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...
Arrazabal v. Barr
"This matter is before this court for a second time on Francisco Arrazabal’s pending requests for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Arrazabal contends that he faces the likelihood of continued persecution and torture in his native El Salvador as someone who has renounced his membership in the notorious Mara Salvatrucha gang, more commonly known as MS-13. Two years ago, we remanded the matterto the Board of Immigration Appeals (the “Board” or “BIA”) for further proceedings after concluding that both the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and the Board, in rejecting Arrazabal’s claims, had overlooked certain evidence that on its face corroborated Arrazabal’s account. Arrazabal v. Lynch, 822 F.3d 961 (7th Cir. 2016). The case returns to us now following a second hearing before an IJ, to whom additional evidence was presented, and another round of review before the Board, which again resulted in the denial of Arrazabal’s requests forrelief. Because the IJ and the Board mischaracterized certain evidence and yet again ignored the corroborative aspects of the evidence, we conclude that we must remand for further proceedings for a second time."
[Hats off to appointed pro bono counsel Samuel D. Block of Mayer Brown!]