Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Court Decisions

by

united-states-supreme-court-6330563_1280The recent Supreme Court decisions handed down in Loper Bright v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Dep’t of Commerce, have overturned a longstanding rule known as the “Chevron” doctrine, which eliminates the need for federal courts to defer to federal agency decisions and regulations moving forward. This move essentially strips power away from federal agency interpretations of the law and gives it back to the courts.

This is positive news in the world of immigration, considering that a federal agency’s interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) will no longer automatically prevail when litigating cases in court and filing immigration challenges to visa denials.

This will benefit many immigrants and businesses who for many years have been blocked by federal agencies from obtaining employment-based visas and green cards based on ambiguous agency interpretations of their cases.

For instance, in removal cases, those seeking review of decisions previously made by immigration judges’ or the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) will now have a clean slate, since courts no longer have to rely on an agency’s standpoint and can now interpret unclear laws with a new set of eyes.

These rulings could also pave the way for new litigation to be filed to defend challenges to previous visa denials. Where interpretations of the law once made by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) were automatically upheld in court, they will now be challenged forcefully.

U.S. employers seeking a favorable interpretation of a statute granting H-1B or L visa classification to a noncitizen worker may also have greater opportunities to argue their cases in court and win on behalf of their clients.

Continue reading

by

gavel-2492011_1280

A recent appellate court decision handed down on June 25th has reversed a lower court’s decision which previously allowed the State Department to adjudicate and approve diversity visa cases from the 2020 and 2021 fiscal years.

The case Goodluck v. Biden, No. 21-5263 (D.C. Cir. June 25, 2024) dealt with the COVID-era presidential proclamation 10014 signed by former President Trump in April 2020, which suspended the entry to the United States of certain immigrant visa applicants following the Coronavirus outbreak.

The suspension had a devastating impact on the Diversity Immigrant Visa program because the State Department refused to issue diversity visas while the presidential proclamation remained in effect. The Department took the position that because the presidential proclamation rendered certain aliens inadmissible to the U.S., it also made them ineligible for visas.

Later, the State Department suspended all routine visa services including the processing of applications for diversity visas due to COVID-19 shelter in place orders.

In response, a class of diversity visa applicants selected in the DV 2020 and 2021 diversity visa lotteries sued the government, arguing that the Department’s policies prevented them from receiving their immigrant visas before the mandated fiscal-year-end deadlines.

As the case moved through litigation, the district courts agreed with the DV selectees ordering the State Department to prioritize processing and issue diversity visas past the end of the fiscal year deadlines.

In subsequent court orders, DV selectees were granted equitable relief which ordered the State Department to reserve diversity visas for DV 2020 and 2021 selectees for processing and issuance after the end of the fiscal year.

Continue reading

by

florida-890553_1280A new week brings new immigration news. Recently, a federal judge issued a temporary injunction blocking part of a Florida law that imposes criminal penalties on those who transport undocumented immigrants into the state of Florida, classifying such actions as felonies.

The order was made in response to a lawsuit filed by the Farmworker Association of Florida and seven individuals who feared traveling in and out of the state of Florida with undocumented friends and family members due to Florida’s controversial law.

In his ruling, Judge Roy Altman indicated that the Florida law is likely unconstitutional because the supremacy clause places the regulation of immigrants under the purview of the federal government.

In his preliminary order, the judge stated that Florida’s law is preempted by the federal government, “By making it a felony to transport into Florida someone who ‘has not been inspected by the federal government since his or her unlawful entry,’ [the law] extends beyond the state’s authority to make arrests for violations of federal immigration law and, in so doing, intrudes into territory that’s preempted.”

The judge further stated that any harm created by the injunction is outweighed by the harm suffered by the plaintiffs and the federal government. As a result, the Florida law will be halted until the judge rules on the merits of the case.

Continue reading

by

justice-6570152_1280

The Department of Homeland Security and Justice Department recently announced a new plan to expedite immigration court proceedings for asylum seekers who have recently arrived in the United States without lawful status.

On May 16th senior administration officials from the Department of Homeland Security and Justice Department made it known to the public that a new Recent Arrivals (RA) docket process will allow undocumented immigrants to resolve their immigration cases more expeditiously – within a period of 180 days.

Under the RA Docket process, DHS will place certain noncitizen single adults on the RA Docket, and EOIR adjudicators will prioritize the adjudication of these cases.

The RA Docket will operate in five cities: Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City. Immigration judges will aim to render final decisions within 180 days, although the time to make a decision in any particular case will remain subject to case-specific circumstances and procedural protections, including allowing time for noncitizens to seek representation where needed.

Continue reading

by

usa-3808026_1280

In this blog post, we share with you the latest regarding the controversial immigration law from the state of Texas known as SB-4.

In a stunning turn of events, on Tuesday March 19th the Supreme Court of the United States cleared the way for the state of Texas to enforce its controversial immigration law SB4, which would allow state officials to arrest and detain those suspected of entering the country illegally.

The Supreme Court rejected the Biden administration’s request to intervene and keep Texas’s strict immigration enforcement law on hold pending litigation.

The legal challenges however did not stop there. Later that day, a federal appeals court put the controversial law back on hold, just hours after the Supreme Court would have allowed Texas to begin enforcing the new law.

The order came down from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in which a three-judge panel voted 2-1 to vacate a previous ruling that had put the law into effect.

The future of the law still hangs in the balance as the 5th Circuit prepares to hear arguments over the controversial law to decide once and for all whether the law is unconstitutional.

Continue reading

by

The Supus-supreme-court-building-2225766_1280reme Court of the United States has issued an important but temporary victory to the Biden administration. On Monday, the court temporarily halted the enforcement of a controversial immigration law from the state of Texas known as SB4, which would authorize state law enforcement officials to arrest and detain those suspected of entering the country illegally, while imposing harsh criminal penalties.

The administrative hold issued by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito blocks the law from taking effect in the state of Texas until March 13. This temporary pause will give the court enough time to review and respond to court proceedings initiated by the Biden administration. Alito has ordered Texas to respond to the government’s lawsuit by March 11.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar has argued that SB4 violates the law by placing the authority to admit and remove noncitizens on state law enforcement when these matters fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government, and not individual states.

Continue reading

by
36774192170_fde8cf078d_b

Source: Flickr: Molly Adams, LA March for Immigrant Rights 

In a stunning turn of events, a federal judge on Wednesday declared the Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program illegal in a new court ruling.

The decision comes after a five-year long court battle which has left the future of Dreamers hanging in the balance.

Judge Andrew S. Hanen of the District Court of Houston rejected the Biden administration’s efforts to save the DACA program, arguing that former President Barack Obama did not have the authority to create the program in 2012 by executive authority.

In his ruling, Judge Hanen stopped short of terminating the program which will mean that current DACA recipients can retain their DACA benefits and apply for renewals with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). However, initial first-time applications for DACA will remain prohibited.

In 2021, the Biden administration sought to defend the legality of DACA by issuing a Proposed Rule in the Federal Register to preserve and fortify the program. This came after Judge Hanen issued a prior ruling arguing that the government failed to abide by the public notice and comment procedure required by the Administrative Procedures Act before. This prompted Texas along with eight other states (Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, West Virginia, Kansas, Mississippi) to sue the federal government bringing the case before Judge Hanen yet again.

Unfortunately, the Biden administration’s efforts to appease the Judge did not work. Ultimately the Judge indicated that only Congress could enact legislation to protect Dreamers, and passing such a program was not under the authority of the President.

Continue reading

by

eye-gd012fb6ce_1280

The Department of State raised eyebrows earlier this month when it released information that it will be reducing the waiting period for 221(G) “administrative processing,” in an effort to process visas more efficiently.

While this is welcome news, in practice it may not mean much. Consulates and Embassies have been notoriously secretive when it comes to 221(G) administrative processing and do not reveal the reason for a visa applicant being placed in administrative processing in the first place, nor the type of security checks that are being conducted.

What is 221(G) Administrative Processing?

First, let’s explain what administrative processing is. When an applicant visits a U.S. Consulate or Embassy overseas for their visa interview, there are only two possible outcomes that can occur at the conclusion of their interview. The Consular Officer may choose to either issue or “refuse” the visa. A refusal is not the same as a denial. It simply means that the visa applicant has not established his or her eligibility for the visa they are seeking for the time being, and the Consulate needs additional time or requires further information either from the visa applicant or another source to determine the applicant’s eligibility for the visa.

In most cases, visa applicants who have been “refused” will require further administrative processing.

How will I know if I have been placed in 221(G) administrative processing?

Visa applicants placed in administrative processing are often given what is called a “Notice of 221(G) Refusal” at the conclusion of their interview, which states that the visa application has been “refused” under section 221(G) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Notice should indicate whether additional administrative processing is required for your case, and whether any further action is required on your part, such as providing additional documentation or further information to process your visa.

However, in some cases visa applicants are not given such a Notice and will later discover that they have been placed in 221(G) administrative processing upon checking their visa status on the Consular Electronic Application Center (CEAC) visa status check webpage.

Continue reading

by

nathan-dumlao-vxHX2qLltdw-unsplash-1-scaled

DACA recipients can now breathe a sigh of relief. We are happy to report that the Department of Homeland Security recently published a final rule in the Federal Register, taking a major step to safeguard the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, while the fight to uphold DACA is in litigation.

What does this mean?

The final rule officially took effect on October 31, 2022, to codify existing policy, preserve, and fortify DACA.

This means that effective October 31, 2022, pursuant to the final rule, the U.S. Citizenship, and Immigration Services (USCIS) will accept and process renewal DACA requests and accompanying requests for employment authorization (EAD), consistent with court orders and an ongoing partial stay. Currently, valid grants of DACA, related employment authorization, and advance parole will continue to be recognized as valid under the final rule. Those with pending DACA renewal applications, do not need to reapply.

USCIS will also continue to accept and process applications for advance parole for current DACA recipients and will continue to accept but will not process initial (new) DACA requests.

Pursuant to an injunction and partial stay, handed down by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, DHS is prohibited from granting initial (new) DACA requests and related employment authorization under the final rule.

While this is a temporary measure to protect existing DACA benefits, Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas stated, “Ultimately, we need Congress to urgently pass legislation that provides Dreamers with the permanent protection they need and deserve.”

Continue reading

by

eric-gonzalez-Z3CHkelnvHA-unsplash-scaled

In the latest legal saga concerning the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, a federal appeals court has declared the DACA program illegal, causing uncertainty for the future of the program.

Yesterday, the three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a ruling in which it found that the Obama administration did not have the legal authority to create the DACA program in 2012. The Circuit Court ruling affirms a previous ruling handed down by U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen of the Southern District of Texas which halted the Biden administration’s plans to revive the program last year.

While the panel declared the DACA program illegal, it stopped short of ordering the Biden administration to completely invalidate the program for those with existing DACA benefits, or those seeking to renew those benefits. For the time being, DACA policy remains intact for current beneficiaries, allowing U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to continue to accept and adjudicate renewal requests. However, USCIS is prohibited from approving initial applications for DACA, and accompanying requests for employment authorization.

What happens next?

The appeals court has sent the lawsuit back to U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen, the same judge that previously ordered a nationwide injunction preventing the approval of new DACA applications. Judge Hanen will review the legality of the program under the Biden administration’s policy memorandum which includes revisions to the program.

Sadly, it is unlikely that Judge Hanen will rule in favor of the Biden administration which will likely result in a formal appeal sent to the United States Supreme Court, where chances of its survival hinge on a conservative leaning court. Judge Hanen previously found the program illegal because the government failed to follow the notice and comment periods required by the federal Administrative Procedures Act. In 2016, the Supreme Court deadlocked in a 4-4 decision over expanding DACA to parents of DACA recipients, keeping in place a lower court decision preventing its expansion.

The appellate court’s decision will have long-lasting repercussions, as it forces members of Congress to safeguard the future of the program by passing legislation to settle the matter once and for all. While the topic has been argued for the past decade on Capitol Hill, no meaningful steps have been taken to preserve the program and create a path to residency for Dreamers.

Continue reading