Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in News

by

8536270677_216de82424_z

 

Yesterday, December 2, 2015 the state of Texas brought suit against the federal government and the International Rescue Committee (IRC), before the United States District Court in Texas Health and Human Services Commission V. United States et al., 12/2/15. In its suit, the state of Texas claims that the federal government and the IRC acted unlawfully in their attempt to resettle Syrian refugees without prior consultation and direct cooperation with the state of Texas, as required by federal law. The lawsuit was brought by the Texas Health and Services Commission (THSC) representing the interests of the state of Texas in court. The THSC is an agency responsible for the administration and development of the refugee resettlement program in Texas. The state of Texas discovered in a phone call with the IRC that the Committee intended on resettling 6 Syrian refugees in Dallas, Texas on December 4, 2015 without consent. On December 1, 2015 Texas addressed the Committee in a letter requesting a halt to the resettlement of Syrian refugees until the state would receive security assurances and discuss proper screening procedures for said refugees. The IRC responded on December 2nd that it would continue the resettlement process as planned resettling the refugees in Texas.

Refugee Resettlement Program

Texas administers the refugee resettlement program along with the assistance of local government agencies responsible for the financial costs associated with the refugee’s resettlement and transition to the state of Texas.  In order to accomplish its endeavors, all federal and state agencies must adhere to strict framework’s established by the Refugee Act of 1980, which require collaborative and cooperative efforts between all entities involved in the process of refugee resettlement. According to Texas, “instead of adhering to that statutory framework, the federal government and the Committee have left Texas uninformed about refugees that could well pose a security risk to Texans and without any say in the process of resettling these refugees.”

Arguments for the state of Texas

In its suit, Texas aims to re-assert its sovereignty and obligation to protect the safety of its residents. Texas claims that the government’s failure to adhere by the law has raised legitimate security concerns involving potential complicity between refugees and terrorists.

Continue reading

by

11116320723_8d37fed841_z

Last week, in a 289-137 vote the House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted in favor of a bill that would require a comprehensive background check to be conducted for every Syrian and Iraqi seeking refugee admission to the United States. Among its provisions, the bill, better known as the American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act of 2015 (American SAFE Act of 2015) will require supplemental certifications and background investigations to be conducted before a Syrian or Iraqi refugee can be admitted to the United States. These additional security protocols will require multiple federal government agencies to work together in order to determine whether 1) such an alien poses a threat to the national security of the United States and 2) whether it is in the public interest of the United States to admit the alien based on the findings of the security checks conducted. The bill received overwhelming support from Democrats and Republicans alike amid the recent terrorist attacks claimed by ISIS leaving 129 dead and 353 wounded in the city of Paris. Though the bill will need to pass through the Senate before it can become law, the House’s overwhelming support for the bill has blocked the President from using his veto power.

Specifically, the bill will apply only to Syrian and Iraqi nationals referred to in the bill as ‘covered aliens.’ A covered alien means any alien applying for admission to the United States who is either a) a national or resident of Iraq or Syria b) has no nationality but whose country of last habitual residence is Iraq or Syria c) has been present in Iraq or Syria at anytime on or after March 1, 2011.

Continue reading

by

3021087753_980feb0669_z

Yesterday night, in a 2-1 vote the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals voted to uphold the lower court’s decision in Texas v. United States blocking President Obama’s extended Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) programs from going into effect.

The expanded DACA and new DAPA provisions were announced November of last year as part of Obama’s executive actions on immigration giving eligible undocumented individuals a legal status in the United States. The expanded DACA program would have made millions of law abiding undocumented aliens (with no criminal history) eligible for employment authorization and social security benefits. To qualify, expanded DACA applicants would need to provide documented evidence proving their continuous physical presence in the United States from January 1, 2010 onward. In exchange, the United States government would recognize these individuals as law abiding residents and safeguard them against deportation. The move was significant since it would mean that undocumented individuals would no longer need to live on the fringes of society. By granting these individuals an immigration classification, insurance companies would become accessible to them for the first time ever.

Similarly, Obama’s DAPA program would have extended eligibility of deferred action to parents of US Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents born or or before November 20, 2014 the date of the DAPA program’s announcement. As part of the application process, DAPA applicants would be required to undergo extensive background checks and prove continuous residence since January 1, 2010 among other provisions. Click here for more information on DAPA.

