In a letter dated April 12, 2024 the State Department and USCIS discuss "concerns about biometrics collection for applicants for T nonimmigrant status and petitioners for U nonimmigrant status abroad...
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 "This final rule adopts and replaces regulations relating to key aspects of the placement, care, and services provided to unaccompanied...
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas Issue: Whether a visa petitioner may obtain judicial review when an approved petition is revoked on the basis of nondiscretionary criteria. Case below: 75 F.4th 1157 (11th Cir....
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 "On December 19, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published an interim final rule (2016 interim rule) amending its regulations...
IMMpact Litigation, Apr. 25, 2024 "IMMpact Litigation, seeking redress for over 100,000 Ukrainian nationals paroled into the United States post-February 2022, today announces a significant advancement...
"We are asked to decide whether the “departure bar” regulation—stating that the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) may not entertain a motion to reopen filed by or on behalf of a person who has departed the United States—impermissibly conflicts with the Immigration and Nationality Act’s provision permitting an alien to file one motion to reopen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(d). We join the Third, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits in finding that it does. 1 See Contreras-Bocanegra v. Holder, 2012 WL 255879 (10th Cir. 2012) (en banc); Prestol Espinal v. Att’y Gen., 653 F.3d 213 (3d Cir. 2011); Coyt v. Holder, 593 F.3d 902 (9th Cir. 2010); William v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 329 (4th Cir. 2007).
1 The Sixth and Seventh Circuits, when presented with the question we confront in this case, addressed the validity of the BIA’s interpretation of the departure bar. Relying on Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs, 130 S. Ct. 584 (2009), they found it impermissible for the BIA to treat the departure bar as divesting the agency of jurisdiction. See Pruidze v. Holder, 632 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 2011); Marin-Rodriguez v. Holder, 612 F.3d 591 (7th Cir. 2010)." - Lin v. Atty. Gen., May 23, 2012.
Hats off to Ted Cox and his associate, Ana Lucia Alvarado, who argued the case before the 11th Circuit!
Analysis by Lee Beck here.