ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network




Connect to us

Make us Homepage



Immigration Daily

Chinese Immig. Daily

The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
© 1995-
Immigration LLC.

Blog Comments

  1. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Multiple news reports on July 24 indicate that Trump is moving closer and closer to firing AG Jeff Sessions, one of the president's closest supporters and most ardent defenders on immigration matters, because of the respect that Sessions showed for the rule of law in recusing himself from the Russia-related investigations that have, reportedly, so infuriated Trump and are causing him so much anguish. See, POLITICO

    If Sessions is forced out or chooses to resign, supporters of a fair and equitable immigration system where immigrants from Latin America, Asia, the Middle East and other non-white areas of the world are not systematically excluded from, or deported from, the United States en masse, will not weep many tears.

    Sessions, readers will no doubt remember, supported (in his 2015 immigration "Handbook") returning to the same openly race-based "national origins" immigration act of 1924 that cut off most immigration from outside the "Nordic" countries of Western Europe - a law that Adolf Hitler also admired, writing in Mein Kampf some 90 years earlier (though Sessions, to be fair, claimed to be supporting that noxious law for a different reason from the one that attracted so much admiration for this statute by the German Fuehrer).

    And no one has worked harder than Sessions to try to bring Trump's vision of an ethnically "pure" United States, or at least an America with an Hispanic population drastically reduced through mass deportation, than has Jeff Sessions as head of the Justice Department.

    But if Trump is so intent at enforcing slavish "loyalty" to himself, even if it means putting himself entirely above the law, that he is ready to fire one of his most loyal supporters and immigration allies, no one can say that democracy is safe in America any more.

    To the contrary, this country would be moving closer toward a Soviet-style purge system where even Stalin's closest associates were suddenly eliminated from power (or just eliminated completely) for even the slightest deviation from the party line.

    The contempt for the rule of law that was shown, among many other autocratic actions - see link below - in Trump's attempts to bludgeon the 9th Circuit and other federal courts into abject submission to his will (or mislead them, with the help of Sessions' Justice Department lawyers) into acquiescing in his Muslim ban immigration orders can, and very possibly will, lead to the loss of freedom for all Americans and its replacement by a one-man dictatorship in the United States.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 07-25-2017 at 05:45 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  2. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    More chaos in the White House, according to POLITICO, as Trump persists in castigating his own lawyers for not making the Russia scandal(s) disappear immediately, while at the same time making their own efforts to protect him more difficult, if not impossible.

    Is this White House really qualified to or in a position to develop a coherent immigration policy which respects the fundamental human rights of immigrants, as well as the values and interests of the American people in creating a society where everyone is equal before the law, regardless of race, color or religion?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 07-13-2017 at 03:39 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  3. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    As Donald Trump finds himself more and more boxed in by increasing allegations (unproven so far, to be sure) of collusion or attempted collusion with Russia by his top aides or even his son, Donald Trump Jr., to influence last year's presidential election (in which Trump lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by almost 3 million votes); and as Special Counsel Robert Muller looks into possible Obstruction of Justice allegations (which would have no doubt long since led to frantic calls for Hillary Clinton's impeachment, if not imprisonment, if she had won the electoral college vote as well and were involved in a similar scandal), it is understandable that Trump might want to lash out at anyone or any group of people he can find as a target.

    And what better target is there than the Muslim immigrants whom Trump has been attacking as "terrorists" and "fifth columnists" for the past almost two years, supported by openly "Clash of Civilizations" Islamophobic "Holy Warriors such as Stephen Bannon, Stephen Miller and the now fired and disgraced (for unrelated reasons) Michael Flynn?

    In the very latest outrage over Trump's less than totally successful attempt to ban virtually the entire population of certain almost 100 per cent Muslim countries of the Middle East and Africa, so reminiscent of the infamous Chinese exclusion laws of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the US Customs and Border Protection Agency has detained and sent home an Iranian cancer researcher, Mohsan Dehnavi, who had a valid visa to work at a Harvard affiliated children's hospital on research which, quite reasonably, might be expected to lead to saving the lives of many American children or perhaps other cancer patients.

