ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
© 1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

All Blog Entries

  1. European Union refugee application outcomes for 1st quarter 2018

    Name:  Europe refugee grants  2018 1st quarter.jpg
Views: 74
Size:  19.8 KB



    http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statist...rter_2018_.png

    Posted by Nolan Rappaport

    Updated 06-21-2018 at 01:23 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  2. Supreme Court Rules For Immigrants in Statutory Eligibility Case

    by , 06-21-2018 at 10:28 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    PEREIRA v. SESSIONS, 585 U. S. ____ (2018): 8-1 Decision.

    Held: A putative notice to appear that fails to designate the specifictime or place of the noncitizen’s removal proceedings is not a “noticeto appear under §1229(a),” and so does not trigger the stop-time rule.Pp. 7–20.

    (a) The Court need not resort to Chevron deference, for the unambiguous statutory text alone is enough to resolve this case. Under the stop-time rule, “any period of . . . continuous physical presence” is“deemed to end . . . when the alien is served a notice to appear under section 1229(a).” 8 U. S. C. §1229b(d)(1). By expressly referencing§1229(a), the statute specifies where to look to find out what “notice to appear” means. Section 1229(a), in turn, clarifies that the type of notice “referred to as a ‘notice to appear’ ” throughout the statutory section is a “written notice . . . specifying,” as relevant here, “[t]he time and place at which the [removal] proceedings will be held.”§1229(a)(1)(G)(i). Thus, to trigger the stop-time rule, the Government must serve a notice to appear that, at the very least,“specif[ies]” the “time and place” of the removal hearing.

    The Government and dissent point out that the stop-time rule refers broadly to a notice to appear under “§1229(a)”—which includes paragraph (1), as well as paragraphs (2) and (3). But that does not matter, because only paragraph (1) bears on the meaning of a “notice to appear.” If anything, paragraph (2), which allows for a “change or postponement” of the proceedings to a “new time and place,”§1229(a)(2)(A)(i), bolsters the Court’s interpretation of the statute because the provision presumes that the Government has already served a “notice to appear” that specified a time and place as required by §1229(a)(1)(G)(i). Another neighboring provision, §1229(b)(1),lends further support for the view that a “notice to appear” must specify the time and place of removal proceedings to trigger the stop time rule. Section 1229(b)(1) gives a noncitizen “the opportunity to secure counsel before the first [removal] hearing date” by mandating that such “hearing date shall not be scheduled earlier than 10 days after the service of the notice to appear.” For that provision to have any meaning, the “notice to appear” must specify the time and place that the noncitizen, and his counsel, must appear at the removal proceedings.Finally, common sense reinforces the conclusion that a notice that does not specify when and where to appear for a removal proceeding is not a “notice to appear” that triggers the stop-time rule.After all, an essential function of a “notice to appear” is to provide noncitizens “notice” of the information (i.e., the “time” and “place”)that would enable them “to appear” at the removal hearing in the first place. Without conveying such information, the Government cannot reasonably expect noncitizens to appear for their removal proceedings.Pp. 7–13.

    (b) The Government and the dissent advance a litany of counterarguments,all of which are unpersuasive. To begin, the Government mistakenly argues that §1229(a) is not definitional. That is wrong.Section 1229(a) speaks in definitional terms, requiring that a notice to appear specify, among other things, the “time and place at which the proceedings will be held.” As such, the dissent is misguided in arguing that a defective notice to appear, which fails to specify time and-place information, is still a notice to appear for purposes of the stop-time rule. Equally unavailing is the Government’s (and the dissent’s)attempt to generate ambiguity in the statute based on the word “under.” In light of the plain language and statutory context,the word “under,” as used in the stop-time rule, clearly means “in accordance with” or “according to” because it connects the stop-time trigger in §1229b(d)(1) to a “notice to appear” that specifies the enumerated time-and-place information. The Government fares no better in arguing that surrounding statutory provisions reinforce its preferred reading of the stop-time rule, as none of those provisions supports its a textual interpretation. Unable to root its reading in the statutory text, the Government and dissent raise a number of practical concerns, but those concerns are meritless and do not justify de-parting from the statute’s clear text. In a final attempt to salvage itsa textual interpretation, the Government turns to the alleged statutory purpose and legislative history of the stop-time rule. Even for those who consider statutory purpose and legislative history, however,neither supports the Government’s position. Requiring the Government to furnish time-and-place information in a notice to appear is entirely consistent with Congress’ stated objective of preventing noncitizens from exploiting administrative delays to accumulate lengthier periods of continuous precedent. Pp. 13–20.

