Wiseman denies motion to reconsider ruling in deportation cases

Superior Court Associate Judge David A. Wiseman yesterday denied a motion to reconsider his previous decision that ruled that the court can conduct deportation proceedings even a respondent has a pending claim before the Division of Labor.

Wiseman said because respondents Dionisio Brana and Haydee Damasco fail to cite any case law that supports their claim that a pending labor case must stay deportation proceedings, he will not reconsider his earlier decision.

“Respondents’ policy arguments are similarly unconvincing, as this court’s policy to dispose of all cases in a speedy and inexpensive manner would not be promoted by a practice of constant continuances and delays in determining the legal status of an alien,” said the judge in denying respondents Brana’s and Damasco’s motion for reconsideration.

Wiseman said no case law mandates the court to stay deportation proceedings in the face of a pending labor claim.

Wiseman set for Jan. 5, 2006 at 1:30pm the hearing on the petition for an order to show cause why Brana and Damasco should not be deported.

Court records show that Brana and his wife Damasco, both aliens, entered CNMI on non-resident worker permits. Brana’s permit expired on Nov. 1, 2003, while Damasco’s on July 1, 2001.

The government alleged that the couple failed to comply with the requirements or conditions of their respective entries into the Commonwealth by remaining on Saipan after their permits expired.

As a result, the government initiated deportation proceedings against Brana in Dec. 2004 and against Damasco in Jan. 2005.

At the hearing, the respondents asserted a due process right to a hearing by the Attorney General in order to determine their eligibility for voluntary departure in lieu of deportation.

The government refused and sought to proceed with involuntary deportation proceedings.

Damasco separately requested that the court delay deportation proceedings pursuant to a labor claim she filed in Sept. 2005.

In Oct. 2005, Wiseman denied the motion. He ruled that filing of a labor claim does not preempt the trial court of jurisdiction over a deportation case.

The respondents, through attorney Stephen Woodruff, requested the court to revisit its previous order. They asserted that the order was rooted in “clear error” and must be corrected to prevent “manifest injustice.”

The respondents argued that the court “misapprehended the scope of the Commonwealth’s authority over immigration, failed to address whether a prosecutor in a case has the authority to exercise the AG’s discretionary power to grant or deny voluntary departure.”

The two also claimed that the court failed to address whether prosecutorial exercise of such discretion would cause conflict in representation and failed to apply the Administrative Procedure Act to denials of voluntary departure.

They added that the court erred in holding that the pendency of a labor matter does not stay deportation proceedings.

On the scope issue, Wiseman said he merely interpreted the law as written by the Legislature, which saw it fit to delegate certain responsibilities within the context of immigration to the AG and others to the Commonwealth courts.

“It is not a court’s duty to second-guess the wisdom of the legislature unless it is clear and unavoidable conflict with the protections afforded by the Constitution of the CNMI or the United States,” Wiseman said.

With respect to the authority issue, Wiseman citing a previous trial court ruling stated that the various powers of the AG, including the power to prosecute are delegated, by statute, to the Office of the Attorney General.

As to the conflict of interest argument, Wiseman said the respondents failed to cite to any statutory or case law, which supports their supposition.

On the administrative procedure matter, Wiseman said because the respondents failed to specifically argue any salient constitutional objection to CNMI statutes or process employed by the AGO in denying discretionary voluntary departure, he will not invent new requirements to accompany the exercise of discretionary authority.

With respect to pending labor cases issue, the judge said because the respondents fail to cite any law that supports their claim that a pending labor case must stay deportation proceedings, he will not reconsider his earlier decision.

Wiseman also added that respondents have identified no due process violation committed by the AG, which warrants that this court replace the AG’s discretion with its own, nor have they shown disparate treatment violating the equal protection clause and warranting constitutional scrutiny.