Can the government take away a green card years decades after it’s issued? That’s the question that shook the immigration community this week, as the Third Circuit Court of Appeals gave a resounding response: not so fast.
For millions of lawful permanent residents, the court’s verdict isn’t just a technical legal decision it’s a lifeline. With deportation threats on a mass scale hanging over their heads and the Trump administration promising the most comprehensive removal operation in U.S. history, even green card holders have gotten caught up in raids and arrests. The implications couldn’t be greater: the court’s decision flatly contradicts the notion that the Department of Justice can arbitrarily take away a green card at any time it pleases, an action the court deemed “antithetical” to the principle of separation of powers and a trespass on Congress’ power.
The case establishing this precedent revolves around Mohammad Qatanani, an imam born in Palestine who’s been waging a fight for two decades for permanent residency in America. His odyssey is a glimpse into the labyrinth of immigration law: admitted in 1996 on a work visa, Qatanani sought a green card in 1999. Federal authorities alleged connections to Hamas allegations he’s always denied. Following marathon hearings and consideration, an immigration judge twice deemed Qatanani credible and awarded him permanent residence, first in 2008 and then in 2020.
But the judicial rollercoaster did not end there. Homeland Security appealed the 2008 ruling, and the Board of Immigration Appeals overturned it. When Qatanani prevailed once more in 2020, DHS failed to meet the 30-day window for appeal. Almost a year later, the BIA attempted to “self-certify” an appeal nonetheless far beyond the deadline and ordered Qatanani deported. That action, the Third Circuit determined, crossed the line.
Circuit Judge Arianna Freeman, on behalf of the court, didn’t pull her punches: “The BIA exceeded its authority when it attempted to undo Qatanani’s adjustment to LPR status by using an agency regulation in a manner inconsistent with the procedures set out by Congress in the [Immigration and Nationality Act].” She drove home, “The government’s position is antithetical to ‘the basic concept of separation of powers.’ … We therefore reject it.”
Why is this important to every green card holder? The DOJ claimed that if a decision isn’t certified by the BIA, no green card is ever really final leaving the door open to perpetual doubt for the nation’s 12.8 million permanent residents. Judge Freeman described it as “extraordinary,” predicting it would allow the executive branch “to evade the constraints Congress placed” and “circumvent the procedures Congress mandated for recission of such adjustments”.
The decision also highlights the boundaries of administrative discretion. The court explicitly stated that finality is important: after 30 days pass without judicial review, a green card grant is final under the law. If the government wishes to revoke it, it must comply with the statutory procedure no exceptions.
Legal scholars are calling the ruling a key check on executive abuse. Amelia Wilson, director of Pace University’s Immigration Justice Clinic, said in a statement to Newsweek, The judiciary’s duty is to safeguard the people against such abusive government conduct and Executive overreach. The Third Circuit did just that yesterday by guaranteeing that, at least for now, the Department must observe the basic mandates of due process.
For observers of immigration law and constitutional oversight, this case should serve as a reminder: Congress, not executive agencies, determines the regulations for green card rescission. The Board of Immigration Appeals is not free to make up new authority through regulation when Congress has already established the procedure.
Qatanani’s long legal saga, with its twists of alleged terrorism ties, disputed evidence, and years of uncertainty, ultimately reaffirmed that even in turbulent times, the rule of law and the separation of powers are more than just legal jargon they’re protections that matter for real people’s lives.
