This will be fun since 1252(a)(2)(B) does not apply to the Cuban Adjustment Act. Time for some abuse of discretion review!
November 15, 2025 at 2:23 AM
This will be fun since 1252(a)(2)(B) does not apply to the Cuban Adjustment Act. Time for some abuse of discretion review!
Wow, that’s bad, DOJ is really falling apart at the seams
April 10, 2025 at 2:24 AM
Wow, that’s bad, DOJ is really falling apart at the seams
Class action habeas cases were very common until the SCt took a stab at interpreting 1252(f) — which would not apply to Title 50 removals
April 9, 2025 at 2:12 AM
Class action habeas cases were very common until the SCt took a stab at interpreting 1252(f) — which would not apply to Title 50 removals
The habeas form is actually quite simple to file quickly to keep jurisdiction in a specific district. A memo of law accompanying a motion for a show cause order can come after.
www.flsd.uscourts.gov/sites/flsd/f...
www.flsd.uscourts.gov/sites/flsd/f...
www.flsd.uscourts.gov
April 8, 2025 at 4:00 AM
The habeas form is actually quite simple to file quickly to keep jurisdiction in a specific district. A memo of law accompanying a motion for a show cause order can come after.
www.flsd.uscourts.gov/sites/flsd/f...
www.flsd.uscourts.gov/sites/flsd/f...
I don’t know how this works against the backdrop of Thuraissigiam, but I guess it puts limits on Thuraissigiam?
April 8, 2025 at 3:56 AM
I don’t know how this works against the backdrop of Thuraissigiam, but I guess it puts limits on Thuraissigiam?
That’s my instinct as well. Fingers crossed.
April 8, 2025 at 3:54 AM
That’s my instinct as well. Fingers crossed.
There is usually a clear statement requirement for jurisdictional bars to apply to constitutional claims on top of others, and 1252(f) doesn’t have one. And Gorsuch has hinted at RFRA being a super statute that trumps other statutes. This can be interesting
January 31, 2025 at 12:48 AM
There is usually a clear statement requirement for jurisdictional bars to apply to constitutional claims on top of others, and 1252(f) doesn’t have one. And Gorsuch has hinted at RFRA being a super statute that trumps other statutes. This can be interesting
I guess those children would be present without admission or parole, and could removed as being inadmissible under 8 USC 1182(a)(6)(A)? They certainly can’t change status for failure to continuously maintain a lawful status. Wild and ridiculous.
January 21, 2025 at 1:18 PM
I guess those children would be present without admission or parole, and could removed as being inadmissible under 8 USC 1182(a)(6)(A)? They certainly can’t change status for failure to continuously maintain a lawful status. Wild and ridiculous.
So, if both parents have TPS, are in valid H1b status (e.g., tech workers), O status (e.g., actors), a whole host of other A-V visas, even people granted asylum —- their kids born here are not citizens under this EO.
January 21, 2025 at 1:17 PM
So, if both parents have TPS, are in valid H1b status (e.g., tech workers), O status (e.g., actors), a whole host of other A-V visas, even people granted asylum —- their kids born here are not citizens under this EO.
… or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.
January 21, 2025 at 1:16 PM
… or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.
Here is the language:
or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program …
or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program …
January 21, 2025 at 1:15 PM
Here is the language:
or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program …
or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program …
People on parole would still be susceptible to this bill. Being on parole does not eliminate the underlying inadmissibility.
January 13, 2025 at 5:03 AM
People on parole would still be susceptible to this bill. Being on parole does not eliminate the underlying inadmissibility.
It is a travesty that Congress has allowed this to pile up so badly, and it incentivizes USCIS to come up with ways to narrow the availability of U relief
January 3, 2025 at 6:54 AM
It is a travesty that Congress has allowed this to pile up so badly, and it incentivizes USCIS to come up with ways to narrow the availability of U relief