Texas v. USA "This is the latest chapter in the long-running litigation challenging the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, commonly known as DACA. In 2021, a district court held that...
Matter of Arciniegas-Patino Where parties were properly served with electronic notice of the briefing schedule, a representative’s failure to diligently monitor the inbox, including the spam folder...
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 01/17/2025 "The United States supports the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the residents of Hong Kong. The People's...
Alan Lee, Jan. 16, 2025 "USCIS’s second part of the H-1B proposed regulations, “Modernizing H-1B Requirements, Providing Flexibility in the F-1 Program, and Program Improvements Affecting...
Nwauzor v. The GEO Group, Inc. "In 2017, a class of detainees and Washington State each sued GEO in federal court for violations of Washington’s Minimum Wage Act (“MWA”). The district...
"The BIA denied Indradjaja’s motion to reopen because she had not submitted an affidavit in support of the new evidence she proffered, and because she had not submitted copies of the sources on which her expert relied, it refused to consider the expert report supporting her motion. By attaching consequences to these new requirements in Indradjaja’s case without giving her notice or the opportunity to respond, the BIA acted arbitrarily and capriciously. Accordingly, for the reasons stated below, the petition for review is GRANTED, the BIA’s decision is VACATED, and we REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion." - Indradjaja v. Holder, Dec. 9, 2013. [Hats off to Ted Cox!]