On Monday, Judge Dana Sabraw, the same San Diego judge who gave a deadline for the government to reunite families, one of which the government has already missed, ordered for the deportation of reunited families to be delayed for one week after reunionfication. This decision came after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) brought the case in front of Judge Sabraw in response to “persistent and increasing rumors” of mass deportations.
According to the ACLU, the week reprieve from deportation would give parents enough time after being reunited with their children to decide whether or not to pursue asylum. This decision cannot be made until parents have enough time to discuss the issue with their children and their child’s advocate or counsel, who can explain to the parent the likelihood of the child ultimately prevailing in their own asylum case if left behind in the U.S. New proposed regulations in the recent weeks have drastically limited asylum application options. This type of application has become significantly more difficult and likely to fail. To learn more about the most recent asylum changes, please click here. To learn more about the current asylum program, please click here. To learn more about other forms of humanitarian relief, please click here.
Judge Sabraw ruled that deportations will be temporarily halted until the Justice Department can file a response to the ACLU’s claim. The Department has one week to answer before Judge Sabraw will make a formal ruling.
To find out more about the new rules or other investor visas, contact Scott Legal, P.C.
Ian E. Scott, Esq. is the Founder of Scott Legal, P.C. He can be reached at 212-223-2964 or by email at email@example.com.
This website and blog constitutes attorney advertising. Do not consider anything in this website or blog legal advice and nothing in this website constitutes an attorney-client relationship being formed. Set up a one-hour consultation with us before acting on anything you read here. Past results are no guarantee of future results and prior results do not imply or predict future results. Each case is different and must be judged on its own merits.