Cruz Reynoso, former California Supreme Court Justice and my colleague at UC Davis School of Law for two decades, died a few days ago at the age of 90. Many are offering remembrances of Reynoso -- who the faculty and staff at the law school knew as just "Cruz"-- and it's interesting for me as a ruralist to see the number of references to "rural" in his life's story.
On April 29, the Supreme Court in Niz-Chavez v. Garland held that a notice to appear sufficient to trigger the “stop-time” rule for measuring the time for cancellation of removal relief must be a single document containing all the information about the noncitizen's removal hearing. The case involved the application of the Court's 2018 decision in Pereira v.
It appears that matters along the U.S./Mexico border have not changed that much. In a blog post in April 2006, I wrote about a visit to the border in southern Arizona:
"Several members of the group visited one of the dormitories that temporarily housed migrants and had a haunting experience. . . . .
After four years of the Trump administration’s hyper-aggressive immigration measures, Joe Biden ran for president promising dramatic change to U.S. immigration law and enforcement. He quickly moved to change the direction of the nation’s immigration policies. Whether Biden ultimately succeeds will have big impacts on California, which has the largest population of immigrants of any state in the Union.
Pham v. Guzman Chavez, which will be argued on Jan. 11, addresses the right of certain noncitizens to be released on bond while they are in the process of removal from the United States.
In 2015, more than a century after Hong Yen Chang, a Chinese immigrant who had graduated Columbia Law School, was denied a license to practice law in California because of laws that discriminated against Chinese immigrants, the Supreme Court of California granted him posthumous admissi
The comment period is now halfway done for the Trump Administration’s new Proposed Rule Dismantling the Asylum System (not its official title). As I said in a comment submitted on June 29, the “the Proposed Rule is misguided and legally infirm in almost too many ways to count,” but I decided to focus just on one thing: its attempt to end gender-based asylum claims.