Immigration Law Inside News

Federal Judge Excludes ICE Agents from Deposition Room for Testimony Regarding Immigration Information in Civil Rights Case

skiramen@gmail.com (Daniel M. Kowalski) — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 09:06:00 -0400

Andrew Free writes - "See ... today's decision from Judge John S. Bryant, a Magistrate Judge in the Middle District of Tennessee. The Court previously granted Plaintiffs' motion for a protective order regarding their immigration status and that of third-party witnesses. ICE defendants' counsel claimed it was "absurd" to force the ICE agents to leave a deposition room while such questioning took place. The Judge disagreed. The case is Nunez-Escobar v. Gaines

For Attorneys & Students - Immigration and Nationality Law: Problems and Strategies

skiramen@gmail.com (Daniel M. Kowalski) — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:39:00 -0400

By Lenni B. Benson, Professor of Law, New York Law School; Lindsay A. Curcio, Principal, Law Office of Lindsay A. Curcio, Adjunct Professor, New York Law School; Veronica M. Jeffers, Associate at Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy, LLP, Adjunct Professor, Southwestern Law School; Stephen W. Yale-Loehr, Miller Mayer, LLP, Ithaca, NY, Adjunct Professor of Law, Cornell University Law School. - Immigration and Nationality Law: Problems and Strategies introduces the reader to the legal concepts and experience of practicing immigration law. This book is designed for both law students and attorneys as it covers not only statutory provisions and key immigration law cases, it also provides an understanding to the many government agencies involved

CA6 on Persecution, El Salvador: Torres-Vaquerano v. Holder (Unpub.)

skiramen@gmail.com (Daniel M. Kowalski) — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:43:00 -0400

"José Angel Torres-Vaquerano petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying his application for withholding of removal and humanitarian relief. The IJ and BIA both found that Torres-Vaquerano presented no evidence that the undisputed past persecution, the torture and murder of his father and three cousins and death threats to him and his mother, was on account of his nuclear family’s blood relation to two members of the Salvadoran military. Because that finding was unsupported by substantial evidence and we conclude that any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary, we GRANT the petition for review and REMAND to the BIA." - Torres-Vaquerano v. Holder, June 18, 2013. [Hats off to

Yet More BIA Unpubs!

skiramen@gmail.com (Daniel M. Kowalski) — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:01:00 -0400

The indefatigable Ben Winograd, on behalf of the Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, has posted many more unpublished BIA cases. Thank you, Ben!

Revised ETA Form 9141

skiramen@gmail.com (Daniel M. Kowalski) — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:55:00 -0400

DOL, June 18, 2013: "A revised version of the ETA Form 9141 will be implemented in the iCERT Portal on June 18. The form changes were pursued through the Paperwork Reduction Act process and have been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget. Minor changes were made to clarify information needed for more efficient application processing. A fillable copy of the form is available here.

The 9141 is a form that is electronically fillable and fileable through the Department's online iCERT system. Requests submitted prior to June 18 using the iCERT Portal based on the previous ETA Form 9141 will be completed and returned using that version of the form. Any form initiated in

Immigration Courts Need an Upgrade

skiramen@gmail.com (Daniel M. Kowalski) — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:49:00 -0400

"In considerable measure because immigration judges are not independent, and there are inherent conflicts of interest, federal circuit courts of appeal are flooded with requests for review of immigration cases. Despite legislation passed more than 15 years ago granting it, immigration judges have no contempt authority because the Justice Department has refused to allow them to use it. This appears to come from an aversion to allowing immigration judges, who are Justice Department attorneys, to discipline Department of Homeland Security attorneys, who prosecute immigration cases. Subpoenas issued by immigration judges go unenforced when directed at Homeland Security attorneys because U.S. attorneys won’t pick sides between the two sibling agencies. It is not unusual for immigration judges to face personal discipline when making good-faith legal decisions because the Justice Department responds to complaints from disgruntled parties. The appropriate recourse

USCIS Notice: Extension and Redesignation of Syria for Temporary Protected Status

skiramen@gmail.com (Daniel M. Kowalski) — Sat, 15 Jun 2013 17:36:00 -0400

"Through this Notice, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announces that the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) is extending the existing designation of Syria for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 18 months, from October 1, 2013 through March 31, 2015, and redesignating Syria for TPS for 18 months, effective October 1, 2013 through March 31, 2015. ... DATES: Extension of Designation of Syria for TPS: The 18-month extension of the TPS designation of Syria is effective October 1, 2013, and will remain in effect through March 31, 2015. The 60-day re-registration period runs from June 17, 2013 through August 16, 2013. Redesignation of Syria for TPS: The redesignation of Syria for TPS is effective October 1, 2013, and will remain in effect through March 31, 2015, a period of 18 months. The 180-day initial registration period for new applicants under the Syria TPS redesignation runs from June 17, 2013 through December 16, 2013." - Federal Register/ Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013.

Advance Copy of USCIS Notice: Extension of TPS for Syria

skiramen@gmail.com (Daniel M. Kowalski) — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:03:00 -0400

"Through this Notice, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announces that the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) is extending the existing designation of Syria for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 18 months, from October 1, 2013 through March 31, 2015, and redesignating Syria for TPS for 18 months, effective October 1, 2013 through March 31, 2015." - FR Doc. 2013-14101 Filed 06/14/2013 at 8:45 am; Publication Date: 06/17/2013.

Advance Copy of ICE Notice: Extension of Employment Authorization for Certain Syrian F-1 Students

skiramen@gmail.com (Daniel M. Kowalski) — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:59:00 -0400

"This notice informs the public of the extension of an earlier notice, which suspended certain requirements for F-1 nonimmigrant students whose country of citizenship is Syria and who are experiencing severe economic hardship as a direct result of the civil unrest in Syria since March 2011. This notice extends the effective date of that notice. DATES: This notice is effective [June 17, 2013] and will remain in effect through March 31, 2015." - FR Doc. 2013-14102 Filed 06/14/2013 at 8:45 am; Publication Date: 06/17/2013.

USCIS Policy Memo on RFEs and NOIDs

skiramen@gmail.com (Daniel M. Kowalski) — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 02:03:00 -0400

"The purpose of this policy memorandum (PM) is to clarify the role of Requests for Evidence (RFEs) and Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs) in the adjudication of petitions, applications, and other requests. It revises Chapter 10.5(a) of the Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM) – AFM Update AD12-04." - USCIS, June 3, 2013.

CBP Final Rule: Extension of Border Zone in the State of New Mexico

skiramen@gmail.com (Daniel M. Kowalski) — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 04:33:00 -0400

"This final rule amends Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations to extend the distance [to 55 miles] that certain nonimmigrant Mexican nationals presenting a Border Crossing Card, or other proper immigration documentation, may travel in New Mexico without obtaining a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Form I-94 (Form I-94), Arrival/Departure Record. This change is intended to promote commerce and tourism in southern New Mexico while still ensuring that sufficient safeguards are in place to prevent illegal entry to the United States." - Federal Register/ Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013.

Advance Copy of CBP Final Rule: Extension of Border Zone in the State of New Mexico

skiramen@gmail.com (Daniel M. Kowalski) — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:16:00 -0400

"This final rule amends Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations to extend the distance [to 55 miles] that certain nonimmigrant Mexican nationals presenting a Border Crossing Card, or other proper immigration documentation, may travel in New Mexico without obtaining a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Form I-94 (Form I-94), Arrival/Departure Record. This change is intended to promote commerce and tourism in southern New Mexico while still ensuring that sufficient safeguards are in place to prevent illegal entry to the United States." - FR Doc. 2013-13946 Filed 06/11/2013 at 8:45 am; Publication Date: 06/12/2013.

Habeas 'When...Released' Victory in Colorado: Nieto Baquera v. Longshore

skiramen@gmail.com (Daniel M. Kowalski) — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 01:48:00 -0400

"The statute, read as a whole, gives immigration officials the power to detain and release aliens, except for a limited class of criminals who shall be mandatorily detained “when . . . released.” The “when . . . released” phrase is a direction to the authorities that certain dangerous aliens should be continuously detained from the time of release from custody in qualifying criminal cases through their removal proceedings. That language means that this exception no longer applies to Mr. Nieto, given that ten years have lapsed since his “release.” Therefore, Mr. Nieto’s fate is now governed by subsection (a), which does not mean he will be released – only that he is now entitled to a bond hearing." - Nieto Baquera v. Longshore, June 4, 2013. [Hats off to Contact Tom Warnke: T: 213-382-7600 x 247

C: 213-841-4503; twarnke@lambdalegal.org
====================================================

Immigration Court Rules in Favor of HIV-Positive Man Facing Deportation after Solicitation Conviction

"This is a wonderful

USCIS Policy Manual Update: Naturalization; Residence Abroad; Interpreters & Translators

skiramen@gmail.com (Daniel M. Kowalski) — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 00:17:00 -0400

"On June 10, 2013, USCIS updated the section of the USCIS Policy Manual regarding time spent abroad by interpreters and translators employed by or under contract with the Chief of Mission or U.S. armed forces.

Previous policy allowed individuals employed abroad as interpreters or translators in Iraq or Afghanistan by, or under contract with, the Chief of Mission or U.S. armed forces to treat time abroad as residence in the United States for purposes of naturalization.

This policy was amended by adding certain security-related positions as types of qualifying employment. In addition, the physical presence requirement is now covered and employment is no longer required to have taken place in Iraq or Afghanistan." - Visa Bulletin For July 2013

"D. VISA AVAILABILITY IN THE COMING MONTHS (August - October)

FAMILY-sponsored categories (potential monthly movement)

Worldwide dates:

F1: Up to five weeks

F2A: Could become “Current” at some point during the coming months.

F2B: Four to seven weeks

F3: Three to five weeks

F4: Three to five weeks

EMPLOYMENT-based categories (potential monthly movement)

Employment First: Current

Employment Second:

Worldwide: Current

China: Up to two months

India: At this time it appears that the availability of “otherwise unused” Employment Second preference numbers will allow for movement of this cut-off date in August and/or September. It is expected

CBP to Extend Range of BCC 'Laser Visas' in New Mexico to 55 Miles

skiramen@gmail.com (Daniel M. Kowalski) — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 15:13:00 -0400

"U.S. Customs and Border Protection submitted to the Federal Register today a final rule that will extend the border zone up to 55 miles, from the current 25 mile restriction, for Border Crossing Card (BCC) holders crossing from Mexico into the state of New Mexico. This change allows BCC holders entering the United States by land, to travel to the cities of Deming and Las Cruces, N.M., stimulating commerce, trade and tourism activity in the area." - CBP, June 7, 2013.

CA7 (Posner) on Asylum, China, Changed Conditions, Chenery: Liu v. Holder

skiramen@gmail.com (Daniel M. Kowalski) — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 14:58:00 -0400

"The Justice Department insists that the only change was in the petitioner’s personal conditions. That is wrong. It ignores the change in country conditions. In arguing that reopening was barred because the only change was in personal conditions, the Department was once again violating the Chenery doctrine. See Chen v. Holder, supra, at *2, and cases cited there. For the Board had made no mention of a change in personal conditions. The Department commits a second Chenery violation by arguing that China leaves small, unobtrusive house churches alone; the argument does not appear in the Board’s opinion. It is also a weak argument. An “unobtrusive” house church presumably is one that refrains from proselytizing; and to forbid proselytizing is an infringement of religious liberty—the petitioner asserts without contradiction that her religious faith requires that she proselytize. By their repeated violations of the Chenery doctrine, the Justice Department’s

CA9 on Political Opinion: Regalado-Escobar v. Holder

skiramen@gmail.com (Daniel M. Kowalski) — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 03:03:00 -0400

