Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
"In the absence of a clear indication by Congress to the contrary, we find that section 1182(d)(14) and section 1182(d)(3)(A) waivers can and do coexist, and that the IJ has jurisdiction to grant a waiver of inadmissibility to a U Visa applicant under section 1182(d)(3)(A)." - L.D.G. v. Holder, Mar. 12, 2014.
[Hats way off to Chuck Roth! Chuck writes: "Many thanks to Gail Pendleton and to Ilyce Shugall, who led an amicus effort! (And congrats to the pro bono team, led by Megan Thibert-Ind, from McDermott, Will, and Emory which represented LDG together with NIJC). In a nutshell, the Court of Appeals held that 212(d)(3) waiver authority now exists at both DOJ (EOIR) and DHS (USCIS); whereas 212(d)(14) waiver authority is only at DHS. It does create a bit of an issue - if the IJ grants the waiver one presumably has to go back to USCIS to get them to exercise discretion to grant or deny the U Visa itself – but that’s better than no appeal at all! And hopefully, in cases where an IJ grants the waiver, VSC will come around…"]