Written by: Taher Kameli, Esq. In the face of continuing anti-immigration policies from the Trump administration, it has been the judicial branch of the Federal government (the courts) that immigrants have often relied upon to protect immigrant rights. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in particular, has issued various decisions in defense of immigrant rights. However, even the Ninth Circuit is not a guarantor of a “pro-immigration” decision, as evidenced by its May 7 opinion upholding President Trump’s Migrant Protection Protocols program (known as the “Remain in Mexico” program). Based
Written by: Taher Kameli, Esq. A recent report by the American Bar Association described the US immigration courts as “facing an existential crisis . . . irredeemably dysfunctional and on the brink of collapse”. Besides requiring a major overhaul for inefficiency, the US immigration courts may suffer from another fundamental problem – bias against immigrants. This point was made in an administrative complaint filed yesterday by the American Immigration Council and the American Immigration Lawyers Association with the US Department of Justice with respect to the El Paso, Texas Service Processing Center immigration court.
Written by: Taher Kameli, Esq. The US government consists of 3 branches – an executive branch (the President and his administration), a legislative branch (the Congress), and a judicial branch (the courts). Because of the anti-immigration policies of President Trump and his administration, and the general inability of Congress to reach an agreement on immigration legislation, it has largely been left to the courts to protect immigrant rights. This point was again evidenced on April 8 when Federal District Court Judge Richard Seeborg in San Francisco issued a preliminary injunction against and stopping President Trump’s Migrant