- Professor Josh Blackman, South Texas Law
- Professor Adam Chilton, Chicago Law
In Mata v. Lynch, the Court overturned the Fifth Circuit’s refusal to hear an appeal of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision to dismissal of Noel Reyes Mata’s request to appeal his deportation to Mexico, holding that the Fifth Circuit erred in declining to take jurisdiction over Mr. Mata’s appeal.
In Kerry v. Din, the Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that petitioner Fauzia Din was denied constitutional due process protections when her husband, Kanishka Berashk, a resident citizen of Afghanistan and a former civil servant in the Taliban regime, was denied an immigration visa to the United States on the grounds that he was inadmissable under American law that excludes aliens who have engaged in “[t]errorist activities,” and when Mrs. Din and Mr. Berashk were subsequently denied review of their appeal in U.S. District Court. The Court held that the U.S. Government’s long practice of regulating immigration, which has included erecting serious impediments to a person’s ability to bring a spouse into the United States, precludes Mrs. Din’s claim.
Our expert, Chapman University School of Law Prof. John C. Eastman, analyzed these opinions and offered his perspectives of their impact on immigration policy.
On Tuesday, May 26, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request from federal government lawyers to overturn a lower court injunction, and to thereby allow President Barack Obama's immigration actions to go into effect pending appeal. What now are the legal effects of the President’s immigration actions? What are the possible next steps in the litigation? These and other questions were answered on this Teleforum Conference call.
Is there a way out of the morass on immigration policy that is consistent with conservative principles but allows for a solution to the problems created by outdated and largely unenforceable current laws? Some argue that our current illegal immigration problem is largely the result of laws that prevent willing workers who are foreign born to be matched with U.S. employers who seek the skills they offer at both the high and low end of the skills spectrum. Others are loath to give illegal immigrants a path to citizenship, seeing it as an endorsement of the evasion of the rule of law, and an incentive to future illegal immigration.
In February of 2015, federal District Court Judge Andrew Hanen (Southern District of Texas) temporarily blocked President Obama’s executive actions on immigration, which would have shielded as many as five million people from deportation proceedings. Judge Hanen subsequently refused the federal government’s request to reconsider, and last week the government filed an emergency motion in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals asking that court to overturn the injunction. This week, Judge Hanen and federal government lawyers reportedly sparred over representations made in court by government attorneys on details of waivers already granted under the executive actions. What is the basis of Judge Hanen’s injunction? Is it likely to be overturned or upheld by the Fifth Circuit? What are the next steps in the proceedings?