This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled that an immigration judge’s two-sentence decision denying asylum to an Ecuadorean man was insufficient. The case was brought by Jorge Luis Valarezo-Tirado for review of an Immigration Judge’s reinstatement of his prior order of removal.
The US Supreme Court Monday ruled in two separate cases that undocumented immigrants who are detained for more than six months are not entitled to a bond hearing. The Supreme Court reversed the Third Circuit’s decision. Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that the courtruled in Jennings v.
The US Supreme Courtruled Friday in US v. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) , a federal law that criminalizes the encouragement of illegal immigration, does not violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution. ” The US government filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court in 2022. Hansen that 8 U.S.C.
A federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of the company, finding that the policy was reasonably necessary for the company to avoid criminal liability under federal statute 8 USC § 1324, which prohibits the harboring of undocumented immigrants.
In the lead-up to a highly-anticipated ruling from France’s Highest Constitutional Court that must be delivered before Thursday, hundreds of thousands gathered across the country to protest against President Emmanuel Macron’s proposed immigration law reform package.
The Australian Human Rights Commission released a report on Monday outlining concerns regarding the conditions at the Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre in Northam, Western Australia. The Migration Act 1958 establishes Australia’s mandatory immigration detention framework.
The UK’s High Court Upper Tribunal Immigration & Asylum Chambers ruled Wednesday that the Home Office failed to properly investigate deaths at immigration centers. Upon finding Oscar Okwurime dead in 2019, the UK Home Office began deportation proceedings against Ahmed Lawal.
The US Supreme Courtruled 5-3 Thursday that undocumented immigrants bear the burden of showing that they have not been convicted of a crime involving “moral turpitude,” or they will face lawful removal. Clemente Pereida, is being deported under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952.
The UK’s House of Commons passed a bill to declare Rwanda a safe country by 320 votes to 276, seeking to bypass the courts to implement the government’s plan to send some asylum seekers to pursue their claims in Rwanda. Conservative MPs who voted against the bill include Jenrick and former Home Secretary Suella Braverman.
Finally, Judge Kelly ordered that Djokovic will be released immediately from immigration detention and that his passport and personal effects will be returned as well. The post Australia courtrules Novak Djokovic allowed to enter Australia appeared first on JURIST - News.
.” Under the new laws, any person who cannot be removed from Australia must now be monitored by mandatory ankle bracelets and are under a strict curfew, with failure to adhere to the new rules resulting in lengthy jail sentences. The refugee, who has the pseudonym S151, is a Chinese national who came to Australia in 2001.
The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments for two immigration cases Tuesday that address the rights of detained noncitizens to have a bond hearing after six months of detention. Arteaga-Martinez’s asylum case was referred to an immigration judge but he remained in detention while it was processed. The second case, Garland v.
The Court of Justice of the European Union Thursday held that Lithuanian law ordering the automatic detention of asylum seekers was inconsistent with EU law. This law was under judicial review by the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania for a preliminary ruling on the status of a detained asylum seeker.
The US Department of Justice filed an appeal on Friday with the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit challenging a lower courtruling in July blocking new applications to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
The US Supreme Courtruled unanimously Monday against a non-US citizen who was contesting his indictment for unlawful re-entry into the country. In 1998, an immigration judge found that Palomar-Santiago had committed an aggravated felony under the federal immigration laws when he was convicted for driving under the influence.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, adopting a rigid interpretation of a federal statute that requires the government to serve a “notice to appear” in order to trigger the “stop-time” rule. That rule can foreclose access to immigration relief by preventing noncitizens from accruing the time required for eligibility.
This is not the only litigation concerning Texas taking steps to block immigration into the state from Mexico. In September, a US federal appeals courtruled that Texas can leave a floating barrier in the Rio Grande.
According to the court, its refusal to treat the detention centers in Albania like Italian border or transit zones is due to the impossibility of recognizing the detained persons’ countries of origin, namely Bangladesh and Egypt, as “safe countries.”
The applicant had requested a family reunification with his wife, which was rejected as a result of a “three-year rule” passed in 2016, which amended Denmark’s immigration law to require refugees to wait three years before applying for family reunification.
Under Chapter III of the Australian Constitution , no laws shall be made that deny a party proceedings in a court of federal judicature a fair opportunity or respond to evidence on which an order of the court was based.
The Hungarian Constitutional Courtruled against a petition from Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s government Friday, seeking to challenge a ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union that held Hungary’s asylum policies broke European law.
The US Supreme Courtruled on Friday that citizens do not have a right to have their non-citizen spouses allowed into the country. She attempted to obtain an immigrant visa for her husband, Salvadoran citizen Luis Asencio-Cordero, who had lived in the US for several years. The case of Department of State et al. Muñoz et al.
