Despite judge’s ruling, Chicago-area immigration activist still hopeful: ‘It’s not the end and we can fight’

Sun Times

07-17-2021

The judge’s order means pending applications from Rodriguez and other young Dreamers won’t be processed, for now. “It’s not the end and we can fight,” Rodriguez, 20, said hours after news of the judge’s order. The window for first-time DACA applications had opened in December because of a court order. As of March 31, more than 55,000 initial DACA applications were pending, according to the latest statistics from U.S. “People like my mom worry more about what it’s going to cost to have surgery because they don’t qualify for Medicaid because of immigration status.

READ ARTICLE

53.62% objective
58.51% positive

Related:

THE HILL - Garland strikes down Trump-era immigration court rule, empowering judges to pause cases
12.72% MORE objective
-10.46% LESS positive

The immigration court system, which is housed within the Department of Justice (DOJ), saw its backlog more than double under the Trump administration to 1.3 million as immigration officials forwarded a deluge of cases seeking deportation. Garland’s post gives him the power to review decisions made in the immigration court system, a power attorneys general used frequently under the Trump administration. The move followed pressure from immigration advocacy groups to review all of the 17 attorney general-level immigration court decisions made under the Trump administration. Greg Chen with the American Immigration Lawyers Association previously told The Hill that he estimates that some 460,000 people on the docket have applications for status pending with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services but are still being asked to make immigration court appearances roughly every three to six months.

THE HILL - The young Americans in Juliana case have a right to trial in open court
6.14% MORE objective
-11.69% LESS positive

Former law school dean and professor Jim Huffman recently wrote an opinion in the Hill about a pending constitutional climate lawsuit, Juliana v. United States. In addition, contrary to Huffman’s assertion, Judge Aiken does have jurisdiction over the case. Indeed, the relevance of Uzuegbunam was discussed by the parties and Judge Aiken during oral arguments. Huffman certainly isn’t alone in his quest to keep the Juliana case from being heard in open court. The young Americans in Juliana v. United States are right to continue to seek every opportunity to pursue a path to trial and have their claims heard in open court.