OFLC, May 26, 2023
1. OFLC announces case submission for the Form ETA 9089 for PERM in FLAG on June 1, 2023
OFLC previously announced a delay to the date on which it will transition PERM submission...
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 05/26/2023
"The Department of State (the Department) is delaying the effective date of a final rule that appeared in the Federal...
ICE, May 2, 2023
"In February 2023, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) provided updated guidance that consular officers can now issue an F or M student visa up to 365 days in advance of an international...
Cyrus D. Mehta & Jessica Paszko, May 23, 2023
"Just a couple of months ago we considered the options available to terminated H-1B workers who want to become entrepreneurs . Since then, layoffs...
State Department, May 19, 2023
"The Department of State is processing visas more efficiently than ever while upholding our national security responsibilities. We are continuously reducing the time...
"In its decision earlier this month in the case of Vera v. Attorney General of the U.S.,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a woman who
had entered the United States at the age of 12 under the Visa Waiver
Program (VWP) could be removed without a hearing before an immigration
judge, even though the government could not produce proof that she had
actually waived her right to such a hearing. The Third Circuit in Vera
relied on a presumption that the waiver must have been properly executed
since this was required by statute in order for Ms. Vera to be admitted
under the VWP, and also on the argument, first accepted by the Third
Circuit in the case of Bradley v. Attorney General of the U.S.,
603 F.3d 235 (3d Cir. 2010), that there was no prejudice to Ms. Vera
from any lack of a knowing and voluntary waiver because the summary
removal that she now faced was the same consequence that she would have
faced if she had refused to sign the waiver. This second argument,
similar to one made by the en banc Seventh Circuit in Bayo v. Napolitano,
593 F.3d 495 (7th Cir. 2010), appears to be based on a misunderstanding
regarding the consequences of the different types of summary removals
that can occur under the VWP." - David A. Isaacson, Mar. 12, 2012.