Immigration courts dismissing cases of Venezuelan migrants sent to El Salvador: Attorneys
For more than two months, John Dutton, a Houston-based immigration attorney, fought to keep one of his client's immigration case open. Henrry Albornoz Quintero, who was detained in Dallas in January after showing up to a routine check-in with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, was deported to the notorious CECOT prison in El Salvador in March.
After Quintero was deported, Dutton continued to show up to his client's immigration hearings where he says the government attorneys declined to answer questions about his client and pushed for dismissal. Quintero's case was dismissed "due to a lack of jurisdiction," Dutton said.
"There's just nothing [the judge] could do," Dutton said. "Henrry is not here because the president shipped him out of the country. What's an immigration judge going to do to stop that?"
Dutton previously told ABC News that Quintero's wife, who entered the U.S. with him last year, had a baby in April.
MORE: Trump administration asks SCOTUS for permission to deport nearly 200 Venezuelan migrants
Michelle Brane, the executive director of the immigration support group Together and Free, told ABC News that her team has tracked at least 15 immigration cases of migrants who were sent to CECOT that were recently dismissed. Some of the cases include active pending asylum applications.
Brane said she believes immigration courts should "administratively close" the cases, which would allow them to be reopened "if and when" the person is brought back.
"Dismissing as opposed to administratively closing is sort of making an assumption that these people will never come back," Brane said. "And I think that's premature and certainly based on the court decisions, so far, they should be brought back to receive some kind of due process."
If the Venezuelan migrants were to be brought back, there is no process for reopening their immigration cases, Brane said.
The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to ABC News' request for comment.
Mark Prada, an attorney representing a 24-year-old Venezuelan, said he was able to have his client's case administratively closed.
"I was able to cut the head off the snake before it could poke out of its hole," he told ABC News.
Isabel Carlota Roby, an attorney for the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organization, told ABC News that at least seven of the 10 men her group represents had some form of legal protection in the U.S., including Temporary Protected Status or pending asylum applications before being deported to CECOT in El Salvador.
MORE: Judge hears arguments over fate of CECOT detainees
Roby said her group represents them internationally -- filing habeus petitions in El Salvador and other types of advocacy -- but does not represent them in U.S. immigration court. However, she said many of them have had their cases dismissed recently. She told ABC News that most of the migrants her group represents do not have immigration attorneys.
"They basically represented themselves in court and presented their own asylum cases," Carlota Roby said. "Most of them simply were deported and their cases were just left behind and that was it."
"They were denied due process, they are disappeared, and they are now in this legal limbo where they remain in a prison with no legal protections, excluded from the protection of the law, and they don't know if they'll ever have a chance at a fair trial," she added.
The Trump administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act -- an 18th century wartime authority used to remove noncitizens with little-to-no due process -- to deport more than 200 alleged migrant gang members to CECOT by arguing that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua is a "hybrid criminal state" that is invading the United States.
An official with the ICE acknowledged that "many" of the men deported on March 15 lack criminal records in the United States -- but said that "the lack of specific information about each individual actually highlights the risk they pose." Many of their families have also denied gang involvement.
The government is temporarily barred from removing migrants under the proclamation after the Supreme Court extended its injunction last month and remanded the case to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to resolve the question of how much time should be afforded for detainees to contest their removals.
Some attorneys told ABC News they are appealing the dismissals.
The lawyer for Jose Franco Caraballo Tiapa, a 26-year-old Venezuelan migrant who was seeking asylum in the U.S., and was detained after showing up to his routine check-in with ICE, filed an appeal after his client's case was dismissed.
"The dismissal results in what can be construed as a violation of due process, as he was not given the opportunity to be heard on his asylum claim," said Martin Rosenow.
Lindsay Toczylowski, the attorney who represents Andry Hernandez Romero, a gay makeup artist who was sent to CECOT in El Salvador, said in a statement that her client was denied due process.
"DHS is doing everything it can to erase the fact that Andry came to the United States seeking asylum and he was denied due process as required by our Constitution," Toczylowski said. "The idea that the government can disappear you because of your tattoos, and never even give you a day in court, should send a chill down the spine of every American."
In the statement posted by Immigrant Defenders Law Center, the group said the dismissal of Hernandez's dismissal is "not the end." The group said it will file an appeal and continue its advocacy to bring the 32-year-old back to the U.S.
