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:
Viewing entries tagged
standing
The Seventh Circuit overruled its prior decision holding that a petitioner in reinstatement proceedings does not have standing to challenge the statute and regulation that ban him from applying for asylum. However, in reaching the merits of the claim, the court determined that the statute clearly renders such a petitioner ineligible for asylum.
The full text of Garcia v. Sessions can be found here:
The Seventh Circuit has found that an individual subject to a reinstated order of removal, and thus, who is ineligible under the regulations to apply for asylum, has no standing to challenge that regulation because asylum is a discretionary form of relief.
The full text of Garcia v. Sessions can be found here:
The Seventh Circuit has held that a petitioner subjected to a final administrative order of removal for non-lawful permanent resident convicted of an aggravated felony (FARO) has no standing to challenge the regulation that bars individuals subjects to FAROs from applying for asylum. Asylum is a form of discretionary relief in which there is no liberty interest at stake, and thus, the petitioner cannot establish the regulation preventing him from applying for asylum has caused any actual injury to him.
The full text of Degaldo-Arteaga v. Sessions can be found here: