District Court Jurisdiction over Non-Removal Cases
The Legal Action Center (LAC) urges a narrow interpretation of the statutory bars to review of discretionary issues in district court cases where discretionary relief may have been sought, but the cases themselves present legal or constitutional issues. This situation arises when, for example, a noncitizen seeks district court review of USCIS’s denial of an application for adjustment of status on non-discretionary grounds. This issue has become increasingly important as more noncitizens seek review of erroneous USCIS denials of applications for immigration benefits.
The LAC maintains that district courts do have jurisdiction over these cases and can review them under the Administrative Procedures Act. We argue that the bar to review of discretionary judgments found in INA § 242(a)(2)(B)(i) is inapplicable to a court’s review of non-discretionary statutory eligibility for an immigration benefit. We also argue that INA § 242(a)(2)(D) does not limit the jurisdiction of a district court to review constitutional and legal issues in a non-removal case.
Alla Barenboy v. Secretary of DHS et al., No. 10-1802 (3d Cir. amicus brief filed June 7, 2010) (court denied the petition on other grounds in a non-precedential decision).Read more...
Dozens of Washington, D.C. area educators had a unique opportunity to work with experts on immigration law and African migration at the American Immigration Law Foundation's (AILF's) fifth annual Teachers' Symposium on Saturday, February 9. The event, which was funded in part by Wachovia, was organized for educators in an effort to help them teach the importance of America's immigration heritage more effectively.
Problem is, you did exist. And, thankfully, researchers have gone back to the original records. The D.C.-based Immigration Policy Center, in particular, has done a marvelous job of digging deeper.
Their scholars have reconstructed 1866 debates in which concerns were raised about the nation being overrun by births from people clearly viewed then as less equal: gypsies in Pennsylvania and Chinese immigrants. Senators also discussed birthright citizenship in context of native tribal sovereignty.
This issue covers Child Status Protection Act litigation; developments in Matter of R-A- and domestic violence asylum cases; new litigation resources; important developments in the Duran-Gonzales class action; and favorable decisions involving delay in a "material support" adjustment case and the fugitive disentitlement doctrine.
Teachers and students can read this beatifully illustrated storybook on Storybird and learn about current issues in immigration. Students of all ages can use the artwork on Storybird to create their own written works.
In a stunning turnaround, Arizona Republicans killed 5 of the state's notorious immigration bills. Terry Greene Sterling obtains a report showing deportations pummeling the local economy.
In a surprise St. Patrick’s Day coup, conservative Republican senators in Arizona slapped down five harsh immigration bills that aimed to deny state birth certificates to babies born to unauthorized immigrants, turn school teachers and hospital workers into immigration enforcers, prohibit undocumented immigrants from attending college, and criminalize them for driving.
Article - Sterling Immigration Retreat A protest outside the Arizona capitol building on March 17 as the state senate debated the latest immigration bills. (Credit: AP Photo) The roundly defeated measures signal that Arizona is ticking slightly towards the right-center. And, like many states that have rejected immigration measures this year, is beginning to recognize that immigration-crackdown laws can derail already fragile economic recoveries.
An embargoed report obtained by The Daily Beast details how deporting all of Arizona’s unauthorized immigrants would spell disaster for the already stressed economy. Not only would 17 percent of jobs vanish statewide, the liberal Center for American Progress and the Immigration Policy Center say, but ousting all of Arizona’s undocumented migrants could “shrink the state economy by $48.8 billion.”
Even so, ridding Arizona of its 400,000 or so “illegals” has long been the stated goal of Russell Pearce, the temperamental Tea Partier with a reputation for bullying who ascended to the presidency of the state senate after sponsoring SB 1070, Arizona’s notorious immigration law that makes it a crime for unauthorized migrants to set foot in the Grand Canyon State. (Parts of the law have been temporarily stayed by a federal judge.)Read more...
This issue covers I-212 litigation, asylum one year deadline decisions, representing clients with drug possession charges, mandamus petitions, and a court decision regarding asylum applicant confidentiality regulation.
Annnd... Arizona's anti-immigration campaign hurtles still further into red-state ridiculousness.
This morning, Governor Jan Brewer announced her latest, greatest battle plan in the war against illegal border-crossers: collect Internet donations to build a massive fence across the Arizona-Mexico line. (And what'll donors get in return? Why, an "I Helped Build the Arizona Wall" keepsake T-shirt, of course!)
In support, State Senator Russell Pearce squeezed in a few words of pro-fence propaganda on L.A.'s KNX news radio this morning. Here's the pile of steaming misinformation he dumped from his politickin' piehole:
Pearce claimed that illegal immigrants commit 2.5 times more violent crime than any other demographic.
He also used a Sin City analogy as a fear tactic to garner out-of-state support ("Unlike Vegas, what goes into Arizona doesn't stay in Arizona") and called the immigrant influx from Mexico an "invasion," but we'll let all that slide in the interest of clearing up this crime thing once and for all.
In response to Pearce's theory, we can almost see Wendy Sefsaf of the Immigration Policy Center roll her eyes over the phone.
She recommends we speak to the Department of Homeland Security about the fence idea (which, amusingly, cites prisoners as the perfect candidates for erecting the thing), but guesses it's "unprecedented, and probably illegal" for a state to evade federal strategy and take something so controversial into its own hands.
A Homeland Security rep will only say, "My apologies, DHS does not comment on state legislation." Ironically, President Obama is headed to the South tomorrow to push a more progressive (read: fenceless) U.S. immigration policy.
But as for the violent-crime statistic: The Immigration Policy Center released a March 2008 report that showed just the opposite, and Sefsaf says the trend has stayed consistent. An excerpt:Read more...