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...
Quebrado-Cantor v. Garland
"This appeal requires us to address, yet again, application of the “stop-time rule” in immigration proceedings. Nonpermanent residents subject to removal may apply to the Attorney General for cancellation of removal. To be eligible, a nonpermanent resident must have “been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A). The question is what circumstances serve to stop the accrual of time. By statute, nonpermanent residents cease to accrue physical presence (1) once they are “served a notice to appear” or (2) if they commit certain crimes. Id. § 1229b(d)(1). Domingo Quebrado Cantor (“Quebrado”) alleges he was physically present in this country for twelve years when he sought to reopen his immigration proceedings to apply for cancellation of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) saw it differently and denied Quebrado’s request, reasoning that the stop-time rule was triggered when Quebrado received a final order of removal four years prior to his motion to reopen. By its terms, however, the stop-time rule applies to only the two circumstances set out in the statute, and a final order of removal satisfies neither. Because the BIA’s decision was contrary to the text of the statute, we grant the petition and remand to the BIA for further proceedings."
[Hats off to Luis Cortes Romero and Elaine Ruth Fordyce!]