Dada v. Mukasey
Dada v. Mukasey is a significant Supreme Court case centered around immigration law and the rights of individuals facing removal from the United States. The case involved Samson Dada, a Nigerian citizen who, after entering the U.S. on a temporary visa in 1998, faced removal due to his failure to secure permanent residency despite being married to a U.S. citizen. In 2004, Dada agreed to a voluntary departure to maintain some reentry privileges but later sought to have his case reopened to present new evidence when the government ordered his removal in 2006.
The Supreme Court's ruling, decided by a narrow 5-4 margin, determined that individuals should be allowed to withdraw their requests for voluntary departure if done before the final departure deadline. However, the ruling did not provide a complete resolution, as it did not stay the departure deadline while a motion to reopen was pending. This left individuals like Dada in a challenging position regarding their immigration status. The case highlighted differing views among the justices on the rights of aliens and the discretion of immigration officials. Overall, Dada v. Mukasey reflects the complexities of immigration law and the legal struggles faced by individuals navigating the U.S. immigration system.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Dada v. Mukasey
The Case: U.S. Supreme Court decision on a principle of immigration law
Date: Decided on June 16, 2008
Significance:The Dada decision recognized the right of immigrants to pursue motions to reopen their cases after agreeing to voluntary departure, thereby permitting such immigrants to present new facts to immigration officials.
Samson Dada, a citizen of Nigeria, entered the United States in 1998 on a temporary visa. Although he was married to a U.S. citizen, the couple had failed to submit the required documentation to secure Dada a permanent residence visa. When the federal government ordered Dada’s removal in 2004, he had the choice of voluntarily departing within sixty days or filing a motion to have his case reconsidered. By agreeing to a voluntary departure, he maintained some reentry privileges, and by skillful maneuvering around bureaucratic rules, he managed to remain in the country almost eight more years. When the government finally ordered his removal in February, 2006, Dada requested that his case be reopened, which would permit him to present new evidence. The government denied the request. Dada then petitioned the court of appeals for relief, which was denied on November 28, 2006. He petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was accepted.
By a 5-4 margin, the Supreme Court held that persons must be permitted to withdraw their requests for voluntary departure if they do so before the final deadlines for their departure. However, the decision was not a complete victory for aliens because the Court specifically declined to hold that the deadline for voluntary departure would be stayed while the motion to reopen was pending. Thus, aliens subject to departure continued to have a difficult choice to make. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion for the majority. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion, insisting that an alien agreeing to depart voluntarily should not have any opportunity to change his mind. Justice Samuel Alito also filed a dissent, arguing that immigration officials should have the discretion of accepting or denying the withdrawal of an agreement to a voluntary withdrawal.
Bibliography
Aleinikoff, Thomas, et al. Immigration and Citizenship: Process and Policy. 6th ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group, 2008.
Gordon, Charles, Stanley Mailman, and Stephen Yale-Loehr. Immigration Law and Procedure. New York: Matthew Bender, 2001.