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...
NILA, Apr. 24, 2024 "Today, three immigration attorneys and two individuals filed a prospective class action lawsuit in federal court, challenging U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP...
USCIS, Apr. 23, 2024 "U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced the upcoming opening of international field offices in Doha, Qatar, and Ankara, Turkey, to increase capacity...
Lara-Garcia v. Garland
"The BIA held that, in order to qualify for relief under Lujan-Armendariz, a state conviction must have resulted in a sentence of no more than one year of probation. ... In sum, the BIA legally erred by holding that, because he received a sentence of three years of probation, Petitioner’s expungement did not qualify under Lujan-Armendariz. ... The BIA’s alternative reason for denying sua sponte reopening was that Petitioner “remains removable” under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) because his 2006 misdemeanor convictions are crimes involving moral turpitude. ... Petitioner is correct that his convictions do not qualify as crimes involving moral turpitude. The government’s assertion to the contrary cites no legal authority, and we are aware of none. ... In short, the BIA legally erred by concluding that Petitioner “remains removable” under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i). We deny the petition in part and grant the petition in part. Petitioner’s motion was untimely, so we deny the petition to the extent that Petitioner challenges the BIA’s timeliness holding. But we grant the petition to the extent that Petitioner challenges the BIA’s decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte. We hold only that, in denying sua sponte reopening, the BIA legally erred. We remand for the BIA “to exercise its broad discretionary authority as to sua sponte reopening against the correct legal backdrop.” Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 579. PETITION DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART; REMANDED."