Articles Posted in DACA/DAPA

paid-160126_1280

On November 14, 2019, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services will publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register to increase immigration fees for certain petitions. After publication, the proposal will be open for a 30-day comment period. After that point the agency will review public comments and draft the final rule. At this time there is no definitive date set out in the proposed rule for enforcement of these fees. Therefore, readers should note that these fee increases will likely not take effect until well into Fiscal Year 2020.

What does the rule propose?

The rule proposes the following fee increases by immigration benefit:

https://www.immigrationlawyerblog.com/files/2019/11/Screen-Shot-2019-11-12-at-4.02.14-PM.png https://www.immigrationlawyerblog.com/files/2019/11/Screen-Shot-2019-11-12-at-4.02.20-PM.png https://www.immigrationlawyerblog.com/files/2019/11/Screen-Shot-2019-11-12-at-4.02.26-PM.png

Moreover, DHS proposes that fees for the following types of petitions be limited to a 5 percent increase above current fees:

  • Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion.
  • Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er) or Special Immigrant.
  • Form I-600, Petition to Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative
  • Form I-600A, Application for Advance Processing of an Orphan Petition
  • Form I-600A/I-600, Supplement 3, Request for Action on Approved Form I-600A/I600.42
  • Form I-800, Petition to Classify Convention Adoptee as an Immediate Relative.
  • Form I-800A, Application for Determination of Suitability to Adopt a Child from a Convention Country.
  • Form I-800A, Supplement 3, Request for Action on Approved Form I-800A

Changes to Fee Waiver Requests

DHS further proposes to limit fee waivers grants to individuals who have an annual household income of less than 125 percent of the Federal Poverty Guideline as defined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Continue reading

26551440525_69588d204b_b

Photo: Christian Leo Seno
Flickr

The United States Supreme Court has announced that it will decide the fate of DACA, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, during its next term, beginning in October, with a decision likely to be handed down by the Court in early 2020.

The Court’s decision to take up the issue of DACA will take place during a highly contentious political climate as Americans prepare to vote in the 2020 Presidential election.

Adding to the great divide among Americans about the future of DACA, is the Supreme Court’s current ideological split. At the moment, the Supreme Court is evenly split with 4 liberal justices and 4 conservative justices. Justice Alito, the “swing” voter is likely to cast the decisive vote.

As constitutional history has suggested, DACA is likely to find support among the liberal justices on the bench including Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer, while finding opposition from Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Chief Justice Roberts.

This will not be the first time the Supreme Court hears a case involving the constitutionality of the DACA program.

Continue reading

36357561133_dd05064f34_z

Photo: Molly Adams

On June 5, 2019, the House of Representatives unified to pass H.R. 6 better known as the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019, offering Dreamers who meet certain requirements, a path to citizenship.

The bill must still pass through the Senate to become law.

37171881145_635c9606b5_c

Flickr: mollyktadams

House Democrats are making a move to help Dreamers achieve permanent residence. A new bill dubbed HR 6, the Dream and Promise Act, seeks to provide undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children, the opportunity to obtain permanent residence. In addition, the bill includes a proposal that would allow certain types of immigrants fleeing war or natural disasters the opportunity to apply for permanent residence.

The Dream and Promise Act would cancel the removal (also known as “deportation”) of and grant conditional permanent resident (CPR) status to a person who is inadmissible or deportable from the U.S. if the person:

  • has been continuously physically present in the U.S. for at least four years before the date of the bill’s enactment;
  • entered the U.S. before turning 18;
  • (a) has been admitted to a college, university or other higher educational institution; or (b) has earned a high school diploma, GED, or equivalent post-secondary education credential; or (c) is enrolled in a secondary school or education program that assists students in obtaining a high school diploma, GED or similar state-authorized exam, certificate or credential from a career or technical school providing education at the secondary level,or in obtaining a recognized post-secondary credential;
  • provides biometric and biographic data, with alternative procedures available for those with physical impairments;
  • passes a background check;
  • registered for military selective service if required to;
  • pays a fee no greater than $495, though fee exemptions may apply;

Continue reading

Facing mounting pressure from the American public, the President delivered his last-ditch effort offering what he termed a “compromise” to gain support for his controversial wall and put an end to what has been a long-drawn-out government shutdown.

In Saturday’s White House address, President Trump announced a plan that would extend the temporary protected status of TPS recipients for a three-year period and provide legislative relief to DACA recipients also for a three-year period.

In exchange, the President is asking Congress to grant him $800 million dollars in aid for humanitarian purposes, $800 million dollars to invest in drug detection technology to enhance border security, and $5.7 billion dollars for strategic deployment of physical steel barriers along the U.S./Mexico border.

Additionally, the President will use some of this money to hire 2,750 border agents and law enforcement professionals, 75 new immigration judges to reduce backlogs, and to implement a program that will protect migrant children from exploitation and abuse.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer rejected the President’s proposal almost immediately.

Continue reading

This evening the President of the United States delivered his first primetime address from the Oval Office to gain support from the American people to build a border wall along the U.S./Mexico border.

The President’s speech comes 17 days into a partial government shutdown that has left thousands of federal government employees without a paycheck.

element5-digital-352046-unsplash
The United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has spoken. In their unanimous opinion, a three-judge panel of judges held that the President’s decision to rescind the DACA program by way of executive order was arbitrary and capricious.

After a long and contentious hearing in the case, Regents of the University of California v. the United States Department of Homeland Security, the judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, were ultimately convinced that the government’s decision to rescind the DACA program, “was motivated by unconstitutional racial animus in violation of the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment.”

The Court further decided to leave a preliminary injunction in place to give the district court an opportunity to consider whether the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Equal Protection claim against the government.

36357497853_4cf8c51162_z

Photo by Molly Adams

On Friday August 31, 2018, Texas District Judge Andrew Hanen declined to issue a preliminary injunction that would have put a stop to the DACA program immediately. As we previously reported, the fate of the DACA program now rests in Judge Hanen’s hands, who is currently presiding over a lawsuit filed by the State of Texas along with seven other states (State of Texas, et al., v. the United States of America, et al.). At issue in that case is (1) whether the creation of DACA violated the Constitution (2) whether the DACA program violates the substantive and procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Texas, along with other states, are collectively asking the Court to provide declaratory and injunctive relief temporarily halting the DACA program, as well as a court ruling finding the DACA program unconstitutional. According to Texas, the DACA program is illegal because its creation violated the procedural and substantive aspects of the Administrative Procedure Act. In addition, Texas argues that the program violates the Take Care Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

On Friday, the judge issued a ruling on the States’ collective request for a preliminary injunction to temporarily stop the government from issuing or renewing DACA permits. In response to the States’ request for a preliminary injunction, Judge Hanen wrote a lengthy 117-page opinion drawing on the need to exercise judicial restraint with regard to DACA, “the failure of Congress to act [with regard to DACA] does not bestow legislative authority on either the Executive or Judicial branches, and the need for legislation cannot take precedence over the application of the Constitution and the laws of the United States….”

Hanen sealed his opinion with a forceful statement regarding his sentiments toward DACA, “Unfortunately the Judiciary is not the branch of government designed to salvage a program that should have emanated from Congress, or at the very least complied with the APA…This court will not succumb to the temptation to set aside legal principles and to substitute its judgment in lieu of legislative action. If the nation truly wants to have a DACA program, it is up to Congress to say so.”

Continue reading

rob-walsh-542235-unsplash

A federal judge from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia upheld a decision from the lower courts ordering the complete restoration of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The new ruling gives the Trump administration a 20-day deadline to implement the complete restoration of the program or file an appeal. The District Court judge behind the order stated in his ruling that the Trump administration failed to justify its decision to end the DACA program, which protected approximately 800,000 young adults from deportation.

The Trump administration plans to appeal the ruling using the 20-day delay granted by the judge in the ruling. Today the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, issued a statement following the court decision stating that the Trump administration strongly disagrees with the decision adding that, “The executive branch’s authority to simply rescind a policy, established only by a letter from the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, is clearly established. The Department of Justice will take every lawful measure to vindicate the Department of Homeland Security’s lawful rescission of DACA.”

The attorney general claimed that the Obama administration “violated its duty to enforce our immigration laws” by allowing the establishment of the DACA program and the catch and release policy,” that the current administration not only had the authority to withdraw from the DACA program but had a duty to do so. The Trump administration has interpreted recent court decisions contradicting the termination of the DACA program as an improper use of judicial power.

Continue reading

courtroom-898931_1920

In this post, we bring our readers important information regarding revisions to the Notice to Appear “NTA” policy guidelines. On June 28, 2018, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) released new policy guidance outlining the Department’s priorities for enforcement and removal of undocumented immigrants from the United States.

Form I-862 also known as a Notice to Appear is a document that is given to an individual to initiate removal proceedings. The Notice to Appear instructs the individual of a date and time to appear in immigration court for removal proceedings.

To better align with the President’s Executive Order 13768 “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” USCIS has revised its NTA policy expanding the class of individuals who may be referred to ICE and issued a Notice to Appear. Under the revised policy, USCIS may now refer cases “with articulated suspicions of fraud to ICE prior to adjudication,” of cases filed with USCIS. The revised policy does not apply to recipients and requestors of Deferred Action (DACA) when (1) processing an initial or renewal DACA request or DACA-related benefit request; or (2) processing a DACA recipient for possible termination of DACA. For this class of individuals the 2011 NTA guidelines will apply.

The President’s Executive Order 13768 specifically calls on DHS to “prioritize the removal of aliens described in INA §§ 212(a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(6)(C), 235, and 237(a)(2) and (a)(4) … who are removable based on criminal or security grounds, fraud or misrepresentation, and aliens subject to expedited removal.”

In addition, the Executive Order prioritizes the removal of individuals who:

  • (a) Have been convicted of any criminal offense;
  • (b) Have been charged with any criminal offense that has not been resolved;
  • (c) Have committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense;
  • (d) Have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter or application before a governmental agency;
  • (e) Have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits;
  • (f) Are subject to a final order of removal, but have not departed; or
  • (g) In the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security

Continue reading