Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in America

by

ralphs_fotos-banner-3585161-scaledOn June 30, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected President Trump’s attempt to restrict birthright citizenship, ruling that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The 6-3 decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, marks a major ruling on the meaning of American citizenship and the limits of executive power in immigration policy.

The case, Trump v. Barbara, centered on Executive Order 14160, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.”

The order sought to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to certain children born in the United States if neither parent was a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. Specifically, it targeted children born to mothers who were either unlawfully present or lawfully present on a temporary basis, such as on a student, work, or tourist visa, when the father was not a U.S. citizen or green card holder.

The Supreme Court held that the executive order violated the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That clause provides that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and of the state where they reside. The Court concluded that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are still “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore are citizens at birth.

Continue reading

by

markthomas-us-supreme-court-building-2225765-scaledFamilies across the United States are anxiously waiting for the Supreme Court to decide the future of President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order.

The order seeks to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to certain children born in the United States if their parents do not have permanent legal status.

For many immigrant families, the case is not just about politics or legal theory. It is about whether their children will be recognized as Americans from the moment they are born.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling by the end of June or early July, as the Court finishes its current term.

Until then, the executive order remains blocked by court orders, meaning children affected by the policy are still protected for now. But the uncertainty has left many families fearful about what could happen next.

At the heart of the case is the Fourteenth Amendment, which has long been understood to guarantee citizenship to most children born on U.S. soil. Trump’s order challenges that understanding by targeting children born to undocumented parents or parents in the U.S. on temporary visas, such as student, work, or tourist visas.

Continue reading

by

raul-najera-TAqspfWom04-unsplash-scaledOn Friday August 15th, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) released a new policy memorandum (PM-602-0188) increasing the scrutiny of applications for U.S. citizenship, as part of the Trump administration’s latest efforts to tighten eligibility for naturalization.

Specifically, USCIS has directed immigration officers to evaluate additional factors when assessing whether applicants demonstrate “good moral character,” a key requirement for naturalization, alongside passing English and civics tests.

The requirement of “good moral character” is typically met when applicants have no criminal history or have not engaged in conduct that would disqualify them from U.S. citizenship, such as committing violent crimes or aggravated felonies.

Friday’s policy memorandum however expands this determination stating that the “good moral character” assessment must involve more than a “cursory mechanical review focused on the absence of wrongdoing.” The expanded policy will now require “a holistic assessment of an alien’s behavior, adherence to societal norms, and positive contributions that affirmatively demonstrate good moral character.”

This directive mandates greater scrutiny of factors that could show a lack of “good moral character,” which go beyond the crimes and disqualifying conduct previously taken into consideration by USCIS.

Continue reading

by

sarah-kranz-pKqAaTUi0wg-unsplash-scaledIn a significant ruling handed down on Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the power of federal judges to impose nationwide injunctions against President Trump’s executive order aimed at denying birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. to noncitizens.

While the justices did not rule on the legality of the President’s executive order, this decision is an extraordinary victory for the Trump administration, because it hinders lower courts from intervening in potentially illegal actions by the government.

Historically, lower courts have issued nationwide preliminary injunctions early in litigation to block government conduct that could cause irreparable harm to plaintiffs pending judicial review.

The court’s decision to restrain judges from providing such relief is a remarkable departure from historic precedent and ventures into dangerous territory. It further indicates that the balance of power on the Supreme Court has clearly shifted in Trump’s favor, with six conservative justices backing his position.

What it Means

The ruling means that lower courts cannot stop the enforcement of the executive order on a nationwide basis for affected individuals. The executive order can only be suspended against individuals who have filed lawsuits against the government (either as individual plaintiffs or in class actions) or where a state has issued a state-wide injunction.

It will take time before the Supreme Court ultimately rules on the constitutionality of the executive order, with some legal experts suggesting the process could stretch on for years.

It is also uncertain whether this decision could restrict future nationwide blocks on controversial laws, particularly in other immigration and civil rights cases against the government.

Continue reading

by

boy-2027487_1280In the last few days, the immigration world has been reeling from the results of the Presidential election. People across the nation are preparing for an incoming Trump administration that promises to be extremely tough on immigration.

While the future of many hangs in the balance, the federal courts have started taking action to undo the immigration policies of the Biden administration.

Just two days after Americans cast their ballots and elected Donald Trump to become the next President of the United States, federal Judge J. Campbell Barker of the Eastern District Court of Texas issued a court order in the case Texas et. al. vs. DHS et. al., Case No. 6:24-cv-00306 (E.D. Tex.), ending President Biden’s Keeping Families Together parole program.

In a short one-page ruling, the judge declared that the Biden administration lacked the authority to grant parole in place to undocumented aliens, and therefore set aside and vacated Biden’s Keeping Families Together program.

In doing so, judge Barker delivered the first major blow to Biden’s immigration friendly policies. This decision stops the government from accepting applications for parole in place under the program, which would have allowed undocumented spouses and stepchildren of U.S. Citizens to remain together during the immigration process.

Continue reading

by

usa-1327105_1280The U.S. presidential election is set to be held in just fifteen days and the stakes couldn’t be higher for immigrants at the mercy of our broken immigration system.

