On August 18, 2010 the USCIS issued an interim policy memo updating the Adjudicators Field Manual in light of the Kazarian decision. 

This AFM update instructs adjudicators that "Kazarian prohibits USCIS from unilaterally imposing novel substantive or evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth at 8 C.F.R. section 204.5” (internal quotations omitted). Policy Memo Page 3.  While the fact that the Services needed a court order forcing it to refrain from "unilaterally imposing novel substantive or evidentiary requirements" is on its face appalling.  The Service has wisely decided to apply the decision nationally rather than limiting it to the 9th circuit as it is want to do when it does not like what a court tells demands

As we stated when the decision was issued, the opinion in Kazarian will not change substantive issues of adjudication.   When you get right down to it, the decision does no more than clear up a semantic difficulty.  The Memo directs the adjudicators to take a two step approach when evaluating evidence.  First, if the evidence meets the regulatory definition for that category the evidence will be admitted.  Second, the evidence will be evaluated to determine if it is persuasive.

Here is a possible example of the changed language in a denial:

Old decisions read something like this:  The beneficiary failed to demonstrate her scholarly publications had been widely cited and therefore did not provide evidence in that category.

New decision will read something like this.  The beneficiary submitted evidence of scholarly publications, but there is no evidence that the beneficiary's publications are widely cited and hence we do not consider the evidence persuasive on this point.

The impact of the Kazarian decision is semantic not substantive.  

Our report on the Kazarian decision is found HERE.

Our report on the AFM changes can be found HERE.

CBP has announced enhancements to the eAPIS system.  These include the ability to store and re-use flight plan information.  The .pdf file is available directly from the CBP website HERE.

Judicial Collusion

One of the hallmarks of the U.S. legal system, setting it apart from most other systems including many in Western Europe, is the separation of powers.  In the U.S. system the judiciary is independent of the executive.  This assures that judges are not unduly influenced by prosecutors and do not play a role in investigations and prosecutions.  Judges are there to see that justice is done even if the current executive (federal or state) will not like the outcome.  

This is why the actions taken by Chief U.S. District Judge, for the northern district of Iowa,  Linda Reade are so offensive.  The Associated Press reports that defense attorneys have found documents showing that Judge Reade collaborated with the prosecution in planning their raid on a meat packing plant in 2008.  The defense is working on behalf of the convicted former CEO of the meat packing plant.  It seems they have uncovered documentation that Judge Reade was an active participant in planning the raid and that the raid was even delayed until she could return from vacation.