These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
Viewing entries tagged
United States Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has determined that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s revocation of an approved visa petition. In so doing, the Court indicated that the revocation statute defines a purely discretion decision by the agency - that the agency is not obligated to revoke the approval of a petition that was approved in error.
The full text of Bouarfa v. Mayorkas can be found here:
The Supreme Court has determined that Chevron deference - a doctrine that accords deference to certain agency interpretations of statutes - is incompatible with the Administrative Procedure Act. “Chevron defies the command of the APA that ‘the reviewing court’—not the agency whose action it reviews—is to ‘decide all relevant questions of law and interpret statutory provisions.”
The full text of Lopez Bright v. Raimondo can be found here:
The Supreme Court has determined that a U.S. citizen does not a protected liberty interest in the adjudication of her spouse’s visa application, and thus, cannot use the procedural due process clause to obtain federal court review of the denial of that application. This decision may (sadly) close the door to one of the very few opportunities to obtain judicial review of visa denials in federal court and appears to be a whole hearted embrace by the Supreme Court of the doctrine of consular nonreviewability.
Apart from the legal reasoning in the opinion, the outcome seems out of step with the Biden Administration’s recent emphasis on family reunification, which is noteworthy as the Solicitor General, not Mrs. Munoz, sought Supreme Court review in this matter. In addition, just one week later, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Lopez Bright Enterprises, which emphasizes the role of federal courts in statutory interpretation and review of agency decisions under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Munoz and Loper Bright decisions seem philosophically at odds with one another.
The full text of Department of State v. Munoz can be found here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-334diff_q8l1.pdf
The Supreme Court has determined that an Immigration Judge may order removed in absentia a non-citizen who received a Notice to Appear lacking the time and date of his first hearing, if the Immigration Court subsequently mailed a notice of hearing to the individual with that information.
The full text of Campos-Chaves v. Garland can be found here:
The Supreme Court has determined that the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard in non-LPR cancellation of removal cases is a mixed question of fact and law, subject to federal court review. “The facts underlying any determination on cancellation of removal therefore remain unreviewable. For instance, an IJ’s factfinding on credibility, the seriousness of a family member’s medical condition, or the level of financial support a noncitizen currently provides remain unreviewable. Only the question whether those established facts satisfy the statutory eligibility standard is subject to judicial review. Because this mixed question is primarily factual, that review is deferential.”
The full text of Wilkinson v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-666diff_f2bh.pdf
The Supreme Count has determined that the a conviction may constitute an obstruction justice aggravated felony even if the offense does not require that an investigation or proceeding be pending.
The full text of Pugin v. Garland can be found here:
The Supreme Court has determined that Texas and Louisiana have no standing to challenge the Department of Homeland Security’s immigration enforcement priorities memo.
The full text of US v. Texas can be found here:
The Supreme Court has determined that the exhaustion requirement in 8 USC 1252(d)(1) is a claims processing rule, not a jurisdictional bar. Thus, a party can forfeit or waive an objection to exhaustion. In addition, the Court found that the statute does not require the filing of a motion to reconsider with the Board of Immigration Appeals to give the agency to correct legal errors before filing a petition for review of those errors in federal court. Motions to reopen and reconsider are not remedies of right, and the exhaustion requirement only requires an appellant to seek remedies of right.
The full text of Santos Zacaria v. Garland can be found here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1436_n6io.pdf
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 Supreme Court has determined that there is no statutory requirement to provide a bond hearing to an individual subject to a reinstated order of removal. The Court left open the possibility that such hearings might be required by the Constitution.
The full text of Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez can be found here:
The Supreme Court has determined that 8 USC 1252(f)(1) prohibits the issuance of classwide injunctions by federal courts (other than the Supreme Court) that enjoin certain provisions of the INA, including the mandatory detention provisions.
