Articles Posted in DHS

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.

el-salvador-2131184_1920

In response to a court ordered preliminary injunction, that blocked the government’s plans to end the temporary protected status (TPS) of immigrants from El Salvador, Sudan, Haiti, and Nicaragua, the government has outlined a detailed plan to comply with the judge’s order.

As previously reported, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen issued a preliminary injunction temporarily stopping the United States government from rescinding the temporary protected status designation for immigrants from Sudan, El Salvador, Haiti, and Nicaragua.

Before the preliminary injunction the TPS designations would officially terminate as follows:

  • Sudan, TPS Designation was to terminate on November 2, 2018
  • Nicaragua, TPS Designation was to terminate on January 5, 2019
  • Haiti, TPS Designation was to terminate on July 22, 2019
  • El Salvador, TPS Designation was to terminate on September 9, 2019

To comply with the court order, USCIS has notified the court that the agency will be publishing a notice in the Federal Register, announcing that the TPS designations for Sudan, Haiti, El Salvador, and Nicaragua will remain in effect as long as the preliminary injunction remains in effect pending the resolution of the case. The Department of Homeland Security will continue to recognize the validity of TPS-related Employment Authorization Documents (EADs), Form I-94 Arrival and Departure Records, and Forms I-797 Notices of Action otherwise known as Approval Notices, to demonstrate the lawful status sand employment authorization of affected TPS beneficiaries.

Continue reading

trump-2372132_1920

The Washington Post recently reported that President Trump is expected to deliver a scathing speech on immigration this upcoming Tuesday October 30, 2018. The President’s speech will come just a week before the highly contested midterm elections, where more than 425 House seats are up for re-election.

Interestingly, the Post is reporting that President Trump is gearing up to invoke his executive power to prevent Central American migrants from applying for asylum at the Southwest border. Such a move would trigger constitutional challenges in federal court. However, as we know, the President and his administration have not shied away from controversy.

The President is eager to present his agenda to boost his approval ratings and encourage Republican voters to support GOP candidates in battleground states.

Earlier this month the President expressed his sentiments regarding an immigrant caravan consisting of more than 7,000 Central American migrants’ intent on reaching the U.S. border.

Continue reading

central-america-879655_1280

Yesterday, Federal Judge Edward Chen, of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, issued a preliminary injunction temporarily stopping the United States government from rescinding the temporary protected status designation for immigrants from Sudan, El Salvador, Haiti, and Nicaragua.

By court order, the government must maintain the TPS designation for the above-mentioned countries, and continue to allow beneficiaries of these countries, to apply for employment authorization, while a lawsuit challenging the rescission of TPS for these countries moves through the court system.

Before the preliminary injunction the TPS designations would officially terminate as follows:

  • Sudan, TPS Designation was to terminate on November 2, 2018
  • Nicaragua, TPS Designation was to terminate on January 5, 2019
  • Haiti, TPS Designation was to terminate on July 22, 2019
  • El Salvador, TPS Designation was to terminate on September 9, 2019

The preliminary injunction comes on the heels of a class-action lawsuit brought by immigrants from these countries over the rescission of the TPS designation for Sudan, El Salvador, Haiti, and Nicaragua. The lead plaintiff named in the lawsuit Ramos v. Nielsen, is Crista Ramos, a 14-year old United States Citizen whose mother is a TPS holder from El Salvador. Ramos, along with other Plaintiffs in this lawsuit allege that the government rescinded TPS protections for the above-mentioned countries, based on a predetermined political agenda in violation of the law.

Continue reading

trump-2045213_1920

On Saturday, September 22, 2018, the Department of Homeland Security announced a new proposed rule that may prevent non-citizens reliant, or likely to become reliant on public benefits, from gaining admission to the United States.  The new proposal entitled, “Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds,” has been signed by the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the proposed rule is expected to be published in the federal register in the coming weeks, according to a DHS press release.

APA Procedure

Once the proposed rule has been published in the federal register, the government must allow the public to comment on the proposed rule for a 60-day period. Once that period is over, the government will have the opportunity to review comments and make changes if necessary to the proposed rule. Thereafter, the government will publish a final rule which will become law 60 days after the date of publication.

Who is a Public Charge?

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, a public charge is defined as an “alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge.” Such aliens are not admissible to the United States on public charge grounds.

Applicants seeking admission to the United States should be aware that, “an alien who is incapable of earning a livelihood, who does not have sufficient funds in the United States for support, and who has no person in the United States willing and able to assure the alien will not need public support, generally is inadmissible as likely to become a public charge.”

Continue reading

judge-3008038_1920
“Fake Dates” Appear on Notices of intent to Deny

Across the nation, news outlets are reporting that dozens of individuals have received court orders from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) ordering them to appear in court by a certain date.

The problem? When these individuals showed up to court on the date indicated on the notice, they were turned away by court staffers who notified them that their names were not listed on the judge’s official dockets.

neonbrand-258972-unsplash

BREAKING: The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be publishing a final rule in the Federal Register tomorrow August 30, 2018, increasing the premium processing fee charged by the agency by 14.92 percent.

According to USCIS the increase in the fee accounts for inflation according to the Consumer Price Index. The last time that the filing fee for premium processing was updated to account for inflation was in the year 2010.

The adjustment in the fee will bring the premium processing fee to $1,410 instead of $1,225. The final rule states that the ruse will become effective 30 days after publication in the federal register which would fall on September 30th of this year. Any applications postmarked on or after September 30th will need to include the new $1,410 filing fee instead of the previous filing fee.

DHS has authorized the fee increase without notice and comment, because according to DHS it is “unnecessary.” The government cites 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and INA section 286(u), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m) as authority to adjust the fee without notice or public comment.

Continue reading

helena-lopes-592971-unsplash

Earlier this year, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) suddenly changed the regulations governing the Optional Practical Training Program (OPT). According to the USCIS website, a U.S. employer who has hired an international student under the STEM OPT program may not assign, or delegate training responsibilities to a non-employer third party such as a consulting company. This policy change has proven controversial since its sudden appearance on the USCIS website during the month of April. The policy greatly restricts the employment of international students and exposes “noncompliant” students from being found inadmissible to the United States for a 5-year period or more and makes such students subject to deportation.

Per the USCIS website:

“…a STEM OPT employer may not assign, or otherwise delegate, its training responsibilities to a non-employer third party (e.g., a client/customer of the employer, employees of the client/customer, or contractors of the client/customer). See 8 C.F.R. 214.2.(f)(10)(ii)(C)(7)(ii) and 2016 STEM OPT Final Rule (pp. 13042, 13079, 13090, 13091, 13092, 13016).”

A lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas seeks to challenge this new provision on the ground that USCIS unlawfully began implementing this new policy change, in contravention of federal law.

According to the lawsuit, ITServe Alliance v. Nielsen, USCIS circumvented federal procedural rules which require public notice and the opportunity for public comment, before such a federal policy is put in place. The lawsuit alleges that since the sudden appearance of these additional terms and conditions of employment, USCIS has unlawfully issued hundreds of Requests for Evidence (RFEs) and Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs), without first following the formal rulemaking process mandated under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

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

mailbox-595854_1920

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has released a new policy memorandum that will have wide ranging implications for immigrants. Beginning September 11, 2018, USCIS will use their discretion to deny an application, petition, or request filed with USCIS without first issuing a Request for Evidence (RFE) or Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID), if insufficient evidence is sent with the initial filing of the application or if the evidence provided does not establish the applicant’s eligibility for the benefit requested.

The new policy memorandum “Issuance of Certain RFEs and NOIDs; Revisions to Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 10.5(a), Chapter 10.5(b)” supersedes the 2013 policy memorandum titled “Requests for Evidence and Notices of Intent to Deny” which previously governed an officer’s discretion to deny an application, petition, or request without first issuing a request for evidence. Previously, the 2013 memo required requests for evidence to be issued where the initial evidence was unsatisfactory or did not establish the applicant’s eligibility for the benefit requested.

As of September 11, 2018, USCIS now has the power to deny petitions lacking initial evidence without sending a Request for Evidence or Notice of Intent to Deny to cure the defect. This is bad news for applicants of immigrant and non-immigrant visa types, because applicants who have not provided sufficient evidence to USCIS to establish that they are eligible for the benefit requested can be denied without having the opportunity to cure the defect.

Continue reading