The American Immigration Council, the ACLU, the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, and the National Immigration Law Center filed a complaintagainst the federal government, challenging its policies which deny due process to refugee mothers and children being detained in Artesia, NM. The complaint asks the court to halt deportations, calling Artesia a "deportation mill," created to send Central American mothers and children home to face certain harm, without any meaningful opportunity to be heard.
The Associated Press reports that fewer unaccompanied immigrant children are crossing the Texas-Mexico border, allowing the federal government to close three temporary shelters. The decline could be the result of searing summer temperatures or a messaging campaign that stresses the dangers of the journey and warns them they will not be allowed to stay. The article also notes that the removal time for many adults traveling alone has been reduced from 33 days to about four days.
The Second Circuit remanded to the BIA for further proceedings, finding that the IJ erred when it required the petitioner to demonstrate that political opinion was “the central” as opposed to “at least one central” ground for persecution by the Nepali Maoists.
The Seventh Circuit held the BIA abused its discretion in denying the continuance pending adjudication of the Form I-130, as a continuance was needed due to USCIS’s carelessness in losing supporting materials about the potential fraudulent nature of the petitioner’s second marriage.
http://ow.ly/ArKOn Reuters reports that as a result of Congress’s failure to pass a bill to address the humanitarian crisis at the border, DHS will transfer $405 million from other programs to deal with the crisis. The bulk of the transfer, about $270 million, will come from FEMA’s disaster relief fund. An additional $30 million will come from the Coast Guard, and CBP will move $70.5 million from other activities.
The Seventh Circuit remanded for the BIA to determine whether the petitioner took “substantial steps” to acquire permanent status within one year of his eligibility, as required under INA §203(h)(1)(A) prior to the BIA’s 2012 decision in Matter of O. Vasquez. The court found that retroactive application of the O. Vasquez rule, which requires the individual to have actually filed an adjustment application instead of taking “substantial steps” to file, was manifestly unjust in this case.