SCOTUS Resolves Circuit Split and Rejects 9th Circuit’s More Lenient Cancellation of Removal Standard

Immigration law is full of confusing jargon and seemingly contradictory statutes. One confusing concept is that of “inadmissibility.” On its face, inadmissibility would seem to mean that one who is ineligible to be “admitted” to the U.S. is “inadmissible,” but this term also applies to aliens within the U.S. who have committed one of a number of offenses. In other words, you do not have to be seeking admission or denied admission, once you have committed a qualifying offense, you are “inadmissible”.

Read: SCOTUS Resolves Circuit Split and Rejects 9th Circuit’s More Lenient Cancellation of Removal Standard

Former Informants Are Not Protected Group

In Hernandez-De La Cruz v Lynch, 819 F.3d 784 (5th Cir. April 26, 2016), the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part the denial of Hernandez-De La Cruz’s applications for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows for withholding of removal if, “the applicant would face other serious harm in […]

Read: Former Informants Are Not Protected Group

Deported Immigrants with Mental Disabilities

On September 26th, 2015 U.S. District Judge Dolly M. Gee granted final approval of the settlement in Franco v. Holder, paving the way for previously deported immigrants with severe mental disabilities to request to reopen their cases in Immigration Court, and if approved return to the United States.

Read: Deported Immigrants with Mental Disabilities

Attorney Failed to Explain Immigration Consequences | Ninth Circuit

In an important ruling, a unanimous Ninth Circuit panel in United States v. Rodriguez-Vega, No. 13-56415 (8-14-15), held that where deportation of an immigrant is a “virtual certainty” as a consequence of a guilty plea, the defense attorney has an affirmative duty to properly advise. It is not enough to say it is a “possibility” under those circumstances.

Read: Attorney Failed to Explain Immigration Consequences | Ninth Circuit

Endangerment not just Dangerous, but Fatal, for Immigrants

In Leal v. Holder –F.3d–, No. 12-73381 (9th Cir. Nov. 6, 2014) the panel, according Chevron deference to the BIA (Matter of Leal), effectively held that a conviction under Arizona’s “Endangerment” statute, ARS § 13-1201, is a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT), and thus a substantive basis for deportation. There, Leal, an undocumented alien, convicted […]

Read: Endangerment not just Dangerous, but Fatal, for Immigrants

Justice Department Admonished in Immigration Case

At oral argument Friday, July 24 in Pasadena, Ninth Circuit Judge Kim Wardlaw admonished a United States Department of Justice attorney for citing a recent Los Angeles Times article entitled, Sex offender accused of assaulting teen was in U.S. illegally.

Read: Justice Department Admonished in Immigration Case

Immigrants No Longer “Aliens”

Governor Jerry Brown signed a triptych of immigration bills, the first of which removed the word “alien” from California’s legal code. The second bill allows immigrant high school students to serve as election poll workers.

Read: Immigrants No Longer “Aliens”

Senate to Hear Legislation on Sanctuary Cities

On October 7th, 2015 Senator David Vitter introduced new legislation, the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act. The precatory comments frame the legislative purpose as “ [to] hold sanctuary jurisdictions accountable for defying Federal law, to increase penalties for individuals who illegally reenter the United States after being removed

Read: Senate to Hear Legislation on Sanctuary Cities

Senate Bill Against Sanctuary Cities Voted Down

This week on October, 20 2015, in a 54 to 45 vote, the Senate blocked S. 2146, the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act, from advancing to the Senate floor. If passed, the bill would have limited grants to cities that do not comply with detainers issued by DHS and increase penalties for individual who illegally reenter the United States. Furthermore, funding would have been denied to those cities deemed “sanctuary jurisdictions” where local law enforcement, among other things, did not check immigration status upon arrest.

Read: Senate Bill Against Sanctuary Cities Voted Down

Anchor Babies: Texas Health Officials Deny Birth Certificates

A recent federal lawsuit brings into sharp relief what many Republicans and anti-illegal immigration groups call the “anchor babies” problem.

In Maria Isabel Perales Serna, et al. v. Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit, et al., Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid challenged Dallas County’s policy of denying birth certificates to United States citizen children, whose parents are “illegal aliens.”

Although in the most recent ruling, on October 2, the district court declined to immediately enjoin Dallas County’s behavior at issue, the trial court expressed, “grave concern” for a policy that denies U.S. citizen children their most basic identification document, a birth certificate. The judge set the matter for further hearings. In the meantime the Dallas County policy will remain.

Read: Anchor Babies: Texas Health Officials Deny Birth Certificates