Couple facing deportation proceedings raises ‘equal protection’ issue

A couple seeking a freeze of deportation proceedings against them while one of them has initiated a labor case has brought before the Superior Court the issue on the right to equal protection under the law, saying that federal immigration law would have provided them relief.

Dionisio Brana and Haydee Damasco have appealed a Superior Court decision denying their request to temporarily stop deportation proceedings against them. Among several grounds, the couple asserts that the court’s failure to freeze deportation proceedings would result in manifest injustice and violate the equal protection provision under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Brana and Damasco have resided in the CNMI for 16 and 15 years, respectively. The couple has two children—a 14-year-old boy and an 8-year-old girl—who are both U.S. citizens and have never known any home other than Saipan.

“U.S. Immigration law has since 1917 provided for relief from exclusion and deportability in appropriate cases. Current law is no exception, particularly in instances of long residence and where question of family unity and hardship are involved,” the couple’s attorney, Stephen Woodruff, said.

“Indeed, under federal law and practice, otherwise excludable and removable aliens can even qualify for lawful permanent residence and thereby eventual citizenship. Respondents believe that availability of comparable opportunities for relief from deportation to aliens in the CNMI is a constitutional necessity,” Woodruff added.

The lawyer said failure to provide equivalent relief to aliens in the CNMI would violate the constitutional right to equal protection under law.

Associate Judge David Wiseman earlier ruled against the couple’s request, saying that a labor case does not preempt the court of jurisdiction over the deportation matter.

The judge has also junked the couple’s request for a hearing before the Attorney General’s Office for eligibility for voluntary departure in lieu of deportation proceedings, saying that the law vested the power to grant or deny a voluntary departure relief on the AGO. He earlier said the court would not interfere with the AGO’s statutory responsibility.

Brana filed her labor claim on Sept. 8, 2005. The AGO has initiated deportation proceedings against Brana and Damasco on Dec. 23, 2004 and Jan. 20, 2005, respectively.

Brana’s nonresident worker’s permit expired on July 1, 2001, while that of Damasco expired on Nov. 1, 2003. Brana has allegedly overstayed in the CNMI for over four years, while Damasco has been allegedly staying illegally in the Commonwealth for nearly two years.

Woodruff said the court’s decision interferes with the Department of Labor’s exercise of its statutory authority to decide labor cases, noting that the department has granted transfer relief to Brana, who has already found a transfer employer that has filed a work permit application on the worker’s behalf.

“It was clear error for the court to adopt a position…that a labor case filed after the institution of a deportation proceeding does not preclude hearing of the question of whether the respondent is responsible,” Woodruff said.

Woodruff also asserts the applicability of the Administrative Procedures Act, which allows affected persons to appeal administrative decisions by government agencies.

The couple earlier indicated their intention to appeal before the Attorney General to allow them to voluntarily leave the CNMI instead of being deported. Woodruff said a respondent in a deportation proceeding could be permitted to leave the CNMI voluntarily at the discretion of the AG pursuant to CNMI law.

Woodruff asked the court to reverse its decision or certify the matter for appeal before the CNMI Supreme Court.