Cyrus Mehta, May 29, 2023 "I write this blog in fond memory of Mark Von Sternberg who passed away on May 16, 2023. Mark was a brilliant lawyer, scholar and writer who worked very hard on behalf...
Portillo v. DHS "Gerardo A. Portillo petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirming his order of removal and denying his application for adjustment...
State Department, May 30, 2023 "Document Submission to KCC suspended for DV-2024 and onward. Effective for the Diversity Visa (DV) program for fiscal year 2024 (DV-2024) and onward, selectees...
In this document , provided by a "veteran immigration practitioner," ICE claims that its attorneys need not be present in every case in Immigration Court. Read more at PWS's latest post ...
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 06/01/2023 "This final rule (TFR) temporarily amends Department of State (Department) regulations to provide that Afghan nationals...
Lopez-Chavez v. Garland
"In May 2017, an Immigration Judge (IJ) determined that Lopez-Chavez is ineligible for cancellation of removal because his 2006 federal conviction for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 qualifies as an aggravated felony. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s ruling and dismissed Lopez-Chavez’s administrative appeal the following year. The question now before the court is whether Lopez-Chavez’s 2006 conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony under the INA, thus making Lopez-Chavez statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. We hold that it does not. ... Because Lopez-Chavez’s 2003 Missouri marijuana conviction is not a categorical match for the corresponding federal offense in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B), the 2006 conviction for illegal reentry under § 1326 does not qualify as an aggravated felony under § 1101(a)(43)(O). Accordingly, Lopez-Chavez is not statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. We grant the petition for review, vacate the BIA’s order, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion."
[Hats off to Andrew K. Nietor!]