This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 04/30/2024 "On December 19, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published an interim final rule (2016 interim rule...
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....
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...
DOL, Apr. 26, 2024 "The Department of Labor today announced a final rule to strengthen protections for farmworkers . The rule targets vulnerability and abuses experienced by workers under the H...
NILA, Apr. 24, 2024 "The National Immigration Litigation Alliance (NILA) and Innovation Law Lab are thrilled to announce that, in response to the lawsuit we filed against the United States Citizenship...
Jang v. Garland
"Petitioner Jung Hee Jang, a native and citizen of South Korea, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of Jang’s application for cancellation of removal. In re Jung Hee Jang, No. A206-223-573 (B.I.A. Nov. 20, 2019), aff’g No. A206-223-573 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Apr. 19, 2018). The agency found Jang ineligible for cancellation because of her state conviction for attempted second-degree money laundering, see N.Y. Penal L. § 470.15(1)(b)(ii)(A), which it deemed a “crime involving moral turpitude” (“CIMT”) under the Immigration and Nationality Act, see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2). We agree with Jang that, because her crime of conviction lacks the requisite scienter, it is not a CIMT. She is therefore eligible for cancellation of removal. ... The statute of Jang’s conviction does not require an “intent to impair the efficiency and lawful functioning of the government,” Mendez, 960 F.3d at 88, or intent to conceal the underlying crime that created the criminal proceeds. The knowledge required for conviction under § 470.15(1)(b)(ii)(A) falls well short of the depravity described by the BIA as requisite for a CIMT. The BIA therefore erred in treating Jang’s conviction for money laundering in the second degree as a CIMT and on that basis denying her application for cancellation of removal. ... For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is GRANTED. The case is REMANDED to the agency for further consideration of Jang’s application."
[Hats off to David K.S. Kim!]