AILA provides a series of 12 charts comparing President Biden’s accomplishments 100 days after entering office with the comprehensive recommendations AILA presented to the president.View All
AILALink puts an entire immigration law library at your fingertips! Search the AILALink database for all your practice needs—statutes, regs, case law, agency guidance, publications, and more.
AILA Doc. No. 22051605 | Dated May 16, 2022
WASHINGTON, DC – Jeremy McKinney, President-Elect of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) responded to the decision released today by the U.S. Supreme Court in Patel v. Garland. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the decision for a divided 5-4 court. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the dissent; he joined Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The decision denies judicial review of an immigration court’s factual determinations regarding certain applications for removal relief such as applications for a noncitizen to become a lawful permanent resident. Mr. McKinney responded with the following statement:
“This decision strips non-citizens of an important avenue for relief after incorrect decisions by immigration judges. It does so by ignoring the plain language of the statute, which narrowly bars review only of judgments regarding the granting of relief. Many of those facing deportation have lived in our communities, raised families, and contributed to our shared prosperity for years; in this case an innocent mistake on a DMV form should have been reviewable. This decision is deeply disappointing to me as an attorney, but more than that it is detrimental to our nation’s fundamental obligation to treat people fairly, irrespective of their country of origin.”
Cite as AILA Doc. No. 22051605.
American Immigration Lawyers Association
1331 G Street NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005
Copyright © 1993-
American Immigration Lawyers Association.
AILA.org should not be relied upon as the exclusive source for your legal research. Nothing on AILA.org constitutes legal advice, and information on AILA.org is not a substitute for independent legal advice based on a thorough review and analysis of the facts of each individual case, and independent research based on statutory and regulatory authorities, case law, policy guidance, and for procedural issues, federal government websites.