Podcasts about immigration appeals

Issue(s): (1) Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)'s 30-day deadline is jurisdictional, or merely a mandatory claims-processing rule that can be waived or forfeited; and (2) whether a person can obtain review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision in a withholding-only proceeding by filing a petition within 30 days of that decision.  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Yes, I enjoy listening to SCOTUS Oral Arguments on my walks….. Enjoy - efdAn immigration case.Riley v. Bondi, No. 23-1270 [Arg: 3.24.2025] Issue(s): (1) Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)'s 30-day deadline is jurisdictional, or merely a mandatory claims-processing rule that can be waived or forfeited; and (2) whether a person can obtain review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision in a withholding-only proceeding by filing a petition within 30 days of that decision.The Contemporary Battle of Good v Evil in Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit efdouglass.substack.com/subscribe

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Louisiana v. Callais (March 24) - Election law, Civil Rights; Issue(s): (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature’s enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable.Riley v. Bondi (March 24) - Immigration; Issue(s): (1) Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)'s 30-day deadline is jurisdictional, or merely a mandatory claims-processing rule that can be waived or forfeited; and (2) whether a person can obtain review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision in a withholding-only proceeding by filing a petition within 30 days of that decision.Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining (March 25) - Jurisdiction, Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether venue for challenges by small oil refineries seeking exemptions from the requirements of the Clean Air Act’s Renewable Fuel Standard program lies exclusively in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency’s denial actions are “nationally applicable” or, alternatively, are “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect.”Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency (March 25) - Jurisdiction, Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether a final action by the Environmental Protection Agency taken pursuant to its Clean Air Act authority with respect to a single state or region may be challenged only in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency published the action in the same Federal Register notice as actions affecting other states or regions and claimed to use a consistent analysis for all states.Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research (March 26) - Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): (1) Whether Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine by authorizing the Federal Communications Commission to determine, within the limits set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 254, the amount that providers must contribute to the Universal Service Fund; (2) whether the FCC violated the nondelegation doctrine by using the financial projections of the private company appointed as the fund's administrator in computing universal service contribution rates; (3) whether the combination of Congress’s conferral of authority on the FCC and the FCC’s delegation of administrative responsibilities to the administrator violates the nondelegation doctrine; and (4) whether this case is moot in light of the challengers' failure to seek preliminary relief before the 5th Circuit.Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission (March 31) - First Amendment, Religion; Issue(s): Whether a state violates the First Amendment’s religion clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state’s criteria for religious behavior.Rivers v. Guerrero (March 31) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Issue(s): Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) applies only to habeas filings made after a prisoner has exhausted appellate review of his first petition, to all second-in-time habeas filings after final judgment, or to some second-in-time filings — depending on a prisoner’s success on appeal or ability to satisfy a seven-factor test.Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization (April 1) - Due Process, Fifth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.Kerr v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic (April 2) - Medicare; Issue(s): Whether the Medicaid Act’s any-qualified-provider provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider. Featuring:Allison Daniel, Attorney, Pacific Legal FoundationErielle Davidson, Associate, Holtzman VogelJennifer B. Dickey, Deputy Chief Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, U.S. Chamber of CommerceElizabeth A. Kiernan, Associate Attorney, Gibson, Dunn & CrutcherMorgan Ratner, Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP(Moderator) Sarah Welch, Issues & Appeals Associate, Jones Day

A case in which the Court will decide issues relating to the 30-day deadline to seek review of a ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals denying withholding of deportation.

A case in which the Court will decide issues relating to the 30-day deadline to seek review of a ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals denying withholding of deportation.

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in  Santos-Zacaria v Garland. In this case, the court considered this issue: Does 8 U-S-C § 1252(d)(1) bar a court of appeals from reviewing an immigrant's claim that the Board of Immigration Appeals had engaged in impermissible factfinding because the immigrant had not exhausted that claim through a motion to reconsider? The case was decided on May 11, 2023. The Supreme Court held that Title 8 U-S-C § 1252(d)(1) is not a jurisdictional provision; it does not require an immigrant to seek a motion to reconsider, which is a discretionary form of review, only remedies available as a matter of right. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored the majority opinion of the Court. The language of § 1252(d)(1) is substantially different from jurisdictional provisions found elsewhere. Absent a clear statement that Congress intended the forfeiture rule to be jurisdictional, courts should not interpret such rules as jurisdictional because of the potentially harsh consequences of doing so. Thus, § 1252(d)(1) is best understood to require a noncitizen to exhaust only those remedies available as of right. Justice Samuel Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Clarence Thomas joined. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

On this episode of The Narrative, CCV President Aaron Baer, Policy Director David Mahan, and Communications Director Mike Andrews sit down with our first-ever repeat guest, Lora Ries, Director of The Border Security and Immigration Center at The Heritage Foundation, to discuss what's happening at the Texas border. Listen in to find out why there's a stand-off between the federal agents and the Texas border patrol, how the terrorist watch-list hits from migrants apprehended crossing the Southern border went from 3 in all of 2020 to 50 already in 2024, and why the border crisis has become a priority issue for every state this year. Looking for more? Read HR2, the federal legislation Lora mentioned, read Lora's issue briefings on the border, and listen to our 2022 episode with Lora on how the border crisis even then was affecting Ohio. Before the news, the men discuss the advice Alistair Begg gave to one grandmother to attend her grandson's homosexual/trans wedding ceremony to show her love and why CCV disagrees with his advice, but also why it's unfair to categorize him as "woke." David referenced Ephesians 4 and 5, and Galatians 6. as the scriptural basis for Christians to seek God's approval above all else. For additional context, listen to Begg's response to the controversy from last weekend.  More about Lora Ries Lora is Director of the Border Security and Immigration Center at The Heritage Foundation. She has over 26 years' experience in the immigration and homeland security arena. Lora twice worked at the Department of Homeland Security on management and immigration policy and operations issues, most recently as the Acting Deputy Chief of Staff. She also worked in the private sector as a homeland security industry strategist and in government relations. Lora previously worked in the legislative branch as Counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. She started her career at the Department of Justice's Board of Immigration Appeals and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Lora's commentary and analysis have been published and quoted in multiple print media, including The National Interest, FoxNews.com, Roll Call, and The Hill. She has done numerous radio and TV interviews and has testified before Congress.

Host Chris Murray's special guest is Lora Ries (“Reese”) is Senior Research Fellow, Homeland Security, at The Heritage Foundation. She has over 23 years' experience in the immigration and homeland security arena. Mrs. Ries twice worked at the Department of Homeland Security on management and immigration policy and operations issues. She also worked in the private sector as a homeland security industry strategist and in government relations. She previously worked in the legislative branch as Counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives JudiciaryCommittee's Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, and started her career at theDepartment of Justice's Board of Immigration Appeals and the Immigration andNaturalization Service. She earned a Bachelor of Arts degree and a law degree atValparaiso University in Indiana. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The lawyer and longtime community organizer talks about her two-year ban from practicing immigration law, how she is responding to it, and her history of border organizing and advocacy in Arizona. In July the Board of Immigration Appeals ordered that prominent federal immigration lawyer and longtime community organizer Margo Cowan be barred for two years from practicing law in immigration court for “violating the rules of professional conduct.” For this week's podcast interview, The Border Chroniclecaught up with Cowan in her Tucson office to hear her side of the story. This story includes Cowan's long history of advocacy and organizing in the community—including know-your-rights campaigns in Tucson in the 1970s, work with the Sanctuary Movement and HIV/AIDS awareness in the 1980s, and working for the Tohono O'odham Nation in the 1990s, where she witnessed the onset of border militarization on the native reservation that, she asserts, has now become an “occupied” territory. (By the way, here is the link to Cowan's book about the Tohono O'odham, cowritten with historian Guadalupe Castillo. We mention the book in the podcast). Throughout the conversation, Cowan talks about her work as a public defender, work that led to the founding of the organization Keep Tucson Together in 2011. KTT is a pro bono legal clinic whose mission is to stop deportations and family separations in southern Arizona. In the interview, Cowan explains the two-year ban and how she is appealing the ruling, and she vividly describes just how intimidating immigration court is. “I hate immigration court,” she says. “I hate what they do to our community. I hate the fact that they are cloaked in some quantum of respectability. But, having said that, people need representation.” --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/border-chronicle/support

On this episode of A Hard Look, Senior Technology Editor Bennett J. Nuss interviews Adam Pollock, a 3L at American University Washington College of Law and current Editor for Online Publications. In this episode, we review the systemic structure of the Bureau of Immigration Appeals, and how this system is operating considering the ever-growing strain of immigration on U.S. Courts. We also interrogate the propriety and effects of Patel v. Garland, a Supreme Court case that limits the degree of review afforded to those that appeal rulings by the BIA. Finally, we look at how the BIA can be potentially reformed to better serve the interests of fairness and substantial justice. --- This Episode was produced by Administrative Law Review Technology Editor, Anthony Aviza. Many thanks as well to Administrative Law Review Editor-in-Chief Madison Gestiehr for her assistance in transcribing this episode. If you have any questions about this episode, the guest, the podcast, or if you would like to propose a topic or guest, please e-mail Bennett Nuss at ALR-Sr-Tech-Editor@wcl.american.edu --- Recommended Reading: This Episode's TranscriptDeported Over a Typo: Making Sense of the Board of Appeals'Newfound Administrative Power in the Wake of Patel v. GarlandPatel v.GarlandCongressional Research Service: U.S. Immigration Courts and the Pending Cases BacklogInnovation Law Lab: The Attorney General's Judges

Audio of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Santos-Zacaria v. Garland (May 11, 2023)  

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), a noncitizen who is convicted of an "aggravated felony" is subject to mandatory removal and faces enhanced criminal liability in certain circumstances. One aggravated felony is "an offense relating to obstruction of justice." 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(S). The questions presented are: 1. Whether a state offense-like petitioner's accessory-after-the-fact offense here- that does not involve interference with an existing official proceeding or investigation may constitute an "offense relating to obstruction of justice." 2. Whether, assuming that the phrase "offense relating to obstruction of justice" is deemed ambiguous, courts should afford Chevron deference to the Board of Immigration Appeals' interpretation of that phrase. THE PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI ARE GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: TO QUALIFY AS “AN OFFENSE RELATING TO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE,” 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(43)(S), MUST A PREDICATE OFFENSE REQUIRE A NEXUS WITH A PENDING OR ONGOING INVESTIGATION OR JUDICIAL PROCEEDING? CONSOLIDATED WITH 22-331 FOR ONE ORAL ARGUMENT Whether dissuading a witness from reporting a crime, in violation of California law, is "an offense relating to obstruction of justice," 8 U.S.C. 110l(a)(43)(S). THE PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI ARE GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: TO QUALIFY AS “AN OFFENSE RELATING TO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE,” 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(43)(S), MUST A PREDICATE OFFENSE REQUIRE A NEXUS WITH A PENDING OR ONGOING INVESTIGATION OR JUDICIAL PROCEEDING? CONSOLIDATED WITH 22-23 FOR ONE ORAL ARGUMENT.

Dear You! On this episode of Gratitude Through Hard Times an immigration activist and legal powerhouse teaches us how to write letters to the selves we intend to become. Hillary Walsh, President and Founder of New Frontier Immigration Law, explains how this simple tool can help us determine – and then manifest – the things we want to be, do and have. It starts with articulating a vision – then identifying the week-by-week, month-by-month steps necessary to make it a reality. It's exactly this kind of focused goal-setting that has driven Hillary's growing legal advisory firm and foundation. You'll learn how she transcended childhood abuse, as well as stints in foster care and lockup, to become a crusader for the rights of those without a voice – victims of domestic violence, human trafficking and a broken immigration system. Gratitude is at the root of Hillary's ambitious goal to empower marginalized people – the core mission that animates her whole team at New Frontier Immigration Law on even the toughest of days. Says Hillary: “The only way out of a ditch is not to dig more. It's not to have someone pull you out. It's up to you to levitate out.” Now there's a thought for your next motivational letter!Did you try our 60-second letter-writing exercise? If you'd like to share the thoughts you composed while listening to this episode, we'd love for you to send them to us via this contact.The short documentary at this link will give you the overview on Hillary's work and the passion she brings to immigration law. Click here if you're interested in learning more about the goal-setting retreats we discussed.If you'd like to learn more about Chris and his 7:47 Virtual Gratitude Experience or subscribe to our newsletter, please visit this link.Click hereto hear more fascinating conversations with Fortune 500 CEOs, professional athletes and entertainerswho have shared their human stories on Gratitude Through Hard Times. KEY TOPICS:If you could give credit or thanks to one person in your life that you don't give enough credit or enough thanks to – that you've never thought to thank – who would that be? Her longtime friend Lisa, a beauty pageant mentor who supported Hillary as a feisty teen-age competitor in pursuit of scholarship money. Decades later, it stands as “the most authentic demonstration of friendship and love” Hillary has ever known.Lonely at the Top: Bringing the intensity required to achievement and innovation can predispose judgment, projection and high expectations that not everyone shares.How Hillary Stays Committed: Ongoing goal-setting and targeted plans are key, as well as detailed letters to her future self that articulate concrete goals.New Frontier University: The platform, which will offer revolutionary access to education and skills, launches in the next six months.A Letter to Myself in Sixty Seconds:Investigate/Determine the things you want to be, do and have.Who do you want on your team five years from now?Imagine the gift you want to have cultivated five years from now.Include specific data and personal targets, then build backwards month by month, week by week.Speak your desires directly to the universe.Put it in writing: “Dear (Me), It's 2028 and I'm so glad I've been able to x,y and z.”New Frontier's Big-Picture Goals: To serve and support those who have experienced domestic violence and human trafficking.To compensate for shortcomings in the social welfare system.To provide options and a voice to undocumented people who are victims.To create a new line of defense for those who have suffered trafficking.Hillary's Ups & Downs:Challenge: Hiring and identifying partners has been an “intense learning journey.”Challenge: Losing confidence when senior hires “tank your leadership culture.”Victory: The funny, irreverent, high-energy team she has assembled.A Great Fix for Down Moments: Grab a piece of paper and jot down three things you have to celebrate and ask others around you to do the same. Try creating a dedicated Slack channel! You'll feel gratitude shift the energy!Parting Thought: If you feel like your team isn't working for you, then it's time to stop and take stock. Whenever you think your people are your problem, it's because you're out of alignment with your own core values! QUOTABLE“I hate pretending because authenticity is one of my core values.” (Hillary)“I've accepted that my life is going to be very out of balance. I think seeking balance is the enemy of innovation and achievement.” (Hillary)“I'm very dissatisfied, which is why I want to change so much and make a really lasting impact that outlives me.” (Hillary)“I don't need people to know my name when I'm gone, but I need the shit that I did now to matter in three generations.” (Hillary)“You're fighting for something really, really, really big and meeting resistance. And that resistance comes in the form of loneliness … self-doubt … Imposter Syndrome … pleasing others and challenging your ability to do what you need to get done.” (Chris)“As I started figuring out the ‘what' I wanted to do, the ‘who' that was going to make it happen started showing up in my life.” (Hillary)“We get so caught up in the minutiae. We are very short term-oriented people, but we can pause and broaden our perspectives.” (Chris)“Long-term thinking helps us to remember in the short term why we're doing things. It's a reminder of core values.” (Hillary)“Gratitude is not just about being grateful for positive things ... It can be used to help pick you up out of a hole, to find positive benefits in negative autobiographical experience. It's a tool for resilience, self-confidence, self-efficacy.” (Chris)“You think you've got it all figured out and then your business levels your ego in this exhilarating but exhausting kind of way.” (Hillary)“The only way out of a ditch is not to dig more. It's not to have someone pull you out. It's for you to levitate out.” (Hillary)“Money won't solve every problem, but having the comfort of knowing you consistently have enough and that you can change your trajectory … is a gamechanger.” (Hillary)“In order to see the change you want to see in others, first you have to make change within yourself … It's not about changing others. It's about clearing up your side of the street.” (Chris) LINKS/FURTHER RESOURCES:"Lonely at the Top: The High Cost of Men's Success," by Thomas E. Joiner.About The One Thing goal-setting retreats and the book by the same name.View Will Smith's Academy Award-winning performance in "King Richard.""The Long Game: How to Be a Long-Term Thinker in a Short-Term World," by Dorie Clark.More about Marty Seligman's Theory of Positive Psychology."Find Your Freedom: Financial Freedom for a Life on Purpose," by Jamie P. Hopkins.About The Arbinger Institute's "Anatomy of Peace." ABOUT OUR GUEST:Hillary Walsh helps immigrants live free in the United States. Through her experiences of suffering child abuse, being put in foster care and serving a stint in lockup, Hillary became committed to fighting for the rights of others. In the past 10+ years of practicing immigration law, she's represented clients before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of Nevada, the Ninth, Sixth, and Fifth Circuit Courts of Appeals, the Board of Immigration Appeals and immigration courts nationwide. Hillary is also a mother of four, a military wife, a law professor, a TEDx speaker, and an award-winning immigration lawyer.  FOLLOW OUR GUEST:WEBSITE | LINKEDIN | INSTAGRAM| YOUTUBE ABOUT OUR HOST:Chris Schembra is a philosopher, question asker and facilitator. He's a columnist at Rolling Stone magazine, USA Today calls him their "Gratitude Guru" and he's spent the last six years traveling around the world helping people connect in meaningful ways. As the offshoot of his #1 Wall Street Journal bestselling book, "Gratitude Through Hard Times: Finding Positive Benefits Through Our Darkest Hours,"he uses this podcast to blend ancient stoic philosophy and modern-day science to teach how the principles of gratitude can be used to help people get through their hard times. FOLLOW CHRIS:WEBSITE | INSTAGRAM | LINKEDIN | BOOKS

On January 17, the Court heard oral argument in Santos-Zacaria v. Garland. The case involves immigration law and whether a court of appeals can review an immigrant's petition that the Board of Immigration Appeals participated in impermissible fact finding because the immigrant did not exhaust this claim using a motion to reconsider.Join us to hear a breakdown of the case!Featuring:John Elwood, Partner, Arnold & Porter, head of the firm's appellate and Supreme Court practice

Issue(s): Whether the court of appeals correctly determined that 8 U.S.C. 1252(d)(1) prevented the court from reviewing petitioner's claim that the Board of Immigration Appeals engaged in impermissible factfinding because petitioner had not exhausted that claim through a motion to reconsider. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

A case in which the Court held that a federal immigration law does not bar a federal court of appeals from reviewing an immigrant's claim that the Board of Immigration Appeals had engaged in impermissible factfinding simply because the immigrant had not exhausted that claim through a motion to reconsider, which is a discretionary form of review.

A case in which the Court will decide whether federal immigration law bars a federal court of appeals from reviewing an immigrant's claim that the Board of Immigration Appeals had engaged in impermissible factfinding because the immigrant had not exhausted that claim through a motion to reconsider.

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court's upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases that will be covered are included below.In re Grand Jury (Jan. 9) - Professional Responsibility; whether a communication involving both legal and non-legal advice is protected by attorney client privilege when obtaining or providing legal advice was one of the purposes behind the communication.The Ohio Adjutant General's Department v. Federal Labor Relations Authority (Jan. 9) - Labor Law; whether the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which empowers the Federal Labor Relations Authority to regulate the labor practices of federal agencies only, empower it to regulate the labor practices of state militias.Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Jan. 10) - Labor Law; Whether the National Labor Relations Act impliedly preempts a state tort claim against a union for intentionally destroying an employer's property in the course of a labor dispute.Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Centro de Periodismo Investigativo, Inc. (Jan. 11) - Federalism; whether the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act's general grant of jurisdiction to the federal courts over claims against the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico and claims otherwise arising under PROMESA abrogate the Board's sovereign immunity with respect to all federal and territorial claims.Santos-Zacaria v. Garland (Jan. 17) - Immigration; whether the court of appeals correctly determined that 8 U.S.C. 1252(d)(1) prevented the court from reviewing petitioner's claim that the Board of Immigration Appeals engaged in impermissible factfinding because petitioner had not exhausted that claim through a motion to reconsider.Featuring: -- William Hodes, Professor Emeritus of Law, Indiana University; Co-Author, The Law of Lawyering-- Tessa E. Shurr, Litigation Associate, The Fairness Center-- Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law-- Moderator: Anna St. John, President and General Counsel, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute

Ep.56   In this episode, we discuss taking the fear out of immigration, with Hillary Walsh.  

In this episode, award-winning immigration lawyer Hillary Walsh explains why it would be wise for The United States of America to change its immigration policies. Hillary Walsh is a former foster care and juvi-kid turned lawyer, Hillary Walsh helps immigrants live free in the United States. Outside of New Frontier, she is an adjunct law professor, mother of four, military wife, and an avid Phoenix Suns fan. In the past 10+ years of practicing immigration law, she's represented clients before the U.S Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of Nevada, the Ninth, Sixth, and Fifth Circuit Courts of Appeals, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and immigration courts nationwide.Hillary believes that there is a solution for every problem, and she injects that relentlessness into her approach to immigration law. Additionally, Hillary is a mother of four, a military wife, a law professor, and an award-winning immigration lawyer. She has 10 years of experience winning appeals, hearings in Immigration Court, and has represented appeals in the U.S. Supreme court. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/searchingforpoliticaliden/support

Ms. Hillary Walsh is an immigration lawyer and the Chief Executive Officer of New Frontier Immigration. She is also a former foster care and juvi-kid turned award-winning lawyer who has a passion for helping immigrants live free in the United States. In addition to being the CEO of her law firm, Hillary is also an adjunct law professor and an avid Phoenix Suns fan. In the past 10+ years of practicing immigration law, she's represented clients before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of Nevada, the Ninth, Sixth, and Fifth Circuit Courts of Appeals, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and immigration courts nationwide. Hillary believes that there is a solution for every problem, and she injects that relentlessness into her immigration law practice. Hillary is also the mother of four children and the wife of an active duty military officer. She is a passionate advocate for her clients and will fight to ensure you can live free in the United States. Ms. Walsh's practice is global so she can assist clients all over the U.S. and the world. https://newfrontier.us/about-us/ --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/ferah-ozbek/message

In 2007, Pankajkumar Patel, who had entered the United States illegally with his wife Jyotsnaben in the 1990s, applied to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for discretionary adjustment of status under 8 U. S. C. §1255, which would have made Patel and his wife lawful permanent residents. Because USCIS was aware that Patel had previously checked a box on a Georgia driver's license application falsely stating that he was a United States citizen, it denied Patel's application for failure to satisfy the threshold requirement that the noncitizen be statutorily admissible for permanent residence. §1255(i)(2)(A); see also §1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) (rendering inadmissible a noncitizen “who falsely represents . . . himself or herself to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit under” state or federal law). Years later, the Government initiated removal proceedings against Patel and his wife due to their illegal entry. Patel sought relief from removal by renewing his adjustment of status request. Patel argued before an Immigration Judge that he had mistakenly checked the “citizen” box on the state application and thus lacked the subjective intent necessary to violate the federal statute. The Immigration Judge disagreed, denied Patel's application for adjustment of status, and ordered that Patel and his wife be removed from the country. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Patel's appeal. Patel petitioned the Eleventh Circuit for review, where a panel of that court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider his claim. Federal law prohibits judicial review of “any judgment regarding the granting of relief” under §1255. §1252(a)(2)(B)(i). But see §1252(a)(2)(D) (exception where the judgment concerns “constitutional claims” or “questions of law”). The panel reasoned that the factual determinations of which Patel sought review—whether he had testified credibly and whether he had subjectively intended to misrepresent himself as a citizen—each qualified as an unreviewable judgment. On rehearing, the en banc court agreed with the panel. This Court granted certiorari to resolve a Circuit conflict as to the scope of §1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Held: Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review facts found as part of discretionary-relief proceedings under §1255 and the other provisions enumerated in §1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Pp. 6–17. Credit: Justia US Supreme Court, available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/596/20-979/ --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/scotus-opinions/support

Lora is director of the Border Security and Immigration Center and a senior research fellow for Homeland Security at The Heritage Foundation. She has over 25 years' experience in the immigration and homeland security arena. Ries twice worked at the Department of Homeland Security on management and immigration policy and operations issues, most recently as the Acting Deputy Chief of Staff. She also worked in the private sector as a homeland security industry strategist and in government relations. Ries previously worked in the legislative branch as Counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. She started her career at the Department of Justice's Board of Immigration Appeals and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Ries' commentary and analysis have been published and quoted in multiple print media, including The National Interest, FoxNews.com, Roll Call, and The Hill. She has done numerous radio and TV interviews, and has testified before Congress. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Betty's Bio:Elizabeth “Betty” Stevens is of counsel at Poarch Thompson Law.  Ms. Stevens received her J.D. magna cum laude from George Mason School of Law, and a B.S. in the Arabic Languages from Georgetown University.  Ms. Stevens is an active member of the Federal Bar Association and is a past Chair of the FBA's Immigration Law Section.  In that capacity, she assisted in drafting and refining the FBA's Article I immigration court proposal.From 2008 to December 2016, Ms. Stevens served as an Assistant Director with the Office of Immigration Litigation's (OIL) District Court Section.  Before her promotion to Assistant Director, Ms. Stevens worked on all phases of litigation in the U.S. Courts, including the defense of petitions for review in the courts of appeals, class action defense, and individual cases in litigation.  Before she joined OIL in 2005, Ms. Stevens served as a law clerk for the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Arlington Immigration Court, and the Board of Immigration Appeals.  She has also worked in the U.S. Embassy consular sections in Greece and Ethiopia, the U.S. Passport Office, and several private immigration law firms.  Betty's email: bstevens4115@gmail.comLinks!Learn all about Betty and Poach Thompson LawTranscript of Betty's testimony before CongressImmigration Law Section of the Federal Bar AssociationFBA Immigration Law Section Article 1 initiative*Sponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Docketwise"Modern immigration software & case management"Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewLearn about your host!More episodes!Case notes!Top 15 immigration podcast in the U.S.!DISCLAIMER:Immigration Review® is a podcast made available for educational purposes only. It does not provide legal advice. Rather, it offers general information and insights from publicly available immigration cases. By accessing and listening to the podcast, you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the host. The podcast should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your state.MUSIC CREDITS:"Loopster," "Bass Vibes," "Chill Wave," and "Funk Game Loop" Kevin MacLeod - Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/immigrationreview)

Layli Miller-Muro has been a powerful influence and an active leader in getting justice and creating change for women worldwide. She founded the Tahirih Justice Center, serving as the Chief Executive Officer for over 20 years. She has led the organization in its service to over 30,000 women and girls while promoting the further development of laws to protect women. She has received numerous honors for her work, including being named one of the “100 Most Intriguing Entrepreneurs of 2012” by Goldman Sachs, one of the “150 Fearless Women in the World” by Newsweek Magazine/Daily Beast, and receiving the 2008 Excellence in Chief Executive Leadership Award of the Center for Nonprofit Advancement, recognizing her innovation, integrity, and leadership. She served as an attorney at the law firm of Arnold & Porter and an attorney-advisor at the U.S. Department of Justice Board of Immigration Appeals. She received her B.A. in Political Science and Anthropology from Agnes Scott College and her J.D. and M.A. in international relations from American University. 

