From the Saborit file: Restatement

I have done a little more digging and thinking on the immigration status of Alexis Saborit, the illegal alien who beheaded American Thayer in Shakopee, Minnesota on July 28. I reported his status as an illegal alien last week here (August 3) with a statement from ICE and followed up here (August 5) with a summary of the case so far. Please note that the August 5 post embeds a copy of the criminal complaint in the arson case pending against Saborit at the time he beheaded America.

These are the immigration-related facts as I understand them and inferences I have drawn. ICE has given me the dates of the events. I have drawn inferences regarding the asylum issue based on the facts set forth and on responses to my questions withholding information because it is deemed “confidential.”

• Saborit entered the US in 2007 at the El Paso port of entry.

• I infer that Saborit sought asylum. His case was set for hearing.

• Saborit failed to appear for his hearing in 2009.

• An immigration judge entered a deportation order against Saborit in absentia.

• Saborit subsequently sought a rehearing. His immigration case was reopened and reheard.

• The rehearing resulted in a second deportation order in 2012.

• ICE attempted to remove Saborit to Cuba based on the 2012 final order of removal. ICE was unable to obtain the necessary travel documents from Cuba.

• As a result, and following a review of his custody, he was released on an order of supervision in 2012.

• The 2001 Supreme Court decision in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) limits the length of time that ICE can detain noncitizens who are subject to a deportation order. The ruling generally precludes the agency from holding noncitizens with final orders of removal for more than six months if their actual removal cannot occur in the reasonably foreseeable future. This is often due to a foreign government’s refusal to accept the repatriation of its nationals.

• On January 25, 2019, the Trump administration’s Department of Homeland Security announced the implementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols, also known as the Remain in Mexico program. The policy allowed US border officers to return non-Mexican asylum seekers to locations in Mexico as their claims were adjudicated in US immigration courts.

• The Remain in Mexico program sought to address the perversity at the heart of the immigration aspect of the Saborit case.

• On June 1, 2021, the Biden administration’s DHS formally ended the Remain in Mexico program. The program was ended by this memo.

• The Star Tribune has reported precisely one story on the case. Dated July 30, it carries the bylines of reporters Chao Xiong and Paul Walsh. The Star Tribune has yet to report Saborit’s immigration status.

• When Saborit beheaded America he was on his way to a hearing in the arson case. In other posts on the Saborit case I have reported in some detail on the November 2020 arson case charging three felonies against Saborit. The following bullet points link to my other posts on the Saborit case.

“The lonesome death of America Thayer” (July 31).

“America Thayer, RIP” (August 2).

“From the Saborit file” (August 3).

“From the Saborit file: His lawyer returns my call” (August 3).

“From the Saborit file: The murder charge” (August 6).

“From the Saborit file: The Ingraham angle” (August 7).

I draw two conclusions from my reporting on Saborit: (1) He should not have been in the United States, and (2) he should not have remained at large in Minnesota.

The resolution of Saborit’s immigration status dates back to the Obama administration. The Saborit case illustrates the need for the reforms implemented by the Trump administration. By the same token, the case illustrates the willful destructiveness of the Biden administration’s open borders program.

Responses