Alerts: policies, announcements, and partner resources, posted regularly. For a monthly archive of Alerts, go to the practice alerts section of the library.
- By: US District Court for the Southern District of TX Brownsville Division
- Date: 07/16/21
The Plaintiff States have requested vacatur of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and a permanent injunction against its continued operation.
Factor One. As discussed in the section on standing in the memorandum and opinion, the Plaintiff States have demonstrated that they have suffered an irreparable injury.
Factor Two. The injury to the Plaintiff States is derived from the creation of and the continued operation of the DACA program. Only its cessation would alleviate that injury, and monetary damages are inadequate to do so.
Factor Three. In this factor, the Court considers only the hardships as between the plaintiff, Plaintiff States, and the defendant, the Government, the party being enjoined. Ceasing the DACA program would not impose a significant hardship on the Government.
Factor Four. The public interest of the nation is always served by the cessation of a program that was created in violation of law and whose existence violates the law.
With respect to DACA recipients who obtained that status on or before the date of this injunction and DACA renewal applications for these existing recipients (regardless of when the renewal applications are submitted), the order of immediate vacatur and the permanent injunction (but not the order of remand) are temporarily stayed until a further order of this Court, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, or the United States Supreme Court.
- By: Center for Gender and Refugee Studies
- Date: 07/15/21
Since March CGRS has added 59 new resources to our Technical Assistance (TA) Library, including new resources on fear-of-return claims based on witchcraft accusations, female genital cutting, restrictions on reproductive rights, and statelessness.
All of these new resources can be accessed on-demand at any time through the new CGRS TA Library. To access the TA Library for a case not previously registered with CGRS, please submit a case intake on the website. For cases already registered with CGRS, the TA Library can be accessed at any time by clicking the “View TA Library for This Case” link that appears next to the case on your My Account page. For more information on using the TA Library, please visit the TA Library guide and FAQs, linked below.
- By: U.S. Attorney General
- Date: 07/15/21
Matter of CRUZ-VALDEZ, 28 I&N Dec. 326 (A.G. 2021): Matter of Castro-Tum 27 I&N Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018), is overruled in its entirety. While rulemaking proceeds and except when a court of appeals has held otherwise, immigration judges and the Board should apply the standard for administrative closure set out in Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2012), and Matter of W-Y-U-, 27 I&N Dec. 17 (BIA 2017).
- By: Freedom for Immigrants, Immigrant Defense Project, and the Cardozo School of Law
- Date: 07/12/21
The federal government’s use of electronic ankle “monitoring,” or shackling, subjects immigrants to many of the same harms as incarceration and is experienced as another form of detention.
- By: Immigrant Defense Project
- Date: 07/07/21
The guide was created as a resource for non-citizens and has information about:
- how ICE and DOCCS share information
- the importance of filing a notice of appeal on a criminal conviction (including instructions and samples for pro se filings)
- how to navigate removal proceedings while in custody
- the reasonable fear process for people who are not in removal proceedings
- information about ECPDO and CPDO for those who do not want to fight their case.
- By: Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, National Immigration Litigation Alliance, Van Der Hout, LLP
- Date: 07/07/21
Note: The settlement will not be final and effective until the district court approves it.
1) Anybody who has had their I-589 or I-918 applications (and applications/petitions related to the I-918) rejected pursuant to the No Blank Spaces rejection policy will be able to recapture the date of the original filing and this date will control for all purposes, including determining eligibility for derivative relationships, aging out, the one-year deadline for asylum applications, and employment authorization eligibility. For a definition of the policy, please see the attached settlement agreement.
2) USCIS has identified over 43,000 asylum applications and over 17,000 U visa petitions rejected under this policy. USCIS will send out notices to those people within 90 days following the district court's approval of the Settlement Agreement. But others who are not identified may still submit their proof of prior rejection under this policy to demonstrate eligibility for relief under the settlement.
3) After we filed suit, USCIS agreed to rescind the policy (as of December 22, 2000). There may have been additional rejections following this recission, however. Any applicant who had their application rejected based on the rescinded policy (that is, after December 22, 2020), will still benefit under this agreement if they demonstrate it was rejected pursuant to this policy. The process for making this showing is set forth in the settlement agreement.
- By: TRAC
- Date: 07/01/21
Data updated this week on the immigration detention system provided by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) show that:
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement held 26,222 in ICE detention according to data released on June 24, 2021.
- 20,723 out of 26,222—or 79.0%—held in ICE detention have no criminal record, according to data released on June 24, 2021. Many more have only minor offenses, including traffic violations.
- ICE relied on detention facilities in Texas to house the most people during FY 2021, according to data released on June 24, 2021.
- ICE arrested 2,836 and CBP arrested 19,796 of the 22,632 people booked into detention by ICE during May 2021.
- South Texas ICE Processing Center in Pearsall, Texas held the largest number of ICE detainees so far in FY 2021, averaging 751 per day (as of June 2021).
- ICE Alternatives to Detention (ATD) programs are currently monitoring 103,933 families and single individuals, according to data released on June 24, 2021.
- San Francisco's area office has highest number in ICE's Alternatives to Detention (ATD) monitoring programs, a total of 10,992, according to data released on June 24, 2021.
- By: Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Date: 07/01/21
In general, ICE should not detain women who are pregnant, postpartum, or nursing. Nine page policy directive to spell out protocols.
- By: Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC), the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild (NIPNLG), and the American Immigration Council (AIC)
- Date: 06/30/21
"In Niz-Chavez, the Supreme Court found that a Notice to Appear must convey the time and place of the immigration court hearing in a single document in order to trigger the stop-time rule in cancellation of removal cases, and that a subsequently-issued hearing notice does not stop time if the NTA did not include the required information."
- By: Board of Immigration Appeals
- Date: 06/30/21
"(1) Immigration Judges may exercise their discretion to rescind an in absentia removal order and grant reopening where an alien has established through corroborating evidence that his or her late arrival at a removal hearing was due to “exceptional circumstances” under section 240(e)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1) (2018), and, in doing so, should consider factors such as the extent of the alien’s tardiness, whether the reasons for the alien’s tardiness are appropriately exceptional, and any other relevant factors in the totality of the circumstances.
(2) Corroborating evidence may include, but is not limited to, affidavits, traffic and weather reports, medical records, verification of the alien’s arrival time at the courtroom, and other documentation verifying the cause of the late arrival; however, general statements—without corroborative evidence documenting the cause of the tardiness—are insufficient to establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant reopening removal proceedings. Matter of S-A-, 21 I&N Dec. 1050 (BIA 1997), reaffirmed and clarified."