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...
PM 25-16 - CANCELLATION OF DIRECTOR’S MEMORANDUM 23-04 PM 25-17 - CANCELLATION OF DIRECTOR’S MEMORANDUM 22-05 AND REINSTATEMENT OF POLICY MEMORANDA 19-05, 21-06, AND 21-13
PM 25-13 - OCAHO PM 25-14 - CANCELLATION OF DIRECTOR’S MEMORANDUM 23-03 AND REINSTATEMENT OF POLICY MEMORANDUM 20-03 PM 25-15 - OFFICE OF LEGAL ACCESS PROGRAMS
Amy Howe, June 15, 2020 - "[I]n Albence v. Guzman Chavez, the justices will decide which provision of immigration law – 8 U.S.C. § 1231 or 8 U.S.C. § 1226 – applies to the detention of a noncitizen who is seeking withholding of removal after a prior removal order has been reinstated. As John Elwood explained last week, the issue is arcane but the distinction between the two provisions matters, because under Section 1226 noncitizens generally have the right to a bond hearing, while the government argues that they do not have that right under Section 1231."
Here is the case page on SCOTUSblog.