Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner
Deportation Lawyers & Immigration Attorneys Helping Families Nationwide
This morning, USCIS announced it has randomly selected a sufficient number of registrations for unique beneficiaries needed to reach the FY2025 regular H-1B cap from the remaining properly submitted FY2025 registrations and notified all selected registrations. The agency reminds filers that all applications must include current filing fees, including Form I-907 if included, and the new version of Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker.
The U.S. Department of State (DOS) has provided information following a major federal court order. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California certified a class in the consolidated cases of Farangis Emami, et al. v. Alejandro Mayorkas, et al. and Pars Equality Center, et al. v. Antony Blinken, et al. This legal action was on behalf of visa applicants who were refused visas under Presidential Proclamation 9645. This proclamation, often called the “Muslim Ban” or “Travel Ban,” was in effect from December 8, 2017, to January 20, 2021.
The court order provides specific relief for a group of individuals known as “class members.” You may be a class member if you are a national of Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, or Yemen. You must have also been denied a visa under Proclamation 9645 between December 8, 2017, and January 20, 2021. This includes both immigrant and non-immigrant visa applicants. However, there are some exceptions. For example, individuals who were denied a diversity visa or who received a waiver under the proclamation are not eligible for this relief.
Starting on August 12, 2024, eligible class members were able to receive a one-time, non-transferable fee credit. This credit can be used to submit a new visa application. Additionally, eligible class members have the option to receive a prioritized visa appointment. This is a significant benefit, as visa applicants often face long waiting periods for appointments, particularly at certain U.S. embassies and consulates. The court order also requires consular posts to process these new visa applications without prejudice from the prior denial under Proclamation 9645.
To claim the benefits, eligible class members must first complete a new visa application form (either the DS-160 for non-immigrants or the DS-260 for immigrants). After completing the form, they must follow specific instructions provided by the Department of State to indicate that they are an “Emami Class Member.” This is crucial for their application to be correctly processed and for the fee credit to be applied. The Department of State has set up a verification process, and individuals must provide information from their previously refused application to confirm their identity and eligibility.
The Department of State has identified over 24,000 potential class members based on its records. The attorneys for the plaintiffs are also attempting to reach out to class members using contact information from their old applications. This litigation is a major step toward addressing the lasting effects of the travel ban on affected individuals and families. It provides a concrete and streamlined pathway for them to re-apply for the visas they were previously denied.
Official Statement: DOL Fixes Job Title Issue
The Department of Labor (DOL) has fixed a technical issue. The issue affected job titles on PERM certifications. The announcement came via the Foreign Labor Application Gateway (FLAG) portal. This online system is used for various foreign labor applications.
The issue was with the Certification Approval Appendix for the PERM (Program Electronic Review Management) program. A technical glitch had caused the job title field to be left blank on some PDF certifications. This was a significant problem for employers and immigration lawyers. The PERM certification is a crucial document for the next step in the green card process, which is filing Form I-140 with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
The DOL has now confirmed that all affected documents have been regenerated. The corrected files now show the correct job titles. They are available on the PERM Filers FLAG Dashboard. Users can print the corrected certifications from the “Historical” tab in the ETA Form 9089 section of their FLAG account.
USCIS has also provided important information. It confirmed that filing an I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, with the original, uncorrected PERM certification should not cause a problem. This means that using the flawed document will not negatively affect the I-140 petition’s outcome.
This confirmation is a key safety measure for petitioners. It prevents unnecessary delays or rejections for those who already filed their I-140. USCIS can still process the petition based on the other information provided.
The PERM program is an essential step for many employment-based green card applicants. It requires employers to prove they could not find a qualified U.S. worker for the job. Once approved, the PERM certification supports the I-140 petition. This is the official request to classify the foreign worker as eligible for a green card.
The quick action by both the DOL and USCIS is a positive sign. It shows they are working together to reduce problems in the immigration process. The resolution of this technical error minimizes disruption for employers and foreign workers. This is a helpful development for those on the long journey to permanent residency.
USCIS announced a final rule implementing the triennial, inflation-based update to the International Entrepreneur Rule (IER) investment and revenue thresholds, effective October 1, 2024. The IER allows qualifying startup founders to seek parole to grow high-potential U.S. companies that deliver jobs and public benefit through the oversight of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
What changed
Under the rule, DHS automatically adjusts the dollar amounts in 8 C.F.R. §212.19 every three years to preserve the standard’s real value. As of Oct. 1, 2024, the minimum qualifying investment from U.S. investors and the revenue/receipt benchmarks rose to reflect inflation. (These are eligibility thresholds; the IER filing fee did not change with this update. These adjustments are overseen by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to ensure compliance and integrity.)
Who can qualify under IER
Founders must show:
For a concise explainer tailored to applicants, see our firm’s summary of the October 2024 IER update. Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner
Legal Background: Understanding Wilkinson v. Garland
In a decision dated June 24, 2024, the court in Santiago Lopez v. Garland determined it could not hear the petitioner’s challenge to an immigration judge’s (IJ) ruling. The Mexican petitioner had been denied cancellation of removal, a form of immigration relief. The court held that under the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Wilkinson v. Garland, it lacked jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary decision.
This case hinges on a critical distinction in immigration law: the difference between reviewable “questions of law” and unreviewable “discretionary decisions.”
In the case of Santiago Lopez, the court found that his challenge was not to a legal question but to the discretionary part of the IJ’s decision. The IJ in Lopez’s case had assumed for the sake of argument that Lopez had met the statutory requirements for eligibility, including the hardship standard. The IJ then went on to deny relief as a matter of discretion, based on a balance of positive and negative factors in the petitioner’s record. In Lopez’s case, the court noted that the IJ’s decision was based on “his history of drunk driving and disregard for U.S. laws.” The court concluded that this type of balancing of equities, where the judge weighs a petitioner’s positive factors against their negative ones, is a purely discretionary act.
Because the IJ’s decision to deny relief was an exercise of discretion, not the application of a legal standard to established facts, the court determined that it did not have the authority to review the decision. The ruling in Wilkinson allows for a review of whether the hardship standard was properly applied, but it does not open the door for a review of the ultimate discretionary decision to grant or deny relief. The court’s decision in Santiago Lopez affirms that while the scope of judicial review has expanded, it does not extend to second-guessing an immigration judge’s final discretionary judgment.
Chicharrones vinyl woke authentic vegan cred irony readymade skateboard flannel. Tumeric swag iceland pop-up yr butcher, coloring book.
John Stones
Chicharrones vinyl woke authentic vegan cred irony readymade skateboard flannel. Tumeric swag iceland pop-up yr butcher, coloring book.
John Stones
In Alfaro Manzano v. Garland, a court held that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) made a legal error in an asylum case. The petitioner was denied asylum, but granted withholding of removal. The immigration judge (IJ) found that while his religion was a reason for his persecution, it was not “one central reason,” which is the stricter standard required for asylum. The BIA affirmed this decision, but the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disagreed.
The key issue in this case was the interpretation of the asylum standard. Under U.S. immigration law, to be granted asylum, an applicant must prove they are a refugee. This means they must show they have a well-founded fear of persecution “on account of” a protected ground, such as race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. The law requires that the protected ground be “at least one central reason” for the feared persecution. This standard can be complex, especially when persecutors have multiple motives.
The petitioner in this case, a Jehovah’s Witness from El Salvador, was targeted by a gang. The gang members tried to extort him, but they also threatened him because he was a preacher. He spoke to young people in his community about choosing a religious life over joining a gang. The BIA and the IJ concluded that the gang’s primary motive was to extort him for money and power. They saw the religious motivation as “incidental” or “subordinate” to this main goal. They therefore denied asylum.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the BIA’s decision. The court explained that a motive can be “one central reason” for persecution even if it’s not the only reason. When there are mixed motives, the protected ground must be “primary, essential, or principal” and cannot play a “minor role.” The court found that the record in this case compelled the conclusion that the petitioner’s religion was a central reason for the persecution. Even if the gang had not sought to extort him, his religious practice of preaching, which directly challenged the gang’s influence, would have been enough to cause the harm. The court held that it was an error for the BIA to treat the motives as mutually exclusive. It remanded the case back to the BIA for further proceedings. This decision is important because it clarifies the “one central reason” standard and provides a more comprehensive framework for analyzing cases with mixed motives for persecution.
In a decision on June 27, 2024, a court ruled on the case of Cordero-Garcia v. Garland. The issue of aggravated felony immigration was central to the court’s findings. The court found that a conviction under California Penal Code §136.1(b)(1) is an aggravated felony. This California law outlaw stopping someone from reporting a crime. The court held that it is an “offense relating to obstruction of justice” under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
In U.S. immigration law, an Aggravated Felony is a critical designation that carries severe consequences. Unlike criminal law, this category includes many offenses that may be classified as misdemeanors at the state level.
Consulting a specific attorney is vital to challenge these ranking and protect your legal status.
“Aggravated felony” is a term of art in immigration law that triggers some of the harshest consequences a noncitizen can face: mandatory deportability in many cases, ineligibility for cancellation of removal and many other forms of relief, mandatory detention in removal proceedings, and permanent bars to naturalization and reentry. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA §101(a)(43)) lists dozens of categories that can qualify as aggravated felonies.
We provide conviction audits, plea-negotiation recommendations, and immigration litigation strategies to protect clients exposed to aggravated-felony consequences.
In Rosales-Mendez v. Att’y Gen., the court held that an immigration official was not required to provide notice of a removal hearing. This was because the petitioner, Rosales-Mendez, had provided an inaccurate address and failed to correct it. The court determined that her actions excused the government from its duty to provide proper notice.
Under federal law, noncitizens in removal proceedings have a legal responsibility to provide the government with a current and accurate address. If an address changes, the noncitizen must notify the government within five business days. This is done by filing a Form AR-11, Alien’s Change of Address Card, or by updating their information online through the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) website.
The purpose of this requirement is simple. It allows the government, specifically the immigration court, to send important hearing notices and documents to the correct location. Failure to do so can have severe consequences.
In this case, the court’s decision hinged on the petitioner’s failure to meet her legal obligation. Because her provided address was inaccurate, the court found that the government’s attempts to provide notice were legally sufficient. The court’s reasoning aligns with a long-standing legal principle: a person cannot benefit from their own failure to follow a clear procedural rule.
When a person fails to appear for a removal hearing after being properly notified, an immigration judge can issue an in absentia removal order. This means the person is ordered deported without being present. It can be difficult to reopen a case after an in absentia order has been issued. The person must prove they did not receive notice due to “exceptional circumstances” or that the notice was not properly provided to the address they had on file.
The ruling in Rosales-Mendez serves as a strong reminder to all noncitizens in removal proceedings. Maintaining an accurate address with the government is not a suggestion; it is a legal requirement with serious consequences. Failure to do so can result in the loss of one’s legal case and a removal order without the opportunity to present a defense. This case underscores the importance of procedural compliance in the complex and unforgiving immigration system.
DOS final rule revising the Code of Federal Regulations to amend requirements for accreditation and approval by the United States to provide adoption services in intercountry adoption cases. The final rule becomes effective 1/8/25.
The Department of State (DOS) has announced a Final Rule amending the Code of Federal Regulations. This impacts various aspects of the immigration process.
Key changes include updates to Special Immigrant Visas for U.S. government employees and revisions to intercountry adoption requirements. Additionally, there is an increased focus on enhanced vetting and social media screening for certain visa applicants, like H-1B and H-4. This signals a move towards stricter security measures and potentially longer processing times.
The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is the consolidated codification of rules published in the Federal Register by federal agencies. For immigration practice, the CFR contains the binding regulatory text that implements statutes in the Immigration & Nationality Act and governs agency procedures, filing requirements, and substantive eligibility rules (for example, many immigration regulations appear in Title 8 of the CFR).
We prepare regulatory citations, track rule changes, and draft CFR-based arguments for filings and appeals.
USCIS periodically updates its Policy Manual—the agency’s single, consolidated source of adjudications guidance. These revisions matter because officers rely on the Manual to interpret statutes, regulations, and precedent when deciding your application. Even subtle edits (definitions, evidentiary standards, examples) can change outcomes.
Why this is important now
A change in the Manual can immediately affect pending and new filings.
How we help
We translate Policy Manual changes into a concrete evidence plan, update forms and cover letters, preempt RFEs, and—when necessary—reframe legal theories so your case fits the newest standard on day one.
Chicharrones vinyl woke authentic vegan cred irony readymade skateboard flannel. Tumeric swag iceland pop-up yr butcher, coloring book.
John Stones
USCIS Expands Case Status Online: Enhancing Accessibility for Applicants The enhanced portal centralizes key updates—receipt notices, biometrics appointments, interview schedules, RFEs, and final decisions—so users can monitor progress in one secure location rather than relying solely on mailed notices or telephone inquiries. With U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services focusing on efficiency, applicants have faster visibility …
USCIS issued guidance to clarify how certain petitioners for special immigrant juvenile (SIJ) classification (or their representatives) may file Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widower, or Special Immigrant. If the SIJ petitioner has less than two weeks before their 21st birthday, the petitioner may file Form I-360 in person at a USCIS field office, instead …
Today, President Biden announced a new proclamation and rule that leverage the presidential authority in sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to prevent migrants who enter the United States between ports of entry from accessing asylum.
USCIS announced the opening of an additional temporary San Francisco Asylum Office in Oakland, California. Effective May 15, 2024, asylum applicants under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Asylum Office may receive an interview notice to appear at the asylum office located in Oakland instead of San Francisco. This additional location increases the San Francisco Asylum Office’s capacity …