immigration,

The Supreme Court today issued a decision finding that the Trump administration did not follow the law in ending DACA. It has remanded the issue back to the Department of Homeland Security, which allows them to try again to follow the Administrative Procedures Act if they wish to end the existing program. DHS should now reopen DACA for new/late initial DACA applications as well as to continue to accept renewals. If you have DACA already, please continue to file renewals, if you believe you are eligible and have not file, or failed to continue renewing your DACA, please contact our office to speak with us about whether you may be eligible to file again soon. You can read the decision here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf

La Corte Suprema emitió hoy una decisión que determina que la administración de Trump no siguió la ley al poner fin al DACA. Se reenvió el problema al Departamento de Seguridad Nacional, lo que les permite intentar nuevamente seguir la Ley de Procedimientos Administrativos si desean finalizar el programa existente. El DHS ahora debe volver a abrir DACA para solicitudes de DACA nuevas / inicial tardia, así como continuar aceptando renovaciones. Si ya tiene DACA, continúe presentando renovaciones, si cree que es elegible y no lo ha solicitado, o si no ha podido renovar su DACA, comuníquese con nuestra oficina para hablar con nosotros acerca de si puede volver a hacerlo pronto. Puedes leer la decisión aquí: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf

In the last week, we have had two cases won at trial for people who make mistakes in their past, and were put in deportation proceedings because of them. One person admitted to committing fraud many years ago before becoming a Lawful Permanent Resident ("green card") and the government fought to send him back to his original country because of it. During his time as an LPR, he married, had several children, and worked hard despite having very little education - not even being able to read or write. In large part because of his lack of education, he wanted his kids to focus on their education, and his oldest is now the first person in their extended family to graduate from college. He was granted an INA 237(a)(1)(H) waiver.

The other person became an LPR in 1998, and also committed a handful of crimes between 1997and 2003. Then years later when he came back into the US on his LPR card and was placed in removal proceedings. He was detained by immigration in 2012, and we fought to get him out on bond based in large part on his US citizen child, whose mother was the victim of several of his crimes. In Court, he won a "readjustment" with an INA 212(h) waiver based on his rehabilitation and/or hardship to his US citizenship child. Despite being an LPR, he had to readjust because some of his criminal history made him "deportable," but a waiver existed for the related "inadmissibility" grounds. 

In both cases, after the evidence was provided and testimony taken, the government graciously waived their right to appeal the decisions so both clients are finally done with their lengthy deportation cases. Congratulations.