CBP released an announcement that it is continuing its review of the use of body cameras, but is not deploying body cameras in the field at this time. CBP also released its body-worn camera feasibility study, stating that its Working Group considered and rejected several different deployment options, including a pilot program and broad-based deployment, before ultimately recommending a risk-based, measured deployment option.
The Eighth Circuit held that the non-LPR petitioner’s claim that the IJ and BIA failed to consider all the evidence of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his children, and that this failure constituted a denial of due process and an incorrect application of the hardship standard, was a challenge as to how the IJ and BIA weighed the evidence in support of his application for cancellation of removal, and was thus outside the court’s jurisdiction to review.
In a 2-1 decision, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s February 16, 2015, ordergranting a preliminary injunction against DAPA and expanded DACA. AILA President Victor Nieblas expressed disappointment in the decision, stating, “Once again, a Fifth Circuit panel sided with Texas and other states in a politically motivated lawsuit to challenge President Obama’s authority to exercise his constitutionally granted executive power to provide a reprieve from deportation for certain parents of American children and to expand the existing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.”
NPR reports that DOJ has agreed to lift an order recusing Los Angeles-based Immigration Judge Ashley Tabaddor from all cases involving Iranian nationals. Last year, Judge Tabaddor sued DOJ, claiming that the order amounted to discrimination and violated her constitutional rights. DOJ also agreed to pay Judge Tabaddor $200,000, and to review its recusal policies.
The Attorney General (AG) referred two decisions of the BIA, Matter of Chairez-Castrejonand Matter of Sama, to herself for review of an issue relating to the application ofDescamps v. United States, ordering that those cases be stayed and not be regarded as precedential or binding as to the issue under review during the pendency of her review. The issue is: What is the proper approach for determining “divisibility” within the meaning ofDescamps? In particular, does Descamps require that a criminal statute be treated as “divisible” for purposes of the modified categorical approach only if, under applicable law, jurors must be unanimous as to the version of the offense committed?
Where the petitioner was charged with removal on the basis of his 2000 clock-stopping crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT), the Third Circuit found that Nelson v. Att’y Gen., notOkeke v. Gonzales, controlled. As such, the court held that the commission of the CIMT permanently prevented the clock from restarting, and that the petitioner could not accrue the requisite period of continuous residency when he re-entered the United States in 2003.