DOL, July 26, 2024 "On August 7, 2024, the Department of Labor will host a public webinar to educate stakeholders, program users, and other interested members of the public on the changes to the...
Atud v. Garland (unpub.) "Mathurin A. Atud petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings based on alleged ineffective...
Shen v. Garland "Peng Shen, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. An Immigration Judge ...
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 07/25/2024 "On January 17, 2017, DHS published a final rule with new regulatory provisions guiding the use of parole on a case...
Lance Curtright reports: "After the 5th Circuit’s initial decision in Membreno, [ Membreno-Rodriguez v. Garland, 95 F.4th 219 ] my law partner Paul Hunker (a new AILA member!) reached out to...
"Respondents are law-abiding noncitizens who sought, through their U.S. citizen relatives, to immigrate to this country with their minor children, as the law permits. They waited patiently for years, in some cases decades, for visas to become available, and in that time their sons and daughters turned 21, such that they were no longer able to immigrate under the petition filed by their U.S. citizen relatives. Respondents became lawful permanent residents (LPRs), filed new petitions on behalf of their now-adult sons and daughters, and requested that those children receive credit for the years they had already spent waiting for visas, rather than being required to start again at the back of the queue. The court of appeals correctly ruled that Congress expressly allowed that credit—known as “retention of priority date”—in the aptly-named Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), Pub. L. No. 107-208, §3, 116 Stat. 927, 928 (2002).
There are several reasons why the Court need not and should not review this case. Congress is currently considering a comprehensive immigration reform bill that would moot the question presented entirely. And while there is a shallow circuit split, it does not produce a risk of different enforcement in different circuits: a final judgment in the nationwide class action in this case would result in national uniformity without this Court’s intervention.
Furthermore, the court of appeals’ decision is correct. The government urges this Court to treat the plain statutory language as “ambiguous” and to defer to a reading of the CSPA that withholds the “retention of priority date” benefit from derivative beneficiaries (like Respondents’ children) included on petitions filed by U.S. citizens. According to the government, Respondents’ children must wait many more years before being allowed to reunite with their immediate family in the United States. That interpretation is at odds with the plain text, structure, and history of the CSPA, and the court of appeals was right to reject it." - Carl Shusterman, Amy Prokop, Nancy E. Miller, Robert L. Reeves, Eric R. Welsh, May 2013.