Visa Lawyer Blog

In the wake of protests on Department of Homeland Security (DHS) prosecutorial discretion for removal cases, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano announced a new process for implementation of the June 17, 2011, prosecutorial discretion memorandum. The letter included a background two-pager.

From the background two- pager – “the new interagency process is designed to ensure that resources are focused on the Administration’s highest enforcement priorities. As part of this process, an interagency team of DHS and Department of Justice (DOJ) officers and attorneys, including representatives from throughout DHS and from the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and the Office of Immigration Litigation at DOJ, will identify low-priority removal cases that should be considered for an exercise of discretion. This review will be conducted on a case-by-case basis and will consider cases that are at the various stages of enforcement proceedings, including charging, hearing, and after a final order of removal. The interagency working group will also issue guidance to prevent low priority cases from entering the system on a case-by-case basis. Resources that are saved as a result of this process will be used to accelerate the removal of high priority cases.”
The guidance from DHS is a good indication that the protests and the voice of the people is being heard. At a time when immigration enforcement has been highlighted by a wave of states enacting their own laws, DHS is showing that it is using its prosecutorial discretion to handle cases that warrant removal, including high profile cases involving convicted felons who are a threat to public safety. Although the letter stresses that it cannot make any categorical distinction for removal cases, such as those who might fall under the DREAM Act if it were passed, the director of DHS strongly believes in the Act and will continue to make efforts involving Congress to get it passed, including testifying before Congress. So even though DHS leadership stresses a need to enforce immigration laws, there is a feeling that reform is necessary so that our resources are being put in the right direction.

A program that is central to President Obama’s immigration enforcement strategy has drawn protests by Latino and immigrant organizations in six cities in the last two days, as those groups stepped up their confrontation with the administration over the fast pace of deportations.

In Los Angeles, about 200 immigrants and their supporters walked out of a stormy hearing Monday evening that was called by a task force advising the enforcement program, known as Secure Communities. Bearing signs that said “Stop Ripping Families Apart,” the protesters called for an end to the program, which they said had led to the deportation of victims who reported domestic violence to the police, and to parents of American citizen children.

On Tuesday in Chicago, several dozen protesters delivered thousands of petitions calling for an end to the program to the headquarters of Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign. Petitions were also delivered by small groups of protesters to Democratic Party offices in Miami, Atlanta, Houston and Charlotte, N.C.

About two dozen prominent immigrant advocacy organizations issued a report denouncing the program and calling on the administration to halt it.

Organizers said the protests were a response to an announcement on Aug. 5 by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the federal agency that runs Secure Communities, that the program would continue to expand to meet its declared goal of covering the whole country by 2013. Clarifying doubts about whether states and cities could choose whether to participate, John Morton, the agency’s director, said that agreements with state and local officials were not required for the agency to proceed.

President Obama has made no headway in a divided Congress toward an immigration overhaul that would give legal status to millions of illegal immigrants. At the same time, in each of the last two years immigration authorities have deported nearly 400,000 people.

Under Secure Communities, fingerprints of anyone booked into jail by the state and local police are sent to the F.B.I. for criminal checks — long a routine practice — and also to the Department of Homeland Security, which records immigration violations. Immigration agents decide whether to detain noncitizens signaled by fingerprint matches.

The ferment on Tuesday exposed vastly differing views of the program between immigrant advocates and Obama administration officials. In an interview, Mr. Morton said the program was working effectively to carry out his agency’s focus on deporting immigrants convicted of serious crimes.

“It’s the law, and we think it is very good policy, to focus our resources on people who are here unlawfully and also committing crimes,” Mr. Morton said.

He said agency figures showed that about 90 percent of those deported under Secure Communities since it was started in 2008 were either convicted criminals or foreigners who had failed to obey a court order to leave the country or who had returned to the United States illegally after deportation.

Immigration officials pointed to the arrest in January in Los Angeles of a Mexican man on charges of driving with a suspended license. After a Secure Communities match, the police learned that he had been convicted of drug trafficking and burglary and deported six times. Another Mexican arrested in Los Angeles was found to have been convicted in the killing of a child in 1997.

Mr. Morton said he had created the advisory task force, which went to work in June, to recommend fixes that would lower the numbers of deportations of illegal immigrants who did not have criminal convictions.

Also on Tuesday, the American Immigration Lawyers Association published a report that cast light on how Secure Communities and other enforcement programs have stirred tensions in immigrant communities. The association, which includes 11,000 immigration lawyers, polled its members to see how many were handling cases of immigrants facing deportation after being stopped by local police officers for minor offenses, like traffic violations.

Gregory Chen, director of advocacy for the lawyers’ association, said his office was deluged with responses.

