Judge Hendrix's No TX decision (which Haines endorces in full) is here: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Judge Haines 'all is good in claiming invasion' decision is here: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

This is very important coz (2) is the current incarnation of AARP case which is still sitting on SCOTUS emergency docket.

With a split on both the Proclamation and class vs individual habeas, SCOTUS is much more likely to step into this now.

That said, under the Immigration and Nationality Act a person can request asylum at POE (courts have ruled that metering is unlawful) and asylum cannot be halted by executive action, so stay tuned for the executive orders for details as to what actions under 212(f) would be taken by Prez Trump.

About 25+ people who had received notices for such appointments for post 20 Jan and early February will not be able to use them and no new appointments will be made available.

9. I have many issues w ceBONDS system (problems are many, too many for a thread).

Our firm does not post ceBONDS and this rule just confirms my initial reaction when they started it.

What is your experience/reaction?

8. -- a USC/LPR who posted the bond is not likely to update their address with ICE everytime they move. And the bene changing address has no relevance.

Ergo, the problems with the current system are likely to be magnified over the next 4 years.

7. again problematic bc most individuals posting immigration bonds are not the subject of the bond & delivery and supervision bonds remain in place sometimes in decades

6. Obligors who opt out of e-service will receive notice by routine mail it seems which is a departure from the current "certified receipt" practice for paper delivery/breach notices.

5. alleged "safeguard" where e-service is not confirmed, meaning recipient does not click on the link, which is ICE must effectuate service via regular mail to the obligor's last know address is utterly insufficient, considering ICE prevalent failure to actually print and mail notices of any kind.

4. Institutional obligors log in & out of accnts often & receive many e-notifications to check activities. Any errant opening of notice -- will be considered valid proof of service-- triggering the delivery obligations: If the non-citizen does not appear bond is breached &$ are gone (revert to ICE).

3. Reason is because only individuals who are US Citizens or LPRs can be individual obligors.

2. But the majority of obligors/co-obligors posting in ceBONDS are institutional obligors such as NGOs and law firms. (I think sureties use a different account but not sure about it). So those institutional obligors post immigration bonds for many individuals.

1. I'm particularly concerned abt provision/system providing that to confirm/constitute "proof of service" of an e-bond notice, system captures exact date/time notices are opened. That is it -it dosnt matter who opened it, whether had legal authority to opt out/in or use th account.

as the Reg also clarifies that there is a difference between "notification" (ppl need to opt in to use ceBONDS) and "notices" under this new rule, which is HUGE but will see if Trump Admin changes it and will be potentially a trap for the unwary going forward. Why?

This rule is enacted to allow ICE to serve certain bond notices (delivery, cancellations etc) electronically 2 obligors who **consent to electronic service**, meaning that it should not apply to anyone who has posted a bond previously ...

is the 'Panic Button" app the Mex Gov't is talking about --to allow people in danger of ICE detention/deportation -- a new version of the Notifica App? If so, it will likely be a bust.
apps.apple.com/us/app/notif...