OFLC, May 26, 2023 1. OFLC announces case submission for the Form ETA 9089 for PERM in FLAG on June 1, 2023 OFLC previously announced a delay to the date on which it will transition PERM submission...
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 05/26/2023 "The Department of State (the Department) is delaying the effective date of a final rule that appeared in the Federal...
ICE, May 2, 2023 "In February 2023, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) provided updated guidance that consular officers can now issue an F or M student visa up to 365 days in advance of an international...
Cyrus D. Mehta & Jessica Paszko, May 23, 2023 "Just a couple of months ago we considered the options available to terminated H-1B workers who want to become entrepreneurs . Since then, layoffs...
State Department, May 19, 2023 "The Department of State is processing visas more efficiently than ever while upholding our national security responsibilities. We are continuously reducing the time...
Gutierrez Acosta v. Garland (unpub.)
"Gutierrez Acosta contends that the BIA erred in two respects. First, he challenges the BIA’s decision to give dispositive effect to the IJ’s finding that legitimate, non-political reasons could have motivated the harms he suffered. Even assuming the record supported that finding, he maintains that the mere existence of potential legitimate reasons does not in itself foreclose the possibility that the abuses were also politically motivated. “Other evidence in the record,” Gutierrez Acosta notes, “could still establish that [his] political opinions were ‘one central reason’ for the persecutory action.” But the BIA “ignored all the record evidence that supports a finding that the police were motivated by [his] political opinions.” Second, he contends that, having declined to review the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, the BIA erred in disregarding all of his testimony that suggested he was in fact persecuted on account of his political opinion. His arguments are persuasive. ... The BIA failed to consider any of the evidence suggesting that Gutierrez Acosta’s political opinions were one central reason for his mistreatment. Nor did the BIA contemplate the possibility or address the indications that purported justifications for actions taken against Gutierrez Acosta may have been pretextual. For these reasons, we GRANT the petition for review, VACATE the BIA’s decision, and REMAND for the BIA to conduct further proceedings consistent with this opinion."
[Hats off to Daniel Horowitz for representing the petitioner pro bono publico!]