    CBP claims that sending Dehnavi back to Iran was not related to Trump's Muslim ban, but that it was for other, not clearly explained reasons.

    This reminds me of an old Ring Lardner story about a shady character named "Lefty".

    As I recall the story from many long years ago, Lefty goes to Philadelphia for the weekend, and someone is murdered in Philadelphia that same weekend.

    This doesn't prove that Lefty committed the murder, but suspicions that he did cannot be ruled out.

    In the same way, the Trump administration can argue all it wants that the Muslim ban, allegedly "had nothing to do" with sending this scientist and his family, all with valid visas, back to Iran, but there are those of us who will still have our suspicions.

    For more on this story, with links to relevant news articles, see my July 12 blog comment on this incident.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 07-12-2017 at 06:49 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  4. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I need to correct my previous comment in one respect:

    Justice Kennedy's opinion in Kerry v. Din was a concurring opinion instead of a plurality one, and therefore it is not binding as precedent.

    However, from a technical standpoint, the Supreme Court majority's formulation: facially legitimate and bona fide in Mandel is not binding as precedent on the issue of good faith either, because the question of whether the US Consul acted in good faith in denying Mandel a visa in that case was not before the court.

    There was no allegation that the Consul acted in bad faith in that case.

    In the Muslim ban litigation, the evidence of bad faith, i.e. gross and willful misrepresentation of the reasons for issuing the executive orders involved in those cases was, as one federal district judge put it, "mountainous"

    The fourth Circuit found that Trump's latest Muslim ban order was "dripping" with "animus" and religious discrimination against Muslims.

    Nolan wants the courts to ignore all of this evidence on an expansive theory of presidential power where if the contest is between the Leader's word and the truth, the truth loses.

    There have been and still are countries with that kind of governmental structure - Germany between 1933 and 1945, the former Soviet Union; and, today, Russia (a country which the president admires so much and to which he may owe a very large and special debt of gratitude, if certain allegations which an independent counsel in now looking into turn out to be true).

    North Korea is another country where the truth about any subject is whatever the Dear Leader (or Great Leader or whatever - it is hard to keep track), says it is.

    Fortunately, the United States of America is not such a country - no matter how much our 45th president may be trying to take it in that direction.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 07-05-2017 at 08:33 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  5. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    In the short time that he has been president, Donald Trump has without doubt succeeded in creating shock, fear and anxiety with the sheer harshness, cruelty and vindictiveness of his policies toward many different classes of immigrants: Muslims banned from entering the country because of their religion; Latinos branded as criminals and drug dealers while being torn away from their homes, businesses and families and incarcerated as part of the president's mass deportation agenda; and, perhaps most despicable of all, Trump's horrifying betrayal of over 1,000 Iraqi Christians and members of other minority Middle Eastern religions who cheered his victory in the electoral college (while losing the popular vote to Hillary Clinton) on election night and trusted his promise to protect them from persecution by the inhuman monsters known as ISIS and other Islamist terrorists in their own countries- only to be locked up and made ready to be sent back to the almost certain risk of torture, death and genocide in Iraq.

    But beyond the sheer heartlessness and lack of humanity in his actions toward the minority immigrants whose non-white, European ethnicities and religious beliefs he and his top advisers such as Jeff Sessions, Stephen Bannon, Stephen Miller and, formerly, Michael Flynn, are so anxious to ethnically cleanse from America, lies and even more ominous tone in the rhetoric that Trump and his top officials are using to stir up public hatred against the targeted immigrant groups.

    An example is the June 28 official statement of Attorney General Jeff Sessions urging passage of two bills pending in Congress which seek to punish "Sanctuary Jurisdictions" for refusing to toe the line of assisting the president's ethnic cleansing mass deportation agenda.

    A look at this statement can only bring up disturbing parallels with the propaganda of 1930's Germany branding all Jews as incorrigible and dangerous criminals.

    This is not to say that there is a one-to-one comparison between the Trump administration's anti- immigrant rhetoric and the anti-Semitic propaganda of 1930's Germany; obviously the latter was far more intense and was meant to lead to the total extinction of the Jews.

    The Trump administration is only interested in mass deportation and exclusion of unwanted non-white ethnic and religious groups - not genocide, and this is a very big difference.

    But the similarities of tone in the rhetoric used against the targeted minorities in both instances cannot be overlooked.

    To be continued.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  6. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan overlooks some essential points.

    First, let us look at the the phrase "facially legitimate and bona fide" which Justice Blackmun set forth as the standard in the 1972 Kleindienst v. Mandel decision holding that the courts did not have the power to look behind a consular officer's decision not to grant a visa.

    Aside from the crucial distinguishing features between Mandel and the facts in Trump's Muslim entry ban litigation (such as, for one, the fact that the visa applicant, Mandel, was determined by the US Consul to have a record of having violated the conditions of a previous US visa - a factor totally absent in the Muslim entry ban litigation), Nolan is asking us to twist the English language in a way that makes no sense whatever.

    He is asking us to read Justice Blackmun's phrase:

    "facially legitimate and bona fide" as if the word "facially" also modifies "bona fide" as well as modifying "legitimate".

    This is untenable. To be "facially" in good faith is a contradiction in term. Very few, if any, legal documents show bad faith on their face.

    The concept of good faith, almost by definition, applies to conduct relating to the purpose and intention behind a document, rather than the plain language of a document itself.

    There are a number of Supreme Court cases on this point, as well as an excellent Harvard Law Review article which I will discuss in an upcoming blog comment.

    Take the case of a marriage declaration. Implied in the declaration, in every society and culture in the world, is the concept of fidelity to one's marriage vows.

    But suppose that, at the time of entering into the marriage ceremony, the groom is already cheating on the bride and he continues to do so throughout the marriage.

    Can he claim that his marriage vows were made in good faith because the vows themselves were in proper form and said nothing about an intention to cheat?

    But this is what Nolan, in essence, is arguing in the Muslim ban case - that merely because Trump's executive orders didn't say: "The president hates" Muslims" , the courts have no power to look at the surrounding circumstances, which as the 4th Circuit majority determined in its opinion, were dripping with "animus" and religious discrimination against Muslims on Donald Trump's part.

    But this is only the beginning of the flaws in Nolan's contention. If he has any argument at all, based on Mandel, that argument is destroyed by Justice Kennedy's plurality opinion (writing for a majority of the Justices who agreed with the result in that case) in Kerry v. Din (2015), another case dealing with a consular visa refusal, where the court applied and interpreted the above quoted phrase in the Mandel case.

    I will show why in a forthcoming blog comment or letter on this point.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 06-24-2017 at 08:18 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  7. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I just reviewed the new 9th circuit travel ban decision. I was puzzled by the fact that it did not apply the supreme court's facially legitimate standard. A computer search of the 86 page decision uncovered a discussion of Mandel in a footnote. Se footnote 9 on page 33, which reads as follows:

    This claim looks at whether the President appropriately exercised his authority under § 1182(f) by satisfying its precondition, and whether, and to what extent, his authority under § 1182(f) is cabined by other provisions of the INA. Because this challenge does not look at whether “the Executive exercises this [delegated and conditional exercise of] power negatively,” Mandel, 408 U.S. at 770 (emphasis added), nor involves a constitutional challenge by a citizen to a visa denial on the basis of congressionally enumerated standards, id. at 769–70, but rather looks at whether the President exceeded the scope of his delegated authority, we do not apply Mandel’s “facially legitimate and bona fide reason,” id., standard. See Sale, 509 U.S. at 166–77 (reviewing whether the executive order complied with the INA without reference to Mandel’s standard).

    Do you agree with what then court is saying?

    Nolan Rappaport

  8. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    POLITICO has a wonderful report dated June 21 on the evident influence that the ancient Greek historian, Thucydides, is having on White House thinking regarding foreign affairs, especially regarding the need to avoid any possible conflict between the US and China.

