The Supreme Court overturned a decades-old precedential decision, Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which mandated court deference to administrative agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. This decision has far-reaching implications for immigration-related matters.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, has announced the termination of Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, designations for nationals of Sudan, Nicaragua, Haiti, El Salvador, Nepal and Honduras, and the termination of Deferred Enforced Departure, or DED, for Liberia. In the wake of these termination decisions, several different cases have been filed in U.S district courts.

CLINIC, in partnership with the Law Offices of Jezic & Moyse, LLC, defended a United States citizen from deportation, resulting in an important precedent concerning the circumstances under which citizenship is automatically derived. The University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law Immigration Clinic capably represented Mr. Duncan before referring the case to its alumni, Himedes Chicas and Michelle N. Mendez, and Pepper Hamilton LLP (now Troutman Pepper) argued the petition for review.

CLINIC, the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, and Pangea Legal Services, have sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, calling on him to vacate three precedential decisions — Matter of A-B-, Matter of A-C-A-A-, and Matter of L-E-A- — that severely limit access to asylum for those fleeing domestic violence, gang violence and violence based on family membership. As counsel for the asylum seekers in these three cases, we ask that the decisions be set aside as the agencies work on issuing regulations that will address these issues, pursuant to President Biden's Feb. 2, 2021 executive order on asylum.

Update: On June 28, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review three of the below legal challenges - Regents of the University of California v. DHS, Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen, and NAACP v. Trump. Oral arguments are scheduled for November 12, 2019.

Clients who sign applications for immigration benefits without fully understanding the details of what they are claiming could be putting their status at risk. Read more to learn about the BIA’s ruling on these types of cases.