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...
"The respondent's motion alleges that a United States official advised her that in obtaining the respondent's travel documents, for the purpose of removal, he communicated by email with the Chinese Consulate in such a way as to breach the confidentiality requirements at 8 C.F .R. § 1208.6. According to the respondent, she asked the official for copies of the emails, and he advised her that he deleted them. The respondent has proffered evidence of her attempts to obtain copies of the emails as well as other evidence concerning information supplied to the Chinese Consulate. The respondent asserts that circumstances in China have changed based in part on the government's awareness that the respondent is a failed asylum seeker. While the DHS has filed a statement of opposition to the motion, the DHS does not dispute the respondent's claims that confidentiality requirements may have been breached. We find it appropriate to reopen pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) and remand the record to the Immigration Judge for proceedings on whether the respondent is eligible for withholding of removal under the Act or protection under the Convention Against Torture in light of the new evidence in this matter." - Matter of X-, Feb. 26, 2013.
Hats off to Joshua Bardavid!