SuperExpat?

From Action Comics #900.  News here and here.

Morton Replies to Lofgren re Secure Communities

"Dear Representative Lofgren: I write to express my regret for the confusion regarding the Secure Communities program and the issue of whether a jurisdiction may "opt out" of the program." -Letter dated April 28, 2011.

Constitutional Victory For Shackled Pregnant Mom

"The Court applies Hope, Women Prisoners at D.C., Nelson and Brawley and the undisputed facts to conclude that Defendants' shackling of Plaintiff during the final stages of her active labor and her post-partum recovery, violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, given Plaintiffs serious medical condition and the Defendants' indifference to that condition by shackling her during these time periods. The medical proof demonstrates that such shackling was medically necessary and caused unnecessary physical and mental suffering. In addition, under Boretti and Byrd, the Court concludes that Defendants' denial of the breast pump that the MGH provided for Plaintiffs medical care also constitutes deliberate indifference under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as denial and interference with care prescribed by a health care provider. The Court concludes that the Defendants' shackling of Plaintiff in the final stages of her pregnancy and post-partum recovery as well as the denial of the prescribed breast pump, constitute punishment under the Due Process Clause that is also prohibited under Bell. 441 U.S. at 535. ("[U]nder the Due Process Clause, a detainee may not be punished prior to an adjudication in accordance with due process law). ... Thus, in addition to the cited judicial decisions, this Court further concludes that these medical publications, convention rules, social studies and standards also establish that the shackling of a pregnant detainee in the final stages of labor shortly before birth and during the post-partum recovery, violates the Eighth Amendment's standard of contemporary decency."

Villegas v. Metro. Govt. et al, Case 3:09-cv-00219, Document 113, Filed 04/27/11, M.D. Tenn., Nashville Dist.

Hats off to Elliott Ozment!  Here's the story in the Tennessean.

DHS on NSEERS (forever)

"Because the Secretary of Homeland Security’s authority under the NSEERS regulations is broader than the manual information flow based on country designation that has now ended, the underlying NSEERS regulation will remain in place in the event a special registration program is again needed."

 - Margo Schlanger, DHS Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Apr. 27, 2011.

Taiwanese couple falsely procure natz, passports, steal DOS database containing 250K names, addresses and SSNs of federal employees

Pretty scary.  Here's a link to the short NYT story.  And here's a link to the Plea Agreement and Statement of Facts, with the gory details.

APA / Due Process Victory: Asylum Termination Challenge

"[P]laintiff alleges that defendants violated his due process rights by failing to give him specific reasons for their intent to terminate his asylum status. Plaintiff also alleges that he did not have a meaningful opportunity to present evidence in his defense because defendants did not identify the allegations against him or provide access to the evidence against him. The Court finds that these allegations are sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss."

Singh v. USCIS, N.D. Ill., E.D., No. 10-C-8288, Apr. 19, 2011.

Hats off to Scott D. Pollock of Chicago!

Courtesy of Bender's Immigration Bulletin - Daily Edition.

Unpub. BIA Cancellation Victory - Discretion

A rare case: three-member panel of BIA (Guendelsberger, King, Miller; signed by King) reverses IJ denial of 240A(a) cancellation on discretion: "The Immigration Judge found that the respondent was statutorily eligible for cancellation of removal, but denied it in the exercise of discretion (I.J. at 3, 11). The respondent challenges this decision on appeal and argues that the Immigration Judge failed to properly balance the positive and negative factors under Matter of Marin, 16 I&N Dec. 581 (BlA 1978), and Matter of C-V-T-, 22 I&N Dec. 7 (BIA 1998), in determining whether the respondent should be granted relief as a matter of discretion. ... While this is a very close case, upon our de novo review we find that a grant of the respondent's request for cancellation of removal is warranted in the exercise of discretion."  Matter of X-, Apr. 14, 2011.

Hats off to Jose Quintero of CCLS Miami!

Courtesy of Bender's Immigration Bulletin - Daily Edition.