Holding: Texas and Louisiana lack Article III standing to challenge immigration-enforcement guidelines promulgated by the Secretary of Homeland Security that prioritize the arrest and removal of certain noncitizens from the United States.
Respondent Helaman Hansen promised hundreds of noncitizens a path to U. S. citizenship through “adult adoption.” But that was a scam. Held: Because §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) forbids only the purposeful solicitation and facilitation of specific acts known to violate federal law, the clause is not unconstitutionally overbroad.
In Matter of Garcia, 28 I&N Dec. 693 (BIA 2023) the BIA held that the controlling circuit law in immigration court proceedings is the law governing the geographic location of the immigration court where venue lies.
Matter of CANCINOS-MANCIO, 28 I&N Dec. 708 (BIA 2023) – Under the modified categorical approach, an Immigration Judge may consider the transcript of a plea colloquy in determining the factual basis of a plea. “The transcript of the respondent’s change of plea hearing demonstrates that the factual basis for the respondent’s amended plea was for an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon under section 13-1204(A)(2) of the Arizona Revised Statutes, in which the underlying assault was committed by intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury under section 13-1203(A)(2). The respondent contends that this offense does not require the level of force necessary to constitute a crime of violence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 16(a).
For choice of law purposes, the controlling circuit law in Immigration Court proceedings is the law governing the geographic location of the Immigration Court where venue lies, namely where jurisdiction vests and proceedings commence upon the filing of a charging document, and will only change if an Immigration Judge subsequently grants a change of venue to another Immigration Court. Matter of R-C-R-, 28 I&N Dec. 74 (BIA 2020), clarified.