This article situates PM-602-0199 within the chronological sequence of discretionary tightening that produced it, examines what the memorandum actually directs, surveys the precursor litigation that has already yielded preliminary injunctions, and assesses the legal theories likely to govern the inevitable challenge.
This third article in the series takes a step back and looks at the memorandum itself. Specifically, it walks the memorandum’s text, distinguishes what the memorandum decides from what it does not, and identifies a recurring tendency in the practitioner commentary to attribute to the memorandum operational propositions that the memorandum’s text does not contain.
This article walks through the statutory architecture of section 209, explains why asylee adjustment under § 209(b) sits within the memorandum’s textual reach while refugee adjustment under § 209(a) does not, and identifies a fundamental incoherence in the memorandum’s “consular processing default” framing as applied to the asylee population.
This article describes the pattern of questioning that has begun to emerge, examines the legal architecture against which each question must be read, and sets out a structured approach to client preparation and to the affirmative interview record.
You can schedule a consultation with us on Skype, over the phone, or in person by using our “Online Consultation” form. Our fee is only $260 per up to 45 minutes for all consultations regardless of the topic.
