Stephen Ruhle - Immigration Judge, EOIR
Eloy, AZ 85131
Stephen Ruhle was the Immigration Judge my removal proceeding was assigned to from March 2008 through July 2008.
Ruhle had just been appointed an Immigration Judge in March 2008, which is when my case was assigned to him. Prior to that, from 1997 through 2008, he had been an ICE lawyer, deporting people TRAC Reports.
Ruhle is the judge who told DHS if they wanted to proceed with using the Canadian passport as evidence of my alienage then they will need to establish through fingerprints that I, and Ricky Riess from Sudbury, Canada - the person the passport relates to - are, in fact, the same person TR 2008-05-05 p31l19-p32l11.
Ruhle Requires DHS to Compare My Fingerprints
At my 2008-05-05 hearing, DHS had submitted a Canadian passport with the name Richard Riess, and my photo as evidence of alienage. When Ruhle asked whether I had any objection to it, I said I did. I told him it's not me TR 2008-05-05 p29l9-19. I was being deliberately vague because I didn't want to openly admit to committing passport fraud on the record, in the Immigration Court.
Ruhle then asked DHS what other evidence they have that the passport, in fact, relates to me TR 2008-05-05 p30l1-2. The DHS lawyer became flustered and tried avoiding giving a direct answer.
After a bit of the DHS lawyer beating around the bush, Ruhle said, "let me be more specific. How are they matching the individual that's sitting in that chair to the individual that's named and pictured in that passport?" DHS responded, "I guess I don't understand what you're saying, Your Honor." Ruhle asked, "Have you compared his fingerprints to the fingerprints they have on file for that individual?" To which, DHS claimed they hadn't, that they haven't had the chance to do that yet TR 2008-05-05 p30l17-p31l3.
So, Ruhle granted a continuance to allow more time for DHS to attempt to prove, through fingerprints, whether or not I was the person named on the passport TR 2008-05-05 p31l16-17. The problem I have with that though, is that DHS hadn't requested a continuance. It seems to me, the judge should not be granting a party a continuance when that party hasn't requested a continuance.
I Try to Request Deportation; Ruhle Refuses
After Ruhle said he was going to grant yet another continuance, to allow DHS to establish what they were legally required to establish BEFORE they arrested and detained me eight months prior, I got pretty fed up. I just wanted to get this bullshit over with. I had been in ICE custody for eight months and I just wanted to get back to my son who was seven years old at the time.
I told Ruhle I haven't, at any point in these proceedings, objected to being deported. I told him I've even requested it a number of times.
I was about to ask if we could just proceed right now and if I'm ordered removed then so be it, but Ruhle cut me off with that same rhetoric Judge Sean Keenan used to pull about, if I'm a US citizen then he can't order me removed TR 2008-05-05 p32l18-p33l8.
I told Ruhle, but if that means I'm going to have to stay in custody indefinitely, then I'd rather leave America and go to a foreign country TR 2008-05-05 p33l9-11. Ruhle didn't respond to that, he changed the topic.
Ruhle Claims ICE Can Detain A Person Indefinitely While They Try to Establish Alienage
Later, after Ruhle mentioned I could always change my plea and "admit" I'm a native and citizen of Canada, and request deportation TR 2008-05-05 p35l12-13, I asked Ruhle for how long can ICE detain me while they try to prove I'm an alien TR 2008-05-05 p35l19-23.
I knew the answer. I was just trying to get Ruhle to state it on the record. The correct answer is: They can't, ever! ICE has absolutely no legal authority to arrest and detain a person on allegations of immigration violations until they've established that the person is, in fact, an alien. ICE has no legal authority to arrest and detain a US national on immigration charges.
I wanted Ruhle to admit that on the record, just as Keenan had back in February 2008 TR 2008-05-05 p21l21-p22l1.
But Ruhle's response was much more troubling. He said, "There is no set time" TR 2008-05-05 p35l24-p36l1. Yes, Ruhle admitted, on the record, that ICE can detain a person indefinitely, forever, while they tried to prove the person is removable. But there is a caveat to that, which Ruhle failed to mention: It only applies to aliens, to people who have been established to be an alien, NOT to people who have not yet been established to be aliens!
My question to Ruhle though, was not how long ICE can detain an alien while they try to establish the alien is removable. My question was, how long can ICE detain a person while they try to establish that person is an alien.
It's weird that the US Supreme Court has ruled that once an alien has been ordered removed, they can only be detained for up to six months while DHS tries to effect their removal Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001); but prior to being ordered removed, DHS can, literally, detain them forever while they drag out the removal proceedings with frivolous and false claims.
And that is a common tactic I saw DHS use over and over while I was in ICE custody. They would drag people's cases out for years, knowing that eventually the person would give up and ask to be deported just so they could get out of custody.
But, the single most important thing to come out of this one and only hearing I had before Ruhle, was Ruhle telling DHS if they wanted to proceed with using the passport they would have to obtain fingerprint evidence linking me to the person named on the passport. That caused ICE to obtain Ricky Riess's fingerprints from the Toronto Police, which proved I wasn't him. Which lead ICE to withholding and concealing that fingerprint evidence. Which lead to me eventually discovering and obtaining it through a Freedom of Information request.
And that's about it for Ruhle's involvement in my cases.