Skip to main content

Voluntarily Departure Under Safeguards – What’s the point?

This week, my boss Charles Kuck blogged about voluntary departure at Stewart Detention Center and how judges there routinely grant a form of relief euphemistically called "Voluntary Departure Under Safeguards."  He noted that the immigration statutes allow for "Voluntary Departure," which is basically time for a foreign national to wrap up their affairs in the US, sell property and then leave voluntarily, without an order of removal.   The invented "voluntary departure under safeguards", however, requires detained individuals to buy their own ticket and then NOT be released from custody to do any of the thing that voluntarily departure was designed to do.  Furthermore, these individuals are forced to buy exorbitantly expensive open-ended tickets to leave the country, while individuals who opt for a simple order of removal are able to leave the country free of charge.

Adding insult to injury, individuals who request voluntarily departure under safeguards and purchase the pricey tickets are often not allowed to timely voluntarily depart under their purchased tickets and are held for many days, and in some cases, even weeks after the tickets have been purchased.  By way of example, we recently had a case where the client requested voluntarily departure under safeguards, purchased the expensive ticket, asked to leave immediately and, two months later, is still detained at Stewart Detention Center (run by the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA)). 

For these reasons, we often advise my clients to not request voluntarily departure under safeguards.  First, the cost of the ticket alone is prohibitive.  Second, it can take longer to actually be allowed to depart the country then if a client requests a simple order of removal.  Third, most individuals who take voluntarily departure are barred from reentering the country based on the fact that they have often fallen out of status or have no status and thus there is no real benefit to voluntarily departure under safeguards.
As with so many things that happen at Stewart Detention Center, it appears that the only winner in voluntarily departure under safeguard cases is CCA, who profits from each additional day that an individual is detained.

Comments

  1. These polititions who own and run these facilities or services provided to these facilities should all be investigated in the same manner that 3rd World Dictators are investigated and treated. What a shame for such a blessed country.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

If You Are An Immigrant (even a US Citizen), Here Are 9 Things You Should Know

Are you a Naturalized U.S. Citizen, Lawful Permanent Resident, Visa Holder, or an Undocumented Immigrant? We recommend you take the following steps to protect yourself in our current version of America. The last couple of weeks have reminded immigrants, even naturalized U.S. citizens, that they were not born in the United States. Our office has received countless phone calls, emails, and social media messages from people worrying about what their family’s future in the United States holds. Most people want to know what they can do now to protect themselves from what promises to be a wave of anti-immigration activity by the federal government. Trump's Executive Order on Interior Enforcement has some provisions that should make most Americans shiver.  We recommend the following actions for each of the following groups: Naturalized U.S. citizens. In particular if you have a foreign accent, and you are traveling within 100 miles of any US Border (including the oceans...

Seven Reasons Why the Georgia Legislature Should Repeal HB-87

Recently the Alabama Attorney General called on the Alabama State Legislature to repeal parts of Alabama's horrid anti-immigration law ( HB 56), because of the "unintended" consequences of the bill (frankly, what happened was not unintended). Because of the similarity between the two laws, Georgia's Speaker of the House, David Ralston was asked whether Georgia Legislature would repeal part or all of HB 87, Georgia own anti-immigration law. HB 87 has caused almost a half a billion dollars in damage to the Georgia economy (along with untold suffering in Georgia's immigrant communities) without any noted or reported positive effect. Speaker Ralston plainly stated that the Georgia Legislature would NOT do anything to repeal HB 87 . While it understandable why a politician would not admit that a pet bill he shepherded and pushed through the state legislature was simply bad law, it is also clear that Speaker Ralston is facing a challenge on his RIGHT in th...

Why is USCIS Taking So Long to Renew DACA Work Permits?

If the calls to our office are any indicator, there are thousands of DACA recipients whose work permit applications were filed at least three months prior to expiration, who are still waiting for their renewed work permits.  Without renewed permits, these individuals lose the right to work legally, the right to drive, and may once again accrue unlawful presence. The DHS published a notice in October 2014 advising DACA recipients that they could file their request for extension up to 150 days (5 months) prior to expiration.  As with all things government, very few of the DACA recipients, who tend not to frequent government websites, knew about the memo and many did not file so far before expiration perhaps thinking that extending a work permit was a like extending a drivers license, its is done in a few minutes.  As an experienced immigration lawyer will tell you, the USCIS does nothing quickly, and certainly does not worry that a person may lose their job or their drive...