On Sept. 27, 2024 federal judge Geoffrey W. Crawford granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs in two cases, L.A.A.M. v. Zuchowski and C.M.Z. v. Zuchowski . Hats off to superlitigator Jesse Bless !
NILA, Sept. 26, 2024 "Today, a U.S. district court approved the settlement agreement in Garcia Perez v. USCIS , a nationwide class action regarding USCIS and EOIR policies preventing asylum seekers...
USCIS, Sept. 27, 2024 "Today, in continued support of Enduring Welcome, and by congressional directive, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced it is extending and expanding some previously...
USCIS, Sept. 25, 2024 "Policy Highlights • Clarifies that USCIS calculates the CSPA age of an applicant who established extraordinary circumstances and is excused from the sought to acquire...
NILA, Sept. 25, 2024 "Increasingly, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and other immigration agencies are challenging venue in U.S. district court lawsuits brought by noncitizens...
Matter of L-L-P-, 28 I&N Dec. 241 (BIA 2021)
An applicant for special rule cancellation of removal under section 240A(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2) (2018), based on spousal abuse must demonstrate both that the abuser was his or her lawful spouse and possessed either United States citizenship or lawful permanent resident status at the time of the abuse.
"The respondent argues that remand is warranted so that he can apply for cancellation of removal under section 240A(b)(1) of the Act because he may be able to establish the requisite 10 years of continuous physical presence for this form of relief under intervening case law from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, in whose jurisdiction this case arises. See Banuelos, 953 F.3d at 1184 (holding that the “stop-time” rule ending the period of continuous physical presence for cancellation of removal is not triggered by the combination of two documents containing the date and time of the removal hearing). Because the relevant notice to appear failed to specify the time and date of the respondent’s hearing, it was incomplete, and we agree with the respondent that he may now be able to establish the requisite period of physical presence under section 240A(b)(1)(A). Accordingly, the respondent’s appeal is dismissed and his motion to remand is granted so that he may pursue cancellation of removal under section 240A(b)(1) of the Act. ... The respondent’s appeal is dismissed. ... The respondent’s motion to remand is granted, and the record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and the entry of a new decision."