Arizona v. Garland "This is a challenge by 19 states to an administrative action of the Executive Branch establishing a new procedure for adjudicating asylum applications under federal immigration...
Moran v. Mayorkas "At the time of Mr. Valadez Moran's birth, it is more likely than not that his mother, Ms. Moran, was a citizen of the United States by virtue of her birth in Elsa, Texas on...
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 04/19/2024 "Notice of a Memorandum of Cooperation (MOC) between the Government of the United States and the Government of Japan...
Courtesy of AILA; AILA Doc. 24022603 "The Department of State’s Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for Consular Affairs (L/CA), in coordination with the Visa Office in the Bureau of Consular...
Abdulahad v. Garland "Walid Abdulahad petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (the “Board”) denial of his motion to reopen based on changed country conditions...
"The petitioner was incorporated in 1997 in the State of Illinois. It is engaged in ground transportation services. The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C), as a multinational executive or manager.
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish the following: (1) that the beneficiary is an employee and not the employer; (2) that the beneficiary will manage a subordinate staff of professional, managerial, or supervisory personnel who will relieve the beneficiary from performing the day-to-day duties of the business; (3) that the foreign entity is doing business; and (4) that the petitioner has been doing business for at least one year. ...
The director's finding with respect to the first ground of denial is inappropriate...
The director's finding with respect to the second ground is unsupported by the record and inappropriate...
The director's finding with respect to the third ground is unsupported by the record or the law. ...
The director's finding with respect to the fourth ground is erroneous as a matter of law...
After a thorough review of the record, the AAO finds that the director's denial is deficient as it is based upon unsupported conclusions of law and fact. As the decision is void of an accurate, factual analysis of the evidence of record, there is no indication that the director considered all of the relevant documentation submitted in support of the initial petition. Nor did the director make an effort to obtain additional evidence or information upon which to draw a proper conclusion. Accordingly, the case will be remanded for a new decision. The director may issue a notice requesting any additional evidence he deems necessary in order to determine the petitioner's eligibility for the benefit sought.
ORDER: The decision of the director dated October 28, 2008 is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for fUliher action and consideration consistent with the above discussion and entry of a new decision, which, if adverse, shall be certified to the AAO for review." - LIN 09 003 51970, June 13, 2013. [Hats off to Mark S. Davidson!]
[Correct result...but why did it take 5 years?]