Talk:Cancellation of removal

Serious bias problem:
I removed the following text:


 * Regarding venue and the general time limits to file petitions in federal courts, all court opinions issued prior to April 1, 1997, particularly Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995) (case obviously decided prior to IIRIRA of 1996, which materially changed the old "judicial review provisions of the INA"),[10] are manifestly invalidated by the penultimate provision of § 1101(a)(43) and the prefatory clause of § 1252(f)(2), and must be disregarded in particular cases.[41][56][44][43][2][1][6][30][31][28][33][34][32] The U.S. courts of appeals have long ignored this legal finding. For the past two decades, they have been manipulating the law and deceiving the public by stating something like this:


 * A petition for review "must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Stone v. I.N.S., 514 U.S. 386, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995). This deadline is "mandatory and jurisdictional." Magtanong v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1190, 1191 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). "A mandatory and jurisdictional rule cannot be forfeited or waived, and courts lack the authority to create equitable exceptions to such a rule." Id.[61][6]


 * It should not take a genius to figure out that the above dicta and cursory opinions of the courts (regarding late-filed petitions) are plainly wrong because such a strict rule has never existed in the history of mankind, and is not even used against convicted murderers.[56] First, they strikingly conflict with precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court.[62][59] Second, categorically dismissing late-filed petitions manifestly constitute "deprivation of rights under color of law," a crime that entails the capital punishment, and is plainly detrimental to the United States.[30][31][28][33][34][32] Third, such unconstitutional rule gives the DHS officers a green-light to use lawless methods to make people in removal proceedings miss their filing deadlines. For example, the DHS could easily place a specific class of people in solitary confinement for 30 days or more in order to make them miss the short 30-day filing period, which has been done since at least 2002 as exposed by Ziglar v. Abbasi. Last but not least, if a single immigration judge, a single BIA member, a single U.S. district judge, and a single Supreme Court's Justice all have authority to adjudicate deportation cases "at any time"[63][41][1][64][56][59] then why only U.S. courts of appeals lack authority to perform the same exact task under §§ 1252(b)(4) and 1252(f)(2) in particular cases? This question further becomes exceptionally important after knowing that the filing fee for a motion to reopen is only $110 while the filing fee of a petition for review is $500, and that a petition for review involves neutral adjudicators while a motion to reopen is decided by a pro-DHS agent of the Attorney General who frequently makes a serious reversible error.[7][1][4]

This is not remotely neutral; it's a political argument. There may be valid points in this that need to be worked back into the article in a neutral manner, but I don't have sufficient familiarity with the subject matter to do a good job. --Biblioteqa (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)