Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Patel v. Attorney General, 09-1572, concerned an Indian citizen's petition for review of the BIA's final order affirming the denial of her application for cancellation of removal. In dismissing the petition, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review petitioner's claim that she met her burden of showing an exceptional hardship, because it challenges a discretionary determination and does not present a constitutional question or a question of law. Further, petitioner's motion for a stay of voluntary departure is denied as, in light of 8 C.F.R. section 1240.26(i), petitioner's voluntary departure terminated upon her filing of a petition for review.
Karpenko v. Leendertz, 10-1678, concerned a challenge to the district court's grant of a mother's petition for the child's return under the Hague Convention of the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, in a child custody dispute. In affirming, the court ordered the minor child's immediate return to her mother in the Netherlands as the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous. The court also held that the application of the unclean hands doctrine would undermine the Hague Convention's goal of protecting the well-being of the child, of restoring the status quo before the child's abduction, and of ensuring that rights of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting States.
Council Tree Communications, Inc. v. Fed. Communications Comm'n, 08-2036, concerned a petition for review of multiple orders in FCC rulemaking in which the FCC changed the qualifications for designated entities (DE) status as well as the restitution that must be made by a licensee that loses DE status after taking advantage of bidding credits. In denying in part, the court held that with respect to the attributable-material-relationship rule articulated in 47 C.F.R. section 1.2110(b)(1) and (b)(3)(iv)(B) as the FCC's 25% attribution rule was promulgated after the public notice and opportunity to comment required by the APA. In granting in part, the court vacated and remanded with respect to the impermissible material relationship rule contained in 47 C.F.R. section 1.2110(b)(3)(iv)(A) and the 10 year-hold rule contained in 47 C.F.R. section 1.2111(d)(2)(i), as the 50% impermissible-relationship rule and the 10-year bidding-credit repayment schedule was promulgated without the requisite notice and opportunity to comment.
Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.
Sign into your Legal Forms and Services account to manage your estate planning documents.Sign In
Create an account allows to take advantage of these benefits: