Saturday, February 27, 2010
Director of Programs: Asian American Justice Center, Washington, DC
Summary: The Director of Programs reports directly to the Executive Director or to her designee to ensure that the program work of the organization is carried out in a competent, efficient, and organized fashion. This work includes facilitating and directing the work of the staff attorneys and other program staff. The Director of Programs also provides input on the organization’s strategic planning, fundraising, public education and media relations work. The Director works closely on a day-to-day basis with other senior management level staff.
Major Job Duties and Responsibilities:
Supervise AAJC Program Staff and Develop Coherent Programming Consistent with AAJC Strategic Goals:
Oversee and supervise the work of Staff Attorneys and Program Staff.
Hire, manage, train and mentor Staff Attorneys and Program Staff.
Work with Staff Attorneys and Program Staff to ensure full integration and coordination of divisions and to develop program budgets.
Recruit and manage interns. Recruit fellows and draft fellowship applications. Work with Management Team to hire and recruit staff attorneys and program staff.
Work with litigation staff, Deputy Director and Program Staff to identify and support litigation. Work could include overseeing review of U.S. Supreme Court docket and investigation of Court of Appeals cases; establishing working relationships with pro bono firms; supervising the production and filing of briefs and other litigation documents. Help maintain AAJC Attorney Council.
Monitor and review federal register for notice and comment. Supervise staff in producing comments to federal regulations and policies.
Coordinate Program Staff Effectively with other AAJC Units, Management and Staff:
Facilitate communication between Staff Attorneys, Program Staff and Management Team to ensure a collegial working environment.
Work with Communications Director to increase overall media outreach and presence.
Work with Deputy Director, Development Team, and Program Staff to develop grant proposals and reports and to ensure all grant obligations are fulfilled and overall programmatic strategies and plans of the organizations are met.
Serve as Part of AAJC’s Senior Management Team
Work with Senior Management Staff to ensure that all policies and procedures are clearly articulated and consistently applied in a fair and equitable manner in accordance to AAJC’s core values. Strategize with staff and board on long term vision of the organization, including expanding and building capacity of existing program areas and possible new program areas.
Work with Deputy Director on board reports, presentations, and other board support matters.
Strengthen Relationships with Affiliates, Community Partners to Forward AAJC Programmatic Goals
Maintain working relationships with affiliates and help plan and implement affiliate-wide projects, including current co-branding initiative.
Build and maintain relationships with key coalition partners, including representing AAJC in coalition meetings and public speaking roles.
Supervise special projects, including the annual national conference for all affiliates.
Knowledge, skills and abilities:
· Must have strong supervisory skills and experience with proven ability to manage and mentor junior staff as well as the ability to plan, organize, and direct a comprehensive program.
· Must also have experience in working successfully in partnership with affiliates and coalition partners.
· Position requires a broad range of skills including knowledge of litigation, legislative processes, personnel management, program development, planning and decision-making.
· Knowledge of Asian Pacific American community and civil and human rights issues covered by AAJC is a plus.
· Excellent communication and writing skills is also required. Experience and interest in public speaking is a plus.
· Must have initiative and the ability to exercise good judgment.
· The position demands a thorough understanding of and commitment to the mission and goals of the organization.
Education: Law degree, with admission to at least one state bar.
Experience: At least 7 years post-law school working experience in a legal environment at least 2 years of which will have been related to Asian American or civil rights issues. Experience must have been progressively more supervisory with administrative responsibility culminating in at least 3 years of overall management of an office or substantial unit.
Interested applicants are encouraged to submit a cover letter explaining your interest, resume, and a short writing sample via email to: email@example.com
Email is preferred; however, applications can also be sent to:
Asian American Justice Center
1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20036
Jaya Ramji-Nogales has an excellent post on IntLawGrrls on the Second Circuit's decision in Kone v. Holder in which it rejected the Board of Immigration Appeals' latest ruling in an asylum case based on feared female genital mutiliation. Given the miserable track record of the BIA, how can any deference to the agency be justified?
Friday, February 26, 2010
Over 500,000 children labor in agriculture in the U.S. The Harvest tells the stories of five of these children from Texas, Florida, California, Minnesota and North Dakota. Produced and Directed by filmmaker Robin Romano in association with Shine Global. Click the link above for a feature length documentary to be released in 2010.
Melissa Crow, formerly a partner in Brown, Goldstein & Levy LLP, will joining the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Policy on February 1, 2010. Crow will serve as a principal advisor on immigration policy matters, including proposed legislation on comprehensive immigration reform. Download Bgl_partner_to_join_department_of_homeland_security
The Social and Economic Integration of Mexican Immigrants in Los Angeles
Rafael Alarcón and Luis Escala-Rabadán
Research Professors, Department of Social Sciences, Colegio de la Frontera Norte (Mexico)
March 2 at 2:00 PM
Univesity of California, San Diego
Eleanor Roosevelt College Administration Building
Conference Room 115, First Floor
Mexicans constitute the largest immigrant group in the United States. However, their social and economic integration reveals several limitations due to the large number of the undocumented as well as the low percentage of those who have naturalized, and thus, exercise their rights as citizens. In addition, most Mexican immigrants have a comparatively lower educational attainment and have access to low paying employment.
The main purpose of this presentation is to discuss the extent of social and economic integration of Mexican immigrants in the Los Angeles metropolitan area using a combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods. Data from the 2007 American Community Survey and 90 open-ended interviews with adult Mexican immigrants will be used to examine the economic, social, cultural and political factors that promote or limit the integration of immigrants. The interviews were conducted in 2008 with immigrants from the Mexican states of Zacatecas, Oaxaca, and Veracruz who have settled in the Los Angeles Metropolitan area at different times and historical circumstances.
Rafael Alarcón is research professor in the Department of Social Studies at El Colegio de la Frontera Norte in Tijuana, Mexico and holds a Ph D. in City and Regional Planning from the University of California, Berkeley. He was the founding editor of Migraciones Internacionales and is an specialist on international migration, Professor Alarcon has conducted research on the economic and social impacts of migration in sending and receiving regions in Mexico and the United States, the integration of Mexican immigrants in the United States and the role of skilled immigrants in Silicon Valley.
Luis Escala-Rabadán is a sociologist who completed his doctorate in Sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles. His research interests bring together the sociology of culture and the sociology of migration. His past work has included the study of transnational communities, political participation, and the different types of organizations and groups among Mexican migrants in the United States. He is currently on the research faculty of the Department of Social Studies and Chair of the Master’s Program in Sociocultural Studies at El Colegio de la Frontera Norte in Tijuana, Baja California, in Mexico.
Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Poizner seems to be trying to capture the far-right of the party in his fight for the Republican nomination for governor with Meg Whiitman. On immigration, this apparently means a tough-on-immigrants, enforcement-oriented approach. Poizner reportedly (and here) would consider deploying the National Guard to patrol the California border with Mexico. For a video in which he emphasizes the so-called national security risks and economic costs (sound familiar?) posed by "illegal immigration," click here. I am not sure how the National Guard would help but unfortunately that puts Poizner in the mainstream of Republican (and many Democratic) thinkers about immigration.
Former Chapman Law School Dean John Eastman, long an advocate of tough-on-immigrant measures and even questioning the birthright citizenship guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, may follow a similar course in pursuit of the Republican nomination for Attorney General. For John's manifesto, including a shot at "criminal aliens," click here.
I would be the first to agree that immigration is an important issue. But politicians who rant on the evils of "illegal" immigrants should beware. In 1994, California Governor Pete Wilson hitched his campaign to Proposition 187, an anti-immigrant milestone of the 1990s that a court ruled to be unconstitutional. Many Latino voters still have not forgotten. Where is Pete Wilson now? Retired from politics and an incognito visitor to any Republican gathering.
Can you tell me who this is?
Thursday, February 25, 2010
From Detention Watch Network:
Today the Detention Watch Network launches its national campaign "Dignity, Not Detention: Preserving Human Rights & Restoring Justice" to halt expansion of the U.S. immigration detention system and demand that immigrants are treated with full respect for their human rights and dignity.
American ideals of democracy and liberty are built on the foundation of upholding due process and human rights for all people. Contrary to these ideals, the U.S. government has created a climate of fear in our communities through the widespread abuse of power under the rapidly expanding immigration enforcement regime and the gross mistreatment of individuals held in detention. At an annual cost of $1.7 billion, the government's use of misguided enforcement practices have resulted in more than 300,000 people detained each year under appalling conditions in unregulated detention facilities with limited or no access to lawyers, and without hope for a fair day in court.
While John Morton, the head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE, the Department of Homeland Security agency which oversees immigration detention and deportation) announced last year that he plans to institute major reforms in the detention system, to date, advocates have seen little evidence of change, and human rights abuses continue to occur each day.
DWN members believe that now is the time to hold President Obama and DHS accountable for the promised reforms and to shift the debate in support of a more limited detention and enforcement system that protects due process of law and human rights.
Our campaign is a national effort to expose the profit-driven expansion of the detention system as a key contributor to the unprecedented number of immigrants held in immigration custody. Starting with coordinated launch activities today, the campaign will support local members in Arizona, Georgia, and Texas throughout the year in their fight against expansion of interior enforcement programs and the detention system while coordinating national efforts to meet the Network's key demands.
We are demanding that President Obama put an end to human rights abuses in detention centers.
We are demanding that Congress restore due process to the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws and guarantee that every person has the right to a fair day in court.
We are demanding that Secretary Napolitano stop expanding local enforcement programs that are contributing to the explosive growth of the detention system.
We are demanding that the U.S. government take action to prevent the arbitrary detention of more than 300,000 people each year and start using cost-saving alternatives.
As Americans, we have a responsibility to uphold our core values: dignity, human rights, and due process of law-- principles that are fundamental to a democracy. All people, regardless of race or country of origin, deserve fair and equal treatment by the government.
We ask you to join us in our campaign. Please sign on to the campaign and go to the "Dignity, Not Detention" campaign website at www.dignitynotdetention.org to learn how you can get involved.
Take a stand to protect human rights and put an end to the expansion of the U.S. immigration detention system. Together we can stop the human rights abuses occurring under the U.S. detention and enforcement regimes.
SAY YES TO DIGNITY!
From the ABA:
The Citizenship Flowchart Book
By Robert J. McWhirter
An easy-to-understand flowchart in book format that provides ultimate answer as to citizenship status by navigating through the complex and sometimes conflicting steps and questions linked to a century of legislation and regulation.
A laminated 4-color chart takes you through a process of determining citizenship through a series of yes or no questions. The end result will ultimately make a determination of an individual's citizenship in the United States. (Also available in Spanish).
In addition, there are 32 pages of reference text allowing you to examine the basis for the individual questions in more detail if you wish. Years of research have gone into the development of this flow chart, and it will make on-the-street determination of U.S. Citizenship faster and easier than ever. Order a copy for everyone who deals with the question of citizenship at your location!
Product Details: 5090108 Regular Price: $49.95
CJ Section Member Price: $39.95 ©2008
8-1/2 x 11 - Paperback
32 pages, Paper
Judge Stephen Reinhardt, an influential judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit (who incidentially has written important immigration decisions, including the Ninth Circuit opinion in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, later affirmed by the U,S. Supreme Court; for a summary of a more recent immigration opinion by Judge Reinhardt, click here), will today deliver the 2010 Edward L. Barrett, Jr., Lectureship on Constitutional Law. His lecture is entitled "Life to Death: Our Constitution and How It Grows." For more details, click here.
Unlike tax, parking ticket, or even gun amnesties, amnesty for undocumented immigrants in connection with immigration reform has become something of a dirty word. Richard Boswell in a new article, "Crafting an Amnesty with Traditional Tools: Registration and Cancellation" 47 Harvard J. Leg. 175 (2010), skillfully demonstates how an amnesty -- now called an "earned legalization" in many current reform proposals -- has deep roots in immigration law.
In the next few months,Duke's Law & Contemporary Problems will be publishing an issue on race and socioeconomic class. The papers were presented at Duke Law School in January 2009. For a webcast of the paper presentations, click here.
My contribution is entitled THE INTERSECTION OF RACE AND CLASS IN U.S. IMMIGRATION LAW AND ENFORCEMENT. Here is the introduction:
Since its emergence in the 1960s and 1970s, ethnic- (including white) studies scholarship has analyzed race and class as intertwined and interrelated. An inherently conservative discipline, law is notoriously resistant to scholarly change. As a result, legal scholarship often lags behind the cutting edge of other disciplines. Not surprisingly, only in relatively recent years has the intersection of race and class become the subject of a growing body of critical legal scholarship.
A bit of intellectual history helps explain the isolation of two bodies of legal scholarship—Critical Legal Studies (CLS) and Critical Race Theory—that would seem to naturally analyze race and class both critically and in tandem. The late 1970s and early 1980s saw the emergence of CLS, which scrutinized the law squarely through a class-conscious lens. In the wake of considerable conflict and acrimony, Critical Race Theory publicly split off from CLS with the stated aim of more-thoroughly probing the impact of race on the development and maintenance of the law. Over the years, the two bodies of scholarship, with distinctly different goals, have developed in separate spheres and veered in independent directions.
This issue of Law and Contemporary Problems will no doubt contribute to the literature on the intersection of race and class in modern American social life. This symposium is especially timely in light of the recent 2008 Presidential election, which undeniably focused national attention on both race (with the first African American elected President) and class (with the nation reeling from the devastating impacts of the downward spiral of the U.S. economy, the home-mortgage-loan crisis, and the torn and tattered stock market).
There is no better body of law to illustrate the close nexus between race and class than U.S. immigration law and its enforcement. At bottom, U.S. immigration law historically has operated—and continues to operate—to prevent many poor and working noncitizens of color from migrating to, and harshly treating those living in, the United States. The laws are nothing less than a “magic mirror” into the nation’s collective consciousness about its perceived national identity—an identity that marginalizes poor and working immigrants of color and denies them of full membership in American social life.
But, as in many areas of law, matters of race and class in the U.S. immigration laws are unquestionably more complicated today than in the past. Fortunately, express racial exclusions can no longer be found in the immigration laws. A by-product of the 1960s civil-rights movement, the Immigration Act of 1965 abolished the facially discriminatory national-origins quotas system that had remained a bulwark of U.S. immigration law since 1924. As a consequence of this sea change in the law, the nation experienced a dramatic shift in the racial demographics of immigration, with an especially sharp increase in migration to the United States from Asia.
Importantly, although Congress eliminated the racial exclusions from the immigration laws, provisions of the current U.S. immigration laws regulating entry into the United States, such as economic litmus tests and arbitrary annual limits on the number of immigrants per country, have racially disparate impacts. Everything else being equal, people from the developing world—predominantly “people of color” as that category is popularly understood in the United States—find it much more difficult under the U.S. immigration laws to migrate to this country than similarly situated noncitizens from the developed (and predominantly white) world. Nonetheless, because of the consistently—and overwhelmingly—high demand among people in the developing world to migrate to the United States, people of color dominate the stream of immigrants to this country.
Although racial exclusions are something of the past, the express—and aggressive—exclusion of the poor remains a fundamental function of modern U.S. immigration law, embodied in the provisions of the omnibus Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. In sharp contrast, domestic laws generally cannot discriminate de jure against the poor. This express discrimination against poor and working immigrants by the U.S. immigration laws in operation has disparate national-origin and racial impacts.
Part II of this article sketches generally how race and class interact synergistically in the U.S. immigration laws and their enforcement. Part III offers case studies from recent immigration events in locales across the United States unquestionably demonstrating the centrality of race and class in the modern treatment of noncitizens.
California's budget woes are as well-known as its high profile governor -- and both are often in the news, in these days oftentogether. The Wonk Room reports that, although "anti-immigrant groups have been eager to blame California’s budget woes on the state’s undocumented immigrants," "yesterday, in an interview with Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) denied these accusations. While recognizing that undocumented immigration does pose some costs to the state, Schwarzenegger reiterated that the recession that California is experiencing is the result of a larger economic downturn, not immigration. And while the anti-immigrant crowd is quick to cite California’s economic troubles as a reason to clamp down on immigration, Schwarzenegger supports a more open policy that gives immigrants an opportunity to contribute to the state of California."
I ran across an especially interesting article on the Social Science Research Network entitled "Are Hispanic Immigrant Families Reviving the Economies of America's Small Towns?" IZA Discussion Paper No. 4682 DENNIS COATES, University of Maryland, Baltimore County. THOMAS GINDLING, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA). ABSTRACT: In the 1990s, rural areas and small towns in the United States, which had been losing population, became the destinations for an increasing number of Hispanic immigrants and their families, slowing and in some cases reversing population declines. In this paper, we examine whether faster growth in the Hispanic population is linked to faster growth in income per capita in rural areas and small towns. Our results indicate strong support for the hypothesis that Hispanic population growth has fueled increased economic growth in those small, rural communities whose populations had been in decline during the 1970s and 1980s.
The paper is especially interesting in light of the fact that (1) immigrants from Mexico and Central America over the last decade have increasingly been settling in the South and Midwest; and (2) a number of the smaller towns where immigrants are settling have seen something of a backlash against immigrants, including anti-immigrant ordinances.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Michael Olivas (Houston) has a forthcoming Wayne Law Review paper posted at http://www.law.uh.edu/ihelg/monograph/09-08.pdf on the political economy of the DREAM Act. He reports that there is a developing genre of scholarship, including state-level and comparative (state to state) work on the statutes. There is, of course, a growing book literature as well, including recent full length works by Alejandra Rincon, William Perez, and Maria Pabon Lopez and Gerardo Lopez. Here are a few other publications:
Stella M. Flores, State Dream Acts: The Effect of In-State Resident Tuition Policies and Undocumented Latino Students, 33 Review of Higher Education, 239 (2010) (TX) Download Flores2010
Nathan Cortez, The Local Dilemma: Preemption and the Role of Federal Standards in State and Local Immigration Laws, 47 Southern Methodist University Law Review, 61 (2008) : http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1158554 (VA)
Kevin J. Dougherty, H. Kenny Nienhusser, and Blanca E. Vega, Undocumented Immigrants and State Higher Education Policy: The Contrasting Politics of In-State Tuition Eligibility in Texas and Arizona, forthcoming in Review of Higher Education: http://www.law.uh.edu/ihelg/monograph/09-11.pdf
Benjamin Marquez and John F. Witte, Immigration Reform: Strategies for Legislative Action, 7 The Forum 1-28 (2009)) http://www.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1324&context=forum
Undocumented Students in the U.S.: Admission and Verification (2009), available at: http://www.aacrao.org/pro_development/surveys/undocumented_results.pdf
Roberto G. Gonzales, Young Lives on Hold: The College Dreams of Undocumented Students (NY: College Board, 2009)
Gary Reich and Alvar Ayala Mendoza, 'Educating Kids' Versus 'Coddling Criminals': Framing the Debate over In-State Tuition for Undocumented Students in Kansas, 8 State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 177 (2008) [abstract available at: http://sppq.press.illinois.edu/8/2/abstract4.html]. Download Reich_and_ayala
Elizabeth McCormick,THE OKLAHOMA TAXPAYER AND CITIZEN PROTECTION ACT: BLOWING OFF STEAM OR SETTING WILDFIRES? 23 GEORGETOWN IMMIGRATION LAW JOURNAL 293 (2009) (OK) Download OklahomaTaxpayer
March for America, the Reform Immigration FOR America campaign’s rally to demand immigration reform, comes to the nation’s capital March 21. Join tens of thousands of people urging Congress to deliver comprehensive immigration reform now. Labor, religious and community leaders are uniting to demand change; and they need your action.
March in support of Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Our economy cannot truly recover without real immigration reform. Fixing the broken immigration system is fundamental to fixing our economy. Comprehensive immigration reform will put our economy back on a stable footing by providing a vital boost for recovery and increasing wages for all workers. Congress must address the economic crisis immediately, create jobs, and get our country moving again. Immigration reform is vital to this strategy. We must gather in Washington March 21st to demand congressional leadership. We want our legislators to break the political gridlock and deliver on their promise to fix our broken immigration system.
Don’t let Congress ignore immigration— it is time for the Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) community to mobilize as others have and let Congress know we demand comprehensive immigration reform.
VOTE WITH YOUR FEET. MARCH FOR AMERICA.
