Lopez Orellana v. Garland "The question presented here is whether the Louisiana accessory-after-the-fact statute, LA.REV. STAT. § 14:25, is a categorical match for the generic federal offense...
USCIS, Sept. 18, 2024 "Effective Sept. 10, 2024, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services automatically extended the validity of Permanent Resident Cards (also known as Green Cards) to 36 months...
Singh v. Garland "Petitioner Varinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks rescission of a removal order entered in absentia. We previously granted Singh’s petition because the government...
BIB Daily presents bimonthly PERM practice tips from Ron Wada , member of the Editorial Board for Bender’s Immigration Bulletin and author of the 10+ year series of BALCA review articles, “Shaping...
Castellanos-Ventura v. Garland "Petitioner Bessy Orbelina Castellanos-Ventura, a native and citizen of Honduras, seeks review of an April 19, 2021 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA...
Renowned J-1 and hardship expert Bruce Hake emailed this comment to USCIS on Nov. 19, 2015.
Excerpt: "There is a legal error in footnote 1 to the draft USCIS Policy Manual: Vol. 9, Part B: Extreme Hardship (draft). Every year this error could harm hundreds of J-1 nonimmigrants and their U.S. citizen family members.
The error is in this sentence of the footnote: “It also does not address those discretionary relief provisions that require a showing of greater hardship. See INA § 212(e) (“exceptional hardship” waiver of two-year foreign residence requirement for certain exchange visitors) and INA § 240A(b)(1)(D) (“exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” generally required for cancellation of removal Part B).”
It is emphatically not true that an INA § 212(e) exceptional hardship waiver requires a showing of “greater hardship” than the extreme hardship required for various other kinds of waivers and discretionary relief. To the contrary, the opposite is probably true."
Background: