News & Developments

 

Latest Updates on No-Match Regulations

Department of Homeland Security Reverses Itself and Appeals Judge's Order Staying the No-Match Regulations
On December 4, 2007, Counsel for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) wrote in a letter to Judge Charles Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that they are pursuing a two pronged approach in response to the Court's decision to stay the No-Matchregulations in AFL-CIO, et al. v. Chertoff, et al., No. 3:07-vc-04472-CRB.

First, DHSwill promulgate a revised no-match rule which they anticipate will be ready by March 2008 at the latest.Second, DHS has decided to file a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The latter is a reversal on the government's part and, as stated in the letter, is in response to assertions in the media by groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) that by agreeing to revise theno-match rule the government conceded the rule was legally flawed. As stated in the letter, "[t]he plaintiffs have made assertions in the media that by revising the no-match rule, the government has conceded that it is legally flawed. That is not so. The government respectfully disagrees with this Court's issuance of a preliminary injunction, and our decision to revise the rule reflects nothing more than our firm commitment to eliminating any obstacles and ensuring that the no-match rule may become operative as quickly as possible."

AFL-CIO v. Chertoff et al. – Preliminary injunction filed and entered October 15, 2007 in the no-match regulations suit.

No-Match Regulation on Hold

On October 10, 2007, the US District Court in the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction on the social security no match rule. This means that the No Match Rule cannot take effect until the ligitgation surrounding the regulation is resolved.

October 1st order from the Federal Court extending the Temporary Restraining Order by 10 days while Judge Charles Breyer writes an opinion on the Preliminary Injunction Motion in American Federation of Labor v. Michael Chertoff.

Government's response in opposition to the AFL-CIO, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, et al. motions for preliminary injunction regarding the Social Security Administration's No-Match regulations, which were filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California.

Letter to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff from members of the California Congressional delegation regarding implementation of the no-match regulations.

Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed with the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California regarding the no-match regulations seeking entry by additional members in the lawsuit, including the Chamber of Commerce, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, Golden Gate Restaurant Association, National Roofing Contractors Association, American Nursery & Landscape Association, International Franchise Association, and the United Fresh Produce Association as Plaintiff-Intervenors.

Plaintiff-Intervenors' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of their Application for Preliminary Injunction on October 1, 2007 regarding the proposed no-match regulations.

On August 31st, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause against the Department of Homeland Security's new rule regarding steps American employers must take upon receipt of a "no-match" letter from the Social Security Administration, questioning whether the Agency and the Social Security Administration acted beyond their statutory authority. The Court also found that plaintiffs demonstrated that the balance of harms may be that employers may suffer irreparable harm if the new rule is implemented.

The ILRC Forecast on Immigration Reform

Judith Golub, Executive Director of the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, has written a Forecast on Immigration Reform. She writes about the likelihood that reform will happen this year, including four possible scenarios.

ABA Commission on Immigration Policy Resolutions

On Monday, February 13, 2006, the ABA House of Delegates adopted seven policy resolutions sponsored by the ABA Commission on Immigration. The resolutions and reports are available in PDF format:

• » 107A: Right to Counsel
• » 107B: Comprehensive Immigration Reform
• » 107C: Due Process and Judicial Review
• » 107D: Administration of U.S. Immigration Laws
• » 107E: Detention
• » 107F: Asylum
• » 107G: Immigrant Victims of Crime

Immigration Judges Under Fire

In recent months, there have been a flurry of media reports about bad behavior by U.S. immigration judges, the special administrative law judges who handle alien removal hearings and who report to the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).

The New York Times started the trend with a December 26, 2005 story titled “Courts Criticize Judges’ Handling of Asylum Cases,” in which the paper reported how US Courts of Appeals were lambasting immigration judges for their poor decisions. The Daily Journal ran the story “Jurist’s Asylum-Seeker Rulings Earn Rebukes” on January 31, 2006, discussing Los Angeles-based Immigration Judge Anna Ho, who has been repeatedly rebuked by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for her poor decisions. The National Law Journal ran a front-page story, “Immigration Judges Come Under Fire,” on February 6, 2006. The Los Angeles Times ran a story (“Some Immigrants Meet Harsh Face of Justice”) on February 12, 2006, reviewing numerous cases involving incompetent and insensitive behavior by immigration judges, including a case where a US citizen was ordered deported. In response, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales announced that he will be conducting a “comprehensive review” of the immigration courts. Gonzales wrote a memo to all immigration judges, dated January 9, 2006, in which he ordered them to treat aliens “with courtesy and respect.”

At least one Immigration Judge has recently been sued, and later terminated for misconduct. Immigration Judge Michael Levinsky of New York lost his job after the federal Merit Systems Protection Board found that he had repeatedly in court used sexist and ethnically insensitive generalizations, including “statements to the effect that: women are inherently homosexual …; all Colombians and Cubans are drug dealers …; Mexicans are drunks …; Salvadorans prefer incest …; Dominican women will have children with anyone …; Poles drink too much …; Chinese are kidnappers …; Jamaicans, Dominicans and Cubans are murderers …; Jamaican women make good housekeepers and nannies …; and [he did] not like Japanese people ….” Levinsky was successfully sued by a Department of Homeland Security trial attorney who claimed harassment; the agency paid $60,370 to settle her claims. At the same time, EOIR refuses to disclose publicly any disciplinary actions against immigration judges, although information about disciplinary actions against private attorneys is displayed prominently on their website.