The brand-new 18th edition of Kurzban's Immigration Law Sourcebook is now shipping.Order Now
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. 19102440 | Dated September 17, 2019 | File Size: 2867 KDownload the Document
The Immigration Judge terminated removal proceedings after finding that DHS inappropriately subjected respondents to the MPP program since they were not arriving aliens.
"The court concludes that DHS has not proven its fundamental allegation that respondents are arriving aliens and that DHS has not acted properly in subjecting aliens who were apprehended within the United States to the MPP program. Indeed, the vast majority of respondents subjected to the MPP program involve cases where DHS has compelled - without authorization of law - aliens who were present within the United States and were not arriving aliens to return to Mexico to await their removal proceedings. It appears that over 90 percent of the MPP cases involve aliens were not properly subject to INA § 235(b)(2)(C)."
From the VICE News article, "At the Wednesday, Sept. 18 hearing, Judge Margaret Burkhart suggested she and other immigration judges had been instructed to order no-shows deported in absentia, regardless of extenuating circumstances, according to Krishnaswami. The Executive Office for Immigration Review did not reply to a request for comment on this claim.
[[To print the PDF on this page please use the print function in the PDF reader.]]
Cite as AILA Doc. No. 19102440.Open the Document
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.