Matter of Thakker, 28 I&N Dec. 843 (BIA 2024) (1) The assumption in Matter of Jurado that a retail theft offense involves an intent to permanently deprive a victim of their property is inconsistent...
USCIS, Sept. 19, 2024 "We have received enough petitions to reach the congressionally mandated cap on H-2B visas for temporary nonagricultural workers for the first half of fiscal year 2025. Sept...
Lopez Orellana v. Garland "The question presented here is whether the Louisiana accessory-after-the-fact statute, LA.REV. STAT. § 14:25, is a categorical match for the generic federal offense...
USCIS, Sept. 18, 2024 "Effective Sept. 10, 2024, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services automatically extended the validity of Permanent Resident Cards (also known as Green Cards) to 36 months...
Singh v. Garland "Petitioner Varinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks rescission of a removal order entered in absentia. We previously granted Singh’s petition because the government...
From the June 28, 2019 Order List:
"18-587 ) DEPT. OF HOMELAND, ET AL. V. REGENTS OF UNIV. OF CA, ET AL. ) 18-588 ) TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL. V. NAACP, ET AL. ) 18-589 ) McALEENAN, SEC. OF HOMELAND V. VIDAL, MARTIN J., ET AL. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 18-587 is granted. The petitions for writs of certiorari before judgment in No. 18-588 and No. 18-589 are granted. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument."
Here is the latest (May 22, 2019) backgrounder on the cases from the Penn State Law Center for Immigrants' Rights Clinic.
"QUESTIONS PRESENTED: This dispute concerns the policy of immigration enforcement discretion known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). In 2016, this Court affirmed, by an equally divided Court, a decision of the Fifth Circuit holding that two related Department of Homeland Security (DHS) discretionary enforcement policies, including an expansion of the DACA policy, were likely unlawful and should be enjoined. See United States v. Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (per curiam). In September 2017, DHS determined that the original DACA policy was unlawful and would likely be struck down by the courts on the same grounds as the related policies. DHS thus instituted an orderly wind-down of the DACA policy. The questions presented are as follows: 1. Whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is judicially reviewable. 2. Whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful."