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...
Enriquez v. Barr
"Eduardo Enriquez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal and affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Because we are bound by our decision in Medina-Nunez v. Lynch, 788 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2015) (per curiam), we hold that Enriquez was not “admitted” under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(2) when he was approved as a derivative beneficiary of his mother’s self-petition under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). We therefore deny his petition for review."
MURGUIA, Circuit Judge, concurring: "I agree that, under our precedent, Enriquez cannot be deemed “admitted in any status” under the cancellation of removal statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(2), when the government approved his mother’s self-petition pursuant to the Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA” or the “Act”). I write separately, however, to underscore that our case law is inconsistent with the statutory context and undermines VAWA’s purpose of expanding immigration relief to undocumented immigrants who experience domestic abuse. ... In sum, the BIA’s exceedingly limited reading of “admission” is unreasonable in light of the entire statutory scheme, particularly in the context of VAWA and its remedial objective. Our acquiescence to this construction has led to an absurd and unjust result that is inconsistent with the realities of our immigration system and congressional intent. But because “[b]inding authority must be followed unless and until overruled by a body competent to do so,” Mohamed v. Uber Techs., Inc., 848 F.3d 1201, 1211 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155, 1170 (9th Cir. 2001)), I agree that Enriquez’s petition must be denied in light of our precedent." [Emphasis added.]
[NOTE: This petition for review was filed in 2013.]