This article originally appeared on Law360: https://www.law360.com/immigration/articles/972810/assessing-constitutional-constraints-on-immigrant-detention Starting in July 1999, Hoang Minh Ly, a refugee and permanent resident of the United States, spent 564 days in detention by U.S. immigration authorities who sought his removal to his native Vietnam.[i] He was released from detention only after a U.S. District Court in September 2000 ordered that an immigration judge provide him with a bond hearing. That order was the result of an August 1999 petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Ly.
I have heard from a lot of people expressing outrage over the fate of Adam Crapser, the Korean adoptee who was ordered deported earlier this week. I get and share the outrage and would like to help channel the outrage into an increased awareness of the many failures this case represents. If you have not seen the adorable photos of Adam as a young boy or holding his infant child, a brief summary.
We are thrilled to announce Jorge Martinez and Christopher Gallo as our July 2016 Clients of the Month. Jorge is a permanent resident who just returned from Honduras where he obtained his immigrant visa after being approved for an I-601A provisional waiver for hardship to his U.S. citizen husband, Chris. Jorge returned to Honduras after being gone for more than 20 years and was able to hug his mother again and reunite with his extended family.
“The judgement is affirmed by an equally divided court.” With one sentence, the Supreme Court refused to engage in the question of the President’s authority to extend deferred action to the parents of U.S. citizens (DAPA) and additional young people who entered the U.S. as children (expanded DACA). By affirming the judgement, the Court let the injunction against DAPA and expanded DACA stand, dashing the hopes of millions that there would be the ability to work legally in the U.S.
Our eyes will be on the Supreme Court today to see if the Supreme Court will issue its decision in U.S. v. Texas, the DAPA/ DACA injunction case. With the Court recessing in less than two weeks, an answer to the question of the legality of DAPA and expanded DACA is forthcoming soon. The Court still has to issue decisions in 13 cases before the end of the term.
The death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has created turmoil in Washington DC and on the Presidential campaign trail. Republicans are uniformly calling on the President to refrain from nominating anyone to fill the vacancy due to the upcoming Presidential election. Within hours of the news of the Justice’s death, Senator Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader and the man who controls the Senate’s agenda, stated that the “vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.” The President has stated that he intends to nominate someone to fill the vacancy, setting up a battle with Senate Republicans over whether the nominee will ever get a hearing or approved by the Senate.
We get a lot of questions about what it is like to be an immigration lawyer in Washington DC. After all, immigration is a federal matter and Congress and the executive branch are just blocks from our office. In addition to the White House and Capitol Hill, there are the headquarters of the Citizenship & Immigration Service, Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Customs & Border Protection, and the Executive Office for Immigration Review.
What just happened in the 5th Circuit? The U.S. Court of Appeals formally upheld Judge Hanen’s injunction prohibiting the administration for implementing DAPA & DACA. The injunction prohibited the administration from implementing DAPA and expanded DACA until the litigation brought by Texas and twenty six other states was resolved. Injunctions are sought to preserve the status quo while the legality or proposed actions is resolved. Judge Hanen ruled that Texas presented evidence of the possible injury if DAPA or DACA went forward and that Texas was likely to succeed in challenging DAPA and expanded DACA.
Yesterday, in a 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an immigrant who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor paraphernalia charge for concealing pills in his sock cannot be deported for the offense. Simply stated, Moones Mellouli faced the possibility of deportation for possession of a sock. Mellouli, who came to the U.S. on a student visa from Tunisia in 2004, graduated with honors from U.S.
On October 6, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued a decision in Castañeda v. Souza that greatly limits the ability of Immigration & Customs Enforcement to subject individuals to mandatory detention during their removal proceedings. In Castañeda, the First Circuit interpreted the not very confusing language “when the alien is released” and rejected the Board of Immigration Appeals’ formulation, articulated in Matter of Rojas that the “when released” means “any time after release.