Arizona v. Garland "This is a challenge by 19 states to an administrative action of the Executive Branch establishing a new procedure for adjudicating asylum applications under federal immigration...
Moran v. Mayorkas "At the time of Mr. Valadez Moran's birth, it is more likely than not that his mother, Ms. Moran, was a citizen of the United States by virtue of her birth in Elsa, Texas on...
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 04/19/2024 "Notice of a Memorandum of Cooperation (MOC) between the Government of the United States and the Government of Japan...
Courtesy of AILA; AILA Doc. 24022603 "The Department of State’s Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for Consular Affairs (L/CA), in coordination with the Visa Office in the Bureau of Consular...
Abdulahad v. Garland "Walid Abdulahad petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (the “Board”) denial of his motion to reopen based on changed country conditions...
"We are asked to decide whether the “departure bar” regulation—stating that the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) may not entertain a motion to reopen filed by or on behalf of a person who has departed the United States—impermissibly conflicts with the Immigration and Nationality Act’s provision permitting an alien to file one motion to reopen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(d). We join the Third, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits in finding that it does. 1 See Contreras-Bocanegra v. Holder, 2012 WL 255879 (10th Cir. 2012) (en banc); Prestol Espinal v. Att’y Gen., 653 F.3d 213 (3d Cir. 2011); Coyt v. Holder, 593 F.3d 902 (9th Cir. 2010); William v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 329 (4th Cir. 2007).
1 The Sixth and Seventh Circuits, when presented with the question we confront in this case, addressed the validity of the BIA’s interpretation of the departure bar. Relying on Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs, 130 S. Ct. 584 (2009), they found it impermissible for the BIA to treat the departure bar as divesting the agency of jurisdiction. See Pruidze v. Holder, 632 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 2011); Marin-Rodriguez v. Holder, 612 F.3d 591 (7th Cir. 2010)." - Lin v. Atty. Gen., May 23, 2012.
Hats off to Ted Cox and his associate, Ana Lucia Alvarado, who argued the case before the 11th Circuit!
Analysis by Lee Beck here.