Latest news with #BoardofImmigrationAppeals
Yahoo
2 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
‘I've missed her so much': Alpharetta woman detained by ICE for weeks released on bond
An Alpharetta woman who immigration agents arrested and detained for more than three weeks is free and back with her husband. A judge in El Paso, Texas, granted Daniela Joly Landin a $10,000 bond Wednesday, allowing her to return with her husband to Georgia. 'It was a very special and emotional moment,' her husband, Richard Landin, said, speaking with Channel 2's Bryan Mims from a hotel room in El Paso. His mother recorded video of the two walking out of the facility. Smiling and teary-eyed, they embraced one another. Daniela and Richard met online and were married on Feb. 8 in Alpharetta. Daniela is 24 years old and from Colombia. She entered the United States in May 2024, presented herself to the U.S. Border Patrol, and applied for asylum. Her husband said violent paramilitary groups in Colombia put her life in danger. 'They kill people for really just about any justification they can come up with,' Richard said. But a judge denied her asylum application, so she appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which has not yet heard her case. Her husband said on May 12, three Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents knocked on their apartment door, saying Daniela had an order for deportation because her asylum was denied. She spent about two weeks at the Stewart Detention Center in Columbus but was transferred to the El Paso Service Processing Center in Texas. TRENDING STORIES: Man tries to carjack 2 victims, police say. Then a good Samaritan jumped in to help GA ringleader of fraud scheme sentenced for creating fake recruiting websites to steal identities Police investigate double shooting that left men injured in Greenbrian Mall parking lot Her immigration attorney, Jameel Manji, of Decatur, told Mims last week that immigrants with pending appeals have typically not been detained. But he said under the Trump administration, ICE agents have been more aggressive, pursuing undocumented immigrants who have been in the country less than two years, whether they've broken any laws or not. 'Two years is kind of an arbitrary marker that this administration is using, but basically when someone's been here less than two years, they consider them prime candidates for expedited removals,' Manji said. Richard, who talked with Daniela on the phone daily, said the El Paso facility was overcrowded, making living conditions difficult. 'It was so packed that there weren't any beds left for new arrivals,' he said. 'So, there was a fair amount of them sleeping on the floor.' Dustin Baxter, the attorney who worked to provide Daniela a bond hearing, said the judge granted bond because, 'she's always complied with everything immigration has asked her to do.' She has attended all of her court appearances and filed all paperwork on time, he said. In immigration court, defendants have to pay bonds in full and in cash. Richard said he used his savings, donations from family, and a GoFundMe campaign to raise money. Speaking in Spanish, Daniela said she's grateful for everyone who helped in her case, calling this an answered prayer. Mims sent emails to the Department of Homeland Security seeking a statement about this case, but has not yet received a response. As for Daniela's appeal of her asylum denial, her attorneys said that it could take months, or even years, depending on the backlog of cases facing the Board of Immigration Appeals. 'Asylum is very difficult to obtain,' he said. 'The bar is extremely high, barring that she was specifically targeted for persecution.' Her husband is also petitioning for Daniela to gain permanent legal residency because she's married to a U.S. citizen. For now, he's overjoyed to have her in his arms again. 'Honestly, it's a blessing,' he said. 'It's like an absolute miracle to have her back because I've missed her so much these three weeks. I feel like I'm whole again when I'm with her.'
Hindustan Times
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Can your green card be revoked by Pam Bondi at any time? What you need to know
The Justice Department has reportedly recently told the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that US Attorney General Pam Bondi is authorised to reconsider and even revoke green card holders' lawful permanent residency at any time. In case the court backs the Trump administration's position, the decision could allow the government to revoke a green card several years after it was issued, Newsweek noted. According to some critics, this could end up eroding due process. After taking office, Donald Trump vowed to deport migrants without legal status, majorly targeting those with criminal records. However, according to Newsweek, reports showed that people with valid documentation and no serious criminal history have also been detained. During a Third Circuit hearing recently, the Justice Department claimed that Bondi has the right to revisit and potentially revoke green card holders' residency status at any time. This step could impact millions of permanent residents in the US. The Justice Department's argument comes amid the case of Mohammad Qatanani, a Palestinian-born imam. Qatanani, who has lived in New Jersey since 1996, reportedly led one of the state's largest mosques. For two decades, he has been trying to seek permanent residency, but his 1999 application was denied in 2006. Federal officials went on to cite a 1993 Israeli detention and an alleged connection to Hamas. However, Qatanani denied the allegations, and he was simply detained and mistreated. Immigration judges ruled in Qatanani's favour twice. However, the Board of Immigration Appeals intervened and revoked his green card. He subsequently appealed the decision. Justice Department attorney Lindsay Murphy claimed that whether or not the immigration judge's ruling in favour of Qatanani was finalised, the Board of Immigration Appeals was authorised to reopen the case at any time. Judge Arianna Freeman, a Biden appointee, expressed scepticism during the hearing, saying, "Do you mean even 10, 20 years later?" "The regulation doesn't impose any time limit, so yes," Murphy added. "But that certification requirement comes also with the requirement that there be exceptional circumstances." "The law contained within the Immigration and Nationality Act is clear. The Department of Homeland Security cannot unilaterally "revoke" a permanent resident's status," Amelia Wilson, Assistant Professor of Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University, told Newsweek. The agency has to follow a formal process, including issuing a "Notice of Intent to Rescind" and providing the person the right to a hearing before an immigration judge. "During these proceedings, it is the government that bears the burden of proving by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the permanent resident should have their status taken away. At that point, it is the immigration judge—and only the immigration judge—who can effectively strip an individual of their green card," Wilson said. "The Trump administration's proposal in front of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals is not a new legislative measure but a reinterpretation of existing green card law, one that has the potential to fundamentally alter the legal rights of lawful permanent residents," said Bradford Bernstein, managing partner at Spar Bernstein.
Boston Globe
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
What's next for Rümeysa Öztürk?
US District Judge William K. Sessions III, who ordered Öztürk's release last week after a hearing in Vermont, has yet to issue a final ruling on Öztürk's claims that the government detained her solely because she coauthored a pro-Palestinian op-ed in the campus newspaper, violating her First Amendment and due process rights. He has scheduled a hearing on the matter for May 22 in federal court in Burlington, VT. What is the status of Advertisement The immigration case against Öztürk will continue, regardless of what happens in federal district court, as long as the government pursues it. Öztürk may continue to oppose her deportation during proceedings in immigration court. However, according to Stokes, her recent release could shift those proceedings from Louisiana, where she was detained after her arrest, to Massachusetts. Immigration cases are typically heard in the venue where the respondent, in this case Öztürk, is living. Since Öztürk has returned to Massachusetts, her case should be heard in immigration court in Boston or Chelmsford, Stokes said. Advertisement Still, Stokes said the government may oppose moving the immigration proceedings to Massachusetts, given that Louisiana courts 'I dont think the government has leg to stand on, but wouldnt put it past them to oppose a change of venue from Louisiana,' Stokes said. What options does Öztürk have if her deportation is ordered by an immigration judge? She may appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, then to a federal appeals court, and ultimately the US Supreme Court. The route the immigration case would take through the federal appeals court process would depend on where her immigration case is ultimately heard. If it is heard in Massachusetts, as Stokes expects, then the case could go before the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston. What happens next in Öztürk's suit filed in US District Court in Vermont? Öztürk filed the case in federal court alleging the government retaliated against her solely because she co-authored a pro-Palestinian op-ed in the Tufts newspaper. Her immediate request was to be released from detention while her legal challenges plays out. The case was That case will continue to move forward. Once Sessions issues a final ruling on whether the government violated Öztürk's constitutional rights, the losing party may appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New York City, and ultimately the US Supreme Court. Still, without a stay of Sessions' decision, Öztürk will remain free during that time. Advertisement Shelley Murphy can be reached at
