FINAL REG WILL SPEED PROCESSING OF SOME CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL DENIALS IN IMMIGRATION COURT

Here is the DOJ final regulation published at 82 Fed. Reg. 57336:

2017-26104 Cancellation Reg

Buried in the bureaucratic technical gobbledygook of this regulation is one major change in U.S. Immigration Court docket procedures.

Up until now, U.S. Immigration Judges have been required to withhold final merits decisions in almost all non-lawful-permanent resident (“NLPR”) cancellation of removal cases once the statutory 4,000 limit for a particular fiscal year is reached. This includes cases where the Immigration Judge intends to deny the application and which, therefore, would not count toward the 4,000 limit in any event. There were some very narrow exceptions for denials based on certain determinations of statutory ineligibility because of crimes, lack of physical presence, or lack of a “qualifying relative.” But, by far the greatest number of NLPR cancellation denials are based on a determination that the respondent has failed to establish that his or her removal would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying U.S. family member.

The regulatory change now allows Immigration Judges to issue denials of NLPR cancellation for any reason, including failure to establish the requisite hardship and failure to merit a favorable exercise of discretion. Only those cases where the Immigration Judge deems a grant of NLPR cancellation to be probable must be “held” for the availability of a statutory “number.” ation of Removal

Many Immigration Judges felt that the prior limitation was problematic because it was based on the unsupported assumption that Immigration Judges might deny otherwise “grantable” NLPR cancellation of removal applications just to achieve a an immediate “case completion.”  Additionally, the process of withholding final decision in almost all cancellation merits decisions placed considerable additional burdens on already overwhelmed Immigration Court staff from Judicial Law Clerks to Court Clerks and those fielding public inquiries about the status of cases. From that standpoint, I believe that most U.S. Immigration Judges and their court staffs will welcome this regulatory change.

PWS

12-08-17

 

Related posts:

  1. BLOCKBUSTER: ANOTHER SUPREME STOMP! — DOJ /DHS SCOFFLAWS LOSE AGAIN BY 8-1 MARGIN IN PEREIRA V. SESSIONS – Invalidates Hundreds Of Thousands Of “Haste Makes Waste” Notices To Appear – Real Costs To American Justice Of A “Captive” BIA That Functions Like DHS Toady Rather Than Independent Court Becoming Painfully Apparent – Risks In Having Biggest Federal “Court” System Run By Biased & Incompetent Attorney General Now Coming Into Focus!
  2. HON. JEFFREY S. CHASE SLAMS BIA, BARR FOR INSTITUTIONALIZING SLOPPY WORK — BIA “Has Certainly Not Earned The Deference”
  3. ⚖️🇺🇸🗽👍🏼👨🏻‍⚖️JUSTICE GORSUCH LEADS 6-3 SUPREMES’ MAJORITY IN HANDING MIGRANTS HUGE VICTORY OVER DHS & EOIR INTRANSIGENCE/INCOMPETENCE IN “STOP TIME RULE” CASE —  Niz-Chavez v. Garland — “Round Table” Amicus Plays A Role In Success! — “A single notice—rather than 2 or 20 documents!”
  4. ⚠️FIFTH CIRCUIT REMAND IS JUST FIRST OF MANY THAT WILL RESULT FROM BIA’S TOTALLY AVOIDABLE NIZ-CHAVEZ SCREW-UP! — Garland’s Backlog Likely To Mushroom Until He Cleans House @ EOIR! — “Culture of Denial” At BIA Crippling American Justice! — Garland Needs Qualified Judges & Professional Court Administrators @ EOIR, To Replace The “Continuing Clown Show!”🤡