Category: 9th Circuit

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld DACA

11/8/2018

On November 8, 2018, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld federal DACA program established in 2012. Therefore, DACA law is still a valid law. The 9th Circuit decision preserves the status quo for the moment and will require the administration to continue accepting DACA renewal applications.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Trump’s decision to phase out the Obama-era DACA program, which allows roughly 700,000 undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children to obtain work permits and protects them from deportation, was likely “arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”

Read more here.

0 Comments

9th Circuit Court of Appeals Held: TPS Recipients Are Eligible to Adjust to LPR Status

4/5/2017

0 Comments

Affirming the district court's summary judgment, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that under INA §244(f)(4), a Temporary Protected Status (TPS) recipient is deemed to be in lawful status as a nonimmigrant—and has thereby satisfied the requirements for becoming a nonimmigrant, including inspection and admission--for purposes of adjustment of status under INA §245(a).

The 9th Circuit court of appeals decision means that a person in TPS status (even the person who came to the U.S. without a visa, EWI) is eligible to obtain lawful permanent residence through adjustment of status application.

The court's decision published on March 31, 2017 is here.

0 Comments

9th Circuit: US v RUFINO PERALTA-SANCHEZ: No 5th Amendment Right to Counsel in Expedited Removal

2/14/2017

0 Comments

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the defendant had no Fifth Amendment due process right to hire counsel in the expedited removal proceeding under 8 U.S.C. § 1225, and that he cannot demonstrate prejudice from the failure to notify him of the right to withdraw his application for admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(4).

As a result, the panel concluded that the defendant’s 2012 expedited removal could be used as a predicate for his illegal reentry conviction, and affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment and the subsequent judgment and sentence as well as the revocation of his supervised release.

"We find that Peralta had no Fifth Amendment due process right to hire counsel in the expedited removal proceeding and that he was not prejudiced by the government’s failure to inform him of the possibility of withdrawal relief."

"When we refer to the “right to counsel” in this case, we mean the right of an alien to hire counsel at no expense to the government. We do not refer to a right to government-appointed counsel."

The decision was published on Feb 7, 2017 and can be found here.

In Russian:

Апелляционный суд 9-го федерального округа опубликовал решение 7 февраля 2017, где решил, что обвиняемый не имеет конституционного права на адвоката когда он находится в иммиграционном процессе "ускоренной депортации" из США, так называемая expedited removal.

Суд уточнил, что это решение распространяется на тех, кто находится под ускоренной депортацией, не пробыл в США более двух лет, и здесь имеется в виду право нанять адвоката за свой счет (так как в иммиграционном праве США не существует права на бесплатного защитника, как, например, в уголовном процессе). В иммиграционном суде США в процессе, который не является "ускоренной депортацией", у обвиняемого обычно есть конституционное право нанять адвоката за свой счет. Решение суда тут.

0 Comments

9th Circuit Court of Appeals Ruled Against Muslim or Travel Ban, Refugee Admission Allowed, Injunction Upheld

2/9/2017

0 Comments

On February 9, 2017, the 9th circuit court of appeals ruled that President's travel ban (aka Muslim Ban) will remain blocked and unenforceable, and the temporary injunction granted by the federal district judge will remain in place (Washington v. Trump, No. C17-0141-JLR, 2017 WL 462040 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017).

The ruling means that citizens and nationals of seven Muslim majority countries will continue to be able to travel to the U.S. (on any non-immigrant or immigrant visa), and refugees will be admitted to the United States of America, despite president's January 27th executive order (Executive Order 13769, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States”. 82 Fed. Reg. 8,977).

Text of the court order (29 pages) is here.

9 февраля 2017, апелляционный суд 9-го федерального округа вынес решение, и поддержал федерального судью, который запретил выполнение некоторых положений указа президента от 27 января 2017 (так называемый Muslim Ban).

Таким образом, запрет на въезд граждан семи мусульманских стран не действителен (и они могут приезжать в США как и раньше, до попытки президента запретить их въезд).

Въезд беженцев в США также разрешен (запрет на въезд беженцев считается недействителен, и все государственные агенства обязаны следовать решению суда)..

Следующий этап - президент уже объявил сегодня на твиттере - правительство и президент подадут апелляцию в Верховный Суд США, который в настоящий момент имеет только 8 судей (нужно 9 для кворума). Решение 4-4 оставит в силе решение нижестоящего суда. Кандидат на 9-ую должность судьи Верховного Суда уже есть, но пока не утвержден. Продолжение следует....

Текст решения суда (29 страниц) тут:
https://www.scribd.com/document/338916954/Washington-vs-Trump#

Judges Richard R. Clifton, William Canby and Michelle T. Friedland - 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

0 Comments

Schedule consultation

Legal consultation or services

Email your questions

To people seeking legal advice, guidance and help, we offer remote consultations over the phone, Zoom, or video call.

Author

Luba Smal is an attorney exclusively practicing USA federal immigration law since 2004. She speaks English and Russian.

To ask questions or to schedule consultation, please email or use our scheduling app.

List of our links.

We have useful FREE RESOURCES:

Our YouTube Channel.

Facebook Page in English &

Facebook Page in English and Russian

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld DACA

9th Circuit Court of Appeals Held: TPS Recipients Are Eligible to Adjust to LPR Status

9th Circuit: US v RUFINO PERALTA-SANCHEZ: No 5th Amendment Right to Counsel in Expedited Removal

9th Circuit Court of Appeals Ruled Against Muslim or Travel Ban, Refugee Admission Allowed, Injunction Upheld

Author

Archives

Categories