Search for: "Executive Office for Immigration Review, The "
Results 1221 - 1240
of 2,165
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Jun 2017, 7:16 am
Charles Kuck is an immigration attorney in Atlanta who will help you navigate U.S. immigration laws and avoid crucial mistakes. [read post]
2 Jun 2017, 3:20 am
General Accountability Office report finds that that the Executive Office for Immigration Review's (EOIR) case backlog—cases pending from previous years that remain open at the start of a new fiscal year—more than doubled from fiscal... [read post]
31 May 2017, 5:37 am
Galesburg, Ill., officer reviews Amtrak rail bookings every day in search of suspicious travelers. [read post]
31 May 2017, 4:59 am
Sessions, the court ruled 8-0 that for purposes of the immigration law, sexual abuse of a minor requires that the victim be less than 16 years of age. [read post]
30 May 2017, 8:30 am
Part II analyzed how the court marshals the Supreme Court’s precedents concerning standing, reviewability of immigration decisions, and the Establishment Clause. [read post]
28 May 2017, 8:30 am
This standard is most typically applied when a court is asked to review an executive officer's decision to deny a visa. [read post]
27 May 2017, 1:56 pm
Part II will assess how the court marshals the Supreme Court’s precedents concerning reviewability of immigration decisions and the Establishment Clause. [read post]
26 May 2017, 10:12 am
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Maryland Judge Theodore Chuang’s nation-wide injunction of the provision of President Donald Trump’s revised executive order that suspended immigrant and refugee entry to the United States. [read post]
25 May 2017, 3:50 pm
This was the first ruling by an appeals court on the revised version of the Trump executive order. [read post]
25 May 2017, 3:33 pm
Such discrimination contravenes the authority Congress delegated to the President in the Immigration and Nationality Act (the “Immigration Act”), 8 U.S.C. [read post]
25 May 2017, 2:21 pm
However, the government contended that the court should look instead at a 1972 case involving the denial of a visa to a Belgian journalist who described himself as a Marxist, which prescribes a fairly limited and deferential review in the immigration arena. [read post]
25 May 2017, 2:00 pm
The government, the court explained, had repeatedly asked the court “to ignore evidence, circumscribe our own review, and blindly defer to executive action. [read post]
25 May 2017, 1:08 pm
These cases instruct that the political branches’ power over immigration is not tantamount to a constitutional blank check, and that vigorous judicial review is required when an immigration action’s constitutionality is in question. [read post]
24 May 2017, 10:00 am
This piece originally appeared at The New York Review of Books. [read post]
24 May 2017, 8:00 am
” As expected, during his first month in office, Trump wasted no time implementing an unconstitutional agenda to undo many of the civil liberties gains of the past quarter century—from immigrants’ rights to reproductive freedom to LGBT rights. [read post]
20 May 2017, 5:23 am
Steve Vladeck reviewed James E. [read post]
18 May 2017, 10:36 am
Sessions [case summary] after being informed by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) they could no longer provide legal advice to individuals unless they offered full representation of the clients. [read post]
18 May 2017, 9:12 am
”1 Trump had sought to use national security rhetoric to avoid judicial review of his immigration policies, and courts had refused to stand down.Jim Pfander’s excellent new book, Constitutional Torts and the War on Terror, paints a very different picture of the role judges have played in evaluating and constraining the executive since September 11, 2001. [read post]
16 May 2017, 8:03 am
Indeed, under the first executive order, minority Christians in majority-Muslim nations were given preferential treatment. [read post]
16 May 2017, 7:15 am
And just as he did before the Fourth Circuit, Wall emphasizes that, at best, these in-office statements were ambiguous; certainly, they did not clearly convey discriminatory intent. [read post]
