These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
Viewing entries tagged
prosecutorial discretion
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that an Immigration Judge should not grant a motion to dismiss by the Department of Homeland Security when the respondent has the right to review of a denied I-751 application.
The full text of Matter of Bernardo can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has affirmed the right of a non-citizen to seek review of a denied I-751 petition in removal proceedings, despite any request to dismiss proceedings by the Department of Homeland Security.
The full text of Matter of H.N. Ferreira 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:
A panel of the Ninth Circuit has refused to approve a joint motion to administratively close an appeal on its docket for petitioners that the Department of Homeland Security has deemed to not be an enforcement priority. In so doing, the Court placed the burden on the government to exercise its prosecutorial discretion to remand a case to the agency, and seek dismissal or administrative closure at that level.
“The burden is on the Government to use one of the many tools it has for not enforcing immigration law in a particular case if that is its policy preference. Shelving a case indefinitely on our docket to avoid having a final decision rendered in a case properly presented to us is not one of those tools. Indeed, this case demonstrates the absurdity of what the parties are asking. Sarkar filed his petition in August 2017. A stay of removal was entered a few months later, and the case has been fully briefed since August 2018. Given our significant backlog of immigration cases, this case was not moved toward resolution until over three years later in October 2021 when we asked the parties whether they still wanted to proceed to decision or whether they anticipated an alternative resolution. Both parties responded that they wanted to proceed. The court then scheduled the case for oral argument and we began our preparations only to have the parties request a few weeks later that the case be administratively stayed because it is not an enforcement priority. This is not a good use of judicial resources. The executive branch should sort out its enforcement priorities, about which we express no opinion, without burdening the already-strapped judiciary.”
The full text of Sakar v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/07/01/17-72212.pdf
Antonio Robledo-Soto is the parent of 3 U.S-citizen children. He has one conviction for driving under the influence, which has been expunged by the criminal court. He requested that ICE exercise its prosecutorial discretion to administratively close his removal proceedings, in light of his eligibility for benefits under the Deferred Action for Parental Accountability program put forward by President Obama. Unfortunately, that program was never implemented because it has been enjoined by a federal court. ICE has refused to administratively close his proceedings. The Seventh Circuit acknowledged that it had no choice but to dismiss his petition for review, but not before analyzing the tragedy of circumstances that had befallen Robledo-Soto, and that could have been halted by ICE's exercise of discretion.
The full text of Robledo-Soto v. Lynch can be found here:
The Ninth Circuit declined to remand a case for ICE to reconsider its decision to reinstate an order of removal in light of the intervening November 20, 2014 prosecutorial discretion memos. Notably, however, the court found that the petitioner had requested an exercise of prosecutorial discretion after November 20, 2014, and the request had been denied. Thus, the court saw no reason to remand.
The full text of Morales de Soto v. Lynch can be found here: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/05/31/09-72122.pdf
