DOL, July 26, 2024 "On August 7, 2024, the Department of Labor will host a public webinar to educate stakeholders, program users, and other interested members of the public on the changes to the...
Atud v. Garland (unpub.) "Mathurin A. Atud petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings based on alleged ineffective...
Shen v. Garland "Peng Shen, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. An Immigration Judge ...
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 07/25/2024 "On January 17, 2017, DHS published a final rule with new regulatory provisions guiding the use of parole on a case...
Lance Curtright reports: "After the 5th Circuit’s initial decision in Membreno, [ Membreno-Rodriguez v. Garland, 95 F.4th 219 ] my law partner Paul Hunker (a new AILA member!) reached out to...
Williams v. Barr
"Robert Junior Williams petitions for review of a 2018 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision ordering him removed based on his 2016 Connecticut state conviction for carrying a pistol or revolver without a permit, in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 29-35(a). The BIA rejected Williams’s argument that section 29-35(a) criminalizes conduct that is not a “firearms offense” under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(C), and that section 29-35(a) is therefore not a removable offense. Williams’s argument turns on a comparison of the “antique firearms” transportation exception of section 29-35(a) and the general exception for 2 “antique firearms” found in the definition of an INA “firearms offense.” We conclude that the BIA erred in ruling that the exceptions are of equivalent reach and that the state statute is a categorical match to the federal statute. Furthermore, because our conclusion is determined by the text of the relevant statutes, the “realistic probability” test does not apply here, contrary to the BIA’s alternative holding. See Hylton v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 57, 63 (2d Cir. 2018). The petition for review is GRANTED. The order of removal is VACATED, and the cause is REMANDED to the BIA with directions to terminate Williams’s removal proceedings."
[Hats off to Elyssa Williams!]