Immigration courts dismissing cases of Venezuelan migrants sent to El Salvador: Attorneys originally appeared on abcnews.go.com
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Trump administration preparing to deport detainees to South Sudan
A federal judge in Boston on Friday rejected an 11th-hour plea to spare eight immigrants from imminent deportation to conflict-ridden South Sudan, saying the U.S. Supreme Court has cleared the way for the transfers. U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy's brief ruling followed frantic efforts from the migrants' lawyers to block the Trump administration from sending them to a nation that has been on the brink of civil war — and to which none of the men has citizenship. In May, Murphy had halted a U.S. government flight with the men headed to South Sudan, saying the administration could not send them to the African nation without giving them a chance to argue that they could face persecution there. Since then, the men have been marooned in a shipping container on a U.S. Naval base in the East Africa nation of Djibouti awaiting their fate. The Supreme Court last month cleared the way for Trump officials to deport immigrants to third countries where they do not have citizenship, when it temporarily blocked a decision by Murphy that said migrants must have a 'meaningful opportunity' to contest their removal. On Thursday, the court clarified that its order covers the detainees headed to South Sudan. The court's majority did not provide any reasons for their ruling, which is typical for emergency orders. Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, which has helped represent the men in court, called the legal outcome 'deeply troubling' and said the Trump administration's move to send the men to South Sudan is 'unconstitutionally punitive' Murphy's ruling Friday capped an extraordinary legal saga that has stretched on for weeks and left the men in legal limbo. Though the Supreme Court appeared to settle the matter Thursday, lawyers for the men led a final attempt afterward that spilled over into the Fourth of July holiday to block their transfer to South Sudan by arguing in a federal court in Washington, D.C., that they would face imminent danger. The lawyers asked U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss to declare the deportations 'punitive' and block the deportations, arguing that federal law bars the United States from sending anyone — even criminals — to nations where they could have a reasonable fear that they could be tortured or killed. Moss, who held two hearings on the matter Friday, expressed concerns for the men's safety and transferred the case to Murphy, where it had begun in May. The eight men are not citizens of South Sudan and have no ties to that country, their lawyers said. They said the men come from Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, Sudan and Mexico. The Justice Department argued in court Friday that the detainees are among the 'worst of the worst,' most with convictions for violent crimes, including murder. 'We have planes that are imminently going to go,' Justice Department lawyer Hashim Mooppan told Moss during an afternoon hearing. Lawyers for the migrants said it is illegal and immoral for the U.S. government to deport people to places where they could be killed. Most of the men cannot speak the language in South Sudan, their lawyers said, and the Trump administration has publicized the men's names and photos — potentially putting them in greater jeopardy. The men had served criminal sentences in the United States for their crimes and were being deported by the Department of Homeland Security under civil immigration laws. The State Department has urged people not to travel to South Sudan because of the risk of 'crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict.' 'The idea of sending human beings into a place where they may be tortured and harmed … cannot be sustained,' said Mary Sameera Van Houten, an attorney representing the detainees. 'That can't possibly be the law in this country.' Mooppan said the South Sudan government has agreed to accept the detainees temporarily, and he added that he does not expect them to be incarcerated. He said they are expected to be granted an immigration status with permission to stay temporarily in the country. 'We certainly haven't asked for them to be detained,' he said. The case centers on one of the most sacred provisions in federal immigration law: the principle that the U.S. government will not deport people to nations where they might face persecution. But the Trump administration has been frustrated in its attempts to ramp up deportations, in part by countries that delay or refuse to accept the return of their citizens deported from the United States. In the case of the eight migrants being sent to South Sudan, Mexico has said it would accept the return of the man from that country. Murphy, the judge in Massachusetts, had ruled in April that the government could not deport immigrants to countries other than their own without giving them a meaningful opportunity to challenge it based on their fears of persecution. But the absence of an explanation left judges and lawyers grasping for direction from the highest court on what lawyers for the immigrants consider a life-and-death issue. DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said Thursday that the eight men had been convicted of violent offenses — including homicide, attempted murder and sexual assault. At least one has a lesser conviction of robbery and other offenses. 'These sickos will be in South Sudan by Independence Day,' McLaughlin said in a statement Thursday. She called it a 'win for the rule of law, safety and security of the American people.' Jennie Pasquarella, a lawyer for the immigrants, told Moss on Friday that what set the case apart is that the men could face dangerous consequences — even death — if they are sent to South Sudan. Deportation is not supposed to be punitive, the lawyers argued. Moss agreed, temporarily halting the deportations and then transferring the case to the Boston court, saying that was the proper venue. Moss said that based on State Department's warnings, 'it does appear that placing people in South Sudan does pose or could pose significant risks to their physical safety' and that it would 'shock the conscience' to send even criminals to a country where they might be harmed or killed. He said even people convicted of a 'terrible crime' cannot be punished after they have served their sentences. But Moss ruled that the men's lawyers had filed in the wrong court. Moss gave the men's lawyers until 4:30 p.m. — less than 90 minutes from his ruling — to contact the judge in Boston and ask the court to halt the removals. Murphy denied the request a few hours later. Ann E. Marimow contributed to this report.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Photos of protests and celebrations mark a different Fourth of July for many Americans
The Fourth of July is a celebration of all things American with parades, backyard barbecues and the night sky lit up with fireworks. This Independence Day may feel different for many Americans. Around the country, there are protests planned against Trump's polices, and in places like Southern California, where immigration raids have rattled communities , some July Fourth celebrations were canceled. But beyond the festivities and protests lies a moment in history: On July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress unanimously adopted the Declaration of Independence, declaring the colonies' break from British rule. ___ This is a photo gallery curated by AP photo editors.


Bloomberg
2 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Trump Signs His Tax-and-Spend Bill at White House Ceremony
President Donald Trump signed his $3.4 trillion budget bill into law Friday, enshrining an extension of tax cuts, temporary new breaks for tipped workers and funding to crack down on illegal immigration. The package encompasses a suite of priorities Trump campaigned on in 2024 — and its enactment at a White House ceremony represents a major political victory for the president whose second term was marked until now by executive rather than legislative action.