Matthew L. Kolken is a trial lawyer with experience in all aspects of United States Immigration Law – including deportation defense before Immigration Courts throughout the United States, appellate practice before the Board of Immigration Appeals, the U.S. District Courts, and U.S. Courts of Appeals. He is an elected member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association's Board of Governors where he has been a member since 1997. He is admitted to practice in the courts of the State of New York, the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second and Ninth Circuits. Mr. Kolken has received the highest AV peer rating by Martindale-Hubbell, has been named a "Super Lawyer" in Upstate New York by Super Lawyers magazine, was listed by Business First of Buffalo as being among the “Legal Elite of Western New York," and has received a "Superb" rating and "Client's Choice" award on Avvo.com. The New York Law Journal has recognized him as a "Lawyer Who Leads by Example" for his work providing pro bono legal services to unaccompanied refugee children, and he is the recipient of the 2018 Marquis Who's Who in American Law Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. Mr. Kolken was also awarded the American Immigration Lawyers Association Upstate New York Chapter's Equal Justice Under the Law Peter J. Murrett III Pro Bono Award in recognition for community service, and the Erie County Bar Association's Pro Bono Award in recognition and appreciation for legal services performed in immigration matters before the Court. Mr. Kolken has appeared nationally on FOX News, MSNBC, and CNN. His legal analysis has been solicited by the Washington Post's Fact Check of the immigration statements of Secretary Hillary Clinton, then Presidential candidate Donald Trump, and the immigration status of the parents of First Lady Melania Trump. His opinions on immigration law have been published in Forbes Magazine, Bloomberg, The Los Angeles Times, Business Insider, and FOX News among others. He has been an invited speaker at AILA's annual conference on grounds of removability, is the author of the Deportation and Removal Blog on ILW.com, where he is a member of the advisory board of the Immigration Daily, an online immigration news periodical with more than 35,000 readers. He is also a prominent immigration reform activist having been ranked as the most influential person on Twitter in the area of Immigration Law. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/oneamerican/support

The Law Offices of Jacqueline Lentini, LLC is certified by the State of Illinois Central Management Services as a Women Business Enterprise (WBE), a part of the diversity compliance opportunities within the State. For more information, please see Diversity Compliance: https://www2.illinois.gov/cms/business/sell2/bep/Pages/default.aspx. Jacqueline Lentini focuses her practice on immigration law and compliance, handling all matters of employment-based immigration case management, including Labor Certification (PERM), H-1B, L-1A, L-1B, L-1 Blanket, E-1/E-2, TN, B-1, J-1 and I-140 (EB-1, EB-2, EB-3). She counsels clients on consular processing and Client Adjustment interviews, and has filed Adjustment of Status applications, including Advance Parole and Employment Authorization. Previously, Ms. Lentini gained extensive experience in immigration matters with other Chicago area law firms. Prior to that, she was an Immigration Specialist for World Relief, for which she obtained Board of Immigration Appeals accreditation, filed VAWA petitions, Adjustment of Status and Citizenship applications, and maintains continued involvement at World Relief sponsored Naturalization workshops. Prior to her law degree, Ms. Lentini was employed by the University of Houston and Purdue University as a F-1 and J-1 Student Counselor serving thousands of international students. She possesses over twenty-three years of combined experience with immigration issues as both an attorney and foreign student advisor. She enjoys working with universities, faculty, staff, and students and has over half a dozen public and private Midwestern university clients she serves on an ongoing basis.  Ms. Lentini is a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (“AILA”), the Illinois State Bar Association (“ISBA”), and the Kane County Bar Association's Immigration Committee. Ms. Lentini currently serves on the AILA Customs and Border Patrol Liaison Committee (2018-2021), served on the Midwest Regional Conference Planning Committee (2016-2018), and AILA's National Long Distance Learning Committee (2014-2016). She is a contributing author to the Illinois Chamber Employee Handbook on an ongoing basis. Previously, she was on the Illinois State Bar Association's Immigration and International Law Committee from 2002-2003. She writes many immigration related law articles in local bar journals and speaks regularly to audiences regarding immigration issues in a variety of industries, including universities, entrepreneurs and manufacturing companies. Ms. Lentini obtained her J.D. from Chicago-Kent College of Law, earned a Master of Arts in Italian Studies from Brown University, and a B.A. in International Relations cum laude from Boston University. She is fluent in Italian. View Jacki's LinkedIn Profile

The sudden but not entirely unpredictable collapse of the American-trained forces in Afghanistan has woken much of the country up to the futility of our "forever wars" in the Middle East. Beyond the waste of a trillion dollars and countless lives over twenty years (for what?), we are now left with yet another humanitarian refugee crisis. Many European countries seem to have had their fill of refugees, and the Biden administration has yet to follow through on its promises to expedite asylum for the most desperate Afghans, who are now facing brutal persecution at the hands of the Taliban.Most people agree that those who assisted the U.S. effort and thus find a target on their heads should be given priority for asylum status. But what about those who are seeking asylum from forced labor under terrorist groups like the Taliban or, in other countries, ISIS? In a recent USA Today article, GMU legal scholar Ilya Somin directs our attention to a bizarrely cruel ruling by the Department of Justice's Board of Immigration Appeals in 2018 classifies such slave laborers as ineligible for asylum because their forced labor qualifies as "material support" for terrorism.Somin joined me to explain how such legal gymnastics were ever justified in the first place, and what the current Attorney General can do about it. We also considered the arguments for and against letting in larger numbers of refugees from Afghanistan and other countries.

Chase Geiser is joined by Matthew Kolken. Matthew L. Kolken is a trial lawyer with experience in all aspects of United States Immigration Law – including deportation defense before Immigration Courts throughout the United States, appellate practice before the Board of Immigration Appeals, the U.S. District Courts, and U.S. Courts of Appeals. He is an elected member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association's Board of Governors where he has been a member since 1997. He is admitted to practice in the courts of the State of New York, the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second and Ninth Circuits. Mr. Kolken has received the highest AV peer rating by Martindale-Hubbell, has been named a "Super Lawyer" in Upstate New York by Super Lawyers magazine, was listed by Business First of Buffalo as being among the “Legal Elite of Western New York," and has received a "Superb" rating and "Client's Choice" award on Avvo.com. The New York Law Journal has recognized him as a "Lawyer Who Leads by Example" for his work providing pro bono legal services to unaccompanied refugee children, and he is the recipient of the 2018 Marquis Who's Who in American Law Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. Mr. Kolken was also awarded the American Immigration Lawyers Association Upstate New York Chapter's Equal Justice Under the Law Peter J. Murrett III Pro Bono Award in recognition for community service, and the Erie County Bar Association's Pro Bono Award in recognition and appreciation for legal services performed in immigration matters before the Court. Mr. Kolken has appeared nationally on FOX News, MSNBC, and CNN. His legal analysis has been solicited by the Washington Post's Fact Check of the immigration statements of Secretary Hillary Clinton, then Presidential candidate Donald Trump, and the immigration status of the parents of First Lady Melania Trump. His opinions on immigration law have been published in Forbes Magazine, Bloomberg, The Los Angeles Times, Business Insider, and FOX News among others. He has been an invited speaker at AILA's annual conference on grounds of removability, is the author of the Deportation and Removal Blog on ILW.com, where he is a member of the advisory board of the Immigration Daily, an online immigration news periodical with more than 35,000 readers. He is also a prominent immigration reform activist having been ranked as the most influential person on Twitter in the area of Immigration Law. EPISODE LINKS: Chase's Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/RealChaseGeiser Matthew's Twitter: https://twitter.com/mkolken --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/oneamerican/support

This episode is an interview with Rev. Craig B. Mousin, founder and former Executive Director of the Midwest Immigrant Rights Center which later became the National Immigrant Justice Center (www.immigrantjustice.org), and an Adjunct Faculty member at DePaul University's College of Law and The Grace School of Applied Diplomacy. He responds to the federal government's proposed regulations that would limit the discretion of Immigration Judges and change the procedure for appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals. These proposed rules will hinder the ability of individuals to pursue cases without lawyers and increase the difficulty of pro bono representation by volunteer lawyers. Cumulatively, if implemented, they will harm our communities and undermine our system of justice. We encourage you to file your own comments opposing part or all of the proposed procedures and asking the government to withdraw the entire proposed rule. To assist you in obtaining a link to the proposed procedures or in filing your comment, you may incorporate your remarks into one of the templates provided by the following:Our colleagues at the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. have provided sample comments and a link to file comments at: cliniclegal.org/resources/federal…oir-proposed-ruleYou may also find the American Immigration Lawyers Association's template at:www.aila.org/takeaction#/88Both websites provide additional information on how the proposed regulations restrict access to the courts and prevent bona fide applicants from litigating and their cases. To be accepted by the government, please ensure your comments are filed on or before 11:59 p.m. EDT, Friday, September 25, 2020.The critical point remains that you choose at least one element of the proposed rules that you believe is incompatible with our nation's commitment to fair process to achieve justice and make your voice heard.Justice Ginsburg's law review article, “In Pursuit of the Public Good: Access to Justice in the United States,” 7 Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 1, 8 (2001) can be found at: openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcont…l_law_policyThe Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals case can be found at page 8 of Meza Morales v. Barr, 2020 WL 5268986, (7th Cir.).The TRAC Immigration report from Syracuse University on “The Life and Death of Administrative Closure” can be found at: trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/623/ (September 10, 2020).Please share this podcast and links with members of your community or faith organizations, family members and friends. Encourage them to file comments to help ensure that our nation continues its commitment to a fair process and access to justice. Thank you for your consideration of this request.

QUESTION PRESENTED: (1) Whether a court of appeals may conclusively presume that an asylum applicant’s testimony is credible and true whenever an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals adjudicates an application without making an explicit adverse credibility determination; and (2) whether the court of appeals violated the remand rule as set forth in INS v. Ventura when it determined in the first instance that the respondent, Ming Dai, was eligible for asylum and entitled to withholding of removal.

A case in which the Court held that a court of appeals cannot presume that an immigrant's testimony is credible and true simply because an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals did not specifically find that he was not credible.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a court of appeals can presume that an immigrant’s testimony is credible and true if an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals did not specifically find that he was not credible.

Miami Attorney Isadora Velazquez, Esq. Isadora Velazquez, Esq. was born in Puerto Rico to a Puerto Rican father and Venezuelan mother.  She decided at a young age her career goal would be to assist immigrants who wish to make the US not a dream but a reality.  She graduated with her Bachelor’s degree in Political Science and Spanish from the University of Miami and after only three years. She received her  J.D. from The Dickinson School of Law in Pennsylvania State University. Isadora has over ten years of experience in immigration law representing individuals, in removal proceedings, cancellation of removal, asylum, adjustment of status, naturalization, as well as labor certification, Intra-Company Transfer Visas, Professional Visas and Specialty Visas. She has extensive experience in family based and employment based immigration proceedings.  Ms. Velazquez has argued and won cases before the Executive Order of Immigration Review and Board of Immigration Appeals. Prior to opening the firm Isa Law PA, Ms. Velazquez was the only immigration attorney at Trujillo Vargas Gonzalez Hevia, LLP and a former partner at Aigen & Velazquez, P.A. She has dedicated her legal career to immigration law, personal injury representation, and civil litigation with a focus on first party property claims. Her goal was to obtain the best possible compensation for medical bills, pain and suffering, lost wages, and other damages. Preceding the opening of her own practice, she acquired significant legal experience further complemented by serving as an Assistant State Attorney for the Miami State Attorney’s office where she developed successful litigation skills as a trial attorney in several courtrooms with various judges.  Ms. Velazquez also worked as an Associate Attorney doing Insurance Defense alongside renowned and highly respected law specialists. Isadora Velazquez’s combined expertise in immigration law, personal injury law, and civil litigation serves as an advantage for her clients as she is able to provide comprehensive solutions in all areas of law. https://isalawyers.com/ (305) 938-0676

I handle a lot of immigration appeals.  That means I'm called in after an immigrant loses a case. I'm asked to find a way to get the person a second chance. To say the least, it's intellectually challenging. It's also taxing on one's soul and spirit, knowing the consequences for devising a winning argument are so grave. Recommended Links For More Information: https://www.bataraimmigrationlaw.com/immigration-appeals (Immigration Appeals: Don't Give Up!) https://www.carlosbatara.com/persistence-key-to-immigration-success/ (Persistence Is Often The Key To Immigration Success)

Lora Ries is a senior research fellow for homeland security at The Heritage Foundation. She has over 23 years’ experience in the immigration and homeland security arena. Ries twice worked at the Department of Homeland Security on management and immigration policy and operations issues, most recently as the Acting Deputy Chief of Staff. She also worked in the private sector as a homeland security industry strategist and in government relations. Ries previously worked in the legislative branch as Counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. She started her career at the Department of Justice’s Board of Immigration Appeals and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Ries’ commentary and analysis have been published and quoted in The National Interest, FoxNews.com, Roll Call, and The Hill. She has been interviewed by Bloomberg, CNN, Washington Monthly, and the John Whitmer radio show. She has testified before Congress on the U.S. Refugee Program. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Enrique F. Mesa, Jr. inmigracion es mi pasion ® is an immigration lawyer with more than 10 years of experience, and is the managing partner of his firm based out of New Hampshire, but represents clients throughout the United States and the world. Cases include green card, naturalization, deferred action, deportation, waivers, and bond hearings. Mr. Mesa is qualified to practice in both Immigration Court and Board of Immigration Appeals. He is a highly experienced lawyer with significant experience in deportation and family related immigration law. The son of Cuban parents who came to the United States after Fidel Castro took over their home, Mesa has worked tirelessly to work to create partnerships with state and local police departments to stamp out notions of racial profiling. Having started his career in Miami, FL, Mr. Mesa spent the majority of his practice in the complexities of immigration law, particularly within the Latino/Hispanic communities. Mesa is very involved in the Latino/Hispanic community of New Hampshire as the chair of NH's governor advisory commission on Latino affairs; a Board member of the NH Legal Aid, and many organizations doing great work.

Lawyers have spent much of this year fighting off controversial changes to legal aid for immigration appeals. In May, the government brought in adjusted legal aid arrangements for cases lodged under a new online appeal system — arrangements that spelled doom for an already under-pressure sector. I spoke to Sonia Lenegan from the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association about the legal action that defeated those proposals, the system that's been put in place instead, and how things are looking for legal aid lawyers more generally.

Lawyers have spent much of this year fighting off controversial changes to legal aid for immigration appeals. In May, the government brought in adjusted legal aid arrangements for cases lodged under a new online appeal system — arrangements that spelled doom for an already under-pressure sector. I spoke to Sonia Lenegan from the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association about the legal action that defeated those proposals, the system that’s been put in place instead, and how things are looking for legal aid lawyers more generally.

Clemente Avelino Pereida faced removability charges by the Department of Homeland Security after receiving a conviction of attempted criminal impersonation in Nebraska. As a citizen and native of Mexico, Pereida filed for an application for relief from removal. An immigration judge barred relief from removal, finding moral turpitude in his conviction. The Board of Immigration Appeals found that he was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. 8th Circuit denied Pereida's petition for review.Featuring: Brian M. Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Given the huge backlog at the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Department of Justice has implemented a policy known as Affirmance Without Opinion. The very name implies the problem.  An AWO that authorizes a single BIA member to affirm the decision of a lower immigration court judge by a summary written order without issuing a separate written opinion. The procedure opens the door to foul play. Recommended Links For More Information: https://www.bataraimmigrationlaw.com/need-to-fix-immigration-appeals (Affirmance Without Opinion: BIA Cure Worse Than Appellate Disease) https://www.bataraimmigrationlaw.com/causes-consequences-one-million-backlogged-immigration-cases (One Million Backlogged Immigration Court Cases And Growing)

Challenges to immigration court decisions are reviewed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The Board has a maximum of 21 judges. In the latest year for which statistics exist, the BIA received 39,028 appeals. That means, when the BIA is fully staffed, each Board member must handle 1,858 cases per year. Put another way, this equals 155 decisions per Board member per month. Can justice, fairness, and due process prevail in such a truncated system? Recommended Links For More Information: https://www.bataraimmigrationlaw.com/49-minutes-for-immigration-appeals-justice (Immigration Appeals: 49 Minutes For Justice, Fairness, And Due Process) https://www.bataraimmigrationlaw.com/too-much-due-process-for-immigrants (Too Much Due Process For Immigrants In Deportation Hearings?)

This episode is an interview with Rev. Craig B. Mousin, founder and former Executive Director of the Midwest Immigrant Rights Center which later became the National Immigrant Justice Center (www.immigrantjustice.org), and an Adjunct Faculty member at DePaul University’s College of Law and The Grace School of Applied Diplomacy. He responds to the federal government’s proposed regulations that would limit the discretion of Immigration Judges and change the procedure for appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals. These proposed rules will hinder the ability of individuals to pursue cases without lawyers and increase the difficulty of pro bono representation by volunteer lawyers. Cumulatively, if implemented, they will harm our communities and undermine our system of justice. We encourage you to file your own comments opposing part or all of the proposed procedures and asking the government to withdraw the entire proposed rule. To assist you in obtaining a link to the proposed procedures or in filing your comment, you may incorporate your remarks into one of the templates provided by the following: Our colleagues at the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. have provided sample comments and a link to file comments at: https://cliniclegal.org/resources/federal-administrative-advocacy/clinic-template-comment-eoir-proposed-rule You may also find the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s template at: https://www.aila.org/takeaction#/88 Both websites provide additional information on how the proposed regulations restrict access to the courts and prevent bona fide applicants from litigating and their cases. To be accepted by the government, please ensure your comments are filed on or before 11:59 p.m. EDT, Friday, September 25, 2020. The critical point remains that you choose at least one element of the proposed rules that you believe is incompatible with our nation’s commitment to fair process to achieve justice and make your voice heard. Justice Ginsburg’s law review article, “In Pursuit of the Public Good: Access to Justice in the United States,” 7 Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 1, 8 (2001) can be found at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1534&context=law_journal_law_policy The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals case can be found at page 8 of Meza Morales v. Barr, 2020 WL 5268986, (7th Cir.). The TRAC Immigration report from Syracuse University on “The Life and Death of Administrative Closure” can be found at: https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/623/ (September 10, 2020). Please share this podcast and links with members of your community or faith organizations, family members and friends. Encourage them to file comments to help ensure that our nation continues its commitment to a fair process and access to justice. Thank you for your consideration of this request.

The excessive backlog of cases at immigration court leads to many problems. Judicial mistakes in decision-making is one such issue. Although the right to correct errors on appeal exists, this right will be narrowed under a recent immigration proposal. Recommended Links For More Information: https://www.bataraimmigrationlaw.com/immigration-appeals (Lost Your Case? Fight Back!) https://www.bataraimmigrationlaw.com/deportation-defense-understanding-cancellation-of-removal (Dark Days Of Deportation Defense: The BIA Failure To Lead)

New York Legal Assistance v. Board of Immigration Appeals

Why is immigration court an important topic? How does it function and what is it's purpose? Guest: Rebecca Kitson, Immigration Attorney at Rebecca Kitson Law

This week we're joined by Valeria Gomez and Tanvi Misra to discuss the DOJ's efforts to purge the Board of Immigration Appeals, and proposed regulatory changes that would effectively end asylum protections in the U.S.  Tanvi Misra (@tanvim) is an immigration reporter at Roll Call, you can also find her  great work at www.tanvimisra.com. You can read about the DOJ's BIA purge here: https://www.rollcall.com/2020/06/09/doj-reassigned-career-members-of-board-of-immigration-appeals/ You can read more about the proposed changes to asylum law here: https://immigrationimpact.com/2020/06/11/end-asylum-trump/#.XuPtDxNKjOS (h/t to Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (@ReichlinMelnick)) 

The Justice Department is once again trying to circumvent the due process rights accorded to immigrants. The Board of Immigration Appeals, the nation's highest immigration court, has 23 members. The Department of Justice has offered 9 of them early buyouts.  At a time when immigration courts have its highest total of case backlog ever, exceeding 1 million cases, this seems a baffling step in the wrong direction. But the fact that all nine offered a buyout were appointed to the BIA before President Trump took office is an important clue to grasping the politics behind the offers. Recommended Links For More Information: https://www.bataraimmigrationlaw.com/legal-neutrality-absent-at-immigration-court (The Absence Of Neutrality At Immigration Court) https://www.bataraimmigrationlaw.com/too-much-due-process-for-immigrants (Too Much Due Process For Immigrants In Deportation Hearings? )

This week Matthew and I talk about how people aren't grateful enough for how good things were just before they got bad.  The Board of Immigration Appeals continues to pick fights with unrepresented individuals.  Immigration laws, who is "legal" and who is "not," continues to be a totally random and arbitrary outcome based on a patchwork of mostly bad laws.  The Justice Department decides not to pursue the case against Michael Flynn, because sometimes lying is NBD. We talk about how lying is almost always a VBD (Very Big Deal) for our clients. 

On April 23, 2020, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court decided Barton v. Barr, a case involving a dispute over whether, for the purposes of the “stop-time rule,” a lawfully admitted permanent resident who is not seeking admission to the United States can be “render[ed] ... inadmissible”. The stop-time rule affects the discretion afforded the U.S. Attorney General to cancel the removal from the United States of a lawful permanent resident who has resided in the U.S. continuously for 7 years. Under the stop-time rule, the requisite continuous residence terminates once the alien commits any of a certain number of offenses that render the alien inadmissible to (or removable from) the United States under federal law. Thus, committing a listed offense may cause an alien to fall short of the continuous 7-year residence requirement and thereby become ineligible for cancellation of removal.Andre Martello Barton, after receiving lawful permanent resident status, was convicted in 1996 on three counts of aggravated assault, one count of criminal damage to property, and one count of firearm possession during commission of a felony, all in violation of state law. In 2007 and 2008, he was also convicted of several state law drug offenses. The federal government then initiated proceedings to remove Barton based on his various convictions. He conceded removability on the basis of his controlled substance and gun possession offenses but applied for cancellation of removal based on continuous residence. The government argued that Barton’s 1996 convictions triggered the stop-time rule, thereby disqualifying him for cancellation of removal. The Immigration Judge ruled in favor of the government and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Barton then petitioned for relief from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which rejected his argument that the stop-time rule only applies to aliens seeking admission to the United States, and therefore denied his petition.In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that eligibility for cancellation of removal of a lawful permanent resident who commits a serious crime during the initial seven years of residence need not be one of the offenses of removal.The opinion was written by Justice Kavanaugh on April 23, 2020. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan joined.To discuss the case, we have Amy Moore, Professor of Law at Belmont University College of Law.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On April 23, 2020, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court decided Barton v. Barr, a case involving a dispute over whether, for the purposes of the “stop-time rule,” a lawfully admitted permanent resident who is not seeking admission to the United States can be “render[ed] ... inadmissible”. The stop-time rule affects the discretion afforded the U.S. Attorney General to cancel the removal from the United States of a lawful permanent resident who has resided in the U.S. continuously for 7 years. Under the stop-time rule, the requisite continuous residence terminates once the alien commits any of a certain number of offenses that render the alien inadmissible to (or removable from) the United States under federal law. Thus, committing a listed offense may cause an alien to fall short of the continuous 7-year residence requirement and thereby become ineligible for cancellation of removal.Andre Martello Barton, after receiving lawful permanent resident status, was convicted in 1996 on three counts of aggravated assault, one count of criminal damage to property, and one count of firearm possession during commission of a felony, all in violation of state law. In 2007 and 2008, he was also convicted of several state law drug offenses. The federal government then initiated proceedings to remove Barton based on his various convictions. He conceded removability on the basis of his controlled substance and gun possession offenses but applied for cancellation of removal based on continuous residence. The government argued that Barton’s 1996 convictions triggered the stop-time rule, thereby disqualifying him for cancellation of removal. The Immigration Judge ruled in favor of the government and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Barton then petitioned for relief from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which rejected his argument that the stop-time rule only applies to aliens seeking admission to the United States, and therefore denied his petition.In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that eligibility for cancellation of removal of a lawful permanent resident who commits a serious crime during the initial seven years of residence need not be one of the offenses of removal.The opinion was written by Justice Kavanaugh on April 23, 2020. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan joined.To discuss the case, we have Amy Moore, Professor of Law at Belmont University College of Law.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

This week Matthew and I talk about the unrelenting bad changes coming from this administration. This week saw a new decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals, reshaping the definition of "extreme and exceptionally unusual hardship." 

