Administrative Law Judge Marie Alailima has denied a motion by a Filipino woman to stay an Immigration Board order of deportation.
Instead, the judge granted the government’s motion to dismiss the appeal by Jocelyn Macapar Intila in its entirety.
Intila, a seamstress, has been in the territory since 2008 under the Special Provision Sponsorship with FSA Land Development Company as her sponsor.
FSA Land Development Co. owns and operates Siniva & Armellia’s Sewing Shop as one of its subsidiaries.
Outgoing Tuala-Uta Representative Vui Florence Saulo is the President and chief executive officer of FSA Land Development Co.
The sponsor later moved to revoke its sponsorship of Intils on claims that the woman was doing business with another sewing shop.
The Immigation Board moved to deport Intila in July however she filed an appeal and a motion for a stay of the Board order with the Administrative Law judge.
ASG moved to dismiss the appeal and motion for a stay for lack of ALJ jurisdiction.
A hearing was held in September with Richard deSaulles representing Intila and Assistant AG Alexandra Zirschky on behalf of the government.
In her ruling, Administrative Law Judge Alailima said the jurisdictional issue in this case is whether or not the Immigration Board decision of July 25 is a decision with respect to deportation of aliens as provided in section 41,0208 -41.0212. General principals of interpreting a statute require words be given their plain, ordinary and commonly understood meaning.
She said a review of the reference to the pertinanet section of Immigraiton law to determine if the Fono intended a meaning beyond the plain words of the aforementioned phrase reveals no additional meaning.
According to the judge, a plain reading of the law is that Immigration Board decisions respecting deportation of aliens be broadly interpreted.
“This is evident by the Fono’s use of the non specific phase “with respect to”.
“Thus”, she said, “appeal decisions rendered by the Immigration Board that might be in part or wholly related to the deportation process, directly or indirectly related, or that temporarily halt the deportation process, can reasonably be construed as an Immgiration Board decision within the exception to ALJ jurisdiction.”
The IB made its decision to deport Intila based on the findings of an investigation by the Immigration Division of violations of the Immigration Act with which Intilla was initially charged.
The ALJ said that the appellant was issued an initial voluntary departure date which pursuant to the law meant that she had admitted to violations of the Immigration Act with which she was cited.
Counsel for Intilla argued that deportation proceedings and voluntary departure involve separate proceedings.
However ASG took the position that voluntary departure is not a separate process for deportation but rather a process allowing a temporary halt in physical deportation as a matter of convenience.
After reviewing the law, Alalima said, “Voluntary departure is only a temporary reprieve from forceable depotation if an alien has admitted to their deportable status and departs the territory by a date certain at their own expense.
“The temporary reprieve is of limited duration. The failure to depart by the voluntary departure date subjects the alien to physical removal by the Attorney General.
The judge noted that the initial citation by the Immigration division to Intila showed the consequence of her failure to depart by the assigned voluntary departure date: failure to depart on or before the specified date may result in the withdrawal of voluntary departure and action being taken to affect your deportation”.
The judge in her October 23 ruling granted ASG’s motion to dismiss Intila’s appeal and denied her motion to stay the Immigration Board’s deportation order.
The case is dismissed in its entirety for lack of jurisdiction and neither party was awarded attorney fees or costs.
