White House, Sept. 30, 2024 "MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE SUBJECT: Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2025 By the authority vested in me as President by the...
BIB Daily presents bimonthly PERM practice tips from Ron Wada , member of the Editorial Board for Bender’s Immigration Bulletin and author of the 10+ year series of BALCA review articles, “Shaping...
Texas v. Mayorkas "In September 2022, after a notice-and-comment period, the Biden administration promulgated a new Rule redefining the term ["public charge"]. In response, the State of...
White House, Sept. 30, 2024 "...I have now concluded that in order to better achieve Proclamation 10773’s goal of enhancing our ability to address historic levels of migration and more efficiently...
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 10/01/2024 "This public notice provides information on how to apply for the DV-2026 Program and is issued pursuant to the Immigration...
Wagafe v. Trump, June 21, 2017 - "The common question here is whether CARRP is lawful. The answer is “yes” or “no.” The answer to this question will not change based on facts particular to each class member, because each class member’s application was (or will be) subjected to CARRP. ... [I]f adjudication of Plaintiffs’ applications is not happenstance, and Defendants are purposely and strategically adjudicating Plaintiffs’ applications as they are added as named Plaintiffs, such a blatant attempt to moot Plaintiffs’ claims will not gain purchase with this Court. If this is true, Defendants appear to be engaging in a strategy of picking off named Plaintiffs to insulate CARRP from meaningful judicial review. ... Plaintiffs allege that CARRP is unlawful and ask the Court to enjoin the Government from submitting putative class members’ immigration applications to CARRP. A single ruling would therefore provide relief to each member of the class. ... Having satisfied the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2), Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification (Dkt. No. 49) is GRANTED. The Court approves of the two proposed classes, appoints the five named Plaintiffs as class representatives, and appoints Plaintiffs’ counsel as class counsel for both classes. Because certification of anything less than a nationwide class would run counter to the constitutional imperative of “a uniform Rule of Naturalization,” U.S. CONST., art. I, § 8, cl. 4, class certification is nationwide."