DOS, Aug. 16, 2024 - "The State Department, working in close collaboration with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, is pleased to announce the issuance of all legally available visas in the...
Adam Rosen writes: "I am excited to share a decision from DDC Judge AliKhan denying the government’s Motion to Dismiss a complaint challenging a 6C finding secretly made by DHS against my client...
W. John Yahya Vandenberg writes: "We just got this remand decision for a detained case in Houston (IJ McPhail), and thought it might be of interest to your readers. The Board clearly was not happy...
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...
OFLC, Aug. 15, 2024 "The Office of Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC) has released a comprehensive set of public disclosure data (through the third quarter of fiscal year 2024) drawn from employer...
Molina-Diaz v. Wilkinson
"After reviewing the record, we conclude that the IJ never gave Molina the necessary opportunity to explain why she did not provide corroborating evidence. ... Molina also argues that the BIA erred in finding that she did not adequately apply for relief under the CAT. We agree. The BIA contends otherwise because even though Molina checked the box on her Application to indicate that she "want[ed] to apply for withholding of removal under the [CAT]," her supporting affidavit did not specifically mention the CAT. This determination, however, is contrary to the BIA's own precedent as set forth in Matter of N-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 526 (BIA 2011). ... For the foregoing reasons, we grant the petition, vacate the removal order, and remand for the BIA, when considering Molina's withholding and CAT claims, to allow Molina to produce the required corroborating evidence or explain why she is unable to do so."
[Hats off to Nancy J. Kelly and John Willshire Carrera!]