Department of State v. Muñoz
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 04/23/2024 "On March 28, 2023, the U.S. Department of State (Department of State) published in the Federal Register an interim...
Arizona v. Garland "This is a challenge by 19 states to an administrative action of the Executive Branch establishing a new procedure for adjudicating asylum applications under federal immigration...
Moran v. Mayorkas "At the time of Mr. Valadez Moran's birth, it is more likely than not that his mother, Ms. Moran, was a citizen of the United States by virtue of her birth in Elsa, Texas on...
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 04/19/2024 "Notice of a Memorandum of Cooperation (MOC) between the Government of the United States and the Government of Japan...
"Petitioner Carlos Parra-Rojas was convicted of Bringing In or Harboring Aliens for Financial Gain, in violation of section 274(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Petitioner subsequently applied for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). The Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s application under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i) (the “smuggling bar”), which renders an alien inadmissible if he has “knowingly . . . encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided any other alien to enter or to try to enter the United States in violation of law”. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the IJ’s decision. For the reasons set forth below, we will reverse. ... We therefore hold that Petitioner’s conduct did not constitute encouraging, inducing, assisting, abetting, or aiding another alien to enter the United States. ... For the reasons stated above, we will grant the petition for review. The judgment of the BIA is vacated and the BIA is ordered to remand the matter to the Immigration Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion on Petitioner’s application for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a)." - Parra-Rojas v. Attorney General, Mar. 26, 2014. [Hats way off to Thomas E. Moseley!]