Harvard/MIT Student Visa Case
Compliance Perspectives: Healthcare Compliance at the Border
How a Reluctance to Deport Pop Stars Strengthens US Immigration Policy
SCOTUS Rules on AZ's Immigration Law: What’s in, What’s Out & What It Means for Other States—Daniel Burnick
Yonas Fikre, a U.S. citizen who had emigrated from Sudan, found himself placed on the No Fly List by the FBI and unable to return to the United States from an international trip. This action followed Fikre’s having been...more
In Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), the Supreme Court held that attorneys must advise their noncitizen clients of the risk of deportation arising from criminal conviction, and that the failure to do so violates the...more
Kemp v. United States, No. 21-5726: This case concerns whether the word “mistake” in Rule 60(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies to a judge’s error of law. Rule 60 authorizes a district court to reopen a...more
Federal courts could not review the U.S. Attorney General’s decisions denying discretionary relief from removal – even in a case where the alien contends that the decision was based on a factual error, the U.S. Supreme Court...more
Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., No. 20-440: In the late 1990s, Csaba Truckai invented and patented a device to treat abnormal uterine bleeding. Truckai assigned his interest to his company, Novacept, which in turn...more
On June 29, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, holding that the detention of a noncitizen ordered removed from the United States who reenters without authorization is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231....more
On May 24, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided United States v. Palomar-Santiago, No. 20-437, holding that each of the statutory requirements for bringing a collateral attack against a removal order under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)...more
A noncitizen applying for relief from deportation bears the burden of proving all elements of eligibility for relief, including that a conviction under a divisible state statute does not render the person ineligible for...more
Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, No. 19-161. Under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (“IIRIRA”), Congress in 1996 crafted a system for processing aliens apprehended at or near...more
On June 25, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, holding that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act’s limitations neither violated due process nor...more
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court held that some immigrants do not have a right to a bond hearing, even when they were not immediately detained years after being released from criminal custody. The Court’s decision reverses...more
The Supreme Court of the United States issued three decisions this morning: Washington State Dept. of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc., No. 16-1498: The State of Washington has a statute that taxes “motor vehicle fuel...more
The Supreme Court of the United States issued four decisions today: Lucia v. SEC, No. 17-130: The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) is statutorily authorized to institute administrative proceedings against...more
And it is even more difficult still if the defendant had – and acted in accordance with – a reasonable interpretation of the vague or ambiguous statute, regulation or contract provision. A concurring opinion in a Supreme...more
The Supreme Court of the United States issued three decisions yesterday - United States v. Microsoft Corp., No. 17-2: Federal law enforcement agents obtained a warrant under 18 U.S.C. §2703, requiring Microsoft to...more
On April 17, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Sessions v. Dimaya, No. 15-1498, holding in a 5-4 decision that the Immigration and Nationality Act’s definition of “crime of violence” is void for vagueness. The Immigration and...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that naturalized American citizens cannot be stripped of citizenship if a lie or omission in the application process was irrelevant to the government’s decision to approve the...more
Like the rest of the country, employers and HR professionals are left wondering what Donald Trump’s unexpected election as President means for the country. The Trump campaign was often light on detailed policy proposals, but...more
On Monday, October 3rd the Supreme Court denied the Obama administration’s request to rehear arguments in United States v. Texas, a case involving President Obama’s 2014 executive actions on immigration. The Supreme Court...more
The Supreme Court of the United States issued decisions in three cases on May 19, 2016: CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC, No. 14-1375: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) brought a suit in its own name...more
On May 19, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Torres v. Lynch (No. 14-1096), holding that a state criminal offense counts as an “aggravated felony” under § 1101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) when it...more
I. U.S. Supreme Court to Rule on Obama Immigration Plan - On January 19, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the Obama administration’s appeal from the Fifth Circuit decision that enjoined implementation of its...more
Tuesday, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Texas v. USA, setting the stage for a blockbuster opinion on the legality of the centerpiece of President Obama’s program to lift the threat of deportation and provide...more
Panorama - Nos últimos meses a imprensa americana tem feito a cobertura da Campanha Presidencial do Partido Republicano com a mesma intensidade que na Copa do Mundo. Uma das questões políticas que está no centro das...more
Yesterday, in an opinion authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the U.S. Supreme Court brought a measure of hope to non-citizens facing deportation on the basis of certain minor criminal convictions. In Mellouli v. Lynch,...more