Errata and Updates
Visit this page for corrections, clarifications, and selected updates to current editions of AILA publications.
Code of Federal Regulations, 2022 and 2023 Eds.
Editorial footnotes in the 2022 and 2023 editions of AILA's Code of Federal Regulations incorrectly indicated that some portions of the Central District of California's injunction in Flores v. Barr against the final rule "Apprehension, Processing, Care, and Custody of Alien Minors and Unaccompanied Alien Children" (84 FR 44392) had been lifted. For more information about the Flores v. Barr injunction, see section III.B.3 of the final rule "Unaccompanied Children Program Foundational Rule," 89 FR 34384 at 34387.
AILA’s Guide to PERM Labor Certification, 2023 ed.
Equal pay transparency laws, which can affect PERM filings, are being added and amended on a regular basis. The article The New Normal in PERM Recruitment: Compliance with State and Local Equal Pay Transparency Laws in Job Postings by Susanne C. Heubel and Teodora D. Purcell at page 339 contains an appendix at page 347 that is a chart of equal pay transparency laws by jurisdiction. This chart has been and will be revised periodically on AILA’s website via Practice Alert: Job Postings: Equal Pay Transparency Chart by Jurisdiction, AILA Doc. No. 23041408.
Kurzban's Immigration Law Sourcebook, 18th Ed., by Ira J. Kurzban
View corrections, clarifications, and selected updates to the 18th edition of Kurzban's Immigration Law Sourcebook.
Update to document F01: Effective Dec. 1, 2022, EOIR will no longer accept FOIA or Privacy Act requests by email. Although EOIR will still accept requests via postal mail, requestors are strongly encouraged to submit FOIA and Privacy Act requests through EOIR’s Public Access Link (PAL).
Immigration and Nationality Act, 2022 Ed.
Correction: In footnote 54 on page 60, the date of enactment of the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 is stated as March 15, 2002. It should read as March 15, 2022.
Code of Federal Regulations, 2022 Ed.
Correction: On page 523 of Volume II, 22 CFR §42.33(b)(1)(viii) and (ix) should have footnotes noting that the interim final rule published at 84 FR 25989 on 6/5/19 that added these two paragraphs was vacated by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on 2/4/22.
Correction: The Sample Packet Preparation and Review Checklist for R-1 Petition, on page 1088 of Volume 1, lists the Form G-1450 as an option for paying the filing fees using credit card. The Form G-1450 cannot currently be used with an R-1 petition, or any other I-129 petition, to pay the filing fees by credit card.
- Clarification and Update: The Form G-1450 can only be used with petitions and applications that are being submitted to one of the three USCIS Lockboxes in Chicago, Illinois; Phoenix, Arizona; and Lewisville, Texas. Petitions or Applications that are submitted to any other address may not use the Form G-1450 to pay the filing fees by using credit card.
There are currently two exceptions to this rule:
As of May 3, 2021, I-485 applications based on the applicant being a U nonimmigrant that are filed at the Nebraska Service Center may also use the G-1450 to pay the fees by credit card. Such applications filed with the Vermont Service Center may not use the G-1450.
As of July 20, 2021, I-140 petitions that are being filed with an I-907 requesting premium processing, or I-907 applications filed to upgrade a pending I-140 to premium processing, which are filed with the Nebraska Service Center only, may use the G-1450 to pay the fees by credit card. Other I-140 petitions not filed with one of the USCIS Lockboxes and filed with one of the other Service Centers may not use the G-1450.
For more information about using the G-1450, see https://www.uscis.gov/g-1450 and https://www.uscis.gov/forms/filing-fees/pay-with-a-credit-card. - Update: As of May 17, 2021 (effective until May 17, 2023), individuals filing the Form I-539 to request a Change of Status to H-4, L-2, E-1, E-2, E-2C, E-3, or E-3D nonimmigrant status, or to request an Extension of Status for one of these statuses, are not required to submit the $85 biometric services fee.
