Some may recall that immediately after IIRIRA, in 1997 and 1998, there was great concern that judicial review of agency action would be decimated. We were in dread awaiting a decision in Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. When the decision came out, to our collective relief, it limited the jurisdiction-stripping threat from the new law. Circuit court decisions held that judicial review existed, even in cases dealing with decisions involving discretionary determinations, a major jurisdiction-stripping aspect of IRIIRA. For example,…

News from the United States-Mexico border centers on Ukrainians and Russians coming to seek asylum. Some are let in and some are not. The basis for denying entry is what the media refers to “Title 42,” a term oblique to the layman, reminding one of other mysterious number-based monikers like Area 51, District 9, or Studio 54. Title 42 (The Public Health and Welfare) refers to one of the 54 volumes of federal statutes  – laws passed by Congress. Readers…

This blog started more than 20 years ago based on he concept, “What if he was a foreigner?” It analyzed criminal convictions of prominent Americans to show how poorly the result would be for them if they were non-citizens subject to removal laws for their crimes. Today, I’ll apply this analysis to Novak Djokovic, the arguably GALT   tennis player, just excluded and deported from Australia because he, among other things (like lying on his visa application about testing and traveling…

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, taught Sir Isaac Newton; a concept that states a law of physics that probably does not mean as much as we think in non-physics situations. In immigration law, often actions prompt wild, usually-futile reactions. A recent example is reactions to the Pereira case, discussed here and its progenitee, Niz Chavez, here. Pereira, readers may recall from here, is the Supreme Court decision about the stop-time provision of Cancellation of Removal…