South China Morning Post in “U.S. Investor Visa Programme Backlog Puts Chinese Capital at Risk” regarding the EB-5 immigrant investor green card program.

Mr. Yale-Loehr said, “It’s a guessing game. Everybody is trying to figure out what to do and it’s a huge problem.” He noted that “the industry and investors need clarity, but nobody is holding their breath. They desperately need Congress to act on increasing the quota to alleviate the backlog, but that’s not anywhere on the horizon either. Unfortunately, I don’t see the light at the end of the tunnel.”

San Francisco Chronicle in “Sanctuary Policies Criticized Again After Officer’s Slaying

The arrest of an undocumented immigrant in the fatal shooting of a police officer in Stanislaus County has raised questions about whether the killing had any connection to state or local sanctuary laws, which limit police cooperation with federal immigration agents. . . .

Here is a look at some of the issues: . . .

Q: Do police and sheriffs’ deputies inquire about immigration status when making an arrest?

A. That varies among police departments and individual officers, in California and elsewhere.  If a suspected drunken driver lacked a license, “or the driver’s license looked fishy, or the individual looked or sounded foreign,” some officers might contact Immigration and Customs Enforcement and ask about their legal status, said Stephen Yale-Loehr, a Cornell University law professor and author of a widely used textbook on immigration law. . . . in “Will The Supreme Court Fast-Track Cases Involving Trump?

If the Supreme Court justices have been trying to signal that they want a quiet term — perhaps some time to recover after Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s hyper-partisan confirmation hearings last fall, which may have shaken public faith in the court as an impartial institution — the Trump administration hasn’t gotten the hint. Over the past few months, the solicitor general’s office has blanketed the court with requests to bypass the normal legal process and rule swiftly in high-profile cases. ….

….The ongoing litigation over DACA could end up on the justices’ agenda. They’re helped by the fact that one appeals court has already ruled that Trump couldn’t immediately revoke deportation protections. But the lower courts still haven’t ruled on the substance of Trump’s DACA decision — they have simply said the people challenging it have enough of a chance at success that the program shouldn’t be revoked in the meantime. Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor at Cornell Law School and immigration law expert, said it would be somewhat unusual for the high court to intervene at this stage. He added that the DACA case lacks the “immediacy” of the travel ban case, where thousands of people were being prevented from entering the country, so there’s not the same sense of urgency for the Supreme Court to act. ….

Law360 (subscription required) in “Major Immigration Cases Ahead in 2019”

Several of the Trump administration’s high-profile immigration policies are facing challenges in federal district and appellate courts, including the president’s refugee proclamation, decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, inclusion of a citizenship question on the 2020 census, and termination of the temporary protected status for several countries.  Here, Law360 examines the biggest immigration cases on court dockets going into the new year…..

….Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration law professor at Cornell University Law School, said that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision earlier this year in Trump v. Hawaii upholding the president’s travel ban could have an impact on litigation over the recent asylum policy as it circulates through the appellate courts. In that case, the justices noted that provisions in the immigration statute, especially one known as 1182(f), “exude deference” to the president in deciding whom to exclude from the United States.

The president’s asylum proclamation invoked that same provision as partial justification for limiting asylum eligibility to people who apply legally at ports of entry. But a separate provision in the immigration statute expressly allows people to apply for asylum even if they enter the U.S. illegally.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar asserted in his decision that 1182(f) does not allow the president to expressly override particular provisions of the immigration statute.

“If this case goes to the Supreme Court, the court will have to decide the scope and possible limits of its travel ban decision,” Yale-Loehr said….

Miller Mayer immigration attorney Steve Yale-Loehr was quoted in two articles about a new federal court ruling blocking the Trump administration’s efforts to restrict asylum for people fleeing domestic violence and gangs. Both contain the same quote:

“Although the government will almost certainly appeal, in the meantime … the federal court ruling ensures that people fleeing domestic violence or gang violence will have a fair shot.”

Los Angeles Times: Judge Overturns Trump Policy Limiting Asylum Claims by Victims of Gangs And Domestic Violence
Voice of America: US Court Halts Asylum Ruling Barring Abuse, Gang Victims