USCIS, July 16, 2024 "U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is issuing policy guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual to address the new provisions added to the Immigration and Nationality...
DOS, July 15, 2024 " On June 18, 2024, the Biden-Harris Administration announced actions to more efficiently process employment-based nonimmigrant visas for those who have graduated from college...
Cyrus D. Mehta and Jessica Paszko, July 13, 2024 "Portability under Section 204(j) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) allows certain employment-based green card applicants to change jobs...
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 07/12/2024 "The Department of State (the Department) publishes a final rule revising the Code of Federal Regulations to amend...
Visa Bulletin for August 2024
Huynh v. Garland
"Nguyen Chi Cuong Nmn Huynh petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order affirming that he is removable because he was convicted of a state crime constituting “sexual abuse of a minor” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A). Because Huynh’s statute of conviction is plainly broader than this generic federal offense, we grant his petition for review. ... All told, Iowa Code § 728.12(3) is a mismatch for sexual abuse of a minor, so the BIA erred in holding that it’s an aggravated felony under § 1101(a)(43)(A). ... DHS also charged Huynh as removable for committing a “crime involving moral turpitude” within five years of his admission to the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i). Huynh argued that the Iowa statute doesn’t call for the necessary “vicious motive, corrupt mind, or evil intent,” see Chanmouny v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 810, 814–15 (8th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted), because it requires the defendant to have known only that he possessed an image—not that the image depicted a minor. The BIA rejected Huynh’s argument because he did not provide examples of courts applying the Iowa statute to defendants who didn’t know the person in the image was underage. The Government does not defend the BIA’s decision. Nor could it. We do not require petitioners to “prove through specific convictions that unambiguous laws really mean what they say.” Gonzalez, 990 F.3d at 660. ... We grant Huynh’s petition for review, vacate, and remand for further proceedings."
[Hats off to Al Smith (argued) and Benjamin Bergmann! Audio of the oral argument is here.]