Wiseman denies motion to dismiss deportation case filed 3 years ago

Superior Court Associate Judge David A. Wiseman has denied a motion to dismiss a deportation case filed three years ago against an alien worker.

Wiseman pointed out that respondent Haydee Damasco has not specifically articulated the grounds on which dismissal of the case is appropriate.

The judge set a status conference for Dec. 11, 2008 at 1:30pm.

Court records show that Damasco and her husband, Dionisio Brana, both Filipinos, entered CNMI on nonresident worker permits. Brana’s permit expired in November 2003, while Damasco’s in July 2001.

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

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

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

In October 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.

Damasco asked the court to reconsider the order. But in November 2005, Wiseman denied the motion for reconsideration.

Following a hearing in January 2006, the court ordered Damasco deported. However, the court subsequently vacated the order of deportation and recalled the case.

Thereafter, Damasco, through counsel Stephen C. Woodruff, filed a motion to dismiss the case.

However, the government and Damasco then entered negotiations and the motion to dismiss was suspended.

Party negotiations have since failed and the court is again presented with the respondent’s motion to dismiss.

Woodruff objected to the government having an additional opportunity to present evidence to support an order of deportation.

Woodruff argued that this is a second “bite at the apple” which violates due process and equal protection.

Woodruff asserted that when a respondent fails to avoid deportation, he or she is not given additional opportunities to present evidence, therefore, the government should not be given an additional opportunity.

In his order issued on Thursday, Wiseman said under Commonwealth Rule of Civil Procedure, on motion of the parties, the court may “open the judgment if one has been entered, take additional testimony, amend findings of act and conclusion of law or make new ones, and direct entry of a new judgment.”

Wiseman said the majority of jurisdictions have held that filing a motion to reopen in immigration proceedings is part and parcel of the earlier immigration proceedings and merely revives prior proceedings.

“This conclusion is not akin to the prejudice of double jeopardy in criminal trials and this court finds no implication of respondent’s due process or equal protection rights,” he said.