State Department, Feb. 11, 2025 "The White House issued Executive Order "Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government" on January...
OFLC, Feb. 14, 2025 OFLC Releases Public Disclosure Data and Selected Program Statistics for Q1 of Fiscal Year 2024 The Office of Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC) has released a comprehensive set...
Lapadat v. Bondi "As appellate judges, we generally defer to the reasoned and expert judgment of our colleagues in the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), whom we trust to carefully...
Visa Bulletin for March 2025 Notes D, E and F: D. RETROGRESSION IN THE EMPLOYMENT-BASED FOURTH PREFERENCE (EB-4) CATEGORY Due to high demand and number use throughout the first half of the fiscal...
NILC, Feb. 6, 2025 "In one of his first anti-immigrant Executive Orders (EOs), President Trump threatened to make undocumented immigrants “register” with the U.S. government or face...
Brito Sanchez v. Garland
"Brito has produced the necessary evidence to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard articulated in Giha, supra. His mother Ms. Lopez testified he was born in California, an obviously relevant fact in the question of his citizenship. For the reasons described in the court's findings of fact above, her testimony is credible. Her demeanor was credible. Her memory was detailed. Fundamentally, the birth of her son is something she reasonably remembers and knows about in meaningful detail. Ms. Lopez's deposition testimony and responses at trial were internally consistent and consistent with other documentary and testimonial evidence, including the claims in her petition for a U Nonimmigrant visa, her testimony before other tribunals and her application for child support benefits. She also has offered a credible explanation for the existence of the Mexican birth registration certificate and the circumstances giving rise to its creation, in the form of her testimony as bolstered by the expert testimony. The inconsistencies in Ms. Lopez's testimony were minor, to the extent there were meaningful inconsistencies at all. ... The government has not carried its burden to disprove Brito's U.S. citizenship “by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence.” Berenyi v. Dist. Dir., INS, 385 U.S. 630, 636 (1967). This court finds Brito has produced “substantial credible evidence, ” by a preponderance of the evidence, of his U.S. citizenship. The government has not shown by “clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence” that Brito is not a U.S. citizen. On the record developed before this court, Brito is a U.S. citizen."
[Hats off to Nienke Schouten!]