Court Rules in Favor of Immigrant Religious Worker in Passionists and Ocampo v. Johnson
An Illinois judge reversed USCIS’ decision to deny a special immigrant visa to an applicant who met all qualifications as a religious worker, but worked without employment authorization. Reverend Alfredo Ocampo met all I-360 requirements, but USCIS denied his application because his visa was expired when he completed the bulk of his work. Federal law states that religious workers seeking a special immigrant visa must have completed two years of continuous work in the U.S. prior to submitting their application. Since the law does not explicitly exclude those who worked without proper work authorization, the court ordered USCIS to reverse their original decision and approve Ocampo’s I-360 application.
Trial Court to Revisit ‘Popcorn Lung’ Case
An appellate court in California reversed the decision in the ‘Popcorn lung’ case between plaintiff Wilfredo Vasquez and defendant Advanced Biotech Inc. after the plaintiff’s immigration status was made known to the jury. Plaintiff Wilfredo Vasquez sued Advanced Biotech after allegedly contracting a deadly lung disease from their products that required him to seek a lung transplant. The court originally ruled in favor of Advanced Biotech Inc., but a California appellate court found that the plaintiff’s immigration status was irrelevant to the case and could have unfairly prejudiced the jury against him. The case was remanded back to trial court where it awaits a new decision.
Federal Court Halts Detaining of Asylum Seeking Mothers and Children
In the case of RILR v. Johnson, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction that immediately halts the practice of detaining asylum seeking mothers and children as a means of deterring others from entering the country illegally. Last year, record numbers of undocumented Central American mothers and children entered the U.S. in search of safety from abuse, violence, and persecution in their home countries. The Department of Homeland Security has been detaining these families, who have cleared credible-fear screenings, at length in order to discourage other undocumented immigrants from entering the country. The court ruled DHS’ practice of detaining families as a deterrence tactic unconstitutional, stating that those seeking asylum should only be detained if they are proven to be a danger or a flight risk.
Disclaimer: This newsletter is provided as a public service and not intended to establish an attorney client relationship. Any reliance on information contained herein is taken at your own risk.