Santos-Zacaria v. Garland (unpub.) ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES [598 U.S. 411 *; 143 S. Ct. 1103 **; 215 L. Ed. 2d 375 ***; 2023 U.S. LEXIS 1891 ****] Before Clement, Richman...
Akinsaya v. Garland "Rasheed Akinsanya is a Nigerian citizen. He has brought a petition for review challenging the administrative denial of his application for deferral of removal pursuant to the...
El Salvador (advance copy of FR notice here ) Venezuela Ukraine Sudan
DHS, Jan. 10, 2025 "Today, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas, in consultation with Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken, designated Romania as a participating country in the Visa...
EOIR, Jan. 7, 2025 "The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced it will open a new immigration court in Indianapolis on Jan. 27, 2025, to meet the growing needs of our Indiana...
"We have held that Lowcountry Plaintiffs and the United States have made a clear showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their challenge to Sections 4, 5, and 6(B)(2) of Act 69. We further hold that the appellee-plaintiffs have made a clear showing they will likely suffer irreparable harm if an injunction is not granted, that the balance of equities tips in favor of the appellee-plaintiffs, and that preliminary injunctive relief is in the public interest. See South Carolina I, 840 F. Supp. 2d at 924-27. The irreparable injury to the nation’s foreign policy if the relevant sections take effect has been clearly established by the United States. And for individual, unlawfully present immigrants and others, the likelihood of chaos resulting from South Carolina enforcing its separate immigration regime is apparent. For the reasons stated, the order of the district court granting a preliminary injunction is AFFIRMED." - USA v. S. Carolina, July 23, 2013.