Attorney Thomas Rome

02/03/2026

We've all seen the horrific videos from Minneapolis; they remind me of the early 1960s and the way police in Birmingham and elsewhere in the South used firehoses, clubs and police dogs to brutalize civil rights protesters. Scenes of that brutality forced Americans into a choice: Would they back "segregation forever" or the rule of law?

And now we face another profound choice. The clashes in Minneapolis and across the US are embodied by two men: Gregory Bovino, noted for a reckless, take-no-prisoners machismo, indifferent to the law, defined by his willingness to attack protesters and passersby in a way that a Chicago judge earlier said "shocks the conscience"; and Alex Pretti, a nurse for veterans whose entire life has been about helping others.

Their choices should clarify ours. Which man would we want our children to emulate? Do we want to live in Alex Pretti's America or in Gregory Bovino's? Here's my column -- please do read and share with that uncle of yours who supports the Trumpian crackdown on protest:
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/31/opinion/minneapolis-pretti-bovino.html?unlocked_article_code=1.IlA.Mrhd.sQLqb1bUveE2&smid=url-share I welcome your comments.

02/24/2025

04/05/2024

12/01/2023

The companies had honed a protocol for releasing artificial intelligence ambitiously but safely. Then OpenAI’s board exploded all their carefully laid plans.

09/14/2023

Direct Green Card hopefuls, please note:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) has issued updated policy guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual to clarify the types of evidence that USCIS evaluates to determine eligibility for extraordinary ability (E11) and outstanding professor or researcher (E12) employment-based immigration visa classifications. The update adds clarifying guidance describing examples of relevant evidence, with a focus on science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) fields.

11/14/2022

11/11/2022

● PHOTOGRAPHIE ARCHITECTURALE
DERNIER ATELIER DE LA SAISON vendredi prochain ! ●

Accédez à la pour réaliser vos plus beaux clichés accompagnés de la talentueuse Lucy Winkelmann Photographe. Au sommet, profitez de la vue imprenable sur Paris pendant l’heure bleue en attendant le premier scintillement de la Tour Eiffel à 18h.

Amateurs avec smartphones bienvenus ;)

Places limitées - réservations vivement conseillées - : https://lnkd.in/ezwHgMcP

08/27/2022

Tilda Swinton plays a literary scholar who has an encounter with a wish-granting genie, played by Idris Elba, in this flashy and ornate new fantasy film.

07/06/2022

Largely unnoticed in this moment of US Supreme Court high drama, it is vital that the immigrant community take notice that the Court recently issued an awful decision in Patel v. Garland on May 16, 2022.

Patel v. Garland will have far-reaching implications. It may now be that even the most obvious errors of fact cannot be reviewed by a federal court!

The majority opinion by Justice Amy Coney Barrett in Patel concluded that, by statute, Congress has “sharply circumscribed judicial review of the discretionary review process,” allowing review of immigration judges’ legal conclusions but not findings of fact.  

Justice Gorsuch argued otherwise, but in vain:

“It is no secret that when processing applications, licenses, and permits the government sometimes makes mistakes. Often, they are small ones — a misspelled name, a misplaced application. But sometimes a bureaucratic mistake can have life-changing consequences. Our case is such a case. An immigrant to this country applied for legal residency. The government rejected his application. Allegedly, the government did so based on a glaring factual error. In cir-cumstances like that, our law has long permitted individuals to petition a court to consider the question and correct any mistake."

“Not anymore. Today, the Court holds that a federal bureaucracy can make an obvious factual error, one that will result in an individual’s removal from this country, and nothing can be done about it. No court may even hear the case. It is a bold claim promising dire consequences for countless lawful immigrants. And it is such an unlikely assertion of raw administrative power that not even the agency that allegedly erred, nor any other arm of the Executive Branch, endorses it. Today’s majority acts on its own to shield the government from the embarrassment of having to correct even its most obvious errors.”

A word to the wise: Be vigilant. Your lawyer can help you.

06/28/2022

Sometimes a bureaucratic mistake can have lifelong consequences. Largely unnoticed in this moment of US Supreme Court high drama, it is vital that the immigrant community alert itself to the Court's awful decision in Patel v. Garland, a case decided on May 16, 2022.

Justice Neil Gorsuch (to his credit) filed a blistering dissent, but the 5-4 majority held that even the most inadvertent of errors in filling out a (non-USCIS) state government form may lead to deportation, if an immigration judge says so.

Patel v. Garland will have far-reaching implications. It may now be that even the most obvious errors of fact cannot be reviewed by a federal court!

The majority opinion by Justice Amy Coney Barrett in Patel concluded that, by statute, Congress has “sharply circumscribed judicial review of the discretionary review process,” allowing review of immigration judges’ legal conclusions but not findings of fact.

Justice Gorsuch argued otherwise, but in vain:
“It is no secret that when processing applications, licenses, and permits the government sometimes makes mistakes. Often, they are small ones — a misspelled name, a misplaced application. But sometimes a bureaucratic mistake can have life-changing consequences. Our case is such a case. An immigrant to this country applied for legal residency. The government rejected his application. Allegedly, the government did so based on a glaring factual error. In cir-cumstances like that, our law has long permitted individuals to petition a court to consider the question and correct any mistake."

“Not anymore. Today, the Court holds that a federal bureaucracy can make an obvious factual error, one that will result in an individual’s removal from this country, and nothing can be done about it. No court may even hear the case. It is a bold claim promising dire consequences for countless lawful immigrants. And it is such an unlikely assertion of raw administrative power that not even the agency that allegedly erred, nor any other arm of the Executive Branch, endorses it. Today’s majority acts on its own to shield the government from the embarrassment of having to correct even its most obvious errors.”

A word to the wise: Be vigilant. Your lawyer can help you.