On March 6, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision titled Beckles v. United States, No. 15-8544 (2017). Beckles is not an immigration case and is unlikely to have a direct effect on immigration law. However, it is tangentially related to the Supreme Court decision in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. __ (2015), which does have an effect on certain immigration statutes. As a matter of interest, we will review the Beckles decision in brief and explain how it is related to Johnson.
On March 6, 2017, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly released statements about President Donald Trump’s new travel Executive Order issued on the same day. The three department heads each defended the travel Executive Order and explained how their respective Departments would implement its provisions. The video of their statements is available in this post.
Riz Ahmed, a Pakistani-British actor and rapper, delivered a speech delivered to the House of Parliament in London on the subject of diversity in film and television. Ahmed spoke broadly of encouraging diversity in film and television, and he was critical of the United Kingdom for being, in his opinion, behind the United States in this area. However, Ahmed made an interesting argument regarding what he perceived as the power of diversity in film and television to prevent young people from joining ISIS. While this portion of his speech has received much attention and acclaim, I will explain why I find it quite troubling, given my strong interest in immigration issues.
On March 6, 2017, President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States.” This Executive Order revokes the Executive Order of the same name issued by President Trump on January 27, 2017, and narrows it in scope.
On November 20, 2014, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Jeh Johnson, released a memorandum detailing revised immigration enforcement priorities titled “Policies for the Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants.” The policy guidance took effect on January 5, 2015. It has since been replaced by a new set of enforcement priorities on February 20, 2017. This article is archived for informational purposes only.
On March 3, 2017, Reuters reported that it had been informed by the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) that President Trump’s federal hiring freeze would not apply to immigration judges. In this article, we examine the background of the hiring freeze and the decision to exempt immigration judges.
On March 1, 2017, the Secretary of Homeland Security, John F. Kelly, released a message to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) employees commemorating the fourteenth anniversary of the Department’s opening.
On January 17, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in Lynch v. Dimaya, 15-1498. The case concerns whether 18 U.S.C. 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague as it is incorporated into the immigration laws at section 101(a)(43)(F) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Subsequent to those arguments, Attorney General Jeff Sessions replaced former Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Accordingly, the case is now called Sessions v. Dimaya. We will use that name going forward. In this article, we will examine the oral arguments made by the Government and by the respondent and contemplate what these arguments may mean going forward as the Supreme Court looks to decide Sessions v. Dimaya later this term.
AILA members have recently reported receiving Forms I-797 Notices of Approval for H1B beneficiaries that are annotated “1B1.” The H1B1 category is only for nationals of Singapore in Chile. Thus, regular H1B petitions should be annotated H1B instead of “1B1.”
