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...
Garcia Rogel v. Garland (unpub.)
"Petitioner ... argues that even if the police report was properly admitted into evidence, the IJ erred by giving the report substantial weight, contrary to In re Arreguin de Rodriguez, 21 I. & N. Dec. 38 (B.I.A. 1995). ... We agree with Petitioner that the IJ in this case did not comply with Arreguin. Arreguin directs that arrest records that did not result in a conviction or are not corroborated should not be given “substantial weight” in the decisionmaking process. 21 I. & N. Dec. at 42; see Sorcia, 643 F.3d at 126 (“[I]nsofar as the BIA declined to give substantial weight to Sorcia’s charge, it was following, rather than contradicting, precedent.”). Although the BIA in Arreguin did not quantify the meaning of “substantial weight,” the term surely encompasses the dispositive weight that the IJ accorded the police report at issue here. ... Because the IJ did not comply with Arreguin, a single member of the BIA was not authorized to hear Petitioner’s appeal of the IJ’s decision. By default, an appeal to the BIA “shall be assigned to a single . . . member for disposition” unless it “meets the standards for assignment to a three-member panel under [8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(6)].” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e). But “if a case does meet the standard for adjudication by a three-member panel, a single member shall not decide it.” Quinteros-Mendoza v. Holder, 556 F.3d 159, 162–63 (4th Cir. 2009) (emphasis in original). One of those circumstances requiring review by a three member panel is when the IJ’s decision “is not in conformity with the law or with applicable precedents.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(6)(iii). Petitioner’s appeal of the IJ’s decision therefore should have been adjudicated by a three member panel of the BIA. ... In conclusion, we grant the petition for review so that the IJ may reconsider the police report in light of In re Arreguin de Rodriguez, 21 I. & N. Dec. 38 (B.I.A. 1995)."
[Hats off to Superlitigator Ben Winograd!]