Filed June 7, 2023
ICE, May 11, 2023 "General Information President Biden announced the termination of the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Public Health Emergency, effective on May 11, 2023, following the termination...
State Department, June 2, 2023 "On June 17, 2023, the nonimmigrant visa (NIV) application processing fee for visitor visas for business or tourism (B1/B2s and BCCs), and other non-petition based...
EOIR, June 5, 2023 " EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW (EOIR) OFFICE OF POLICY ATTORNEY 5107 LEESBURG PIKE FALLS CHURCH , VA 22041 UNITED STATES ...
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...
US v. Palomar-Santiago
"In 1998, respondent Refugio Palomar-Santiago was removed from the United States based on a conviction for felony driving under the influence (DUI). He later returned to the United States and was indicted on one count of unlawful reentry in violation of 8 U. S. C. §1326(a). Between Palomar-Santiago’s removal and indictment, this Court held that offenses like his DUI conviction do not in fact render noncitizens removable. Palomar-Santiago now seeks to defend against his unlawful-reentry charge by challenging the validity of his 1998 removal order. By statute, defendants “may not” bring such collateral attacks “unless” they “demonstrat[e]” that (1) they “exhausted any administrative remedies that may have been available to seek relief against the [removal] order,” (2) the removal proceedings “improperly deprived [them] of the opportunity for judicial review,” and (3) “entry of the order was fundamentally unfair.” §1326(d). The question for the Court is whether Palomar-Santiago is excused from making the first two of these showings, as the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held, because his prior removal order was premised on a conviction that was later found not to be a removable offense. The Court holds that the statute does not permit such an exception. ... The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."