Politico reports that three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled unanimously on Friday that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio lacked legal standing to challenge President Obama’s executive actions on immigration. Judge Nina Pillard wrote that the Arizona sheriff’s theories about how his office would be impacted by DAPA and expanded DACA were too conjectural and conclusory to allow him to move forward with the case: “Sheriff Arpaio’s content99ion is, at bottom, premised on the speculative prediction that DACA and DAPA will create incentives on third parties to behave in misinformed or irrational ways that would harm him.”
In light of Mellouli v. Lynch, the Ninth Circuit found that the Nevada statute under which the petitioner was convicted for misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia was overbroad, because it penalizes possession of paraphernalia in connection with substances not controlled under federal law. Thus, the court held that the petitioner was not categorically barred from seeking cancellation of removal, and remanded for the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to consider, in the first instance, the potential application of the modified categorical approach, as well as the merits of the petitioner’s cancellation of removal application.
Forbes reports on the current state of the EB-5 investor immigrant program and reauthorization efforts, stating “it seems doubtful that anything more ambitious than a short-term extension of the existing EB-5 program will be passed before the September 30th expiration date. The only problem with a short-term extension is that it will place the fate of any renewal of the program right in the middle of the 2016 Congressional elections and the Presidential campaign.”
Today, USCIS posted a policy memorandum with consolidated and authoritative guidance on the L-1B program to be used by USCIS employees for all L-1B petitions pending or filed with USCIS on or after August 31, 2015. Included in the memo is a list of prior L-1B memoranda that are superseded and rescinded. Topics discussed include the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, the definition and application of “specialized knowledge,” offsite L-1B employment, and readjudication of L-1B status.
BALCA vacated the Certifying Officer’s denial and found that, although the ETA 9089 stated that the Employee Referral Program (ERP) commenced prior to the prevailing wage validity period, recruitment under the pre-existing ERP actually began within the prevailing wage validity period, when the employees became aware of the vacancy for purposes of making a referral.
The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review and remanded, finding that a conviction under California’s theft statute is categorically not a theft offense, and thus not an aggravated felony, because the statute is both overbroad and indivisible, and such a conviction is not susceptible to the modified categorical approach pursuant to Descamps v. United States and Rendon v. Holder.
The Ninth Circuit held that the statutory criminal bar to judicial review, INA §242(a)(2)(C), does not strip the court of jurisdiction to review the denial of a procedural motion, such as a motion for a continuance, that rests on a ground independent of the conviction that triggered the bar. The court denied the petition for review, however, because it found that the Immigration Judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion to continue.