Wasden Immigration Litigation

We have overturned critical H1B memos, such as the Itinerary and Employer-Employee relationship Neufeld Memos of 2010. Notably, the ITServe vs. USCIS/Cissna case resulted in a pivotal March 10, 2020, District Court opinion that repudiated key USCIS actions and a May 20, 2020, judge’s opinion in Georgia that ruled against USCIS policies. 👨⚖️ Background I served with the US Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation-District Court Section, where I defended immigration regulations and decisions under the APA. I also worked with the DHS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), focusing on employment-based legal issues and advising on litigation in these areas. 📚 Notable Cases: 📝 ITServe v. Neilsen In 2018, DHS published a rule prohibiting third-party placement for F-1 students on OPT/CPT without required “notice and comment process.” Wasden Law challenged this, resulting in DHS deleting the unlawful rule before court defense. ⚖️ ITServe v. Cissna Wasden Law challenged the Trump administration’s new mandatory requirements for H-1B employers, resulting in a court ruling that the requirements violated statutory and regulatory language. The government settled, disavowing the rules and restoring approval rates to the 90% range. 📃 Eddakuni v. Mayorkas Wasden Law successfully challenged the biometric requirement for H-4/L-2 applicants, leading to USCIS withdrawing the requirement and settling to process visa petitions concurrently with extensions and EADs, restoring previous processing times. 👩⚖️ Shergill v. Mayorkas Wasden Law argued that USCIS violated statutes regarding L-2 and H-4 EADs, resulting in a settlement where L-2s no longer need to apply for EADs, and H-4s are eligible for auto-extension of EADs for up to 180 days. For Consultations, please visit our website at https://wasden.law/ Click “BOOK NOW” Button.