• Hours & Info

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

  • https://api.whatsapp.com/send?phone=13104885414

Not sure when to file for Adjustment?

USCIS posted an announcement on its website informing adjustment of status applicants that they must use the “Application Final Action Dates” chart in the DOS Visa Bulletin for December 2015 for employment-based filings. USCIS stated that family-sponsored adjustment of status applicants may use the “Dates for Filing Visa Applications” chart in the December 2015 Visa Bulletin.

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/adjustment/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/adjustment-date/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/adjustment-of-status/

https://californiaimmigration.us/cuban-with-crimes-granted-adjustment/

Are ankle monitors fair?

An article in the New York Times discusses ICE’s use of ankle monitors as a condition of release for women detained in family detention centers. According to the article, federal officials say that using ankle monitors is an economical alternative to detention. Advocates, however, argue that the monitors are stigmatizing as well as unnecessary.

E-Verify expanded

USCIS has rolled out three changes to E-Verify,, including an update intended to make it easier for E-Verify to confirm that employment authorization has been automatically extended for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) beneficiaries, a redesign of the case details page, and an update to Further Action Notices and Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC) e-mails.

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/e-2/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/e-2-application/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/e-2-approval/

https://californiaimmigration.us/our-immigration-law-firm/

Good decision from BALCA

BALCA vacated the Certifying Officer’s (CO) denial of the employer’s application for labor certification and remanded, holding that the employer verified sponsorship upon signing the statement certifying the conditions of employment on the mailed-in application, even though the CO could not confirm the sponsorship because the CO was unable to make contact with the employer.

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/balca/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/balca-denial/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/board-of-alien-labor-certification-appeals-balca/

https://californiaimmigration.us/balca-affirms-lc-denial-due-to-notice-of-filing-deficiency/

Sometimes the US is not the land of the free

Politico reports that newly released government records show that, from mid-July 2014 through August 31, 2015, immigration judges issued nearly 2,800 removal orders for child migrants from Central America who were afforded no defense lawyer and only a single hearing. In at least 40 percent of those cases, the defendant was 16 years old or younger, and at least 392 children were 14 or younger. The article quotes AILA

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/immigrationlawyer/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/immigrationattorney/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/american-immigration-attorney/

https://californiaimmigration.us/our-immigration-law-firm/

Writ filed on Injunction Approval

An article in Politico reports that the Solicitor General of Texas wrote to the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, requesting an extension of 30 days to file a brief in opposition to the government’s petition for a writ of certiorari, which asks the Supreme Court to overturn the injunction blocking DAPA and expanded DACA. The states’ response to the petition for certiorari is currently due on December 21, 2015. The article notes that the Court is rapidly approaching a point in mid-January when it usually announces the last cases to be heard in the current term.

https://atomic-temporary-10880024.wpcomstaging.com/tag/writ/

https://atomic-temporary-10880024.wpcomstaging.com/tag/writ-of-certiorari/

https://atomic-temporary-10880024.wpcomstaging.com/tag/writ-of-certiorari-to-u-s-supreme-court/

https://californiaimmigration.us/writ-of-mandate-approved/

Be Careful and don’t violate a Protective Order

The Tenth Circuit followed Matter of Strydom, holding that violation of an order prohibiting contact with a potential victim satisfies the requirements of INA §237(a)(2)(E)(ii), which provides that a permanent resident is removable if he or she “violates the portion of a protection order that involves protection against credible threats of violence, repeated harassment, or bodily injury.” Accordingly, the court found that the permanent resident petitioner was removable under the statute.

OBAMA will VETO denial of Refugees

An article in Marketplace reports that the White House is warning Congress that President Obama would veto a bill that calls for additional background checks on Syrian refugees. The administration noted that there are already stringent background checks for refugees, and that more would only cause unnecessary delays.

Denial of Due Process Denied

The Tenth Circuit denied the petition for review, rejecting the petitioner’s claim that the BIA violated his due process rights by relying on evidence from written reports prepared by immigration officers and other written materials contained in the agency’s files to determine that he had entered into a sham marriage in order to obtain lawful permanent resident status.

You can’t get railroaded by ICE if you have a Court hearing

Matter of GARCIA-RAMIREZ, 26 I&N Dec. 674 (BIA 2015)
(1) Where an alien has the right to a hearing before an Immigration Judge, a voluntary departure or return does not break the alien’s continuous physical presence for purposes of cancellation of removal under section 240A(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A) (2012), in the absence of evidence that he or she was informed of and waived the right to such a hearing, regardless of whether the encounter occurred at or near the border. Matter of Avilez, 23 I&N Dec. 799 (BIA 2005), clarified.
(2) Evidence that an alien who had the right to a hearing before an Immigration Judge was fingerprinted and/or photographed before being allowed to voluntarily depart is not enough, in itself, to demonstrate a waiver of the right to a hearing or to show a process of sufficient formality to break continuous physical presence. Matter of Castrejon-Colino, 26 I&N Dec. 667 (BIA 2015), followed.