White House, Sept. 30, 2024 "MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE SUBJECT: Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2025 By the authority vested in me as President by the...
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...
Texas v. Mayorkas "In September 2022, after a notice-and-comment period, the Biden administration promulgated a new Rule redefining the term ["public charge"]. In response, the State of...
White House, Sept. 30, 2024 "...I have now concluded that in order to better achieve Proclamation 10773’s goal of enhancing our ability to address historic levels of migration and more efficiently...
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 10/01/2024 "This public notice provides information on how to apply for the DV-2026 Program and is issued pursuant to the Immigration...
Barton v. Barr
[Maj. Op.] "Barton argues that the BIA and the Eleventh Circuit misinterpreted the statute. He contends that the §1182(a)(2) offense that precludes cancellation of removal must be one of the offenses of removal. We disagree with Barton, and we affirm the judgment of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit."
[Dissent] "At bottom, the Court’s interpretation is at odds with the express words of the statute, with the statute’s overall structure, and with pertinent canons of statutory construction. It is also at odds with common sense. With virtually every other provision of the INA, Congress granted preferential treatment to lawfully admitted noncitizens—and most of all to LPRs like Barton. But because of the Court’s opinion today, noncitizens who were already admitted to the country are treated, for the purposes of the stop-time rule, identically to those who were not—despite Congress’ express references to inadmissibility and deportability. The result is that, under the Court’s interpretation, an immigration judge may not even consider whether Barton is entitled to cancellation of removal—because of an offense that Congress deemed too trivial to allow for Barton’s removal in the first instance. Because the Court’s opinion does no justice to the INA, let alone to longtime LPRs like Barton, I respectfully dissent."