Note: The Sample Packet Preparation and Review Checklist for Form I-539 For Change of Status or Extension of Status for Nonimmigrant Derivative Beneficiary, on page 1139 of Volume 1, lists the government filing fee for the I-539 as $455. This amount includes the $85 biometrics fee, and as such is no longer the correct fee for applications filed for derivatives in H-4, L-2, E-1, E-2, E-2C, E-3, or E-3D nonimmigrant status.
For more information about the I-539 filing fees, see the “Filing Fee” section of https://www.uscis.gov/i-539. - Update: On July 16, 2021, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced a change of mailing address for its Office of Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC) Atlanta National Processing Center (ANPC) effective August 25, 2021.
Effective August 25, 2021, any mail, including U.S. Postal Service and other courier mail or parcel delivery packages, sent to ANPC must be submitted to the following new mailing address (except for mail associated with the processing of applications requesting permanent labor certification subject to supervised recruitment (“Supervised Recruitment”):
U.S. Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
Office of Foreign Labor Certification
200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room N-5311
Washington, DC 20210
Per the OFLC announcement, employers must list the new Certifying Officer/ANPC address on a PERM Notice of Filing in accordance with 20 CFR 656.10(d) if the requisite 10-day notice period begins after September 5, 2021. Listing the previous Certifying Officer/ANPC address on PERM Notices of Filing posted after this date could result in a failure to comply with the PERM notice of filing requirement and could lead to a denial of the PERM application if DOL requests and audit.
Supervised Recruitment mail should continue to be sent to the following addresses:
U.S. Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
Office of Foreign Labor Certification
Atlanta National Processing Center
Attn: Supervised Recruitment
P.O. Box 56625
Atlanta, GA 30343
Or if sent by courier service:
U.S. Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
Office of Foreign Labor Certification
Attn: SR Team
200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room N-5311
Washington, DC 20210
NOTE: The Sample Notice of Filing (page 59 Vol. 2) and Sample Template for Notice of Filing (page 61 Vol. 2) list the prior address for the Atlanta National Processing Center (ANPC). The new address for the ANPC must be listed on Notices of Filing posted after September 5, 2021. The Instructions and Tips for Completing Form ETA 9089 Perm Labor Certification (page 105 Vol. 2) also lists the prior mailing address for the ANPC.
For further updates about this change, see the AILA DOL Liaison Committee Practice Alert: Impact of Address Change for Atlanta National Processing Center (AILA Doc. No. 21072230). - Update for Initial DACA Requests: Per the USCIS Frequently Asked Questions Relating to DACA, updated July 19, 2021, in accordance with the July 16, 2021 order of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, USCIS is not permitted to approve initial DACA requests or accompanying applications for employment authorization while the court order from the Southern District of Texas remains in effect. Therefore, while USCIS will continue to accept the filing of initial DACA requests, as well as accompanying requests for employment authorization, those requests will remain on hold in compliance with the court order. USCIS will not issue refunds for initial DACA requests that remain on hold while the court order is in effect. USCIS may issue further guidance on this subject as the Southern District of Texas litigation continues.
This does not affect request for renewal of DACA which are still being adjudicated as previously.
For more information about the effects of the July 16, 2021 order of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, see Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) | USCIS.
On March 9, 2021, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) discontinued use of the Form I-944, Declaration of Self-Sufficiency, and withdrew its 2019 public charge rule from the Code of Federal Regulations in light of an Illinois district court’s nationwide injunction taking effect on that date. On July 29, 2020, a district court in New York enjoyed the Department of State from implementing and enforcing its complementary public charge rule, and the agency discontinued use of its Form DS-5540, Public Charge Questionnaire. The DHS is now following the 1999 Interim Rule interpreting the public charge ground of inadmissibility. As a result, certain chapters of the book, specifically Chapters 2-5, are no longer applicable. The chapters of the book relating to the affidavit of support, Chapters 6-15, are still largely unaffected by the litigation and agency actions. For more information, see AILA’s Featured Issue page on public charge.
