Immigration Activity in the Supreme Court
On April 25, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case involving Arizona's controversial S.B. 1070. The transcript is available on lexis.com at 2012 U.S. Trans. LEXIS 35. The decision is expected by the end of June.
Also pending are decisions in the companion cases of Holder v. Gutierrez and Holder v. Sawyers, which involve "tacking," or using a parent's time in the United States to make a child eligible for cancellation of removal. Those cases were argued in January, and also should be decided by the end of June.
The Supreme Court has already granted certiorari in key immigration cases for the term beginning in October. Moncrieffe v. Holder and Garcia v. Holder will decide whether the defendants' marijuana offenses are aggravated felonies that make them removable. Garcia was convicted of attempted possession of marijuana with the intent to deliver it, Moncrieffe of possessing it with the intent to distribute it.
Most recently, the Court granted cert. in Chaidez v. United States, in which the Seventh Circuit held that Padilla v. Kentucky does not apply retroactively. The Seventh Circuit split on that issue, and other courts have disagreed.
Reminder: Provisional Unlawful-Presence Waiver Is NOT in Effect
On May 1, USCIS reminded the public of what it has said before: In late March, DHS published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register outlining its plan to reduce the time U.S. citizens are separated from their immediate relatives while those family members are in the process of obtaining immigrant visas. However, the proposed waiver is not in effect. The notice is reprinted at Appendix C. Also see I-601 Provisional Waiver Is Not in Effect, 17 Bender's Immigr. Bull. 349 (Mar. 15, 2012), and USCIS Proposes Change for Certain Unlawful-Presence Waivers, 17 Bender's Immigr. Bull. 959, 975, 978 (including App. A) (Apr. 15, 2012).
Atlanta Repeals Recognition of Matricula Consular
According to the Associated Press, Atlanta repealed an ordinance that recognized the Mexican matricula consular identification for transactions with the city government. The first complaint to a new state Immigration Enforcement and Review Board was about the ordinance, and Atlanta responded by repealing the 2004 ordinance. It is now asking the Board to dismiss the complaint. If the city was found to have knowingly and willfully violated the state law, it could be removed from the list of qualified local governments, lose state money, and be ordered to pay a fine of up to $5,000. Atlanta argues that it repealed the ordinance soon after the state law took effect. Georgia Code Annotated §50-36-1 requires public benefit agencies to require a secure, verifiable form of identification from applicants, §50-36-2(b)(3) specifically excludes the matricula consular.
[This is an excerpt from the May 15, 2012, issue of Bender's Immigration Bulletin.]
Subscribe to Bender's Immigration Bulletin at the LexisNexis Store.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site.