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...
"In its decision earlier this month in the case of Vera v. Attorney General of the U.S., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a woman who had entered the United States at the age of 12 under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) could be removed without a hearing before an immigration judge, even though the government could not produce proof that she had actually waived her right to such a hearing. The Third Circuit in Vera relied on a presumption that the waiver must have been properly executed since this was required by statute in order for Ms. Vera to be admitted under the VWP, and also on the argument, first accepted by the Third Circuit in the case of Bradley v. Attorney General of the U.S., 603 F.3d 235 (3d Cir. 2010), that there was no prejudice to Ms. Vera from any lack of a knowing and voluntary waiver because the summary removal that she now faced was the same consequence that she would have faced if she had refused to sign the waiver. This second argument, similar to one made by the en banc Seventh Circuit in Bayo v. Napolitano, 593 F.3d 495 (7th Cir. 2010), appears to be based on a misunderstanding regarding the consequences of the different types of summary removals that can occur under the VWP." - David A. Isaacson, Mar. 12, 2012.