BACK IN MY DAYS HUMANS HAD TO EVOLVE LANGUAGE TO COMMUNICATE AND WE LIKED IT. Now you basically got pictographs, scrawls on the wall, we're doing backwards! *stamps around perimeter of lawn to keep youngsters away.

I would show you what emoji I picked but I'm face blind enough I can't tell all these little yellow blobs of facial features apart.

Hahaha, I kind of want to be that lost gambler in a game now.

Why the need for New Hampshire knowledge?

Bwhaha, enough.

Worst case scenario for DHS? A judge says "this is garbage", dismisses, and.. THEY REFILE. Over and over, until it passes muster. Maybe while the person is stuck in jail. This is how the system functions, what a power move to not bother to pretend in a case they know is being watched.

Again, if MK has an LPR card, DHS GAVE IT TO HIM THEY SHOULD KNOW THE BASIS HE RECEIVED IT. But it is so much quicker to type up a bunch of nonsense, and count on the respondent (like a defendant with no right to free counsel) to fill in the blanks for you.

INA 212 is all about "inadmissibility"- a list of bad things that make you "inadmissible" It isn't about getting status at all. Also, it doesn't apply to people who are admitted, THAT'S 237, e.g. the section being used against MK, that REQUIRES THEY APPROVE ADMISSION OR LPR STATUS.

INA 212(a)(3)(C): "An alien whose entry or proposed activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is inadmissible." Um.. what? Wrong section, DHS. Absolutely wrong.

And it does make sense to site the section of the INA the LPR status was issued under, because there are MANY different possibilities! Many sections of INA 245 could apply, or maybe INA 209 (personal fave), ok, so what's 212(a)(3)(C)?

This is actually pretty common, DHS counts on the accused migrant to fill in the blanks for them. Too bad (for them, not bad for due process) this person has counsel and won't do that. "Ok fine, we know he has a green card, that's an admission! We'll just mention the green card!"- DHS, maybe

But fuck that, that sounds like work! Just allege "unknown date, unknown place."- "Your honor, it is our burden to prove he was admitted but um, we don't feel like it, just trust us? It happened! SOMEHWERE, SOMEWHEN"

Should be easy, because DHS has records of whenever anyone enters with their visa, or receives an immigration benefit, so just plug that info in, right?

So DHS has to allege Khalil is "admitted" because they are trying to remove him under a provision (237(a)(4)(C)(i), at the bottom) that only applies to noncitizens who have been admitted. If Khalil had just snuck in, this charge wouldn't apply.

My cat has taken to lying on top of my wrists while I'm using my work laptop to signal mandatory petting breaks.

I haven't bought for my twin nephews yet and those presents need to be shipped - my bro is definitely acting like I've already left it too long!