Aaron Hall

@immlawachall

Immigration lawyer • Colorado • Joseph & Hall Nuggets basketball • #CUBuffs • Opinions/bad posts mine alone

297 Folgt627 Follower649 Posts

Bluesky

Ist das dein Profil?Übernimm es — dann gehört dir immlawachall.dirty.social.Profil übernehmen

Aaron Hall@immlawachall· 3d

1) That it is not consistent with the original order does not mean it wasn't a scrivener's error. Maybe the notes of the parties/court said it was supposed to be straight probation and court staff inserted the wrong language. You have no idea. And... 2) whose burden is it to prove deportability?

the plain language of the respondent’s sentencing order that he be “hereby sentenced to confinement for a period of 12 months” to be “served on probation” indicates that the respondent was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The consent clarification order stating that “[t]he sentence never should have been and was not ‘12 months in confinement to be served on probation’” does not clarify the original sentencing order; it contradicts it. Thus, it is apparent that the clarification order was not simply correcting a scrivener’s error under section 17-1-3 of the O.C.G.A., which allows the correction of such mistakes at any time.

Aaron Hall@immlawachall· 9d

Hmmm.

This order identifies, non-exhaustively, and prescribes action concerning certain categories of children of aliens who do not fall within the rule of birthright citizenship as announced by the Supreme Court.

(i) when the parent(s) of the person engage in a commercial transaction to ensure that the person’s mother is present in the United States, or a territory of the United States, to give birth; or

Thomas dissent in Barbara: Today, the Court does so again by recognizing a constitutional right to citizenship for the children of all foreign birth tourists and illegal aliens.

Aaron Hall@immlawachall· 9d

Justice Thomas can write the 9-0 opinion.

Thomas dissent from Barbara: "Today, the Court does so again by recognizing a constitutional right to citizenship for the children of all foreign birth tourists and illegal aliens."

Aaron Hall@immlawachall· 18d

Proposed Reg: Lawyers suggesting Todd Blanche's deportation judges might not be impartial to be punished by fines of up to $3,500. [never mind that federal court judges are excoriating the integrity of immigration courts on a near-daily basis]. public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2026-15458.pdf

Additionally, “disorderly or abusive behavior or language in and around the courtroom and before the Immigration Judge,” as stated in 8 CFR 1003.124(a)(3) (proposed), includes, but is not limited to, behavior or language that impugns the integrity of the court, unfairly maligns the competence or impartiality of the presiding Immigration Judge, is defamatory or slanderous, or inappropriately accosts any individual in the courtroom.8 See 8 CFR 1003.124(a)(3) (proposed).

Aaron Hall@immlawachall· Jul 15

"If you're asking me to defy a federal district court, that's not okay. I sort of realized I had an axe hanging over my head from that moment forward.” www.cpr.org/2026/07/14/i...

A few weeks later, the Justice Department issued a memo saying they didn’t agree with the California judge’s decision and that judges were, again, supposed to halt bond considerations.

Burgie read her boss’s email and vehemently disagreed with it. She returned to her courtroom and said into the microphone that she was going to continue granting bond consideration hearings.

A couple of days later, on a Saturday, all of her pending cases with detained individuals were reassigned to other judges and, in many of those cases, the new judges reversed decisions she had made.

She also received a disciplinary action for defying the DOJ memo about granting bond consideration hearings.

Administration officials wiped out the entire San Francisco immigration court because they had high asylum grant rates.

“It wasn’t like anyone walked up to us and said, ‘you can't grant asylum anymore,’" Burgie said. “But it's kind of like the writing was on the wall. They sent us a thousand policy memos that all had that same tone. So they said it without saying it.”

At the same time, the job was becoming more demanding.

She was asked to bump up the number of asylum trials she conducted from two or three a day to five or six a day -- a workload that was impossible to fulfill given the court’s hours. She often had to reset cases, but her calendar was always booked out for six months, which is as long as the court allowed her to work ahead.

“My schedule was just overwhelming,” she said. “I would have triple the amount of cases that I would have been asked to do a year before then.”

They removed administrative work days so she was working 15-17 hour days to try and catch up on motions filed before and after court was in session.

“This notice serves to inform you that pursuant to Article II of the Constitution, the Acting Attorney General has decided to remove you from your position as an excepted service Immigrant Judge with the United States Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review. Your removal is effective today. You are required to return all government property by the end of the day.”

Aaron Hall@immlawachall· Jul 10

Normal courts: We have a deliberately designed adversarial system and pro se cases without full briefing are poor vehicles for published case law. Board of Immigration Appeals: ICE's side is plenty good. www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1...

Caption page for Matter of E-A-R-M-, showing Respondents were pro se and did not submit a brief to the BIA.

Aaron Hall@immlawachall· Jul 10

On the one hand, local police regularly put out warnings about carjackings. On the other, ICE may kill you if you don’t submit to unmarked cars aggressively coming after you.

Aaron Hall@immlawachall· Jul 6

Aaron Hall@immlawachall· Jul 3

The use of an ICE officer who wasn’t there to draft declarations/other documents is so common.

Aaron Hall@immlawachall· Jun 30

Alright 20 years ago. But the shift supported by a bit of fake scholarship in such a short time is massive and terrifying.

Title page of "Defining American" by James Ho in 2006.

Text from James Ho concluding citizenship clause reaches U.S.-born children of noncitizens including those not legally here.

Aaron Hall@immlawachall· Jun 25

Nothing racial about all the shithole countries talk, folks. Now how are those welcome bags for the Afrikaner refugees coming?

tion of TPS.
None of the cited statements by either the President or the Secretary was overtly racial, and in substance all ex-
pressed policy views that could rest on race-neutral justifications. For example, one may oppose TPS and favor
tighter restrictions on immigration for economic or other
reasons that have nothing to do with race. And a person
without racial bias can provide a harshly unfavorable de-
scription of living conditions in some of the countries with
TPS designations. The criteria for TPS designations guar-
antee that many, if not most, designated countries have
such characteristics.
Haiti is no exception. It is a very poor country, and living
conditions there are unquestionably difficult

Aaron Hall@immlawachall· Jun 23

If clear and convincing isn't the standard at the port of entry for these exceptions, the other exceptions, especially "engaged in illegal activity," are also open to a lot of abuse. Oh, and meanwhile the LPR can be detained without bond while the immigration court makes a decision.

Aaron Hall@immlawachall· Jun 22

Matter of P-A-C- as in PACK it up now. The Board needs to be dismantled as soon as possible. www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1...

Matter of P-A-C-, Respondent Decided June 22, 2026 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals

The fact that a respondent is granted withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act is an important consideration in whether the respondent may be denied asylum as a matter of discretion based on a weighing of the favorable and adverse factors, considering the mitigating impact a grant of withholding of removal has on the risk of future persecution. Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357, 367 (BIA 1996); and Matter of H-, 21 I&N Dec. 337, 347 (BIA 1996), distinguished.

Aaron Hall@immlawachall· Jun 18

Useful language for immigrants to push back against the "habitual drunkard" bar to good moral character.

Even the American Temperance Society called those who drank 12 ounces of hard liquor daily mere “‘occasional drunkards.’” Id., at 11. As the Society saw things, it took 24 ounces to qualify as a “‘confirmed drunkar[d].’” Ibid. Given all this, it seems the government’s historical laws targeted habitual drunkards not merely because they regularly used intoxicants, or even sometimes used them to excess. Instead, those laws focused on habitual drunkards because their drinking rendered them practically incapacitated and incapable of managing their affairs.

Aaron Hall@immlawachall· Jun 17

“We’d have fewer cases of COVID if we stopped testing”-level logic today from the BIA.

Aaron Hall@immlawachall· Jun 13

Also agreeing he shouldn’t be a citizen:

Aaron Hall@immlawachall· Jun 13

Left: Guy allowing a country to dream with two goals in the opening game. Right: Guy who thinks he shouldn’t even be a U.S. citizen

Aaron Hall@immlawachall· Jun 9

Ah, yes, routine inspections. (Come visit the U.S.A., everyone!)

The immigration interview ended after 11 hours, Mr. Artan said, and he was then taken to a separate holding cell where he was detained for several further hours before being put on a flight back to Istanbul. He said that officials did not give him a reason for refusing him entry.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection said in a statement that decisions were made on a case-by-case basis and did not provide details about why Mr. Artan had been denied entry.

“The traveler underwent additional inspection, a routine part of C.B.P.’s inspection process when officers need to verify information or determine admissibility,” the statement said. “Following inspection, the traveler, a referee for the FIFA World Cup, was determined to be inadmissible due to vetting concerns and was denied entry.”

Aaron Hall@immlawachall· Jun 4

Polis’s rationale makes no sense. Again. With friends like these…

Governor rejects immigration measure

The governor also vetoed Senate Bill 5 on Wednesday. It would have allowed Coloradans to file state lawsuits against federal immigration agents who violate their constitutional rights.

Polis wrote in his veto letter that he found “the legal risks … outweigh the potential benefits.” He worried that if he signed the bill into law and it was struck down by a judge, “it could weaken current protections for vulnerable community members.”

“This concern stems from the bill’s narrow focus on civil immigration enforcement,” he wrote. “It’s that narrow focus that unfortunately creates legal jeopardy. I believe Colorado has a chance to get this right — and we must pass a broader version of this bill that protects all constitutional rights, including in the immigration context, that will serve to truly hold public officials accountable.”

Aaron Hall@immlawachall· Apr 22

Image of "Now why is that?" (Brian Windhorst meme)

Aaron Hall@immlawachall· Apr 22

Yesterday, Todd Blanche designated not one but two very fact/record specific BIA decisions overturning IJ credibility determinations as presidential. Huh.

Screenshot of first page of Matter of R-A-U-.

Screenshot of first page of Matter of E-N-N-

Aaron Hall@immlawachall· Apr 22

Truly can't think of any good reason to designate this very fact/record-specific BIA decision for publication. links-1.govdelivery.com/CL0/https:%2...

Aaron Hall@immlawachall· Apr 20

Ah, I see they went with: "The people I fired were working on *counterterrorism*, not counterintelligence!"

