Unlawful presence

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.

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.

Articles Posted in Unlawful presence

Sanctuary Cities Bill Dubbed the ‘Donald Trump Bill’ Fails to Pass the Senate

Discretionary Waivers: Draft Policy Manual on Extreme Hardship Released for Comment