Posted on October 17, 2016 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
In a precedent decision issued today, the BIA held that IJs lack the authority to adjudicate a request for a waiver of inadmissibility under INA §212(d)(3)(A)(ii) by a petitioner for U nonimmigrant status. The BIA also concluded that the Seventh Circuit’s decision in L.D.G. v. Holder did not expressly find the language of §212(d)(3)(A) to be unambiguous, which would have left no room for agency discretion. Accordingly, the BIA will apply its ruling in this decision to cases nationwide, including cases arising in the Seventh Circuit.
https://californiaimmigration.us/nonimmigrant-waiver-by-u-s-immigration-attorney/
https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/fee-waiver/
https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/immigration-waiver/
https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/new-waiver/
Filed under: waiver | Tagged: 212(d)(3), Deportation, IJ, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer, non-immigrant waiver, nonimmigrant waiver, waiver | Leave a comment »
Posted on October 17, 2016 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
As of May 2, 2016, USCIS had receipted 32,620 beneficiaries towards the 33,000 cap for the second half of FY2016. This count includes 26,426 approved and 6,194 pending beneficiaries.
https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/h-2b/
https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/h-2b-cap/
https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/h-2b-petitions/
https://californiaimmigration.us/visas/h-2b-temporary-worker/
Filed under: H-2B | Tagged: cap, H-2B, h2b, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer | Leave a comment »
Posted on October 17, 2016 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
Posted on October 17, 2016 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
The First Circuit concluded that the BIA abused its discretion when it found that the circumstances attendant to the entry of an in absentia removal order against a young undocumented immigrant who was ill-served by two attorneys were not exceptional. Accordingly, the court remanded to the BIA with instructions to set aside the in absentia removal order and reopen the petitioner’s removal proceedings.
https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/expedited-removal/
https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/removal/
https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/removal-of-the-conditional-residence/
https://californiaimmigration.us/removal/
Filed under: Removal | Tagged: abuse of discretion, BIA, iac, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer, ineffective assitance of oucel, Removal | Leave a comment »
Posted on October 17, 2016 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
Posted on October 14, 2016 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
Posted on October 14, 2016 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
Posted on August 18, 2016 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
The Ninth Circuit held that the Flores settlement agreement applies to both minors who are accompanied and unaccompanied by their parents, and that the lower court correctly refused to amend the agreement to accommodate family detention. The court also found that the lower court erred in interpreting the agreement to provide an affirmative right to release for accompanying parents, but did not preclude such release, and explicitly made no determination about whether DHS is making otherwise appropriate and individualized release determinations for parents.
Family detention
Detention
Detained?
Stay in the U.S with your family
Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Tagged: family detention, Family Petition, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer | Leave a comment »
Posted on August 11, 2016 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
(1) A false claim to United States citizenship falls within the scope of section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) (2012), where there is direct or circumstantial evidence that the false claim was made with the subjective intent of obtaining a purpose or benefit under the Act or any other Federal or State law, and where United States citizenship actually affects or matters to the purpose or benefit sought.
(2) There is a distinction between achieving a “purpose” and obtaining a “benefit” under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act.
(3) Avoiding removal proceedings qualifies as a “purpose” within the meaning of section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act.
False claim to citizenship
Citizenship application
Derivative citizenship
Victime of crime? Try for the U visa
Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Tagged: false claim to citizenship, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Law, Immigration Lawyer | Leave a comment »
Posted on August 11, 2016 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
- In a precedent decision issued today, the BIA held that, in determining whether a noncitizen presents a danger to the community at large and thus should not be released on bond pending removal proceedings, an IJ should consider both direct and circumstantial evidence of dangerousness, including whether the facts and circumstances present national security considerations. Accordingly, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of the respondent’s request for release on bond, finding that he failed to show that, based on the totality of the facts and circumstances presented, he did not present a danger to the community pursuant to INA §236(a).
Bond meaning
Bond hearing
Bond hearings and immigration
Got dond? Get a LA deportation Attorney
Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Tagged: bond, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Law, Immigration Lawyer, syrian citizen | Leave a comment »
Brian D. Lerner Immigration Attorney & Deportation Lawyer Blog 