All his cover ups has now been naked. 😂 Lol

Okay this is a catch 22.  This case goes all the way back to 2017.  I think the push to shed some light on it is because now they want to depict the Trump administration as authoritarian, running rogue, out of control when it fact it was not only null and void at it's origin but null and void based on the fact he's no longer in the country.  There's two reason why at first he wasn't eligible to apply.  One is the visa he was applying for is for people who are still residing outside the country.  The second is that he committed a crime by assaulting a police officer.  Just because someone committed a crime on him, which is the statutes they used to justify the request, does not over ride the two other prevailing reasons why he wasn't eligible in the first place.  With that said...this seems like they got an immigration judge who sympathizes with illegal aliens regardless if they have a criminal record.

The whole case stemmed on does an immigration judge have the authority to grant waivers because they are delegated the same powers as an attorney general.  The whole debate, as stated, hinges on a catch 22, that being 

>The Attorney General's brief in this court observes that § 1003.10(b) does not delegate to IJs any power to waive an alien's inadmissibility. Sure enough, it doesn't. 

but....

>But § 1003.10(a) does. It says that “[i]mmigration judges shall act as the Attorney General's delegates in the cases that come before them.” This sounds like a declaration that IJs may exercise all of the Attorney General's powers “in the cases that come before them”, unless some other regulation limits that general delegation. 

Logically "unless some other regulation limits that general delegation" but 1003.10 B does seem to suggest there are limitations.

It went on to further state:

>The BIA in Khan did not identify any provision that subtracts from the delegation in § 1003.10(a). Nor did the Third Circuit in Sunday. Indeed, neither the BIA nor the Third Circuit cited § 1003.10(a). We therefore adhere to the view of LDG that IJs may exercise the Attorney General's powers over immigration.

I take that they did present it as a basis for argument but because it wasn't specifically listed it could be open for interpretation of intent.

Then they went on to debate other issues, such as does only the department of homeland security have a right to waive inadmissibility.  They sited a few other case laws that may or may not support some contentions within the debate, the remanded it back to the BIA to sort out the issues among other considerations....

>The Board is free to address all of these matters on remand, as it is also free to decide whether to exercise in favor of, or against, Baez–Sanchez whatever discretion the Attorney General possesses.

>The petition for review is granted, the Board's decision is vacated, and the matter is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

What that sounds like to me is this was a complex set of circumstances, they vacated the order, sent it back to the BIA for reconsideration or a determination by the Attorney General.  They didn't say which attorney general, the attorney general Barr or one delegated through the immigration process, which he also granted the right to debate depending upon which they choose to do.

Now logically as I read this decision it was left wide out in the open as to a re-determination of the case since he remanded it back to them, up to and including that the attorney general could do whatever he wanted with it.  So Barr obviously decided not to re-hash the debate and take his option granted him under his discretion (it says so right there) and denied the visa.

Who signed this opinion?....none other than the guy you site making all this fuss.  

>Easterbrook, Circuit Judge

Why after all this time?....because it fits with a narrative to paint the administration as authoritarian.  Like I said the guys not even in the country anymore which in itself cancels the whole issue, which is also why he knows he can make a fuss about this without the repercussions that's come with arresting anybody in the know for disregarding his order that they, as you can plainly see, never disregarded.  He left the playing field wide open for them and they took it.  The judge more than likely got paid handsomely for playing out this little charade at someone else's behest.  The left knows no boundaries to the deceptions they will paint as they know there are very few people who are going to go dig up the case, they'll just sit there and take the main stream media's words for it.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1876707.html