Last week CLINIC co-hosted the 11th Annual Immigration Law and Policy Conference together with the Migration Policy Institute, the Center for Migration Studies, and Georgetown University Law Center. An impressive array of government officials, advocates, and immigration experts offered policy and legal analysis on important topics from unaccompanied children to executive action.
Jeanne Atkinson, CLINIC Executive Director discusses faithful citizenship and immigration reform as a priority issue in November. The Catholic perspective on immigration is shared, encouraging voters to “welcome the stranger” during election season. Segment begins at 19:50. October 28, 2014
Q: A lawful permanent resident files an I-130 for his spouse in 1994 with his daughter (DOB September 28, 1978) named as derivative. The priority date is July 15, 1994. The daughter ages out in 1999 before the F-2A category for Mexico becomes current. The LPR dad files second I-130 for aged-out derivative daughter in the F-2B category and is able to retain the original priority date. The LPR father subsequently naturalizes in 2012 converting the F-2B petition to the F-1 category.
Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson has extended Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for eligible nationals of Honduras and Nicaragua for an additional 18 months, beginning January 5, 2014 and ending July 6, 2016.
Current Honduran and Nicaraguan beneficiaries seeking to extend their TPS status must re-register during the 60-day re-registration period that runs from October 16, 2014, through December 15, 2014. The USCIS encourages beneficiaries to register as soon as possible.
An LPR was convicted of a Nevada statute for possession of marihuana and placed into removal proceedings. He was charged with violating INA § 237(a)(2)(B)(i), which is the ground of deportation for violating any controlled substance law. That section contains an exception, however, for a “single offense involving possession for one’s own use of thirty grams or less of marihuana.” The question before the Board was whether the IJ erred in applying the “categorical” approach set forth by the Supreme Court in Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S.Ct.