Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, No. 19-896.
When an alien is ordered removed from the country and detained for several months pending removal, under what circumstances (if any) is he entitled to be released on bond, and what bond procedures are required?
Garland v. Gonzalez, No. 20-322.
- 8 USC 1252(f)(1) provides that federal courts lack jurisdiction to enjoin most proceedings for removal of aliens from the country, except “with respect to … an individual alien against whom proceedings … have been initiated.” Does that permit a class-action injunction requiring bond hearings for aliens who are detained pending removal from the country?
- When an alien is ordered removed from the country and detained for several months pending removal, under what circumstances (if any) is he entitled to be released on bond, and what bond procedures are required?
Patel v. Garland, No. 20-979.
When the executive branch determines that an alien does not meet the statutory criteria to be eligible to apply for discretionary immigration relief, do the Courts of Appeals have jurisdiction to review the determination that the alien does not meet the criteria?
Department of Homeland Security v. New York, No. 20-449.
The Immigration and Nationality Act makes aliens inadmissible if they are “likely at any time to become a public charge.” The Department of Homeland Security promulgated a regulation broadening the definition of “public charge,” to include participants in more public benefits programs than previously.
- Do States, and charitable organizations that serve immigrants, have standing to challenge the regulation’s validity under the Administrative Procedure Act?
- Was the district court correct to issue a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the regulation?
Barr v. Dai, No. 19-1155; Barr v. Alcaraz-Enriquez, No. 19-1156.
- Must an asylum applicant’s testimony be treated as credible and true unless an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals makes an explicit adverse credibility determination?
- If so, and if the Board denies asylum without making an explicit adverse credibility determination in a case where one is required, must a reviewing Court of Appeals remand for the Board to consider that issue, or may the Court of Appeals reverse the denial of asylum?
Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab, No. 19-1212.
The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) “Migrant Protection Protocols” require many people who enter the United States illegally to be returned to Mexico during their removal proceedings.
- The Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes a program of this type, but not for aliens to whom the Act’s expected removal provision “applies.” Does that allow the protocols to be applied to aliens who were eligible for expedited removal, but who DHS lawfully chose to place into regular removal proceedings instead?
- Do the protocols violate the United States’ obligations not to remove people to countries where they face persecution or torture because, although they require that an alien not be returned to Mexico if immigration officials determine he or she reasonably fears persecution or torture there, they do not require that aliens be asked about this matter?
- Are the protocols a “general statement of policy” that the Administrative Procedure Act exempts from notice-and-comment rulemaking?
- Was a nationwide injunction against the protocols overbroad?
Sanchez v. Wolf, No. 20-315.
If an alien who entered the United States illegally is later granted temporary protected status under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) due to a humanitarian crisis in his home country, does he become eligible for lawful permanent resident status under the INA?
United States v. Palomar-Santiago, No. 20-437.
When an alien is mistakenly removed from the United States based on conduct that was not actually removable, but fails to exhaust administrative remedies or judicial review on that issue, can the invalidity of the removal order be a defense to a later charge of illegal reentry?