Immigration Law Review - UK and USA

Devon Nobles, a U.S. citizen, is married to Anqi Liu, a Chinese national lawfully present in the U.S. on H-1B visa status. Nobles has a prior 2013 conviction for aggravated criminal sexual abuse of a minor. Liu was aware of the conviction when they married in 2015. Nobles filed two Form I-130 petitions to classify Liu as his immediate relative (a prerequisite for her to adjust status and obtain a green card). USCIS denied both petitions under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. The denials were based on Nobles’ failure to demonstrate that he “poses no risk” to Liu. USCIS applied a “beyond any reasonable doubt” evidentiary standard, which plaintiffs challenged as overly stringent and improperly adopted. Plaintiffs (Nobles and Liu) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, bringing 13 claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA): four statutory challenges to USCIS’s authority, processes, and evidentiary standards, and nine...

In late 2025/early 2026, following the Trump administration’s renewed travel ban proclamations targeting certain countries (primarily in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and Latin America), USCIS under Director Joseph Edlow issued several internal policy memoranda. These included: A Global Asylum Hold Policy pausing adjudication of asylum and withholding of removal applications (initially worldwide, later adjusted). A Benefits Hold Policy (or adjudication hold) indefinitely suspending decisions on a wide range of immigration benefits, including asylum, employment authorization documents (EADs/work permits), adjustment of status (green cards), naturalization, and other petitions, for nationals of 39 designated “high-risk”/travel-ban countries, plus those with Palestinian Authority-issued or endorsed documents. A Comprehensive Re-Review Policy requiring re-examination of previously approved benefits for individuals from these countr...

  In October 2021, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), under the Department of Justice, implemented a policy requiring immigration judges to obtain supervisory approval before making public speeches or statements related to their official duties. The policy aimed to ensure that such speech aligned with EOIR’s official positions and did not carry the appearance of official endorsement. The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), representing its members, challenged the policy in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. NAIJ asserted that the policy violated its members’ First and Fifth Amendment rights. Both parties acknowledged the framework of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), which generally channels most federal employees’ work-related grievances through the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and the Office of Special Counsel, rather than allowing direct access to federal district courts. NAIJ argued that its consti...