This is the text of the Efficient Case and Docket Management in Immigration Proceedings Final rule as signed by the Attorney General, but the official version of the Final rule will be as it is published...
Matter of Furtado, 28 I&N Dec. 794 (BIA 2024) (1) A petitioner seeking approval of a Form I-130 for an adopted child from a country that is a party to the Convention on Protection of Children and...
NILA Practice Advisory, May 17, 2024 "Noncitizens and their attorneys are experiencing record-breaking delays in the adjudication of benefit applications by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services...
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase, May 16, 2024 "In 2003, the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees published Guidelines for applying the bars to asylum known internationally as the “exclusion...
Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box, May 14, 2024 "In “What if the Job Has Changed Since the Labor Certification Was Approved Many Years Ag o” we discussed strategies for noncitizen workers...
Williams v. Barr
"Robert Junior Williams petitions for review of a 2018 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision ordering him removed based on his 2016 Connecticut state conviction for carrying a pistol or revolver without a permit, in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 29-35(a). The BIA rejected Williams’s argument that section 29-35(a) criminalizes conduct that is not a “firearms offense” under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(C), and that section 29-35(a) is therefore not a removable offense. Williams’s argument turns on a comparison of the “antique firearms” transportation exception of section 29-35(a) and the general exception for 2 “antique firearms” found in the definition of an INA “firearms offense.” We conclude that the BIA erred in ruling that the exceptions are of equivalent reach and that the state statute is a categorical match to the federal statute. Furthermore, because our conclusion is determined by the text of the relevant statutes, the “realistic probability” test does not apply here, contrary to the BIA’s alternative holding. See Hylton v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 57, 63 (2d Cir. 2018). The petition for review is GRANTED. The order of removal is VACATED, and the cause is REMANDED to the BIA with directions to terminate Williams’s removal proceedings."
[Hats off to Elyssa Williams!]