USCIS, Sept. 25, 2024 "Policy Highlights • Clarifies that USCIS calculates the CSPA age of an applicant who established extraordinary circumstances and is excused from the sought to acquire...
NILA, Sept. 25, 2024 "Increasingly, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and other immigration agencies are challenging venue in U.S. district court lawsuits brought by noncitizens...
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 09/26/2024 "Eligible citizens, nationals, and passport holders from designated Visa Waiver Program countries may apply for admission...
Mazariegos-Rodas v. Garland "Beky Izamar Mazariegos-Rodas and Engly Yeraicy Mazariegos-Rodas (collectively, the Petitioners) are two sisters who are natives and citizens of Guatemala. The Petitioners...
Cyrus Mehta, Sept. 23, 2024 "When the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) designated Matter of Z-A- Inc . as an “Adopted Decision” in 2016 it was seen as a breakthrough as it recognized...
"Alejandro Rodriguez, Abdirizak Aden Farah, Jose Farias Cornejo, Yussuf Abdikadir, and Abel Perez Ruelas (“Appellees”) are the named plaintiffs representing a certified class of non-citizens who challenge their prolonged detention, pursuant to certain federal immigration statutes, without individualized bond hearings and determinations to justify their continued detention. The district court entered a preliminary injunction requiring the government to identify all class members detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(c) and 1225(b) (the “1226(c) subclass” and “1225(b) subclass,” respectively), and to “provide each of them with a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge with power to grant their release.” Under the preliminary injunction, at the conclusion of each bond hearing, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) “shall release each Subclass member on reasonable conditions of supervision, including electronic monitoring if necessary, unless the government shows by clear and convincing evidence that continued detention is justified based on his or her danger to the community or risk of flight.” The government appeals that order, and we affirm." - Rodriguez v. Robbins, Apr. 16, 2013.
[Hats way off to: Ahilan T. Arulanantham (argued), Michael Kaufman, ACLU Foundation of Southern California, Los Angeles, California; Judy Rabinovitz and Michael Tan, ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, New York, New York; Jayashri Srikantiah, Stanford Law School Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, Stanford, California; Sean Commons and Cody Jacobs, Sidley Austin LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Appellees; Angel L. Tang, Marco J. Martemucci, and Elizabeth S. St. John, Arnold & Porter LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Amici Curiae professors and researchers of sociology, criminology, anthropology, and law; Sarah H. Paoletti, Elizabeth Freed, and Suniti Mehta, University of Pennsylvania Law School Transnational Legal Clinic, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Amici Curiae international law professors and human rights clinics and clinicians.]