On Nov. 4, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Barton v. Barr, a case involving a dispute over whether, for the purposes of the “stop-time rule,” a lawfully admitted permanent resident who is not seeking admission to the United States can be “render[ed] ... inadmissible”. The stop-time rule affects the discretion afforded the U.S. Attorney General to cancel the removal from the United States of a lawful permanent resident who has resided in the U.S. continuously for 7 years. Under the stop-time rule, the requisite continuous residence terminates once the alien commits any of a certain number of offenses that render the alien inadmissible to (or removable from) the United States under federal law. Thus, committing a listed offense may cause an alien to fall short of the continuous 7-year residence requirement and thereby become ineligible for cancellation of removal.Andre Martello Barton, after receiving lawful permanent resident status, was convicted in 1996 on three counts of aggravated assault, one count of criminal damage to property, and one count of firearm possession during the commission of a felony, all in violation of state law. In 2007 and 2008, he was also convicted of several state law drug offenses. The federal government then initiated proceedings to remove Barton based on his various convictions. He conceded removability on the basis of his controlled substance and gun possession offenses but applied for cancellation of removal based on continuous residence. The government argued that Barton’s 1996 convictions triggered the stop-time rule, thereby disqualifying him for cancellation of removal. The Immigration Judge ruled in favor of the government and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Barton then petitioned for relief from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which rejected his argument that the stop-time rule only applies to aliens seeking admission to the United States, and therefore denied his petition.The Eleventh Circuit recognized that the federal circuit courts of appeals have split on the issue, however, and the Supreme Court ultimately granted certiorari to address whether a lawfully admitted permanent resident who is not seeking admission to the United States can be “render[ed] ... inadmissible” for the purposes of the stop-time rule.To discuss the case, we have Amy Moore, Associate Professor of Law at Belmont University College of Law.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On Nov. 4, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Barton v. Barr, a case involving a dispute over whether, for the purposes of the “stop-time rule,” a lawfully admitted permanent resident who is not seeking admission to the United States can be “render[ed] ... inadmissible”. The stop-time rule affects the discretion afforded the U.S. Attorney General to cancel the removal from the United States of a lawful permanent resident who has resided in the U.S. continuously for 7 years. Under the stop-time rule, the requisite continuous residence terminates once the alien commits any of a certain number of offenses that render the alien inadmissible to (or removable from) the United States under federal law. Thus, committing a listed offense may cause an alien to fall short of the continuous 7-year residence requirement and thereby become ineligible for cancellation of removal.Andre Martello Barton, after receiving lawful permanent resident status, was convicted in 1996 on three counts of aggravated assault, one count of criminal damage to property, and one count of firearm possession during the commission of a felony, all in violation of state law. In 2007 and 2008, he was also convicted of several state law drug offenses. The federal government then initiated proceedings to remove Barton based on his various convictions. He conceded removability on the basis of his controlled substance and gun possession offenses but applied for cancellation of removal based on continuous residence. The government argued that Barton’s 1996 convictions triggered the stop-time rule, thereby disqualifying him for cancellation of removal. The Immigration Judge ruled in favor of the government and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Barton then petitioned for relief from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which rejected his argument that the stop-time rule only applies to aliens seeking admission to the United States, and therefore denied his petition.The Eleventh Circuit recognized that the federal circuit courts of appeals have split on the issue, however, and the Supreme Court ultimately granted certiorari to address whether a lawfully admitted permanent resident who is not seeking admission to the United States can be “render[ed] ... inadmissible” for the purposes of the stop-time rule.To discuss the case, we have Amy Moore, Associate Professor of Law at Belmont University College of Law.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

Today we'll come back to our discussion of Attorney General certification. Last Friday, Attorney General Bill Barr issued two more opinions that impact the discretion of Immigration Judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals to approve certain forms of relief for immigrants in removal proceedings. We'll take a close look at the decisions in Matter of Castillo-Perez and Matter of Thomas and Matter of Thompson.Support the show (https://jacobtingen.com/nation-of-immigrants/donate)

Judy Wood, Trevor Brisbin and Face2Face host David Peck talk about the new film Saint Judy, a nation of immigrants, justice, idealism and realism, transformation and truth, hope, security and why sometimes fighting back matters.Trailer Synopsis:Saint Judy tells the true story of Los Angeles immigration attorney Judy Wood, who single-handedly changed the United States law of asylum and saved countless lives in the process.In a landmark case, one of her first as an immigration lawyer, Judy Wood represented an Afghan woman who fled her home country after being persecuted by the Taliban for opening a school for girls. After a tenacious battle both in and out of court, Judy's efforts culminated in arguments before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit where she fought to include women as a protected class.About the Guests: Judy Wood came to immigration law as a result of Salvadoran political prisoners, who were stranded in El Salvador during the 1980's when the Civil War was raging. She immediately came to Los Angeles and began working with several refugee and immigrant agencies. Later her practice evolved and she began to represent refugees from other countries including Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, and Iran, to mention a few.She won an important case before the Board of Immigration Appeals, Matter of S-P-, which turned the tide for Tamils seeking asylum from Sri Lanka. She prevailed in a number of Ninth Circuit cases representing refugees people from various countries seeking asylum. Her 30 - year practice is devoted to representing the oppressed people of the world.Thoughts from Rev. Dr. Trevor Brisbin’s path to film producing took an unusual course: raised nominally Roman Catholic in the suburbs of Toronto, turned conservative evangelical bible college graduate, turned Baptist pastor, turned husband and father, turned CST seminarian, turned Hollywood film producer. “I don’t think anyone ever expected me to gravitate toward vocational ministry. However, as a teenager, I had a profound ‘conversion’ experience that led me into evangelicalism. Straight from high school I went to Bible college, and on to seminary. I was hired at 23 (in 2000) to be the teaching pastor of an experimental/arts focused conservative Baptist congregation. I remained at the same church until 2015.“Leading up to my departure from the church, I was in a process of radical faith deconstruction. I was reimagining everything, particularly atonement theory and LGBQT+ inclusion. When the chasm between my emerging faith and my tradition became too great, the only option was to resign from my role. This is when I decided to fully lean into progressive faith and pursue a doctorate at Claremont School of Theology.Trevor had spent the previous 15 years preaching to a medium-sized white evangelical and privileged church, where he had a voice and a platform. He says, “I was (cautiously) able to talk about what I thought mattered most. With that platform gone, the preacher/pastor in me longed to find spaces to speak justice, equality and hope.”Image Copyright: Sean Hanish and Cannonball Productions. Used with permission. F2F Music and Image Copyright: David Peck and Face2Face. Used with permission. For more information about David Peck’s podcasting, writing and public speaking please visit his site here. With thanks to Josh Snethlage and Mixed Media Sound. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this video, I show you how to prepare your grounds of appeal to the First Tier Tribunal in relation to immigration decisions. The online immigration appeal form requires you to state your grounds of appeal, and the deadline for appeals does not allow you a great deal of time to wait. This video deals with the First Tier Tribunal appeal process and provides you with some sample grounds of appeal if you are continuing your immigration appeal online. Do remember that if you are in the UK then your appeal must be lodged with the tribunal within 14 calendar days of the date that you were sent the notice of the decision. If you are outside of the UK then you must appeal within 28 calendar days from the date that you received the entry clearance decision.

“We are accredited by the Board of Immigration Appeals,” said Cheryl Martinez-Gloria, Esq., Director of Immigration Services at Catholic Charities in the Archdiocese of Denver. “We offer advice, assistance and representation to the indigent and low-income of Colorado — those with valid legal claims to status under our immigration laws. Our main office is located in Denver. We do have satellite offices in Glenwood Springs, Frisco, Greeley and Fort Morgan. In general, our practice covers family visa processing, deportation defense, citizenship and community education.” For more details, go to http://ccdenver.org/immigration-services or call 303-742-7491.  

The administration has acted strongly and quickly to restrict the pathways to seek and gain asylum in the United States. In Matter of A-B the Attorney General overturned a Board of Immigration Appeals case in an attempt to eliminate domestic and gang violence as grounds for granting asylum. Such serious harm is often one of the central reasons why asylum seekers, especially from Central America, flee. Other new policies include criminally prosecuting asylum seekers who cross the border unlawfully for the first time; pushing back families without valid visas who seek asylum at ports of entry (despite laws that allow people to apply for protection at legal crossing points); detaining families, including pregnant women, while they pursue an asylum claim; and imposing case completion quotas on immigration judges so that they issue asylum and other immigration decisions more quickly. Whither asylum? This panel--including Georgetown Law Professor Andrew I. Schoenholtz; Dilley Pro Bono Project Managing Attorney Shalyn Fluharty; Immigration Reform Law Institute Director of Litigation Christopher J. Hajec; and U.C. Hastings College of the Law Bank of America Chair Karen Musalo--discussed the legal issues underpinning the asylum system changes and the immediate and longer-term effects of the administration’s actions on the U.S. asylum system. They also considered whether the new policies are in conflict with the international treaties to which the United States is signatory and other international law obligations.

Our special guest is Matthew Soerens, author of the book Welcoming the Stranger: Justice, Compassion, and Truth in the Immigration Debate. He is the US director of church mobilization for World Relief and the national coordinator of the Evangelical Immigration Table. Previously, Matthew served as a Board of Immigration Appeals-accredited legal counselor with World Relief's local office in Wheaton, Illinois. Immigration is one of the most complicated issues of our time. Voices on all sides argue strongly for action and change. Christians find themselves torn between the desire to uphold laws and the call to minister to the vulnerable. In this book World Relief immigration experts Matthew Soerens and Jenny Yang move beyond the rhetoric to offer a Christian response to immigration. They put a human face on the issue and tell stories of immigrants' experiences in and out of the system. With careful historical understanding and thoughtful policy analysis, they debunk myths and misconceptions about immigration and show the limitations of the current immigration system. Ultimately they point toward immigration reform that is compassionate, sensible, and just as they offer concrete ways for you and your church to welcome and minister to your immigrant neighbors.