Continue reading

by
16205135740_83caef24c9_z

Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson

On October 28, 2015 sixteen Democrats from the House of Representatives including —Zoe Lofgren, Michael M. Honda, Judy Chu, Katherine M. Clark, Elijah E. Cummings, Anna G. Eshoo, Tulsi Gabbard, Luis V. Gutierrez, James A. Himes, Ruben Hinojosa, Eddie B. Johnson, James P. McGovern, Frank Pallone Jr., Jared Polis, David E. Price, and Alma S. Adams — issued a letter addressed to the Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson concerning drastic revisions made to the Visa Bulletin on September 25, 2015.

In the letter, House Democrats argue that the revisions to the Visa Bulletin have compromised the integrity of the immigrant visa process, and resulted in a lose of faith in our immigration system. More over they argue that these revisions have adversely impacted the lives of thousands of immigrants, the American businesses who employ highly skilled workers, and our economy which benefits from retaining highly skilled workers.

As previously reported, the Department of State had published a dual chart system on September 9, 2015 with the addition of a new ‘date of filing chart’ which first appeared on the October Visa Bulletin. This new ‘date of filing’ chart was implemented in an effort to modernize and streamline the immigration process, as part of President Obama’s executive actions on immigration reform.

Continue reading

by

3209934849_5f5faed197_b
It is our pleasure to bring you the latest in immigration news including recent USCIS announcements, workload updates, tips, and important reminders to avoid delays in application processing or rejections. For more information please contact our office.

Comment Period for Proposed USCIS Form Revisions:

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) have proposed changes to the following USCIS forms. DHS and USCIS invite the general public, organizations, and federal agencies to submit comments on the proposed revisions by the deadlines outlined below:

Continue reading

by

Senate

On October 20, 2015 Democrats in the Senate successfully blocked the Republican backed bill S. 2146: Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act from moving forward with a vote of 54-45. At its core, the bill aimed to hold sanctuary jurisdictions accountable for noncompliance of federal orders including detainment of undocumented immigrants, increasing penalties for individuals caught re-entering the United States after their removal, and providing protection to state and local law enforcement officials cooperating with federal law enforcement officials. The bill was introduced by Republicans after an act of violence took the life of a San Franciscan woman at the hands of an alleged undocumented immigrant with a felony record, who had also been the subject of multiple removals. Public outcry ensued after the city sheriff released the perpetrator despite a federal immigration detainment order. According to Republicans, San Francisco is one of hundreds of sanctuary cities that refuse to comply with federal immigration orders to facilitate the detainment and removal of undocumented immigrants.

Among its provisions, the bill aimed to crackdown on so called ‘sanctuary cities’ notorious for their noncompliance by limiting government funding. By cutting necessary funding, Republicans hoped that this would force cooperation between local law enforcement officials and federal law enforcement officials including ICE officers. Republican Senator Vitter who introduced the bill, argued that the violent crime that occurred in San Francisco was just one example highlighting the magnitude of compliance concerns. According to Vitter, ‘sanctuary cities’ like San Francisco have repeatedly refused to comply with orders of detainment issued by the Department of Homeland Security. Prior to the vote, the White House had warned Senate Republicans that if the bill did pass with the 60 necessary votes, they could expect the President to veto the bill. Although the bill was criticized by Democrats for stereotyping undocumented immigrants and making sweeping allegations against the undocumented immigrant community, the bill raises serious competence and compliance concerns.

Continue reading

by

The Gillard Government made a commitment in 2010 to release all children from immigration detention by June 2011, but still 1000 children languish in the harsh environment of immigration camps around Australia. The Refugee Action Collective organised a protest on July 9, 2011 outside the Melbourne Immigration Transit accommodation which is used for the detention of unaccompanied minors.

In the federal register released on October 16, 2015 President Barack Obama announced refugee admission numbers to be allocated for fiscal year 2016, based upon Section 207 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and Congressional oversight.

According to the federal register, up to 85,000 refugees will be granted admission to the United States during fiscal year 2016 in the national interest and as a result of growing humanitarian concerns in Africa and the Near East/South Asia, regions where the majority of admission numbers have been allocated—a total of 59,000 altogether.The 85,000 cap will be distributed among specified regions that pose special humanitarian concerns to the United States. Africa is to be allocated 25,000 admissions; East Asia, 13,000; Europe and Central Asia, 4,000; Latin America/Caribbean, 3,000; Near East/South Asia, 34,000; and 6,000 refugee admissions will remain unallocated in order to address regions where future necessity may arise.

The 6,000 unallocated refugee admissions will be allocated according to ‘regional ceilings’ that will be imposed by Congressional Judiciary Committees as needed. In addition, unused refugee admissions in one region may be transferred to other regional areas of concern as needed.

Continue reading

by
ellis

Photograph taken at Ellis Island

Further changes have been made to the November Visa Bulletin published earlier this month by the Department of State. The dual chart system remains in place including the ‘final action date’ chart and ‘date of filing’ chart. So what has changed? USCIS has become more involved in the application process for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrant applications since the introduction of the date of filing chart. A disclaimer has now been added to the November Visa Bulletin above the date of filing chart which instructs applicants to visit the USCIS website for more instructions on how and when the chart is to be used. USCIS has created this new web page to notify applicants whether they can proceed with applications for permanent residence based on the date of filing chart published monthly on the Visa Bulletin. The website will be updated within about a week of the publication of the Visa Bulletin every month. The webpage is intended to provide applicants information in regards to visa availability for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrant visas for each fiscal year, letting applicants know whether the filing date chart is enforceable. So far, USCIS has indicated that the filing date chart for October and November 2015 is enforceable.

Continue reading

by

317775677_53964625b8_z

International students seeking a STEM Optional Practical Training (OPT) extension must be aware that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not yet published a replacement rule authorizing further STEM OPT extensions, this following a court decision prohibiting DHS from allowing 17 month extensions to be issued. The OPT program allows foreign students the right to seek temporary employment during or following their studies in the United States. On August 12th of this year a court decision invalidated the processing of a DHS rule allowing a 17 month STEM OPT extension program to take place, due to procedural errors. The court’s ruling will be officially enforced on February 12, 2016 in an effort to delay hardships STEM students are likely to experience, and the disruption of employment among technology companies and relevant sectors. The delay also allows DHS to present a new rule before February 12, 2016.

With time running out (4 workdays to be exact) no such rule has since been released by DHS. While DHS has not communicated any changes to international student offices, we expect that any new rulings will have no impact on the initial 12-month OPT program. Until further clarification is provided by DHS, universities are authorized to continue to produce I-20 forms for STEM extensions. In fact, most universities are continuing to accept applications for STEM extensions, regardless of DHS’ failure to publish a new rule within the given time. Students should heed with caution if they wish to file an application for extension, as they may risk forfeiting money spent on such applications. EAD cards already issued under the existing STEM program are considered valid until further notice. DHS mandated employment reports and regular attendance should continue as normal. Students should make sure to abide by the strict unemployment limits of OPT, regardless of these developments.

Continue reading

by

extreme hardship

Yesterday, USCIS released a draft version of what will eventually be used as the policy manual guide of extreme hardship. The policy manual has been created for the purpose of assisting adjudicating officers in making final determinations on the merits of waivers of inadmissibility. Certain aliens, who are found to be inadmissible under specific grounds of the law, can apply for a discretionary waiver in order to adjust their status to permanent residence. In order to do so, the alien must demonstrate their relationship to a qualifying relative (US Citizen or LPR family member) and establish that the qualifying relative would experience an “extreme hardship” in their absence. The policy manual includes guidance relating to general considerations, interpretations of existing law, and adjudication steps that will help consular officers establish whether a waiver of inadmissibility merits a favorable decision and whether the burden of proof has been satisfied by the applicant. The draft highlights important requirements that must be taken into consideration by adjudicating officers when considering the merits of a waiver application. Such requirements include 1) whether the alien has demonstrated that they possess a qualifying relative 2) the presence of an extreme hardship to the qualifying relative and 3) discretionary measures based on the totality of the facts presented. USCIS has invited the public to comment on the draft from now until November 23, 2015.

Continue reading