Connect with us

BREAKING

SCOTUS to hear “Public Charge Rule” case.

Published

on

SCOTUS has agreed to hear the “Public Charge Rule” case e.g. Department of Homeland Security, et al., Petitioners v. New York, et al. This rule is viewed as seeking to discourage some immigrants, by way of denying green cards, from using public services such as food stamps. Even though the issues being taken up in court this Fall, it may actually become null if the Biden administration revises it before then.

Per today’s New York Times article: “The Trump administration announced in 2019 that it would revise the rule, which allows officials to deny permanent legal status, also known as a green card, to immigrants who are likely to need public assistance. In the past, only substantial and sustained monetary help or long-term institutionalization counted, and fewer than 1 percent of applicants were disqualified on public-charge grounds.”

No. 20-449
Title: Department of Homeland Security, et al., Petitioners
v.
New York, et al.
Docketed: October 8, 2020
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
   Case Numbers: (19-3591, 19-3595)
   Decision Date: August 4, 2020
Questions Presented
Date Proceedings and Orders
Oct 07 2020 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 9, 2020)
Proof of ServicePetition
Oct 23 2020 Motion of Make the Road New York, et al. to extend the time to file a response from November 9, 2020 to December 9, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
Main Document
Oct 23 2020 Motion State of New York, et al. to extend the time to file a response from November 9, 2020 to December 9, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
Main Document
Oct 26 2020 The motions to extend the time to file responses are granted and the time is extended to and including December 9, 2020, for all respondents.
Nov 03 2020 Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, United States Department of Homeland Secuirty, et al.
Blanket Consent
Nov 20 2020 Motion of New York, et al. to extend the time to file a response from December 9, 2020 to January 8, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
Main Document
Nov 20 2020 Motion of the MRNY Respondents to extend the time to file a response from December 9, 2020 to January 8, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
Main Document
Nov 20 2020 Response to motions from petitioner United States Department of Homeland Secuirty, et al. filed.
Main Document
Nov 27 2020 The motions to further extend the time to file responses to the petition for a writ of certiorari are DENIED.
Dec 09 2020 Brief of respondents States of New York, Connecticut, and Vermont; and City of New York in opposition filed.
Main DocumentProof of ServiceCertificate of Word Count
Dec 09 2020 Brief of respondents Make the Road New York, African Services Committee, Asian American Federation, Catholic Charities Community Services (Archdiocese of New York), and Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. in opposition filed.
Main DocumentProof of ServiceCertificate of Word Count
Dec 23 2020 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.
Dec 23 2020 Reply of petitioners United States Department of Homeland Secuirty, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Main DocumentCertificate of Word Count
Jan 19 2021 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/22/2021.
Feb 12 2021 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021.
Feb 22 2021 Petition GRANTED.
Attorneys for Petitioners
Elizabeth B. Prelogar
Counsel of Record
Acting Solicitor General
United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov
202-514-2217
Party name: United States Department of Homeland Secuirty, et al.
Attorneys for Respondents
Jonathan Hillel Hurwitz
Counsel of Record
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019jhurwitz@paulweiss.com
(212) 373-3254
Party name: Make the Road New York, African Services Committee, Asian American Federation, Catholic Charities Community Services (Archdiocese of New York), and Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.
Barbara Dale Underwood
Counsel of Record
Solicitor General
Office of the Attorney General
28 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10005-1400Barbara.underwood@ag.ny.gov
212-416-8016
Party name: States of New York, Connecticut, and Vermont; and City of New York

 

BREAKING

DOL And DHS Interim Final Rules Halted By Court Order

Published

on

By

Supreme court of california main court house

As noted on Mondaq.com, written by Cheryl J. Gardner , Jason Burritt and Michelle Gergerian  of Seyfarth Shaw LLP

and on this direct link: https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/employee-rights-labour-relations/1012618/court-order-halts-dol-and-dhs-interim-final-rules

On December 1, 2020, a U.S. Federal District Court in California set aside the two Interim Final Rules announced in October by the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) and the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”).

