This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 04/30/2024 "On December 19, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published an interim final rule (2016 interim rule...
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas Issue: Whether a visa petitioner may obtain judicial review when an approved petition is revoked on the basis of nondiscretionary criteria. Case below: 75 F.4th 1157 (11th Cir....
IMMpact Litigation, Apr. 25, 2024 "IMMpact Litigation, seeking redress for over 100,000 Ukrainian nationals paroled into the United States post-February 2022, today announces a significant advancement...
DOL, Apr. 26, 2024 "The Department of Labor today announced a final rule to strengthen protections for farmworkers . The rule targets vulnerability and abuses experienced by workers under the H...
NILA, Apr. 24, 2024 "The National Immigration Litigation Alliance (NILA) and Innovation Law Lab are thrilled to announce that, in response to the lawsuit we filed against the United States Citizenship...
"Mahvash Alisha Akram came to this country in 2006. She hoped to join her recently remarried mother and become a lawful permanent resident. Her hopes were dashed when she ran headlong into a regulatory wall. She now argues that the regulation that thwarted her cannot stand. Because we find that the regulation at issue directly conflicts with the will of Congress, we agree with Akram and grant her petition for review. ... Akram appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). Like the IJ, the BIA concluded that Akram could not adjust status as Siddique’s “child” and that it lacked the authority to declare 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(i) unconstitutional or ultra vires. See In re Akram, 25 I. & N. Dec. 874, 880 (BIA 2012). The BIA also denied Akram’s motion to remand the case to allow her to adjust status as a relative of her mother, who by that time had become a lawful permanent resident. Id. at 882. The BIA reasoned that Akram could not adjust status through her mother because 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(i) barred Akram from adjusting status on any basis other by a relationship to Siddique. Akram, 25 I. & N. Dec. at 882. Akram now petitions for review, arguing, once again, that 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(i) is unconstitutional and contrary to the will of Congress. ... We ... conclude that 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(i)’s requirement that K-4s adjust status only by way of the sponsoring U.S. citizen is contrary to 8 U.S.C. § 1255(d) and 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(K)(iii). ... [W]e leave it to the Attorney General to decide whether, and how, Akram will be able to adjust status. ... We GRANT Akram’s petition for review, REVERSE the decision of the BIA, and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion." - Akram v. Holder, July 9, 2013.
[Hats way off to Yael D. Aufgang at Jones Day!]