Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Court Injunction

by

3917027964_2e901f7a86_z
The power of the purse has spoken and the Democrats have come out on top. On Tuesday March 3rd the Republican led House of Representatives passed a bill funding the Department of Homeland Security up until September of this year. The bill passed by a vote of 257 to 167, with 75 Republicans and 182 Democrats voting in favor of the bill. The bill included no mention of the Obama administration’s executive actions on immigration, causing a split within the Republican Party to vote on the bill. Conservative Republicans had said that if the bill did not include language opposing Obama’s executive actions they would not be supportive of the bill.

The leader of the House of Representatives, Boehner, placed the blame on Republican inability to break a Democratic filibuster in the Senate and for failing to impose conditions on the bill, a prerequisite for Republican votes. The outcome of the bill was a victory for Democrats who were able to effectively block the Republican agenda by preventing them from placing immigration restrictions on the bill.

Boehner has spent the last few months struggling to keep the Republic front united against Democrats in the Senate, who have pushed back against Republican pressure. During his re-election as speaker in January, some Republicans were re-considering voting for Boehner. Boehner still remains the subject of criticism within his own party; the only common denominator bringing the Republican Party together remains their hard line stance on immigration and border security. During a closed door caucus addressing the GOP, Boehner said that Republicans have one last card to play—Judge Hanen’s decision to halt implementation of President Obama’s executive actions on immigration. Hanen’s decision has proved a great cause for concern for Democrats. As previously reported, dozens of states came out of the shadows accusing Obama of overstepping his executive power.

Continue reading

by

525286636_7c05b48907_z

As a refresher for our readers, earlier this week the federal government filed an expedited emergency motion to stay (prevent execution) of the injunction issued by the federal judge in Texas stopping implementation of expanded DACA and DAPA programs. The federal government warned in its motion that if judge Hanen did not act on the motion by the end of the business day on Wednesday (February 25), the government would move to the court of appeals.

As sources, such as Politico, report, the federal judge who issued the injunction indicated on Tuesday that he is not inclined to rush a decision on the federal government’s request to lift the injunction, which means that the next stop would most likely be the 5th Circuit Court of Appeal in New Orleans.

by

15558329057_8c48b4a564_z

By Ekaterina Powell, Esq.

As you may already know from reading our prior posts, on February 16, 2015, the Texas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction to stop expanded DACA (expanded guidance concerning deferred action for certain individuals who came to the United States as children) and DAPA (deferred action for the parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents) from going into effect. The case is known as Texas v. United States, the Lawsuit Challenging DAPA and DACA Expansion.

The decision came only two days before USCIS was supposed to start accepting applications under Expanded DACA guidelines issued by the President in November of 2014.

The decision was a surprise to many of those who were prepared to file their applications on February 18, 2015.

What does the preliminary injunction mean?

Since the preliminary injunction was issued, USCIS cannot accept any applications under expanded DACA, which was supposed to become effective on February 18, 2015, and will not implement its policies regarding DAPA, the program that was set to start in May 2015.

This injunction also affects those who file for extension of their existing DACA. Since expanded DACA rules have not become effective, USCIS will continue to issue employment authorization documents (EADs) for renewals of existing DACA requests for two-year periods as opposed to three-year periods.

What is a solution?

After the preliminary injunction was issued, the federal government promised to appeal the decision of the Texas district court in the Court of Appeals. However, an appeal can take a considerable amount of time and delay can detrimentally harm millions of families, causing unnecessary deportation for those who could qualify under expanded DACA and DAPA relief.

In order to prevent the harm caused by the appeal’s delays, today, February 23, 2015, the federal government filed an emergency expedited motion to stay,  pending appeal, its February 16 Order.

Continue reading

by

7526267232_2e3a502b29_z

On Monday February 16, 2015 Judge Andrew Hanen of the U.S. District Court in Brownsville, Texas issued a preliminary injunction temporarily preventing President Obama’s executive actions on immigration (expanded deferred action) from going forward. The injunction does not make Obama’s executive actions illegal, however it does prevent the Obama administration from implementing expanded DACA and DAPA until the courts determine the constitutionality of the executive actions announced by Obama on November 20, 2014. According to Judge Hanen, 26 states brought the suit to his attention, all of whom he determined had standing to sue. A lawsuit against President Obama is expected to move its way through the court system in the coming months. The injunction claims that the President lacks the constitutional power to make such executive actions. As a result of the injunction, USCIS will no longer accept applications for DACA on February 18th the date that USCIS initially announced it would begin to accept applications. Additionally, plans to accept requests for DAPA will be suspended until further notice.

The Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson announced that while he disagreed with the injunction, that the Department of Homeland Security would be forced to comply. Nevertheless, the Department of Justice plans to appeal on behalf of the federal government.

Will the court order affect existing DACA?

Continue reading