New EOIR Administrative Law Judge Carol A. Bell

 

On June 26, 2020, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) announced the appointment of a new administrative law judge [PDF version].

Attorney General William P. Barr appointed Carol A. Bell as the administrative law judge in the EOIR's Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer. She took her position on June 22.

Judge Bell spent the last 12 years serving as an assistant U.S. Attorney with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois. From 2002 to 2008, she served as a trial attorney with the Department of Justice's (DOJ's) Antitrust Division. From 2000 to 2002, Judge Bell served as a law clerk for the U.S. District Court in Houston.

Judge Bell obtained a Juris Doctorate from Harvard University in 2000.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

USCIS to Eliminate 30-day Timeframe for Processing Asylum EADs

 

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that it is publishing a new final rule in the Federal Register to do away with its self-imposed 30-day timeframe for processing applications for employment authorization by asylum applicants [PDF version]. The new rule will also allow asylum applicants to file renewal employment authorization applications up to 180 days before their employment authorization is set to expire. Under current rules, applicants had to ensure that USCIS received renewal applications 90 days prior to the expiration of employment authorization.

The final rule is slated to be published in the Federal Register on June 22, 2020 [PDF version]. It will take effect 60 days after the actual publication date. We will publish more information about the new asylum employment authorization processing rules after the final rule is published.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Supreme Court Blocks DACA Rescission For Now

 

On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States published its decision in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. 18-587 (U.S. Jun. 18, 2020) [PDF version].

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court concluded that the Department of Homeland Security could not rescind the DACA program without complying with the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). In this case, the majority held that the DHS's decision to rescind DACA was arbitrary and capricious under the APA, and therefore invalid.

Opinions

The opinion of the court was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, and joined in full by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan. Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined in all respects except for that she would have not foreclosed the argument brought by the respondents that rescinding DACA violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process clause. The other eight Justices agreed in foreclosing the Due Process claims.

There were three separate dissenting opinions. Justice Clarence Thomas authored the main dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch. Those three Justices would have held that the Trump Administration had the authority to rescind DACA without following the APA and that DACA itself was unlawful from the time of its inception. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, dissenting alone, would have held that the Trump Administration had the authority to rescind DACA based on his disagreement with the majority's treatment of the APA question, without reaching the issue of DACA's underlying legality.

What Does the Decision Mean?

The decision does not ensure that DACA will remain in place indefinitely. Instead, it requires the DHS to rescind it in accordance with the APA. Because this may be a lengthy process, DACA is likely to remain in place for the immediately foreseeable future, and potentially longer depending on the outcome of the upcoming presidential and congressional elections. President Donald Trump suggested in the aftermath of the decision that the Administration would begin the process of rescinding DACA in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision.

While there is no guarantee that DACA will ultimately be rescinded, there is also no guarantee that Congress will create a comprehensive path to permanent resident status for DACA beneficiaries. DACA recipients should, where possible under the immigration laws, pursue a more enduring immigration status. DACA recipients with case-specific questions about maintaining DACA or paths to lawful nonimmigrant or immigrant status should consult with an experienced immigration attorney.

You can see our DACA rescission article for a list of developments on the issue [see article].

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Attorney General Barr to Review Persecutor Barr Questions

 

On June 17, 2020, Attorney General William P. Barr directed the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to refer one of its decisions to him for review, published as Matter of A-M-R-C-, 28 I&N Dec. 7 (A.G. 2020) [PDF version].

The Attorney General's referral deals with an asylum claim. To that effect, he asked interested lawyers and legal organizations to submit amici briefs on a variety of issues relating to the case. First, however, he began with a threshold question. That is, would any delay caused by the referral impermissibly prejudice the respondent by denying him the ability to prove his defenses, in accord with the Supreme Court decision in Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265, 283 (1961) [PDF version].

The Attorney General then asked for briefs on several questions regarding the case itself. First, he asked whether the Board erred as a matter of discretion in finding that there was not probable cause that the respondent had committed a “serious nonpolitical crime” overseas, as set forth in INA 208(b)(2)(A)(iii). Specifically, the Attorney General is seeking opinions on whether the Board erred in finding that the respondent's in absentia conviction was for an offense not “disproportionate to the objective” or “of an atrocious or barbarous character.”

The Attorney General asked amici to address whether the Board erred in determining that the respondent was not subject to the persecutor bar to asylum eligibility at 8 CFR 1208.13(c)(2)(i)(E).

Finally, the Attorney General asked whether the Board applied the correct legal standard in concluding that the respondent's in absentia trial, which resulted in the convictions that raised questions about his eligibility for asylum, suffered from due process problems even though the U.S. Department of State had found that the trial satisfied due process.

The parties have until July 17, 2020, to file their briefs. Interested amici have until July 31, 2020. The parties may then submit reply briefs on or before July 31, 2020.

Without more information, it is hard to determine the particulars of the Attorney General's review. However, from the broad questions, it is clear that the review may result in a significant new precedent in cases involving a foreign conviction as evidence suggesting that an alien may be subject to a mandatory asylum bar.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com