INNOVATION LAW LAB Central American Resource Center of Northern California Centro Legal De La Raza University of San Francisco School of Law Immigration and Deportation Defense Clinic Al Otro Lado Tahirih Justice Center v. Kevin K. MCALEENAN, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, in his official capacity U.S. Department of Homeland Security Lee Francis Cissna, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, in his official capacity John L. Lafferty, Chief of Asylum Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, in his official capacity United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Todd C. Owen, Executive Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, in his official capacity U.S. Customs and Border Protection Ronald D. Vitiello, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement [2019]

Version 1 of 4

Reference to INNOVATION LAW LAB Central American Resource Center of Northern California Centro Legal De La Raza University of San Francisco School of Law Immigration and Deportation Defense Clinic Al Otro Lado Tahirih Justice Center v. Kevin K. MCALEENAN, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, in his official capacity U.S. Department of Homeland Security Lee Francis Cissna, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, in his official capacity John L. Lafferty, Chief of Asylum Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, in his official capacity United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Todd C. Owen, Executive Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, in his official capacity U.S. Customs and Border Protection Ronald D. Vitiello, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (924 F.3d 503) strengthens a Comparative Law answer because the case reflects the principle that Use this case as a source-verified research checkpoint rather than an invented rule statement. The ratio should be extracted from the linked opinion by identifying the legal test applied, the facts treated as decisive, and the court's stated reason for the outcome. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as What Comparative Law issue does the source record raise, and how should a student verify the rule, holding, and factual trigger from the linked opinion? The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.