Last summer, we, along with our European affiliate, the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ), asked a federal district court in Pennsylvania to protect the human rights of a Coptic Christian from Egypt who would likely face torture and possible death if returned to his native country. The ACLJ and the ECLJ (which has special consultative status with the United Nations) filed an amicus curiae brief with the district court on behalf of Sameh Sami S. Khouzam.
In our brief filed on Mr. Khouzams behalf, we noted that [t]here is a consensus among international monitoring agencies that the Egyptian government routinely uses torture, especially as a method of law enforcement. Moreover, Coptic Christians face widespread persecution in
Yesterday, Judge Vanaskie, of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, vacated the decision of the Secretary of Homeland Security to terminate Mr. Khouzams court-ordered deferral of removal. Mr. Khouzam has been returned to his previous status, remaining in the
Mr. Khouzam had previously been granted deferral of removal because, as an Immigration Judge had previously found, the evidence is overwhelming that [Khouzam] will more likely than not be subjected to torture by a responsible Egyptian government official who will breach his duty and engage in the torture of [Khouzam], or at the least, will abdicate such duty by acquiescing in such torture . . . . The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed that decision in 2000; after a series of appeals, in 2004, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that Mr. Khouzam could not be removed under a United Nations treaty that the United States has signed (together with numerous other countries), the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Although the Second Circuit affirmed that Mr. Khouzam was not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal, the court found that Mr. Khouzam should be granted deferral of removal under the CAT, concluding that Khouzam will more likely than not be tortured if he is deported to
Mr. Khouzam had been peacefully residing in the
As Judge Vanaskie noted in his decision, President Bush has described the right to be free from torture as an inalienable human right. The court explained that, [f]reedom from torture falls squarely within the concept of liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment. Notably, the court found that the fundamental right to freedom from torture is surely protected by the Fifth Amendment regardless of a persons immigration status.
We applaud the courts decision in this case a well-reasoned decision that acknowledges and protects human rights and religious freedoms for people of faith, including the freedom to avoid deportation to countries where religious persecution is rampant. On the same day that Judge Vanaskie issued the courts opinion, the government filed its Notice of Appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and Judge Vanaskie has granted a five-day stay of Mr. Khouzams release pending action on the case by the Third Circuit.
Words can be powerful conduits for truth. But in politics, language can also serve to camouflage public harm under the gloss of an appealing label. Take, for example, the “Sanctuary City” movement. A host of cities have passed local rules under the guise of that attractive mantra, creating...
Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice provides insight into the legality of President Trump's immigration executive orders.
Exactly one year after announcing the unconstitutional Executive overreach that unilaterally rewrote our nation’s immigration laws, the Obama Administration asked the Supreme Court of the United States to hear its appeal of a Fifth Circuit decision halting its implementation. President Obama has...