    While the president himself is not exactly known for his intellectual distinction, it is encouraging to know that at least some of his advisers are learning from the classics, which have so much to teach us about history and human nature. See:

    As a high school student at Phillips Academy, Andover (Mass.) many decades ago, it was my great fortune to be introduced to ancient Greek, but the only historian we read was Xenophon - I have to this day never read anything by Thucydides.

    However, it is never too late to start. At the same time, given whom America now has as president, it would be well worthwhile to bone up on what Plato, Aristotle and other ancient Greek thinkers had to say about how a democracy can turn into tyranny.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 06-21-2017 at 02:24 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  9. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    For a chilling take on how Trump's megalomania could be putting him on the road to becoming America's "Dear Leader", see Chauncey DeVega's June 15 column in

    Groveling Before the Mad King: Donald Trump's Cabinet of Sycophants

    Did Trump's cabinet meeting that DeVega reports on take place in America or in North Korea?

    It is hard to tell the difference.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 06-16-2017 at 06:34 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  10. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    They say that even a broken clock is right twice a day.

    Trump, so far, is doing the right thing on DACA, by continuing to grant new approvals and extensions at about the same pace that Obama was doing, even in the face of furious opposition by some of Trump's own right wing nationalist base supporters who are criticizing him for breaking his campaign promise to cancel DACA on his first day in office.

    See my June 13 post.

    If Trump is as anxious to be remembered as a great president as he apparently wishes to be, a good place to start would be to tear up and throw most, if not all, of his other immigration campaign promises in the trashcan of America's immigration history along with his DACA promise.

    So far, there has not been very much sign that this will ever happen, but one can always hope.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 06-13-2017 at 09:16 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  11. ImmigrationDaily's Avatar
    I have been listening to Trump and his propaganda machine in the wake of Jim Comey's testimony. I have noticed that they are emphatically denying that he ever said or did things that he was never accused of saying or doing in the first place! What amateurish hypocrisy!

    They are substituting red herrings, quite unsuccessfully, all over the place. They are all over the map and clearly flustered! Good!

    Trump is saying things like: "I never asked him for a "pledge of allegiance under oath"".

    No, he didn't. He asked for a promise or assurance of "loyalty". This one stands out because he (Trump) was called on it the second he tried it and it is being re-hashed by the pundits and talking heads (except on Fox, of course). Heil Trump? I don't think so, Adolf! Comey don't play that! And neither do I. That is only one example, I'm sure journalists all over are looking for more.

    I am also sick of the blatant and pathetically inadequate, efforts at misdirection.

    When a Trump-loyalist "talking head" is confronted with something they cannot defend, justify, or explain away; they start talking over the person making the valid point and bringing up something totally irrelevant (and usually inane).

    For example, if a calm person accurately lays out a timeline of events that truthfully shows the administration in an unfavorable light, the Trump-loyalist (the Trumpeter) might start talking about Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Loretta Lynch & Bill Clinton, or Obamacare. Challengers were giving up in disgust, shaking their heads, and "going to commercial", probably so that they didn't blow up on air.

    More and more, the truthful folks (like Anderson Cooper, Jeff Toobin, and my favorites, Don Lemmon and Wolf Blitzer) are refusing to be silenced. The "exasperation maneuver" is losing effectiveness! For that, I am grateful.

    Let's stick to the point. Trump attempted to kill an FBI investigation. This was unethical no matter how else you slice it. Such behavior, if true (and I think it is true), was inappropriate if done out of ignorance, or possibly worse if done as an attempt to obstruct justice, or worst of all to initiate a cover-up by soliciting criminal behavior from Comey.

    I hope there are tapes, of everything! He said of tapes when asked--"I'll tell you more about that, maybe, later".

    How long till Sean Spicer quits? Sarah? Kelly? Jared? I think the last one (not related by blood) that will still be there when the dust settles, will be Steve Bannon. A nutcase he got from a recognized hate- group by way of a hate-filled fake news organization and propaganda machine.


