ReportWire

Tag: Immigration Law

  • US appeals court says Secretary Noem’s decision to end protections for Venezuelans in US was illegal

    [ad_1]

    A federal appeals court ruled late Wednesday that the Trump administration acted illegally when it ended legal protections that gave hundreds of thousands of people from Venezuela permission to live and work in the United States.A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that found Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem exceeded her authority when she ended temporary protected status for Venezuelans.The decision, however, will not have any immediate practical effect after the U.S. Supreme Court in October allowed Noem’s decision to take effect pending a final decision by the justices.An email late Wednesday night to the Department of Homeland Security was not immediately returned.The 9th Circuit panel also upheld the lower court’s finding that Noem exceeded her authority when she decided to end TPS early for hundreds of thousands of people from Haiti.A federal judge in Washington is expected to rule any day now on a request to pause the termination of TPS for Haiti while a separate lawsuit challenging it proceeds. The country’s TPS designation is scheduled to end on Feb. 3.Ninth Circuit Judges Kim Wardlaw, Salvador Mendoza, Jr. and Anthony Johnstone said in Wednesday’s ruling that the TPS legislation passed by Congress did not give the secretary the power to vacate an existing TPS designation. All three judges were nominated by Democratic presidents.“The statute contains numerous procedural safeguards that ensure individuals with TPS enjoy predictability and stability during periods of extraordinary and temporary conditions in their home country,” Judge Kim Wardlaw, who was nominated by President Bill Clinton, wrote for the panel.Wardlaw said Noem’s “unlawful actions have had real and significant consequences” for Venezuelans and Haitians in the United States who rely on TPS.“The record is replete with examples of hard-working, contributing members of society — who are mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, and partners of U.S. citizens, pay taxes, and have no criminal records — who have been deported or detained after losing their TPS,” she wrote.Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, authorized by Congress as part of the Immigration Act of 1990, allows the Homeland Security secretary to grant legal immigration status to people fleeing countries experiencing civil strife, environmental disaster or other “extraordinary and temporary conditions” that prevent a safe return to that home country.Designations are granted for terms of six, 12 or 18 months, and extensions can be granted so long as conditions remain dire. The status prevents holders from being deported and allows them to work, but it does not give them a path to citizenship.In ending the protections, Noem said that conditions in both Haiti and Venezuela had improved and that it was not in the national interest to allow immigrants from the two countries to stay on for what is a temporary program.Millions of Venezuelans have fled political unrest, mass unemployment and hunger. The country is mired in a prolonged crisis brought on by years of hyperinflation, political corruption, economic mismanagement and an ineffectual government.Haiti was first designated for TPS in 2010 after a catastrophic magnitude 7.0 earthquake killed and wounded hundreds of thousands of people, and left more than 1 million homeless. Haitians face widespread hunger and gang violence.Mendoza wrote separately that there was “ample evidence of racial and national origin animus” that reinforced the lower court’s conclusion that Noem’s decisions were “preordained and her reasoning pretextual.”“It is clear that the Secretary’s vacatur actions were not actually grounded in substantive policy considerations or genuine differences with respect to the prior administration’s TPS procedures, but were instead rooted in a stereotype-based diagnosis of immigrants from Venezuela and Haiti as dangerous criminals or mentally unwell,” he wrote.Attorneys for the government have argued the secretary has clear and broad authority to make determinations related to the TPS program and those decisions are not subject to judicial review. They have also denied that her actions were motived by racial animus.

    A federal appeals court ruled late Wednesday that the Trump administration acted illegally when it ended legal protections that gave hundreds of thousands of people from Venezuela permission to live and work in the United States.

    A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that found Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem exceeded her authority when she ended temporary protected status for Venezuelans.

    The decision, however, will not have any immediate practical effect after the U.S. Supreme Court in October allowed Noem’s decision to take effect pending a final decision by the justices.

    An email late Wednesday night to the Department of Homeland Security was not immediately returned.

    The 9th Circuit panel also upheld the lower court’s finding that Noem exceeded her authority when she decided to end TPS early for hundreds of thousands of people from Haiti.

    A federal judge in Washington is expected to rule any day now on a request to pause the termination of TPS for Haiti while a separate lawsuit challenging it proceeds. The country’s TPS designation is scheduled to end on Feb. 3.

    Ninth Circuit Judges Kim Wardlaw, Salvador Mendoza, Jr. and Anthony Johnstone said in Wednesday’s ruling that the TPS legislation passed by Congress did not give the secretary the power to vacate an existing TPS designation. All three judges were nominated by Democratic presidents.

    “The statute contains numerous procedural safeguards that ensure individuals with TPS enjoy predictability and stability during periods of extraordinary and temporary conditions in their home country,” Judge Kim Wardlaw, who was nominated by President Bill Clinton, wrote for the panel.

    Wardlaw said Noem’s “unlawful actions have had real and significant consequences” for Venezuelans and Haitians in the United States who rely on TPS.

    “The record is replete with examples of hard-working, contributing members of society — who are mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, and partners of U.S. citizens, pay taxes, and have no criminal records — who have been deported or detained after losing their TPS,” she wrote.

    Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, authorized by Congress as part of the Immigration Act of 1990, allows the Homeland Security secretary to grant legal immigration status to people fleeing countries experiencing civil strife, environmental disaster or other “extraordinary and temporary conditions” that prevent a safe return to that home country.

    Designations are granted for terms of six, 12 or 18 months, and extensions can be granted so long as conditions remain dire. The status prevents holders from being deported and allows them to work, but it does not give them a path to citizenship.

    In ending the protections, Noem said that conditions in both Haiti and Venezuela had improved and that it was not in the national interest to allow immigrants from the two countries to stay on for what is a temporary program.

    Millions of Venezuelans have fled political unrest, mass unemployment and hunger. The country is mired in a prolonged crisis brought on by years of hyperinflation, political corruption, economic mismanagement and an ineffectual government.

    Haiti was first designated for TPS in 2010 after a catastrophic magnitude 7.0 earthquake killed and wounded hundreds of thousands of people, and left more than 1 million homeless. Haitians face widespread hunger and gang violence.

