These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
Viewing entries tagged
Migrant Protection Protocols
The Supreme Court has determined that the federal government has the authority to terminate the Migrant Protection Protocols, finding that “the contiguous-territory return authority in section 1225(b)(2)(C) is discretionary.”
The full text of Biden v. Texas can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that a person who entered without inspection can be subject to the Migrant Protection Protocols.
The full text of Matter of M-D-C-V- can be found here:
The Ninth Circuit, in a pair of decision, affirmed an injunction against the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) - more commonly referred to the “Remain in Mexico” policy - and an interim rule disqualifying any person who crosses the United States beyond ports of entry (i.e., without proper inspection) to be ineligible for asylum. The Court stayed its decision in the MPP case (permitting the program to temporarily continue pending further argumentation). The two decisions can be found here:
East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump (ineligibility for asylum based on manner of entry);
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/02/28/18-17274.pdf
Innovation Law Lab v. Wolf (MPP case): https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/02/28/19-15716.pdf
The Third Circuit has determined that a District Court has jurisdiction to hear the following challenges to the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), even if the removal proceedings of the challenging individual are ongoing:
1) Whether the MPP applies to a particular individual as a matter of statutory interpretation;
2) Whether the application of MPP to a minor violates the Flores settlement;
3) Whether the MPP violates the obligations of the nonrefoulement doctrine; and
4) Whether the MPP violates an individual’s constitutional right to due process by interfering with his relationship with counsel
The court specifically noted that Flores-related claims can be brought in any District Court, not just the Central District of CA where the agreement is monitored. The court remanded for the District Court to address the issues presented on the merits.
The full text of EOHC v. Secretary of DHS can be found here:
https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/192927p.pdf
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that an Immigration Judge should order removed in absentia an individual subject to the Migrant Protection Protocols (more commonly referred to as the “Remain in Mexico” policy) who received notice of the time and location of his removal hearing.
The full text of Matter of Rodriguez can be found here:
https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1241341/download
