DOJ, Sept. 21, 2023 "The Justice Department announced today that it has secured a settlement agreement with United Parcel Service Inc. (UPS). The settlement resolves the department’s determination...
DHS, Sept. 20, 2023 "Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas today announced the extension and redesignation of Venezuela for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 18 months, due to...
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 09/20/2023 "The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to amend its regulations affecting temporary agricultural (H...
Cyrus Mehta, Sept. 17, 2023 "The October 2023 Visa Bulletin was disappointing. There was some expectation that the Administration would radically advance the Dates for Filing so that many more could...
EOIR "EOIR to Host National Stakeholder Meeting for Law School Immigration Clinics SUMMARY: The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) invites faculty, staff, and students from law school...
CARE v. Nielsen
"[T]his Court finds that Plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated that it had met at least one of the requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(1). Specifically, Plaintiff demonstrated that the Impact Data Analyst position required attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation, in satisfaction of 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(1)(B). In its denial of the Petition, the Defendants did not sufficiently consider all of the relevant factors and evidence before it. Nor did Defendants provide an adequate explanation as to how the Defendants reached some of their conclusions. The denial also failed to adequately elucidate the Defendants’ reason for finding that the Impact Data Analyst position did not require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, the other requirement under 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(1).
The Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 18] is therefore GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Motion is GRANTED insofar as Defendants’ denial of Plaintiff’s H-1B Petition is set aside. The Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 21] is DENIED. This matter is remanded to the USCIS for further proceedings, consistent with this Order and Opinion. Defendants are directed to reconsider their decision regarding the Plaintiff's H-1B visa application at issue in light of the findings herein and in light of the evidence of Record favorable to Plaintiff discussed here that the Agency either failed to address or summarily and arbitrarily rejected."
[Hats off to Marshall Lewis Cohen and Myron N. Kramer!]