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...
Montejo-Gonzalez v. Garland (2-1) "On their way to an initial hearing before an immigration judge (“IJ”) in Seattle, Washington, Claudia Elena Montejo-Gonzalez and her two minor children...
Acacia Center for Justice "Join us today, Thursday, October 17, 2024 at 3:00-4:30 pm ET for a webinar on how legal service providers can overcome burnout. We will explore strategies that policymakers...
USCIS, Oct. 15, 2024 "DHS recently issued a new class of admission (COA) of Military Parole in Place (MIL) to better reflect parole granted under a longstanding process for certain U.S. military...
Attorney Alan Lee has thoughts: SHIFTING DATES OF AGE BEING FROZEN AND REFROZEN UNDER THE CSPA AND THE CONSEQUENCES, PART 1 SHIFTING DATES OF AGE BEING FROZEN AND REFROZEN UNDER THE CSPA AND THE CONSEQUENCES...
"On March 15, 2012, Plaintiff, an immigration attorney, requested documents under FOIA from the OFLC regarding OFLC’s Program Electronic Review Management System (“PERM”). ... The 272 relevant withheld documents are better characterized as compiled for audit purposes—the documents list audit criteria, itemize the procedures OFLC staff should take when processing applications with specific audit criteria present, and contain templates of audit notification letters. To construe these documents as “compiled for law enforcement purposes” would improperly broaden the meaning of the term. As such, the Court holds that Exemption 7(E) is inapplicable to the 272 documents at issue in this matter. ... The Court’s in camera review of a portion of the relevant documents reveals that the withheld documents are not predecisional in nature. As such, Exemption 5 is inapplicable to the 272 documents withheld by Defendant as a matter of law. ... the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the exemption‐based issues." - Gluckman v. DOL, Nov. 26, 2013. [Hats off to David E. Gluckman and Jonathan L. Moore!]