In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Mata v. Holderand remanded, holding that a court of appeals has jurisdiction to review a denial of a petitioner’s request to equitably toll the deadline on a motion to reopen.
Civil rights groups, including the American Immigration Council, filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Border Patrol in federal district court in Tucson on Monday, alleging that immigrants were unlawfully detained and mistreated for extended periods in freezing, filthy holding cells in Arizona. The complaint states that the immigrants suffered a wide range of abuse and neglect, including being held in overcrowded cells and denied adequate food, water, sleep, and medical care.
In a precedent decision, the BIA sustained in part the respondent’s appeal, holding that if an asylum applicant has mental competency issues that affect the reliability of his testimony, then the Immigration Judge should, as a safeguard, generally accept the applicant’s fear of harm as subjectively genuine based on the applicant’s perception of events.aslu
The DC Circuit upheld the district court, ruling that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause does not extend birthright citizenship to those born in American Samoa, because the Citizenship Clause is textually ambiguous as to whether “in the United States” encompasses America’s unincorporated territories, and it is “impractical and anomalous” to impose citizenship by judicial fiat where doing so would override the democratic prerogatives of the American Samoan people.
CBP released statistics on apprehensions at the southwest border between October 1, 2014, and June 1, 2015. According to the data, apprehensions of unaccompanied children to date in FY2015 are 51% less than the same period in FY2014, and apprehensions of family units are down 47% from the same period last year.
In a precedent decision, the BIA reaffirmed Matter of Reza, holding that the respondent did not meet the statutory seven-year residency requirement, because acceptance into the Family Unity Program (FUP) does not constitute an admission into the United States under INA §101(a)(13)(A). Likewise, the Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review, deferring to the BIA’s decision in Matter of Reza that a grant of FUP benefits is not an admission to the U.S. for cancellation of removal purposes.
The Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit, finding that INA §237(a)(2)(B)(i) triggers removal only when the government can prove a connection between an element of an immigrant’s drug conviction and a “controlled substance” as defined in 21 USC §802.