Ramirez v. Bondi

The expansion turns on whether § 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii)'s authorization to designate additional categories of aliens extends to a categorical presumption based on lack of documentary proof—effectively making the burden of proving presence rather than the government proving deportability—or whether it is limited to specific classes of removable aliens. Thuraissigiam's deference to expedited removal procedures does not necessarily encompass due process challenges based on the initial designation itself, particularly where individuals are denied any opportunity to present evidence of their actual length of stay before rapid removal. Applied to Ramirez and similarly situated long-term residents, the question becomes whether the government can categorically remove individuals based on absent documentation rather than absent presence, essentially inverting the statutory allocation of burden under the INA. Multiple district courts appear to be viewing the nationwide scope as inconsistent with the statute's reference to specific "classes" of aliens, suggesting the expansion may exceed the Secretary's delegated authority to identify additional removal categories.