Previous Story
‘Forthwith’ becomes center of legal dispute
|
Posted on May 03 2006
The word “forthwith” in a statute has become the nexus of a legal dispute in a deportation case filed in the local court.
Attorney Stephen Woodruff, counsel for Jin Fu Lin, in a motion to dismiss, asserted that because his client is serving a prison sentence, the Superior Court will be unable to comply with the statute.
The statute states in part: “Makes a determination of deportability an order of deportation shall be entered and the respondent shall forthwith be deported 3CMC § 4341 (f).”
Woodruff argued that, since the statute requires an alien to finish a prison sentence prior to being deported, 3CMC § 4340, and that since his client is still in prison for at least two more years, he cannot be “forthwith deported.”
Woodruff emphasized that the “forthwith” mandate cannot be complied with, and hence, the deportation action is premature.
Assistant attorney general Kevin Lynch, on behalf of the government, cited several references with respect to the meaning and use of the word “forthwith.”
In denying the motion, associate judge David A. Wiseman ruled that the word “forthwith” “does not mean imminent in every situation using the word, but rather for a court to interpret it in the context of reasonableness.”
Wiseman pointed out that respondent Lin does concede that, if his release were imminent, then this action would be appropriate.
However, the judge said, he “does not find imminency as set forth by respondent to be the controlling factor, but rather what is reasonable compliance with the ‘forthwith’ mandate on a case by case basis.”
In this case, Wiseman said, respondent’s deportation may occur at the first opportunity possible after he completes the service of his sentence.
The judge ordered Lin to be present in court on May 11, 2006 at 1:30pm to explain why he should not be deported from the Commonwealth.