Newsweek
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Green Cards Could Be Revoked At Any Time Under White House Proposal
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Justice Department told the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday that U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has the authority to reconsider and potentially revoke green card holders' lawful permanent residency at any time. Newsweek has contacted the DOJ for comment via email. Why It Matters If the court sides with the Trump administration's position, the decision would effectively allow the government to revoke a green card years or even decades after it was issued. Critics warn this would erode due process. President Donald Trump pledged to deport millions of migrants without legal status. Trump has said that immigration enforcement would primarily focus on individuals with criminal records. However, recent reports have highlighted cases where people with valid documentation and no serious criminal history have been detained. File photo shows U.S. visa. File photo shows U.S. visa. AP What To Know During a Third Circuit hearing on Tuesday, the Justice Department argued that the attorney general holds broad authority to revisit and potentially revoke green card holders' residency status at any time—a stance that, if upheld by the court, could have sweeping implications for millions of permanent residents in the United States. This argument comes amid the ongoing case of Mohammad Qatanani, a Palestinian-born imam who has lived in New Jersey since 1996 and led one of the state's largest mosques. Qatanani has spent over two decades seeking permanent residency. His 1999 application was denied in 2006 after federal officials cited a 1993 Israeli detention and alleged ties to Hamas—allegations he denies, saying he was merely detained and mistreated. Though immigration judges twice ruled in his favor, most recently in 2020, the Board of Immigration Appeals later intervened, revoking his green card. Qatanani appealed the decision. Justice Department attorney Lindsay Murphy argued that the immigration judge's ruling in favor of Mohammad Qatanani was never finalized, citing missing procedural steps like assigning a visa number and updating biometric data. She also claimed that, finalized or not, the Board of Immigration Appeals had the authority to reopen the case at any time. Judge Arianna Freeman, a Biden appointee, questioned this interpretation of the board's power, expressing skepticism during the hearing. "Do you mean even 10, 20 years later?" Freeman questioned. "The regulation doesn't impose any time limit, so yes," Murphy added. "But that certification requirement comes also with the requirement that there be exceptional circumstances." Green Cards Could Be Revoked At Any Time Under White House Proposal Green Cards Could Be Revoked At Any Time Under White House Proposal Photo Illustration"The law contained within the Immigration and Nationality Act is clear. The Department of Homeland Security cannot unilaterally "revoke" a permanent resident's status," Amelia Wilson, Assistant Professor of Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University, told Newsweek. The agency is required to follow a formal process, which includes issuing a "Notice of Intent to Rescind" and giving the individual the right to a hearing before an immigration judge. "During these proceedings, it is the government that bears the burden of proving by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the permanent resident should have their status taken away. At that point, it is the immigration judge—and only the immigration judge—who can effectively strip an individual of their green card," Wilson said. "The Trump administration's proposal in front of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals is not a new legislative measure but a reinterpretation of existing green card law, one that has the potential to fundamentally alter the legal rights of lawful permanent residents," Bradford Bernstein, managing partner at Spar Bernstein, told Newsweek. What People Are Saying Wilson told Newsweek: "The Justice Department's position before the Third Circuit is yet another attempt to terrorize immigrant communities. The Trump Administration is telling noncitizens that they are never safe from sudden detention and deportation, even after they have followed the law, and even after they have been granted permanent residence by our own government." Bernstein told Newsweek: "In this case, the government is arguing that it can revoke a green card years or even decades after it was granted, based solely on a claim that an immigration judge did not complete all the administrative steps required to finalize the grant of permanent residency. The immigrant involved was granted a green card by a judge, and the government failed to appeal within the standard 30-day window. Under well-established legal principles, that decision should be considered final. Yet the government now claims that because of a procedural oversight by the judge or the immigration service, it can still rescind the green card long after the fact. "Accepting this argument would severely undermine the due process rights of permanent residents. It would create a dangerous precedent in which green cards could be retroactively revoked not because of fraud or misconduct by the immigrant, but due to clerical or procedural errors by the government itself. This would destabilize the very concept of lawful permanent residency, which is supposed to provide long-term security and a path toward citizenship." What Happens Next If the Third Circuit sides with the government, the ruling would apply only within its jurisdiction—Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware—but it could trigger ripple effects. Immigrants in those states may face new legal risks or even consider moving to other jurisdictions. If the case reaches the Supreme Court and the ruling is upheld, it could set a nationwide precedent affecting how permanent residency decisions are reviewed.
