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...
Saban-Cach v. Atty. Gen.
"Based on past experiences, if returned to Guatemala, Selvin Heraldo Saban-Cach fears being persecuted by a local gang because of his identity as an indigenous person. Accordingly, he seeks withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and protection from removal under the Convention Against Torture. The Immigration Judge denied his applications and ordered his removal, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. This petition for review followed. For the reasons that follow, we will grant the petition, vacate the BIA’s decision, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. ... Although the BIA need not write an overly detailed explanation of its review of an IJ’s decision, it must provide an adequate explanation of its ruling and afford us an opportunity to review it. Here, the BIA did neither. At times, the IJ’s decision completely conflicts with the record. Yet, for reasons that are not at all apparent, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision in its entirety. ... The BIA must review the first, factual question for clear error and the second, legal question de novo. In affirming the IJ’s decision of the second question regarding acquiescence, the BIA concluded that it found “no clear error in the [IJ]’s predictive fact-finding.” Accordingly, in addition to not bifurcating the Myrie step-two inquiry, the BIA also erred by applying this heightened standard of review to a legal question. Because of these errors, “we have little insight into the basis for [the BIA’s] determination that the IJ’s opinion ‘clearly reflects that [s]he used the proper “willful blindness” standard in relation to the issue of acquiescence.’” Accordingly, on remand the BIA needs to reassess each question."
[Hats way off to Stephanie Norton, CSJ Practitioner-in-Residence, Detained Immigrant Project Education, Seton Hall!]