    866 F. 3d 1, reversed and remanded.

    SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, KAGAN, and GORSUCH,JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed a concurring opinion. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

    Updated 06-21-2018 at 10:36 AM by MKolken

  3. Expanding Family Detention Is Not the Answer to Cruel Family Separation Policy

    by , 06-21-2018 at 08:55 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    AILA Doc. No. 18062036 | Dated June 20, 2018

    CONTACTS:
    George Tzamaras
    202-507-7649
    gtzamaras@aila.org
    Belle Woods
    202-507-7675
    bwoods@aila.org

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
    Wednesday, June 20, 2018


    Washington, DC
    - Today, President Trump signed an Executive Order, which purports to end the separation of asylum-seeking families by expanding the use of family detention, while reaffirming his commitment to a "zero tolerance" policy of border prosecutions, even for those who lawfully claim a fear of persecution and are entitled to seek asylum in the United States. Anastasia Tonello, President of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) responded:


    "For years, AILA and our partners, joined by champions in Congress, have spoken out against the inhumane practice of detaining families seeking asylum, first under the Obama administration and now under the Trump administration. The detention of families - parents and children - who pose no flight risk or danger to the community is simply unacceptable, abrogates our international responsibilities to refugees, and goes against our country's most fundamental values. Hundreds of AILA attorneys have fought for the children and parents who have been detained after tumultuous escapes from violence and certain death in their home countries. They've seen the worry in a mother's eyes as her child's weight dwindles due to stress, fear, and inadequate medical care, the concern of a father trapped behind a fence, under 24-hour surveillance. We need to embrace our legacy as a safe haven for the persecuted and stop subjecting bona fide refugees to further trauma by locking them up while they pursue their lawful claims to relief.


    "Now, as the president attempts to sidestep the family separation crisis of his own making, our country faces another choice: whether to stand idly by as billions of taxpayer dollars are spent to establish new facilities to detain children and parents, inflicting further damage on already fragile human beings, or to stand firm against this appalling practice and the unnecessary 'zero tolerance' policy, which is a wasteful misdirection of prosecutorial resources and was the catalyst for the family separation crisis to begin with. The choice is not to either separate children from their families or jail them all.


    "Incarceration of families for prolonged periods of time is senseless, particularly when humane and cost-effective alternatives to detention have been proven to be effective. The barriers to due process that AILA attorneys have encountered at every detention facility only underscore what needs to happen: both family separation and family detention must end."


    ###
    The American Immigration Lawyers Association is the national association of immigration lawyers established to promote justice, advocate for fair and reasonable immigration law and policy, advance the quality of immigration and nationality law and practice, and enhance the professional development of its members.

    Cite as AILA Doc. No. 18062036.
  4. Trump's Barbaric Child Separation Ends (For Now). But His Reign of Terror Against Non-White Immigrants Continues to Threaten Democracy. Roger Algase

    On June 20, Donald Trump gave into overwhelming pressure from all sectors of the American public, including not only religious leaders of all faiths and political leaders in both parties, but all living former first ladies and his own wife, and finally signed an executive order ending (at least for the moment) his cruel and barbaric child separation policy (with some loopholes or possible exceptions, and without making clear if or when the more than 2,000 young children who already have been detained will be reunited with their parents).

    However, he replaced it with an equally cruel policy of detaining immigrant families together indefinitely, even though this is now against the law - which he has said he will try to have changed, as vox.com's Dara Lind explains:

    https://www.vox.com/2018/6/20/174854...ilies-together

    Nor has there been the slightest letup in his attacks on non-white immigrants in general - whom he continues to demonize as criminals and threats to America's very existence as a nation on an almost daily basis, as well as (recalling the Nazis attacks against the Jews), people who are "infesting" this country like vermin.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...mmigrants.html

    Also, while this has been largely ignored in the media, Trump's inhuman policy of separating young children from their parents in an attempt to terrorize Central American and other non-white immigrants from seeking refuge in the United States is the other side of the coin of his frantic attempts to abolish critically important categories of legal family immigration which allow adult children to reunite with their parents.

    He calls this by the pejorative term "chain migration" and, again resorting to the Big Lie strategy at the foundation of his entire immigration agenda, accuses these legal family immigrants of being criminals and terrorists merely because most of them are not from "countries like Norway".

    But the most fundamental issue of all in Trump's anti-immigrant agenda is not even the question of whether immigrants to America will have the preferred European ancestry (which Trump upheld above all others at a speech in Poland almost exactly a year ago) or the white skin color which the more than 2,000 young Central American children who were brutally torn away from their parents within the past couple of weeks most noticeably lack.

    The biggest issue of all is whether America's democracy will be able to survive these corrosive attacks by the president and his enablers on our most fundamental values of equal justice and basic human rights.

    This issue is comprehensively and thoughtfully explored in an June 20 article on the site: theconversation.com called:

    Trump's act of state terrorism against children

    https://theconversation.com/trumps-a...children-98612

    The article begins, with regard to Trump's child separation:

    "State violence against children has a long, dark history among authoritarian regimes.

    Josef Stalin's police took children from the parents he labelled as 'enemies of the people'".

    (A phrase, not coincidentally, which Trump has used against media that disagree with his policies on various issues.)

    This article continues:

    "Adolf Hitler, Francisco Franco and Augusto Pinochet all separated children from their families on a large scale as a way to punish political dissidents and those parents considered disposable."

    It is easy to fall into the trap of compartmentalizing Trump's persecution of non-white immigrants as affecting only immigration law and having nothing to do with American society in general. That this way of thinking is completely mistaken has been shown, to mentions one item only, by the repeated threats of Trump's AG, Jeff Sessions, who also oversaw the inhuman child separation agenda, to prosecute and jail American citizens who "harbor" unauthorized immigrants under a vague law in which providing almost any kind of assistance or support could lead to a long prison sentence.

    But the above history, as well as the history of many other dictatorships, shows that when any targeted group of people is singled out for persecution and treated like "animals". or like vermin who "infest" a given country, to use some of Trump's normal ways of speaking about non-European immigrants, freedom in that country usually disappears.

    Trump's agenda of hatred and brutality toward non-white immigrant could also one day soon lead to America's democracy becoming part of our past history, and no longer existing in our present reality.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    algaselex@gmail.com



    Updated 06-21-2018 at 02:37 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  5. GovTrac.us summarizes six proposals to end the separation of families immigrating illegally at the border.

    In May, the Trump Administration began a new zero-tolerance policy that is separating families at the border when they attempt to illegally immigrate to the United States. Six proposals are now before Congress to end this practice.

    The proposals take aim at ending the Administration’s actions from very different angles. That reflects the complex legal situation playing out. Although the Trump Administration has not ordered the separation of children from their families, the separation is a known, inevitable consequence of existing law that prohibits children from being detained by the Department of Homeland Security in federal prisonin this case, when their parents are detained for prosecution under the zero-tolerance policy.

    Here’s a quick summary of each proposal:


    • The simplest proposal is the Keep Families Together Act [S. 3036], which would prohibit the separation of children from their families at the border. It doesn’t specify what to do insteadthat would be left up to the Administrationbut some form of Catch and Release might be the only legal option available. The bill would also require information be given to parents on how to locate, and monthly updates about, their children. This is Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s proposal, and all Senate Democrats have signed on as cosponsors. For more, see our extended summary of the Keep Families Together Act.



    • Sen. Ted Cruz’s Protect Kids and Parents Act goes further. The bill would require that families be detained together. It would also speed up the judicial process by doubling the number of immigration judges available to hear cases and limit the duration of asylum review cases, and it would require that written guidance be given to asylum applications on how to locate separated children. For more, see our extended summary of the Protect Kids and Parents Act.



    Read more at https://govtrackinsider.com/six-prop...e-153900120e86


    Posted by Nolan Rappaport

    Updated 06-20-2018 at 05:20 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

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: