18 New Immigration Judges Sworn in on May 10, 2019

Introduction

On May 10, 2019, the chief Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) held an investiture ceremony to inaugurate 18 new immigration judges [PDF version]. one among the 18 new immigration judges will function an assistant chief immigration judge with supervisory responsibilities. Each of the 18 new immigration judges was selected by Attorney General William Barr. The 18 new immigration judges will serve on 9 immigration courts across the country.

In this article, we'll examine the biographies of the new immigration judges — sorted by immigration court — with regard to the EOIR news release. To examine previous immigration judge investiture ceremonies, please see our article index [see article].

Abbreviations:

Department of Justice (DOJ)
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

Immigration Courts With New Immigration Judges From May 2019 Investiture

Cleveland Immigration Court (Ohio) [1 new ACIJ and 1 new IJ]
Boston Immigration Court (Massachusetts) [3 new IJs]
Conroe Immigration Court (Texas)
Elizabeth Immigration Court (New Jersey)
Fort Worth Immigration Adjudication Center (Texas) [2 new IJs]
Miami Immigration Court (Florida) [3 new IJs]
Philadelphia Immigration Court (Pennsylvania)
San Antonio Immigration Court (Texas)
San Francisco Immigration Court (California) [4 new IJs]

James. F. McCarthy III, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, Cleveland Immigration Court

1995-2019: Private practice.
1983-1995: Assistant city solicitor and chief trial counsel for the town of Cincinnati, Ohio.
1983-1995: Judge advocate for the U.S. Navy.
1981-1983: Private practice.
1977-1981: Active duty judge advocate for the U.S. Navy.

Law degree from the Ohio State University College of Law in 1977.

ACIJ McCarthy immediately assumed supervisory duties at the Cleveland Immigration Court upon being sworn in. His legal experience comes exclusively from private practice, the U.S. Navy, and from working for the town of Cincinnati, Ohio.

John M. Furlong Jr., Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court
2013-2019: Deputy district director for USCIS, DHS, in Boston, Massachusetts.
2006-2013: Deputy chief counsel for ICE, DHS, in Boston, Massachusetts.
1996-2006: Assistant chief counsel for ICE, DHS, in Boston, Massachusetts.
Law degree from Suffolk University in 1994.

IJ Furlong has over 20 years of experience as a lawyer for ICE and USCIS.

Lincoln S. Jalelian, Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court
2009-2019: Assistant chief counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel, ICE, DHS, in Boston, Massachusetts.
2008-2009: Assistant attorney general within the Office of the Attorney General of Massachusetts.
2004-2008: trial lawyer within the gangland and Racketeering Section, Criminal Division, DOJ.
2002-2003: Resident legal advisor at the U.S. Office in Pristina, Kosovo.
1992-2004: Assistant DA within the Middlesex County District Attorney's Office in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Law degree from Boston University School of Law in 1992.

IJ Jalelian has worked as both a state and federal prosecutor before his decade-long stint as an attorney for ICE.

Jennifer A. Mulcahy, Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court

2002-2019: Assistant chief counsel for the Office of Chief Counsel, ICE, DHS, in Boston, Massachusetts.
Law degree from Suffolk University School of Law in 2001.

IJ Mulcahy worked for seventeen years as an ICE attorney before becoming an immigration judge.

Taresa L. Riley, Immigration Judge, Cleveland Immigration Court

2009-2019: Assistant U.S. attorney, Northern District of Ohio, DOJ, in both the Cleveland and Akron offices, finishing her service because the Attorney-in-Charge, Criminal Division, of the Akron Branch Office.
2008-2009: Assistant prosecutor for the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office in Cleveland, Ohio.
2003-2008: Senior law clerk for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio.
1999-2003: Law clerk and judicial attorney for Judge John R. Adams within the Court of Common Pleas in Summit County, Ohio.

Law degree from the University of Akron School of Law.

IJ Riley has extensive experience as a federal prosecutor and law clerk before taking the immigration bench.

Holly A. D'Andrea, Immigration Judge, Conroe Immigration Court

2011-2019: Assistant U.S. attorney with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Texas, DOJ, in Brownsville, Texas.
2016-2017: National border and immigration legal issues coordinator with the chief Office for U.S. Attorneys, DOJ, in Washington D.C.
2008-2010: Assistant prosecutor , assistant county counselor, and city attorney in Washington County, Missouri.
2007-2008: Private practice.

Law degree from Saint Louis University School of Law in 2006.

IJ D'Andrea was a federal and former local prosecutor with a 1 year stint as a DOJ lawyer handling border and immigration issues.

Jason L. Pope, Immigration Judge, Elizabeth Immigration Court
2014-2019: Assistant chief counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel, ICE, DHS, in Baltimore, Maryland.
2007-2012: Private practice specializing in immigration law.
Law degree from Syracuse University College of Law in 2006.

IJ Pope has experience as an ICE attorney and as an immigration lawyer privately practice.

Jacob D. Bashore, Immigration Judge, Fort Worth Immigration and Adjudication Center
2006-2019: Attorney AND circuit judge with the U.S. Army.
Law degree from the University of Tennessee College of Law in 2006; Master of Laws degree from The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and faculty in 2011.

IJ Bashore's experience comes exclusively as an attorney and judge for the U.S. Army.

Marium S. Uddin, Immigration Judge, Fort Worth Immigration Adjudication Center
2016-2018: Assistant chief counsel with the Office of the Chief Counsel, ICE, DHS, in Dallas, Texas.
2015-2016: Assistant DA with the Dallas County District Attorney's Office in Dallas, Texas.
2011-2015: Assistant lawyer with the Dallas County Public Defender's Office in Dallas, Texas.
2010-2011: Criminal defense and immigration attorney privately practice.
2005-2010: Assistant DA with the El Paso District Attorney's Office in El Paso , Texas (also from 2001-2002).

Law degree from The University of Texas School of Law in 2000.

IJ Uddin brings a spread of experience to the immigration bench from her stints as an ICE attorney, prosecutor, lawyer , and immigration attorney privately practice.

Michelle C. Araneta, Immigration Judge, Miami Immigration Court
2000-2019: Prosecutor with the Pima County Attorney's Office in Tucson, Arizona.
1995-1999: Prosecutor with the District Attorney's Office in Riverdale, California.
1991-1995: Associate attorney practicing tax and bankruptcy in Orange County, California.
1989-1991: Law clerk for Judge David N. Naugle of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California [PDF version].

Law degree from California Western School of Law in San Diego in 1989.

IJ Araneta brings over 20 years of experience as an area prosecutor and extra experience within the area of bankruptcy law to the immigration bench.

Thomas M. Ayze, Immigration Judge, Miami Immigration Court
2008-2019: Assistant chief counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, ICE, DHS, in Miami, Florida.
2007-2008: Fraud, detection and national security immigration officer with USCIS, DHS, in Miami, Florida.
2003-2007: Asylum officer with USCIS, DHS, in Miami, Florida.
1988-2010: Judge advocate within the U.S. Air Force (active duty 1988-2002; reservist 2003-2010)
Law degree from the University of Florida Levin College of Law in 1988.

IJ Ayze features a wealth of experience with ICE and USCIS, including a four-year stint as an asylum officer. IJ Ayze also served for over 20 years as a judge advocate for the U.S. Air Force.

Abraham L. Burgess, Immigration Judge, Miami Immigration Court
2012-2019: Assistant chief counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, ICE, DHS, in Texas and California.
2003-2011: Judge advocate for the U.S. Army.
Law degree from Boston University School of Law in 2002.

IJ Burgess' experience is split between a seven-year stint as an ICE lawyer and an eight-year stint as a judge advocate for the U.S. Army.

Mary C. Lee, Immigration Judge, Philadelphia Immigration Court
2015-2019: Assistant chief counsel for Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, ICE, DHS, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
2003-2015: Assistant chief counsel for Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, ICE, DHS, in Baltimore, Maryland.
2010-2013: Assistant chief counsel for Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, ICE, DHS, in Atlanta, Georgia.
2009-2010: Judicial law clerk within the court of latest Jersey.
2000-2006: Served within the U.S. Air Force.
Law degree from Rutgers University in 2009.

IJ Lee served for nearly a decade as an ICE attorney in three different locations before being sworn in.

Rifian S. Newaz, Immigration Judge, San Antonio Immigration Court

2018-2019: Private practice.
2011-2018: Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas, DOJ, in El Paso, Texas.
2004-2010: Assistant DA for the Harris County District Attorney's Office in Houston, Texas.
Law degree from the University of Texas School of Law in 2004.

IJ Newaz's experience comes primarily as a prosecutor at both the federal and state levels.

Nicholas R. Ford, Immigration Judge, San Francisco Immigration Court

2003-2019: State of Illinois circuit court judge assigned to the criminal division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chicago, Illinois.
1997-2003: Judge assigned to the central bond court division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chicago, Illinois.
1991-1997: Assistant state attorney assigned to the federal trial division of the Cook County State's Attorney's Office, Chicago.
1988-1991: Assistant state attorney assigned to the main narcotics task force within the Cook County State's Attorney's Office.
Law degree from the University of Iowa College of Law in 1988.

IJ Ford has extensive experience as a state judge in Chicago from 1997-2019. before serving as a judge, he was a prosecutor for nearly a decade.

Susan Phan, Immigration Judge, San Francisco Immigration Court

2015-2019: Assistant chief counsel for the Office of the Chief Counsel, ICE, DHS, in San Francisco , California.
2012-2015: Assistant general counsel for the State Bar of California, in San Francisco .
2009-2014: Special assistant U.S. attorney and assistant U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California in San Francisco , and for the Eastern District of California in Fresno.
2005-2019: Assistant attorney general with the District of Columbia Attorney General's Office in Washington, D.C.

Law degree from the University of California, Los Angelis in 2004.

IJ Phan brings experience as an ICE attorney and as a federal and native prosecutor to the immigration bench.

Jason M. Price, Immigration Judge, San Francisco Immigration Court
2007-2019: Assistant chief counsel for the Office of Chief Counsel, ICE, DHS, in San Francisco , California.
2006-2007: Assistant lawyer for the Maryland Office of the general public Defender in Hagerstown, Maryland.
2000-2005: Active duty judge advocate for the U.S. Air Force.

Law degree from the West Virginia College of Law in 2000.

IJ Price has extensive experience as an ICE lawyer, lawyer , and judge advocate.

Jennifer M. Riedthaler Williams, Immigration Judge, San Francisco Immigration Court
2017-2019: Judicial magistrate with the Lorain County Domestic Relations Court in Elyria, Ohio.
2001-2017: Assistant prosecutor with the Lorain County Prosecutor's Office in Elyria, Ohio, within the felony criminal division and therefore the juvenile and felony non-support division.
Law degree from Case Western Reserve University School of Law in 2001.

IJ Williams worked as a magistrate judge and native prosecutor before taking the immigration bench.

USCIS to Shift N-400 and I-485 Caseloads to Decrease Processing Time Discrepancies

Introduction

On June 17, 2019, the us Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that it's implementing a national strategy to decrease differences in processing times supported the situation of processing for the shape N-400, Application for Naturalization, and therefore the Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status [PDF version].

New Policy

The USCIS stated that processing times for both the shape N-400 and therefore the Form I-485 began increasing at the top of 2015. This increase is due to above expected volumes of Forms N-400 and I-485 filed in financial year 2016 and 2017. While processing times increased generally thanks to the increased number of Form N-400 and Form I-485 filings, “[t]he increased filing volumes didn't affect [USCIS] field offices equally.”

As a part of its strategy to even out processing times for the shape N-400 and Form I-485, the USCIS will begin shifting caseloads between its field offices. Thus, it's going to schedule naturalization and adjustment of status applicants to seem for interviews at field offices outside of their normal jurisdiction. Form N-400 and Form I-485 applicants may expect to receive notices concerning their applications — like an interview appointment notice or an invitation for Evidence — from a field office outside of their normal jurisdiction. The USCIS clarifies, however, that “these caseload changes won't affect where applicants attend their biometrics appointments.” no matter shifting caseloads, biometrics appointments will still occur at the naturalization or adjustment of status applicant's nearest application support center. The USCIS reminds applicants to always follow the instructions on notices received from the USCIS.

Discussion

The USCIS will shift caseloads between field offices to even out the processing times for the shape N-400 and Form I-485. this may ideally reduce the discrepancy where certain applicants for naturalization or adjustment of status are subjected to extremely long processing times thanks to an unusual number of filings at the sector office normally having jurisdiction over their applications. For those applicants whose applications are shifted from one field office to a different , the change may cause some inconvenience. Regardless, applicants should carefully follow the instructions that they receive from USCIS so as to proceed through the adjudication of their applications.

Applicants for naturalization or adjustment of status should consult an experienced immigration attorney for case-specific guidance on each step of their application processes. to find out more about this and related issues, please see our website's growing sections on naturalization [see category], adjustment of status [see category], family immigration [see category], employment immigration [see category], and investment immigration [see category].

Visa Bulletin for August 2019

Introduction

On July 5, 2019 The U.S. Department of State (DOS) released its monthly Visa Bulletin August 2019 — the penultimate month of FY 2019 [PDF version]. The August 2019 Visa Bulletin contains the dates for filing and application final action dates for beneficiaries of approved immigrant visa petitions within the family-sponsored and employment-based preference categories. On July 16, 2019, the us Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that the majority family-sponsored adjustment of status applicants must depend on the August 2019 Visa Bulletin's dates for filing to work out eligibility to file for adjustment during the month, while all employment-based adjustment of status applicants must use the less favorable final action dates [PDF version].

We will examine the pertinent charts from the August 2019 Visa Bulletin, their applicability to those getting to apply for adjustment of status on the idea of an approved family-sponsored or employment-based preference petition, and other general news and notes from the Bulletin as we approach the top of FY 2019.

We have several resources on site to assist readers understand the Visa Bulletin and its relevance in many adjustment of status cases. First, please see our article on using the Visa Bulletin as an adjustment of status applicant, and the way that use differs from a private seeking an immigrant visa abroad through the consular process [see article]. Second, please see our article explaining the differences between the dates for filing and therefore the final action dates [see article]. Third, please see our compendium of past articles on visa bulletins [see index].

Family-Sponsored Cases

In welcome news for beneficiaries of approved family-sponsored immigrant visa petitions seeking adjustment of status, the USCIS has determined that beneficiaries of such petitions altogether categories apart from F2A must use the favorable dates for filing so as to work out if they're eligible to use for adjustment of status in August 2019. Beneficiaries of F2A petitions are within the most superiority , however, because while they need to use the ultimate action dates from the August 2019 Visa Bulletin, the ultimate action date for all F2A petitions is “current.” this suggests that the beneficiary of an approved F2A petition is eligible to use for adjustment of status in August 2019, as long as he or she meets the substantive requirements for adjustment.

Beneficiaries of non-F2A approved family-sponsored immigrant visa preference petitions seeking adjustment of status must compare their filing date with the applicable filing date cutoff on the August 2019 Visa Bulletin. so as to use for adjustment of status in August 2019, the beneficiary of an approved family-sponsored immigrant visa preference petition must have a filing date before the applicable filing date for his or her preference category and chargeability area.

The filing date in family-sponsored cases is usually the date on which the immigrant visa petition was properly filed with the USCIS on the beneficiary's behalf. As we noted, beneficiaries of approved immigrant visa petitions within the F2A category may apply for adjustment in August 2019 no matter their filing dates since the ultimate action date for F2A in August 2019 is current.

The Visa Bulletin deals only with whether visa numbers are available during a specific preference category. A petition beneficiary must also meet the substantive requirements for eligibility to use for adjustment of status so as to use for adjustment in August 2019 or in the other month.

The following, courtesy of the USCIS, are the ultimate action dates for F2A preference petitions in August 2019:

Family-Sponsored All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed CHINA-mainland born INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
F2A C C C C C
The following, courtesy of the USCIS, are the filing dates for all family-sponsored cases apart from F2A in August 2019:

Family-Sponsored All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed CHINA-mainland born INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
F1 01MAR13 01MAR13 01MAR13 01NOV99 22AUG08
F2B 01SEP14 01SEP14 01SEP14 01FEB99 01NOV08
F3 22DEC07 22DEC07 22DEC07 15JUL00 01APR98
F4 15DEC06 15DEC06 15MAY05 15DEC98 01NOV98
For reference purposes only, below are the ultimate action dates for the family-sponsored preferences from the August 2019 Visa Bulletin. All non-F2A cases must rely instead on the dates for filing for purpose of determining eligibility to use for adjustment of status during August 2019.

Family-Sponsored All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed CHINA-mainland born INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
F1 01JUL12 01JUL12 01JUL12 01AUG96 22FEB08
F2A C C C C C
F2B 01JAN14 01JAN14 01JAN14 01JUN98 01APR08
F3 22JUN07 22JUN07 22JUN07 01DEC95 01OCT97
F4 01OCT06 01OCT06 15SEP04 01JAN97 01MAY98

Employment-Based Cases

The USCIS has determined that each one beneficiaries of employment-based preference petitions must believe the ultimate action dates within the August 2019 Visa Bulletin. Thus, so as to use for adjustment of status in August 2019 on the idea of an approved employment-based preference petition, the applicant's filing date must be before the applicable final action cutoff date — except in cases where the ultimate action date is current, which allows all beneficiaries of approved petitions therein preference who are otherwise eligible for adjustment to use for adjustment of status in August 2019.

In employment-based cases where labor certification was required, the filing date will generally be the date on which the labor certification application was accepted for processing by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). In cases where no labor certification was required, the priority date will generally be the date on which the immigrant visa petition was properly filed with the USCIS.

The Visa Bulletin deals only with whether visa numbers are available during a specific preference category. A petition beneficiary must also meet the substantive requirements for eligibility to use for adjustment of status so as to use for adjustment in August 2019 or in the other month.

The following, courtesy of the USCIS, are the ultimate action dates for employment-based cases in August 2019:

Employment-Based All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed CHINA-mainland born El SALVADOR GUATEMALA HONDURAS INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES VIETNAM

For reference purposes only — since beneficiaries of approved employment-based petitions must depend on the ultimate action dates to work out whether or not they can apply for adjustment of status in August 2019 — the subsequent are the dates for filing for employment-based cases in August 2019, reproduced from the August 2019 Visa Bulletin:

Employment-based All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed CHINA-mainland born EL SALVADOR GUATEMALA HONDURAS INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES

Establishment and Retrogression of August Employment-Based Final Action Dates

The DOS explained within the Visa Bulletin that “[t]here has been a steadily increasing level of Employment applicant demand since late May for adjustment of status cases filed with the [USCIS], and there's no indication that this increase will end.” Thus, so as to stay visa issuance within the annual limits, the DOS established and retrogressed several employment-based final action dates in August 2019. These measures are temporary — and therefore the final action dates for affected categories/chargeability areas are expected to return to where they were in July 2019 [see article] for the October 2019 Visa Bulletin — which can mark the primary bulletin for financial year 2020.

Conclusion

As always, beneficiaries of approved preference petitions who are getting to apply for adjustment of status should stay au courant developments within the immigrant visa bulletin. The bulletin also gives those seeking visas through consular processing a thought of once they could also be permitted to use for an immigrant visa. Petitioners and beneficiaries should consult an experienced immigration attorney for guidance on any and every one case-specific questions.

EOIR Swears in Six New Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Introduction

The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) held an investiture ceremony on August 23, 2019, to inaugurate six new members of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). All six new Board members were appointed by U.S. Attorney General William Barr. during this post, we'll list the new Board members and include biographical information on each from their profiles within the EOIR notice [PDF version].

Please see our index article for all of our posts on new immigration judges and BIA members [see index]. one among our posts includes the investiture of latest member s Goodwin and Gorman as immigration judges in 2017 [see blog].

New BIA Members

The following are profiles on the six new BIA members.

