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.
Matter of C-G-T-
"The respondent testified that he was abused by his father as a child because of his sexual orientation. He testified that he knew he was gay at a young age. He further testified that his father called him a girl, targeted him for particularly harsh treatment, and hit him almost every day. The declarations from the respondent’s brother and uncle state that they thought the respondent’s father beat the respondent because the father thought his son was gay. The respondent testified that he left his hometown when he was 17 years old, and he came to the United States in 2007. The respondent testified that after he came to the United States, his mother told his father that he was gay, and the respondent’s father then abused his mother. In 2013, the respondent was diagnosed as HIV-positive. The Immigration Judge found the respondent credible and concluded that he is a member of two cognizable particular social groups, namely homosexual Dominican males and Dominicans who are HIV-positive. ... The Immigration Judge concluded that the respondent did not establish that the harm he suffered by his father in the Dominican Republic was on account of a protected ground since his father did not then know he was gay. The Immigration Judge also determined that the respondent did not establish past persecution because he did not show the government in the Dominican Republic was unable or unwilling to protect him from harm. ... We will remand the record for further consideration of the respondent’s claim for withholding of removal. Specifically, the Immigration Judge should reevaluate whether the respondent established past persecution and whether the Dominican government was unable or unwilling to protect the respondent from any past persecution on account of his asserted particular social group of “homosexual Dominican males.” The Immigration Judge should also reevaluate whether the respondent has established that he is more likely than not to suffer persecution on account of his membership in either of his asserted particular social groups, and consider whether the Dominican government would be unable or unwilling to protect the respondent in the future. On remand, the Immigration Judge may conduct further proceedings as appropriate. In remanding, we express no opinion as to the ultimate outcome of these proceedings."
[Hats off to David Spitzer!]