DHS, June 28, 2024 "Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas today announced the extension and redesignation of Haiti for Temporary Protected Status for 18 months, from Aug. 4, 2024...
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo What will it mean for immigration litigation? Superlitigator Brian Green says, "The overruling of Chevron opens the door to U.S. federal judges scrutinizing...
OFLC, June 26, 2024 "On November 15, 2021, the Employment and Training Administration issued a Federal Register notice (FRN) informing the public that the Office of Foreign Labor Certification ...
Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box, June 25, 2024 "On June 18, 2024, the Biden administration announced two new immigration initiatives aimed at keeping families together. The first is a “parole...
Alfaro Manzano v. Garland "Petitioner Gerson Eduardo Alfaro Manzano, a native and citizen of El Salvador, preached to the youth of his hometown to convince them to embrace religion instead of joining...
Abushagif v. Garland
"Abushagif contends that the BIA abused its discretion by entirely failing to address his CAT claim. On that point, he is correct. A CAT “claim is separate from . . . claims for asylum and withholding of removal and should receive separate analytical attention.” Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906–07 (5th Cir. 2002). Moreover, the BIA must not leave asserted CAT claims unaddressed. See Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 196 (5th Cir. 2004). The government does not dispute that Abushagif raised a CAT claim in his motion to reopen. The government avers, however, that Abushagif did not present his claim to the Board and thus failed to exhaust it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). That is flatly incorrect; Abushagif raised his CAT claim several times in his briefing before the BIA. It is confounding that the government says otherwise. The government also contends that remanding the CAT claim would be “futile” because, even if the BIA had addressed it, the Board still would not have granted his motion to reopen, given its determination that Abushagif had generally failed to submit reliable evidence in support of his claims of persecution. That contention, however, cannot overcome the plain command of our caselaw: The Board must address CAT claims where they are raised. See Eduard, 379 F.3d at 196. We therefore remand for the limited purpose of the Board’s addressing Abushagif’s CAT claim."
[Hats off to pro bono publico counsel Alison Caditz and Jeri Leigh Miller!]