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
Majority (Kagan) - "In Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U. S. ___ (2010), this Court held that the Sixth Amendment requires an attorney for a criminal defendant to provide advice about the risk of deportation arising from a guilty plea. We consider here whether that ruling applies retroactively, so that a person whose conviction became final before we decided Padilla can benefit from it. We conclude that, under the principles set out in Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989), Padilla does not have retroactive effect."
Dissent (JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG joins) - "The Court holds today that Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U. S. ___ (2010), announced a “new” rule within the meaning of Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288, 301 (1989), and so does not apply to convictions that became final before its announcement. That is wrong, because Padilla did nothing more than apply the existing rule of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984), in a new setting, the same way the Court has done repeatedly in the past: by surveying the relevant professional norms and concluding that they unequivocally required attorneys to provide advice about the immigration consequences of a guilty plea. Because Padilla fell squarely within the metes and bounds established by Strickland, I respectfully dissent."
- Chaidez v. U.S., Feb. 20, 2013.