Профиль

this single idea unto itself might be one of the most dangerous things to come out of the Trump era, and it needs to be actively and vocally resisted every time we see it

to emphasize the point above: the "settlement agreement" REQUIRES the government to set the fund up, so if the 11th reverses Judge Williams (unlikely but certainly possible) & reinstates Attorney General Todd Blanche will say that he has no choice but to set it up again

also just fyi one of Trump's arguments in that appeal (as argued Friday in this stay request) is that it is an unconstitutional restriction on his speech for a federal judge to say that the "settlement agreement" was illegal and prevent the parties from relying upon it

Also it's just--nothing. There's nothing here. This only emphasizes that the immunity deal is still in place while rescinding the *creation* of the slush fund without reaching the root of the problem: the settlement agreement itself, which could still be revived if Trump wins his appeal

This really may just be nostalgia

Nostalgia yes, but also tell me I'm wrong

My list already had a blackberry (plus two more) and the IBM keyboard before I even saw this

That is what an i130 is! It's really in no way in dispute

Your filing fees at work!

... ... ... no words for this, is this person still an ISO?

yes generally much easier to talk it out with IJs than adjudicators, although of course you'd better come 300% correct if you're going to try to correct an IJ on the law! It certainly does happen though

anyway I know this is kind of niche but I can't emphasize enough how weird it was to hear an officer who adjudicates immigrant visa petitions emphatically deny that an immigrant visa petition is in actual legal fact a petition for an immigrant visa

she also argued that an applicant for residency is not "seeking admission" because they are already in the US, which is both legally incorrect and a position directly in opposition to ICE's justification for mandatory detention for border crossers

USCIS officers don't have to be lawyers (most aren't) but they do usually have a pretty solid grasp of immigration law. If it's not directly relevant to my client's case/outcome it's really just not worth annoying them by pushing the point no matter how legally correct--but also weird to let it go

not many before and there certainly aren't now

Also so far as I can tell they are trying to designate "Antifa" an FTO by pointing to Hungary and Germany (and maybe others) designating a specific group called "Antifa Ost" which has no connection to US groups or people who identify as "Antifa"

Peter began to come to terms with his autism only as he was heading into retirement at 65 after many decades as a practicing attorney. I did the same with #AuDHD mid-career at 41, but we have shared so many common feelings & experiences that getting to compare notes with him here meant a lot to me

As we discuss here, the rate of ASD/AuDHD/neurodiversity amongst lawyers almost certainly has to be greater than that of the general population--and yet the stigma remains bad enough in this inherently conservative profession that hardly any of us are open about it. We can all change that, together.

There is a certain kind of white immigrant who just refuses to believe that they could possibly ever be deported, even when they are in ICE custody

"There was once a boy named Donald who didn’t know what to do with himself - not just sometimes, but always."