"Jorge Alberto Regalado-Escobar petitions for a review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We review questions of law de novo and the BIA’s factual findings, including whether an applicant was persecuted on account of his political opinion, under the substantial evidence standard. See I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Under this standard, this court must uphold the BIA’s findings unless “the evidence [theapplicant] presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” Id. at 483–84. For the reasons stated below, we deny in part, and grant and remand in part, the petition." - Immigration Advocates Network invites you to join a free webinar, “How to Promote Good Legal Advice for Immigrants and Protect Your Community against Fraud,” on Monday, June 10th at 2:00 pm Eastern / 1:00 pm Central / 12:00 pm Mountain / 11:00 am Pacific. This webinar will discuss immigration fraud; the unauthorized practice of law; and, how to work with a lawyer. The panelists are Liz Sweet, Associate Director of the ABA Commission on Immigration; Susan Timmons, Associate Director of Practice & Professionalism at the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA); and Mary Carmen Madrid-Crost, Chair of AILA’s National Consumer Protection & UPL Action Committee." - Click here

DOS Final Rule: Classification of Immediate Family Members as G Nonimmigrants

skiramen@gmail.com (Daniel M. Kowalski) — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 10:56:00 -0400

"This rule permits qualified immediate family members of A–1 or A–2 nonimmigrants to be independently classified as G–1, G–2, G–3, or G–4 nonimmigrants. It also clarifies that immediate family members of G–1, G–2, G–3, and G–4 nonimmigrants who have employment authorization may remain in G classification upon gaining employment that would otherwise allow them to change status to A classification. This rule is being promulgated to allow family members of employees of bilateral missions to work at international organizations in a visa status that reflects their position with the international organization. DATES: This rule is effective June 5, 2013." - Federal Register/ Vol. 78, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 5, 2013.

CA6 on TPS, Adjustment of Status: Flores v. USCIS

skiramen@gmail.com (Daniel M. Kowalski) — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 01:33:00 -0400

"This case illustrates the archaic and convoluted state of our current immigration system. While many suggest that immigrants should simply “get in line” and pursue a legal pathway to citizenship, for Saady Suazo and other similarly situated Temporary Protected Status beneficiaries, the Government proposes that there is simply no line available for them to join. The law does not support such a conclusion in this case. ... We interpret the statute exactly as written—as allowing Suazo to be considered as being in lawful status as a nonimmigrant for purposes of adjustment of status under § 1255. ... Policy considerations support our interpretation. Mr. Suazo seems to be the exact type of person that Congress would have in mind to allow adjustment of status from TPS beneficiary to LPR. He has been in the United States for about fifteen years. He has roots here. His wife and minor child are here. They are both United States citizens. He is of good moral character

BIA on 204(c) - Matter of Otiende

skiramen@gmail.com (Daniel M. Kowalski) — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 00:32:00 -0400

Although a visa petition filed by a petitioner for a spouse may be subject to denial under section 204(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c) (2006), based on the spouse’s prior marriage, that section does not prevent the approval of a petition filed on behalf of the spouse’s child, which must be considered on its merits to determine whether the child qualifies as the petitioner’s “stepchild” under the Act. - Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127 (BIA 2013) [Hats off to Michael Canton!]

OCAHO: Failure to Timely Prepare I-9 a Substantive and 'Serious' Violation

skiramen@gmail.com (Daniel M. Kowalski) — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 02:22:00 -0400

"Failure to prepare an I-9 in a timely fashion, moreover, is not only a substantive violation but also a serious one, because an employee could potentially be unauthorized for employment during the entire time his or her eligibility remains unverified. See United States v. Sunshine Bldg. Maint., Inc., 7 OCAHO no. 997, 1122, 1182 (1998) (citing United States v. El Paso Hospitality, Inc., 5 OCAHO no. 737, 116, 123 (1995)). The longer an employer delays in preparing an I-9 form, the more serious is the violation. See, e.g., United States v. Fortune E. Fashion, Inc., 7 OCAHO no. 992, 1075, 1080-81 (1998) (finding failure to prepare I-9 within three business days as serious, but distinguishing between delays of a few days and those of a few months)." - USA v. Anodizing Industries, Inc.