“A good immigration lawyer should be able to give you an honest and thorough assessment of your case and be able to explain the options that are available to you based on not only the current law, but changes that are in the legislative and judicial pipeline at any given time. He should tell you the bad parts of your case as well as the good. If it can’t be done, he should say so.”

VISIT US
OVER 40 YEARS EXPERIENCE
MÁS DE 40 AÑOS DE EXPERIENCIA

“Un buen abogado de inmigración debe poder darle una accesoria completa y honesta en relación a su caso y ser capaz de explicarle las opciones que tiene disponibles basadas no solo en las leyes corrientes, pero también en los cambios hechos en el proceso legislativo y judicial en cualquier momento dado. El deberia decirle lo bueno y lo malo de su caso. Si no se puede hacer nada, deberia decirselo.”

  • Facebook Social Icon
  • YouTube Social  Icon

© 2018 Law Office of Thomas Esparza Jr

CALL US

Tel: (512) 441-0062

Fax: (512) 441-0725

EMAIL US
OPENING HOURS

Mon - Thurs: 8am - 5pm
Friday: 8am - 4pm

Law Office of Thomas Esparza, Jr., P.C.
1811 S. First St
Austin, TX 78704

August 10, 2014

Please reload

Recent Posts

Jan. 18, 2018, Update:  Due to a federal court order, USCIS has resumed accepting requests to renew a grant of deferred action under DACA.  Until furt...

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals: Response to January 2018 Preliminary Injunction

February 26, 2018

1/1
Please reload

Featured Posts

Supreme Court Denies Trump Request To Hear Dreamer Lawsuit

WASHINGTON ― In a major setback for the Trump administration, the Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a lawsuit over the future of an Obama-era program that protects so-called Dreamers from deportation.

 

The decision all but ensures that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program will remain in effect for recipients after the March 5 deadline originally set by the White House. It also takes some of the pressure off Congress to act to pass its own legislation to protect young undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children, something lawmakers have repeatedly failed to do.

 

President Donald Trump rescinded DACA in September, putting its nearly 700,000 recipients at risk of losing two-year deportation relief and work permits. He said he wanted to put in place permanent protections for Dreamers, but demanded major policy changes on legal immigration, asylum seekers and border security that senators rejected earlier this month. 

 

The Trump administration has the power to end DACA, which President Barack Obama had implemented through executive action. But a spate of lawsuits in California and New York have argued that the White House flouted procedures required by federal law and violated the equal protection rights of DACA recipients.

 

Several lawsuits filed in the Northern District of California were consolidated into one and resulted in the first nationwide, preliminary injunction barring the Trump administration from ending the DACA program while the lawsuit proceeds. The order, issued in January, requires U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to keep processing DACA renewals for people who have been approved for the program in the past, but doesn’t require them to process first-time applications.

 

The Trump administration appealed the injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, but also took the unusual step of asking the Supreme Court to immediately consider the lawsuit rather than waiting for the appeals court to rule first.

 

White House spokesman Raj Shah responded to the Supreme Court’s decision Monday by criticizing the California judge who issued the injunction reopening the DACA program. He said the administration “fully expect[s] to prevail” in the end, and said the program “is clearly unlawful.”

 

“The district judge’s decision to unilaterally re-impose a program that Congress had explicitly and repeatedly rejected is a usurpation of legislative authority,” Shah said in a statement. “The fact that this occurs at a time when elected representatives in Congress are actively debating this policy only underscores that the district judge has unwisely intervened in the legislative process.”

 

The Supreme Court’s decision Monday concerned the California lawsuit. A separate judge issued a nationwide injunction earlier this month based on another lawsuit, this one heard in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York.

 

Congress has thus far been unable or unwilling to pass legislation to help Dreamers, though lawmakers in both parties claim they want to fix the issue. The Senate voted down multiple proposals this month, with Trump’s plan garnering the least support of all.

 

The House hasn’t taken up any legislation. Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has repeatedly said he will bring up a bill the president would sign ― signaling that he might not allow votes on measures that lack Trump’s explicit endorsement.

 

Ryan told reporters earlier this month that the March 5 deadline was “not as important as it was before, given the court rulings.” However, he said, “I think this place works better with deadlines, and we want to operate on deadlines.”

 

While DACA remains in effect for people already approved for the program, it isn’t open for new applicants, including Dreamers who would otherwise be aging into the program. Some current recipients are also likely to temporarily lose their work authorization and deportation relief as they await approval of their renewal applications, which typically takes months.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/supreme-court-daca_us_5a8dabdfe4b00a30a251c495

 

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Please reload

Follow Us
Please reload

Search By Tags
Please reload

Archive
  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Twitter Basic Square
  • Google+ Basic Square