(A)  Deferred Action Status.  Deferred Action Status (DAS) has been a mechanism in which the noncitizen asks the immigration authorities to postpone or completely terminate deportation proceedings.  It first appeared as a policy, and was then codified.[98]  It applies, for example, to a noncitizen granted asylum, unless the grant of asylum is first revoked.[99]

 

The Operations Instruction provided that the application should be made to the District Director of the INS.  This application is usually a last-ditch request to avoid actual removal in a case with exceptional equities, but is no way to win lawful resident permanent status or to avoid issuance of a removal or deportation order.  For example, in San Francisco, the INS granted DAS to a young man with a minor drug conviction and an otherwise excellent record, whose entire family had just won suspension of deportation.  The application for DAS should be specific and as well documented as possible.  The assistance of a well-known and respected immigration attorney with good relations with the immigration authorities, as well as outstanding equities for the applicant, may be particularly important.

[98] Operations Instructions 242.1(a)(22).  The Operations Instruction was rescinded in July 1997 as part of major changes in the OI to comport with the 1996 IIRAIRA, but the policy is still being followed and the OI is expected to return.

[99] 8 C.F.R. § 208.22.

Fourth Circuit

AGGRAVATED FELONIES " RETROACTIVITY
Mondragon v. Holder, 706 F.3d 535, (4th Cir. Jan. 31, 2013) (retroactive application of 1996 expansion of aggravated felony definition to convictions predating its effective date did not violate the Constitution).

Ninth Circuit

JUDICIAL REVIEW " PETITION FOR REVIEW " ESTOPPEL " DEFINITION
Perez-Mejia v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2011 WL 5865888 (9th Cir. Nov. 23, 2011), amending 641 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. Apr. 21, 2011). In Perez-Mejia v. Holder, the Ninth Circuit explained the elements of a successful claim of estoppel against the government: It is well settled ... that the government may not be estopped on the same terms as a private litigant. Watkins, 875 F.2d at 706. A party seeking to raise estoppel against the government must establish affirmative misconduct going beyond mere negligence; even then, estoppel will only apply where the government's wrongful act will cause a serious injustice, and the public's interest will not suffer undue damage by imposition of the liability. Morgan v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 1084, 1092 (9th Cir.2007) (quoting Watkins, 875 F.2d at 707). Moreover, a party cannot obtain estoppel against the government if he did not lose any rights to which he was entitled. Id. There is no single test for detecting the presence of affirmative misconduct; each case must be decided on its own particular facts and circumstances. Affirmative misconduct does require an affirmative misrepresentation or affirmative concealment of a material fact by the government, although it does not require that the government intend to mislead a party. Watkins, 875 F.2d at 707 (citations omitted). If a litigant survives this initial inquiry, the court considers four elements to determine if the government is estopped: (1) the party to be estopped must know the facts; (2) he must intend that his conduct shall be acted on or must so act that the party asserting the estoppel has a right to believe it is so intended; (3) the latter must be ignorant of the true facts; and (4) he must rely on the former's conduct to his injury. Morgan, 495 F.3d at 1092 (quoting Watkins, 875 F.2d at 709). (Id. at ___.)

JUDICIAL REVIEW " PETITION FOR REVIEW " ESTOPPEL " GOVERNMENTS ERROR IN GRANTING LPR STATUS DESPITE CONVICTION DID NOT PREVENT IT FROM LATER CORRECTING ITS MISTAKE AND ORDERING REMOVAL
Perez-Mejia v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2011 WL 5865888 (9th Cir. Nov. 23, 2011), amending 641 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. Apr. 21, 2011) (The government is not estopped by its error in granting Perez"Mejia LPR status from correcting its mistake and ordering his removal.).

Other

RELIEF - DEFERRAL OF REMOVAL
Political Asylum Project of Austin Press Release, Jul. 17, 2006. "San Antonio, TX - Martine Jean Pierre Gregory was released from the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody on Friday July 13, 2006, when ICE granted a favorable decision in her request for Deferred Action Status." http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/press.release.7.15.06.letterhead.pdf