BRIEF OF FORMER EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES AND AFFIRMANCE "Amici are former officials of the Department of State, Department of Homeland Security...
Kumar v. Garland "Sandeep Kumar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which dismissed his appeal of the decision by the...
Save Jobs USA v. DHS "The Department of Homeland Security issued a rule that allows certain visa holders to work in the United States. Save Jobs USA challenged the rule, arguing that DHS exceeded...
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...
USA v. Abbott Majority: "[W]e hold that the district court clearly erred in finding that the United States will likely prove that the barrier is in a navigable stretch of the Rio Grande." ...
Kumar v. Garland
"Sandeep Kumar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which dismissed his appeal of the decision by the Immigration Judge (IJ) to deny his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Among other things, the BIA agreed with the IJ’s conclusion that Kumar did not establish that his past harm, when cumulatively considered, rose to the level of persecution. Specifically, the BIA determined that Kumar’s experience of threats and a physical beating from members of an opposing political party did not constitute persecution when considered cumulatively, because Kumar failed to adequately show that the threats caused him significant actual suffering or harm. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings."
[Hats off to Inderraj Singh!]