Recently in Immigration Law Category

They may be the Department of Labor, but they have no authority over H-2B labor. Temporary foreign workers are governed by the H-2A (agricultural) and H-2B (non-agricultural) programs. While both programs were originally administered by the Attorney General, the authority was later transferred to the Department of Homeland Security. In 1986, Congress split the agricultural workers into the separate H2-A program and granted the DOL rulemaking authority over those workers alone.

Simple enough, right? DHS governs H-2B, DOL governs H-2A.

Except, it apparently wasn’t that simple for the DOL, which issued rules for the H-2B program in 2011. The 11th Circuit today called that rule-making program ultra vires, which in the arena of administrative law, is fightin’ words.

One of the many provisions of the Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 removed federal courts' jurisdiction to hear lawsuits brought "by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien."

Julien Belleri is a citizen. Or maybe he isn't. They still haven't figured it out yet. You see, until 1994, he lived with both of his parents in Columbia and the United States.

In 1994, his parents signed a "Conciliation Agreement" which in practice was a written custody arrangement that provided for shared custody, though his primary residence would be with his father. The document refers to his parents as "spouses", though it is apparently unclear whether the document amounts to legal separation under Columbian law.

Xiu Ying Wu illegally entered the United States on August 2, 2008. A mere 18 days later, she was served with notice to appear. That's impressively efficient, isn't it?

She asked for asylum and withholding of removal because of alleged persecution by family-planning officials in the Fujian Province. She had apparently been illegally cohabitating with her boyfriend, who accidentally impregnated her. The officials' response, according to Wu, was to perform a forced abortion. They also got her fired from her job and fined both her and the father of the unborn child.

Manual Cano entered the United States in 1990 as a nonimmigrant. Nine years later, his status was updated to that of a lawful resident. A few years after that, he violently resisted a lawful arrest.

In 2011, due to that incident and a 2010 act that also involved moral turpitude, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) notified him that he was set for deportation under § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) as an alien convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude. He contests the classification of his resisting arrest conviction as a crime involving moral turpitude.

An alien may only file one motion to reopen, and must do so no later than 90 days after the final order of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) takes that restriction pretty seriously.

Technically, there's an exception to the one-and-done filing rule: The time and number limitations on motions to reopen do not apply if the motion is based upon changed country conditions. To qualify, the alien must demonstrate that conditions within the relevant country have changed.

A change in personal circumstances alone is not enough to allow an otherwise untimely and successive motion to reopen, as today's Eleventh Circuit petitioner learned.

In Chicago, teachers are staying away from school. In Alabama, the governor wants students to stay away.

Alabama Governor Robert Bentley announced this week that the state has filed petitions requesting en banc review of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals' decisions on the Alabama immigration law, WSFA reports. The state claims that court shouldn't have nixed provisions that addressed contracting with illegal immigrants, harboring undocumented immigrants, and verifying school children's immigration statuses.

The big news of out of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals this week centered on state immigration laws. After deciding in March to defer consideration of the Alabama and Georgia immigration laws, the Atlanta-based court cranked out two opinions this week on the constitutionality of state efforts to rein in illegal immigration.

Earlier this week, we discussed the Eleventh Circuit's decision to strike an Alabama law requiring public elementary and secondary schools to classify students as either lawfully or unlawfully present within the United States. But where the Alabama student status verification failed, the Georgia "papers please" provision succeeded.

When is a court procedurally inaccessible under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure (FRAP) 26(a)(1)?

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals considered the issue recently, and released an opinion on the matter this week in an immigration appeal.

The Alabama immigration law, once regarded as the toughest state immigration law in America, is quickly becoming unenforceable.

After hearing oral arguments on both the Alabama and Georgia laws last week, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals enjoined two more sections of the Alabama law on Thursday, reports The Huntsville Times.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the Georgia and Alabama immigration law appeals yesterday, but the appellate court will not issue an opinion on the laws any time soon.

The presiding judge in the case announced before arguments started that the circuit will wait to rule on the matter until the Supreme Court issues an opinion on Arizona’s immigration law, reports WBRC. The Supreme Court will hear arguments in Arizona v. U.S. on April 25, but the Court is unlikely to decide the case before June.