It is no exaggeration to say that every aspect of our immigration system will be affected by the results of this November’s federal elections. While many people look simply to who the President is, it is important to remember that there are many other moving parts to our immigration system. Due to the significance of federal office-holders on immigration law, I have decided to write one post per week through the November elections in which I will discuss an issue at play in the election from the immigration context. This post also includes an archive of all of the posts in the series.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued an important precedent decision in the Matter of Silva-Trevino (“Silva-Trevino III”), 26 I&N Dec. 826 (BIA 2016) regarding the analytical framework for determining of a conviction under a federal or state statute is for a CIMT. This is in fact the third time the Attorney General/BIA has addressed the issue. The issue was originally addressed in a published Attorney General decision from 2008 titled the Matter of Silva-Trevino, 26 I&N Dec. 687 (AG 2008). The 2008 decision was subsequently vacated in a second Attorney General precedent decision on the matter in the Matter of Silva-Trevino (“Silva-Trevino II”), 26 I&N Dec. 550 (AG 2015). The following is a revised version of the blog post I wrote about Silva-Trevino II when the decision was published, wherein I explained why the Attorney General’s decision to vacate Silva-Trevino I – a decision I believe to have been erroneous – was a very positive development in immigration law.
With the high unfavorable ratings of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, many voters have come to the conclusion that neither deserves their votes for President. While some voters may stay home or leave the Presidential line on their ballots blank, others are looking toward minor-party alternatives or contemplating different write-in options entirely. For this reason, I thought that it would be interesting to examine the candidates’ public statements and campaign platforms on immigration to provide undecided voters who know who they are voting against a better idea of who they are voting for. I hope that this analysis will give those considering a minor party candidate a better understanding of the candidates’ public positions on one of our most pressing national issues.
With the immense unpopularity of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, many citizens are considering different voting options. For some this may mean writing someone in or staying home entirely. For others, this may mean voting for a third-party candidate who is on their ballot or who gained official write-in recognition in their state. In this article, I will provide a brief overview of the effect that voting third party may have in this election, and how certain minor party candidates have fared in the past.
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has published a new version of the Form I-191, Application for Relief Under Former Section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The new edition of the Form I-191 is dated 09/20/16. Despite issuing this new edition of the form, the USCIS will continue to accept previous editions of the form. The edition date for the Form I-191 may be found on the bottom left corner of both the Form I-191 itself and the Form I-191 instructions.
The USCIS issued an alert reminding customers affected by Hurricane Matthew that there are available immigration relief members for those affected by unforeseen circumstances. In order to request relief, one must apply to USCIS and explain how the impact of Hurricane Matthew created a need for the requested relief.
On September 8, 2016, the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) put out notice reminding the community of pro bono legal service provides that the deadline to reapply for inclusion on the List of Pro Bono Legal Service Providers is November 30, 2016. The November 30, 2016 deadline also applies to new applications for inclusion on the list.
While the first Presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump produced nothing of substance on immigration issues, the Vice Presidential debate between the Democratic nominee for Vice President, U.S. Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, and his Republican counterpart, Governor Mike Pence of Indiana, produced an interesting exchange on immigration that I will cover in this blog. In this post, I will analyze their exchange on immigration.