    Joseph P. Whalen
  12. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    The racial and religious attacks against non-European immigrants that have been typical of Donald Trump's immigration policies from the time that his campaign began with vicious hate rants against Mexican immigrants 2 years ago, followed by his call to bar all of the Muslims in the world (originally including Muslim American citizens) from entering the US, are still continuing today in the form of his mass deportation agenda, his Muslim ban executive order which is now before the Supreme Court, and, most recently, his assaults on H-1B and other high-skilled legal immigrants.

    See my June 11 post on this issue.

    In many other countries, attacks such as these on unpopular racial and religious minorities have led to the overthrow of democracy and its replacement by one-man dictatorship.

    Could such a thing be happening now in the United States?

    In order to answer this question, we have to look at the autocratic power that Trump is now using to fire any official in his administration who dares to look into any aspect of real or alleged corruption or collusion with a hostile foreign power on the part of Trump or his close associates.

    One can quibble about whether Trump's firing of FBI director James Comey for investigating Trump's alleged ties with Russia amounts to full Obstruction of Justice, even though there is strong reason to believe that it does, since the statute involved defines obstruction as attempting to influence an investigation, not only actually trying to stop it.

    But what is incontrovertible is that in trying to pressure both Comey and now fired US Attorney Preet Bharara into dropping investigations into possible wrongdoing by Trump or his campaign or administration officials, Trump is behaving like the head of what the respected journalist Mehdi Hasan, who has written articles for the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Guardian and the Times of London in addition to Al Jazeera, accurately calls a "Tinpot Dictatorship".

    I urge everyone who cares about preserving America's democracy to read Hasan's full column at:

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 06-12-2017 at 11:15 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  13. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Someone asked me recently if action by Saudi Arabia against Qatar, another Muslim country, did not amount to the same type of "discrimination against Muslims" that Donald Trump has been showing in his campaign statements and actions as president, including his entry ban executive orders.

    I am not an expert in Middle Eastern politics, and I have not been following the Saudi-Qatar dispute very closely. However, it appears to be based at least in part on the fact that Qatar has more than 20 per cent Shia population (according to Wikipedia) and Saudi Arabia, of course, is a bastion of Sunni Islam.

    Anyone with even a scintilla of knowledge of Islam knows that there is a Sunni-Shia rift that goes back many centuries, almost back to the founding of Islam, and which rivals the history of the Catholic=Protestant dispute in violence and antagonism.

    The Sunni-Shia violence continues in many parts of the world today. ISIS, for example, regards Shia Muslims as heretics and kills them on sight.

    One constantly sees media stories about mosque bombings by one or the other side against the other, and many analysts with much more knowledge than I have believe that the Sunni-Shia conflict led to prolonging the Iraq war.

    In Middle Eastern power politics, Saudi Arabia leads the Sunni side and Iran leads the Shia.

    There are also a host of other specifically Middle Eastern factors involved in this dispute, which pits Muslim against Muslim in ways too numerous for a non-Middle Eastern specialist such as myself to understand.

    It would be absurd to compare these seemingly endless Middle Eastern Muslim country religious and political disputes with Trump's US entry ban orders, which are motivated by hatred for all Muslims without distinction.

    It would not be unfair to ask if Trump even knows or understands that such a fundamental divide as the Sunni-Shia schism exists within the Muslim world.

    In this sense, Trump could accurately be called an equal opportunity Islamophobic bigot.

    Roger Algase

    Updated 06-06-2017 at 08:11 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  14. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    What is the significance of Trump's withdrawing America from the Paris Climate Accord?

    It shows that America's president hates not only Muslim, Latino and other non-white immigrants as shown by his six-country Muslim entry ban and mass deportation agenda; that he not only looks down on Asian immigrants as witnessed by his attack on the H-1B visa; that he not only despises African-Americans and less affluent Americans of every color and religion as witnessed by his unspeakably cruel budget proposals; but that in withdrawing from the Paris accord, he also hates the Planet Earth.

    Roger Algase
  15. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationDaily
    Good afternoon,

    I am writing in regards the article to which I copied the link hereto,,0902-cleveland.shtm

    This story is in regards to a Hondurian woman who was granted asylum. Our office is currently looking for the name of this case in order to cite to it for a current client we have that we are representing for asylum.

    Kindly advise if there is anyway we can get in contact with David Cleveland, as he may perhaps know the case name.

    Thank you for your help.

    Julissa R.
    David Cleveland, Senior Volunteer Attorney
    David Cleveland joined Catholic Charities in 1998 as a full-time volunteer and has since developed an expertise in asylum law. A graduate of the University of Rochester and Case Western Reserve University School of Law, David previously worked in private practice, as a university law professor in Indonesia, and as a trial attorney for the District of Columbia Corporation Counsel where he conducted more than 40 civil jury trials over the course of eight years. Over the last ten years, David has obtained asylum for individuals from many of world’s countries. His pro bono efforts have been recognized by many agencies, including Catholic Charities USA and the BIA Pro Bono Project. David is a longtime member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association and has served as the Chair of the National AILA Asylum Committee (2004-2005). In addition, David is a prolific writer and his articles on immigration law can be found in Bender’s Immigration Bulletin, AILA publications, Immigration Law Today, ILW.COM, among others. David regularly lectures on asylum law at D.C. Bar and other training sessions. David is a member of the bar of Washington, DC.

    Nolan Rappaport
  16. ImmigrationDaily's Avatar
    Good afternoon,

    I am writing in regards the article to which I copied the link hereto,,0902-cleveland.shtm

    This story is in regards to a Hondurian woman who was granted asylum. Our office is currently looking for the name of this case in order to cite to it for a current client we have that we are representing for asylum.

    Kindly advise if there is anyway we can get in contact with David Cleveland, as he may perhaps know the case name.

    Thank you for your help.

    Julissa R.
  17. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    As quoted in the article that Nolan cites, 4th Circuit Chief Judge Gregory's opinion states that Trump's order "drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination."

    Can anyone who has been following Trump's statements and actions relating to Muslims both in the very recent past (during the campaign) and after becoming president, when he appointed two notorious Muslim-haters, Bannon and Flynn as his top advisers and engaged in vicious personal attacks on judges who ruled against the first version of his order and accused anyone who disagreed with the order of wanting to let dangerous terrorists into the US, possibly dispute that Judge Gregory's statement was absolutely true?

    And this being true, how can the courts possibly remain blind to this reality if America is to remain a democracy?

    This, even more than the invidious and unconstitutional religious discrimination contained in the ban order itself, is what is really at stake in this lawsuit.

    The Supreme Court will now have to decide whether America will remain a constitutional democracy or a country governed by the untrammeled will of a strongman.

    I have also read the article that Nolan cites but failed to find the words "good faith" anywhere mentioned in the article, even though this was the central issue in the 4th Circuit case.

    Without even mentioning this critically important term (see Mandel, 1972), how can this article be of any value whatsoever?

    Hopefully, Nolan will pick a more relevant article to refer to next time.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

  18. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    If you want to consider another perspective on Trump's travel ban, Andrew Arthur, someone I worked with when I was a Judiciary counsel, just wrote an article on it. In addition to being a Judiciary counsel, he worked for INS and has been an immigration judge.

    Missing the Point on the "Travel Ban"
    A concurrence explains the problems with the Fourth Circuit's analysis of Executive Order 13,780
    By Andrew Arthur, May 27, 2017

    Nolan Rappaport
  19. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    If you want to consider another perspective on Trump's travel ban, Andrew Arthur, someone I worked with when I was a Judiciary counsel, just wrote an article on it. In addition to being a Judiciary counsel, he worked for INS and has been an immigration judge.

    Missing the Point on the "Travel Ban"
    A concurrence explains the problems with the Fourth Circuit's analysis of Executive Order 13,780
    By Andrew Arthur, May 27, 2017

    Nolan Rappaport
  20. ImmigrationDaily's Avatar
    I would like to know how coast for the Drog case from immigration law in USA now?

    S. K.
Page 1 of 44 12311 ... LastLast
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: