ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network




Connect to us

Make us Homepage



Immigration Daily

Chinese Immig. Daily

The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
© 1995-
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

All Blog Entries

  1. The Fight Book: Chapter 2: Litigation Issues, Part D

    Rami Fakhoury and Mark Levey
    Copyright @2010 Fakhoury Law Group/Rami Fakhoury
    D. Litigation Issues - Non-Discretionary Grounds of Appeal
    1.   Background to Constitutional Claims  - The Yick Wo Case (1886)
    When Agency misadministration reaches the level of constitutional harm, grounds for appeal separate and above abuse of discretion arises.  As the Fragomen v. USDOL case shows, where suits against agencies are competently presented, the courts have begun to assert jurisdiction over questions of law and constitutional issues.  While Congress has stripped the courts of power to review many types of discretionary USCIS and Immigration Court determinations, business immigration is not off-limits to litigation.
    The Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amendment has been held to attach to companies and commercial activities for many decades.  Commercial activities, and the rights of those who operate them, are particularly favored under American law.  Discrimination against certain types of businesses because of their foreign ownership has been held to be unconstitutional going back to the Chinese laundries case of 1886.  Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356 .  In that seminal decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a law regulating business that is race-neutral on its face, but is administered in a prejudicial manner, is an infringement of the Equal Protection Clause and thus lacks a "rational basis".  Justice Matthews joined by a unanimous court found:
    The necessary tendency, if not the specific purpose, of this ordinance, and of enforcing it in the manner indicated in the record, is to drive out of business all the numerous small laundries, especially those owned by Chinese, and give a monopoly of the business to the large institutions established and carried on by means of large associated Caucasian capital.  [ . . . ]
    [I]t seems to us that there has been a wide departure from the principles that have heretofore been supposed to guard and protect the rights, property, and liberties of the American people. And if, by an ordinance general in its terms and form, like the one in question, by reserving an arbitrary discretion in the enacting body to grant or deny permission to engage in a proper and necessary calling, a discrimination against any class can be made in its execution, thereby evading and in effect nullifying the provisions of the national constitution, then the insertion of provisions to guard the rights of every class and person in that instrument was a vain and futile act.
    The period of the late 1880s was in some ways very much like that today.  Following a massive expansion of U.S. industry and communications lines built largely with immigrant labor, tens of thousands of Chinese workers who had laid the tracks for the Union Pacific Railroad began to establish lives for themselves and their families in their adopted land.  Many settled and opened small shops and businesses in San Francisco, the port city where they had initially arrived.
    One of the more popular entrepreneurial ventures of Bay Area citizens from China was laundry and tailoring.
    About two-thirds of the laundry's owners and almost 90 percent of the city's laundry workers were then of Chinese origin. This did not always sit well with their neighbors.  In 1880, the city of San Francisco passed an ordinance that persons could not operate a laundry in a wooden building without a permit from the Board of Supervisors. The ordinance conferred upon the Board of Supervisors to grant or withhold these permits at their discretion.
    After passage of that ordinance, of the wooden building laundry owners who applied for a permit, not a single permit was granted to a Chinese owner, while only one out of some eighty non-Chinese applicants was       denied a permit.
    Lee Yick, who had operated a laundry in the same wooden building for many years and held a valid license to operate his laundry previously issued by the Board of Fire-Wardens. He continued to operate his laundry without further license from the supervisors, and was convicted and fined $10.00, which he refused to pay. He sued for a writ of habeaus corpus after he was imprisoned.
    2.   There is no Discretion to Discriminate: Are Indian Outsourcing Companies being Treated as the Chinese Laundries of the 21st Century?
    The Yick Wo decision was a powerful statement about equality under American law, at a time that was not universally respected, and Jim Crow racial discrimination was proliferating.  Justice Matthews did not disguise the indignation the Court felt at the fact that government power was used to put a particular type of business owned and operated by non-citizens out of business in order to advance native economic interests:
    'The effect of the execution of this ordinance in the manner indicated in the record would seem to be necessarily to close up the many Chinese laundries now existing, or compel their owners to pull down their present buildings and reconstruct of brick or stone, or to drive them outside the city and county of San Francisco . . . beyond the convenient reach of customers, either of which results would be little short of absolute confiscation of the large amount of property . . .. If this would not be depriving such parties of their property without due process of law, it would be difficult to say what would effect that prohibited result. The necessary tendency, if not the specific purpose, of this ordinance, and of enforcing it in the manner indicated in the record, is to drive out of business all the numerous small laundries, especially those owned by Chinese, and give a monopoly of the business to the large institutions established and carried on by means of large associated Caucasian capital.  