Screenshot of text from complaint: 25. The Article’s assertions that Director Patel has used his position to “target political or personal adversaries of the president”; that he complained that the FBI merchandise “isn't intimidating enough”; and that days before the U.S. launched its war with Iran, he “fired members of a counterintelligence squad that was devoted, in part, to Iran,” leaving the country vulnerable, are each false. Director Patel has not targeted political or personal adversaries; FBI personnel actions are taken only where employees have acted unethically or undermined the mission. His security detail confirmed that he has made no such complaint about FBI merchandise. And the squad referenced was within Counterterrorism—not a dedicated Iran counterintelligence squad—with only three affected individuals even tangentially working on Iran-related matters. Prior to publication, the FBI expressly informed Defendants that each of these claims was false, including that the merchandise claim was “absolutely, 100% false” and the Iran-squad claim “is not true.”

Aaron Hall@immlawachall· Apr 15

Really convincing materiality analysis from the Board, here.

Screenshot of text from decision: Although the respondent takes the position that issues identified by the Immigration Judge in his particular case should be determined immaterial, such determinations are delegated to immigration adjudicators who rely on truthful and complete responses to the questions that have been formulated in applications for relief and provide the basis by which to grant discretionary relief.

Aaron Hall@immlawachall· Apr 14

Direction on remand also seems strange. Whether to allow closing is in the IJ's discretion unless R makes showing that denial of such argument violates due process. How would R make that showing when you can't know exactly what evidence/application to law the IJ has already clocked?

On remand, the Immigration Judge should ensure that all relevant record evidence is addressed when evaluating the respondent’s credibility and determining whether the respondent met his respective burdens of proof. See INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(iii), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). The Immigration Judge should reassess the respondent’s claims and explicitly address the documentary evidence the respondent presented in support of his claims. However, whether to allow closing argument is within the discretion of the Immigration Judge absent a showing that the denial of such argument would violate due process.

Aaron Hall@immlawachall· Apr 13

Well this made my week. Thank you @unlawfulentries.bsky.social!

Aaron Hall@immlawachall· Mar 16

BIA showing off a neat trick. Take 7 years to decide an appeal of an IJ decision granting a noncitizen a green card and, wouldn't you know it, they no longer have minor children and so don't qualify for that application. Ordered removed to Mexico. links-1.govdelivery.com/CL0/https:%2...

Text from Matter of Audencio AREVALO-VARGAS: (1) The respondent’s children are no longer qualifying relatives for purposes of the respondent’s application for cancellation of removal because they are now over 21 years old and have therefore aged out. (2) The respondent has not demonstrated that the economic detriment, diminished educational opportunities, and emotional hardship his children may experience in the event of the respondent’s removal from the United States would constitute exceptional and extremely unusual hardshipThe Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) appeals from the Immigration Judge’s August 20, 2019, decision granting the respondent’s application for cancellation of removal for certain nonpermanent residents under section 240A(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) (2018). The respondent, a native and citizen of Mexico, opposes the appeal. The appeal will be sustained. The Immigration Judge determined that the respondent was statutorily eligible for cancellation of removal. On appeal, DHS argues the Immigration Judge erred in determining that the respondent’s qualifying United States citizen children would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship in the event of his removal and that he has the requisite good moral character. As an initial matter, the respondent’s children are no longer qualifying relatives for purposes of the respondent’s application for cancellation of removal because they are now 26 and 24 years old and have therefore aged out during the pendency of this appeal.

Aaron Hall@immlawachall· Mar 5

BIA drops Matter of D-J-L-: TLDR: Witness had studied torture in Haitian prisons including torture of "criminal deportees" from the U.S., became expert in the field, formed opinion that returning people to such torture is bad, is thus unqualified to be an expert. www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1...

Matter of D-J-L- Case Caption: Where an expert witness’ background and testimony reflect a reluctance to consider contrary evidence and an inability to impartially assess matters involving the removal of
persons to a given country, an Immigration Judge errs in giving the testimony of that witness significant weight.

Screenshot of text from case: In the instant case, although Ms. Karshan demonstrated expertise in her field, the Immigration Judge clearly erred in the weight she gave to Ms. Karshan’s testimony and declaration. See id. at 103–05 (describing how to evaluate the persuasiveness of an expert’s opinion). Ms. Karshan’s background includes factors that significantly weigh against the reliability and persuasiveness of her testimony. See id. at 103. DHS objected to the Immigration Judge designating Ms. Karshan as an expert because of heradvocacy background, specifically arguing that she previously advocated that no criminal deportees should be returned to Haiti. When DHS confronted Ms. Karshan on cross-examination about coauthoring an article advocating that all deportations to Haiti be stopped, Ms. Karshan conceded that there were periods of time when she believed the United States should have ceased all deportations to Haiti.

Aaron Hall@immlawachall· Feb 14

I have searched the depths of Legal Arguments not yet articulated or vetted on this subject, and will be presenting an irrefutable one in the very near future.

Aaron Hall@immlawachall· Feb 13

Ah yes, the "it might hurt the immigrant" exception to normal appeal deadlines/procedures. What an absolutely bizarre decision.