Immigration

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit court of Appeals

Case Name: Srinivasa Musunuru v. Loretta E. Lynch, et al

Case No.: 15-1577

Officials: FLAUM, MANION, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Immigration

USCIS failed to provide appellant employer with proper notice and opportunity to respond to allegations of fraudulent visa petitions.

“Furthermore, the regulations are clear that a beneficiary is not given an opportunity to challenge the revocation of an I- 140 petition through a motion to reconsider, though a petitioner is. The regulation governing motions to reconsider an action or reopen a proceeding, § 103.5, describes motions to reconsider as “filed by an applicant or petitioner” and allows an official to reconsider a prior decision only for an “affected party.” 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i). Section 103.3 explicitly defines “affected party” to not include a visa petition beneficiary: “For purposes of this section and §§ 103.4 and 103.5 of this part, affected party (in addition to the Service) means the person or entity with legal standing in a proceeding. It does not include the beneficiary of a visa petition.” 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(iii)(B) (emphasis added).

Reversed and Remanded

Full Text

Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.