Last Thursday, five non-profit organizations, represented by the ACLU, sued Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE), accusing the agency of "making it difficult for lawyers to meet with detainees." Specifically, the lawsuit accuses ICE of preventing regular contact with detainees by not providing sufficient meeting spaces, preventing lawyers from scheduling calls and leaving messages for clients, and denying access to videoconferencing technology. The lawsuit focuses on detention centers in Arizona, Texas, Louisiana, and Florida. I do not have extensive personal experience with detention centers in Texas, Arizona, or Florida. I have represented detained individuals in all three states, but not with the frequency necessary to make me feel comfortable with corroborating the experiences outlined in the lawsuit (although I do believe them to be true based on my limited experience there). Louisiana is a different story. Most immigrants detained in Arkansas are transferred to ...
The Memphis Immigration Court is not an independent, Article III, court of law. Rather, it is an administrative law court falling under the jurisdiction of the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge , a component of the Executive Office forImmigration Review under the Department of Justice. The court in Memphis has jurisdiction over all non-detained removal proceedings originating in Arkansas, Tennessee and Northern Mississippi. As we're located in Arkansas, the vast majority of our clients facing removal end up in Memphis. Our cases involving detained immigrants will find themselves before one of the Louisiana courts and we sometimes have clients who find themselves before the Dallas or Kansas City immigration courts either because they are placed there by accident or they live in eastern Oklahoma or southwest Missouri. Regardless, Memphis is the general rule... 80 Monroe Avenue, Memphis, TN Photo courtesy of Google As such, it might be helpful to get to know the...
Matter of M-M-A-, published last week, basically restates the obvious Continuing a long tradition of dropping precedent-setting decisions on Friday, the Board of Immigration Appeals published Matter of M-M-A- , 28 I&N Dec. 494 (BIA 2022) last week. The Issue: When the government alleges that an applicant is ineligible for relief based on a frivolous asylum application, is the immigration judge required to make predicate findings of fact and conclusions of law to determine whether the requirements for a frivolous asylum application have been satisfied? The Holding: Yes . An immigration judge is bound to make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether the asylum application was frivolous in accordance with Matter of Y-L- , 24 I&N Dec. 151 (BIA 2007) . The Basic Facts: The decision involved an immigration judge's approval of an application for adjustment of status appealed by the Department of Homeland Security . The Department took the position that the applicant ...
Comments