DOL, July 26, 2024 "On August 7, 2024, the Department of Labor will host a public webinar to educate stakeholders, program users, and other interested members of the public on the changes to the...
Atud v. Garland (unpub.) "Mathurin A. Atud petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings based on alleged ineffective...
Shen v. Garland "Peng Shen, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. An Immigration Judge ...
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 07/25/2024 "On January 17, 2017, DHS published a final rule with new regulatory provisions guiding the use of parole on a case...
Lance Curtright reports: "After the 5th Circuit’s initial decision in Membreno, [ Membreno-Rodriguez v. Garland, 95 F.4th 219 ] my law partner Paul Hunker (a new AILA member!) reached out to...
CA9, Feb. 18, 2021, Zepeda Rivas v. Jennings
"Plaintiffs, civil immigration detainees housed at Mesa Verde Detention Facility and Yuba County Jail (collectively, the Facilities), filed a class petition for writ of habeas corpus, and a class complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief. Plaintiffs alleged the conditions of confinement at the Facilities violated their Fifth Amendment right to due process in light of the threat posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Through a series of orders, the district court established a system to consider individual bail applications and subsequently issued multiple bail orders granting indefinite release to over 130 detainees. The defendants first filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the temporary restraining order entered April 29, 2020, the bail orders issued thereunder, and the preliminary injunction entered June 9, 2020. Defendants separately appealed additional bail orders issued after the preliminary injunction. This memorandum disposition resolves certain threshold issues presented in these appeals and is accompanied by a separate order referring the remaining issues to mediation. Here, we conclude that we have jurisdiction to review the April 29, 2020 temporary restraining order, the June 9, 2020 order granting preliminary injunction, and the bail orders; that plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success on their claim that conditions at the Facilities fell below a constitutional minimum at least as of the time the temporary restraining order was entered; and that, contrary to the government’s argument, district courts have authority to enter injunctive relief to remedy unconstitutional conditions of confinement, including overcrowding that poses health dangers, under certain circumstances."