Mediaboss Marketing

A version of this story originally appeared inBrookings' How We Rise blogand was republished with permission from Brookings Institute. Gabriel Sanchez is a Professor of Political Science at The University of New Mexico,a Non-Resident Senior Fellow for Brookings, and a principal at Latino Decisions.

Although the coronavirus was the top issue on the minds of voters this cycle, Latino voters, particularly young Latino voters, were energized by demands for social justice and discrimination directed at their community.

"The high turnout of Latino voters across the country speaks to the resilience of this community who overcame fears of potential threats to their right to vote."GabrielSanchez, UNM Political Science professor.

The Latino Decisions Election Eve Survey identified that nearly 1 in 5 Latino voters (19 percent) across the country said that discrimination and social justice was one of the top issues facing the Latino community that politicians should address. This is higher than immigration reform as a priority for Latino voters and up significantly from 2016. These issues were even more salient among Latinos under 40, 23 percent of which chose them as one of their top issues facing Latinos in 2020.

The social unrest across the country against structural racism and police brutality was a major factor in the 2020 election for the Latino electorate. This context helps explain why another 13 percent of Latino voters (18 percent among those under 40) identified police brutality / criminal justice reform as one of their top issues this election season.

Latino Decisions data has helped provide perspective on themany challenges Latinos face with the criminal justice systemthat have made this a priority for voters in an election season where this was part of the national narrative. For example, 37 percent of Latino voters in the Election Eve Survey reported that someone in their family or personal network has been unfairly stopped or harassed by police or law enforcement. AnAbriendo/Puertas Latino Decisions National Family Surveyfound that 36 percent of Latino families have experienced excessive force by police.

The Election Eve survey also found that a robust 83 percent of Latinos believe that the rise of violent white supremacists is a major threat to our country 58 percent strongly agree. This growing concern across the electorate was salient in an election whereconcerns with armed militias intimidating voterswere high. The high turnout of Latino voters across the country speaks to the resilience of this community who overcame fears of this potential threat to their right to vote.

This election season has included wide-spread protests across the country against police brutality, structural racism, and criminal justice reform. While 20 percent of all Latino voters indicated that they have attended a march or rally to support racial justice, or protest policy brutality this election season, 28 percent of Latinos under the age of 40 did so.

It is therefore clear that young Latinos had a significant impact on the election as both voters and protestors.

With this unprecedented engagement in the 2020 election, Latinos are going to be looking to the incoming administration to address the concerns that they have raised during the election season. The Election Eve Survey provides a few indicators to help identify what Latino voters policy preferences are in the area of police reform.

The Latino community is conscious of the racism that they face in the country and will be looking to the federal administration to address their growing concern with this issue. In fact, the majority of Latino voters (62 percent) believe that discrimination directed at their community has gotten worse since 2016. Although not having a President in the White House who stokes the fires of racism directed at immigrants and Latinos will be huge, it is critical to recognize that with a high percentage of the American public supporting Trumps campaigns that racialized Latinos, there is a lot of work to be done.

Originally posted here:
Yes, social justice and discrimination were driving issues for Latino voters in 2020 - UNM Newsroom

Kamala Harris becomes first woman, African American and Indian American to become vice president.

Joseph R. Biden, Jr. has been elected 46th President of the United States. He defeated the current incumbent of the White House, Donald J. Trump, according to projections from NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and Fox News.

The race was called by networks just before noon after the former vice presidents lead in the crucial commonwealth of Pennsylvania increased to more than 0.5 percentage points.

Bidens victory in Pennsylvania, long considered the tipping-point state, put the Democrat over 270 electoral votes. With him leading in Georgia, Arizona and Nevada, Biden is on path to win 306 electoral votes, the number Trump won in 2016.

America, Im honored that you have chosen me to lead our great country, Biden tweeted at 11:52 am. The work ahead of us will be hard, but I promise you this: I will be a President for all Americans whether you voted for me or not. I will keep the faith that you have placed in me.

With Bidens victory, Kamala Harris, daughter of an Indian American mother and African American father, becomes the first woman and person of color to become the Vice President of the United States.

With his loss, Trump becomes only the fourth president in the last 100 years to lose a reelection campaign. The last incumbent who was voted out was President George H.W. Bush, who lost to Democrat Bill Clinton.

Several Indian American groups welcomed Bidens victory.

READ MORE: Road to the White House

President-elect Biden has made immigration reform a priority on his agenda, Sanjeev Joshipura, Executive Director of the nonprofit Indiaspora, told the American Bazaar. He recognizes the inspiration of the Indian American immigrant story, and what it has meant for America.

Joshipura said Indiaspora was at the forefront of the successful effort a few years ago to get an official Diwali stamp issued by the U.S. Postal Service. He added: Hopefully, we can arrange a virtual Diwali with the U.S. Vice President-elect this year!

In a statement, Neil Makhija, Executive Director of Indian American advocacy and political action committee IMPACT, pointed out the historic nature of the Biden-Harris tickets victory.

A generation of Indian Americans made this country their home because they knew it meant anything was possible for their children, he said. Today, the daughter of one of those Indian Americans proved their faith. It is with pride, hope, and enduring faith in America that we congratulate Vice President-elect Kamala Desi Harris on her historic victory.

Makhija said her election sends a message to a new generation of young Black and Brown children that they belong, and that in America, anything is possible.

He said that the election will supercharge the political engagement of the Indian American community.

In the current election cycle, IMPACT raised a $10 million. Makhija said it doubled turnout of South Asian voters in critical states, including Pennsylvania and Arizona, where our communitys engagement was enough to make the margin.

READ MORE:

Trump demands stop to vote count as Biden gains ground(November 5, 2020)

Indian Americans make a splash in yet another election cycle(November 5, 2020)

Biden on the cusp of winning the White House(November 4, 2020)

See more here:
Joe Biden elected 46th President of the United... - The American Bazaar

In September, I wrote a post captioned "Miami-Dade and the Myth of the Monolithic Latino Voter: Not surprisingly, 'Latino voters are in many ways just like everyone else' and not focused just on immigration policy". I would say that I was prescient in discussing the Latino vote and President Trump's re-election campaign, but I have been around politics for almost two decades, and I was simply reiterating what the facts were. But to understand the full picture after the fact, focus on two elections: the Florida presidential vote, and the 23rd Congressional District of Texas.

I will note, as I did in that post, that I eschew such broad demographic labels as "Latino" (or "Hispanic"), generally and especially when it comes time for elections. They only serve to divide Americans and make little sense in the rest of the world.

With respect to this latter point, if you are allowed to cast a ballot for president, you are a "citizen" (or "national", which generally means the same thing). That means you are an "American". You are motivated to cast your ballot for any number of reasons, and perhaps your ethnicity and the individual candidate's immigration policies are one of those reasons, but is likely never the only one.

As the Washington Post reported on Wednesday, almost half of the Latino voters in Florida cast their votes for Donald Trump. It essentially makes the same point that I made in the paragraph above, but with its own gloss and spin about the campaigns' outreach efforts (or lack thereof) and "disinformation and mischaracterizations".

It is true, however, as that article states, that "Latino" voters in Florida (or their families) hail largely from two specific places: Cuba and Puerto Rico. According to the Pew Research Center, "Latinos" were 17 percent of registered voters in Florida in 2020. In 2018, 29 percent of them were "Cuban" and 27 percent were from Puerto Rico. (Noting that Puerto Ricans are citizens by birth would be talking down to the reader.)

Ten percent were Mexican and 10 percent were either Colombian or Venezuelan. The latter are the fastest growing group in the Sunshine State increasing their numbers 184 percent from 2008 to 2018. One could argue that the Cuban-Americans and Venezuelan-Americans both of whom likely arrived to flee "socialist" regimes are likely to be more "conservative" than other Latinos. In this country, that label is applied to the Republican Party, and therefore it makes sense that they would pull the lever for the GOP.

The Puerto Rican population is a bit more nuanced. Forgotten in the run-up to the election is the fact that the Governor of Puerto Rico herself a Republican endorsed Donald Trump, and in no uncertain terms: "I ask all the Puerto Ricans who are listening to me to go vote ... and evaluate who has represented themselves as someone who thinks about Puerto Ricans and their needs in the most difficult moment: It's Donald Trump."

Interestingly, that fact is omitted from the Post article, which does note: "Puerto Ricans, whose numbers have grown in the state in recent years, are often assumed to be Democrats. That is not always the case among many evangelical Protestants and those who have recently moved from Puerto Rico." But it then leaves hanging why recent arrivals from Puerto Rico might be more inclined to vote for the Party of Lincoln.

Note that Jenniffer Gonzlez, the current representative from Puerto Rico in the U.S. House (technically the "resident commissioner", who can vote in committee but not on the House floor), makes no bones about the fact that she is "[a] lifelong Republican", who in fact was speaker of the commonwealth's House for a four-year term. She "easily won" reelection to the U.S. House in an otherwise hotly contested election this year.

Puerto Rican politics is nuanced, and does not break down between "Republican" and "Democrat". Instead, it is led by the "New Progressive Party" (which is more conservative, but has Democratic adherents) and the "Popular Democratic Party". There are smaller parties, as well.

Puerto Ricans who have lived longer in the United States are likely influenced in the same way by local issues as their fellow citizens are (particularly evangelicals). But, as Politico reported in September, "the conservative values and Latin traditions are more akin to the values of a Republican Party" among Puerto Rican residents, at least according to one expert. In any event "[b]oth major islandwide elected officials in Puerto Rico are registered Republicans."

Turning from Florida to a more local race, that for the congressional seat in Texas' 23rd congressional district, tells a slightly different but similar story. Texas 23 is huge, running east from the outskirts of El Paso down the Rio Grande Valley to just north of Laredo (ending at the Webb County line), and north to the edge of Odessa and the San Antonio suburbs. And, at more than 58,000 square miles, it is larger than South Carolina, West Virginia, Delaware, and Rhode Island combined.

Created in 1967, it has changed parties many times since. Texas 23 was 70.8 percent "Hispanic" in 2018, according to Ballotpedia. Some 15.1 percent of the residents of the district are foreign-born; given its proximity to the Rio Grande, most likely in Mexico.

Republican Will Hurd represents it (for the time being), as he did in the 115th Congress. He won it by about 3,000 votes in 2016 (a squeaker by any standards) and just 900 votes in 2018.

I know Hurd (he sat on the House Oversight Committee when I was a staff director for its National Security Subcommittee), who was previously an undercover officer with the CIA. To say he is smart would be an understatement he is likely the smartest member of Congress I knew based strictly on intellectual firepower. He is also the only African-American in the current GOP House delegation, and announced his retirement during the summer.

The Republicans nominated in his stead Tony Gonzales. Gonzales won in 2020 by more than 12,000 votes, capturing 50.7 percent of the electorate (a Libertarian won an additional 2.8 percent).

Gonzales is as interesting as Hurd. A Navy veteran, he rose to the rank of master chief petty officer, an "E-9" in military terms about as high as a noncommissioned officer can reach. He served in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. Gonzales is a career cryptologist.

He also holds a PhD in International Development with an emphasis on Security Studies and International Politics, and is an assistant professor at the University of Maryland, teaching counterterrorism. Did I mention that he has his own non-profit foundation? It is "focused on empowering and encourage[ing] growth and development in impoverished areas of San Antonio by uniting local businesses, schools, and families".

Gonzales is fairly conservative by any standard: He advertises himself as "100% pro-life" (he has six kids himself), and "advocates for pro-family legislative policies such as school choice, expanding the child tax credit, and supporting advanced skills to adult learners". He is also a Second Amendment supporter, "and advocate in any forum when they are infringed upon."

He also pulls no punches on immigration, stating: "Our immigration system is broken. There's no doubt in my mind that immigration reform starts with southern border security." On the last issue, he avers: "I will support significant increases in border security, with new border wall in high traffic areas, and work to shut down sanctuary cities, and modernize our entry/exit system to limit fraud." He was criticized for using "a fake U.S. Border Patrol agent" in an ad.

His (main) opponent, Gina Ortiz Jones, took a different tack in her campaign. While advocating for "Responsible Immigration Reform" (which anyone interested in immigration supports, but which means different things to different people), she stated she would "work to ensure our immigration policies focus on tapping into our country's potential not forcing vulnerable communities into the shadows."

With respect to border barriers, Ortiz Jones vowed that she would: "Ensure we do not throw billions of dollars away on an ineffective, wasteful border wall."

Lest you think that Gonzales was "safe" in a solid red district think again. The Cook Political Report a bible for political junkies stated, when the current representative announced his retirement: "Hurd is probably the only Republican capable of holding Texas's massive 23rd District."

Hillary Clinton carried it by three percentage points in 2016, and Cook moved it to "Lean Democratic" in its horse-race ratings, stating: "November 2020 will feature a much higher Hispanic turnout than that race and possibl[y] November 2018, complicating the math" for a Republican candidate. Not to criticize Charlie Cook: Ted Cruz lost there in 2018 by five percentage points.

Again, Texas 23 is a large and largely Hispanic district. And yet, a pro-life, pro-gun, border security Republican managed to do it by a larger margin than the purportedly indispensable (for the GOP, at least) Will Hurd.

Whether you prefer "Latino" or "Hispanic" as a designation (I prefer "American", as I stated), the voters in that demographic are not "monolithic", and where they fall on the issue of illegal immigration plainly varies.

Just look to Florida, and a congressional district the size of four states.

More:
The Latino Vote in Florida and One Texas District - Immigration Blog

BOSTON (CBS) He blew it.

In 2016 Donald J. Trump caught the imagination of just enough voters in the right states to win the presidency for a range of reasons, distaste for Hillary Clinton and disgust with the domestic economic toll of globalization among them. And there was also the hope that a successful businessman might bring a fresh perspective to the job, including more concern with the bottom line and more respect for the paying customers.

Four years later, he has alienated just enough voters in the wrong states to lose, amid palpable distaste for him personally and disgust with the toll of the pandemic he tried to spin away. The bottom line is in shambles, his disrespect for the customers exposed.

This slow-motion car crash started with a fundamental misunderstanding. Trump was a genius self-marketer, not a successful businessman, as his lifelong trail of bankruptcies and commercial failures show. Successful businessmen do not aggressively alienate a majority of their market, as Trump and his itchy Twitter finger did so compulsively.

When I interviewed Trump supporters in a Billerica diner as the 100-day milestone of his presidency approached in early 2017, they all identified the tweeting as unnecessary and a potential problem. Was it ever. A 2019 New York Times analysis found more than half of Trumps tweets were attacks on foes real and imagined; they repeatedly caused problems for the Justice Department lawyers defending his actions in court. Your average Billerica Joe and Jane grabbing a turkey club on their lunch break had considerably more brains and sense than the leader of the free world.

Correction: the free worlds foremost reactionary. Even if one generously extends credit to him for the tax cuts, defense spending and judicial appointments hustled through by Congressional conservatives, Trump rarely lead in the sense of steering toward a meaningful policy vision.

Immigration reform? Separating families, caging kids and throwing up poorly-built border walls scratched an itch but cured no problems.

Foreign policy? Squeezing more dough out of NATO and eliminating the unlamented Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi dont make up for the abandonment of the Kurds, the alienation of longtime allies and enabling the rise of Russian and Chinese influence.

Growing the economy and keeping us safe? Whatever progress he could plausibly claim was trashed by the mind-blowing fiasco of Trumps pandemic mismanagement, the most appalling unforced error of an administration replete with them.

No one blamed Trump for the outbreak. All he had to do when it arrived was walk into the briefing room and say we face a tough fight against a difficult enemy. It wont be easy, but we can win if we all stick together and make shared, temporary sacrifices. Im going to do everything in my power to mobilize all our resources for this fight. Working together as Americans always do when were under attack, we will prevail. Now, heres Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx.

But no. COVID-19 wasnt a disease, it was a political attack on him, a new partisan hoax designed to disrupt his re-election. He knew more about how to fight it than the experts. Task force briefings were openings for him to grab free airtime and spew political spin, not crucial opportunities to inform and protect the public.

The CDC recommends wearing masks? He couldnt see himself setting an example by doing so because it didnt match his self-image of sitting in the Oval Office, behind that beautiful Resolute Desk when meeting with presidents, prime ministers, dictators, kings queens.

What sort of vainglorious nonsense was this? Nothing unexpected. Its beyond ironic that the man who coined the term fake news capped a career of relentless make-believe with a pretend presidency. From the bogus claims about the inaugural crowds right up to the evidence-free charges of vote fraud being laughed out of courtrooms across the country, Trump buried his shot at growing his base beyond the groupies under a mountain of b.s. and egomania.

Despite it all, he might have won again had the coronavirus and Joe Biden not intervened. The most important political event of the campaign was appropriately on leap day, February 29, when South Carolina primary voters brought the Biden campaign back from the dead.

Can you imagine where wed be today if Bernie Sanders were the nominee? We just saw how the ludicrous smears of socialist and being anti-cop stuck to Biden to an alarming degree among some voters. Black voters in South Carolina astutely saw Biden as the only competitive choice when their white counterparts in Iowa and New Hampshire didnt get it. Perhaps some of them even took their cues from Trump, who shot himself in the foot by making it clear with his Ukraine conspiracy fantasies that Biden was the candidate he feared most.

But in the end, this moment isnt about Biden. All he did was make this race a referendum on Trump, as it had to be for the Democrats to win.

And with their verdict, along with all the other reasons, the solid majority of Americans who voted for change sent a message with their choice. A message, fittingly enough, summed up concisely by the president in one of his latest tweets:

STOP THE FRAUD

Read more from the original source:
Keller @ Large: This Moment Isnt About Biden, Its About The Downfall Of Trump - CBS Boston

In Niz-Chavez v. Barr, the Supreme Court rekindles its on-again, off-again relationship with the stop-time rule, a provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act that forecloses access to cancellation of removal, an important form of discretionary relief for noncitizens in removal proceedings. This case, which will be argued on Monday, marks the third time since 2018 that the court has tangled with the stop-time rule, with previous rendezvous in Pereira v. Sessions and Barton v. Barr. Niz-Chavez builds upon the Pereira litigation, and will require the justices to examine, once again, how notice of removal proceedings intersects with the stop-time rule.

Cancellation of removal operates as a type of forgiveness provision in U.S. immigration law, allowing noncitizens who satisfy certain eligibility criteria to secure permanent resident status, provided the positive equities in their case outweigh any negative factors. The INA sets forth two forms of cancellation removal, one for permanent residents, and another for nonpermanent residents. Each form of cancellation of removal includes a requirement linked to the length of the noncitizens stay in the United States: seven years of continuous residence for permanent residents, and 10 years of continuous presence for nonpermanent residents. To further limit access to this important remedy, the INA outlines specific occurrences that stop the seven- and 10-year clocks. Section 1229b(d) provides, in relevant part, that

any period of continuous residence or continuous physical presence in the United States shall be deemed to end when the alien is served a notice to appear undersection 1229(a) of this title

Section 1229(a)(1), in turn, clarifies the meaning of the term notice to appear, as follows:

In removal proceedings written notice (in this section referred to as a notice to appear) shall be given in person to the alien specifying the following:

The statute then enumerates seven pieces of information that must be conveyed, lettered A through G. Among the required components is information about the nature of the proceedings, the charges against the noncitizen and corresponding statutory provisions, the right to representation by counsel, and most relevant to the present case, [t]he time and place at which the proceedings will be held.

The lowercase notice to appear mentioned in the INA has a tangible counterpart in immigration practice: Form I-862 Notice to Appear, commonly referred to as an NTA. For many years, the Department of Homeland Security has made a practice of issuing NTAs that lack information about the time and date of the hearing. Instead, NTAs frequently list both as to be set, and the immigration court subsequently sends a hearing notice with the actual date and time. This practice led to the litigation in Pereira, in which the petitioner argued that an NTA lacking date and time information could not trigger the stop-time rule and therefore render him ineligible for cancellation of removal. In an 8-1 decision authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Supreme Court agreed, holding that [a] putative notice to appear that fails to designate the specific time or place of the noncitizens removal proceedings is not a notice to appear under 1229(a), and so does not trigger the stop-time rule.

While the Pereira court underscored the critical importance of time and date information, it did not explicitly address whether the government can trigger the stop-time rule if it serves the required information via multiple documents for example, an initial NTA lacking the scheduling information, followed by a hearing notice.

Enter Agusto Niz-Chavez, a Guatemalan national who fled violence in his home country and arrived in the United States in 2005. Niz-Chavez built a life in the United States and is the primary supporter of his three U.S. citizen children, two of whom have health-related challenges. After being pulled over for a broken tail light, Niz-Chavez was referred to immigration authorities. In March 2013, he received an NTA lacking date and time information; about two months later, in May 2013, the government sent Niz-Chavez a hearing notice.

Once in removal proceedings, Niz-Chavez sought to apply for cancellation of removal. The immigration judge ruled, pre-Pereira, that the March 2013 NTA triggered the stop-time rule and thus prevented him from accruing the required 10 years of continuous presence. While the case was pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals, Pereira was decided, but the board ruled that the two-step approach (NTA + hearing notice) was sufficient to trigger the stop-time rule. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld the boards decision, and as the case made its way to the Supreme Court, a circuit split emerged on whether the notice required in Section 1229(a) must be served via a single document in order to trigger the stop-time rule. Most of these appellate decisions analyzed Matter of Mendoza-Hernandez, a 2019 en banc decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals holding that multiple documents can together comprise the required service of the NTA.

The parties briefing before the court engages with questions of statutory interpretation, legislative history and agency deference, while considering the on-the-ground impact of their positions. Niz-Chavez repeatedly emphasizes that Section 1229(a) uses a singular statutory term a notice to appear and contends that this choice of language evinces unambiguous congressional intent to require notice via a single document. And since an NTA is often described as a charging document, Niz-Chavez notes that a comparable legal filing (of, say, a complaint or brief), would likewise occur via a single document. The governments primary counter-argument, mirroring the 6th Circuits rationale in Garcia-Romo v. Barr, is that terms like a manuscript or a file might reasonably refer to written documents submitted in multiple parts. In response, Niz-Chavez raises the specter of a stitched-together Frankenstein notice, which would undermine the purpose of a single NTA that presents a complete picture of the removal proceedings.

The parties each contend that legislative and regulatory history is on their side. According to Niz-Chavez, the legislative history accompanying the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which introduced the concept of a notice to appear, reveals an intent to abandon a two-step practice that allowed an order to show cause (the predecessor to the NTA) to be filed separately from a hearing notice. Instead, Niz-Chavez argues, Congress designed the NTA to be a single form with all of the required information, with the goal of avoiding disputes about proper service. Niz-Chavez also highlights language from the preamble of a post-IIRIRA proposed immigration rule, which unequivocally stated that the NTA must include the time and place of the hearing. Yet despite this language, the regulation that was ultimately issued permitted a two-step process, requiring time and date information on the NTA only where practicable. According to the government, the enactment of this regulation undercuts Niz-Chavezs narrative, and is consistent with a reading of the legislative history that does not specifically proscribe notice via multiple documents.

The government casts Niz-Chavezs argument as an elevation of form over function, noting that a notice to appear is defined in Section 1229(a) as written notice, which can arguably be provided via more than one document. The parties also dig into neighboring provisions in the INA, marshaling language and legislative history to support their respective interpretations. Here, too, the government attempts to disaggregate the uppercase Notice to Appear the actual document served from the statutory concept of a notice to appear, which, in their view, could take the form of various written notices.

A significant portion of the briefing examines whether deference to the decision in Mendoza-Hernandez is required under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which generally prohibits courts from second-guessing an agencys reasonable interpretation of ambiguous laws. Advocates have consistently sought to chip away at Chevron deference in the immigration context, and Niz-Chavez offers another vehicle to make that case. According to Niz-Chavez, the Board of Immigration Appeals insufficiently explained its about-face in Mendoza-Hernandez, abandoning contrary precedent while failing to engage with the statutory text and history. While Niz-Chavez casts the boards decision as unreasonable, the government disputes that characterization with a detailed explanation of the boards reasoning. The parties also spar about whether Chevron deference should be afforded more generally in immigration cases, with the government emphasizing that deference is consistent with the political branches primary role in immigration matters.

The parties and various amici also debate the practical consequences of the two-step approach endorsed by the government. An amicus brief submitted by former immigration judges and members of the Board of Immigration Appeals argues that NTAs lacking date and time information occupy a no mans land in the immigration system, and can lead to errors in recordkeeping or faulty service. This, the former officials argue, necessarily complicates the work of immigration judges, who must conduct time-intensive inquiries into the propriety of service. Amici also rebuke the immigration court system for issuing NTAs with dummy dates and times after Pereira, and note the troublesome outcomes resulting from this practice, including missed hearings and orders of removal. The government offers that orders of removal premised on improper service are subject to reopening under the INA, and invokes the possibility of executive branch overreach in favor of noncitizens, suggesting that an agency seeking to wholly undermine the stop-time rule might choose to stop placing time and date information on any NTA.

Given the similarities between this case and Pereira, the outcome in Niz-Chavez is likely to turn on whether the justices believe the logic of Pereira applies equally to this question and compels a ruling in favor of Niz-Chavez. At the same time, the court must also assess whether the government truly needs the flexibility inherent in a two-step process that is, whether the logistics of enforcement and removal operations necessitate the practice, or whether it simply enables executive branch inefficiency. The Pereira court opined that the government should have the technological wherewithal to include date and time information on NTAs, but it remains to be seen how the justices will weigh this underlying policy question. Whether premised on statutory, historical or practical grounds, the courts ultimate decision will affect not only the functioning of agencies, but the lives of thousands of noncitizens seeking relief in removal proceedings.

Posted in Niz-Chavez v. Barr, Featured, Merits Cases

Recommended Citation: Jayesh Rathod, Case preview: How must the government serve notice of removal proceedings?, SCOTUSblog (Nov. 6, 2020, 4:22 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/11/case-preview-how-must-the-government-serve-notice-of-removal-proceedings/

Go here to see the original:
Case preview: How must the government serve notice of removal proceedings? - SCOTUSblog