Articles Posted in Gangs

by

The aftermath of the presidential election has sent shockwaves throughout the immigrant community.

In just 70 days, Donald Trump is set to become the next President of the United States. That means that major changes are coming to immigration law and policy.

In this video attorney Jacob Sapochnick explains what Trump’s victory means for immigration, including his promise to execute mass deportations throughout the United States, as well as other controversial immigration policies that he is expected to implement when he takes office on January 20, 2025.

Want to know more? Just keep on watching

Overview

Mass Deportations

Throughout his campaign, Trump has called for mass deportations nationwide which he has said will be the “largest deportation effort in American history. “

It is said that his advisors are discussing whether they can declare a “national emergency,” to allow the government to call upon military officials to detain and remove undocumented migrant gang members from the United States. His campaign has also suggested ending sanctuary cities to remove suspected criminals, including drug dealers and cartel members from the population.

His promises also include hiring thousands of border patrol agents to secure the southern border to deter illegal immigration.

Trump’s Top Five Policies Targeting Immigration Law

The following are the top 5 areas where Trump’s policies will have the greatest impact in the lives of immigrants in the United States.

Immigrants should understand the potential challenges they could face under the Trump administration and consult with an experienced immigration attorney to create a plan of action in the months ahead. It is important to do so as soon as possible, because sensitive cases may call for immediate action before Trump is inaugurated.

#1 Asylum Restrictions

During Trump’s presidency in 2017, his administration was responsible for implementing widespread asylum restrictions. It is likely that his administration will re-implement many of his previous immigration policies, which limit asylum applications.

His policies are also likely to restrict asylum applications at the border, as they did during his first term in office.

Examples of Asylum Restrictions:

In 2020, the Trump administration published 7 final rules in the Federal Register to:

Continue reading

by

In this video and blog post, we discuss a recent Supreme Court decision finding that U.S. Citizens do not have a fundamental right in having their noncitizen spouses admitted to the United States.

What is this ruling all about?

Department of State v. Muñoz

On June 21, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision in Department of State v. Muñoz that U.S. citizens petitioning for their foreign spouses do not have a constitutional liberty interest in their spouses being admitted to the country.

What’s worse, the court upheld the doctrine of consular nonreviewability, which says that there can be no judicial review of a consular officer’s decision finding a visa applicant inadmissible, except in a very limited class of constitutional cases.

About the Case

The plaintiff in the case, Sandra Muñoz, married her husband, a Salvadoran citizen in 2010, and shared a U.S. Citizen child with him. Thereafter, her husband applied for an immigrant visa at the U.S. Consulate in El Salvador so that they could live together in the United States and sought a waiver of inadmissibility. He denied having any gang affiliations despite being heavily tattooed.

After undergoing several interviews, the consular officer denied his application, citing §1182(a)(3)(A)(ii), a provision that renders inadmissible a noncitizen whom the officer “knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in” certain specified offenses or “any other unlawful activity.”

The plaintiff’s husband assumed that he had been denied a visa based upon the erroneous finding that he was a member of the gang MS-13. He denied being a member and requested the Consulate to reconsider its findings.

After the consulate refused, they appealed to the Department of State, which ultimately agreed with the consulate’s determination.

The couple then sought Congressional intervention and sued the State Department, claiming that they violated the plaintiff’s constitutional liberty interest in her husband’s visa application by failing to give a sufficient reason why he was inadmissible under the “unlawful activity” bar.

Continue reading