“Department of Homeland Security practices have ushered in a sea change in who is being deported, and our attorneys have literally been flooded with people coming in to their offices who have been picked up by local police for small time stuff,” Mr. Chen said. The report, which presents a sample of 127 cases from 24 states, was the “the tip of the iceberg,” he said.

Continue reading

There is bipartisan interest in Congress in reforming high-skill immigration. New legislation is on its way, and here’s what to watch for. What bills have been introduced or are coming?
In the House, the most important Democratic initiative is from Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), whose district includes Silicon Valley. Her bill would make green cards available to students who earn advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics — the so-called STEM fields. However, it isn’t expected to go anywhere.

The person to watch instead is Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who heads the House Judiciary Committee. Smith appears interested in some limited immigration changes expected in a bill from Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah). Chaffetz’s bill, which is due “soon,” is expected to call for elimination of the per-country limits on employment-based visas — as green cards are officially called.

The U.S. has a cap of 140,000 employment-based visas a year. Spouses and children of the workers are counted against that cap. The U.S. limits the number of green cards per country to no more than 7% of the total available visas. In India, where there is a big demand for green cards, the wait for one can be as long as 10 years. This is significant in terms of the availability of green cards to immigrants across the board.

If the per-country cap were eliminated, green card applicants who have been waiting the longest might see their expected waiting times reduced. But applicants from countries with relatively short wait times might find themselves waiting longer. Tech companies might support elimination of the per-country cap, since that would likely increase the availability of workers from China and India. Employers will take what they can get, but they might be hoping for something better out of the Senate.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who heads the Senate subcommittee on immigration, said this week that he intends to introduce legislation that, similar to Lofgren’s bill, will “staple” green cards to the diplomas of people who earn degrees in STEM fields. He is also promising reform of the H-1B visa process in his bill.

Overall outlook: If Schumer follows through and the House Judiciary Committee also produces legislation, a limited, targeted immigration reform bill could emerge. Both parties have strong reasons to please the tech industry.

Continue reading

Citing the Defense of Marriage Act, the Obama administration denied immigration benefits to a married gay couple from San Francisco and ordered the expulsion of a man who is the primary caregiver to his AIDS-afflicted spouse.

Bradford Wells, a U.S. citizen, and Anthony John Makk, a citizen of Australia, were married seven years ago in Massachusetts. They have lived together 19 years, mostly in an apartment in the Castro district. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services denied Makk’s application to be considered for permanent residency as a spouse of an American citizen, citing the 1996 law that denies all federal benefits to same-sex couples.

The decision was issued July 26. Immigration Equality, a gay-rights group that is working with the couple, received the notice Friday and made it public Monday. Makk was ordered to depart the United States by Aug. 25. Makk is the sole caregiver for Wells, who has severe health problems.

“I’m married just like any other married person in this country,” Wells said. “At this point, the government can come in and take my husband and deport him. It’s infuriating. It’s upsetting. I have no power, no right to keep my husband in this country. I love this country, I live here, I pay taxes and I have no right to share my home with the person I married.”
Husband’s pleas
Wells pleaded with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and President Obama to intervene.

“Anyone can identify with the horror of having the government come in and destroy your family when you’ve done nothing wrong, and you’ve done everything right, followed every law,” Wells said.

The agency’s decision cited the Defense of Marriage Act as the reason for the denial of an I-130 visa, or spousal petition that could allow Makk to apply for permanent U.S. residency. “The claimed relationship between the petitioner and the beneficiary is not a petitionable relationship,” the decision said. “For a relationship to qualify as a marriage for purposes of federal law, one partner must be a man and the other a woman.”

Continue reading

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed two immigration bills before members left for their summer recess.

The first bill, H.R. 398, was sponsored by House Immigration Subcommittee Ranking Chair Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and would amend the law that stipulates a 90-day period during which time an alien and petitioning spouse must file a petition and complete an interview to remove the alien’s conditional legal permanent resident status. Under the new legislation, the period of time would be placed on hold while either partner is a member of the U.S. military serving abroad, in order to extend the deadline.

The second bill, H.R. 1933, was sponsored by House Judiciary Chair Lamar Smith (R-TX) and would reinstate an expired program that admits nonimmigrant nurses in shortage areas for health professions. The new proposal would allow the government to issue 300 visas per year to eligible foreign nurses. The visas would be valid for three years and would be renewable for an additional three-year period. Now let us see what the Senate will do with respect to the above referenced bills.

State lawmakers considered a record number of immigration-related bills this year, highlighting their continued frustration with federal government inaction on immigration laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

A total of 1,592 bills were introduced in all 50 states and Puerto Rico in the 2011 legislative session that ended June 30, a report by the bipartisan research organization found.

Legislators in 40 states enacted 151 of the bills, which mainly addressed law enforcement, identification and employment issues, said Ann Morse, program director of the conference’s immigrant policy project. An additional five laws were vetoed by governors.