1. Re-Parole Process for Certain Afghans
2. Afghan Re-Parole FAQs
3. Certain Afghan Parolees Are Employment Authorized Incident to Parole
Visa Bulletin for July 2023
D. FAMILY-SPONSORED SECOND PREFERENCE AVAILABILITY
In the April 2023 Visa Bulletin, it was necessary to establish a final action date in the F2A category...
Arizmendi-Medina v. Garland
"Andres Arizmendi-Medina, a native and citizen of Mexico, was ordered by an immigration judge (IJ) to be removed from the United States after the IJ ruled that Arizmendi...
Filed June 7, 2023
ICE, May 11, 2023
President Biden announced the termination of the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Public Health Emergency, effective on May 11, 2023, following the termination...
Avila de la Rosa v. Garland
"Cristian Avila de la Rosa received a procedurally defective Notice to Appear for his immigration removal proceedings, and (unlike many others) he made a timely objection to that Notice. The immigration judge, however, disregarded Avila’s objection, and the Board of Immigration Appeals thereafter insisted that Avila was not entitled to relief unless he could demonstrate prejudice from the defective Notice. The Board erred in doing so; we thus grant Avila’s petition for review and remand for further proceedings. ... A noncitizen who raises a timely objection to a noncompliant Notice to Appear, consistent with Niz-Chavez and Ortiz-Santiago, is entitled to relief without also having to show prejudice from the defect. ... The BIA erred by requiring Avila to show prejudice from his defective Notice to Appear, even though Avila filed a timely objection and thus invoked the benefits of the mandatory claim-processing rules of section 1229. We thus GRANT his petition for review and REMAND his case to the Board for further proceedings."
[Hats off to Mary Schnoor (formerly at Jones Day, now at DHS) and Chuck Roth at NIJC!]