 |
AILA’s U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization Toolbox Effective March 1, 2021, USCIS updated guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual regarding the civics test for naturalization. The update provides that USCIS will revert to administering the 2008 civics test to applicants who filed for naturalization before 12/1/20 and after 3/1/21. (Those filing in between with interviews before April 19, 2021 can choose between the 2008 and 2020 tests.) The 2008 civics test requires an applicant to provides a correct answer or alternative phrasing of the correct answer for six of 10 questions selected from a list of 100. Toolbox documents affected are: A01 Becoming an American: Requirements for Naturalization and Potential Pitfalls, at p. 7. |
The final two sentences of 8 CFR §214.1(c)(1) are missing from the text. The final two sentences should read as follows:
Dependents holding derivative status may be included in the petition if it is for only one worker and the form version specifically provides for their inclusion. In all other cases dependents of the worker should file on Form I-539.
INA §§328(g) and (h) should not appear in the 2014-2020 editions of the INA, as these provisions sunset on 10/9/13, as provided by P.L. 110-382 (10/9/08).
View corrections, clarifications, and selected updates to the 17th edition of Kurzban's Immigration Law Sourcebook.
 |
Essentials of Immigration Law, 5th ed. By Richard Boswell The errata/copyright page (page 4) in the book was not properly printed during the printing process. Access the full, properly printed page here. |
 |
Immigration Consequences of Criminal Activity: A Guide to Representing Foreign-Born Defendants, 8th ed. by Mary E. Kramer Appendix 8C includes an incorrect page (4th page of the applicable text). The full appendix 8C, including the corrected page, can be accessed here. Correction in writing to chapter 6 - On page 310, the second sentence under caption CRIMES OF VIOLENCE should read: Simple assault and battery offenses will often not be considered crimes involving moral turpitude because they involve a general intent. SupplementBIA Decision on September 25, 2019, Regarding Defining the Controlled Substance as an “Element”Chapters 7 and 8: Defining the Controlled Substance and the Categorical Approach; pages 366 and 424 Mismatched Controlled Substance SchedulesIn September 2019, the BIA looked at whether the type of controlled substance is an independent element for purposes of determining removability where the state schedule is overbroad (contains more substances than listed on the federal CSA schedule). The BIA found that the type of drug is an element. Matter of Gonzalez-Lemus, 27 I&N Dec. 612 (BIA 2019). This case involved a charge of removability under INA § 237(a)(2)(B)(i). Harkening back to Chapter 5’s discussion of the categorical approach, including both divisibility and overbroad statutes, if the type of drug in any given state controlled substance statute is not an element, and the state statute is broader than the federal statute, one must presume the least culpable conduct (the non-removable conduct). Put another way, a controlled substance offense under INA §§212(a)(2) or 237(a)(2) must be “as defined by” the federal CSA. If the state schedule is broader, the adjudicator must assume the drug could have been a non-CSA substance. This is because in a non-divisible statute, one does not look to the record of conviction documents to determine the drug. Hence it would not matter if the charging document references, as in this case out of Iowa, methamphetamine. The defendant-respondent is removable for the “conviction” and unless the drug is an essential element that must be proven to a jury, he gets the benefit of the doubt that he was convicted of the non-CSA item. However, the BIA determined that the identity of a drug is an element. Noting that Iowa punishes certain drugs with different sentences, the BIA determined that the statute was divisible as to alternative elements. In referring to the state schedule, the Board looked to an alternative statutory provision to find divisibility. It is not clear whether this decision will be appealed. New Attorney General decisions issues October 25, 2019Chapter 6 Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude Page 318: Although simple DUI is not a crime involving moral turpitude, convictions (or simply arrests) may affect a determination of “good moral character” under INA § 101(f). Relief in the form of cancellation of removal for non-LPRs under INA § 240A(b), as well as naturalization eligibility under INA § 316, require good moral character for a certain time period—the statutory period. In the case of non-LPR cancellation, this period is at least ten years. For naturalization, the statutory period varies based on category of eligibility, but is most often five years (or three years for persons married to and living with an American citizen. In