    Mendoza wrote separately that there was “ample evidence of racial and national origin animus” that reinforced the lower court’s conclusion that Noem’s decisions were “preordained and her reasoning pretextual.”

    “It is clear that the Secretary’s vacatur actions were not actually grounded in substantive policy considerations or genuine differences with respect to the prior administration’s TPS procedures, but were instead rooted in a stereotype-based diagnosis of immigrants from Venezuela and Haiti as dangerous criminals or mentally unwell,” he wrote.

    Attorneys for the government have argued the secretary has clear and broad authority to make determinations related to the TPS program and those decisions are not subject to judicial review. They have also denied that her actions were motived by racial animus.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Appeals court reverses decision that freed pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil

    [ad_1]

    A federal appeals panel on Thursday reversed a lower court decision that released Mahmoud Khalil from an immigration jail, bringing the government one step closer to detaining and ultimately deporting the Palestinian activist.A three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia instructed the lower court to dismiss Khalil’s habeas petition, a court filing that secured his release. The panel ruled that the federal district court in New Jersey did not have jurisdiction over the matter because immigration challenges are handled differently under the law.In a 2-1 decision, the panel wrote that federal immigration laws require deportation challenges be made by filing a petition for review of a final order of removal to a federal appeals court — not a lower-level district court.“That scheme ensures that petitioners get just one bite at the apple—not zero or two,” the panel wrote. “But it also means that some petitioners, like Khalil, will have to wait to seek relief for allegedly unlawful government conduct.”The law bars Khalil “from attacking his detention and removal in a habeas petition,” the panel added.Messages sent to Khalil and his legal team were not immediately returned.

    PHILADELPHIA —

    A federal appeals panel on Thursday reversed a lower court decision that released Mahmoud Khalil from an immigration jail, bringing the government one step closer to detaining and ultimately deporting the Palestinian activist.

    A three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia instructed the lower court to dismiss Khalil’s habeas petition, a court filing that secured his release. The panel ruled that the federal district court in New Jersey did not have jurisdiction over the matter because immigration challenges are handled differently under the law.

    In a 2-1 decision, the panel wrote that federal immigration laws require deportation challenges be made by filing a petition for review of a final order of removal to a federal appeals court — not a lower-level district court.

    “That scheme ensures that petitioners get just one bite at the apple—not zero or two,” the panel wrote. “But it also means that some petitioners, like Khalil, will have to wait to seek relief for allegedly unlawful government conduct.”

    The law bars Khalil “from attacking his detention and removal in a habeas petition,” the panel added.

    Messages sent to Khalil and his legal team were not immediately returned.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump Set to Expand Immigration Crackdown in 2026 Despite Brewing Backlash

    [ad_1]

    U.S. President Donald Trump is preparing for a more aggressive immigration crackdown in 2026 with billions in new funding, including by raiding more workplaces — even as backlash builds ahead of next year’s midterm elections.

    Trump has already surged immigration agents into major U.S. cities, where they swept through neighborhoods and clashed with residents. While federal agents this year conducted some high-profile raids on businesses, they largely avoided raiding farms, factories and other businesses that are economically important but known to employ immigrants without legal status.

    ICE and Border Patrol will get $170 billion in additional funds through September 2029 – a huge surge of funding over their existing annual budgets of about $19 billion after the Republican-controlled Congress passed a massive spending package in July.

    Administration officials say they plan to hire thousands more agents, open new detention centers, pick up more immigrants in local jails and partner with outside companies to track down people without legal status.

    The expanded deportation plans come despite growing signs of political backlash ahead of next year’s midterm elections.

    Miami, one of the cities most affected by Trump’s crackdown because of its large immigrant population, elected its first Democratic mayor in nearly three decades last week in what the mayor-elect said was, in part, a reaction to the president. Other local elections and polling have suggested rising concern among voters wary of aggressive immigration tactics.

    “People are beginning to see this not as an immigration question anymore as much as it is a violation of rights, a violation of due process and militarizing neighborhoods extraconstitutionally,” said Mike Madrid, a moderate Republican political strategist. “There is no question that is a problem for the president and Republicans.”

    [ad_2]

    Reuters

    Source link

  • Supreme Court may restrict asylum claims from those arriving at the southern border

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a Trump administration appeal that argues migrants have no right to seek asylum at the southern border.

    Rather, the government says border agents may block asylum seekers from stepping onto U.S. soil and turn away their claims without a hearing.

    The new case seeks to clarify the immigration laws and resolve an issue that has divided past administrations and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Under federal law, migrants who faces persecution in their home countries may apply for asylum and receive a screening hearing if they are “physically present in the United States” or if such a person “arrives in the United States.”

    Since 2016, however, the Obama, Biden and Trump administrations responded to surges at the border by adopting temporary rules which required migrants to wait on the Mexican side before they could apply for asylum.

    But in May, a divided 9th Circuit Court ruled those restrictions were illegal if they prevented migrants from applying for asylum.

    “To ‘arrive’ means ‘to reach a destination,’” wrote Judge Michelle Friedland, citing a dictionary definition. “A person who presents herself to an official at the border has ‘arrived.’”

    She said this interpretation “does not radically expand the right to asylum.” By contrast, the “government’s reading would reflect a radical reconstruction of the right to apply for asylum because it would give the executive branch vast discretion to prevent people from applying by blocking them at the border.”

    “We therefore conclude that a non-citizen stopped by U.S. officials at the border is eligible to apply for asylum,” she wrote.

    The 2-1 decision upheld a federal judge in San Diego who ruled for migrants who had filed a class-action suit and said they were wrongly denied an asylum hearing.

    But Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer urged the Supreme Court to review and reverse the appellate ruling, noting 15 judges of the 9th Circuit joined dissents that called the decision “radical” and “clearly wrong.”

    In football, a “running back does not ‘arrive in’ the end zone when he is stopped at the one-yard line,” Sauer wrote.

    He said federal immigration law “does not grant aliens throughout the world a right to enter the United States so that they can seek asylum.” From abroad, they may “seek admission as refugees,” he said, but the government may enforce its laws by “blocking illegal immigrants from stepping on U.S. soil.”

    Immigrants rights lawyers advised the court to turn away the appeal because the government is no longer using the “metering” system that required migrants to wait for a hearing.

    Since June 2024, they said, the government has restricted inspections and processing of these noncitizens under a different provision of law that authorizes the president to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of alien” if he believes they would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

    The government also routinely sends back migrants who illegally cross the border.

    But the solicitor general said the asylum provision should be clarified.

    The justices voted to hear the case of Noem vs. Al Otro Lado early next year and decide “whether an alien who is stopped on the Mexican side of the U.S.-Mexico border ‘arrives in the United States’ within the meaning” of federal immigration law.

    [ad_2]

    David G. Savage

    Source link

  • Federal agents held him in a hospital for 37 days, at times shackled to his bed, without charging him

    [ad_1]

    For more than a month, federal immigration officials surveilled Bayron Rovidio Marin in a hospital bed at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, where he lay recuperating from serious injuries to his leg after an encounter with agents at a Carson car wash they raided. He was never charged and his lawyers say he was shackled to his bed for several days and couldn’t speak privately with doctors or legal counsel.

    Over the weekend, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order requiring immigration officials to remove the guards watching over Bayron Rovidio Marin, take off the handcuffs and leave him unrestrained.

    “He is presently detained under restrictions that limit his access to counsel, medical providers, and family,” U.S. District Judge Cynthia Valenzuela wrote in her Oct. 4 order. “He has been questioned by government officials while in pain and under the influence of medication. He cannot place phone calls and remains handcuffed to a hospital bed despite a broken leg that prevents him from walking. He has received no more than a vague explanation for his detention, and Respondents’ proffered excuses for delaying a formal notice are unsupported by facts.”

    Despite Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s insistence on holding the man, Valenzuela said the government failed to provide any proof that he had “violated any law or regulation” or show that he was a “flight risk.”

    To date, ICE has not placed Rovidio Marin in removal proceedings, charged him with violating immigration law, set bond, issued a Notice to Appear or otherwise processed him, according to the order. The government told the court that they would determine the immigration status of Rovidio Marin once he was released from the hospital. His attorneys argued being indefinitely held without any charges is a clear constitutional violation.

    The Department of Homeland Security and the medical center did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Under federal law, officers initiating warrantless arrests must provide the person in custody a reason why they were arrested or detained and within 48 hours determine if the person will remain in custody, released on bond or given a notice to appear in court and an arrest warrant issued. Those rules are only waived in extraordinary circumstances. The judge noted that the September 11 attacks previously qualified as an “extraordinary circumstance” in delaying notices to appear to noncitizen detainees, but said that Rovidio Marin has been held “substantially longer.”

    Kyle Cheney, with Politico, first posted about the case on social media.

    It’s unclear exactly how he was injured, but his lawyers say that Rovidio Marin had been at the car wash on Aug. 27, when immigration agents doing a “roving patrol” stormed in and raided it.

    In an emailed press statement, Cynthia Santiago, Attorney for CLEAN Carwash Worker Center and Nicolas Thompson-Lleras, Attorney for CHIRLA said he suffered severe injuries and was arrested by Border Patrol agents who transferred him into ICE custody.

    “For 37 days, our client was forced to endure medical treatment and recovery with ICE agents in his room, 24 hours a day, seven days a week,” the statement read. “ICE agents listened to every conversation between him and his doctors,” they stated. “They interrogated him while he was in pain and under the influence of medication. They did not permit him to see his family and removed his access to phone calls.”

    According to the judge’s order, Rovidio Marin has been under the supervision of ICE, which contracted with Spectrum Detention Services to provide guards at the hospital where he was taken.

    Once admitted he was placed under what is known as a “blackout” procedure for patients in law-enforcement custody, making it harder for anyone to find him. He was registered under the pseudonym “Har Maine UNK Thirteen.”

    Two to four uniformed guards —either Spectrum employees or ICE agents— “have been continuously stationed in Petitioner’s hospital room, monitoring him at all times, including while he sleeps, eats, uses the restroom, or receives medical care,” according to a declaration referenced in the order.

    “It’s fundamental that you can’t be detained indefinitely without charges,” said Jean Reisz, co-director of the USC Gould School of Law Immigration Clinic, who is representing Rovidio Marin in the habeas case. “Freedom from restraint is the cornerstone of our society and so to arrest someone and withhold their liberty for an extended period of time without any charges, it’s antithetical to our constitutional system and our immigration laws. Our immigration laws do provide for the rights of immigrants as well.”

    The temporary restraining order expires Oct. 18.

    [ad_2]

    Brittny Mejia, Rachel Uranga

    Source link

  • What can Trump do in his sanctuary cities crackdown – and what can’t he do?

    [ad_1]

    The Department of Homeland Security ramped up immigration raids in Illinois on Monday afternoon in an operation they dubbed “Midway Blitz,” a continuation of military-themed rhetoric promoting Donald Trump’s larger crackdown on sanctuary cities. Chicagoans have turned out by the thousands in protest suggestions that the president would attempt to send national guard troops into the city, and in opposition to similar acts that courts have rules as illegal or unconstitutional.

    “This ICE operation will target the criminal illegal aliens who flocked to Chicago and Illinois because they knew Governor Pritzker and his sanctuary policies would protect them and allow them to roam free on American streets,” DHS said on X today. “President Trump and Secretary Noem stand with the victims of illegal alien crime while Governor Pritzker stands with criminal illegal aliens.”

    But as the administration has signaled similar pursuits in Democratic-led cities across the country, the legal parameters of federal law enforcement could be tested. Here’s what Trump can, and cannot, do in cities such as Chicago.

    Related: Chicago-area residents warned federal agents may be about to arrive

    What are the limits of the civil authority of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (Ice) officers?

    Ice, which is housed in the Department of Homeland Security, primarily engages in enforcement and removal operations – finding, detaining and deporting undocumented immigrants. Ice agents can arrest any undocumented immigrant who has a deportation order issued by an immigration court. An Ice agent can arrest someone who in plain view is in the process of attempting to enter the United States unlawfully or if it has “reason to believe” that someone is unlawfully in the United States and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.

    Those reasons can be flimsy. More than 300 Korean employees working for firms building a battery plant in south Georgia were arrested last week in a raid that warrants suggest had targeted Central American construction workers. The US supreme court on Monday temporarily set aside a lower court’s order barring agents from stopping people without reasonable suspicion they are in the country illegally aside from an accent or the color of their skin.

    How else might Homeland Security agents engage in law enforcement in Chicago?

    A different DHS unit – homeland security investigations (HSI) – targets border-related crimes such as the trafficking of weapons, drugs and people, as well as the kind of fraud, money laundering or counterfeiting that rises to a national security risk. HSI is part of Joint Task Force Alpha, partnered with the Drug Enforcement Agency, FBI and other federal agencies to fight human trafficking from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and other countries. The US attorney general, Pam Bondi, announced last week that Joint Task Force Alpha would expand to cover the Canadian border and all maritime borders, which includes Chicago’s port.

    Under other circumstances, HSI might also partner with state investigators and local police to track down fugitives who are also violating immigration law, to work on counterterrorism cases or to investigate and prosecute gangs and cartels that are violating both state and federal law.

    However, the legal, moral and political conflict between the Trump administration and state leaders like Illinois governor JB Pritzker or Chicago mayor Brandon Johnson makes this kind of partnership unlikely. Johnson signed an order on 30 August declaring that Chicago cops “will not cooperate with or enable any unlawful or unconstitutional actions undertaken by federal law enforcement or U.S. Armed Forces within the City of Chicago”. Illinois law largely prohibits law enforcement from participating in actions to enforce immigration law.

    What does this federal immigration enforcement surge look like?

    About 300 federal agents are using North Chicago’s Naval Station Great Lakes as the logistical hub for ramped-up operations, according to ABC Chicago. That’s consistent with earlier reports that the White House intended to use the port as a staging area. The White House has not announced how many federal agents will be redeployed from other states to the Chicago area for this operation.

    Related: US supreme court ‘effectively legalized racial profiling’, immigration experts warn

    Has Trump called in the national guard?

    Not yet.

    Trump threatened – as he has done many times – to deploy the national guard to Chicago to “clean up” the city’s crime, despite decreasing gun violence rates there. But his activation of national guard units in the federal takeover of Washington DC’s policing and the use of troops during an immigration enforcement surge in Los Angeles in June gave the threat more teeth.

    A federal judge in California sharply chastised the administration for its use of military troops during the Los Angeles operation, declaring it a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law prohibiting the use of troops in law enforcement. And the attorney general of Washington DC is suing the administration to force an end to the use of national guard troops there as well.

    What is the Posse Comitatus Act?

    The act consists of just one line. “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

    It means, in essence, that the military cannot and should not meddle in the affairs of civilian government. In practice, it bars commanders from ordering troops to conduct “arrests, apprehensions, searches, seizures, security patrols, traffic control, crowd control, riot control, evidence collection, interrogation, or acting as informants”, as given in the order rebuking Trump’s use of troops in Los Angeles.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Supreme Court could give immigration agents broad power to stop and question Latinos

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — This year’s most far-reaching immigration case is likely to decide if immigration agents in Los Angeles are free to stop, question and arrest Latinos they suspect are here illegally.

    President Trump promised the “largest mass deportation operation” in American history, and he chose to begin aggressive street sweeps in Los Angeles in early June.

    The Greater Los Angeles area is “ground zero for the effects of the border crisis,” his lawyers told the Supreme Court this month. “Nearly 2 million illegal aliens — out of an area population of 20 million — are there unlawfully, encouraged by sanctuary-city policies and local officials’ avowed aim to thwart federal enforcement efforts.”

    The “vast majority of illegal aliens in the [Central] District [of California] come from Mexico or Central America and many only speak Spanish,” they added.

    Their fast-track appeal urged the justices to confirm that immigration agents have “reasonable suspicion” to stop and question Latinos who work in businesses or occupations that draw many undocumented workers.

    No one questions that U.S. immigration agents may arrest migrants with criminal records or a final order of removal. But Trump administration lawyers say agents also have the authority to stop and question — and sometimes handcuff and arrest — otherwise law-abiding Latinos who have lived and worked here for years.

    They could do so based not on evidence that the particular person lacks legal status but on the assumption that they look and work like others who are here illegally.

    “Reasonable suspicion is a low bar — well below probable cause,” administration lawyers said. “Apparent ethnicity can be a factor supporting reasonable suspicion,” they added, noting that this standard assumes “lawful stops of innocent people may occur.”

    If the court rules for Trump, it “could be enormously consequential” in Los Angeles and nationwide, said UCLA law professor Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law & Policy. “The government would read this as giving immigration enforcement agents a license to interrogate and detain people without individualized suspicion. It would likely set a pattern that could be used in other parts of the country.”

    In their response to the appeal, immigrant rights advocates said the court should not “bless a regime that could ensnare in an immigration dragnet the millions of people … who are U.S. citizens or otherwise legally entitled to be in this country and are Latino, speak Spanish” and work in construction, food services or agriculture and can be seen at bus stops, car washes or retail parking lots.

    The case now before the high court began June 18 when Pedro Vasquez Perdomo and two other Pasadena residents were arrested at a bus stop where they were waiting to be picked up for a job. They said heavily armed men wearing masks grabbed them, handcuffed them and put them in a car and drove to a detention center.

    If “felt like a kidnapping,” Vasquez Perdomo said.

    The plaintiffs include people who were handcuffed, arrested and taken to holding facilities even though they were U.S. citizens.

    They joined a lawsuit with unions and immigrants rights groups as well as others who said they were confronted with masked agents who shouted commands and, in some instances, pushed them to the ground.

    However, the suit quickly focused not on the aggressive and sometimes violent manner of the detentions, but on the legality of the stops.

    U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong said the detentions appeared to violate the 4th Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

    It is “illegal to conduct roving patrols which identify people based on race alone, aggressively question them, and then detain them without a warrant, without their consent, and without reasonable suspicion that they are without status,” she said on July 11.

    The crucial phrase is “reasonable suspicion.”

    For decades, the Supreme Court has said police officers and federal agents may stop and briefly question persons if they see something that gives them reason to suspect a violation of the law. This is why, for example, an officer may pull over a motorist whose car has swerved on the highway.

    But it was not clear that U.S. immigration agents can claim they have reasonable suspicion to stop and question persons based on their appearance if they are sitting at a bus stop in Pasadena, working at a car wash or standing with others outside a Home Depot.

    Frimpong did not forbid agents from stopping and questioning persons who may be here illegally, but she put limits on their authority.

    She said agents may not stop persons based “solely” on four factors: their race or apparent ethnicity, the fact they speak Spanish, the type of work they do, or their location such as a day labor pickup site or a car wash.

    On Aug. 1, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to lift the judge’s temporary restraining order. The four factors “describe only a broad profile that does not supply the reasonable suspicion to justify a detentive stop,” the judges said by a 3-0 vote.

    The district judge’s order applies in the Central District of California, which includes Los Angeles and Orange counties as well as Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo.

    The 9th Circuit said those seven counties have an estimated population of 19,233,598, of whom 47% or 9,096,334 identify as “Hispanic or Latino.”

    Like Frimpong, the three appellate judges were Democratic appointees.

    A week later, Trump administration lawyers sent an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court in Noem vs. Perdomo. They said the judge’s order was impeding the president’s effort to enforce the immigration laws.

    They urged the court to set aside the judge’s order and to clear the way for agents to make stops if they suspect the person may be in the country illegally.

    Agents do not need evidence of a legal violation, they said. Moreover, the demographics of Los Angeles alone supplies them with reasonable suspicion.

    “All of this reflects common sense: the reasonable-suspicion threshold is low, and the number of people who are illegally present and subject to detention and removal under the immigration laws in the (the seven-county area of Southern California) is extraordinarily high,” wrote Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer. “The high prevalence of illegal aliens should enable agents to stop a relatively broad range of individuals.”

    He said the government is not “extolling racial profiling,” but “apparent ethnicity can be relevant to reasonable suspicion, especially in immigration enforcement.”

    In the past, the court has said police can make stops based on the “totality of the circumstances” or the full picture. That should help the administration because agents can point to the large number of undocumented workers at certain businesses.

    But past decisions have also said officers need some reason to suspect a specific individual may be violating the law.

    The Supreme Court could act at any time, but it may also be several weeks before an order is issued. The decision may come with little or no explanation.

    In recent weeks, the court’s conservatives have regularly sided with Trump and against federal district judges who have stood in his way. The terse decisions have been often followed by an angry and lengthy dissent from the three liberals.

    Immigration rights advocates said the court should not uphold “an extraordinarily expansive dragnet, placing millions of law-abiding people at imminent risk of detention by federal agents.”

    They said the daily patrols “have cast a pall over the district, where millions meet the government’s broad demographic profile and therefore reasonably fear that they may be caught up in the government’s dragnet, and perhaps spirited away from their families on a long-term basis, any time they venture outside their own homes.”

    [ad_2]

    David G. Savage

    Source link

  • Elon Musk, America’s richest immigrant, is angry about immigration. Can he influence the election?

    Elon Musk, America’s richest immigrant, is angry about immigration. Can he influence the election?

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — 

    Elon Musk and his brother Kimbal were speaking to a crowd of business leaders in 2013 about creating their first company when the conversation seemed to go off script. Originally from South Africa, Kimbal said the brothers lacked lawful immigration status when they began the business in the U.S.

    “In fact, when they did fund us, they realized that we were illegal immigrants,” Kimbal said, according to a recording of the interview from the Milken Institute Global Conference.

    “I’d say it was a gray area,” Elon replied with a laugh.

    Eleven years later, Elon was back at the Milken Institute last month in Beverly Hills, talking once again about immigration. This time, he described the southern border as a scene out of the zombie apocalypse and said the legal immigration process is long and “Kafkaesque.”

    “I’m a big believer in immigration, but to have unvetted immigration at large scale is a recipe for disaster,” Musk said at the conference. “So I’m in favor of greatly expediting legal immigration but having a secure southern border.”

    Musk, the most financially successful immigrant in the U.S. and the third-richest person in the world, has frequently repeated his view that it is difficult to immigrate to the U.S. legally but “trivial and fast” to enter illegally. What he leaves out: Seeking asylum is a legal right under national and international law, regardless of how a person arrives on U.S. soil.

    But as the election year ramps up and Republicans make border security a major theme of their campaigns, Musk’s comments about immigration have grown increasingly extreme. The chief executive of SpaceX and Tesla, who purchased the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) in 2022, has sometimes used his giant microphone to elevate racist conspiracies and spread misinformation about immigration law.

    Musk’s business manager did not respond to a request for comment, nor did representatives for SpaceX and Tesla. X does not have a department that responds to news media inquiries.

    While Musk’s views are clear, what’s murkier is his influence. Some see him as an influential opinion maker with the power to shape policy and sway voters, while others dismiss him as a social media bomb thrower mainly heard within a conservative echo chamber.

    “If you haven’t heard it already, I’m sure you’re going to see members of Congress citing Elon Musk and pointing to his tweets, and that’s a scary concept,” said Rep. Nanette Diaz Barragán (D-San Pedro), who leads the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

    She says she believes Musk is influential with her Republican colleagues who are “always looking for new anti-immigrant talking points.”

    Polling shows immigration is a top issue for voters. For the third month in a row, it was named by respondents to an open-ended April Gallup poll as the most important problem facing the U.S.

    The November election that’s shaping up as a rematch between President Biden and former President Trump will be the first presidential contest since Musk bought X — a site Trump had been banned from for inciting violence before Musk reinstated his account last year.

    Musk used the platform to come to Trump’s defense last week after the former president was criminally convicted for falsifying records in a hush money scheme. “Great damage was done today to the public’s faith in the American legal system,” Musk wrote on X, calling Trump’s crime a “trivial matter.”

    After meeting with Trump in March, Musk told former CNN anchor Don Lemon that he’s “leaning away” from Biden, but doesn’t plan to endorse Trump yet. He also said he won’t donate to any presidential campaign.

    Campaign contribution records show Musk regularly donated to both Republicans and Democrats through 2020. That includes a handful of donations to California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who said his relationship with Musk dates back to his time as San Francisco mayor but that they’ve never discussed immigration.

    “I think people have formed very strong opinions on this topic,” Newsom said. “I don’t know that he’s influencing that debate in a disproportionate way. Not one human being has ever said, ‘Hey, did you see Elon’s thing about immigration?’”

    How Musk talks about immigration on X

    Last year Musk visited the Eagle Pass, Texas, border, meeting with local politicians and law enforcement to get what he called an “unfiltered” view of the situation.

    He also helped spread viral reports falsely claiming the Biden administration had “secretly” flown hundreds of thousands of migrants into the U.S. to reduce border arrivals.

    “This administration is both importing voters and creating a national security threat from unvetted illegal immigrants,” Musk wrote March 5 on X. “It is highly probable that the groundwork is being laid for something far worse than 9/11.”

    But the migrants in question fly commercial under a program created by the Biden administration, exercising the president’s authority to temporarily admit people for humanitarian reasons. The program allows up to 30,000 vetted people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela lawfully relocate to the U.S. each month and obtain work permits if they have a financial sponsor.

    Contrary to Musk’s claim that the administration is looking for Democratic voters, those arriving under the program have no pathway to citizenship. The claim gives fuel to extremist ideologies such as great replacement theory, the racist conspiracy that there’s a plot to reduce the population of white people.

    Elon Musk, wearing a black Stetson hat, livestreams while visiting the southern border in September in Eagle Pass, Texas. Musk toured the border along the bank of the Rio Grande with Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas).

    (John Moore / Getty Images)

    Earlier this year, Musk targeted a controversial bill in the California Legislature that would help immigrants with serious or violent felony convictions fight deportation using state funds. Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles) pulled the bill after Republicans slammed it on social media, garnering the attention of Musk, who wrote about it on X: “When is enough enough?”

    In February, shortly after a bipartisan group of senators released details of a border security bill that had gone through lengthy negotiations, Musk again echoed great replacement theory, writing on X: “The long-term goal of the so-called ‘Border Security’ bill is enabling illegals to vote! It will do the total opposite of securing the border.”

    Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) shot back.

    “No, it’s not focused on trying to be able to get more illegals to vote,” Lankford said on CNN. “That’s absurd.”

    Musk’s immigration journey

    There’s a particular irony in Musk attacking the program that allows limited arrivals for humanitarian reasons while simultaneously saying he favors legal immigration, said Ahilan Arulanantham, a lawyer, professor and co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA. The program offers would-be migrants a lawful pathway to reach the U.S. and reduced arrivals at the border from the beneficiary countries.

    “That shows a very deep confusion about a fairly basic point about immigration law and the way the policy works,” Arulanantham said. Musk’s lack of criticism of a similar program for Ukrainians illustrates the undercurrent of racism accompanying attacks on the program for Latin American migrants, he added.

    Musk amplifying false claims is counterproductive to rational immigration policy, Arulanantham said.

    “Every voice adds to the pile, and the louder the voice, the marginally greater the addition to the pile,” Arulanantham said. “He is a very loud voice.”

    David Kaye, a UC Irvine law professor who studies platform moderation, said Musk’s promotion of misleading or false statements, including those about immigrants, is concerning because he can influence conversations on X in a way no one else can.

    “There’s already a pretty robust kind of alarmist approach to immigration, so Musk might only add a little bit of fuel to a pretty big fire,” Kaye said. “But the fact is he’s got a ton of followers. To the extent he promotes disinformation, I think that’s a cause for concern for the United States having fair and fact-driven debates over immigration.”

    Musk’s own immigration story is described in the biography “Elon Musk” by Walter Isaacson. Musk left South Africa in 1989 for Canada, where his mother had relatives, Isaacson wrote. While in college he transferred to the University of Pennsylvania and, after graduating, enrolled at Stanford but immediately requested a deferral.

    He and his brother Kimbal had invented an interactive network directory service, like a precursor to Google Maps.

    Just before pitching the idea to a venture company, Kimbal was stopped by U.S. border officials at the airport on his way back from a trip to Toronto “who looked in his luggage and saw the pitch deck, business cards and other documents for the company. Because he did not have a U.S. work visa, they wouldn’t let him board the plane,” Isaacson writes in the book. So a friend picked him up and drove him into the U.S. after telling another border agent that they were seeing the David Letterman show.

    After finalizing the investment, the firm found immigration lawyers to help the Musk brothers get work visas, according to Isaacson.

    Once Musk married his first wife, he became eligible for U.S. citizenship, and took the oath in 2002 at the Los Angeles County Fairgrounds.

    Musk’s recent commentary on immigration and other political issues appears to be a reversal from his views a decade ago, said Nu Wexler, who has worked in policy communications at tech companies and for congressional Democrats.

    Wexler recalled when Musk left Fwd.us, the political action organization spearheaded by Meta Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg in 2013 to advocate for immigration reform. Musk left because Fwd.us backed conservative lawmakers who wanted immigration reform but supported oil drilling and other policies that went against Musk’s environmental priorities.

    “I agreed to support Fwd.us because there is a genuine need to reform immigration. However, this should not be done at the expense of other important causes,” Musk told the news site AllThingsD at the time.

    When Zuckerberg created Fwd.us, it made smart business sense for tech executives to make the business case for immigration reform, Wexler said. Now, immigration is a more divisive issue and executives on the left are less willing to dive into politics.

    “At some point he decided that being the main character was helpful personal branding,” Wexler said of Musk. “I don’t know if he’s going to change minds on immigration, although he might be able to fire up the base.”

    Alex Conant, a GOP consultant and partner at the public affairs firm Firehouse Strategies, said Musk’s influence could grow if Trump wins the election. If an immigration bill were to take shape at that point, Musk’s endorsement or rejection could shape the debate, he said.

    “That’s the sort of scenario where all the sudden he might have some power,” he said.

    There appears to be growing evidence for that possibility. Trump and Musk have discussed a possible advisory role for the billionaire, the Wall Street Journal reported last week. If Trump reclaims the White House, Musk could provide formal input on border security policies.

    Times staff writer Taryn Luna contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Andrea Castillo

    Source link

  • Ask Sophie: What changes are in store for PERM? | TechCrunch

    Ask Sophie: What changes are in store for PERM? | TechCrunch

    [ad_1]

    Sophie Alcorn
    Contributor

    Sophie Alcorn is the founder of Alcorn Immigration Law in Silicon Valley and 2019 Global Law Experts Awards’ “Law Firm of the Year in California for Entrepreneur Immigration Services.” She connects people with the businesses and opportunities that expand their lives.
    More posts by this contributor

    Sophie Alcorn, attorney, author and founder of Alcorn Immigration Law in Silicon Valley, California, is an award-winning Certified Specialist Attorney in Immigration and Nationality Law by the State Bar Board of Legal Specialization. Sophie is passionate about transcending borders, expanding opportunity, and connecting the world by practicing compassionate, visionary, and expert immigration law. Connect with Sophie on LinkedIn and Twitter.

    TechCrunch+ members receive access to weekly “Ask Sophie” columns; use promo code ALCORN to purchase a one- or two-year subscription for 50% off.

    Dear Sophie,

    Our HR and operational consulting firm works primarily with tech startups. Would you provide an update on what we should look out for in the new year when it comes to the PERM process? Thanks!

    — Hopeful HR

    Dear Hopeful,

    Happy New Year! I’m excited about what 2024 will bring in immigration policy changes designed to attract and retain international talent in STEM fields, particularly those spurred by President Biden’s executive order on AI.

    If you haven’t already, talk with an immigration attorney about the complex PERM process, timing, risks and alternative options based on a company’s hiring situation and an employee’s immigration situation.

    Now, let me provide a bit of context about where things currently stand with the PERM process before diving into the changes you should look out for that will — or will not 🙂 — impact PERM.

    The current state of PERM

    As you know, getting PERM labor certification from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is the first step required for companies sponsoring current or prospective employees for an EB-2 advanced degree or exceptional ability green card or an EB-3 green card for professional workers. The PERM process aims to protect wages for Americans and establish that any qualified and available U.S. workers receive access to the job prior to offering a green card to the candidate.

    If you’d like additional detail about the nuts and bolts of the PERM process, take a look at this previous Ask Sophie column.

    In general, PERM requires employers to:

    [ad_2]

    Carrie Andrews

    Source link

  • Ask Sophie: How can I move to the US to join my co-founder? | TechCrunch

    Ask Sophie: How can I move to the US to join my co-founder? | TechCrunch

    [ad_1]

    Sophie Alcorn
    Contributor

    Sophie Alcorn is the founder of Alcorn Immigration Law in Silicon Valley and 2019 Global Law Experts Awards’ “Law Firm of the Year in California for Entrepreneur Immigration Services.” She connects people with the businesses and opportunities that expand their lives.
    More posts by this contributor

    Sophie Alcorn, attorney, author and founder of Alcorn Immigration Law in Silicon Valley, California, is an award-winning Certified Specialist Attorney in Immigration and Nationality Law by the State Bar Board of Legal Specialization. Sophie is passionate about transcending borders, expanding opportunity, and connecting the world by practicing compassionate, visionary, and expert immigration law. Connect with Sophie on LinkedIn and Twitter.

    TechCrunch+ members receive access to weekly “Ask Sophie” columns; use promo code ALCORN to purchase a one- or two-year subscription for 50% off.

    Dear Sophie,

    For the past five years, I have been running the Boston-based biotech startup I co-founded while living in Pakistan while my co-founder has been living in Boston. Now I want to move to the U.S. to expand our business. What options are available to me?

    — Plucky Pakistani

    Dear Plucky,

    I’m appreciative of all the international founders like you who come to the U.S. to innovate, create jobs, and contribute to the economy! And kudos to you! It sounds like your biotech has hit the sweet spot to sponsor you for a visa as well as a green card if you want to stay in the U.S. permanently.

    Be sure to work with an immigration lawyer, who can guide you and your startup through this process and set up your startup for success in sponsoring international talent. An immigration lawyer can also prepare you for an in-person interview at the embassy or a consulate in Pakistan if you are required to have one. You may be able to get an interview waiver for the visa options below if you apply before the end of the year. Until then, consular officers have the discretion to waive the visa interview requirement for certain work visas if you were previously issued a visa and have never been denied one.

    Now, let’s dive into your best options.

    L-1A visa

    The L-1A visa for intracompany transferee executives and managers is a great option for startup founders who are either looking to set up a new office in the U.S. or — like you — want to move to the U.S. to work from an already existing office.

    Your startup must meet certain requirements to sponsor you for the L-1A. Your company will need a physical office location in the U.S. if it doesn’t have one already. Unlike other visas, for an L-1A petition it’s actually required and can also serve as evidence of business viability. Your company will likely also need to submit business plans, growth models, and organization charts.

    For the L-1A, you must have been working for your startup in Pakistan for at least one continuous year within the past three years for a related company, have an executive or managerial position at your startup’s U.S. office, and make decisions and supervise employees.

    If the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) approved you for an L-1A, it will be good for three years initially. You can renew your L-1A twice for two years each, which will give you a maximum stay of seven years as an executive in the U.S.

    [ad_2]

    Carrie Andrews

    Source link

  • Immigration Lawyer Dmitry Paniotto Offers Expertise on New Policies in U.S. Immigration Courts

    Immigration Lawyer Dmitry Paniotto Offers Expertise on New Policies in U.S. Immigration Courts

    [ad_1]

    Press Release
    –


    updated: Jul 7, 2021


    LOS ANGELES, July 7, 2021 (Newswire.com)
    –
    Los Angeles immigration lawyer Dmitry Paniotto, with 18 years of experience in the deportation defense field, offers his expertise to undocumented migrants in removal proceedings in connection with the new “prosecutorial discretion” policy recently implemented in U.S. immigration courts.

