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...
Lopez-Chavez v. Garland
"In May 2017, an Immigration Judge (IJ) determined that Lopez-Chavez is ineligible for cancellation of removal because his 2006 federal conviction for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 qualifies as an aggravated felony. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s ruling and dismissed Lopez-Chavez’s administrative appeal the following year. The question now before the court is whether Lopez-Chavez’s 2006 conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony under the INA, thus making Lopez-Chavez statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. We hold that it does not. ... Because Lopez-Chavez’s 2003 Missouri marijuana conviction is not a categorical match for the corresponding federal offense in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B), the 2006 conviction for illegal reentry under § 1326 does not qualify as an aggravated felony under § 1101(a)(43)(O). Accordingly, Lopez-Chavez is not statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. We grant the petition for review, vacate the BIA’s order, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion."
[Hats off to Andrew K. Nietor!]