IMMpact Litigation, Apr. 25, 2024 "IMMpact Litigation, seeking redress for over 100,000 Ukrainian nationals paroled into the United States post-February 2022, today announces a significant advancement...
DOL, Apr. 26, 2024 "The Department of Labor today announced a final rule to strengthen protections for farmworkers . The rule targets vulnerability and abuses experienced by workers under the H...
NILA, Apr. 24, 2024 "The National Immigration Litigation Alliance (NILA) and Innovation Law Lab are thrilled to announce that, in response to the lawsuit we filed against the United States Citizenship...
NILA, Apr. 24, 2024 "Today, three immigration attorneys and two individuals filed a prospective class action lawsuit in federal court, challenging U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP...
USCIS, Apr. 23, 2024 "U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced the upcoming opening of international field offices in Doha, Qatar, and Ankara, Turkey, to increase capacity...
Matter of H. N. FERREIRA, 28 I&N Dec. 765 (BIA 2023)
"This case requires us to reconcile an Immigration Judge’s regulatory authority to terminate removal proceedings with a respondent’s interest in having the Immigration Judge review USCIS’ denial of a Form I-751. ... The respondent maintains that the inability of DHS to locate its file is not an enumerated ground upon which the regulations permit DHS to seek termination of proceedings. See 8 C.F.R. § 239.2(a), (c) (2023). However, the question before us is not on what grounds DHS may make a motion to terminate, but the scope of the Immigration Judge’s authority to adjudicate such a motion and the order in which the Immigration Judge should address multiple potentially dispositive issues. Because DHS does not have unilateral authority to cancel a Notice to Appear once removal proceedings have commenced, DHS’ motion to terminate constituted a request that the Immigration Judge exercise his authority to terminate the proceedings. ... The Immigration Judge erred in concluding that he was required to terminate proceedings simply because DHS had moved to do so. Instead, the Immigration Judge should have adjudicated the motion after considering the underlying facts and circumstances. Because the Immigration Judge mistakenly concluded that DHS’ motion divested him of jurisdiction, he did not consider the respondent’s interest in obtaining review of USCIS’ denial of his Form I-751 petition. The respondent’s interest in having an Immigration Judge review USCIS’ denial of a Form I-751 is significant. ... Given the significance of a respondent’s interest in securing review of a denial of a petition to remove the conditions on permanent residence, an Immigration Judge should ordinarily review the denial of a Form I-751 upon the request of the respondent. We will therefore remand this matter to the Immigration Judge to undertake that review. ORDER: The appeal is sustained, the Immigration Judge’s decision is vacated, and removal proceedings are reinstated. FURTHER ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Court for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision."
[Hats off to Jan Joseph Bejar!]