The DOL rule, which took effect on October 8, 2020, significantly increased prevailing wage levels for H-1B, H-1B1 and E-3 programs and the permanent labor certification (PERM) program.

The DHS rule was scheduled to take effect on December 7, 2020 and would have placed further restrictions on the H-1B program, including in particular narrowing the definition of “specialty occupation.”

The Court Order, effective immediately, found that the agencies did not show good cause in bypassing the notice and comment period, required by the Administrative Procedures Act.

For more information, again here’s the direct link:  https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/employee-rights-labour-relations/1012618/court-order-halts-dol-and-dhs-interim-final-rules

Continue Reading

BREAKING

PERM Recruitment Advertising, How It Works.

Published

on

By

IMMIGRATION ADVERTISING

PERM Recruitment Advertising made easy, just contact PERM Ads at https://PERM-Ads.com

Continue Reading

BREAKING

Federal Court Strikes Down Trump’s Second Asylum Ban in Momentous Victory

Published

on

second asylum ban ends

Yesterday, a federal judge in the District of Columbia struck down the Trump administration’s second asylum ban ends a sweeping policy that had shut down asylum for most people entering the United States at the southern border. The court’s decisive action could not have come soon enough, as the rule has been in effect for almost a year, impacting thousands of asylum seekers.

Several immigrants’ rights groups, including Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights (CAIR) Coalition, Human Rights First, Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES), and Tahirih Justice Center, alongside twenty-two individual asylum seekers, brought the lawsuit to block implementation of the ban which took effect on July 16, 2019.

The rule disqualified people arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border from receiving asylum unless they had unsuccessfully requested similar protection in another country en route to the U.S. But many of the countries that people typically travel through, like Guatemala, have virtually non-existent asylum systems or ways to keep asylum seekers safe. On its face, the policy applied to anyone who passed through another country before arriving in the United States, but in practice, it disproportionately impacted people from Central America.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, appointed by President Trump in 2017, held that the rule should end immediately. The court found that the government had failed to comply with the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), which provides that the American public must have sufficient opportunity to comment on a new regulation before its implementation.  The government argued that advance notice was not necessary in this case as it would have led to huge numbers of migrants attempting to enter the United States before the rule took effect.

The government only pointed to one article from October 2018 to show good cause to sidestep the notice-and-comment period.  The article suggested in part that the number of asylum-seeking families who traveled to the United States after the U.S. government stopped systematically separating families may have increased.

The court didn’t buy it. According to Judge Kelly:

“[T]he article does little if anything to support Defendants’ prediction that undertaking notice-and-comment rulemaking would have led to a dramatic, immediate surge of asylum applicants at the border that would have had the impact they suggest.”

It remains to be seen what will happen to the thousands of people who received negative decisions over the past year as a result of the second asylum ban. This is particularly true for those in detention facilities who may not have access to an attorney to assist them in asking for a second chance at asylum. And it is hard to know how many people with valid asylum claims have been deported to harm or worse.

Second asylum ban ends but an appeal is expected

The government is expected to appeal the court’s decision, though the advocacy groups that brought the challenge have made clear they are willing to battle it out in the courts.

Challenges remain for asylum seekers fleeing to the United States. According to one report, only two people seeking humanitarian relief at the U.S.-Mexico border between March 21 and May 13, 2020, have been permitted to stay. Restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic have largely shut down the U.S.-Mexico border, causing tens of thousands of men, women, and children to be “expelled” back to Mexico in light of public safety concerns.

Even so, the decision is a huge win for countless asylum seekers and a blow to an administration that has repeatedly attempted to bypass Congress where the lives of so many are at stake.

Some of our most recent post: https://immigrationreformnews.com/inspector-general-health-migration-report/

Source: Federal Court Strikes Down Trump’s Second Asylum Ban in Momentous Victory

Continue Reading

PERM Recruitment Advertising

PA-250-300

Immigration Impact

Immigration Links

Trending

Copyright © 2020 IMMIGRATION REFORM NEWS