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...
Kansas v. Garcia (5-4)
Majority - "Kansas law makes it a crime to commit “identity theft” or engage in fraud to obtain a benefit. Respondents—three aliens who are not authorized to work in this country—were convicted under these provisions for fraudulently using another person’s Social Security number on state and federal tax-withholding forms that they submitted when they obtained employment. The Supreme Court of Kansas held that a provision of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), 100 Stat. 3359, expressly preempts the Kansas statutes at issue insofar as they provide a basis for these prosecutions. We reject this reading of the provision in question, as well as respondents’ alternative arguments based on implied preemption. We therefore reverse."
Dissent - "I agree with the majority that nothing in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), 100 Stat. 3359, expressly preempts Kansas’ criminal laws as they were applied in the prosecutions at issue here. But I do not agree with the majority’s conclusion about implied preemption. ... I would hold that federal law impliedly preempted Kansas’ criminal laws as they were applied in these cases. Because the majority takes a different view, with respect, I dissent."