In a precedent decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that the beneficiary of a visa petition who was adopted pursuant to a state court order that was entered when the beneficiary was more than 16 years old, but with an effective date prior to his or her 16th birthday, may qualify as an adopted child under INA §101(b)(1)(E)(i), so long as the adoption petition was filed before the beneficiary’s 16th birthday, and the state in which the adoption was entered expressly permits an adoption decree to be dated retroactively.
An article in the Washington Post shares the immigration story of Miguel Aguilar, who at age 11 fled his hometown in Mexico to escape escalating violence, and who now plays professional soccer for the D.C. United team. Two-and-a-half years ago, Mr. Aguilar was granted DACA, and is believed to be the first DACA recipient to sign a major league sports contract.
In a precedent decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) found that Immigration Judges (IJs) must notify asylum applicants of the biometrics requirements, the deadline for complying with the requirements, and the consequences of noncompliance. The BIA also held that neither IJs nor the BIA has jurisdiction to consider whether asylum-only proceedings were improvidently instituted pursuant to a referral under the Visa Waiver Program.
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.”