State Department, Feb. 11, 2025 "The White House issued Executive Order "Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government" on January...
OFLC, Feb. 14, 2025 OFLC Releases Public Disclosure Data and Selected Program Statistics for Q1 of Fiscal Year 2024 The Office of Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC) has released a comprehensive set...
Lapadat v. Bondi "As appellate judges, we generally defer to the reasoned and expert judgment of our colleagues in the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), whom we trust to carefully...
Visa Bulletin for March 2025 Notes D, E and F: D. RETROGRESSION IN THE EMPLOYMENT-BASED FOURTH PREFERENCE (EB-4) CATEGORY Due to high demand and number use throughout the first half of the fiscal...
NILC, Feb. 6, 2025 "In one of his first anti-immigrant Executive Orders (EOs), President Trump threatened to make undocumented immigrants “register” with the U.S. government or face...
Nielsen v. Preap (5-4)
Justice Alito for the majority: "[T]he United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that this mandatory-detention requirement [8 U. S. C. §1226(c)] applies only if a covered alien is arrested by immigration officials as soon as he is released from jail. If the alien evades arrest for some short period of time— according to respondents, even 24 hours is too long—the mandatory-detention requirement is inapplicable, and the alien must have an opportunity to apply for release on bond or parole. Four other Circuits have rejected this interpretation of the statute, and we agree that the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation is wrong. We therefore reverse the judgments below and remand for further proceedings."
Justice Breyer for the dissent: "In my view, the Court should interpret the words of this statute to reflect Congress’ likely intent, an intent that is consistent with our basic values. To speak more technically, I believe that aliens are subject to paragraph (2)’s bar on release only if they are detained “when . . . released” from criminal custody. To speak less technically, I fear that the Court’s contrary interpretation will work serious harm to the principles for which American law has long stood."