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
"When the proceedings against Guzman commenced, consideration for waiver of deportation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1995) (INA § 212(c)) was available. However, the AEDPA was enacted a few months later and under its provisions § 1182(c) was amended to entirely eliminate the phrase “served for such felony . . . a term of imprisonment of at least 5 years.” AEDPA § 440(d). However, as we have previously held, the § 440(d) provision was not effective as to proceedings which had commenced prior to the date of its enactment. See Magana-Pizano v. INS, 200 F.3d 603, 611 (9th Cir. 1999). In other words, when Guzman pled guilty to first degree robbery, the protections previously offered by § 1182(c) remained in full force and effect. By the time Guzman pled guilty, IIRIRA had also been enacted and it eliminated relief under § 1182(c) (INA § 212(c)). IIRIRA § 304(b). However, that provision did not apply to aliens, like Guzman, whose proceedings had commenced before the enactment of IIRIRA. See Pascua v. Holder, 641 F.3d 316, 321 (9th Cir. 2011). In other words, at the time Guzman pled guilty, for him the § 1182(c) relief provision was “in full bloom, [and] the amending and repealing statutes did not retroactively take away that provision.” United States v. Leon-Paz, 340 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 2003). In short, the IJ erred when she failed to tell Guzman of the possibility that § 1182(c) (INA § 212(c)) relief was available; that violated his due process rights. Moreover, “the district court erred when it held to the contrary.” Leon-Paz, 340 F.3d at 1007." - USA v. Guzman-Ibarez, July 6, 2015. [Hats off to the L.A. Federal Defenders!]