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 ...
Suate-Orellana v. Garland "Although the IJ and BIA addressed her argument that her NTA was deficient on the merits, the legal landscape has changed significantly since the BIA’s decision dismissing...
From the NY AILA Chapter: "With heavy hearts, we announce the passing of Allen E. Kaye, a distinguished figure in the field of immigration law. Allen was a nationally recognized immigration lawyer...
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 05/08/2024 "This final rule makes several clarifications and updates the definitions currently used to determine whether a consumer...
TRAC, June 18, 2019
"The latest case-by-case records from the Immigration Courts indicate that as of the end of May 2019 one or more removal hearings had already been held for nearly 47,000 newly arriving families seeking refuge in this country. Of these, almost six out of every seven families released from custody had shown up for their initial court hearing. Usually multiple hearings are required before a case is decided. For those who are represented, more than 99 percent had appeared at every hearing held. See Figure 1. Thus, court records directly contradict the widely quoted claim that "90 Percent of Recent Asylum Seekers Skipped Their Hearings."
Under our current system, there is no legal requirement that immigrants actually receive notice, let alone timely notice, of their hearing. Given many problems in court records on attendance and in the system for notifying families of the place and time of their hearings, these appearance rates were remarkably high.
... There can be additional problems at the court's end. As of the end of May, TRAC's examination of court records showed that, symptomatic of the problem of families receiving timely hearing notice, there were nearly ten thousand "phantom" family cases on the court's books. These were cases entered into the Immigration Court's database system but with little information apart from a case sequence number. The date of the NTA, its filing date, charges alleged, and particulars on the family were all empty. Virtually all information on these phantom NTAs was blank - yet this is the same system used by court personnel to manage sending hearing notifications."