In this blog post, we discuss where the presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump stand on key issues relating to immigration.

What would immigration look like under the Harris administration?

Vice President Kamala Harris is expected to continue many of the immigration policies proposed under President Biden. Among them, illegal immigration continues to be a hot button issue.

Illegal Immigration

Harris plans to tackle the border crisis by pushing for bipartisan legislation that would provide additional funding to hire thousands of new border patrol agents to secure our southern border.

In keeping with Biden’s proposals, Kamala also supports closing the border once border crossings have reached an average of more than 5,000 migrants per day over a week period. She has also said she will throw her support behind Biden’s policies barring asylum applications from individuals crossing the border illegally.

Since becoming Vice President, she has become tougher on illegal immigration telling CNN, “We have laws that have to be followed and enforced that address and deal with people who cross our border illegally. And there should be consequences.”

Concerning pathways to permanent residence, she supports “an earned pathway to citizenship” for undocumented immigrants. However, no details have been provided by her campaign regarding necessary criteria to become legalized.

Continue reading

by

vivek-kumar-rklMnaXqEPI-unsplash-scaledOn this 4th of July, we at the Law Offices of Jacob J. Sapochnick, extend our warm wishes to you and your loved ones. May this day inspire you to embrace the spirit of patriotism and cherish the freedoms we hold dear. Happy Independence Day!

Contact Us. If you would like to schedule a consultation, please text 619-569-1768 or call 619-819-9204.

Helpful Links

Continue reading

by

smile-5621670_1280-1On Tuesday June 4, 2024, President Joe Biden’s rumored executive action on immigration was unveiled by the White House.

Among its sweeping provisions, effective Wednesday June 5, 2024, the order will limit the number of migrants who can claim asylum at ports of entry along the southern U.S. border, while there are high levels of illegal crossings at the southern border.

Specifically, migrants seeking asylum will be turned away at the border when the seven-day average of daily border crossings exceeds 2,500 daily encounters between ports of entry. Since the number of encounters currently exceeds this figure, the order will go into effect immediately.

This means that starting June 5th U.S. border officials will stop conducting credible fear interviews for asylum claims and will instead quickly expel migrants seeking asylum at the border.

Migrants who are expelled under the order will receive a minimum five-year bar on reentry to the United States and potentially be subject to criminal prosecution.

The government will only accept asylum claims at the border if 14 days have passed, and the number of daily encounters has declined to 1,500 migrants or less at U.S. ports of entry.

Apart from unaccompanied minors, the order applies to all noncitizens, encountered along the southern border, irrespective of their country of origin.

What does the order do?

This executive order will temporarily suspend the entry of noncitizens who cross the border without prior authorization, or a legal basis to do so, including those claiming asylum at the border during periods of high border crossings.

Can migrants still claim asylum through scheduled appointments on the Customs and Border Protection’s One App?

Yes. The executive order does not prohibit migrants from using the CBP One app to make appointments at the border where they are able to claim asylum. The executive order only prohibits “unscheduled” asylum claims at the border.

Continue reading

by

election-4745282_1280

As the 2024 U.S. presidential elections draw nearer, Biden and Mexico’s President Andres Manual Lopez Obrador, have announced joint efforts to combat illegal border crossings.

The two leaders have said that their administrations will take steps to decrease illegal border crossings by ordering their national security teams to cooperate. While specific details were not disclosed, a government official has said that immigration enforcement actions may include a crackdown to prevent railways, buses, and airports from being used for illegal border crossings.

The issue of immigration will likely sway voting age Americans who believe President Biden has not done enough to prevent illegal immigration.

Under intense scrutiny and political pressure, the Biden administration has attempted to appease these voters by getting tougher on immigration. Recently, the Biden administration attempted to include restrictive immigration policies as part of a $95 billion foreign aid package for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. Biden called the immigration reform measure the “strongest border security bill this country has ever seen.” If passed, the measure would have given him the authority to turn away migrants at the U.S. Mexico border.

Against political gridlock however, Congress blocked the inclusion of the measure from the bill. This has left the Biden administration to consider the possibility of executive action and internal policy decisions to ramp up its enforcement efforts.

Continue reading

by

smile-5621670_1280

Ahead of the U.S. presidential election, President Biden is considering the rollout of a set of new executive actions aimed at curbing illegal migration at the U.S. southern border and measures that would create new obstacles for asylum applicants. Individuals speaking on condition of anonymity have said these policies could come as soon as March 7th as part of President Biden’s State of the Union speech.

According to reports by insiders of the Biden administration, the proposals under discussion would use a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to stop migrants from requesting asylum at U.S. ports of entry once a certain number of illegal crossings has been reached.

While the exact details of the executive order are still unclear, the proposal would likely carve out several exceptions for unaccompanied minors and those who meet the requirements of the United Nations Convention Against Torture. A similar proposal was previously discussed in the U.S. Senate as part of a border deal earlier this month.

To further appease conservative voters, the Biden administration is also considering implementing policies that would make it harder for migrants to pass the initial screening of the asylum interview process. Under these proposals, the administration would elevate the “credible fear standard” of the asylum process, thereby narrowing the pool of applicants eligible to seek asylum. Those who cannot meet the elevated standard, would be swiftly deported.

Continue reading