An immigration system that reunites families, restores fairness to our labor markets, recognizes the contributions of immigrant workers and families, helps get our economy back on track and ensures that we stay true to our values as a nation is vital for AAPIs.
Our leaders are uniting and mobilizing to change history and finally fix our broken immigration system, but they need your help.
To learn about this effort, visit www.WeMarchForAmerica.org.
MARCH FOR AMERICA
Inter-faith Service at 1:00 p.m., March at 2:00 p.m.
Rebecca Poswolsky and Dave M. write for Imagine2050.net:
The anti-immigrant movement has long capitalized on environmental concerns to attack America’s immigrant communities. This tactic was on full display at the Conservative Political Action Conference this past weekend in Washington D.C.
While most people were listening to Newt Gingrich speak on Saturday, about 75 people assembled in one of the smaller rooms to hear a discussion entitled “Immigration: The Defining Issue for the Republican Party,” sponsored by American Council for Immigration Reform. The panel’s four speakers included: Robert E. Rector, Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation; Mark Krikorian, Executive Director, Center for Immigration Studies (CIS); James G. Gimpel, Professor of Government, University of Maryland; and Rep. Steve King from Iowa. Each speaker had 20 minutes to speak, followed by a question and answer session. The audience boasted a whole host of anti-immigrant individuals including Chad McDonald from NumbersUSA; Wayne Lutton, editor of The Social Contract; Howard Wooldridge, younger brother of anti-immigrant activist Frosty Wooldridge; and James Russell of Catholics for a Moral Immigration Policy.
A number of alarming comments were made by the panelists throughout the session. Rep. Steve King stated that he “sympathized” with the man who crashed his plane into the IRS building in Texas this past weekend. When asked later in the Q&A session about his comments, King did not take them back and instead launched into a rant against the IRS for targeting him in his pre-political days.
Mark Krikorian, a man known for his outlandish comments, stated that immigrants are “19th century rural peasant workers” who are coming to 21st century America.
The discussion’s most alarming comment came during the Q&A session when a young man asked Mark Krikorian why CIS published articles that supported the theory of global warming on its website. The man also asked Krikorian to explain his and CIS’s connections to John Tanton whom he referred to as a man that “favors population control.”
Krikorian nonchalantly answered the first question by stating that CIS publishes articles that are in favor of global warming to force a wedge between different people on the Left. Krikorian argued that people on the Left cannot be in favor of both open borders and taking care of the environment. Click here for the rest of the story.
The Supreme Court today heard oral argument in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. The questions presented by the case, which might well have consequences on the interpretation of similar provisions in the immigration laws, is (1) whether 18 U.S.C. 2339B(a)(1), which prohibits the knowing provision of “any *** service, *** training, [or] expert advice or assistance,” to a designated foreign terrorist organization, is unconstitutionally vague; and (2) whether the criminal prohibitions in 18 U.S.C. § 2339B(a)(1) on the provision of “expert advice or assistance” “derived from scientific [or] technical … knowledge” and “personnel” are unconstitutional with respect to speech that furthers only lawful, nonviolent activities of proscribed organizations.
For opposing arguments from Peter Margulies (Roger Williams) (for Petitioners) and David Cole (Georgetown) (for respondents) on podcast on SCOTUSblog, click here. See Lyle Denniston's analysis of the oral argument and recounting of the Court's apparent skepticism about the breadth of the statute.
Here is a N.Y. Times list of jails and detention centers where Immigration and Customs Enforcement holds, or has held, noncitizens the government wants to deport.. The list includes the results of annual inspections, with a number of detention facil;ities classified as "deficient."
Nancy Morawetz (NYU) blogged on a new group composed of lawyers from leading immigration advocacy organizations (including the American Immigration Lawyers Association amicus committee) known as the Supreme Court Immigration Law Working Group. The purpose of the group is to assist lawyers who receive calls from firms offering to handle Supreme Court cases, to develop a coherent strategy for Supreme Court intervention in immigration cases, and to plan strategies for effective presentation of relevant issues when a case is taken up by the Supreme Court. This new working group is much-needed. As any knowledgeable immigration practitioner knows, immigration cases in the Supreme Court are nothing less than risky business.