PM 25-20 - CANCELLATION OF DIRECTOR’S MEMORANDUM 23-02
In Tumi v. Higgins , Vermont Federal District Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford ruled that USCIS' denial of Tumi's O-1A visa petition on behalf of famous designer Nicolas Baurain was arbitrary and capricious...
Here is the Memo; here is the Order. NOTE: Earlier today, Thursday, Feb. 6, 2025, Senior U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour GRANTED a Preliminary Injunction in WA v. Trump. I will post his Memo and...
PM 25-18 - CANCELLATION OF DIRECTOR’S MEMORANDUM 22-06 AND REINSTATEMENT OF POLICY MEMORANDUM 20-05 PM 25-19 - EOIR’S ANTI-FRAUD PROGRAM
Funez-Ortiz v. McHenry "For nearly ten years, a Honduran gang conducted a campaign of terror and violence in Honduras against Petitioner Melvin Funez-Ortiz and his family. The gang murdered several...
Wang v. Blinken
"The Immigration and Nationality Act makes a limited number of visas available to foreign investors who create jobs in the United States. It also grants investors’ spouses and children the “same status” and “same order of consideration” for those visas as the investors. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(d). When the Department of State calculates how many visas it may issue for foreign investors, it includes an investor’s spouse and children in the total count. So, for example, if there are 10,000 investor visas available in a year, and if the first 3,000 of those visas go to investors with 7,000 spouses and children, no additional visas are available to foreign investors. The Plaintiffs challenge this counting practice. They claim the Department should have stopped counting family members against the total number of investor visas after Congress relocated the controlling text within the Act in 1990. We disagree. The Act required the Department’s approach before 1990, and it still does. Congress did nothing in 1990 to change the text’s meaning. We therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ lawsuit."