Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in SCOTUS

by

highway-1403977_1920

PLEASE NOTE: THE INFORMATION IN THIS POST NO LONGER APPLIES. ON FEBRUARY 21, 2020, THE SUPREME COURT ISSUED A RULING ALLOWING THE GOVERNMENT TO IMPLEMENT THE PUBLIC CHARGE RULE TO RESIDENTS IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. USCIS HAS ANNOUNCED THAT THE PUBLIC CHARGE RULE WILL BE IMPLEMENTED NATIONWIDE INCLUDING IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS TO APPLICATIONS POSTMARKED ON OR AFTER FEBRUARY 24, 2020.

In this blog post we will discuss whether the public charge rule applies to individuals living in Illinois.

The Supreme Court’s decision on January 27, 2020 lifted all lower court injunctions preventing the government’s implementation of the public charge rule, with the exception of an injunction preventing the government from imposing the rule in the state of Illinois.

USCIS has clearly stated that although the agency will implement the public charge rule on February 24, 2020, the agency is prohibited from implementing the rule in the state of Illinois, where it remains enjoined by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Accordingly, at this time, the public charge rule does not apply to individuals living in the state of Illinois. In the event the injunction in Illinois is lifted the public charge rule may apply. If this occurs, USCIS will provide additional guidance for individuals residing in the state of  Illinois on its website.

The following frequently asked questions have been prepared to better inform applicants and petitioners living in the state of Illinois regarding the public charge rule.

Q: Does the rule apply to adjustment of status applicants in State of Illinois?

A: No. USCIS has clearly stated on its website that, “applicants for adjustment of status who live in Illinois and who are subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility are not subject to the final rule.”

Continue reading

by

flag-1446423_1920

In this blog post we discuss the highlights of the newly updated Policy Manual guidance released by USCIS which addresses the Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds Final Rule. The Final Rule and guidance is effective as of February 24, 2020 and applies to all applications and petitions postmarked on or after February 24, 2020 (except for in the State of Illinois where the Final Rule remains enjoined by court order).

These highlights are broken down by volume. Volume 2 addresses public charge grounds of inadmissibility for non-immigrants, Volume 8 discusses the public charge ground of inadmissibility in great detail, and Volume 12 discusses how the public charge rule may apply to citizenship and naturalization applications postmarked on or after February 24, 2020.

Highlights:

Non-Immigrants Seeking Extension of Stay or Change of Status (Volume 2 Chapter 4)

This section of the policy guidance clarifies that although the public charge ground of inadmissibility does not apply to nonimmigrants seeking either an extension of stay (EOS) or change of status (COS) on Forms I-129 or Form I-539, these applicants are generally subject to the “public benefits condition,” unless specifically exempted by law.

What is the public benefits condition?

According to the policy manual, “the public benefits condition requires an applicant seeking EOS or COS on or after February 24, 2020 (postmarked or if applicable, submitted electronically on or after that date) to demonstrate that he or she has not received, since obtaining the nonimmigrant status he or she is seeking to extend or from which he or she seeks to change, one or more public benefits, or more than 12 months in the aggregate within any 36-month period (where, for instance, receipt of two public benefits in 1 month counts as 2 months).

USCIS only considers public benefits received on or after February 24, 2020 for petitions or applications postmarked (or, if applicable, submitted electronically) on or after that date.”

Continue reading

by

thinker-28741_1280

In this blog post we answer your frequently asked questions regarding the public charge rule.

Overview:

On October 10, 2018, the Department of Homeland Security first published the final rule “Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds” which dramatically changes the way in which an individual is determined to be a “public charge.” Although five separate courts issued injunctions to stop the government from implementing the final rule, on January 27, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of the Trump administration, allowing the government to implement the public charge rule, except in the state of Illinois where a state-wide injunction remains in place.

The new regulations will make it more difficult for certain adjustment of status and immigrant visa applicants to prove that they are not likely to become a public charge to the United States government.

The following frequently asked questions have been prepared to better inform our readers and address concerns regarding the effect of the public charge rule.

Q: When will the public charge rule take effect?

A: Shortly after the Supreme Court’s ruling, USCIS formally announced on its website that the public charge rule will affect all applications for adjustment of status (green card applications) postmarked on or after February 24, 2020 (except in the state of Illinois, where the rule remains enjoined by a federal court).

Q: Who does the public charge rule apply to?

A: In general, all applicants for admission to the United States are subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility under INA § 212(a)(4) unless specifically exempted.

