'Wilson 4' key dates August 2001: Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, introduces the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act. It aims to accommodate undocumented college-bound students by allowing states to determine the students' residency status and to cancel their deportations. June 2002: Wilson Charter High School students Oscar Corona, Jaime Damian, Luis Nava and Yuliana Huicochea are detained at the U.S.-Canadian border while sightseeing at Niagara Falls. They were part of an award-winning team asked to compete in an international solar-powered boat competition in Buffalo, N.Y. September 2002: U.S. Immigration Judge John Richardson grants the four students a 14-month extension, a move some view as buying time for lawmakers to pass the DREAM Act. November 2002: The 107th Congress ends, with the DREAM Act failing to pass muster. September 2004: Richardson grants the four a 10-month extension, adding it likely would be his final one. December 2004: The 108th Congress fails to pass the DREAM Act and the Student Adjustment Act, a companion bill that originated in the House. The general consensus is that both bills were too controversial to come to a vote during an election year. July 2005: The DREAM Act has yet to be reintroduced. July 12, 2005: Rep. Ed Pastor, D-Ariz., introduces a bill to waive deportation requirements for the "Wilson Four." July 21, 2005: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement denies the Wilson Four's deferred-action requests. The four go before Richardson in a final hearing to set their deportation dates. Richardson throws out the case on grounds that the students were racially-profiled when detained in 2002. - Mel Meléndez

WASHINGTON (By Billy House, Republic Washington Bureau) July 22, 2005 - U.S. Immigration Judge John Richardson's decision Thursday shines a national spotlight on what has been a complex legal question: What satisfies due process and equal protection when it comes to immigration cases?

Immigrants who are in the United States legally, as well as those who are not, have the same rights in criminal cases as citizens to such things as a fair and public trial, the presumption of innocence and other guarantees in the Bill of Rights.

But immigration law proceedings are matters of administrative law, different from criminal law.

And Congress has nearly plenary, or complete, authority to regulate these proceedings. It even has stripped the courts of their power to review most of these matters.

In short, immigration laws passed by Congress and regulations imposed by the executive branch of government, particularly in the post-9/11 era, do not always treat immigrants the same as everyone else.

But in this case, an immigration judge says they should.

The judge threw out the deportation case against four Wilson Charter High School classmates who were brought to the United States illegally when they were toddlers.

In his ruling, Richardson said key evidence against the four students should be thrown out because U.S. Border Patrol agents improperly questioned them based almost solely on their Hispanic appearance.

Such rulings by immigration law judges don't occur often, according to experts like Linton Joaquin, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, an immigrant rights organization based in California and Washington, D.C.

The Board of Immigration Appeals, to which the government would have to appeal Thursday's decision, has made it clear that some violations of an immigrant's rights, such as protections against illegal search and seizure, do not necessarily kick in the "exclusionary rule" rendering the evidence obtained in such cases unusable.

But Cleveland-based immigration lawyer David Leopold said that the board has not been in the business of denying fundamental fairness, as guaranteed in the Constitution.

He said Richardson's ruling in this case "makes sense."

"This isn't a question of national security and foreign policy. This is a question of due-process rights and equal protection," Leopold said.

Juliet Gilbert, an immigration lawyer in Denver, agreed, noting that undocumented immigrants also can be of European, Asian or African descent, so that simply being Hispanic is not a legitimate factor to cause suspicion.

Upon hearing the case on appeal, the Bureau of Immigration Appeals may even rely on rulings from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

For instance, in a case in El Centro, Calif., the court in 2000 held that Border Patrol agents cannot stop individuals for questioning based solely on their "Hispanic appearance."

"Stops based on race or ethnic appearance send the underlying message to all our citizens that those who are not White are judged by the color of their skin alone," according to the ruling.

"Such stops also send a clear message that those who are not White enjoy a lesser degree of constitutional protection, that they are in effect assumed to be potential criminal first and individuals second."

The National Immigration Law Center's Joaquin said that Thursday's ruling in favor of the students is perhaps also a product, at least in part, of an unusual aspect of this case. It's rare in a majority of these proceedings, Joaquin said, that the immigrant facing deportation is even represented by a lawyer, someone on their behalf who understands the law and can make the valid constitutional arguments. These four were.