William A Cassidy, member
1993-2019: Immigration Judge appointed by former Attorney General Janet Reno (New York, ny 1993-96; Atlanta, Georgia 1996-2019)
1992-1993: Private practice
1987-1992: General attorney and director of coaching at the previous Immigration and Naturalization Service
1981-1987: Local prosecutor

Juris Doctorate from John Marshall/Cleveland State University in 1980

Board Member William Cassidy served as an immigration judge for 26 years, giving him the foremost experience on the immigration bench of the six new Board members. He had previously worked as a lawyer for the previous Immigration and Naturalization Service for five years.

V. Stuart Couch, member

2010-2019: Immigration Judge appointed by former Attorney General Eric Holder (Charlotte, North Carolina)
2009-2010: Private practice
2006-2009: Senior appellate judge on the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals within the District of Columbia
2003-2006: Assigned to the Department of Defense, Office of Military Commissions as a senior prosecutor for select detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
2001-2003: Chief trial counsel and military justice officer for Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
1999-2001: Local prosecutor
1996-1999: Chief trial counsel and special assistant U.S. attorney at United States Marine Corps air base , Cherry Point North Carolina
1989-1993: United States Marine Corps pilot
Juris Doctor from Campbell University in 1996

Board Member V. Stuart Couch spent the previous nine years as an immigration judge at the Charlotte Immigration Court. Most of his prior experience came as a military judge and lawyer, including stints as a military appellate judge and as a prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay.

Deborah K. Goodwin, member

2017-2019: Immigration judge appointed by former Attorney General Loretta Lynch (Miami, Florida)
2015-2017: Associate legal advisor for the District Court Litigation Division, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security , within the District of Columbia
2007-2015: Associate counsel for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security , in San Francisco
2002-2007: Assistant chief counsel for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security (and former Immigration and Naturalization Service) in San Francisco
Juris Doctor from the State University of latest York at Buffalo School of Law in 2000

Board Member Deborah K. Goodwin's experience comes primarily from her work as an attorney for several immigration components of the Department of Homeland Security from 2002-2017. before being selected as a member , she served a two-year stint as an immigration judge at the Miami Immigration Court.

Stephane E. Gorman, member

2017-2019: Immigration judge appointed by former Attorney General Loretta Lynch (Houston, Texas)
2014-2017: Attorney and legal instructor at the Federal enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia, for the Office of Chief Counsel, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security
2008-2014: Assistant chief counsel for the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security
2009-2012: Special assistant U.S. attorney for the U.S. Attorney's Office, Middle District of Florida, Department of Justice, in Orlando, Florida
2007-2008: Judicial law clerk for Judge M. James Lorenz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego
2007-2007: Judicial law clerk for Judge Roger Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego
2006-2007: Local prosecutor
2003-2006: Various capacities at the Jefferson School of Law
Juris Doctor from the Jefferson School of Law in 2002, Master of Laws from the University of San Diego School of Law

Board Member Gorman worked as an attorney in various capacities for the immigration components of the Department of Homeland Security for nearly a decade before beginning her short stint as an immigration judge on the Houston Immigration Court. additionally to her experience with immigration agencies, she has worked briefly as a prosecutor, Federal judicial law clerk, and law professor.

Keith E. Hunsucker, member

2010-2019: Immigration judge appointed by former Attorney General Eric Holder (2017-2019 Cleveland, Ohio; 2010-2017 Port Isabel, Texas)
2000-2010: Senior instructor for the Federal enforcement Training Center, Legal Division, Department of Homeland Security , in Glynco, Georgia
1992-2000: Attorney for the previous Immigration and Naturalization Service in Atlanta
1989-1992: Attorney for the previous Immigration and Naturalization Service in Harlingen, Texas
1989-1989: Judicial law clerk for the Ohio Court of Appeals, 9th Judicial District
1988-1989: Private practice
1987-1988: Attorney for the previous Immigration and Naturalization Service within the Attorney General's Honors Program, in San Francisco
Juris Doctorate from the University of Akron School of Law in 1987

Board Member Hunsucker has over three decades of experience as an immigration judge and lawyer in various capacities within the Department of Homeland Security and former Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Earle B. Wilson, Board Member

2005-2019: Immigration judge appointed by former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (Atlanta, Georgia 2010-2019; Orlando, Florida 2007-2010; Miami, Florida 2005-2007)
1998-2004: Senior litigation counsel and trial lawyer with the Office of Immigration Litigation, Department of Justice, within the District of Columbia
1996-1998: Assistant U.S. attorney with the U.S. Attorney's Office in Maryland
1992-1996: Senior counsel at the Securities and Exchange Commission within the District of Columbia
1990-1992: Private practice
1989-1990: Judicial law clerk to guage Joseph W. Hatchett of the us Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Tallahassee, Florida
Juris Doctorate from Howard University School of Law in 1989

Prior to his 14-year stint as an immigration judge, member Wilson had a spread of experience in legal capacities, including serving as a Federal prosecutor and attorney at the Securities and Exchange Commission. he's the sole new member to possess clerked for a Federal appellate judge.

Conclusion

The BIA hears appeals from immigration courts across the country and issues variety of important precedential decisions per annum [see index]. For this reason, the new Board Members are going to be important to the interpretation of the immigration laws for years to return . All six have served previously as immigration judges, and most have extensive prior experience with the varied immigration components of the federal .

EOIR Selects Four New Assistant Chief Immigration Judges

Introduction

The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) selected four new assistant chief immigration judges on August 23, 2019. Assistant chief immigration judges oversee the operations of the immigration courts to which they're assigned. additionally to those oversight responsibilities, assistant chief immigration judges also hear cases.

Below, we'll provide biographical information about each of the new assistant chief immigration judges courtesy of the EOIR notice [PDF version]. Please see our topic index for all of our posts on new immigration judges, administrative immigration judges, and members of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) [see index].

New Assistant Chief Immigration Judges

The four new assistant chief immigration judges will each serve on one immigration court.

Theresa Holmes-Simmons, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, Charlotte Immigration Court
2008-2019: Immigration judge at the Charlotte Immigration Court
1998-2008: Immigration judge at the ny City Immigration Court
1996-1998: Assistant district counsel for the previous Immigration and Naturalization Service in ny
1994-1996: Special prosecutor and assistant attorney general, ny state's attorney General's Office
1988-1994: Assistant DA with the ny County District Attorney's Office

Juris Doctorate from Rutgers University School of Law in 1988

Judge Holmes-Simmons served as an immigration judge on the ny City and Charlotte Immigration Courts for 21 years. before serving as an immigration judge and dealing as an attorney for the previous Immigration and Naturalization Service, Judge Holmes-Simmons worked for eight years as a prosecutor with the ny state's attorney General and therefore the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. She has an undergraduate degree from CUNY Brooklyn College.

Christopher R. Seppanen, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, Detroit Immigration Court

2017-2019: Immigration judge at the Cleveland Immigration Court
2002-2017: law judge for the State of Michigan in Lansing, Michigan (2014-17 Chief law judge; 2012-2014 Deputy chief law judge; 2002-2012 Supervisory law judge)
1997-2002: law judge for the State of Michigan, in Manistee, Michigan
1996-1997: trial lawyer for the Office of Public Advocacy, in Alpena, Michigan

Juris Doctor from the University of Kentucky School of Law in 1993

Before his two-year stint as an immigration judge on the Cleveland Immigration Court, Judge Seppanen served as an law judge in Michigan for 2 decades, giving him extensive experience during a sort of administrative judicial settings. he's the sole one among the new class of assistant chief immigration judges to be appointed to serve at a special immigration court than the one he had been serving on as a daily immigration judge. We covered his appointment as an immigration judge in an earlier post [see blog].

Hugo R. Martinez, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, Fort Worth Immigration Adjudication Center
2018-2019: Immigration https://www.mislegal.org/ judge at the Fort Worth Immigration Adjudication Center
2010-2018: Assistant U.S. attorney at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Texas in Corpus Christi, Texas
2005-2010: Assistant DA for the Tarrant County District Attorney's Office in Fort Worth , Texas
2004-2004: Private practice

Juris Doctor from Texas A&M School of Law in 2004

Judge Martinez served as a prosecutor at the Federal and State levels for 13 years before taking the immigration bench in November 2018. We covered his initial appointment as an immigration judge at the Fort Work Immigration Adjudication Center during a separate post [see blog].

Grady A. Crooks, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, LaSalle Immigration Court

2018-2019: Immigration judge at the LaSalle Immigration Court
2017-2017: Assistant U.S. attorney at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Louisiana in Shreveport, Louisiana
2005-2016: Attorney for the U.S. Air Force during a number of locations
Juris Doctor from Rutgers University School of Law in 2004

Save for one year as a Federal prosecutor, Judge Crooks' experience came as an attorney for the U.S. Air Force before taking the immigration bench at the LaSalle Immigration Court in late 2018. He was a part of an equivalent class of immigration judges as Judge Martinez (see above), and that we covered his initial appointment within the same post [see blog].

EOIR Swears in 27 New Immigration Judges (Oct. 11, 2019)

Introduction

On October 11, 2019, the chief Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) held an investiture ceremony to inaugurate 27 new immigration judges [PDF version]. The ceremony was presided over by Deputy Chief Immigration Judge Mary Cheung. The 27 new immigration judges were selected by U.S. Attorney General William Barr.

The 27 new immigration judges will sit on 17 immigration courts and adjudication centers across the us . during this post, we'll provide brief biographical information for every of the new immigration judges with regard to their professional profiles provided by EOIR. we'll examine the courts receiving new immigration judges in alphabetical order after first examining the new judges in New Jersey and ny City immigration courts.

Please see our growing index article to find out about previous appointments to the immigration courts and therefore the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) [see index].

Common Abbreviations

Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OLPA)

List of Immigration Courts Receiving New Immigration Judges
Elizabeth Immigration Court (New Jersey)
New York — Federal Plaza Immigration Court (New York)
New York — Varick Immigration Court (New York)
Bloomington Immigration Court (Minnesota)
Chicago Immigration Court (Illinois)
Dallas Immigration Court (Texas)
Fort Worth Immigration Adjudication Center (Texas)
Houston Immigration Court (Texas)
Miami Immigration Court (Florida)
Miami (Krome) Immigration Court (Florida)
Omaha Immigration Court (Nebraska)
Philadelphia Immigration Court (Pennsylvania)
Phoenix Immigration Court (Arizona)
San Diego Immigration Court (California)
San Francisco Immigration Court (California)
San Juan Immigration Court (Puerto Rico)

Elizabeth Immigration Court (New Jersey)
One new immigration judge has begun hearing cases at the Elizabeth Immigration Court.

Pallavi S. Shirole, Immigration Judge, Elizabeth Immigration Court
2017-2019: Associate legal advisor for the National Security Law Section, OLPA, ICE, DHS, within the District of Columbia.
2016-2017: Assistant chief counsel, OLPA, ICE, DHS, in Portland, Oregon.
2015-2017: Director of law program at a highschool .
2010-2015: Assistant state attorney for the Office of the state attorney , in Baltimore.
Law degree from University of Baltimore School of Law in 2009.

New York — Federal Plaza Immigration Court (New York)

Five new immigration judges were sworn in to take a seat on the ny — Federal Plaza Immigration Court.

L. Batya Schwartz Eherens, Immigration Judge, ny — Federal Plaza Immigration Court
2012-2019: Private practice as partner in ny -based immigration firm .
2006-2012: Private practice as immigration attorney in ny .
Law degree from American University Washington College of Law in 2003.

Deborah E. Klahr, Immigration Judge, ny — Federal Plaza Immigration Court

2018-2019: Supervisory immigration officer then section chief with the ny City Field Office, USCIS, DHS, in ny .
2017-2018: Senior immigration services officer with the Newark Field Office, USCIS, DHS, in Newark, New Jersey.
2013-2017: Asylum officer and supervisory asylum officer with the Newark Asylum Office, USCIS, DHS, in Lyndhurst, New Jersey.
2000-2013: Private practice as an immigration attorney at various ny and New Jersey law firms.
1997-1999: Staff attorney for the Bar Association for the town of latest York, in ny .
1992-1996: Private practice in ny .
Law degree from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in 1992.

Thomas N. Kouris, Immigration Judge, ny — Federal Plaza Immigration Court

2010-2019: Private practice in ny .
Law degree from Boston College school of law in 2009.

Laura N. Pierro, Immigration Judge, ny — Federal Plaza Immigration Court
1999-2018: Prosecutor in various capacities for the Ocean County Prosecutor's Office, in Toms River, New Jersey.
1997-1998: Law clerk to 3 criminal judges of the court of latest Jersey, Monmouth Vicinage, and therefore the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office.
Law degree from Wake Forest University School of Law in 1997.

Cathy Sagesse, Immigration Judge, ny — Federal Plaza Immigration Court

2016-2019: Assistant chief counsel, Office of the overall Counsel, OLPA, ICE, DHS, in Miami, Florida.
2007-2016: Assistant state's attorney for the Miami-Dade County State Attorney's Office in Miami, Florida.
Law degree from Stetson University College of Law in 2007.

New York — Varick Immigration Court (New York)

One new judge began hearing cases at the ny — Varick Immigration Court.

Forrest W. Hoover III, Immigration Judge, ny — Varick Immigration Court
2008-2019: Judge advocate, defense counsel, prosecutor, and military judge for the U.S. United States Marine Corps in Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, and Okinawa, Japan.
1999-2005: Logistics officer for the U.S. United States Marine Corps in Camp Lejeune, North Carolina; Okinawa, Japan; and Quantico, Virginia.
Retired from the U.S. United States Marine Corps in 2019 with the rank of light colonel .
Law degree from Temple University Beasley School of Law in 2008; Master of legal code Degree from the Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and faculty in 2012.

Bloomington Immigration Court (Minnesota)

One new judge began hearing cases at the Bloomington Immigration Court.

Monte G. Miller, Immigration Judge, Bloomington Immigration Court
2001-2019: Assistant and senior attorney with the Hennepin County Attorney's Office, Criminal Division, in Minneapolis.
2017-2019: judge with the Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary.
2012-2017: Appellate judge with the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals.
1994-2019: Judge advocate and military judge for the U.S. Navy in many locations.
Remains captain and judge advocate within the U.S. Navy Reserve.
Law degree from the Mitchell College of Law in 1993.

Chicago Immigration Court (Illinois)

One new Judge began hearing cases at the Chicago Immigration Court.

Jushua D. Luskin, Immigration Judge, Chicago Immigration Court
2015-2019: Commissioner at the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission.
2011-2015: Arbitrator at the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission.
2003-2011: Private practice in Illinois.
2000-2003: Judge advocate for the U.S. Navy.
1999-1999: Of counsel to the State's Attorney's Appellate Prosecutor's Office, in Illinois.
1998-1998: Assistant state attorney , in Champaign County, Illinois.
Law degree from the University of Michigan in 1997.

Dallas Immigration Court (Texas)

One new judge began hearing cases at the Dallas Immigration Court.

Jason D. Ferguson, Immigration Judge, Dallas Immigration Court
2016-2019: First assistant DA for the 119th Judicial District of Texas, in San Angelo , Texas.
2012-2016: Assistant DA for the 51st and 119th Judicial Districts of Texas, in San Angelo .
2010-2012: Assistant DA for the 31st Judicial District of Texas, in Pampa, Texas.
Law degree from the University of Houston Law Center in 2009.

Fort Worth Immigration Adjudication Center (Texas)
One new judge began hearing cases at the Fort Worth Immigration Adjudication Center.

Shelly W. Schools, Immigration Judge, Fort Worth Immigration Adjudication Center
1997-2019: Judge advocate, prosecutor, defense counsel at the trial and appellate level, staff judge advocate, and judge within the U.S. Air Force at many locations.
Retired from the Air Force with the rank of Colonel in 2019.
Law degree from the University of Mississippi in 1997.

Houston Immigration Court (Texas)

One new judge began hearing cases at the Houston Immigration Court.

Erica J. McGuirk, Immigration Judge, Houston Immigration Court
2012-2019: Associate counsel with USCIS, DHS, in Houston, Texas.
2003-2012: Senior attorney and assistant chief counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, ICE, DHS, in Houston.
2002-2003: Assistant chief counsel, Office of the District Counsel, with the previous INS, DOJ, in Houston.
1998-2002: trial lawyer with the Office of the Solicitor, Department of Labor, in Dallas, Texas.
Law degree from the University of Iowa College of Law in 1998.

Miami Immigration Court (Florida)

Three new judges began hearing cases at the Miami Immigration Court.

Christina M. Martyak, Immigration Judge, Miami Immigration Court
2006-2019: Assistant chief counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, ICE, DHS, in Miami, Florida.
2005-2006: Assistant statewide prosecutor for the Florida Office of the Attorney General, in Miami.
2000-2004: Assistant state's attorney for the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office, in Miami.
Law degree from St. Thomas University in 2000.

Ian D. Midgley, Immigration Judge, Miami Immigration Court

2014-2019: Supervisory law judge with the Office of Medicare Hearing and Appeals, Department of Health and Human Services, in Miami.
2008-2014: Assistant chief counsel, OLPA, ICE, DHS, in Orlando, Florida.
2006-2008: Active duty judge advocate for the U.S. Navy, in Yokosuka, Japan.
2001-2006: Active duty judge advocate for the U.S. Army, in Kitzingen, Germany, and at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida.
Serves as judge advocate for the U.S. Navy Reserve (since 2009).
Law degree from Case Western Reserve University School of Law in 1998.

Irene M. Recio, Immigration Judge, Miami Immigration Court

2014-2019: Branch chief at the executive Appeals Office (AAO), USCIS, DHS.
2013-2014: Adjudications officer and supervisor at the Immigrant Investor Program Office, USCIS, DHS, within the District of Columbia.
2012-2013: Adjudications officer at AAO, USCIS, DHS, within the District of Columbia.
1997-2011: Private practice in various capacities in Washington D.C.
Law degree from the University of Miami School of Law in 1995.

Miami (Krome) Immigration Court (Florida)
One new judge began hearing cases at the Miami (Krome) Immigration Court.

Jorge L. Pereira, Immigration Judge, Miami (Krome) Immigration Court
2008-2019: Assistant chief counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel, OLPA, ICE, DHS, in Miami, Florida.
1996-2008: Private practice at two law firms in Miami.
1995-1996: Assistant state's attorney for the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office in Miami.
Law degree from St. Thomas University School of Law in 1995.

2008-2011: Associate legal advisor for the DLCL, ICE, DHS, within the District of Colimbia.
2007-2008: Judicial law clerk for Judge Donald E. O'Brien within the us District Court for the District of Iowa, in Sioux City , Iowa.
2002-2007: Private practice in Nebraska and Washington D.C.
Law degree from Creighton University School of Law in 2002.

Philadelphia Immigration Court (Pennsylvania)

One new judge began hearing cases at the Philadelphia Immigration Court.

Bao Q. Nguyen, Immigration Judge, Philadelphia Immigration Court
2016-2019: Assistant chief counsel, OLPA, ICE, DHS, in San Antonio and Pearsall, Texas.
2006-2016: Private practice in Nevada, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Utah.
Law degree from the Temple University School of Law in 2005.

Joseph S. Imburgia, Immigration Judge, Phoenix Immigration Court

2002-2019: Attorney and military judge, including Chief Circuit Military Judge for the Pacific Circuit, with the U.S. Air Force at many locations.
Retired from the U.S. Air Force in 2019 with the rank of colonel.
Law degree from the University of Tennessee College of Law in 2002; Master of Laws in 2009 from the Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and faculty .

Melissa B. Karlen, Immigration Judge, Phoenix Immigration Court

2008-2019: Assistant U.S. attorney with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Arizona, DOJ, in Phoenix, Arizona.
Assistant chief counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel, OLPA, ICE, DHS, in l. a. , California.
2002-2007: Deputy prosecutor with the town and County of Honolulu Prosecutor's Office, in Honolulu, Hawaii.
2001-2002: Private practice.
Law degree from the University of San Francisco School of Law in 2001.

San Diego Immigration Court (California)
One new judge began hearing cases at the San Diego Immigration Court.

Guy G. Grande, Immigration Judge, San Diego Immigration Court
2015-2019: Assistant chief counsel, OLPA, ICE, DHS, at the Otay Mesa prison , in San Diego , California.
1994-2015: Private immigration practice.
Law degree from the University of San Diego in 1994.

Gregory L. Simmons, Immigration Judge, San Francisco Immigration Court

2009-2013: General courts-martial judge , in California.
1989-2009: Judge advocate for the U.S. United States Marine Corps in many locations.
Retired from the U.S. United States Marine Corps in 2013.
Law degree from Baylor University School of Law in 1989; Master of Laws degree in 1996 from the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and faculty in 1996.

San Juan Immigration Court (Puerto Rico)
One new judge began hearing cases at the San Juan Immigration Court.

Pedro J. Espinal, Immigration Judge, San Juan Immigration Court

2016-2019: Deputy chief counsel, OLPA, ICE, DHS, in San Juan , Puerto Rico.
2009-2011: Adjudications services officer, USCIS, DHS, in San Juan .
2007-2009: Adjudications services officer, USCIS, DHS, in New York.
2004-2007: Private practice in San Juan .
Law degree from the University of Puerto Rico School of Law in 2004.

November 2019 Visa Bulletin

Introduction

On October 9, 2019, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) published the Visa Bulletin for November 2019, containing the dates for filing and final action dates for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrant visa petitions during the month [PDF version]. On October 18, 2019, the us Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) determined that both family-sponsored and employment-based beneficiaries of approved immigrant visa petitions within the preference categories must use the more favorable filing dates to work out eligibility to file for adjustment of status in November 2019 [PDF version].

In this article, we'll examine the relevant charts and news and notes from the primary visa bulletin of FY-2020. We discuss using the visa bulletin as an adjustment of status applicant generally in an introductory article on the topic [see article]. We discuss the difference between the ultimate action dates and therefore the dates for filing in an older post [see article]. you'll see our past posts on monthly visa bulletins during a growing topic index [see article].

Family-Sponsored Cases

The USCIS determined that beneficiaries of approved family-sponsored immigrant visa petitions within the preference categories in every preference except F2A must use the dates for filing from the Visa Bulletin for November 2019 to work out eligibility to file for adjustment of status during the month. While those with approved immigrant visa petitions within the F2A preference (spouses and unmarried children under the age of 21 of lawful permanent residents) must use the ultimate action dates from the November Visa Bulletin, this actually works to their benefit since the ultimate action date for the month is “current.”

In order to be eligible to use for adjustment of status in November 2019 on the idea of an approved family-sponsored preference petition, the applicant's priority date must be before the applicable filing date cutoff (or within the case of F2A, final action date cutoff) listed on the November 2019 Visa Bulletin for the applicant's preference category and chargeability area. Because the F2A final action date is current, the beneficiary of an approved immigrant visa petition within the F2A preference may apply for adjustment in November 2019 no matter his or her priority date, as long as he or she is otherwise eligible to use for adjustment of status. Any adjustment applicant supported a preference petition must meet the widely applicable requirements for adjustment of status additionally to qualifying under the monthly visa bulletin.

The priority date in family-sponsored cases is usually the date on which the underlying immigrant visa petition was properly filed on the alien's behalf with the USCIS.

The following, courtesy of the USCIS, are the ultimate action dates for F2A cases in November 2019:

Family-Sponsored All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed CHINA-mainland born INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
The following, courtesy of USCIS, are the dates for filing for all non-F2A cases from the November 2019 Visa Bulletin:

Family-Sponsored All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed CHINA-mainland born INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES

For reference purposes, the subsequent are the ultimate action dates for family-sponsored preference cases from the November 2019 Visa Bulletin (adjustment applicants outside of the F2A preference must ask the filing dates):

Family-Sponsored All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed CHINA-mainland born INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
Employment-Based Cases
The USCIS has determined that beneficiaries of approved employment-based preference petitions must use the dates for filing from the November 2019 Visa Bulletin for purpose of determining eligibility to use for adjustment of status during the month. so as to be eligible to use for adjustment of status during November 2019 on the idea of an approved employment-based preference petition, the beneficiary's priority date must be before the applicable filing date cutoff for his or her preference category and chargeability area on the Visa Bulletin for November 2019. Beneficiaries of approved employment-petitions in preference categories/chargeability areas with a priority date of “current” (denoted as “C” on the charts) may apply for adjustment no matter their priority dates, as long as they're otherwise eligible to use for adjustment of status. Any adjustment applicant supported a preference petition must meet the widely applicable requirements for adjustment of status additionally to qualifying under the monthly visa bulletin.

In employment-based cases requiring labor certification, the priority date will generally be the date on which the corresponding labor certification application was accepted for processing by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). In cases not requiring labor certification, the priority date will generally be the date on which the immigrant visa petition was properly filed on the alien's behalf with the USCIS.

The following, courtesy of the USCIS, are the dates for filing for employment-based cases in November 2019:

Employment-Based All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed CHINA-mainland born El SALVADOR GUATEMALA HONDURAS INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES

For reference purposes, the subsequent are the ultimate action dates for employment-sponsored preference cases from the November 2019 Visa Bulletin (adjustment applicants must use the filing dates chart):

Employment-based All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed CHINA-mainland born EL SALVADOR GUATEMALA HONDURAS INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES VIETNAM

Conclusion

Individuals seeking to immigrate to the us and, where applicable, their petitioners, should consult an experienced immigration attorney throughout the whole process. within the case of immigrant visa preference petitions, an attorney may assist whether the beneficiary intends to pursue an immigrant visa through consular processing abroad or through adjustment of status from within the us . Petitioners and beneficiaries should stay au courant developments within the monthly immigrant visa bulletins. this is often especially important for beneficiaries who are getting to apply through the adjustment of status process.

Supreme Court DACA Oral Argument Recap

Introduction

On November 12, 2019, the Supreme Court of the us heard oral arguments in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, Docket No. 18-587. The Court is reviewing two issues:

1. Whether the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS's) decision to wind down DACA is judicially reviewable; and
2. Whether the DHS's decision to wind down the DACA program is lawful.

The DHS initially rescinded the memorandum implementing DACA in 2017, arguing that the program itself was illegal which the rescission of DACA was in unison with DHS policy. This plan to end DACA was enjoined by several administrative district courts. These injunctions remained in situ despite DHS's plan to subsequently provide a more detailed explanation for its decision during a second rescission memorandum issued by former Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen. The Supreme Court agreed to review the difficulty on appeal from the choice of the us Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Court consolidated the case with McAleenan v. Vidal, No. 18-589 (Second Circuit) and Trump v. NAACP, No. 18-588 (District Court for the District of Colombia), which involve similarly adverse decisions for the Trump Administration.

The Petitioner's oral arguments (the government) were presented by Noel J. Francisco, the lawman of the us . The oral argument time for the Respondents was split between the private Respondents and therefore the state Respondents. Theodore B. Olson represented the private Respondents while Michael J. Mongan, the lawman of San Francisco , California, represented the state respondents.

In this article, we'll examine the key points from the oral arguments within the DACA recession cases. to find out more about DACA and therefore the DACA rescission generally, please see our updated article on the topic [see article].

You may read the whole oral argument for yourself here [PDF version]. we'll include page cites to the transcript in our discussion of the oral arguments so as that you simply may follow along and find the first quotes from the oral arguments.

Petitioner's Oral Argument: lawman of the us , Noel J. Francisco

The lawman began his oral arguments by articulating the Government's position on the 2 questions presented by the Supreme Court. First, he argued that the DHS justifiably terminated DACA supported its position that DACA itself is against the law and its implementation had exceeded the DHS's authority (4-5). He added that the rescission of a policy involving the discretionary decision to not enforce the immigration laws against a category of aliens didn't violate the executive Procedures Act (APA) (4-5). Second, he argued that the choice to rescind DACA, which he described as a “stopgap measure,” was effectively the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, and thus wasn't reviewable by the Courts (5-6).

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked the primary question of the lawman . She suggested that his arguments were at tension: If the rescission of DACA isn't reviewable because it's a matter of agency discretion, than how could the lawman simultaneously argue that the govt has no discretion to take care of DACA because DACA itself is against the law (6)? She suggested that the choice to rescind the program can only be discretionary if the Government's position is that it had the authority to implement the program and thus the authority to continue the program.

The lawman respondent to Justice Ginsburg by pointing to the Supreme Court 's decision in Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) [PDF version]. the difficulty in Chaney was whether the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) decision to not regulate drugs employed by states in completing the execution was reviewable. The Court ruled in favor of the FDA therein case, holding that there's a presumption of nonreviewability when workplace makes a non-enforcement decision committed to its discretion under the APA. The lawman took the position that the DACA rescission was almost like Chaney therein the govt advanced alternative legal and policy arguments for its decision (6-7). The lawman additionally took the position that albeit the govt had only advanced a legal argument and not also a policy argument for the rescission, review was foreclosed by the Supreme Court's decision in I.C.C. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 482 U.S. 270 (1987) (“BLE”) [PDF version].

Chief Justice John Roberts followed this exchange with a hypothetical question: Were the govt to make a decision to not enforce the immigration laws in the least , would that be reviewable (8-9). The lawman suggested that this is able to be reviewable under an exception from the presumption of non-reviewability articulated in Chaney for the entire abdication of authority (8-9). The lawman distinguished the moment matter from the hypothetical, however, on the idea that the govt was actually trying to enforce the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by rescinding the DACA policy (8-9).

Justice Elena Kagan tried to determine the Solicitor General's position on the reviewability of the choice to implement DACA versus the choice to rescind it after it had been implemented. The lawman took the position that the choice to implement DACA within the first place is reviewable, but the choice to rescind DACA isn't (16-17). In support of this position, he explained that it had been the Government's position that application of the holding of BLE renders the rescission of DACA reviewable because the INA doesn't limit the government's authority to enforce the immigration laws against the category of aliens eligible for DACA (16-17).

Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that, while individual exercises of prosecutorial discretion might not be reviewable, a broad-based policy of prosecutorial discretion is reviewable (14). In light of this, Justice Breyer asked why the choice to rescind DACA, a broad prosecutorial discretion policy, wasn't reviewable (14). The lawman again cited to Chaney, explaining that the exercise of discretion entailed by DACA was on high-low-jack with the Court's earlier precedent and committed to the discretion of DHS — making its rescission un-reviewable.

Justice Samuel Alito inquired whether the rescinding of advantages granted to DACA beneficiaries — including employment authorization and eligibility for driver's licenses — made the rescission of DACA reviewable (17). Justice Alito's question relied on the choice of the us Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Texas v. us , 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015) [PDF version], wherein the Fifth Circuit upheld an injunction against the DHS's plan to implement the previous DAPA program [see article], which was almost like , albeit broader than, DACA [see article]. One reason that the Fifth Circuit found that DAPA was reviewable was because, like DACA, it rendered beneficiaries eligible for ancillary benefits. An equally divided Supreme Court subsequently affirmed the Fifth Circuit's decision in us v. Texas, 136 S.Ct. 2271 (2016) [PDF version] [see article]. The lawman took the position that rescinding benefits granted along side DACA didn't make the rescission of DACA reviewable. He reasoned that because these benefits were merely a “collateral consequence” of the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, their revocation as a results of the rescission didn't make the underlying exercise of discretion itself reviewable (17-18).

The discussion next shifted as to if reliance interests weighed against rescinding DACA — in regard to the very fact that a lot of DACA beneficiaries and affected entities had made decisions supported the existence of the DACA policy. In response to an issue by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the lawman explained that albeit reliance interests weighed against the DHS's decision to rescind DACA, those interests are nevertheless limited by the very fact that DACA was intended, by its own terms, to be a stop-gap measure (20). Furthermore, he argued that former Secretary Nielsen took those reliance interests under consideration by providing for the orderly wind-down of DACA (20).

Justice Breyer appeared skeptical that the govt had adequately considered the reliance interests — noting that DACA has over 700,000 beneficiaries (24), as addressed within the numerous amicus briefs submitted by a spread of organizations representing different constituent groups. The lawman again asserted that these reliance interests were accounted for by former Secretary Nielsen (25-26). He also countered that under the idea suggested by Justice Breyer, one would need to conclude that DACA was illegal from the beginning because the previous administration didn't consider the reliance interests implicated in creating the DACA program (25-26).

Justice Kagan noted that in her memorandum, former Secretary Nielsen weighed the loss of the reliance interests that might result from rescinding DACA against her conclusion that DACA was illegal (26-27). Secretary Kagan asked whether this balancing test would be suffering from a conclusion that DACA wasn't illegal (26-27). The lawman explained that the last word decision wouldn't be affected because Secretary Nielsen provided three separate and distinct reasons for rescinding DACA, had explained that every reason would stand on its own as a basis for the rescission, and had concluded that anybody of the explanations would outweigh the reliance interests in favor of rescission (27). While the primary two grounds concerned DACA's legality (first that Nielsen believed the program was illegal, second that Nielsen believed there have been serious doubts that the program was legal), the third ground concerned only DHS's policy to avoid broad-based non-enforcement policies, thus not implicating DACA's legality in the least (27).

Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed her skepticism with reference to the government's position that DACA was illegal which the reliance interests had been considered within the rescission decision. Regarding legality, Justice Sotomayor stated she was unsure how DACA was illegal when the govt has got to make discretionary decisions on the way to allocate limited resources to enforce the immigration laws all the time (28-31). Regarding reliance issues, she specifically suggested that the govt had did not consider the reliance interests created by the previous administration's assurances to those that came forward for DACA benefits that they might be safe (28-31). She added that rescinding DACA would destroy the lives of the individuals who had relied on those assurances (30).

Justice Sotomayor suggested that, under law , the pertinent reasons for the Court to think about were those provided at the time the choice was made — thus the explanations provided within the original rescission memorandum published by former Acting Secretary Elena Duke, and not the explanations relied upon by the lawman within the subsequent and more detailed memorandum published by former Secretary Nielsen (28-31). In light of this, Justice Sotomayor asked when the choice was really made that the rescission might be solely justified on policy grounds, phrasing the DHS's decision as “[t]hat this is often often not about the law; this is about our option to destroy lives” (28-31).

The lawman briefly addressed both lines of Justice Sotomayor's questioning. First, regarding legality, the lawman stated that there was no got to reach the question of whether DHS's legal assessment was correct because the rescission could stand entirely supported discretionary policy justifications (32). Regarding reliance, the lawman stated that the previous administration never presented DACA as being a program that might be effect in perpetuity, but rather as a stop-gap measure (32).

Justice Kagan asked whether it had been the Government's position that DACA violates a selected provision of the INA (35). The lawman again stated that the merits of DACA itself aren't dispositive to the legality of the choice to rescind DACA because the rescission could stand on other grounds (35). He added, however, that it had been the Government's position that thanks to DACA's breadth within the number of individuals covered and therefore the ancillary benefits offered, it might need to are expressly authorized by the INA so as to be legal (36).
Justice Breyer returned to a different point raised by Justice Sotomayor about whether the Court should consider the Nielsen memorandum for rescinding DACA in the least . He stated that under Chaney, it might seem that the Court should check out the reason provided at the time the choice to rescind DACA was made — the Duke memorandum — instead of an ex post de facto explanation (39). In light of this, Justice Breyer asked why the lawman opposed remanding the case to the lower courts for further proceedings (39). The lawman explained that former Secretary Nielsen had ratified the first rescission decision, meaning that it had been and is that the official agency position (40). He added that it might have made no sense to need DHS to reinstate DACA only to rescind it again on similar grounds (40). Justice Brett Kavanaugh observed that, in ratifying the first decision, former Secretary Nielsen stated that she would have rescinded DACA albeit it were legal, a characterization with which the lawman agreed (42-43).

Private Respondents' Oral Arguments: Theodore B. Olson

Olson opened his argument with two points. First, he stated that DHS has not explained its conclusion that DACA is unconstitutional (43-44), which DHS couldn't overturn a policy that has been in situ for five years and has over 700,000 direct beneficiaries supported an unsupported and erroneous legal conclusion (44). Second, Olson noted that the govt didn't cite to any statutory limitation in support of its argument that the DHS's rescission of DACA wasn't subject to review (45).Citing to the Supreme Court decisions in Weyerhaeuser Company v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co., Inc., 549 U.S. 312 (2007) [PDF version], Judulang v. Holder, 132 S.Ct. 476 (2011) [PDF version], and Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, 135 S.Ct. 1645 (2015 [PDF version], Olson argued that there's a presumption of reviewability of an agency's decision absent some express limitation within the law (45).

Justice Alito asked whether the choice to narrow the scope of a non-enforcement prosecutorial discretion policy would generally be reviewable (46-48). Olson stated that it might not (46-48). However, Olson distinguished DACA from typical exercises of non-enforcement prosecutorial discretion in two respects. First, he stated that Congress has directed the Administration to allocate limited resources in enforcing the immigration laws. Second, he noted that DACA comes with certain associated benefits — although he stated that benefits incident to DACA aren't decisive to the difficulty which those benefits, like employment authorization, are covered by statutes (46-48). judge Roberts also engaged during this line of questioning (49-50).

Justice Gorsuch expressed concern that Olson didn't articulate a limiting principle on reviewability in his response to Justice Alito (51-53). Olson responded by stating that DACA is categorical and involves an outsized number of beneficiaries (51-53). Justice Gorsuch, however, responded that a lot of instances of prosecutorial discretion within the criminal context might be described similarly (51-53).

Olson distinguished DACA from Justice Alito's broad example by noting the scope of DACA and its substantial reliance interests, emphasizing that the govt had invited DACA beneficiaries to affirmatively breakthrough and join the program (53-56). Justice Gorsuch asked Olson what the govt would need to say about the reliance interests so as for rescission to be valid (58-59), while noting that the govt was concerned that remand would cause the case dragging on for several more years (58-59).

Olson responded that with reference to the matter of the substantial reliance of DACA recipients on its benefits, Nielsen was bound by the first Duke rescission decision (58-59) which was both insufficient and flawed, which the Nielsen memorandum didn't rectify the difficulty because it had been not an independent decision (58-59). Olson suggested that the govt would need to start the DACA rescission process over, articulating all the reliance concerns then providing a rational explanation for rescinding DACA (58-59).

Justice Kavanaugh asked Olson to deal with the very fact that the Nielsen memo expressly stated that the DACA rescission was justifiable purely on policy grounds (59-61). Olson asserted that because the Nielsen memo wasn't issued contemporaneously with the choice to finish DACA, it shouldn't be the main target of the Court's review (59-61). Olson again argued that the Nielsen memo didn't represent an independent decision, notwithstanding language within the memorandum stating otherwise (59-61).

Justice Kavanaugh asked whether Olson believed that the chief has the authority to finish DACA in the least (61). Olson acknowledged that the govt could, under certain circumstances, terminate DACA (61).

Justice Kavanaugh asked if the Court were to think about the Nielsen memorandum on its own, whether the reasoning for rescission articulated would be sufficient, and specifically asked Olson to elucidate his position on the Nielsen memorandum's treatment of reliance interests (61-63). Olson stated that it might be insufficient which the Nielsen memorandum did not address specific reliance interests (61-63). When Justice Kavanaugh asked Olson what explanation would be sufficient Olson suggested that DHS could have analyzed the value and benefits of rescinding DACA and why it had been overturning a previous Office of Legal Counsel opinion on DACA's legality (61-63).

Justice Sotomayor followed abreast of the delay point addressed by Justice Gorsuch. She asked Olson whether the DACA rescission was distinguishable from other deferred action decisions therein the chief here had provided both legal and policy grounds for ending DACA instead of only policy grounds (63-64). Olson agreed with this suggestion (63-64).

Regarding the likelihood of remand, judge Roberts and Justice Alito asked whether an in depth explanation by the lawman of the three grounds provided by Nielsen therein clearly articulated why each ground independently supported terminating would satisfy review requirements (65-66). Olson stated that this sort of explanation could satisfy review requirements (65-66).

State Respondents' Oral Arguments: Michael J. Mongan

Mongan advanced three main arguments against the validity of the DACA rescission. First, because the Nielsen memorandum didn't articulate a replacement rationale for rescinding DACA, the govt was bound by its original rational issued contemporaneously with the first decision (66-67). Second, the first rationale didn't take under consideration the substantial reliance interests that weighed against rescission (66-67). Third, the premise of the first rationale that DACA is unlawful is wrong (66-67).

Regarding reviewability, Mongan stated that the difficulty here is distinguishable from Chaney. Because the Government's own position is that DACA is unlawful, the govt 's position is necessarily that DACA isn't committed to agency discretion — since the Government has no discretion to implement an unlawful policy (66-67).

Mongan argued that the Government's rescission decision hinges on whether DACA itself is lawful (68-69). He noted that the govt didn't deny that it's deferred action authority or that the population of DACA beneficiaries may be a compelling population of people (68-69).

Mongan stated that the DHS Secretary's deferred action authority derives from 6 USC 202, which outlines the duties of the Secretary of Homeland Security (69). He argued that Congress codified the DHS Secretary's authorities after prior exercises of deferred action for classes of aliens (69). judge Roberts interjected, noting that DACA is way greater in scope than prior exercises of deferred action (69-70). Mongan responded that the Family Fairness Policy, which was implemented in 1990 and codified by Congress in 1991, applied to an identical percentage of the prevailing nonimmigrant population at the time to DACA today — some extent raised by Justice Sotomayor (69-70).

Justice Kagan asked whether the rescission would are reviewable under Chaney if it were based solely on policy grounds with none allusion to DACA's actual or potential illegality (71). Mongan stated that it might still be reviewable because it involves a broad policy for the exercise of deferred action instead of a concrete decision to not enforce a specific statute with reference to particular actions — which was the difficulty in Chaney (71). Mongan made this distinction again in response to questions from Justice Alito (72).

Justice Breyer asked Mongan where he would draw the road between reviewability and non-reviewability within the deferred action context (73-74). Mongan declined to interact during this line-drawing, suggesting within the alternative that the Court should specialise in the facts presented during this particular case, which the choice to terminate DACA was reviewable supported those facts (73-74). Mongan further clarified in his exchange with Justice Breyer that the choice to enforce a deferred action policy is distinguishable within the reviewability context from the choice to not enforce a specific law regarding particular actions (75).

Justice Gorsuch expressed confusion over whether Mongan believed that DACA wouldn't are reviewable if it had been based solely on policy grounds or if there was something about DACA itself that made it distinguishable from Chaney (76-77). Mongan agreed with the latter suggestion — that it's the scope of DACA that places it outside the scope of Chaney (76-77). Justice Gorsuch suggested that this position would appear to implicate prosecutorial discretion broadly — which it had been unclear where Mongan would draw the road between reviewability and non-reviewability (76-77). Mongan again declined to draw a line, stating that the DACA rescission was reviewable supported the facts presented (76-77).

Chief Justice Roberts asked whether the DACA rescission would be reviewable had the Attorney General provided a opinion stating that DACA was more likely illegal than not, with regard to the Fifth Circuit's DAPA decision, which was affirmed by an equally divided Supreme Court. Mongan stated that it might still be reviewable, which the reason suggested by the judge would be insufficient given the substantial reliance interests at stake (78-79).

Justice Kagan asked whether the plaintiffs would have challenged the DACA termination during a similar way had the govt balanced its legal concerns against specific reliance interests during a more detailed way (79). Mongan stated that they might have likely presented an identical challenge to the DACA rescission — although the conceded that courts may find such a hypothetical justification sufficient (79). Mongan returned to the moment case, however, noting that the govt didn't justify its decision with the type of detailed balancing test described by Justice Kagan (79).

Chief Justice Roberts asked that if the Court were to remand, whether a legal explanation supported the Fifth Circuit DAPA decision would be sufficient (79). Mongan stated that this is able to be insufficient — which the govt would need to articulate its own specific legal theory supporting rescission (79-80).

Justice Breyer asked — in light of Mongan's answers — what the purpose of remanding the case would be (82-83). Mongan stated that we can't be sure what the DHS would decide if it had been presented with a choice that DACA is lawful (82-83).

Justice Kavanaugh noted that the District Court for the District of Colombia remanded to the DHS to elucidate its DACA rescission, which then-Secretary Nielsen had done so (83-85). He noted that in elaborating on the choice , both Nielsen and therefore the lawman had stated that they might have rescinded DACA solely on policy grounds albeit they believed that the underlying policy was legal (83-85). Thus, Justice Kavanaugh was unclear what would be accomplished by another remand. Mongan reiterated that he didn't consider Nielsen's memorandum to represent an independent decision — but Justice Kavanaugh appeared unconvinced by this argument (83-85). within the alternative, Mongan took the position that, notwithstanding the Nielsen memorandum's statements to the contrary, justification for rescission was ultimately tied to the DHS's view that DACA is against the law (84-86).

Rebuttal Argument of lawman Francisco

Having heard the arguments of the respondents, the lawman made clear that former Secretary Nielsen provided three distinct grounds for rescinding DACA, and stated that every ground outweighed any reliance interests break away the others (87-88). The lawman noted that the third of those grounds implicated only policy considerations (87-88).

Justice Ginsburg appeared unconvinced, stating that the Court cannot know needless to say what former Secretary Nielsen's decision would are had it been clearly recognized that DACA is legal (89). She suggested that the Nielsen memorandum was “infected by the idea” that DACA is against the law (89). The lawman restated that the memorandum as long as each ground supporting rescission stands on its own (89-90). He stated that the choice fell under Chaney -noting that the FDA therein case had provided alternative legal and policy justifications for its non-enforcement decision (89-90). The lawman argued that the choice to rescind DACA was reasonable no matter one's views of the legality of the program (90).

Justice Kagan questioned whether former Secretary Nielsen had weighed the policy justifications for terminating DACA alone against reliance interests — the lawman stated that she had (90-91). Justice Breyer stated that the Nielsen memorandum offered conclusions without reasons for those conclusions — but the lawman responded that the choice to not facilitate further violations of the immigration laws may be a reason for rescission in and of itself (91-92).

The lawman concluded by stating that the Court needn't consider the underlying legality of DACA if it concludes that any of the explanations for rescission presented by former Secretary Nielsen are sufficient. However, the lawman stated that if the Court didn't find the previous Secretary's justifications for rescission, it should address whether DACA is legal instead of remanding. To support this conclusion, the lawman stated that the Administration can't be forced to take care of an illegal policy. The lawman made clear that the Government's position is that DACA is against the law (92).

Conclusion

A decision within the DACA case isn't expected for several months. Although oral arguments may provide clues on where the Justices are leaning, they're not dispositive. albeit the govt prevails, DACA would still likely be wound down over a period of several months. DACA beneficiaries with case-specific questions should consult an experienced immigration attorney. we'll write on the Supreme Court's ultimate decision within the case when it's published.

EOIR Swears in 28 New Immigration Judges on Oct. 20, 2019

Introduction

On December 20, 2019, the chief Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) invested 28 new immigration judges during a ceremony presided over by Acting Chief Immigration Judge Christopher A. Santoro [PDF version]. The 28 new immigration judges were selected by Attorney General William P. Barr. The EOIR noted that the immigration judge corps — now numbering over 465 — is at its largest size in history.

In this article, we'll briefly examine the biographies of the 28 new immigration judges, sorted by the courts on which they serve. Please see our index of posts on new immigration judges to examine other members of the immigration judge corps sworn in over the past several years [see index].

Abbreviations

In this article, we'll use several abbreviations in situ of the complete names of offices which appear within the biographies of several of the new immigration judges.

Department of Justice (DOJ)
Office of Immigration Litigation (OIL)
Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations (RAIO)
Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA)
Office of Chief Counsel (OCC)

Courts Receiving New Judges

The 28 new immigration judges serve on 18 immigration courts across the country. the subsequent is that the full list of courts receiving judges along side the amount of latest judges:

Atlanta, Ted Turner Drive Immigration Court (4); Batavia Immigration Court (1); Boston Immigration Court (1); Chicago Immigration Court (1); Cleveland Immigration Court (2); Houston Immigration Court (1); Houston, S. Gessner Road Immigration Court (2); Imperial Immigration Court (1); l. a. Immigration Court (2); l. a. North Immigration Court (1); l. a. , Van Nuys Blvd. Immigration Court (1); ny , Federal Plaza Immigration Court (4); ny , Varick Immigration Court (1); Otay Mesa Immigration Court (1); Sacramento Immigration Court (2); Stewart Immigration Court (1); Ulster Immigration Court (1); York Immigration Court (1).

Below, we'll list the courts in alphabetical order along side short biographies of the new judges.

Please see our short posts on the new l. a. , Van Nuys Blvd. [see blog] and Houston, S. Gessner Road [see blog] immigration courts, both of which welcome new judges from the December 20th investiture.

Atlanta, Ted Turner Drive Immigration Court (Georgia)

Philip A. Barr, Immigration Judge, Atlanta, Ted Turner Drive Immigration Court
2015-2019: Assistant chief counsel, OCC, OPLA, ICE, DHS, in Atlanta, Georgia.
2010-2015: Assistant chief counsel, OCC, OPLA, ICE, DHS in Port Isabel and San Antonio , Texas.
2004-2010: Private practice as an immigration and criminal defense lawyer .
Law degree from Birmingham School of Law in 2003.

James J. Crofts, Immigration Judge, Atlanta, Ted Turner Drive Immigration Court

2016-2019: Assistant chief counsel, OCC, OPLA, ICE, DHS, in Atlanta.
2000-2016: Assistant DA with the Office of Bronx DA , in Bronx, New York.
2012-Present: Judge advocate for the U.S. Army Reserve.
Law degree from St. John's University of Law in 1999.

Sheila E. Gallow, Immigration Judge, Atlanta, Ted Turner Drive Immigration Court

2016-2019: Assistant chief counsel, OCC, OPLA, ICE, DHS, in Atlanta.
2011-2016: right-hand man DA within the Atlanta Judicial Circuit.
2007-2011: Assistant attorney general with the Office of Georgia Attorney General, in Atlanta.
2012-Present: Judge advocate with the U.S. Army Reserves.
Law degree from Samford University in 2006.

Philip P. Taylor, Immigration Judge, Atlanta, Ted Turner Drive Immigration Court

2000-2019: Chief municipal judge for the town of Kennesaw, Acworth, Powder Springs, and Woodstock, Georgia.
1996-2016: Magistrate judge, in Cobb County, Georgia.
1989-2012: Private practice.
Law degree from Emory University School of Law.

Batavia Immigration Court (New York)

Susan F. Aikman, Immigration Judge, Batavia Immigration Court
2018-2019: Deputy chief counsel, OCC, OPLA, ICE, DHS in Dilley and Pearsall, Texas.
2015-2018: Assistant chief counsel, OCC, OPLA, ICE, DHS, in Pearsall Texas.
2005-2015: Asylum officer, refugee officer, and field office director with RAIO, USCIS, DHS, in the U.S. and international locations.
1999-2005: Private practice.
Law degree from the University of Toledo, College of Law, in 1999.

Boston Immigration Court (Massachusetts)

Marna M. Rusher, Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court
2007-2019: Assistant chief counsel, OCC, OPLA, ICE, DHS, in Boston.
2005-2007: Private practice.
2002-2005: Assistant DA , in Middlesex County, Massachusetts.

Chicago Immigration Court (Illinois)

Samia Naseem, Immigration Judge, Chicago Immigration Court
2010-2019: Assistant chief counsel, OCC, OPLA, ICE, DHS, in ny City and Chicago.
2007-2010: trial lawyer with the Office of Immigration Litigation, DOJ, within the District of Columbia.
2005-2007: Private practice.
2004-2005: Judicial law clerk for Judge Judith N. Macaluso within the District of Columbia.
Law degree from The Washington University school of law in 2004.

Cleveland Immigration Court (Ohio)

Bruce D. Imbacuan, Immigration Judge, Cleveland Immigration Court
2007-2019: Assistant chief counsel, OCC, OPLA, ICE, DHS, in Cleveland.
2005-2007: Housing court magistrate for the Cleveland Municipal Housing Court.
2002-2005: Assistant prosecuting prosecutor with the town of Cleveland's Prosecutor's Office.
1998-2002: Staff attorney for the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland.
Law degree from Temple University School of Law in 1998.

Jeremy J. Santoro, Immigration Judge, Cleveland Immigration Court

2010-2019: Assistant chief counsel, OCC, OPLA, ICE, DHS, in Cleveland.
2009-2010: Assistant chief counsel, OCC, OPLA, ICE, DHS, in Detroit, Michigan.
2006-2015: Judge advocate for the Ohio Army National Guard , in Columbus, Ohio.
2002-2009: Assistant prosecutor with the Lucas County Prosecutor's Office, in Toledo, Ohio.
2001-2002: Private practice.
Law degree from the University of Toledo College of Law in 2001.

Houston Immigration Court (Texas)

Lynn W. Wang, Immigration Judge, Houston Immigration Court
2018-2019: Assistant chief counsel, OCC, OPLA, ICE, DHS, in San Antonio .
2015-2018: Assistant U.S. attorney with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Texas, in McAllen, Texas.
2007-2015: Assistant U.S. attorney with the U.S Attorney's Office for the District of latest Mexico, in Albuquerque, New Mexico .
2004-2006: Assistant DA for the State of latest Mexico.
2001-2004: Private practice.
Law degree from South Texas College of Law in 2000.

Houston, S. Gessner Road Immigration Court (Texas)

Kevin L. Brown, Immigration Judge, Houston, S. Gessner Road Immigration Court
2016-2019: Assistant chief counsel, OCC, OPLA, ICE, DHS, in San Antonio , Texas.
1999-2016: Judge advocate for the U.S. Army.
Law degree from Wake Forest University School of Law in 1999; Master of Laws from the Judge Advocate's Legal Center and faculty , U.S. Army in 2007.

Imperial Immigration Court (California)

Eugene H. Robinson, Immigration Judge, Imperial Immigration Court
2018-2019: Deputy chief for hearings within the State Office of Administrative Hearings for the State of Texas.
2012-2018; 2005-2011: Military judge.
2011-2012: Staff judge advocate for the 3d Marine Logistics Group, Okinawa, Japan.
1991-2005: Judge advocate within the U.S. United States Marine Corps .
Law degree from Howard University School of Law in 1990; Master of Laws from the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and faculty in 2002.

Andrea H. Hong, Immigration Judge, l. a. Immigration Court

2009-2019: Assistant chief counsel, OCC, OPLA, ICE, DHS, in l. a. .
2006-2009: Deputy DA with the Riverside County Attorney's Office, in Riverside, California.
2001-2004: Assistant prosecutor with the Summit County Prosecutor's Office, in Akron, Ohio.
1999-2001: Assistant city prosecutor with the Akron City Prosecutor's Office, in Akron, Ohio.
Law degree from the University of Akron, School of Law in 1999.

Los Angeles North Immigration Court (California)

Lily C. Hsu, Immigration Judge, l. a. North Immigration Court
2006-2019: Assistant chief counsel, OCC, OPLA, ICE, DHS, in l. a. .
2009-2011: Special assistant U.S. attorney at the U.S Attorney's Office for the Central District of California, in l. a. .
2004-2006: Asylum officer with the USCIS, DHS, in Anaheim, California.
2001-2004: Private practice.
Law degree from California Western School of Law in 2000.

Los Angeles, Van Nuys Blvd. Immigration Court (California)

Brian H. Burke, Immigration Judge, l. a. , Van Nuys Blvd. Immigration Court
2017-2019: Chief Judge for the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, in California.
2013-2019: Chief Judge for the Ak-Chin Indian Community, in Maricopa, Arizona.
2010-2013: Tribal prosecutor for the Ak-Chin Indian Community, in Maricopa, Arizona.
2009-2010: Deputy defense lawyer for the Salt River Prima-Maricopa Indian Community, in Scottsdale, Arizona.
2006-2009: Managing attorney for Community Legal Services, in Kingman, Arizona.
2003-2006: Rights attorney for the Nevada Disability Advocacy and Law Center, in Las Vegas .
2000-2003: Assistant lawyer in Beaver, Pennsylvania.
1999-2000: Staff attorney for Appalachian Legal Services, in Charleston, West Virginia .
1992-1995; 1997-1998: Assistant DA for the Beaver County District Attorney's Office.
Law degree from the University of Dayton School of Law in 1992.

New York, Federal Plaza Immigration Court

Jennifer Cheung, Immigration Judge, New York, Federal Plaza Immigration Court
2008-2019: Private practice.
Law degree from Hofstra University School of Law in 2007.

John J. Siemietkowski, Immigration Judge, New York, Federal Plaza Immigration Court
2002-2019: trial lawyer at the Commercial Litigation Branch, Department of Justice, within the District of Columbia.
2018-2018: U.S. deputy justice attaché to Afghanistan.
Retired from the U.S. Army in 2018 after serving for nearly three decades as a lively duty and reserve JAG attorney.
Law degree from Catholic University in 1987; Master of Law from the military Judge Advocate General's School in 2000.

Rantideva Singh, Immigration Judge, New York, Federal Plaza Immigration Court
2011-2019: law judge with the ny State Office of youngsters and Family Services, in ny City.
2009-2011: trial lawyer with the ny City Administration for Children's Services in Bronx domestic relations court .
2007-2009: Supervising attorney with the ny City Department of Homeless Services.
1997-2002: policeman within the ny City local department .
Law degree from Boston University School of Law in 2005.

New York, Varick Immigration Court

David A. Norkin, Immigration Judge, New York, Varick Immigration Court
2019: Court administrator for the Fishkill, Ulster, and Varick Immigration Courts.
1999-2016: Judge advocate, defense counsel, prosecutor, special assistant U.S. attorney, and appellate military judge.
Law degree from The Washington University school of law in 1999.

Otay Mesa Immigration Court (California)

Amelia C. Anderson, Immigration Judge, Otay Mesa Immigration Court
2010-2019: Assistant chief counsel, OCC, OPLA, ICE, DHS, in San Diego , California.
2017-2018: Special assistant U.S. attorney at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California in San Diego .
2009-2010: Attorney advisor at the San Diego Immigration Court, EOIR, DOJ.
Law degree from DePaul University College of Law in 2009.

Sacramento Immigration Court (California)

Christopher V. Phan, Immigration Judge, Sacramento Immigration Court
2000-2019: Judge advocate for the U.S. Navy.
2012-2016: City counsel member in Garden Grove, Californa; Deputy DA in Orange County, California.
Law degree from Southern Illinois University in 1999.

Ulster Immigration Court (New York)

Ubaid ul-Haq, Immigration Judge, Ulster Immigration Court
2019-2019: trial lawyer with the OIL's appeals court Section, Civil Division, DOJ, within the District of Columbia.
2014-2019: trial lawyer with OIL's District Court Section, Civil Division, DOK.
2016-Present: Judge advocate with the U.S. Army Reserve, in Alexandria, Virginia.
2014-2014: Associate legal advisor, Executive Communication's Unit, OCC, OPLA, ICE, DHS, within the District of Columbia.
2011-2014: Assistant chief counsel, OPLA-San Antonio, ICE, DHS, in Pearsall, Texas.
Law degree from Nova Southeastern University in 2010; Master of Laws from American University Washington College of Law in 2011.

York Immigration Court (Pennsylvania)

Matthew H. Watters, Immigration Judge, York Immigration Court
Currently is judge advocate within the U.S. Army Reserve and as a deputy commander within the U.S. Army Reserve Legal Command.
2010-2019: Assistant U.S. attorney and supervisory assistant U.S. attorney within the Western District of Texas.
2003-2010: Judge advocate for the U.S. Army.
Law degree from Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law in 2002.