American Immigration Council (Council) and the National Immigration Project, Jan. 17, 2025 "A stay of removal prevents the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from executing a final order of removal...
Texas v. USA "This is the latest chapter in the long-running litigation challenging the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, commonly known as DACA. In 2021, a district court held that...
Matter of Arciniegas-Patino Where parties were properly served with electronic notice of the briefing schedule, a representative’s failure to diligently monitor the inbox, including the spam folder...
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 01/17/2025 "The United States supports the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the residents of Hong Kong. The People's...
Alan Lee, Jan. 16, 2025 "USCIS’s second part of the H-1B proposed regulations, “Modernizing H-1B Requirements, Providing Flexibility in the F-1 Program, and Program Improvements Affecting...
Matthew S. Vogel, NIPNLG, Nov. 24, 2021
"On May 24, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court issued United States v. Palomar-Santiago, 141 S. Ct. 1615 (2021), a federal criminal case concerning the requirements for a successful collateral attack of an underlying administrative removal order in an illegal re-entry prosecution. In Palomar-Santiago, the Court held that all three requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d) – administrative exhaustion, the deprivation of judicial review, and fundamental unfairness – are mandatory. The Court’s decision abrogates current Ninth Circuit practice reflected in United States v. Ochoa, 861 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2017), which views the administrative exhaustion and deprivation of judicial review prongs as “excused” or “satisfied” in cases where an immigration judge has ordered a noncitizen removed by erroneously determining that a prior conviction was a removable offense. It is, nevertheless, a narrow decision, which leaves open alternative pathways to collaterally attack similarly invalid removal orders through § 1326(d). This advisory first reviews the case history and the precedent governing the legal situation Mr. Palomar-Santiago was in when he was charged with illegal re-entry. It then addresses both Mr. Palomar-Santiago’s and the government’s arguments before the Court and the Court’s decision. Finally, the advisory turns to how the Court’s decision affects advocacy strategies for future collateral attacks on removal orders under § 1326(d). ... "
"Matthew Vogel joins NIPNLG from the Orleans Public Defenders (OPD) in New Orleans, where for five years as a staff attorney, he built OPD’s immigration practice, providing immigration consequences advising, and training on the immigration consequences of criminal legal system involvement. Matt also worked on OPD’s death penalty and juvenile life without parole defense teams, and carried a docket of upper-level felonies and misdemeanors. He has clerked for the Honorable Keith P. Ellison of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas; and spent 8 years living and working at the New York City Catholic Worker, a house of hospitality for homeless people. Matt graduated from Harvard University, Yale Divinity School, and Yale Law School."