Donate to IRLI
The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) is America’s only public interest law organization working exclusively to protect the legal rights, privileges, and property of U.S. citizens and their communities from injuries and damages caused by unlawful immigration. Learn more »
From the Blog
Today, the Utah Federal District Court upheld key provisions of Utah's HB 497, a bill partially modeled on Arizona SB 1070. IRLI filed multiple briefs in this case and IRLI Senior Counsel Mike Hethmon participated in oral argument in defending the statute.
Scialbabba v. Cuellar de Osorio (Case summary)
This case addresses whether an alien who reaches the age of 21 prior to his or her parent obtaining approval for a lawful permanent resident visa under the family preference categories may be immediately granted an visa under a different family-preference visa category, or must wait an additional amount of time for a visa to become available in that other category. The Supreme Court held the alien must wait.
Background on Family Preference Visas
On Monday, April 21, 2014, the Supreme Court will decide whether to grant certiorari in a challenge to SB 1070's prohibition on harboring illegal aliens, a provision of SB 1070. That provision, found preempted by the Ninth Circuit, merely restates federal law to make it a crime in Arizona to harbor an illegal alien. IRLI filed an Amicus Brief supporting certiorari. IRLI argued that the decision conflicted with Supreme Court decisions and that of other circuits. IRLI also argued that the case presents an opportunity for the Supreme Court to finally fashion a definition for the crime of harboring an illegal alien. Circuits have been split on that issue for decades.
On February 26, 2014, MALDEF asked the Supreme Court to review the case of Keller v. City of Fremont, which IRLI successfully defended before the Eighth Circuit last year. In its Peitition, MALDEF argues that the Supreme Court should review Fremont, in part, because it is in conflict with the case of Villas at Parkside v City of Farmers Branch. However, MALDEF previously argued against the Supreme Court reviewing the Farmers Branch case, which presumably, based on MALDEF's position, would have answered any concerns MALDEF has in Fremont.