DOL, July 26, 2024 "On August 7, 2024, the Department of Labor will host a public webinar to educate stakeholders, program users, and other interested members of the public on the changes to the...
Atud v. Garland (unpub.) "Mathurin A. Atud petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings based on alleged ineffective...
Shen v. Garland "Peng Shen, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. An Immigration Judge ...
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 07/25/2024 "On January 17, 2017, DHS published a final rule with new regulatory provisions guiding the use of parole on a case...
Lance Curtright reports: "After the 5th Circuit’s initial decision in Membreno, [ Membreno-Rodriguez v. Garland, 95 F.4th 219 ] my law partner Paul Hunker (a new AILA member!) reached out to...
"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!]