The following non-citizens are affected by the public charge rule:

  • Applicants for adjustment of status in the United States
  • Applicants for an immigrant visa abroad
  • Applicants for a nonimmigrant visa abroad
  • Applicants for admission at the U.S. border who have been granted an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa, and
  • Nonimmigrants applying for an extension or change of status within the United States (new policy under the final rule).

Applicants seeking lawful permanent resident status (applicants for adjustment of status) based on a family relationship are most affected by the public charge rule.

Continue reading

by

15146360079_21d95fc033_b

We kick off a brand-new week with breaking news handed down by the United States Supreme Court.

Today, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration may enforce  the controversial rule entitled, “Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds” which expands the scope of public benefits that will render a permanent resident or immigrant visa applicant ineligible for immigration benefits. The public charge rule makes certain individuals inadmissible to receive permanent residence on public charge grounds based on their use of certain government assistance programs.

As we reported, on January 13, 2020 the Trump administration filed an emergency appeal asking the Supreme Court to lift a remaining lower court injunction preventing the government from enforcing the public charge rule. Today, the conservatives on the Supreme Court overpowered the four liberal justices on the court, in favor of the Trump administration, ruling that the government may now begin to enforce the public charge rule despite challenges to the rule pending in the lower courts.

Overview: 

Under current immigration law, an individual who, in the opinion of DHS is likely at any time to become a public charge is (1) ineligible for a visa (2) ineligible for admission to the United States and (3) ineligible for adjustment of status (permanent residence).

In determining whether an applicant is or will likely become a public charge USCIS has always considered the receipt of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Medicaid, benefits that make an applicant ineligible for permanent residence.

The public charge rule goes further and expands the list of benefits that make a foreign national ineligible to obtain permanent residence or an immigrant visa (in addition to the benefits listed above). These additional benefits include:

Continue reading

by

supreme-court-544218_1920-1

Welcome back to our blog! We kick off the week by bringing you recent developments regarding the government’s controversial rule entitled, “Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds” which sought to expand the scope of public benefits that could render a permanent resident or immigrant visa applicant ineligible for immigration benefits.

As you know, in October of 2019, the final rule “Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds,” was swiftly blocked by several federal judges shortly before going into effect. By court order, the government cannot implement the final rule anywhere in the United States until a final resolution has been reached in several lawsuits brought against the government challenging the validity of the public charge rule.

On Monday, January 13, 2020, the Trump administration filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court of the United States, asking the court to lift the remaining lower court injunction, that is currently stopping the government from enforcing the public charge rule.

The government’s request comes just one week after a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, upheld a lower court injunction, preventing the government from implementing the public charge rule on a nationwide basis.

Angered by the decision, the government decided to appeal the U.S. Court of Appeals decision by bringing the matter to the Supreme Court, urging the Court to side with the President and allow the implementation of the rule while a decision in the New York lawsuit is reached on the merits.

Continue reading

by

wesley-tingey-9z9fxr_7Z-k-unsplash-1

After a long and contentious battle in several courts across the nation, the fate of DACA now rests in the hands of nine Supreme Court justices.

On Tuesday, November 12, 2019, the justices heard the first oral arguments in the lawsuit seeking to end DACA.

During opening arguments, the justices gave us a small glimpse into what might be in their hearts and minds.

When the Solicitor General proposed to the justices that the Supreme Court did not have the authority to decide the case on the merits because DACA was a discretionary program which began under the Obama administration, the liberal justices on the court pushed back.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor were the first to disagree. Justice Ginsburg pointed to a flaw in the Solicitor’s argument stating that the Solicitor General could not argue that on the one hand the DACA program could not be reviewed by the Court because it was created under Obama’s administration as a discretionary program, and on the other hand that the Obama administration had no discretion to authorize the program because it was illegal to do so.

Sonia Sotomayor further attacked the Solicitor’s arguments stating that the President himself has issued conflicting remarks about the legality of the DACA program, stating first that Dreamers would be “safe under him,” and later terminating the program altogether.

Continue reading

by
5644902252_96862d3a24_b

Photo by Thomas Hawk, Flickr

Extension of TPS Designation for Yemen

The Department of Homeland Security has announced an extension of the TPS designation of Yemen for a period of 18 months, from September 4, 2018 to March 3, 2020.

Re-registration is limited to persons who have previously registered for TPS under the designation of Yemen and whose applications have been granted.

For individuals who have already been granted TPS under Yemen’s designation, the 60-day re-registration period runs from August 14, 2018 through October 15, 2018.

USCIS will issue new EADs with a March 3, 2020 expiration date to eligible Yemeni TPS beneficiaries who timely re-register and apply for EADs

Proposed Rule on Public Benefits

Yesterday, October 10, 2018, a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) was officially published in the federal register for the proposed rule that may soon restrict admission of certain immigrants and non-immigrants reliant or likely to become reliant on public benefits.

The comment period on the proposed rule has begun and will remain open until December 10, 2018. After the period for public comments has closed, the government will review the comments and make any changes to the rule as deemed necessary. The government will then publish a final version of the rule in the federal register, and it will be enforced on or after 60 days from the date of publication of the final rule in the federal register.

Under the proposed rule, receipt of the following types of public benefits would make an applicant a public charge:

  • Federal, state, local or tribal cash assistance for income maintenance
  • Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
  • Supplemental Security Income
  • Medicaid (with limited exceptions for Medicaid benefits paid for an “emergency medical condition,” and for certain disability services related to education)
  • Medicare Part D Low Income Subsidy
  • The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or food stamps)
  • Institutionalization for long-term care at government expense
  • Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program
  • Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance
  • Public Housing
  • DHS is considering adding to the list of included benefits the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), formerly known as the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)

Continue reading

by

7022830203_d8c85dc863_z

During the last few days, the Supreme Court has been very busy taking up the issue of immigration. On Tuesday in a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court handed down a controversial ruling strengthening the power of the Trump administration to detain undocumented immigrants facing deportation proceedings for extended periods of time. The Court rejected the opinion of federal judges in California who had previously ruled that detained immigrants facing removal proceedings have a right to a bail hearing after six months in jail.

Today, the Court emphatically disagreed, ruling in the case Jennings v. Rodriguez, that those who face deportation will remain detained while their cases are being considered by an immigration judge. Justice Samuel Alito speaking for the Court said that federal immigration law does not require bail hearings, and that the Ninth Circuit Court has no authority to allow for such hearings.

The Court handed down this ruling after immigrants’ rights activists brought a class action suit representing thousands of non-citizens who had been arrested and held for deportation. Many of these individuals sought asylum in the United States based on a credible fear of persecution. Although the majority of these individuals eventually went on to win their cases in immigration court, they were detained for a year or longer while their cases remained pending. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal had previously ruled that such individuals should have a right to a bail hearing after 6 months, and a right to be released from detention provided they could prove to the Court that they are not a danger to the community or a flight risk.

Continue reading

by

4518935071_1e1f2cfbbf_z

Various news media outlets are reporting that the Supreme Court will hold a closed-door meeting today Friday, February 16, 2018 to decide whether the Supreme Court will hear a challenge to a lower court opinion which temporarily blocked the President’s move to end the Obama era program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, making it possible for DACA recipients to apply for a renewal of their DACA benefits.

The closed-door meeting was prompted after the Justice Department formally asked the Supreme Court to review a federal judge’s January ruling, blocking the administration’s effort to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. The Justice Department in making such a request is seeking to bypass lower court proceedings, asking the Supreme Court for direct review, instead of appealing the lower court’s decision before a federal appellate court.

According to a law professor from the University of Texas School of Law, the court has not granted certiorari before judgment since the year 2004, and has not done so without a circuit-level ruling since 1988.

Continue reading

by

38190898076_b64f8819eb_z

IMPORTANT UPDATE: On February 14, 2018 USCIS announced that due to federal court orders issued on January 9, 2018 and February 13, 2018, USCIS will resume accepting requests to renew a grant of deferred action under the DACA program. Please read this post to determine whether you qualify. 

On January 13, 2018, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a statement for recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in response to a federal court order that resurrected certain provisions of the program.

USCIS has announced that they will resume accepting requests to renew a grant of deferred action for individuals who have received benefits under the DACA program. According to the statement, the DACA policy that was in effect before the program was rescinded by the Trump administration on September 5, 2017, will continue to be implemented on the same terms as it was before. It is important to note that although USCIS will begin accepting renewal requests for individuals who have received DACA benefits in the past, USCIS will NOT be accepting initial DACA requests from individuals who have never before been granted deferred action under the DACA program.

In addition, USCIS is NOT accepting applications for advance parole from recipients of DACA. Before the program was rescinded, individuals receiving DACA benefits could apply for an advance parole document (travel permit) allowing them to safely re-enter the United States after temporary foreign travel. This will no longer be the case. Although by federal court order USCIS may consider applications for advance parole on a case-by-case basis if it so chooses, the agency has definitively decided against accepting any such requests.

Continue reading