Phone: 312-714-2800
-
Recent Posts
- Matter of O-Y-A-E- (BIA 2025): BIA Clarifies Convention Against Torture Standard—Old Threats Alone Are Not Enough August 23, 2025
- Soft Secession vs. Soft Fascism: How States Quietly Resist Federal Overreach August 22, 2025
- Cancellation of Removal: Understanding Deportation Relief for Non-Permanent Residents August 21, 2025
- With Chevron Gone: Timeline of Mandatory Detention and Rising Judicial Review in U.S. Immigration August 19, 2025
- Matter of G-C-I-: The BIA Just Rewrote the Rules for Credibility and Corroboration August 19, 2025
Archives
Categories
RSS Feed
Links
- CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 25-M-397(SCD) CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 25-M-397(SCD)
- Law Offices of Michael D. Baker
-
Monthly Archives: January 2014
Guidance on Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers
U.S. Department of Homeland Security January 24, 2014 Field Guidance SUBJECT: Guidance Pertaining to Applicants for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Field Operations Directorate Washington, DC 20529 Purpose: This field guidance addresses the adjudication of Form … Continue reading
Posted in Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence WaiverI-601A, I-601A, Provisional Waivers, Stateside Processing of I-601A Waivers, The Provisional Waiver, Unlawful Presence, Unlawfully Present in the United States, Waivers, Waivers of Inadmissibility
Tagged Guidance on Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers, Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers
Leave a comment
CA7 holds that misadvice and failure to advise does not evade the non‐retroactivity of Padilla
Chavarria, born in Mexico, became a legal permanent U.S. resident in 1982. In 2009, Chavarria pleaded guilty to distributing cocaine. One year later, the Supreme Court decided Padilla v. Kentucky, imposing a duty on defense attorneys to inform noncitizen clients … Continue reading
CA7 denies I-751 extreme hardship waiver because an alien has no protected liberty interest in discretionary immigration relief
CA7 Denies Extreme-Hardship Waiver for Petitioner Convicted of Marriage Fraud. The court denied the petition for review, finding that the petitioner’s due process argument failed because he had no legitimate claim of entitlement to an extreme-hardship waiver under INA §216(c)(4). … Continue reading