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...
Mancia v. Garland
"Mancia would like to have her removal proceedings reopened so that her request for suspension of deportation can be adjudicated according to the still-extant substantive NACARA standards. ... She contends that nothing in NACARA limits the Board's general discretionary power to reopen sua sponte a case in which it has rendered a decision. Indeed, that inherent discretion is codified. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). So, she reasons, even though the special and more petitioner-friendly reopening avenue of section 203(c) closed to her in 1998, there is no reason why she cannot ask the Board to grant reopening under its discretionary authority, subject to all the limits that otherwise apply to that authority. ... We agree with Mancia. The Board's reliance on 8 C.F.R. § 1003.43(h) -- requiring filing of section 203(c) reopening requests with the Immigration Court -- is misplaced because that requirement only applies to "any motion to reopen filed pursuant to the special rules of section 309(g) of IIRIRA, as amended by section 203(c) of NACARA." See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.43(h)(1). Mancia's motion to reopen is no such motion. And nothing in NACARA requires those seeking relief under its provisions to do so by filing a section 203(c) motion. The government points to no statute, rule, or precedent to the contrary. And we see no reason why NACARA should be read as implicitly divesting the Board of its discretion to sua sponte reopen a proceeding. ... For the foregoing reasons, we grant Mancia's petition by vacating the Board's rejection of her motion to reopen her removal proceedings pursuant to the Board's sua sponte authority and remanding for further consideration of that motion consistent with this opinion."
[Hats off to Margaret "Meg" Moran!]