DHS, May 9, 2024 "This memorandum sets forth new policy and guidelines governing our Department’s use of classified information in immigration proceedings. It supersedes the October 4, 2004...
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 05/13/2024 "This rule adopts as final the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register on July 26...
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 05/13/2024 Application of Certain Mandatory Bars in Fear Screenings "DHS proposes to allow asylum officers (“AOs”...
Visa Bulletin for June 2024 Notes D, E, F: D. VISA AVAILABILITY IN THE EMPLOYMENT-BASED SECOND (EB-2) PREFERENCE CATEGORY High demand in the Employment Second category will most likely necessitate...
Lexis+ subscribers, here are some new items you will find when searching in the Immigration Law sections: EOIR SOURCES >> Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual thru January 2024 ...
Emmanuel-Tata v. Garland (unpub.)
"Tarlishi Emmanuel-Tata, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We GRANT the petition for review and REMAND for further consideration. ... Emmanuel-Tata challenges both the BIA’s factual determinations and whether it gave his claims full and fair consideration. We begin by examining Emmanuel-Tata’s argument that the BIA failed to consider all the evidence. This argument relies on a BIA statement that the record “does not contain any country conditions evidence indicating that Anglophones are regularly subject to persecution,” and that “[t]he record does not contain any country conditions evidence indicating the type of punishment the respondent may face as a result of his criminal charges.” There is such evidence, though. ... The significance of the overlooked evidence is clear. ... Because the BIA erroneously found there was no record evidence about relevant country conditions, Emmanuel-Tata did not receive “meaningful consideration of the relevant substantial evidence supporting” his claims. See Abdel-Masieh, 73 F.3d at 585. We therefore reverse the BIA’s decision. We need not further consider the BIA’s factual determinations. The petition for review is GRANTED and we REMAND to the BIA for further consideration."
[Hats off to Brian Plotts! Brian, make a motion to publish!]