Pace University, July 19, 2024 "Professor Merton began her legal education career at New York University School of Law, and was a founding faculty member of CUNY Law School, and a Mellon and National...
DHS, July 19, 2024 "Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas today announced the extension and redesignation of Somalia for Temporary Protected Status for 18 months, from September 18...
USCIS, July 18, 2024 "The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides that U.S. citizens may transmit citizenship to their children born outside of the United States in certain circumstances...
Paye v. Garland "The BIA and IJ (collectively, "the agency") did not address whether Paye's escape from Liberia because of systematic ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Krahn people...
We are still waiting for the official Federal Register notice, but on July 17, 2024 the White House issued a Fact Sheet including this statement: "On June 18th, the President announced a new process...
Mendoza-Garcia v. Garland
"The BIA reviews de novo the IJ’s determination of “questions of law, discretion, and judgment,” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii), including whether an alien’s prior offense is a “particularly serious crime.” It is unclear whether the BIA undertook that de novo review here, because it applied a “presumption” that Petitioner’s conviction was a particularly serious crime and required him to “rebut” this presumption. But for those offenses that are not defined by the statute itself as “per se a particularly serious crime,” the BIA’s precedent establishes “a multi-factor test to determine on a case-by-case basis whether a crime is particularly serious.” Bare, 975 F.3d at 961. Moreover, we have rejected the view that there is any subset of such cases that is exempt from this multi-factor analysis “based solely on the elements of the offense.” Blandino-Medina, 712 F.3d at 1348. The BIA’s application of a rebuttable presumption is difficult to square with these precedents, and the Government concedes in its brief that the BIA’s application of such a presumption “appears erroneous.” The BIA committed an error of law, and abused its discretion, in failing to apply the correct legal standards in assessing whether Petitioner’s offense was a “particularly serious crime.” We therefore remand to the BIA to consider Petitioner’s application for withholding of removal under the correct standards."
[Hats off to Nancy Alexander, Kari E. Hong, Boston College Law School, Newton, Massachusetts; Elisa Steglich, Attorney; Simon Lu and Jill Applegate, Supervised Law Student; University of Texas School of Law, Austin, Texas; for Amicus Curiae American Immigration Lawyers Association!]