Barton v. Barr, No. 18-725.
A removable alien may apply for cancellation of removal if he or she has lived in the United States for a specified period of time. The statutory “stop-time” rule provides that, for these purposes, an alien’s period of residence ends at the time when he or she commits an offense “that renders the alien inadmissible.” 8 USC 1229b(d)(1). Does this stop-time rule apply only to aliens who were actually seeking admission to the United States, or does it also apply to aliens who have already been lawfully admitted as permanent residents, but who later became removable?
Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, Nos. 18-776, 18-1015.
For aliens who are found removable as a result of certain criminal offenses, the order of removal is judicially reviewable only as to “constitutional claims or questions of law.” 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(D). When an agency denies equitable tolling for an untimely petition to reopen removal proceedings, on the ground that the petitioner did not act with sufficient diligence, does that involve reviewable questions of law?
Kansas v. Garcia, No. 17-834.
Federal law requires all prospective employees to complete a “Form I-9” verifying their employment eligibility. The federal Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) forbids this form “and any information contained in” it to be used for any purpose other than enforcing specified federal laws. 8 U.S.C. 1324a(b)(5). Some individuals may use the same false information—such as a false name, date of birth, or social security number—in both a Form I-9 and in other paperwork, such as state tax forms, leases, or credit applications. Does IRCA expressly or implicitly preempt a state from prosecuting false statements in that other paperwork?
United States Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, Nos. 18-587, 18-588, 18-589.
Is the Trump administration’s decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program judicially reviewable? If so, it is lawful?
United States v. Sineneng-Smith, No. 19-67.
8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) criminalizes “encourag[ing] or induc[ing] an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States” without lawful status. Is that facially unconstitutional as an abridgement of free speech?
Nasrallah v. Barr, No. 18-1432.
The “criminal bar” of 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C) provides that “no court shall have jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed a criminal offense” of a certain type. When a criminal alien unsuccessfully seeks withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture, does the criminal bar preclude appellate review of factual findings on that issue?
Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, No. 19-161.
When an arriving or recently-arrived alien seeks asylum, the “expedited removal” system applies if an asylum officer and immigration judge find that the alien has not established a credible fear of persecution. No judicial review of that determination is available, and 8 U.S.C. 1252(e)(2) precludes most review by habeas corpus petition as well. Does that violate the Constitution’s Suspension Clause?
Pereida v. Barr, No. 19-438.
An alien may not apply for relief from deportation if he has been convicted of a disqualifying criminal offense, as defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act. May an alien apply for relief if he was convicted of violating a statute that defines multiple crimes, some of which are disqualifying, but the record does not make clear which crime he was convicted of?