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...
Montejo-Gonzalez v. Garland (2-1) "On their way to an initial hearing before an immigration judge (“IJ”) in Seattle, Washington, Claudia Elena Montejo-Gonzalez and her two minor children...
Acacia Center for Justice "Join us today, Thursday, October 17, 2024 at 3:00-4:30 pm ET for a webinar on how legal service providers can overcome burnout. We will explore strategies that policymakers...
USCIS, Oct. 15, 2024 "DHS recently issued a new class of admission (COA) of Military Parole in Place (MIL) to better reflect parole granted under a longstanding process for certain U.S. military...
Attorney Alan Lee has thoughts: SHIFTING DATES OF AGE BEING FROZEN AND REFROZEN UNDER THE CSPA AND THE CONSEQUENCES, PART 1 SHIFTING DATES OF AGE BEING FROZEN AND REFROZEN UNDER THE CSPA AND THE CONSEQUENCES...
Renowned J-1 and hardship expert Bruce Hake emailed this comment to USCIS on Nov. 19, 2015.
Excerpt: "There is a legal error in footnote 1 to the draft USCIS Policy Manual: Vol. 9, Part B: Extreme Hardship (draft). Every year this error could harm hundreds of J-1 nonimmigrants and their U.S. citizen family members.
The error is in this sentence of the footnote: “It also does not address those discretionary relief provisions that require a showing of greater hardship. See INA § 212(e) (“exceptional hardship” waiver of two-year foreign residence requirement for certain exchange visitors) and INA § 240A(b)(1)(D) (“exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” generally required for cancellation of removal Part B).”
It is emphatically not true that an INA § 212(e) exceptional hardship waiver requires a showing of “greater hardship” than the extreme hardship required for various other kinds of waivers and discretionary relief. To the contrary, the opposite is probably true."
Background: