ICE, Sept. 29, 2023
"U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) today announced new agency-wide guidance about the use of Red Notices and Wanted Person Diffusions, as part of its commitment...
White House, Sept. 29, 2023
"Memorandum on Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2024
Presidential Determination No. 2023-13
MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE...
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 10/04/2023
"This NPRM proposes to adopt and replace regulations relating to the key aspects of the placement, care, and services...
Kemokai v. Atty. Gen.
"The Board of Immigration Appeals ruled that Mucktaru Kemokai is removable as an aggravated felon and denied his requests for asylum and withholding of removal. Mr. Kemokai...
EOIR provided these slides in response to my FOIA request.
"This consolidated case raises the question of whether the statewide three-judge sentencing panel has the authority to impose a sentence below the presumptive range to lessen, or eliminate, the risk that a defendant will be deported.
The State argues that federal law prohibits state courts from modifying a sentence for the purpose of influencing the federal immigration consequences of a conviction. It also argues that the Alaska Statutes do not authorize the three-judge panel to impose a sentence below the presumptive range based on the collateral consequences of deportation. Lastly, it argues that adjusting a sentence to lessen the risk of deportation violates the equal protection clause, because the non-citizen offender may receive a more lenient sentence than a citizen would based on the same conduct.
For the reasons explained below, we conclude that the three-judge panel has authority to impose a sentence below the presumptive range based on the harsh collateral consequences of deportation and that this authority is not preempted by federal law." - State v. Silvera, Sept. 27, 2013.