The top Republicans on the House and Senate Judiciary committees are pushing the Department of Justice for answers about the ousting of Trump-era immigration judges by the Biden administration -- firings they say could be in violation of the law.
"We write about your decision to terminate the employment of multiple immigration judges who were hired during the Trump administration," Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, write in a letter, obtained by Fox News Digital, to Attorney General Merrick Garland. "If true, your termination of these immigration judges because of their political ideology suggests that the [DOJ] acted in violation of the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA), which specifically prohibits discrimination on the basis of political affiliation," they say. Fox News Digital reported in June that an unspecified number of Trump-era immigration judges, who were appointed in the latter days of the administration and whose two-year probationary periods expired, were removed by the Executive Office for Immigration Review. (EOIR) Judges who have been ousted have told Fox that they believe it is because they are out of step with the administration’s immigration views, or in some cases because of their past ties to conservative organizations. They have also blamed an antiquated system that allowed aggrieved attorneys to file baseless complaints, while one judge said that some had been let go after being given just a few days to respond to multiple and often vague complaints made against them -- and were let go in virtual conference calls lasting mere seconds. There are 590 sitting immigration judges, and the vast majority of those on probationary periods are then moved to non-probationary positions. The DOJ has said decisions related to career civil service employees, who include immigration judges, are based solely on performance, and the administration they were hired by plays no role in decision-making. A spokesperson for the DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review told Fox News Digital that it does not comment on personnel matters. However, multiple Republicans have expressed concern about the removals, with a letter by 12 House Republicans last month accusing the administration of "nefarious" motives. The immigration judges’ union has also complained about a lack of transparency and have requested reviews of three of the removals "to ensure that they were taken in full compliance with the law and that the probationary evaluation processes comports with fundamental fairness and sound labor relations." Jordan and Grassley tied the removals, which they believe may be illegal, to the liberal immigration policies of the new administration. Canadian citizens and permanent residents who are in a relationship with a foreign national may sponsor that person to join them in Canada and become a permanent resident. You may sponsor your spouse, common-law partner or conjugal partner. There are two main options to choose from when sponsoring your spouse or partner: Outland Sponsorship and Inland Sponsorship. Outland SponsorshipOutland sponsorship is an option for couples who are not living together in Canada. This application is for foreign nationals who are residing abroad and are to be sponsored by their Canadian spouse or partner. If your spouse or partner is unable to apply from inside Canada or does not legally live in Canada at the time of the application, outland sponsorship is likely the only option available. To be eligible to sponsor a spouse or partner under the Outland application category, the sponsor and sponsored person must meet the following criteria:
If the sponsored persons’ work or personal situation requires them to travel outside the country, Outland Sponsorship may be the better option as it allows for travel to and from Canada during the application process. Inland SponsorshipInland sponsorship is an option for couples who are living together in Canada. This application is for foreign spouses or partners who have valid temporary status in Canada, either as a worker, student or visitor. The sponsored person will be able to continue to live, work or study in Canada while the inland sponsorship application is being processed.
To be eligible to sponsor a spouse or partner under the Inland application category, the sponsor and sponsored person must meet the following criteria:
President Biden’s nominee to run U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has abruptly withdrawn from consideration after months of uncertainty, leaving the Homeland Security agency that detains and deports undocumented immigrants without a confirmed director for the sixth consecutive year.
Harris County, Tex., Sheriff Ed Gonzalez wrote Biden on June 25, nearly a year after his Senate confirmation hearing, saying that he decided to bow out “after much prayer and deep consideration. “I arrive at this difficult decision with the understanding that the challenges of preserving both the integrity of America’s borders and our country’s global standing as a beacon of light for those seeking freedom and opportunity have never been greater,” he wrote, according to a copy obtained by The Washington Post. Gonzalez, who runs nation’s the third-largest sheriff’s agency, said he had decided to devote his full attention to rising crime in the Houston area, where he was first elected sheriff in 2016 and is now in his second term. Homicides are up, as they are in other cities nationwide, he wrote, and the jail population has swelled “beyond capacity," “placing unprecedented strain” on the jail staff. “All of this leads me to the unavoidable conclusion that in 2022, I must devote my full, undivided attention and energy toward fulfilling the duties that the people of Harris County elected me to perform," he wrote. Biden first nominated Gonzalez, a career law enforcement official, in April 2021 to run an agency that has been a political lightning rod amid partisan debate over immigration arrests and rising numbers of border apprehensions. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas called him a “strong choice” and urged his swift confirmation to lead the DHS agency with an $8-billion-a year budget and more than 20,000 employees worldwide. ICE detains and deports immigrants, but it also has an investigative branch, Homeland Security Investigations, that investigates crimes such as drug smuggling and human trafficking. Priti Patel was accused by Labour of overseeing a “shambles” and participating in a “government by gimmick” after the 11th-hour cancellation of the first plane carrying asylum seekers to Rwanda.
