Heartland Alliance's National Immigrant Justice Center's experienced legal staff can speak about the legal ramifications of immigration laws, provide analysis of how immigration policies play out in immigrant communities, and help put reporters in touch with immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers who can provide a human face to stories about the U.S. immigration system.
The 7th Cir held that motions to reconsider, like motions to reopen, are covered by the bar at 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) to judicial review.
We held in Ali v. Gonzales, 502 F.3d 659 (7th Cir. 2007), and repeated in Kucana, that the statute applies to discretionary decisions authorized by regulations that are based on and implement the Immigration and Nationality Act, as well as by the Act itself. The regulation that we cited in Kucana as satisfying these requirements, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), applies both to motions to reopen and to motions to reconsider.
Petitioner argued that BIA should have equitably tolled his time to move for reconsideration. But CtApp found that the Board hadn't misunderstood its power to permit equitable tolling - and the decision of whether to equitably toll required the application of law to fact, which is not a "pure" question of law for which review is permitted by 1252(a)(2)(D). Therefore, no jurisdiction.
Most of the immigrant workers who were detained in a rural Louisiana detention center following the largest worksite immigration raid in U.S. history were cut off from contact with families and unable to contact lawyers for weeks after the raid, according to a National Immigrant Justice Center attorney who traveled to the detention center in early September to help provide legal consultations.
A strong marker bill introduced in Congress in September lays promising groundwork for the next U.S. Congress to pass important human rights and due process protections for people swept up in immigration enforcement operations.
A 21-year ban to entry for foreigners who are HIV-positive was lifted in July when President Bush signed the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).
Gertsenshteyn v. Mukasey, 2nd Cir. (9/25/08, case
nos. 07-1183-ag)
CALABRESI, B.D. Parker, Underhill
Petitioner, a citizen of Ukraine who was convicted of
violating and conspiring to violate 18 U.S.C. § 2422(a), prohibiting the
enticing of individuals to travel in interstate or foreign commerce to engage
in prostitution, filed PFR following BIA’s determination that he had been
convicted of an aggravated felony. In
order to constitute an ag fel under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(K)(ii), INA §
101(a)(43)(K)(ii), the crime of which he had been convicted had to have been
committed for commercial advantage. The
IJ, affirmed by the Board, held that his crime was an ag fel, relying on
evidence in the record along with petitioner’s testimony, to conclude that the
crime had been committed for commercial advantage, despite the absence of this
element from the criminal statute in question.
The 2d Circuit reversed, holding that the Board had erred in considering
evidence outside the record of conviction to find that petitioner had committed
his offense for commercial advantage and rejecting the Board’s reasoning and
gvt’s arguments that a new approach was warranted here. The court then remanded to the Board to
consider whether, within the legal framework that remained the law in the 2d
Circuit (i.e., following either the categorical approach or modified
categorical approach where the statute is divisible), petitioner’s conviction
was an ag fel.
Kawashima v. Mukasey (9th Cir. 7/2/08) (finding 10K loss in 101(a)(43)(M) is element and was not proven, with concurrence urging rejection of strict application of Taylor's categorical test to immigration law, and particularly regarding 101(a)(43)(M).)
General Immigration 