Epoch Times
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Epoch Times
Supreme Court Rules 5-4 That Deportees Get Extra Time When Deadline Falls on Non-Business Day
The Supreme Court ruled 5–4 on April 22 that illegal immigrants who agree to self-deportation should be given extra time to appeal a deportation order if the departure deadline occurs on a weekend or a holiday. The majority Gorsuch's opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Dissenting were Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. The petitioner is Hugo Abisai Monsalvo Velazquez, a Mexican citizen who came to the United States illegally as a teenager in 2004. Monsalvo lived in Colorado and met his wife in 2009. The two were married that year and have two children who are U.S. citizens, according to his Related Stories 7/4/2024 4/20/2025 In 2011, the government began removal proceedings, holding that Monsalvo was 'an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or paroled.' In immigration law parlance, parole refers to allowing someone not qualified for admission to the United States to enter or remain in the country. He was given a notice to appear, but it did not contain the date and time of the removal hearing, saying the hearing would be held 'on a date to be set at a time to be set,' the petition said. Monsalvo admitted that the government was entitled to remove him, but filed an application under the U.N. Convention Against Torture to seek relief from removal, claiming he would experience criminal violence if sent back to Mexico. He also made an alternative request, leaving open the possibility of voluntary departure from the country, a process known as self-deportation. An immigration court denied his request to block removal and for protection under the torture treaty, but held that he qualified for voluntary departure. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the government may permit a voluntary departure within 60 days when an illegal immigrant of 'good moral character' receives an unfavorable decision in removal proceedings. If the illegal immigrant remains, he or she may be assessed a monetary penalty and be deemed ineligible for immigration relief for a decade. The immigration court granted voluntary departure because Monsalvo had been residing in the United States for at least one year before removal proceedings were instituted, was of good moral character, and had both the means and desire to leave the country at his own expense, the petition said. The court order of March 5, 2019, said he would have '60 calendar days' to leave the country. This meant the deadline was May 4, a Saturday, even though the judge's order stated Monsalvo's 'application for voluntary departure was granted until May 6, 2019,' which was the next business day after May 4. He appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which upheld the judge's ruling. The board reinstated voluntary departure and gave him another 60 days to leave the country. Again, the 60th calendar day fell on a Saturday, in this case, Dec. 11, 2021, according to the government. Monsalvo wrote in his petition that he filed a motion with the board to reopen the case on Friday, Dec. 10, but the board did not accept the papers for filing until the next business day, which was Dec. 13, a Monday. In the motion, he argued that the Supreme Court's decision in In that case, the court rejected the government's effort to deport an unsuccessful refugee claimant who argued he shouldn't be removed because official paperwork was incomplete. In that ruling, the court rejected the government's 'notice-by-installment theory' under which it gave noncitizens incomplete notice by doling out information over time in multiple documents. Justice Gorsuch wrote in that case that the government must at least supply an individual with a single and reasonably comprehensive statement of the nature of the proceedings against him. Monsalvo argued that because he received a deficient notice, Niz-Chavez meant he was eligible to ask for his removal to be blocked. He said that blocking removal was appropriate because removal would inflict hardship on his U.S. citizen children, the petition said. The board denied the motion on May 4, 2022, finding that in light of the Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Pereira v. Sessions, Niz-Chavez did not constitute a significant enough change in the law to justify reopening the case. In Pereira, the court held that the government could not put illegal immigrants in immigration proceedings by using a document that failed to state a removal hearing's time and place. Monsalvo sought reconsideration because the board's practice manual said that when 'a deadline date falls on a weekend or a legal holiday, the deadline is construed to fall on the next business day.' The board denied reconsideration, finding that the manual's guidance did not pertain to voluntary departure periods. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit denied his appeal, agreeing with the board that he filed his motion too late. At the same time, that court acknowledged the Ninth Circuit had long held that 'when a voluntary-departure period expires on a weekend or a holiday, the deadline to voluntarily depart or to file motions related to the voluntary departure is continued to the next business days.' In the majority opinion, Gorsuch summed up the Supreme Court's new holding. 'Here, as elsewhere, the term 'days' operates to extend a deadline that falls on a weekend or legal holiday to the next business day,' he wrote. Because the 10th Circuit ruled the other way, the Supreme Court reversed its judgment and returned the case to that court 'for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.'