“Massachusetts judge can be prosecuted for blocking immigration arrest, courtrules”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued today.
“Appeals CourtRules Against DACA Immigration Program; Obama-era initiative benefiting young immigrants was unlawful, panel says, but it doesn’t cut off access for current program recipients”: Michelle Hackman of The Wall Street Journal has this report.
Share In a pair of cases on Monday, the Supreme Courtruled against non-U.S. The question before the court was whether the post-removal order statute authorized his prolonged detention, and if so, whether the government was required to provide a bond hearing before an immigration judge after six months of detention.
The law would also empower state magistrates to issue removal orders to individuals found to be in breach of immigration policy. Historically, immigration policy has been the prerogative of the federal government. ” Texas officials have yet to respond directly to the ruling. .”
“Supreme CourtRules on Tribal Police and Immigrants’ Testimony; In unanimous decisions, the justices refused to suppress evidence found by a tribal officer and rejected a presumption in favor of immigrants’ credibility”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.
“Supreme Court Rejects Bail Hearings for Jailed Immigrants; A federal law, the justices ruled, does not require immigration judges to consider whether immigrants may be released while their challenges are pending”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.
The US Supreme Courtruled unanimously on Monday on an immigrant status case regarding noncitizens seeking to change their immigration status from temporary protected status (TPS) to lawful permanent residency.
It remains to be seen whether this decision will be appealed or if the legislation will be amended considering the ruling’s far-reaching implications for other deportees. The post New Zealand High Courtrules special conditions imposed on deportee amount to double jeopardy appeared first on JURIST - News.
The post Top EU courtrules migrant rescue ships may have been wrongly detained appeared first on JURIST - News. According to the UN , 53,323 migrants came by sea to Italy in 2021. At least 1,924 migrants are thought to have died or gone missing during the crossing, with the actual number estimated to be slightly higher.
“Supreme Court Makes It Harder For Undocumented Immigrants To Fight Deportation”: Nina Totenberg of NPR has this report. Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson of Bloomberg Law reports that “ Longtime Immigrants Fall Short in Surprise High CourtRuling.” Supreme Court in Pereida v.
The Hungarian legislature justified its legislation, claiming that it prevented misuse of the asylum procedure and illegal immigration based on deception. The NGO called for further action, stating, “Now Art 353/A needs to be repealed and the CJEU ruling fully respected.”
After the Supreme Courtruled that the plan was unlawful in December, the government introduced its Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 which recently received royal assent. It further found applicants don’t need to have a lawyer to make their case.
Following the passage of this law, Hungary began summarily denying asylum applications from individuals who arrived on its southern border, which frequently included Syrian refugees fleeing conflict, under the guise of a “crisis situation caused by mass immigration”.
Amnesty International Australia issued a statement on Tuesday denouncing the Australian federal government’s newly proposed bill reintroducing punitive measures targeting a group of people released from immigration detention emphasizing that it undermines the recent High Court decision and breaches Australia’s international obligations.
” Regarding categorization, the court cited a 2010 decision that gave discretion to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), who determined that child endangerment charges were crimes of child abuse even if no harm occurred.
Share In an opinion released on Thursday, the Supreme Courtruled that noncitizens subject to deportation do not have to ask the Board of Immigration Appeals to reconsider its allegedly erroneous decisions before seeking judicial review in the federal courts of appeals. The case, Santos-Zacaria v.
She then challenged the dismissal of her application and the deprivation of citizenship in the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC). In light of these observations, the Supreme Court dismissed Begum’s application for judicial review of SIAC’s deprivation appeal decision. The application was dismissed.
Share The Supreme Court on Friday afternoon agreed to hear four new cases, including a First Amendment challenge to a federal law that prohibits encouraging illegal immigration. Three years ago, the court agreed to take up this question in another case, United States v. Instead, a unanimous courtruled that the U.S.
“A Sharp Divide at the Supreme Court Over a One-Letter Word; In an immigrationruling that scrambled the usual alliances, the justices differed over the significance of the article ‘a'”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report. Supreme Court hands victory to immigrants facing deportation.”
The Australian High Court passed a judgement on Friday that dismissed an Iranian asylum seeker’s plea to be released from immigration detention and enter the country. However, his application was refused and rejected again by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection in 2017.
The Supreme Court of Canada announced Thursday they would hear the appeal of a lower courtruling that re-implemented Canada’s Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) with the United States. Aside from some limited exceptions, those individuals are blocked from entering Canada and sent back to the US for refugee processing.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content