    According to Paniotto, the U.S government again decided to allow the Department of Homeland Security attorneys representing the U.S. government in immigration court to exercise favorable discretion to close deportation cases administratively without a deportation order. This means that if attorneys prosecuting deportation against an undocumented migrant believe that this migrant doesn’t pose a risk to the community, has no criminal record, has good moral character, and qualifies to pause his/her deportation for humanitarian reasons such as caring for a child or elderly, the government will close the deportation case against such person.

    “However, even if you have some criminal record but you showed some rehabilitation and your record was not an aggravated felony or particularly violent offense, you also may qualify for PD (prosecutorial discretion) based on certain factors,” Paniotto added.

    The process to apply for PD is complicated and requires the preparation of a bona fide PD package to show that a person qualifies for this relief. 

    “There must be a detailed explanation included of how you qualify, what mitigating factors you can show, how you are not a risk to national security or public safety in the U.S., etc. Our office has the necessary experience to prepare such PD applications and help you in immigration court to process them,” said Paniotto. 

    Paniotto invited anyone in removal proceedings in the Los Angeles area to call the Paniotto Law firm for consultation regarding potential PD processes to administratively close their deportation case without deportation.

    For media inquiries, contact Paniotto Law, 3550 Wilshire Blvd., #1770, Los Angeles, CA 90010, or call (213) 444-5242.

    For more information in Spanish, visit Abogados De Inmigracion en Los Angeles.

    Source: Paniotto Law

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Extraordinary Ability Visa and Investor Visa Questions – Free Consultations From Experienced NYC Law Firm

    Extraordinary Ability Visa and Investor Visa Questions – Free Consultations From Experienced NYC Law Firm

    [ad_1]


    NEW YORK, September 27, 2017 (Newswire.com)
    –
     The New York law firm Cea Badoeva P.C. is providing free legal advice throughout the month of October, helping business owners and employees who have questions regarding their extraordinary ability visa and investor visa.

    A recent Harris Poll shows 63 percent of U.S. employers say hiring international talent is crucial to their company’s business. That’s up 42 percent from last year’s report, showing U.S. employers continue to seek workers from other countries.

    As a boutique law firm, we work directly with business owners and employees who need help with their investor visa or extraordinary ability visa. This free consultation makes it easy for entrepreneurs, employers, and employees to get guidance over the phone — and for free.

    Michele Cea, Cea Badoeva

    The partners at Cea Badoeva — Michele Cea and Viktoriya Badoeva — say they continually hear from start-ups, entrepreneurs, small and medium-sized business owners that they don’t know their options for starting a new business in the USA, or for expanding their business into the USA.  

    Mr. Cea says many people don’t know their professional achievements can qualify them for an extraordinary visa and potentially help them obtain a green card.

    “There are several types of visas in the USA — E1, E2, EB5, EB1, O1, J1, H1B — and all of these applications have different requirements and restrictions,” says Mr. Cea.

    “As a boutique law firm, we work directly with business owners and employees who need help with their investor visa or extraordinary ability visa,” said Mr. Cea. “Many of these potential clients have similar questions. This free consultation makes it easy for entrepreneurs, employers, and employees to get guidance over the phone — and for free. This is our way of helping our community.”  

    “We are trying to bring talented people to our community and in many cases, those are artists who may not realize they can benefit from the extraordinary ability visa based on their creative background,” said Ms. Badoeva.

    Mr. Cea and Ms. Badoeva both worked at big international law firms in New York and abroad, focusing their work on corporate law and business immigration law.

    Ms. Badoeva graduated from Fordham University School of Law in 2011 and Moscow State University of International Affairs School of Law in 2007. She has experience in both corporate and health care law, and has represented many international clients. She is fluent in Russian.

    Mr. Cea graduated from Fordham University School of Law in 2011 and Catholic University School of Law in Milan, Italy in 2009. He has experience with corporate law and business immigration. Prior to partnering with Ms. Badoeva, Mr. Cea founded his own practice focused on business immigration. He is fluent in Italian and conversational Spanish.  

    Frequently Asked Extraordinary Ability Visa and Investor Visa Related Questions

    Mr. Cea and Ms. Badoeva will be answering all extraordinary ability visa and investor visa-related questions over the phone, every Tuesday – from noon to 1 p.m. EST — throughout the month of October.

    Anyone with questions related to the investor visa or extraordinary ability visa can call their conference line and ask either of them such questions for no charge.

    Callers will not be speaking with a lower-level paralegal, but someone with years of legal experience in business immigration law.

    “This is also an opportunity to listen to questions that others in similar situations may have,” says Ms. Badoeva. “It’s also an easy and timeless way to get some quick guidance with your investor or extraordinary ability visa. You don’t need to travel to our Midtown offices. Anyone with a phone can call us from literally anywhere in the world.”

    With larger law firms, this service would cost upwards of $500 an hour. In many of these situations, the law firm may not even be able to help visa applicants or businesses.

    “We will also offer guidance and help applicants find the correct visa,” said Mr. Cea. “For instance, an entrepreneur investing in an American business will want to know the differences between EB-5 and E2 investment visas. We will explain different requirements and restrictions for visas to help secure visa application approval.”

    Cea Badoeva P.C. will not be answering any visa questions concerning refugee, asylum, family immigration or travel visas.

    About Cea Badoeva P.C.

    The law firm of Cea Badoeva counsels business owners and entrepreneurs on a broad range of transaction and business matters including, but not limited to:

    – Business start-up

    – Corporate formation and organization

    – Corporate governance

    – Contracts and commercial transactions

    – Business immigration.

    Their experience in a variety of legal practices, combined with international reach, allows them to address most of the legal needs of small to mid-sized businesses.

    Details of the Free Consultation for Work Visa-Related Questions

    When: October 3rd, 10th, 17th, 24th, and 31st — Every Tuesday throughout the month of October 2017.

    Time: Noon to 1 p.m. EST

    Dial-In Number: (641) 715-0654 Access Pin: 309249

    For more information, go to www.Cebalaw.com or call (917) 728-1455

    Source: Cea Badoeva P.C.

    [ad_2]

    Source link