• Hours & Info

    (562) 495-0554
    M-F: 8:00am - 6:00 p.m.
    Sat: 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
  • Social

  • Past Blog Posts

New case out on Perjury

(1) The generic definition of “perjury” in section 101(a)(43)(S) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(S) (2012), requires that an offender make a material false statement knowingly or willfully while under oath or affirmation where an oath is authorized or required by law.
(2) The crime of perjury in violation of section 118(a) California Penal Code is categorically an offense relating to perjury under section 101(a)(43)(S) of the Act.


New Fees Now Here

New Fees went into effect on December 23, 2016. You should use the new forms as well.

NY ST Dept of Transp on National Interest Waivers VACATED

Today the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Jeh Jonson, has designated as precedential the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office’s (AAO) decision in Matter of Dhanasar.  This precedent decision vacates Matter of New York State Dep’t of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Acting Assoc. Comm’r 1998). The case can be found in the Virtual Law Library of the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review.

This precedent decision means that USCIS may grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the foreign national’s proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirement of a job offer and thus of a labor certification.

The Secretary of DHS may, with the Attorney General’s approval, designate AAO or other DHS decisions to serve as precedents in all future proceedings involving the same issue or issues. Precedent decisions are binding on DHS employees except as modified or overruled by later precedent decisions, statutory changes, or regulatory changes. AAO precedent decisions may announce new legal interpretations or agency policy, or they may reinforce existing law and policy by demonstrating how it applies to a unique set of facts.

Serving the NTA

Where the Department of Homeland Security seeks to re-serve a respondent to effect proper service of a notice to appear that was defective under the regulatory requirements for serving minors under the age of 14, a continuance should be granted for that purpose. Matter of E-S-I-, 26 I&N Dec. 136 (BIA 2013), followed.

Don’t commit fraud with Asylum

(1) An untimely application for asylum may be found frivolous under section 208(d)(6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6) (2012). Luciana v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 502 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2007), distinguished. Matter of X-M-C-, 25 I&N Dec. 322 (BIA 2010), followed.
(2) The respondent’s asylum application is frivolous because he deliberately made a false statement postdating by more than 2 years his date of entry into this country, which is a material element in determining his eligibility to seek asylum given the general requirement to file the application within 1 year of the date of arrival in the United States.

USCIS publishes interim rule on T nonimmigrants

regulations governing the requirements and procedures for victims of human trafficking who seek T nonimmigrant status, in order to respond to public comments on the initial 2002 T visa rule and conform with legislation that has since been passed. The interim rule will take effect on January 18, 2017. Comments on the amendments to Form I-914, Application for T Nonimmigrant Status, are due by January 18, 2017; other comments are due by February 17, 2017.

K4 return to home is invalid

The Third Circuit reversed the BIA and remanded, holding that 8 CFR §245.1(i), which effectively bars K-4 visa holders who were between 18 and 21 years old when their parent married a U.S. citizen from obtaining lawful permanent residence without first returning to their home country, is invalid, because it is “manifestly contrary” to the INA. Accordingly, the court found that the petitioner, a K-4 visa holder who was 19 years old when her mother married a U.S. citizen, was eligible to adjust her status to that of a lawful permanent resident.

%d bloggers like this: