Here is the Nov. 9, 2023 CA1 decision at issue, 86 F.4th 443. Here is the Round Table's Amicus Brief. Nutshell: "We write to provide the Court with additional context regarding the importance...
Annor v. Garland "David Annor, a citizen of Ghana and a lawful permanent resident of the United States, used his business to funnel the proceeds of a “romance fraud scheme” to militiamen...
Matter of F-C-S- "Regarding the respondent’s two remaining proposed particular social groups, we will remand to the Immigration Judge for further development of the record. The Immigration...
MALDEF, Mar. 12, 2024 "Texas residents and a local nonprofit organization are challenging the state’s new anti-immigrant law, known as S.B. 4, in federal court as unconstitutional. MALDEF...
New closing date: April 12, 2024 USAJOBS Open & closing dates: 03/13/2024 to 04/212/2024 Salary: $156,924 - $204,000 per year 1 vacancy in the following location: Falls Church, VA
"The federal government has enacted a program called “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (“DACA”), which authorizes certain immigrants who came to the United States as children, without permission, to remain in the United States. In response, Arizona officials — Defendants here — implemented a policy that prevents DACA recipients from obtaining Arizona driver’s licenses.
Plaintiffs — five individual DACA recipients living in Arizona, plus an organization promoting the interests of young immigrants — sought a preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants from enforcing their policy, arguing that the policy violates the Equal Protection Clause and is preempted. The district court found that Defendants’ policy deprives Plaintiffs of driver’s licenses for no rational reason, and thus violates the Equal Protection Clause. The districtcourt nonetheless denied the preliminary injunction, because it found Plaintiffs were not likely to suffer irreparable harm from this constitutional violation.
We agree that Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their equal protection claim. And contrary to the district court’s conclusion, we hold that Plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm unless Defendants’ policy is enjoined. The remaining injunction factors — the public interest and the balance of the equities — also tip in Plaintiffs’ favor. We therefore reverse the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction. Weremand for entry of a preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants from enforcing its policy by which the Arizona Department of Transportation refuses to accept Plaintiffs’ Employment Authorization Documents, issued to Plaintiffs under DACA, for purposes of obtaining an Arizona driver’s license." - Arizona Dream Act Coalition v. Brewer, July 7, 2014. [Hats way off to MALDEF, the ACLU and NILC!]