The home secretary disclosed that some cancelled Rwandan flight passengers will be released into the community wearing tags, as she promised to continue to pursue the policy of outsourcing refugees to the east African state. It comes as government insiders said that they hoped to try again to send asylum seekers to Rwanda within weeks. Up to seven people who had come to the UK seeking refuge had been expected to be removed to Rwanda an hour and a half before the flight was due to take off. But a ruling granting a temporary injunction by the European court of human rights (ECHR) on one of the seven cases allowed lawyers for the other six to make successful last-minute applications. There is no right of appeal to the temporary injunction. It halted the deportation of an Iraqi asylum seeker to Rwanda until three weeks after a judicial review by the UK’s courts had delivered its verdict, potentially delaying any flight until August. Sources close to the government have criticised the lack of transparency surrounding the ECHR judgment, saying on Wednesday that the Home Office was still trying to establish the name of the judge who made the ruling. Government lawyers wish to establish the criteria by which the ECHR is making decisions on injunctions and the criteria for turning them down. Appearing before the Commons, the home secretary said she was surprised by the ECHR’s intervention, which overruled domestic judicial decisions, but told MPs it was inevitable there would be legal challenges. “This government will not be deterred from doing the right thing. We will not be put off by the inevitable legal last-minute challenges. Nor will we allow mobs to block removals,” she said. She said the court had not ruled the policy was unlawful but “prohibited the removal of three of those on last night’s flight”. “Those prohibitions last for different time periods but are not an absolute bar on their transfer to Rwanda. Anyone who has been ordered to be released by the courts will be tagged while we continue to progress their relocation,” she said. Patel and Boris Johnson have repeatedly criticised lawyers bringing legal challenges against the government and the groups and MPs supporting them. Nicolas Espinosa’s hopes for his 11-year-old daughter, Julia, are basic and profound: He wants her to stay alive and perhaps be able to eat normally someday.
And she might, if she can get three organs transplanted — and if the U.S. immigration system doesn’t get in the way. In a case that reflects the significant and often-heartbreaking failures in how the U.S. welcomes newcomers to the country, the Espinosas are confronting not just the nation’s complicated and expensive health care maze, but an immigration system that Congress has not reformed for decades. Despite calls for coherent reform, immigration policy has been largely set through scattershot legislation and whipsawing administrative actions, often modified by the courts. That chaotic reality is threatening an American girl’s life. Julia was born in Miami when her parents were attending college on student visas. She had a birth defect called volvulus, a twisted small intestine, and doctors saved her as a baby by removing most of the organ. Never able to eat normally, Julia has survived by getting carefully crafted daily infusions of nutrients through an intravenous port in her chest, Espinosa said. It’s extremely expensive and specialized care that Espinosa said Julia could not get in his home country of Ecuador, where they had planned to return. Instead, the family moved to Seattle 10 years ago to be near Seattle Children’s Hospital, where specialists can manage Julia’s nutritional needs well. Still, getting nutrition through infusions is not something the human body was designed for, and it has done damage to her internal organs. She is on transplant lists for the small intestine she lost at birth, and to replace her deteriorating liver and pancreas. Their daughter’s health circumstances would be challenging enough, but Espinosa and his wife, Maria Saenz, face an additional struggle — an ongoing battle with immigration authorities to stay and work in the U.S. legally. For the second time in three years, Espinosa faces the prospect of losing permission to work, which would cost him not only his job providing tech support at a software company, but also his health insurance. Without health insurance, his daughter would lose her eligibility for transplants. “We are relying on the current health insurance to keep her on the transplant list,” Espinosa said. “If I cannot keep my health insurance, then my daughter might not be eligible for a transplant.” Espinosa is acutely aware of his precarious position, and acted early to renew his immigration status, known as medical deferred action. It’s a category in which the government says it will defer trying to deport someone so they can deal with a severe illness. People who have action deferred can also apply for a work permit. Espinosa applied to renew his deferred action in November, even though his current deferment was good until the end of July. He heard nothing back from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, however, until just recently, and the approval came only after inquiries to the agency from members of Congress and a reporter. The family still can’t rest easy, though. Espinosa’s application for a new work permit has not yet been approved. He can still lose his job and insurance at the end of July if the new permit is not granted in time, which is far from a certainty. A spokesperson for Seattle Children’s Hospital indicated officials there would work with the Espinosas to care for Julia if there is a lapse in her insurance, though her place in line on the transplant lists might have to be put on hold, leaving Espinosa to scramble for backup options like Medicaid. |