VELAZQUEZ V. GARLAND DECISION BELOW: 88 F.4th 1301 (CA10) CERT. GRANTED 7/2/2024 QUESTION PRESENTED: Federal immigration law allows the government to grant a "voluntary departure" period...
Gutierrez v. Garland "Sergio Manrique Gutierrez petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal of an order of removal by an Immigration...
BIA, June 28, 2024 "The Board of Immigration Appeals welcomes interested members of the public to file amicus curiae briefs discussing the below issue(s): ISSUE(S) PRESENTED: What is the scope of...
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 07/03/2024 "MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE [and] THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY SUBJECT: Extending Eligibility...
DOL, July 2, 2024 "The Employment and Training Administration published an FRN on June 24, 2024 updating the AEWRs under the H-2A temporary agricultural employment program that apply to a limited...
Urbina-Urbina v. Garland (unpub.)
"This is a consolidated petition seeking review of three orders from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), affirming decisions from an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying Petitioners’ motions to reopen. For the reasons set forth below, we VACATE the BIA decision and REMAND for reconsideration. ... Statutory notice is the central issue in this case. All three family members argued before the BIA that they did not receive proper notice of the removal hearing, and thus that they should not have been removed in absentia. ... The reasoning relied on by the BIA in its holding is now foreclosed by Fifth Circuit precedent. In Rodriguez v. Garland, 15 F.4th 351 (5th Cir. 2021), we held that “in the in absentia context,” an NTA must consist of “a single document containing the required information” regarding the removal hearing. Id. at 355. Rodriguez controls the outcome of this case because here, as in Rodriguez, the initial NTAs did not contain the date and time of the removal hearings. Id. And here, just as in Rodriguez, the BIA concluded that the deficiency was cured by a “subsequent notice of hearing specifying that information.” Id. The BIA’s conclusion to that effect was an abuse of discretion, as it was based on an erroneous interpretation of a statute. See Barrios-Cantarero, 772 F.3d at 1021. ... Accordingly, we VACATE the three BIA decisions and REMAND the three cases for reconsideration in light of Rodriguez v. Garland, 15 F.4th 351 (5th Cir. 2021)."
[Hats off, yet again, to Raed Gonzalez!]