Lapadat v. Bondi "As appellate judges, we generally defer to the reasoned and expert judgment of our colleagues in the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), whom we trust to carefully...
Visa Bulletin for March 2025 Notes D, E and F: D. RETROGRESSION IN THE EMPLOYMENT-BASED FOURTH PREFERENCE (EB-4) CATEGORY Due to high demand and number use throughout the first half of the fiscal...
NILC, Feb. 6, 2025 "In one of his first anti-immigrant Executive Orders (EOs), President Trump threatened to make undocumented immigrants “register” with the U.S. government or face...
NIPNLG, Feb. 5, 2025 "On January 29, 2025, President Trump signed the Laken Riley Act (LRA) into law. The law expands no-bond detention for certain noncitizens in immigration proceedings, and it...
News here . Screening and referral form here . Settlement agreement here .
Al Otro Lado v. Wolf
"The current motion does not directly concern the validity of the policy requiring asylum seekers to wait at or near the border for some time before their asylum applications can be filed and processed. Rather, this motion stems from the impact of a separate regulation, promulgated while this litigation was pending, on a subgroup of metered asylum seekers. That regulation, known variously as the “Third Country Transit Rule,” “transit rule,” and “asylum ban,” (“the Rule”), provides, subject to narrow exceptions, that a noncitizen who “enters, attempts to enter, or arrives in the United States” at the southern border on or after July 16, 2019 is not eligible for asylum in the United States unless they applied for asylum in another country, such as Mexico, that they passed through on their way to the southern border. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(c)(4). The district court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the Rule against a provisionally certified class of plaintiffs who arrived at the 3 southern border seeking asylum before July 16, 2019 but were denied entry and prevented from making an asylum claim under the metering policy. The government appealed and moved this court for a stay of the injunction pending appeal. Because the government has not carried its burden of showing that a stay is warranted, we deny the motion."