FILTERS



Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments


  • Date:

    ACE Comment Letter to DHS on Proposed Rule to Modernize the H-1B and Other Visa Processes (Dec. 22, 2023)

    Comment Letter from the American Council on Education (ACE) and 19 other higher education associations to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on its NPRM “Modernizing H-1B Requirements, Providing Flexibility in the F-1 Program, and Program Improvements Affecting Other Nonimmigrant Workers.” The letter expresses support for multiple provisions of the NPRM, including those that would shift to a beneficiary-centric lottery system in the H-1B registration process, codify the current deference policy that requires consideration of prior determinations when there have been no material changes that would adversely impact an application, provide greater flexibility for graduating students seeking to move from Optional Practical Training into an H-1B position, and eliminating the requirement that applicants provide an itinerary if their work or training will occur in more than one location. The letter expresses concern about a proposed change to the definition and process for determining when a position involves a “specialty occupation,” noting that it would limit the potential pool of applicants for many faculty positions (such as in engineering programs) for which required specialization need not be in a specifically identified subspecialty. 

    Topics:

    Employment of Foreign Nationals | Faculty & Staff | Immigration | International Students

  • Date:

    Texas v. United States (S.D. Tex. Sep. 13, 2023)

    Memorandum and Order granting the Plaintiff States’ Motion for Summary Judgment.  In 2018, Plaintiffs, Texas and eight other States, challenged the 2012 Memorandum from the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) creating the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.  The court held that the Memorandum violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) both procedurally for lack of notice and comment rulemaking and substantively by exceeding the statutory authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).  While on appeal with the Fifth Circuit, DHS promulgated a Final Rule enacting DACA through notice and comment rulemaking.  Though the Fifth Circuit affirmed the legality of the 2012 Memorandum, it remanded for review limited to whether, in light of the administrative record, the Final Rule was materially different from the 2012 Memorandum.  On this limited remand, the court granted the States’ Motion for Summary Judgment, holding that there were no material differences and that its prior analysis of the 2012 Memorandum applies equally to the Final Rule.   

    Topics:

    Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) | Employment of Foreign Nationals | Faculty & Staff

  • Date:

    Young Conservatives of Tex. Found. v. Smatresk (5th Cir. July 10, 2023)

    Opinion reversing and vacating injunction.  Plaintiff, on behalf of its members who attend or have attended the University of North Texas and who are United States citizens from states other than Texas, sought a permanent injunction barring the University from carrying out a provision of the Texas Education Code permitting undocumented immigrants to establish residency and qualify for in-state tuition rates.  The district court granted the injunction, finding that the Texas Code was preempted by a provision of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) that says that “an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State … for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit … without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.” 8 U.S.C. § 1623(a).  In reversing and vacating, the Fifth Circuit held that the IIRIRA provision expresses only the condition precedent that U.S. citizens must be eligible for a benefit before illegal aliens are made eligible and that this does not expressly preempt the Texas Code provision setting tuition rates for those who satisfy residency requirements.  It similarly held that the Texas Code provisions did not conflict with the objectives of the IIRIRA because it only imposes nonresident tuition rates on those who do not establish Texas residency, whether they are aliens or citizens.  

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) | Employment of Foreign Nationals | Faculty & Staff