modest proposal. Attorneys, when preparing I-131 applications to be submitted in conjunction with an I-485 application, should prepare for their traveling clients, in advance, a dozen complete applications – simple enough to do, by copying the petition and supporting documents, and having them pre-signed. Then, each and every time the client or family member travels out of the United States and returns, the applicant can pull out of the portfolio, his/her pre-prepared application and free of charge, resubmit it to USCIS. If all applicants nationwide participated in this initiative, it would be very dramatically demonstrated how silly this policy is. Of course, Jonathan Swift never intended that his “Modest Proposal” actually be implemented.[1]Advance Parole Rules Need Review; Rob Cohen, February 6, 2014. http://www.thinkimmigration.org/2014/02/06/advance-parole-rules-need-review/[2] USCIS would claim that this policy was always in place, but not previously strictly implemented.[3] 8 CFR §245.2(a)(4)(ii)(B).[4] INA §212(d)(5)(A).[5] Memo, Puleo, Assoc. Comm., Adjudications, CO 212.28-C (July 6, 1992), reprinted in 69 No. 26 Interpreter Releases 846, 851–52 (July 13, 1992).[6] Memo, Puleo, Exec. Assoc. Comm., (Apr. 20, 1995), AILA Doc. No. 95042880.[7] Memo, Virtue, Acting Exec. Assoc. Comm., HQ 120/17.2 (Aug. 15, 1997), AILA Doc. No. 97120290.[8] Adjustment of Status; Continued Validity of Nonimmigrant Status, Unexpired Employment Authorization, and Travel Authorization for Certain Applicants Maintaining Nonimmigrant H or L Status, 64 Fed. Reg. 29208 (June 1, 1999). (It is interesting to note that at the time the service was also considering extending this exemption to several other nonimmigrant categories (E-1, E-2, F-1, J-1 and M-1’s), which did not make it into the final rule. Id.[9] 8 CFR §245.2(a)(4)(ii)(C).[10] Memo, Cronin, Acting Assoc. Comm., Office of Programs HQADJ 70/2.8.6, 2.8.12, 10.18 (May 25, 2000), AILA Doc. No. 00052603.[11] 8 CFR §245.2(a)(4)(ii)(C); K Nonimmigrant Cla

rkers slipped to more than two years, while the processing time for most secular employers did not slip as much and could be expedited. USCIS moved to moot the lawsuit by processing and approving the plaintiffs' forms. USCIS also began moving to make changes to the pertinent rules. But the court declined to rule the case moot "based on these arguments, which rely upon possible, but not certain, events that are partially within USCIS's control." The court went on to conclude that the plaintiffs can establish standing in federal court based on their allegations of disparate and discriminatory treatment in the process of filing EB-4 motions. The court ruled that it "could remedy plaintiffs' expense burden through a court order to expand concurrent filing and premium processing to EB-4 petitioners likeplaintiffs … .”But the court also ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear certain claims such as under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the concurrent filing regulation contained in 8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a)(2)(i)(B) because it was not enforced or applied against them and the premium processing regulation under 8 U.S.C. § 1356(u)(2)(E) because it is barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).RFRAHealthcare Organizations Enjoin Sex Discrimination Provisions of ACA and Title VII Requiring Them to Perform Gender TransitionsIn Religious Sisters of Mercy v. Becerra, 55 F.4th 583 (8th Cir. 2022), the court of appeals affirmed in part the decision of the district court granting the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and issuing a permanent injunction against enforcement of prohibitions against discrimination within Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and within Title VII "on the basis of sex," defined to include gender identification, otherwise requiring them to perform and provide insurance coverage for gender transitions as in violation of RFRA. Section 1557 of the ACA provides, in relevant part, that a federally funded or administered health program or activity is pro

Suffice it to say, these special rules are designed to make it easy for Cuban natives and citizens to expeditiously apply for adjustment of immigration status. However, even with these special rules, there are still eligibility requirements that applicants must meet in order to adjust status.Other Rules for Eligibility to Adjust for Cuban Natives and Citizens:Pursuant to regulations found in 8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a)(4)(iii), temporary absences in the 1-year period from admission or parole will not render a Cuban ineligible for adjustment of status, provided that there was no intention on the part of the Cuban of abandoning residence in the United States, and that the Cuban was admitted or paroled into the United States upon return.Cubans must be admissible to the United States in order to adjust status, and consequently must obtain a waiver of any grounds of inadmissibility in order for an adjustment application to be successful. However, Cubans applying for this special rule adjustment of status are exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility [this ground if inadmissibility is for when the Attorney General determines that an alien is likely to require certain means-tested public benefits for support].