Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase, May 16, 2024 "In 2003, the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees published Guidelines for applying the bars to asylum known internationally as the “exclusion...
Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box, May 14, 2024 "In “What if the Job Has Changed Since the Labor Certification Was Approved Many Years Ag o” we discussed strategies for noncitizen workers...
Blanford v. USCIS "Because of a consular officer’s suspicions over a $900 payment, two children have spent the last seven years in a Liberian orphanage instead of with their adoptive parents...
EOIR, May 10, 2024 "The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced the appointment of 20 immigration judges—18 immigration judges who joined courts in California, Georgia...
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TERMINATE THE FLORES SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES News coverage here and here .
Maris J. Liss writes: "We had a nice win in the 6th Circuit today, Ward v. Holder.
1. The Court held that "clear, unequivocal, and convincing" is a very high standard and close to the standard in criminal proceedings. The government must meet this standard to prove an LPR abandoned their greencard in removal proceedings.
2. The Sixth Circuit used the decision to correct two precedent 6th Circuit decisions that incorrectly held that the burden for proving an LPR abandoned his greencard was merely "clear and convincing" not "clear, unequivocal and convincing." The Court also correct a precedent 6th Circuit decision that said that "clear and convincing" is the same as "clear, unequivocal, and convincing." It's not!
2. The Court also held that the IJ incorrectly assigned the burden to Ward instead of the government in this case.
3. Finally, the Court clarified the meaning of the word "unequivocal:" "