USCIS, Dec. 12, 2024 "U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is issuing policy guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual regarding the types of evidence that may support an application for...
OFLC, Dec. 12, 2024 "The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) will publish two Federal Register Notices (FRNs) in mid-December 2024. The first FRN will update the AEWR under the H-2A temporary...
Visa Bulletin For January 2025
Platino-Bargas v. Garland (unpub.) "After reviewing the record, briefs of the parties, and previously filed joint motion of the Government and Petitioner to remand, we grant the motion to remand...
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas (9-0) "JUSTICE JACKSON delivered the opinion of the Court. A common feature of our Nation’s complex system of lawful immigration is mandatory statutory rules paired with...
Casa de Maryland v. DHS
"[I]n accordance with the Judgment of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, ECF No. 83, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of California, 140 S. Ct. 1891 (2020), it is this 17th day of July, 2020, by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Court ADJUDGES AND DECLARES that the DACA rescission and actions taken by Defendants to rescind the DACA policy are arbitrary and capricious, in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); 2. The rescission of the DACA policy is VACATED, and the policy is restored to its pre-September 5, 2017 status; 3. Defendants and their agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them, are ENJOINED from implementing or enforcing the DACA rescission and from taking any other action to rescind DACA that is not in compliance with applicable law; 4. Plaintiff’s estoppel claim and request for an injunction as it pertains to DACA’s information-sharing policies are DENIED; 5. Nonetheless, because this Order restores the DACA policy to its pre-September 5, 2017 status, the information-sharing polices announced on September 5, 2017 are VOID; 6. Under the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, and given that the information-sharing policies announced on September 5, 2017 are void, this Court does not address Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims and those claims are DISMISSED."