Abstract

The objectives of the paper are to identify the cases of affectation of the personal freedom of migrants derived from the application of the immigration law due to the expulsion measures and its consequent control by the Supreme Court via habeas corpus, to evaluate the consistency of the arguments raised and, finally, to verify the regulations applied in the decisions of the cases. The methodology used is based on a jurisprudential analysis that allows inferring as a result that, in the last five years the Highest Court has reasoned progressively by applying constitutional norms and certain international standards. In this way, the Supreme Court has ensured the protection of the personal freedom of migrants against illegal or arbitrary deportations. It is concluded that, despite the asynchrony and potential inconsistency between the legal framework and the conventional and constitutional norms in force in migratory matters, the Supreme Court of Chile has accepted the habeas corpus deduced in favor of migrants subject to expulsion measures.