There are few issues more important to immigration law – and our republic as a whole – than who occupies the White House. Thus, as we fast approach the first votes of this 2016 Presidential election, I have decided to write a series of candidate profiles about each of the important 2016 Presidential hopefuls.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) recently released statistics regarding the apprehension of unaccompanied alien children or unaccompanied minors during Fiscal Year 2015. You can find these statistics and other information about the apprehension of unaccompanied minors at www.cbp.gov. An unaccompanied alien child is a child who has no lawful immigration status in the United States, has not reached the age of 18, and has no parent or legal guardian in the United States who can provide care and physical custody.
On November 10, 2015, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) invited interested members of the public to submit an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief discussing the following question: “In determining whether an offense constitutes an aggravated felony under section 101(a)(43)(M)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), must false statements be “material” in order to find that the statute “involves deceit”? The parties may address other issues pertinent to the case.”
Attorney General Loretta Lynch referred two Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decisions to herself for review. The decisions are Matter of Chairez (decided February 11, 2015) and Matter of Sama (decided July 17, 2015). Pending the Attorney General’s review, the BIA’s decision in both cases are automatically stayed. The Attorney General is reviewing the cases to determine whether they are consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Descamps v. United States (decided June 20, 2013). In this article, I will explain how this referral process works, the main issue that the Attorney General is considering, and the possible effects of this review going forward.
The Obama Administrative has used executive action to expand the use of parole to assist members of the armed forces, individuals in the reserves, and veterans. Parole is typically used to permit an alien who is outside the United States to enter the United States, but the Department of Homeland Security has recognized that parole may granted to an alien who is physically present in the United States without inspection or admission.
On November 9, 2015, by a 2-1 majority, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in a decision written by Judge Jerry Smith, upheld a District Court's preliminary injunction against the implementation of the Deferred Action for Parents and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program, and against the expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The Fifth Circuit’s decision is sound, and strikes me as quite right on all of the key points. I will use this blog to first explain why the majority on the Fifth Circuit decided to uphold the preliminary injunction, the next steps in the litigation over DAPA and DACA, and my thoughts on why both the Fifth Circuit majority and Judge Hanen are spot on with their reasoning and decisions on these important issues.
Three significant immigration programs are slated to expire on December 11, 2015. These three programs are the: EB-5 Regional Center Program; Conrad 30 J Waiver Program; Special Immigrant Non-Minister Religious Worker Programs. This blog will discuss the programs' prospects for reauthorization before they are set to expire.
In Matter of Garcia-Ramirez, the BIA addressed whether an alien had his continuous physical presence (for cancellation of removal purposes) severed when he was picked up near the Mexican border and briefly detained before voluntarily returning to Mexico. The key question was whether that was sufficient to constitute a break in continuous physical presence.