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.

On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court held that the Biden administration’s termination of the Trump-era “Migrant Protection Protocols,” or MPP, did not violate the Immigration and Nationality Act, or INA. The Court further held that the Oct. 29, 2021, memorandum issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security terminating MPP was “final agency action.”

The Supreme Court held that federal courts cannot review factual findings underlying the denial of the following forms of relief from removal: cancellation of removal, voluntary departure, adjustment of status, 212(i) waivers and 212(h) waivers.

CLINIC is counsel in the case of Matter of L-E-A-. On June 16, 2021, the Attorney General issued a decision, Matter of L-E-A- III, 28 I&N Dec. 304 (AG 2021), vacating Matter of L-E-A-II, 27 I&N Dec. 581 (A.G. 2019. L-E-A- II had held that the family is not inherently socially distinct and overruled the finding in L-E-A- I, 27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2017) that Mr. L-E-A-’s father’s immediate family could be a particular social group. We continue to represent Mr. L-E-A- on his case and to advocate for asylum seekers to have the right to seek asylum based on harm they fear on account of their family group membership.

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.

The Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., or CLINIC, and the Duke Law School Immigrant Rights Clinic filed a petition for review in March 2020 challenging a Board of Immigration Appeals precedent denying asylum protections for immigrants fleeing gangs and drug traffickers.

The Board of Immigration Appeals, or BIA, issued a published decision establishing that the “exceptional circumstances” in absentia reopening provision may encompass situations that led to a respondent’s late arrival to court and, therefore, absence at a removal hearing. This decision provides a non-exhaustive list of factors and corroborative evidence for immigration judges to consider when adjudicating late arrival in absentia motions to reopen on a case-by-case basis.

The Temporary Protected Status Advocacy Working Group led by Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. or CLINIC, in partnership with Alianza Americas; the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (as a core member of the National TPS Alliance) and National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild released a report, “Pulling Back the Curtain: Analysis of New Government Data on Temporary Protected Status,” with brand new, state-by-state data on people living in the United States with TPS.

In March of 2021, the TPS Advocacy Working Group, in collaboration with Alianza Americas, National Day Laborer Organizing Network, or NDLON, and National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild or NIPNLG, released a new report, “Pulling Back the Curtain: Analysis of New Government Data on Temporary Protected Status.” This landing page contains the underlying records, data and spreadsheet that were received by the TPS AWG and analyzed in the report for researchers to download, view and analyze.

Working with colleague organizations, CLINIC has served as an organizational plaintiff to enjoin unfair, anti-immigrant rules. With affiliates in virtually every state, CLINIC can help make the case to federal courts for the need for nation-wide relief rather than localized injunctions. This article highlights CLINIC’s role in recent cases.

On July 31, 2019, CLINIC joined eight other organizations that serve survivors of gender-based violence to submit an amicus brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.

CLINIC launched the Defending Vulnerable Populations, or DVP, Program in response to growing anti-immigrant sentiment and policy measures that hurt immigrants. Since May 2019, CLINIC’s efforts in litigation have resulted in significant decisions that helped to protect and uphold the dignity of immigrants.

Asylum can be granted to noncitizens if they have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of their membership in a particular social group. But in recent years the Board of Immigration Appeals and the Attorney General have imposed increasingly complex requirements for proving a “social group.” In 2018, the Board of Immigration Appeals announced a policy that asylum applicants must give the Immigration Judge an “exact delineation” of the particular social group that their case is based on.

CLINIC, together with 10 other nonprofit organizations that serve immigrant children, filed an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit in defense of critical protections for minors detained by the federal government pending their immigration proceedings.

Represented by O’Melveny and Myers, LLP, CLINIC and twenty other faith-based organizations, including other Catholic groups, protestant groups, Jewish groups, and Muslim groups, have filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to strike down a federal criminal law that could lead to prosecutions for faith-related speech.

CLINIC and other plaintiffs filed suit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), certain DHS officers, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), seeking to enjoin the implementation of fee waiver changes. On Dec. 11, 2019, the Honorable Maxine M. Chesney, a District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, granted the nationwide injunction, preventing USCIS from putting its proposed fee waiver changes into effect pending litigation.

CLINIC, along with several New York and national-level nonprofit organizations, filed suit on Aug. 27 in the federal court for the Southern District of New York to challenge the Trump administration’s final rule on public charge.

CLINIC and ASAP are also seeking long-term pro bono or “low bono” representation for the families in their asylum cases.

CLINIC has filed suit on behalf of a Miami grandmother and widow who is seeking to become a citizen of the United States.

On March 12, 2019 CLINIC, joined by other faith-based organizations, submitted an amicus brief to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in the case O.L.B.D. v. Barr. In this case, Ms. O.L.B.D., a survivor of severe physical, sexual, and emotional abuse by her ex-husband, appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals denial of her asylum claim. The case presents a direct challenge to Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018), the decision Jeff Sessions issued last summer which sought to greatly limit asylum eligibility for survivors of domestic violence and gang violence.

As co-counsel to Mr. L-E-A-, CLINIC attorneys filed this brief with the Justice Department on Feb. 19, 2019. The client’s name and other identifying information has been redacted.

Gibson, Dunn, and Crutcher, LLP, represented CLINIC on an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs-appellees in Inland Empire – Immigrant Youth Collective, et al., v. Kirstjen Nielsen, et al. The plaintiffs-appellees challenge the government’s unlawful termination of their DACA without process on behalf of a class of DACA recipients.

CLINIC has joined with Muslim Advocates and other faith partners as Amici Curiae, or friends of the court, in the Texas. v. Nielsen case challenging the constitutionality of the DACA program. The brief asks the court to deny Texas’s motion for preliminary injunction which would halt adjudication of all DACA cases. The case is scheduled to be heard in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on August 8, 2018.

CLINIC, along with Public Counsel, filed this amicus brief on March 7, 2016 in Doe v. Sessions before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. This brief provided the court with a framework, drawn from our experience working with young asylum-seekers, to decide whether the coerced actions of a child can trigger the "serious nonpolitical crime" bar to asylum.

The Catholic Legal Immigration Network Inc., filed an amicus brief April 27 challenging Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ effort to insert himself into a settled immigration case, the Matter of A-B. The attorney general’s unusual move could result in changes to long-settled immigration policy, making it harder for many asylum seekers -- notably those fleeing religion-based persecution – to obtain protection in the United States.

USCCB, Catholic Charities USA and CLINIC have joined as Amici Curiae, or friends of the court, in the Donald J. Trump, et al. v. State of Hawaii, et al. case challenging the constitutionality of Presidential Proclamation No. 9645. This case is commonly referred to as the “travel ban” litigation. The brief asks the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down the Executive Action as a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The case is scheduled to be heard in the Supreme Court on April 25.

USCCB, Catholic Charities USA and CLINIC have joined as Amici Curiae, or friends of the court, in the International Refugee Assistance Project, et al. v. Trump case challenging the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 13780. This case has been consolidated with Trump v. Hawaii and are collectively, commonly referred to as the “travel ban” litigation. The brief asks the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down the Executive Order as a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The case was scheduled to be heard Oct.

In response to the June 9, 2016 amicus invitation by the Board of Immigration Appeals on the definition of a minor for purposes of the asylum one-year filing deadline, CLINIC and Public Counsel submitted this briefing arguing that a minor should be defined as youth under 21.   

U.S. Immigration Courts and Circuit Courts of Appeal for your reference.