Hosts Ana Bernal and Xavier Mejia are joined by Attorney Patrick Valdez to discuss DACA. Patrick Valdez received a Bachelor’s Degree in Business Administration from the University of San Diego in 1991, and in 1999 he earned a Juris Doctorate from the Southwestern University School of Law.     Patrick is the founder of Valdez Law Firm - Toll-free (888) 800-8550, and he is licensed to practice law in California and Nevada, and he is a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, American Trial Lawyers Association Los Angeles County Bar Association, and the Consumer Attorney of Los Angeles. Patrick represents clients with deportation and removal proceedings, including litigation in Federal District Courts, Federal Court of Appeal, and Immigration Courts throughout the United States and the Board of Immigration Appeals. Moreover, he represents businesses and individuals seeking immigrant and non-immigrant visas through the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (including consulates abroad).     QTalk Radio is a program of the San Gabriel Valley LGBTQ Center and brought to you in collaboration with Q Youth Foundation.

On June 12, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Sessions v. Morales-Santana, formerly known as Lynch v. Morales-Santana. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides for derivative acquisition of U.S. citizenship from birth, by a child born abroad, when one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other is not. At the relevant time here, the INA required the U.S.-citizen parent to have ten years’ physical presence in the United States prior to the child’s birth, at least five of which were after attaining age 14. Although the rule applies in full to unwed U.S.-citizen fathers, there is an exception for an unwed U.S.-citizen mother, whose citizenship can be transmitted to a child born abroad if she has lived continuously in the United States for just one year prior to the child’s birth. -- Morales-Santana, who was born in the Dominican Republic, asserted U.S. citizenship from birth based on the citizenship of his father--but his father had fallen 20 days short of satisfying the requirement of five years’ physical presence after attaining age 14. In 2000, the government sought to remove Morales-Santana as a result of several criminal convictions, classifying him as alien rather than citizen because of his father’s failure to satisfy the full physical presence requirement. The immigration judge rejected Morales-Santana’s citizenship claim and ordered him removed. The Board of Immigration Appeals denied his subsequent motion to reopen proceedings on the claim that the INA’s gender-based rule violated the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause--but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding the differential treatment of unwed fathers and mothers unconstitutional and acknowledging Morales-Santana’s U.S. citizenship. -- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and by a vote of 8-0, affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the Second Circuit, and remanded the case. In an opinion by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that (1) the gender line Congress drew in the INA, creating an exception for an unwed U.S.-citizen mother but not for such a father, to the physical-presence requirement, violated the Fifth Amendment's equal protection clause as the Second Circuit had determined; but (2) the remedial course that Congress would most likely have chosen if apprised of this constitutional infirmity would have been not a broader application of the one-year exception but rather preservation of the five-year general rule; thus the Court cannot grant the relief Morales-Santana seeks. Going forward it falls to Congress to select a uniform prescription that neither favors nor disadvantages any person on the basis of gender, but in the interim the five-year requirement applies prospectively to children of unwed U.S.-citizen mothers just as with such fathers. -- Justice Ginsburg’s majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part, in which Justice Alito joined. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. -- And now, to discuss the case, we have Curt Levey, who is President, Committee for Justice; Legal Affairs Fellow, Freedom Works.

On November 9, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Lynch v. Morales-Santana. Morales-Santana’s father was born in Puerto Rico but acquired U.S. citizenship in 1917 under the Jones Act of Puerto Rico. Morales-Santana was born in 1962 in the Dominican Republic to his father and Dominican mother, who were unmarried at the time. In 1970, upon his parents’ marriage, he was statutorily “legitimated” and was admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident in 1976. -- The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which was in effect at the time of Morales-Santana’s birth, limits the ability of an unwed citizen father to confer citizenship on his child born abroad, where the child’s mother is not a citizen at the time of the child’s birth, more stringently than it limits the ability of a similarly situated unwed citizen mother to do the same. -- In 2000, Morales-Santana was placed in removal proceedings after having been convicted of various felonies. An immigration judge denied his application for withholding of removal on the basis of derivative citizenship obtained through his father. He filed a motion to reopen in 2010, based on a violation of equal protection and newly obtained evidence relating to his father, but the Board of Immigration Appeals denied the motion. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the Board’s decision, however, and concluded that Morales-Santana was a citizen as of birth. The Attorney General of the United States then obtained a grant of certiorari from the Supreme Court. -- The two questions before the Supreme Court were: (1) whether Congress’s decision to impose a different physical-presence requirement on unwed citizen mothers of foreign-born children than on other citizen parents of foreign-born children violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection; and (2) whether the court of appeals erred in conferring U.S. citizenship on respondent, in the absence of any express statutory authority to do so. -- Featuring: Curt Levey, President, Committee for Justice; Legal Affairs Fellow, Freedom Works.

On November 9, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Lynch v. Morales-Santana. Morales-Santana’s father was born in Puerto Rico but acquired U.S. citizenship in 1917 under the Jones Act of Puerto Rico. Morales-Santana was born in 1962 in the Dominican Republic to his father and Dominican mother, who were unmarried at the time. In 1970, upon his parents’ marriage, he was statutorily “legitimated” and was admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident in 1976. -- The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which was in effect at the time of Morales-Santana’s birth, limits the ability of an unwed citizen father to confer citizenship on his child born abroad, where the child’s mother is not a citizen at the time of the child’s birth, more stringently than it limits the ability of a similarly situated unwed citizen mother to do the same. -- In 2000, Morales-Santana was placed in removal proceedings after having been convicted of various felonies. An immigration judge denied his application for withholding of removal on the basis of derivative citizenship obtained through his father. He filed a motion to reopen in 2010, based on a violation of equal protection and newly obtained evidence relating to his father, but the Board of Immigration Appeals denied the motion. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the Board’s decision, however, and concluded that Morales-Santana was a citizen as of birth. The Attorney General of the United States then obtained a grant of certiorari from the Supreme Court. -- The two questions now before the Supreme Court are: (1) whether Congress’s decision to impose a different physical-presence requirement on unwed citizen mothers of foreign-born children than on other citizen parents of foreign-born children violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection; and (2) whether the court of appeals erred in conferring U.S. citizenship on respondent, in the absence of any express statutory authority to do so. -- To discuss the case, we have Elina Treyger, who is Assistant Professor of Law at the George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School.

Dottie Laster, Human trafficking activist and Executive Director of Heidi Search Center, joins this episode to expose the facts. Dottie Laster spent the last 13 years in the effort of the anti-human trafficking movement nationally and in her home state of Texas. She is the co-founder of the San Antonio, Texas Coalition Against Human Trafficking and the past Administrator of the Orange County, California Human Trafficking Task Force and has successfully written millions in grants to assist children and victims of human trafficking. Along with her position as Executive Director at Heidi Search Center, Laster is the Anti-Trafficking Coordinator with the Bernardo Kohler Center as an accredited representative recognized by the Bureau of Immigration Appeals to practice immigration law under BKC. To bring Dottie Laster to your community or event, please contact ImaginePublicity, Tel: 843-808-0859 or Email: contact@imaginepublicity.com

In this podcast, Bethany Anderson shares from her work with Los Angeles-based Solidarity Rising on how people of faith can approach the hot topic of immigration reform with a sound, biblical worldview. Bethany's workshop explored the topic of immigration from a biblical viewpoint and our call as followers of Christ to welcome the stranger. She also examined the current political realities of our immigration system and how we can interact well as individuals and congregations. This podcast was recorded at the 2014 VJN Conference: Kingdom Justice, Vineyard Values. Bethany Anderson is a graduate of Hope International University and has worked with Solidarity in Fullerton for the last 9 years. She currently serves as the Immigration Initiative Director and also served as a local mobilizer for the Evangelical Immigration Table where she focused on church engagement and education on the issue of Immigration. Bethany has regularly participated in Legislative advocacy locally, in Sacramento and in Washington D.C. Bethany is currently completing her accreditation to practice immigration through the Board of Immigration Appeals.

 Luis grew up in Boyle Heights in the east side of Los Angeles. He  attended U.C. Davis. Then,  he went ot work for former councilmember Gloria Molina, now supervisor in the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisor and for retired Councilmember Mike Hernandez.He attended Santa Clara University School of Law.  Once he graduated, he externed for Judge Harry Pregerson at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and for U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen J. Hillman.Luis has been practicing law for the past 11 years and has had his law practice for close to 10 years.  His law practice is in the area of immigration law where he represents individuals before the U.S. immigration courts, Board of Immigration Appeals, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

 Luis grew up in Boyle Heights in the east side of Los Angeles. He  attended U.C. Davis. Then,  he went ot work for former councilmember Gloria Molina, now supervisor in the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisor and for retired Councilmember Mike Hernandez.He attended Santa Clara University School of Law.  Once he graduated, he externed for Judge Harry Pregerson at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and for U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen J. Hillman.Luis has been practicing law for the past 11 years and has had his law practice for close to 10 years.  His law practice is in the area of immigration law where he represents individuals before the U.S. immigration courts, Board of Immigration Appeals, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.