Jenner & Block

US Supreme Court Cites Firm’s Amicus Brief in Immigration Ruling

In Pereira v. Sessions, the US Supreme Court rejected efforts by the Department of Justice to use procedural shortcuts to eliminate protections for people who have lived for decades in the United States.  In its 8-1 ruling on June 21, 2018, the Court cited part of an amicus brief authored by a firm team on behalf of the National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC).

Pereira concerns the case of petitioner Wescley Fonseca Pereira, a native of Brazil who faced removal after living in the United States since 2000.  A critical form of relief available to Mr. Pereira, and other immigrants like him, is “cancellation of removal,” which allows immigration judges to decline to order the removal of a noncitizen who meets stringent requirements—meaning that he or she has lived in the country for at least 10 years, has no criminal record, has “good moral character,” and shows “exception and extremely unusual hardship” to a US citizen family member.

At issue was how to calculate the 10 years.  The statute stops this 10-year clock when the government serves a “notice to appear,” which the statute defines as a written notice satisfying particular requirements—including that it must include the “time and place” at which removal proceedings will be held.  Despite the statute’s text, however, the government claimed that—as a matter of administrative convenience—it could omit the “time and place” but still treat the notice as stopping the 10-year residency clock. 

Several courts of appeals had deferred to the DOJ.  But the Supreme Court rejected the DOJ’s approach and held that the clock stops only upon the service of a notice including the time and place of the remove hearing.  In rejecting the DOJ’s argument that including the hearing’s time and place would be infeasible, the Court cited the firm’s amicus brief, which showed that the government had previously used a system that allowed automatic scheduling of hearings.  Relying on the firm’s brief, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the Court, explained that “[g]iven today’s advanced software capabilities, it is hard to imagine why DHS and immigration courts could not work together to schedule hearings before sending notices to appear.”  As a result of the Court’s ruling, thousands of immigrants are now eligible to seek cancellation of removal. 

The team writing the brief included Partner Lindsay C. Harrison and Associates Zachary C. Schauf and Jonathan A. Langlinais.

TAGS: Immigration, US Supreme Court

PEOPLE: Lindsay C. Harrison, Zachary C. Schauf, Jonathan A. Langlinais (Alex)

Recent Posts

Matters of Note

Video

 

Categories

Connect With Us

Follow @jennerblockllp