Immigration Migrant Protection Protocol Return.

 
FREE EXCERPT

Byline: Mass. Lawyers Weekly Staff

Where a motion for a preliminary injunction has been filed seeking an order pursuant to the Migrant Protection Protocol that five plaintiffs currently in Mexico be paroled into the United States for the pendency of their immigration removal proceedings, the Department of Homeland Security should be ordered to rescind the order returning the plaintiffs to Mexico, as the plaintiffs were not "arriving on land" and thus their return to Mexico under the MPP likely violates the plain language of 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2)(C).

"Pending before the court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction [#27] seeking an order that five Plaintiffs currently in Mexico pursuant to the government's Migrant Protection Protocol ('the Returned Plaintiffs') be paroled in to the United States for the pendency of their immigration removal proceedings or, in the alternative, that they be provided with an assessment of their fear of remaining in Mexico that follows the procedures and standard for 'reasonable fear interviews.' See 8 C.F.R. 208.31. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs' Motion [#27] is granted in part. The Department of Homeland Security shall rescind the order returning the Returned Plaintiffs to Mexico. The court leaves to the Department in the first instance the determination of whether parole or detention in the United States is appropriate once the order returning the Returned Plaintiffs to Mexico is rescinded.

"Plaintiffs Andrs Oswaldo Bollat Vasquez, Jos Manuel Urias Martinez, and Salom Olmos Lopez live in Massachusetts. ... Mr. Bollat Vasquez brings suit individually and as next friend to Luisa Marisol Vasquez de Bollat and their son, A.B. ... Mr. Urias Martinez brings suit individually and as next friend to his mother, Rosa Maria Martinez de Urias. ... Mr. Olmos Lopez brings suit individually and as next friend to his niece, Evila Floridalma Colaj Olmos, and her minor daughter, J.C.

"Plaintiffs argue that, under the MPP, the contiguous return provision found at 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2)(C) was improperly applied to the Returned Plaintiffs (Ms. Vasquez, A.B., Ms. Colaj, J.C., and Ms. Martinez) because...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP