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



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

View RSS Feed

Recent Blogs Posts


    by , 08-02-2018 at 02:43 PM (Chris Musillo on Nurse and Allied Health Immigration)
    by Maria Schneider

    On July 13, 2018 the USCIS issued a memo indicates USCIS adjudicators now have full discretion to deny applications, petitions, and requests without first issuing an Request for Evidence (RFE) or Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID), when appropriate.

    Applicants must include all required initial evidence, as listed in operating procedures, form instructions, or regulations with their immigration petition or application. In some cases a second RFE or NOID may be issued. Reuters reports RFE and NOID issuance is up significantly in the last year.

    Apart from RFEs, Officers have the discretion to validate assertions or corroborate evidence and information submitted with an immigration application by consulting USCIS or other governmental files, systems, and databases, or by obtaining publicly available information that is readily accessible.

    It is unclear how strictly this new policy will be enforced. MU recommends employers work to get all documentation for a case, including end-client documentation, upfront in the initial filing and advises employers to file extension cases as early as possible. MU encourages employers to closely review all template language in support letters and immigration forms as well as on the employer’s website and other publicly available information about the employer.

    Please read the Musillo Unkenholt Healthcare and Immigration Law Blog at and You can also visit us on Facebook, Twitter, and LinknedIn.
  2. BIA Precedent Chart. Updated June 19, 2018. Posted by Nolan Rappaport

    This document, which was updated June 19, 2018, compiles headnotes from the Board of Immigration Appeals' precedent decisions. Available at

    Nolan Rappaport

    Updated 08-02-2018 at 12:00 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  3. Federal Judge Rules For and Against DOJ in Lawsuit Against California

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law

    On July 5, 2018, Federal District Court Judge John Mendez of the Eastern District of California, struck down provisions of AB 450, the Immigrant Worker Protection Act (IWPA), that restricted employers from allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to access nonpublic parts of a workplace without a warrant and re-verifying employee work authorization. However, the Judge upheld AB 450's requirement that employers notify employees within 72 hours of I-9 inspections that have been conducted.

    As you may recall from prior blog entries, AB 450 (IWPA) states California-based employers:

    • Are prohibited from voluntarily granting immigration enforcement agents access to any non-public areas of a worksite unless the agents present a judicial warrant;
    • Are prohibited from voluntarily allowing ICE agents to access, review, or obtain any employee records unless the agents present a Notice of Inspection (NOI) of Forms I-9, an administrative or judicial subpoena, or a judicial warrant requiring compliance;
    • Are prohibited from reverifying the employment eligibility of any current employee unless required by federal law;
    • Are required, if served with an I-9 NOI, to give notice in writing within 72 hours to each current employee at the worksite and any authorized labor union that an I-9 inspection has begun; and
    • Must notify any affected employee or authorized union representative within 72 hours of receiving any subsequent I-9 related federal notices, such as Notice of Suspect Documents.

    In March 2018, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sued California alleging AB 450 and two other new state laws designed to protect certain undocumented immigrants are unconstitutional. "The provisions of state law at issue have the purpose and effect of making it more difficult for federal immigration officers to carry out their responsibilities in California," Justice Department lawyers argue in the suit, further calling the laws an "obstacle to the United States' enforcement of the immigration laws and discriminating against federal immigration enforcement."

    Judge Mendez ruled against a preliminary injunction on the AB 450 Notice requirements because they are not preempted by federal authority over immigration. However, the Judge preliminarily enjoined California authorities from:

    • fining employers or otherwise enforcing the bans on reverifying the employment eligibility of current employees;
    • voluntarily giving immigration enforcement agents access to nonpublic areas of the worksite; or
    • allowing them to access, review, or obtain employee records.

    In doing so, Judge Mendez requested the President and Congress to act and stated:
    This Court has gone to great lengths to explain the legal grounds for its opinion. This Order hopefully will not be viewed through a political lens and this Court expresses no views on the soundness of the policies or statutes involved in this lawsuit. There is no place for politics in our judicial system and this one opinion will neither define nor solve the complicated immigration issues currently facing our Nation.

    Accordingly, this Court joins the ever-growing chorus of Federal Judges in urging our elected officials to set aside the partisan and polarizing politics dominating the current immigration debate and work in a cooperative and bi-partisan fashion toward drafting and passing legislation that addresses this critical political issue. Our Nation deserves it. Our Constitution demands it.

    I will keep you informed of further developments in this litigation.
  4. Ivanka Trump Vehemently Against Family Separation

    by , 08-02-2018 at 08:58 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    If only Michelle Obama had the strength of character to speak out against her husband's policies of jailing refugee children in deportation internment camps.

    "That was a low point for me as well. I feel very strongly about that. I am very vehemently against family separation and the separation of parents and children…immigration is incredibly complex as a topic." ~Ivanka Trump

    .@IvankaTrump: "That was a low point for me as well. I feel very strongly about that. I am very vehemently against family separation and the separation of parents and children…immigration is incredibly complex as a topic." #axios360— CSPAN (@cspan) August 2, 2018
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: