In the absence of any action on Comprehensive Immigration Reform ("CIR")
by the U.S. Congress, this past week saw a great deal of activity by the
courts regarding immigration-related matters in an attempt to clarify
often confusing rules. For instance, the U.S. Supreme Court held that there is
no exception
to the one-year filing deadline for a petition filed under the
Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction
to return a child to the U.S. following the child's removal out of
the country by one of his/her parents. In
Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, all of the Justices found that the crucial deadline, by which the filing
of a relevant petition would mandate the return of the child to the U.S.
but after which such return may not be ordered if the child is now settled
in his/her new environment, simply could not be postponed or "equitably
tolled" because, to summarize as briefly as possible,
such tolling does not apply to treaties.
The California Court of Appeal's Fourth Appellate District also addressed
immigration-related matters concerning children, in particular a specific
avenue for minors to obtain Lawful Permanent Residence ("a Green
Card") known as
Special Immigrant Juvenile Status
("SIJS"). In
Leslie H. v. Superior Court (People), the court found that a California Superior Court Judge is
without authority
to deny a minor an order allowing him/her to apply for SIJS despite that
judge's making
the required factual findings, namely that the child (1) is either a dependent of the court or is legally
placed with a state agency, a private agency, or a private person; (2)
is not best served by being returned either to his/her home country or
country in which s/he last resided; and (3) cannot be reunited with his/her
parent(s).
Finally, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ("Ninth
Circuit"), which is the federal appeals court that hears petitions
for review regarding removal proceedings conducted within the Western
States, held in
Go v. Holder
that motions to reopen regarding claims under the Convention Against Torture,
another treaty,
are subject
to the normal time- and number-related limitations that apply to all other
motions to reopen. On the same day, the Ninth Circuit also held in
Montoya v. Holder
that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") is permitted
to reinstate a previously executed removal order against someone who reentered
the U.S. after such removal
even if
that person had an ultimately approved immigrant petition filed for him/her
before the change in the law relating to reinstatement because such a petition
failed to create any type of right
to any immigration-related relief.
Categories:
