NEW ORLEANS (AP) — The U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced on Wednesday that immigration officials were not aware of a court order that blocked the removal of Chanthila “Shawn” Souvannarath from the United States. This lapse resulted in his deportation to Laos despite claims that he has a substantial argument for U.S. citizenship.
Souvannarath, aged 44, was deported on Friday, just a day after a federal judge in Baton Rouge had issued a protective order preventing his removal, allowing him time to present his citizenship claims. The DHS spokesperson, Tricia McLaughlin, asserted that the order to keep Souvannarath in the U.S. had not been served to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) until after the deportation occurred.
According to Souvannarath's attorneys and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), his deportation appears to violate the legal process. They have called for his immediate return to the U.S., labeling the actions of immigration officials as unlawful, given the standing court order.
Legal representatives from the ACLU expressed concern over this incident, with Nora Ahmed, the ACLU of Louisiana’s legal director, stating: ICE has acted in direct opposition to a federal court order, which should disturb everyone.” This case adds to a growing list of similar distressing incidents within U.S. immigration practices.
Souvannarath's legal troubles date back to previous convictions in 2004 in Washington, which had led to the loss of his green card. However, he contends that his citizenship derives from his father, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Laos. His case raises significant questions about immigration enforcement and the protection of individuals' legal rights.
As the ACLU prepares to challenge the actions of ICE, Souvannarath's family reported that he had been a diligent worker and devoted father, asserting that since his earlier convictions, he had remained law-abiding without incident.
Representing himself in court, Souvannarath filed an emergency motion seeking to halt his deportation, emphasizing the potential irreparable harm that would occur if he were to be removed from the U.S. A federal judge acknowledged the gravity of his situation in a temporary restraining order aimed at pausing his removal, although this intervention came too late.
The Department of Homeland Security's claims of no error in the timeline have raised alarms within the legal community, further straining the already fraught relationship between immigration enforcement and the judiciary. As Souvannarath adjusts to life in a country he has never known, the ramifications of this oversight extend not only to him but could set a concerning precedent for future cases involving immigration enforcement.
