EOIR, June 5, 2023
" EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW (EOIR)
OFFICE OF POLICY
5107 LEESBURG PIKE
FALLS CHURCH , VA 22041
Cyrus D. Mehta, Kaitlyn Box, June 5, 2023
"The new ETA 9089 form has gone into effect and DOL stopped using the old version of the form on the evening of May 31, 2023. The new form does not have...
Cyrus Mehta, May 29, 2023
"I write this blog in fond memory of Mark Von Sternberg who passed away on May 16, 2023. Mark was a brilliant lawyer, scholar and writer who worked very hard on behalf...
Portillo v. DHS
"Gerardo A. Portillo petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirming his order of removal and denying his application for adjustment...
State Department, May 30, 2023
"Document Submission to KCC suspended for DV-2024 and onward.
Effective for the Diversity Visa (DV) program for fiscal year 2024 (DV-2024) and onward, selectees...
"The only issue for the Court is whether Mr. Ramirez was “inspected and admitted,” and therefore eligible to adjust his status. The determination hinges on the interplay between the adjustment of status statute, § 1255(a), and a subsection of the TPS statute, § 1254a(f)(4). The Court holds that § 1254a(f)(4) provides a pathway for a TPS beneficiary to obtain lawful permanent resident (LPR) status pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1255. See Flores v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Serv.,718 F.3d 548 (6th Cir. 2013). The facts in Flores are directly analogous to the facts in the present case. In that case, the plaintiff argued, and the court agreed, that while one must be “admitted” to gain LPR status, TPS beneficiaries are afforded with an exception under the TPS statute that operates as an inadmissibility waiver. Id. at 552. The Court adopts the Sixth Circuit holding because the plain meaning of § 1254a(f)(4) indicates that it applies to the entirety of § 1255. ... Mr. Ramirez has lawful nonimmigrant status in the United States and, through his participation in the TPS program, he has been inspected and admitted for the purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1255. Mr. Ramirez meets the requirements of § 1255(a) and Defendants’ decision to deny his application to adjust his status to that of a lawful permanent resident was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Cross- Motion for Summary Judgment, docket no. 19, and DENIES Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, docket no. 18. The Court REMANDS the case to the USCIS for review, consistent with this Order." - Ramirez v. Dougherty, May 30, 2014. [Hats off to Matt Adams, Mary Kenney and Chris Strawn!]