The full text of Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez can be found here:
The Supreme Court has determined that federal courts lack jurisdiction to consider challenges to the agency’s factual findings in connection with certain types of discretionary relief (such as adjustment of status). Perhaps worse, both the majority and the dissent recognize that this decision will likely foreclose any review of denials of adjustment of status (including those denied based on legal determinations, rather than factual findings) outside of the removal context.
As the dissent recognizes, this is a terrible decision that effectively leaves applicants with no way to correct agency errors.
The full text of Patel v. Garland can be found here:
The Supreme Court has rejected the Ninth Circuit’s rule that if the Board of Immigration Appeals does not make an explicit adverse credibility determination, the petitioner’s testimony is presumed credible on appeal to the federal court.
The full text of Garland v. Ming Dai can be found here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1155_new_197d.pdf
The Supreme Court has determined that a reckless offense does not qualify as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Because the definition of a violent felony under the ACCA and a crime of violence under the INA are often treated interchangeably, this decision should be applicable in immigration proceedings.
The full text of Borden v. United States can be found here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-5410_8nj9.pdf
The Supreme Court has determined that a grant of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) does not, in and of itself, render a non-citizen “admitted” to the United States. The Court did not reach the question of whether a TPS holder who travels on parole would be considered “admitted or paroled” for the purpose of adjustment of status. In addition, the decision contains some very worrisome language implying that a grant of a U visa would not qualify as admission.
The full text of Sanchez v. Mayorkas can be found here:
The Supreme Court has determined that individuals detained following the reinstatement of a prior removal order are not detained under 8 USC 1226, and therefore, are not entitled to bond hearings under that section.
The full text of Johnson v. Guzman Chavez can be found here:
The Supreme Court has determined that the time and place of a removal hearing must be included in a Notice to Appear - and not a subsequent notice of hearing - to trigger the stop-time rule for cancellation of removal. In so doing, the court overturns any circuit precedent permitting a so-called “two-step stop-time rule.”
The full text of Niz-Chavez v. Garland can be found here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-863_new_5426.pdf
The Supreme Court has determined that an applicant for relief cannot meet her burden of proof with an inconclusive record of conviction. Notably, this analysis of burdens only applies when the statute is divisible, and the procedural posture of the case involves an application for relief.
The full text of Pereida v. Wilkinson can be found here:
The Supreme Court has reversed Ninth Circuit precedent allowing the recipient of a negative credible fear determination to challenge that decision through a habeas petition in District Court. The Court noted that the relief sought was not release from unlawful restraint, which is the traditional relief granted by a habeas petition.
“This principle dooms respondent’s Suspension Clause argument, because neither respondent nor his amici have shown that the writ of habeas corpus was understood at the time of the adoption of the Constitution to permit a petitioner to claim the right to enter or remain in a country or to obtain administrative review potentially leading to that result. The writ simply provided a means of contesting the lawfulness of restraint and securing release.”
Perhaps even more alarming is the Court’s analysis of the petitioner’s due process rights. The petitioner physically entered the United States, and was apprehended about 25 yards from the border. Despite his entry, the Court determined that he no constitutional right to due process.
The full text of DHS v. Thuraissigiam can be found here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-161_g314.pdf
The Supreme Court has determined that federal appellate courts have jurisdiction to review the agency’s factual findings related to a claims protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) even if the person has been found removable for a conviction that would normally strip the court’s jurisdiction to review factual findings.
“A CAT order is not itself a final order of removal because it is not an order ‘concluding that the alien is deportable or ordering deportation.’ As the Government acknowledges, a CAT order does not disturb the final order of removal. An order granting CAT relief means only that, notwithstanding the order of removal, the noncitizen may not be removed to the designated country of removal, at least until conditions change in that country. But the noncitizen still ‘may be removed at any time to another country where he or she is not likely to be tortured.’” The factual findings would be reviewed under the deferential substantial evidence standard.
The full text of Nasrallah v. Barr can be found here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1432_e2pg.pdf