a removal matter involving an application for cancellation of removal, the Attorney General decided that two or more convictions for DUI during the statutory time period raise a presumption that the applicant is not of good moral character. Matter of Castillo-Perez, 27 I&N Dec. 774 (A.G. Oct. 2019). In footnote 3, the AG wrote that adjustment of status is a discretionary benefit and DUI convictions will similarly bode towards a negative discretionary finding. Noting that data shows for every DUI arrest there is probably many other incidents that went undetected, the AG likened DUIs to the phrase involving “habitual drunkards” at INA § 101(f)(1). As often happens, this case was then remanded, hence there will be no immediate petition for review to the court of appeals on the viability of the analysis. Chapter 2 The Definition of Conviction Page 107: In a significant change to precedent, the Attorney General issued a decision on October 25, 2019, determining that a post-conviction motion in criminal court to modify the sentence imposed must be based on legal error or defect, or a constitutional violation, in order to be valid for immigration law purposes. Matter of Thomas and Thompson, 27 I&N Dec. 674 (A.G. 2019). Addressed extensively in chapter 2, for 15 years the law has been that a vacatur of a plea and conviction had to be based on legal or constitutional error in order to be honored in immigration court. Matter of Pickering, 23 I&N Dec. 621 9BIA 2003), rev’d, Pickering v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 263 (6th Cir. 2003). In comparison, prior to this new decision, modification of a sentence in criminal court (i.e., the period of imprisonment imposed, the amount of loss) could be based on immigration hardship or equities and would be applied in the immigration law context. Based on Thomas and Thompson, the Pickering standard now applies to post conviction modification of sentence. Practitioners will want to carefully draft their motions and court orders to highlight legal error and defect when moving to modify the sentence. Of note, the AG specifically declines to address which party has the burden of proving (or disproving) the viability of a post-conviction action. Application of the burden of proof is discussed at page 98. |
 |
AILA’s Asylum Primer, 8th Ed., by Dree K. Collopy AG Garland Vacates Asylum Precedents That Harmed Victims of Violence On June 16, 2021, Attorney General Garland issued a decision vacating Matter of A—B— and Matter of A—B— II, as well as a decision vacating Matter of L—E—A— II. DOJ also issued a memo regarding the impact of the vacation of these decisions. On page 153, in the sentence containing footnote 832, the PSG listed should be corrected and the sentence should read as follows: It then concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated that her proposed particular social group, “Immediate family members of Honduran women unable to leave a domestic relationship,” was socially distinct. |
 |
Immigration and Nationality Act, 2018 Ed. On page 177, INA §217(h)(3)(B)(iii) should read as follows: (iii) Sunset of travel promotion fund fee.— The Secretary may not collect the fee authorized by clause (i)(I) for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 2027. On page 178, the legislative history for INA §217 should contain an additional entry at the end that reads as follows: P.L. 115-123 (2/9/18), div. C, title II, §30203(a) [revising (h)(3)(B)(iii) to say September 30, 2027] |
 |
The Waivers Book: Advanced Issues in Immigration Law Practice, 2nd Ed. Please view the corrected version of Form I-192, Application for Advance Permission to Enter as a Nonimmigrant on pages 423 through 430 of The Waivers Book. |
 |
Immigration Law and the Family, 4th Ed., Edited by Charles Wheeler Shortly after Immigration Law and the Family was published, DHS, on July 29, 2016, issued a final rule expanding the availability of the provisional unlawful presence waiver to individuals who would be statutorily eligible for an unlawful presence waiver under INA §212(a)(9)(B)(v). The rule also made additional changes to the current provisional waiver process. Charles Wheeler, the book's editor, provides updated information on the provisional waiver program as a supplement to the section in Chapter 7 of the book entitled, "INA §212(a)(9)(B)(v) Waiver for Unlawful Presence." Thereafter, on October 21, 2016, USCIS issued policy guidance in its Policy Manual on determinations of extreme hardship to qualifying relatives as required by certain statutory waiver provisions. This guidance became effective December 5, 2016, and is controlling and supersedes any related prior USCIS guidance. In the final guidance, USCIS delineated a number of "particularly significant factors" that "often weigh heavily in support of finding extreme hardship." Charles Wheeler provides updated information to supplement the section in Chapter 7 of the book entitled "Extreme Hardship."
|