order has been handed down by an immigration judge. But, as the district judge explained, the D.V.D. plaintiffs do not challenge the government's 'discretionary decisions to execute their removal orders.' Nor do they 'challenge their removability.' They merely challenge the government's decision to bypass the ordinary process it must use to obtain an order permitting an immigrant to be deported to a specific country. The other two provisions, meanwhile, largely govern the appeals process that immigrants may use if they lose a case before an immigration judge. Such cases are typically appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and then to a federal circuit court, not the district court that heard the D.V.D. case. But, again, the D.V.D. plaintiffs do not seek to appeal an immigration judge's decision. They object to the Trump administration's refusal to bring them before an immigration judge in the first place. Trump's lawyers, moreover, are quite candid about what it means if the Supreme Court accepts these jurisdictional arguments. 'To the extent an action does not fit' within their proposed process, they argue, 'the result is that judicial review is not available.' So, if Trump prevails, many of the immigrants he hopes to target will not have any recourse in any court.
Scoop
07-06-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
UN Torture Prevention Body To Visit Peru As Field Missions Resume
GENEVA (5 June 2025) –The UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT) is set to undertake its first two visits of this year, to Peru and Serbia, from 15 to 21 June 2025. These visits mark the resumption of SPT's important in-country work, following the postponement of four missions earlier this year. The initial postponement of SPT visits was due to budget constraints related to the UN liquidity situation. The upcoming visit to Peru will be the second mission to the country, following one that took place in 2013. The Subcommittee delegation will visit various places of deprivation of liberty to evaluate the treatment of people held therein and the measures taken to protect them from torture and ill-treatment. 'In addition to visiting centres of deprivation of liberty across the country and interviewing people within the facilities and personnel who work there, we will pay special attention to how the authorities have implemented our recommendations from 2013. We will also use this opportunity to engage and collaborate with the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM),' said Marie Brasholt, head of the delegation. 'A comprehensive national system for the prevention of torture requires an independent and impartial NPM in charge of monitoring places through regular visits, and it must have adequate resources,' she added. Peru ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture (OPCAT) in 2006 and its NPM, established by law in 2015, is housed within the Ombudsman´s Office (Defensoría del Pueblo). Under its mandate, the SPT can conduct visits to State parties and carry out visits without prior notice to any places where people are or may be deprived of liberty. To follow up on its prior recommendations and appraise the progress made by the Peruvian authorities towards preventing torture through legislative, administrative, and other measures, the SPT delegation will hold meetings with government authorities, civil society, UN agencies, and the NPM, with whom it will also conduct a joint visit. Following the visit, the delegation will send a report to the State party, which will remain confidential unless and until the Peruvian authorities decide to make it public, as was the case with the first report. The SPT delegation will be composed of the following members: Marie Brasholt, head of the delegation (Denmark), Barbara Bernath (Switzerland), Luciano Mariz Maia (Brazil), and Maria Luisa Romero (Panama), along with two members of the Secretariat. The SPT had originally planned to visit, in 2025, not only Serbia and Peru, but also Burundi, Mexico, Mozambique, New Zealand, France, and Afghanistan. The SPT views the resumption of its visits, despite the ongoing financial constraints, as essential to fulfilling its preventive mandate and to assessing conditions in places of deprivation of liberty, where independent oversight is most urgently needed. Background: The Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture monitors States parties' adherence to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, which to date has been ratified by 94 countries. The Subcommittee is made up of 25 members who are independent human rights experts drawn from around the world, who serve in their personal capacity and not as representatives of States parties. The Subcommittee has a mandate to visit States that have ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, during the course of which it may visit any place where persons may be deprived of their liberty and assist those States in preventing torture and ill-treatment. The Subcommittee communicates its observations and recommendations to States through confidential reports, which it encourages countries to make public.
