EOIR, July 2, 2024 "The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced the launch of Respondent Access Portal , a secure online platform that allows unrepresented individuals who...
Nash v. Mikesell "A division of the court of appeals considers whether Colorado law prohibits state or local law enforcement officers from performing the arrest and detention functions of federal...
VELAZQUEZ V. GARLAND DECISION BELOW: 88 F.4th 1301 (CA10) CERT. GRANTED 7/2/2024 QUESTION PRESENTED: Federal immigration law allows the government to grant a "voluntary departure" period...
Gutierrez v. Garland "Sergio Manrique Gutierrez petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal of an order of removal by an Immigration...
BIA, June 28, 2024 "The Board of Immigration Appeals welcomes interested members of the public to file amicus curiae briefs discussing the below issue(s): ISSUE(S) PRESENTED: What is the scope of...
Nash v. Mikesell
"A division of the court of appeals considers whether Colorado law prohibits state or local law enforcement officers from performing the arrest and detention functions of federal immigration officers under an agreement executed pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g). The division concludes that the agreement violates Colorado law. Specifically, it concludes that state or local law enforcement officers are prohibited from arresting and detaining individuals otherwise eligible for release under Colorado law on the basis of a civil immigration detainer as defined under section 24-76.6-101(1), C.R.S. 2023. ... At issue in this appeal is whether certain activities carried out under TCSO’s 287(g) agreement (TCSO’s Agreement) with ICE are prohibited by sections 24-76.6-101 and -102, C.R.S. 2023, or article II, sections 7 and 19 of the Colorado Constitution. We conclude that sections 24-76.6-101 and -102 prohibit the arrests and detentions purportedly authorized by TCSO’s Agreement. ... [R]emand is appropriate for the district court to make detailed findings and conclusions regarding whether plaintiffs have met their burden for a permanent injunction."