Lapadat v. Bondi "As appellate judges, we generally defer to the reasoned and expert judgment of our colleagues in the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), whom we trust to carefully...
Visa Bulletin for March 2025 Notes D, E and F: D. RETROGRESSION IN THE EMPLOYMENT-BASED FOURTH PREFERENCE (EB-4) CATEGORY Due to high demand and number use throughout the first half of the fiscal...
NILC, Feb. 6, 2025 "In one of his first anti-immigrant Executive Orders (EOs), President Trump threatened to make undocumented immigrants “register” with the U.S. government or face...
NIPNLG, Feb. 5, 2025 "On January 29, 2025, President Trump signed the Laken Riley Act (LRA) into law. The law expands no-bond detention for certain noncitizens in immigration proceedings, and it...
News here . Screening and referral form here . Settlement agreement here .
"The BIA committed legal error by determining that Barrios-Cantarero was properly given notice through a letter addressed to Adrian Eliseo and therefore abused its discretion by denying his motion to reopen. ... Here, the BIA failed to apply 8 C.F.R. § 103.8(a)(1)(i) in determining whether Barrios-Cantarero had received proper notice of his hearing; its proper notice conclusion is owed no deference. The document is clearly not addressed to Barrios-Cantarero and therefore cannot be proper notice to him. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii), the lack of sufficient notice entitled Barrios-Cantarero to reopen his proceedings at any time. Accordingly, the BIA abused its discretion in denying Barrios-Cantarero’s motion to reopen." - Barrios-Cantarero v. Holder, Nov. 21, 2014. [Hats off to David J. Bird!]