The Dada decision recognized the right of immigrants to pursue motions to reopen their cases after agreeing to voluntary departure, thereby permitting such immigrants to present new facts to immigration officials.
Samson Dada, a citizen of Nigeria, entered the United States in 1998 on a temporary visa. Although he was married to a U.S. citizen, the couple had failed to submit the required documentation to secure Dada a permanent residence visa. When the federal government ordered Dada’s removal in 2004, he had the choice of voluntarily departing within sixty days or filing a motion to have his case reconsidered. By agreeing to a voluntary departure, he maintained some reentry privileges, and by skillful maneuvering around bureaucratic rules, he managed to remain in the country almost eight more years. When the government finally ordered his removal in February, 2006, Dada requested that his case be reopened, which would permit him to present new evidence. The government denied the request. Dada then petitioned the court of appeals for relief, which was denied on November 28, 2006. He petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was accepted.
By a 5-4 margin, the Supreme Court held that persons must be permitted to withdraw their requests for voluntary departure if they do so before the final deadlines for their departure. However, the decision was not a complete victory for aliens because the Court specifically declined to hold that the deadline for voluntary departure would be stayed while the motion to reopen was pending. Thus, aliens subject to departure continued to have a difficult choice to make. Justice
Aleinikoff, Thomas, et al. Immigration and Citizenship: Process and Policy. 6th ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group, 2008. Gordon, Charles, Stanley Mailman, and Stephen Yale-Loehr. Immigration Law and Procedure. New York: Matthew Bender, 2001.
Supreme Court, U.S.