    3.  THE CHENERY II  "INFORMED DISCRETION" STANDARD:  Rulemaking by Adjudication Valid Only When the Agency Exercises Expert Judgment Applied to Limited Cases.
    Federal agencies are generally required to provide notice of proposed rules and consider comments about those rules. 5 U.S.C. ß 553. However, "interpretive" rules are exempt from this process. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A); Gunderson v. Hood, 268 F.3d 1149, 1155 (9th Cir. 2001). Interpretive rules generally clarify or explain, but cannot be inconsistent with or amend an existing rule. Gunderson, 268 F.3d at 1155.
    Where the courts have allowed agencies an exception to the APA "publication and comment" requirement to permit rulemaking by adjudication, the courts have imposed limits on that practice.  First, the agency must exercise expert judgment in an individualized determination.  This gives rise to the "informed discretion" standard articulated in the landmark Chenery II case and the line of cases that follow it.   Furthermore, the agency can only substitute its own informed discretion for normal rulemaking in limited circumstances where the need for a published rule could not be foreseen.  Once an issue is decided upon, the agency must publish its rule, and may not broadly apply ad hoc rules without publication.
    Sixty years after Yick Wo, the Court issued another landmark decision limiting the powers of government to arbitrarily shut down business.  In SEC V. CHENERY CORP., 332 U. S. 194 (1947)("Chenery II") an case brought in the immediate wake of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), involved management of a publicly-traded water company accused of illegal stock manipulation. The first time this case made it to the Supreme Court (Chenery I), the Court held that the acts committed by the company did not amount to common law fraud and therefore the SEC's stated rationale for the charges could not be sustained.
    On remand, the SEC charged the company's officials on different grounds, under its own enabling act. The court used the case as an opportunity to discuss the merits of policymaking through adjudication and retroactive rule-making by federal agencies.
    The court stated that policymaking through administrative adjudication is not necessarily wrong and may be desirable, but only under limited circumstances. Adjudication may be more flexible than rule-making and allows policy to be made on an ad hoc basis. This flexibility is important where there may be unforeseeable problems, inexperience with the problem, or the problem is so specialized in varied that a general rule would be impossible. Therefore, the choice between rule-making and adjudication lies in the informed discretion of the agency.
    Chenery II is often cited to illustrate the deference under the APA that courts have long shown to agency's powers to exercise policy-making by adjudication, and an agency may sometimes substitute its own "informed discretion" based in agency expertise for judicial decisions, where the two may conflict.  However, Chenery II and the line of decisions that follow it stand for a third major principle of Administrative Law and that is: "informed discretion" implies a requirement for application of expert judgment and reasoned analysis to individual cases rather than a blanket application of policy.  Rule-making by adjudication is an exceptional practice involving decision-making of the highest standard.  Decision-making in lieu of published rule must be of the highest standard; thus, per curium application of de facto rules is an abuse of discretion:
    administrative judgments are entitled to the greatest amount of weight by appellate courts . . . [if the product of] administrative experience, appreciation of the complexities of the problem, realization of the statutory policies, and responsible treatment of the uncontested facts. It is the type of judgment which administrative agencies are best equipped to make and which justifies the use of the administrative process. See Republic Aviation Corporation v. Labor Board, 324 U. S. 793, 324 U. S. 800.   
    4.  Chenery II:  Change in Substantial Agency Rules Without Notice and Comment is Restricted to a Case the Administrative Agency "Could Not Reasonably Foresee"
    Chenery II also laid restrictions on the circumstances under which agencies could change their rules through adjudications.  Rule-making through adjudications give an agency flexibility but, the Court held, it is acceptable in lieu of normal APA "publication and comment" procedures strictly in the context of novel circumstances[1]:
    [P]roblems may arise in a case which the administrative agency could not reasonably foresee, problems which must be solved despite the absence of a relevant general rule. Or the agency may not have had sufficient experience with a particular problem to warrant rigidifying its tentative judgment into a hard and fast rule. Or
    Page 332 U. S. 203
    the problem may be so specialized and varying in nature as to be impossible of capture within the boundaries of a general rule. In those situations, the agency must retain power to deal with the problems on a case-to-case basis if the administrative process is to be effective. There is thus a very definite place for the case-by-case evolution of statutory standards. And the choice made between proceeding by general rule or by individual, ad hoc litigation is one that lies primarily in the informed discretion of the administrative agency. See Columbia Broadcasting System v. United States, 316 U. S. 407, 316 U. S. 421.
    Where similar issues arise over and over again over a longer period of time, Chenery II is clearly telling us, published regulations are mandatory when the rule is amenable to general application or the rule made by adjudication will not receive deference. 

    [1]         II, Ibid., 332,

  2. The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) Gets It Right

    Recently, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) released a report called Refugee and Asylum Policy Reform.  Last week, I wrote about some problems with the report's methodology.  Since it's a new year, I wanted to do something more positive, so for today's post, I will discuss some recommendations in the report that I agree with. 
    The Cuban Adjustment Act
    The report recommends that the Cuban Adjustment Act be scrapped as a Cold War anachronism:
    The exemption of Cubans in the United States from being required to justify a well-founded fear of persecution if sent back to Cuba is a political rather than humanitarian provision that encourages illegal immigration from Cuba.  The Cuban Adjustment Act should be repealed and the "wet-foot-dry-foot" policy that paroles Cubans into the country should be rescinded by the president.
    While I oppose the Cuban Adjustment Act, Cuba's loss has been our gain: Rapper Cuban Link
    This policy has never made much sense to me, especially since the end of the Cold War.  I've represented Cubans who gained their residency in the U.S. through the Cuban Adjustment Act, and they have all been very nice people.  But they were not political dissidents or people who faced persecution in Cuba.  Maybe the original idea behind the Act was to score a propaganda victory against Cuba, but after 50 years of the "Revolution," I don't know that it's done much good (on the other hand, all those Cubans coming to the U.S. have greatly enhanced our country).  Rather than allow any Cuban who reaches the U.S. to remain here, we would do better to require each person to prove that he has a well-founded fear of persecution in Cuba, just like asylum seekers from other countries.    
    Coercive Family Planning
    Congress has defined the term "refugee" to include victims of China's coercive family planning policies.  The FAIR report recommends that the "expansion of the definition of a refugee to include coercive family planning policies should be reversed."  "It deviates from international practice and encourages illegal immigration from China."  
    I have always felt that it is unfair to condemn China for its one-child policy.  That country faces a very real and very dangerous population crisis, and the government instituted a policy (however unpalatable) to avoid disaster.  The law that FAIR opposes is more narrowly written than the report indicates, but it is still over-broad.   INA ß 101(a)(42)(B) defines "refugee" as follows:
    For purposes of determinations under this chapter, a person who has been forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization, or who has been persecuted for failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure or for other resistance to a coercive population control program, shall be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion, and a person who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to undergo such a procedure or subject to persecution for such failure, refusal, or resistance shall be deemed to have a well founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion.
    The law appropriately defines "refugees" to include past victims and possible future victims of forced abortion and forced sterilization.  However, those who "resist" the family planning policy are also covered.  I would limit the definition of "refugee" to include only those who suffer from the coercive policies, not those who merely oppose such policies (though in my understanding, asylum is not given willy-nilly to anyone who expresses opposition to the one-child policy, and in this respect, I think FAIR's concern is a bit over-blown). 
    Asylum Fraud
    The FAIR report is concerned with "combating the documented fraud in the asylum system."  Fraud is a problem in the asylum system, and it is one I have written about before in a post creatively titled Fraud and Asylum.  I believe the most effective method to combat fraud-and I did not see this mentioned in the FAIR report-is to aggressively go after attorneys and notarios who engage in fraudulent practices.  To quote my own blog on this point:
    Another option is to identify attorneys and notarios who prepare claims deemed suspicious.  Such people should be investigated and, if evidence of fraud is uncovered, prosecuted.  This, to me, is the easiest and most effective solution.  The DHS attorneys generally know who is producing and/or facilitating fraudulent claims.  Why not send an undercover investigator posing as a client to the suspected attorney?  If the attorney suggests that the "client" engage in fraud, the attorney could be charged with a crime....  Such tactics would reduce fraud by eliminating the purveyors of fraud and by deterring others who might engage in such practices.
    So, I am pleased to have found a few points of agreement with the FAIR report.  In a future post, I will discuss some areas of disagreement.  Happy New Year.
    Originally posted on the Asylumist:

    by , 01-04-2011 at 07:25 PM (Greg Siskind on Immigration Law and Policy)
    The big news is that the masters cap was hit as of December 24th. I had been predicting since last summer that this 20,000 quota would be hit in the last week of the year and the pace of usage stayed extremely consistent. The general quota has 7,700 visas of 65,000 remaining as of December 31st and the rolling four week average is now running at just over 1500. We have seen a modest up tick in usage since the masters cap ran out, but not as much as might be expected. It looks like we've got five to six weeks until the cap is reached if the pace of usage remains the same. 

    by , 01-04-2011 at 06:53 PM (Greg Siskind on Immigration Law and Policy)
    When historians try and get in to the nitty gritty of how the Republican Party went the way of the Whigs, they might have a chapter on the GOP's pushing of this issue. There is ZERO chance birthright citizenship is going to be stripped from the Constitution. The reason it is being considered is to score points with far right wackos and don't they always vote Republican anyway? Ah, but in the days when the wackos can dump a moderate GOP member in a primary, there's really no choice is there?
    A lot of thoughtful conservatives are pretty conflicted on this issue and just about everyone from the middle to the left is unified in their collective horror that this is even being discussed. Democrats can't really screw this one up as long as they stick together and make sure their party gets the credit for standing behind Latinos (and all Americans who actually think the Constitution is a pretty good thing). 
    The grown ups in the GOP may privately be appalled that their party has moved in this direction, but they also have largely cowered when it has come to reigning in the xenophobes. They'll pay a terrible price over the next few years for their silence as their party has to deal with the demographics of a changing America. Picking up a lot of seats in the middle of the worst economic decline since the Great Depression may give them a false sense of security that they're now safe, but in "normal" election years, they've got huge challenges awaiting them. As America moves to a minority majority country, having the largest racial and ethnic minorities lined up uniformly against you is not a recipe for maintaining a majority. 
  5. Jan 4 - Many Items

    -----------------IMMIGRATION DAILY FROM ILW.COM------------------

    January 4, 2011,0104.shtm


    1. Comment: Many Items - This issue of Immigration Daily carries

    the latest entries by our bloggers Joel Stewart, Greg Siskind and

    Chris Musillo. We also have news from USCIS, DOS and DOJ, in

    addition to help wanted ads and a comingsNgoings announcement.

    Erratum: In yesterday's issue of Immigration Daily, the article

    "Rethinking Employment-Based Immigration: Stop the GOP's Slide

    toward Socialism" written by Angelo Paparelli was mistakenly

    linked to another article, this has now been corrected.,0103-paparelli.shtm

    2. Bloggings: PERM: FAQ Clarifies 10 Days Posting Requirement by

    Joel Stewart,0104-stewart.shtm

    3. Bloggings: Anti-Immigration Center For Immigration Studies

    Suggests Willingness To Compromise On Dream Act by Greg Siskind,0104-siskind.shtm

    4. Bloggings: H-1B Cap To Be Reached by Chris Musillo,0104-musillo.shtm

    5. News: USCIS Announces Implementation Of Help HAITI Act Of 2010,0104-helphaiti.shtm

    6. News: USCIS Releases Interim Memo For Comment On Implementation

    Of The Help HAITI Act Of 2010,0104-haitimemo.pdf

    7. News: DOS Announces Redesigned Birth Abroad Certificate,0104-birthcertificates.shtm

    8. News: DOJ Office Of Immigration Litigation Bulletin: August


    9. Focus: THE PERM BOOK

    The outline of THE PERM BOOK, 2nd Edition is as follows:


    A. PERM Regulation

    B. Articles by PERM Writers

    C. Editor's Comments to the PERM Rule


    A. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) by Lawrence Rudnick

    B. Summary of DOL PERM Stakeholders Meetings by Lorna Rogers


    C. Frequently Asked Questions


    A. The New 9089 PERM Form by Linda Rose

    B. What DOL told OMB about PERM by Jay Solomon

    C. New ETA Form 9089 and Instructions, Application for Permanent

    Employment Certification

    D. Old ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent Employment


    E. Old ETA Form 9089, Instructions

    F. Old ETA Form 9089 Electronic Filing Instructions

    G. ETA Form 750A

    H. ETA Form 750B

    I. ETA Form 750 A and B, Instructions

    J. ETA Form 9127, Foreign Labor Certification (FLC) Quarterly

    Activity Report


    A. Overview of PERM Cases

    B. Overall PERM Flow Chart

    C. Employer Checklist

    D. Alien Checklist

    E. Job Offer Checklist

    F. Attorney/Agent Checklist

    G. Prevailing Wage Preparation Checklist

    H. Prevailing Wage Quick Guide

    I. Recruitment Checklist

    J. Express SVP Checklist

    K. PERM Audit Checklist: 10 Important Points

    L. Real and Virtual PERM Addresses

    M. What do PERM and H-1B Visas Have in Common?

    N. Attorney Competency Self-Test

    O. Sample PERM Cases


    A. Introduction to BALCA by Joel Stewart

    B. BALCA PERM Quick Reference Guide by Joel Stewart

    C. BALCA En Banc Quick Reference Guide by Joel Stewart

    D. BALCA Hearing Procedures


    A. Introduction to Federal Court Litigation by Sam Udani

    B. Exhaustion of Administrative Review by Michael E. Piston

    C. Federal Court Litigation-PERM by David B. Pakula

    D. Sample Pleading by Michael E. Piston


    A. Prevailing Wage Survey & Overview by Jane Goldblum

    B. Wage Worksheet Simple Systems 1 by Jane Goldblum

    C. Wage Worksheet Simple Systems 2 by Jane Goldblum

    D. 656.40 Perm Reg. Determination of PW

    E. 656.41 Perm Reg. Certifying Officer Review of PW

    F. Prevailing Wage FAQ

    G. Appendix A By Alphabetical Order

    H. Appendix A By SOC Classification Order


    All 50 states + 4 territories (Guam, District of Columbia, US

    Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico)


    Hundreds of files

    For more info or to place your order, please see here.

    For the fax document, see here.

    10. Headline: CLE Seminar: The Art of Visa Adjudication. Sign up


    11. Headline: Perfect storm hits legal aid

    12. Headline: @azitaco thank you for following us remember we

    offer every 100th new follower a FREE book on immigrants!! so pls

    let ur friends know.

    13. Headline: Taking away immigrant students' chance to 'Dream' - DREAMAct Maryland instatetuition

    14. Headline: When Reason Fades: From Undocumented Immigration to

    Jeffrey Sachs

    15. Headline: NYTimes Immigration Explorer with interactive map

    16. Headline: ICE to increase deportations in 2011 Obama believes in enforcement first - just

    like GOP does! stopICE

    To submit an Article or a news item to Immigration Daily, write

    to Follow ILW.COM on Twitter:



    1. Help Wanted: Immigration Professionals

    Toronto, ON - Immigration law firm

    seeks global immigration specialists (lawyers or paralegals with

    global file management experience) for Toronto-based global

    practice focused exclusively on corporate clients. The

    successful candidate will demonstrate complex problem-solving


    attention to detail and superior communication skills. S/he must

    be comfortable managing a reasonable caseload in a fast-paced and

    collegial team. Fluency in multiple languages an asset. Please

    submit your resume via email to or by

    fax to 416-943-0289.

    2. Help Wanted: Immigration Attorney

    Washington, DC - Fragomen

    is looking for an attorney with 1+ years of experience in

    business immigration with an emphasis on the preparation, review

    and analysis of nonimmigrant L-1 and H-1B petitions and

    applications; knowledge of immigration law and procedure;

    excellent communication and interpersonal skills. Qualified

    candidates will be highly organized, have a strong work ethic and

    have meticulous attention to detail. Associate will work with

    large, global, corporate accounts and have a great deal of direct

    client contact. Highly competitive salary and benefits. Please

    email cover letter, resume, and writing sample (Word or Adobe

    formats only), in confidence, to Robert F. McCafferty, Human

    Resources/Office Manager, Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy,

    LLP, at Or fax same to

    202-371-2898. EOE.

    3. Case Management Technology

    Which company do Fortune 500 Companies, top immigration firms,

    non-profits, one of the world's largest retailers and 2.4

    million+ foreign nationals choose for their comprehensive

    immigration management needs? They choose EDGE, by LawLogix.

    LawLogix boasts unparalleled immigration experienced customer

    support to ensure we not only answer your call, but we answer

    your question! Offering a full range of options for

    transferring your current client files, LawLogix enables your

    firm to easily adopt EDGE with no downtime. LawLogix EDGE is

    the #1 integrated immigration forms, billing and case

    management system with online access for clients. EDGE

    provides around the clock access for your clients to check the

    status of their case, fill out intake questionnaires, review

    and print forms, and communicate with you securely. The online

    client access reduces the number of case status inquiry calls,

    and allows you and your staff to work more effectively. EDGE

    provides exceptional reporting capabilities. Quickly and

    easily configure any reminder, case status, consultations,

    milestone report with 1 click while making your job easier and

    more enjoyable. Visit us at

    email, or call today 877-725-4355 ext.

    2 to request your Private VIP demo.

    4. Credential Evaluation And Translation

    Why do the largest law firms, corporations and universities in

    the U.S. choose AETS for their foreign credential evaluations?

    Because as the nation's leader in foreign credential evaluations

    and translations, American Evaluation & Translation Service, Inc.

    (AETS) provides the most competitive rates in the industry - $75

    educational evaluations, as well as $300 'expert opinion' work

    experience and position evaluations completed by PhD university

    professors who have the "authority to grant college level credit

    for work experience and/or training." AETS offers a variety of

    turn-around times, including same-day service for educational,

    work experience, and position evaluations. For list of rates and

    times, see: AETS Credential Evaluation Application.

    AETS also provides certified translations in 100+ languages, with

    translators that are specialists in 80+ fields. For a copy of the

    Application for Credential Evaluation and Translation Services,

    see: AETS Translation Application.

    Please contact AETS at anytime at (786) 276-8190, visit

    or email:

    To place a classifieds ad in Immigration Daily, see here



    1. ReadersWrite: Yesterday's Discussion

    2. ReadersWrite: Today's Discussion

    To submit an Article for consideration, write to



    ComingsNGoings: Immigration Event - Washington, DC, December

    13 - The Migration Policy Institute is pleased to present 'Does

    Low-Skilled Immigration Hurt the US Economy? Assessing the

    Evidence'. Speakers include Harry Holzer, Doris Meissner,

    Demetrios G. Papademetriou, Darrell M. West and Michael Fix. To

    RSVP, see

    Readers can share professional announcements (up to 100-words at

    no charge), email:


    The first daily in the field of immigration. Forward this to a


    Publisher: Sam Udani Legal Editor: Michele Kim ISSN:1930-062X

    An Important disclaimer! The information provided on this page is

    not legal advice. Transmission of this information is not

    intended to create, and receipt by you does not constitute, an

    attorney-client relationship. Readers must not act upon any

    information without first seeking advice from a qualified

    attorney. Copyright 1999-2010 American Immigration LLC, ILW.COM.

    Send correspondence and articles to Letters and

    articles may be edited and may be published and otherwise used in

    any medium. The views expressed in letters and articles do not

    necessarily represent the views of ILW.COM.


    ILW.COM - the leading immigration law publisher

    ILW.COM, PO Box 1830, New York, NY 10156

    Over 50,000 pages of free information!

    Immigration Daily -

    Archives -

    Classifieds -

    RSS feed -

    Processing times -

    Immigration forms -

    Discussion board -

    Find a lawyer -

    Seminars -

    Immigration Books -

    Advertise -

    Resources -

    Blogs -

    About ILW.COM -

    Link to us -

    Search -

Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: