New Supreme Court Immigration Decison: Scialabba v. Cuellar DeOsorio. Bad news for backlogged children who have aged out

The Associated Press offers a concise and accurate summary of Monday's decision:

"A divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that most immigrant children who have become adults during their parents’ years-long wait to become legal permanent residents of the United States should go to the back of the line in their own wait for visas.
In a 5-4 decision, the justices sided with the Obama administration in finding that immigration laws offer relief only to a tiny percentage of children who “age out” of the system when they turn 21. The majority — tens of thousands of children— no longer qualify for the immigration status granted to minors.
The case is unusual in that it pitted the administration against immigration reform advocates who said government officials were misreading a law intended to keep families together by preventing added delays for children seeking visas."
  - Associated Press, June 9, 2014.

DOMA mostly dead -- DHS and DOJ have acted quickly -- Same Sex Immigration Petitions Can Go Forward!

On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court dealt DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) a death blow.  In United States v. Windsor, the U.S. Supreme Court held  that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.  DHS announced that it would start adjudicating marriage petitions filed by same sex couples and approved its first case within a week following the case.  Earlier this week the BIA held that DOMA is no longer an impediment to I-130 petitions filed by same-sex couples who were lawfully married.  Matter of Zeleniak, 26 I&N Dec. 158 (BIA 2013).

This is fantastic news, and Windsor is a terrific decision.  I am sure that there will still be knots to work out, but this a great beginning.  

New Supreme Court Case - good news - Vartelas v Holder

In Vartelas v. Holder, 3/28/12, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an LPR with a pre-IIRIRA convictions not subject to the applicant for admission provisions of INA § 101(a)(13)(A).  The Court that that section does not have retroactive effect.  This effectively resurrects Fleuti v Rosenberg for some LPRs.  In other words, an LPR with a pre-IIRIRA conviction will not be considered to be an applicant for admission after a trip abroad.