OFLC, May 26, 2023 1. OFLC announces case submission for the Form ETA 9089 for PERM in FLAG on June 1, 2023 OFLC previously announced a delay to the date on which it will transition PERM submission...
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 05/26/2023 "The Department of State (the Department) is delaying the effective date of a final rule that appeared in the Federal...
ICE, May 2, 2023 "In February 2023, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) provided updated guidance that consular officers can now issue an F or M student visa up to 365 days in advance of an international...
Cyrus D. Mehta & Jessica Paszko, May 23, 2023 "Just a couple of months ago we considered the options available to terminated H-1B workers who want to become entrepreneurs . Since then, layoffs...
State Department, May 19, 2023 "The Department of State is processing visas more efficiently than ever while upholding our national security responsibilities. We are continuously reducing the time...
Peh v. Garland
"The Board’s decision in this case is not clear about how it understood the “realistic probability” requirement. The decision said that Peh had “not established a realistic probability that Iowa would successfully prosecute a violation of Iowa Code § 710.10(3) involving any of the ‘illegal acts’ he cites to in his brief.” The Board could mean only that the State would not “successfully prosecute” enticement with intent to commit disorderly conduct or harassment because the text of the statute would not encompass that conduct. If so, then we disagree for the reasons discussed, and the Board should determine on remand whether § 710.10(3), so understood, constitutes a crime of child abuse. Alternatively, the Board could mean that the State would not successfully prosecute enticement with intent to commit disorderly conduct or harassment, because there is no showing that those hypothetical scenarios have ever occurred or that the State actually prosecutes the offense in those situations. We decline to review the latter rationale at this stage, however, because the conclusion is not clear on the face of the Board’s decision (it would involve an awkward use of the word “successfully”), and the government expressly disavows that approach in its brief on appeal. Resp’t Br. 17-18. The Board may clarify its reasoning on remand as warranted. For these reasons, the petition for review is granted, the Board’s decision of February 24, 2020, is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings."
[Hats off to Benjamin Bergmann and Al Smith!]