Petitioners in the case are the AG’s Office and the Division of Immigration Services. The respondents are Rodriguez Suka, Johnny Albert and James Kintaro.
In a hearing on Aug. 28, 2008, the AGO filed a motion to quash the public defender’s entry of appearance and continued participation as counsel for the respondents.
Assistant Attorney General Kathleen Busenkell represented the government, while Assistant Public Defender Richard Miller attempted to enter an appearance for the respondents.
Associate Judge David A. Wiseman, in his ruling and order, noted that the public defender argued that the AGO lacks standing because it has no stake or interest in whether or the PDO will assist the defendants.
Wiseman said under the law, the AGO is charged with “representing the commonwealth in all legal matters, and prosecuting violations of the commonwealth law.”
Wiseman said the second point of discussion in the case states that the PDO is “without statutory authority to provide representation to indigent persons subject to deportation.”
The AGO maintains that the power of the PDO is limited to appearing on behalf of criminal defendants and its services should not extend to respondents in deportation proceedings.
The PDO on the other hand insists that the statute mandates representation of all indigent persons requiring legal assistance, including deportation proceedings
Wiseman said “without a clearer mandate,” the court must conclude that the PDO is not authorized by statute to appear on behalf of respondents in deportation proceedings before the commonwealth courts.
He added that the commonwealth is not obligated under due process law to provide legal counsel to respondents facing deportation.
The determination of whether an alien is entitled to counsel at the expense of the government is made on a case-to-case basis, the judge said.
Wiseman added that the respondents have been convicted of offenses deportable under CNMI law and the court will only have two determine two things — whether the respondents are subject to the immigration statutes of the CNMI, and whether the respondents have indeed been convicted of the offenses which would subject them to be deported from the commonwealth.
