IMMpact Litigation, Apr. 25, 2024 "IMMpact Litigation, seeking redress for over 100,000 Ukrainian nationals paroled into the United States post-February 2022, today announces a significant advancement...
DOL, Apr. 26, 2024 "The Department of Labor today announced a final rule to strengthen protections for farmworkers . The rule targets vulnerability and abuses experienced by workers under the H...
NILA, Apr. 24, 2024 "The National Immigration Litigation Alliance (NILA) and Innovation Law Lab are thrilled to announce that, in response to the lawsuit we filed against the United States Citizenship...
NILA, Apr. 24, 2024 "Today, three immigration attorneys and two individuals filed a prospective class action lawsuit in federal court, challenging U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP...
USCIS, Apr. 23, 2024 "U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced the upcoming opening of international field offices in Doha, Qatar, and Ankara, Turkey, to increase capacity...
Ruiz v. Atty. Gen.
"The Court sua sponte VACATES its prior opinion, published at 67 F.4th 1321 (11th Cir. 2023), and substitutes the following in its place. ... Esmelda Ruiz, a native and citizen of Peru, appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals’ determination that she is ineligible for relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2), a provision whose language was originally adopted as part of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and that outlines the conditions under which certain “battered spouse[s] or child[ren]” qualify for discretionary cancellation of removal. As relevant here, it requires a petitioning alien to show that she “has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty” by her spouse or parent. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(A)(i). Ruiz contends that the Immigration Judge and the BIA made two errors in refusing her cancellation request. First, she maintains that, as a matter of law, they misinterpreted the statutory term “extreme cruelty” to require proof of physical—as distinguished from mental or emotional—abuse. And second, she asserts that, having misread the law, the IJ and the BIA wrongly concluded that she doesn’t qualify for discretionary relief. We agree with Ruiz that the IJ and the BIA misinterpreted § 1229b(b)(2) and thereby applied an erroneous legal standard in evaluating her request for cancellation of removal. Accordingly, we grant her petition for review and remand to the BIA for further consideration. ... For the foregoing reasons, we agree with Ruiz—and hold— that the BIA misinterpreted 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2). The term “extreme cruelty” does not require a petitioning alien to prove that she suffered physical abuse in order to qualify for discretionary cancellation of removal; proof of mental or emotional abuse is sufficient to satisfy the “extreme cruelty” prong of § 1229b(b)(2)’s five-prong standard. ... Accordingly, we GRANT the petition in part and REMAND to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."
[Hats way off to Anabella Trujillo! And listen to the oral argument here.]