PM 25-20 - CANCELLATION OF DIRECTOR’S MEMORANDUM 23-02
In Tumi v. Higgins , Vermont Federal District Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford ruled that USCIS' denial of Tumi's O-1A visa petition on behalf of famous designer Nicolas Baurain was arbitrary and capricious...
Here is the Memo; here is the Order. NOTE: Earlier today, Thursday, Feb. 6, 2025, Senior U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour GRANTED a Preliminary Injunction in WA v. Trump. I will post his Memo and...
PM 25-18 - CANCELLATION OF DIRECTOR’S MEMORANDUM 22-06 AND REINSTATEMENT OF POLICY MEMORANDUM 20-05 PM 25-19 - EOIR’S ANTI-FRAUD PROGRAM
Funez-Ortiz v. McHenry "For nearly ten years, a Honduran gang conducted a campaign of terror and violence in Honduras against Petitioner Melvin Funez-Ortiz and his family. The gang murdered several...
Hernandez v. Sessions, Oct. 2, 2017 - "In the present case, the government appeals from the district court’s order entering a class-wide preliminary injunction in favor of Plaintiffs, a class of non-citizens in removal proceedings who are detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) in the Central District of California. The government has already determined that the class members are neither dangerous nor enough of a flight risk to require detention without bond. The class members nonetheless remain detained because they are unable to afford bond in the amount set by the immigration officials.
Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief in the district court against the government’s policy of failing to require immigration officials to consider financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release at bond hearings. Plaintiffs argued that the policy violated their constitutional and statutory rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee, the Excessive Bail Clause of the Eighth Amendment, and 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The district court granted a preliminary injunctionrequiring immigration officials when making bond determinations to, inter alia, consider (1) financial ability to obtain bond and (2) alternative conditions of release.
Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the injunction, we affirm."
[Hats off to the ACLU So. Cal. and a cast of thousands!]