In a new lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, several colleges and universities have challenged a recently announced new immigration policy, which become effective on August 9, 2018. Lawsuit changes the calculation of the number of days of “unlawful presence” for nonimmigrant foreign students from the date U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) or an immigration judge finds a violation or orders the student removed to the date the status lapsed.
In 1997, the United States established objective rules that provided visa holders notice. If the authorized period of stay ended on a date certain on which the individual was required to leave the country, unlawful presence began following that date. And for all individuals, unlawful presence began the day after either a government official or immigration judge made a determination that the individual was out-of-status. This provided an opportunity to cure their circumstances and remain in the country or to depart the country within 180 days. Either way, individuals acting in good faith had an opportunity to avoid imposition of a three- or ten-year reentry bar.
Now, based on the USCIS memo, effective August 9, 2018, when a government official or immigration judge determines that an F, J, or M visa holder is out-of-status, the unlawful‑presence clock will be backdated to the day on which the agency concludes that the visa holder first fell out-of-status.
The complaint states that the immigration system “is beset with processing delays, and many of these status determinations are made when an individual is applying for new immigration benefits.” Thus, the new policy’s use of a backdated unlawful-presence clock “will render tens of thousands of F, J, and M visa holders subject to three- and ten-year reentry bars without any opportunity to cure,” the complaint states. “This policy, accordingly, will result in the three- or ten-year banishment of untold numbers of international students and exchange visitors acting in good faith.”
By disrupting the ability of these individuals to continue studying at their schools or continuing their research, teaching, or other scholarly pursuits, the August 2018 policy memorandum fundamentally upsets student-school and employee-school relationships. This results in concrete, significant harms to colleges and universities, including through the loss of irreplaceable community members, loss of tuition dollars, and loss of trained employees. The complaint asserts that the new policy is unlawful for several reasons, including, among other things, that the defendants “failed to undertake the notice and comment required in these circumstances,” such as by not publishing advance notice in the Federal Register and responding to public comments, and by not complying with the Administrative Procedure Act.
The text of the complaint is here.
In 1997, the United States established objective rules that provided visa holders notice. If the authorized period of stay ended on a date certain on which the individual was required to leave the country, unlawful presence began following that date. And for all individuals, unlawful presence began the day after either a government official or immigration judge made a determination that the individual was out-of-status. This provided an opportunity to cure their circumstances and remain in the country or to depart the country within 180 days. Either way, individuals acting in good faith had an opportunity to avoid imposition of a three- or ten-year reentry bar.
Now, based on the USCIS memo, effective August 9, 2018, when a government official or immigration judge determines that an F, J, or M visa holder is out-of-status, the unlawful‑presence clock will be backdated to the day on which the agency concludes that the visa holder first fell out-of-status.
The complaint states that the immigration system “is beset with processing delays, and many of these status determinations are made when an individual is applying for new immigration benefits.” Thus, the new policy’s use of a backdated unlawful-presence clock “will render tens of thousands of F, J, and M visa holders subject to three- and ten-year reentry bars without any opportunity to cure,” the complaint states. “This policy, accordingly, will result in the three- or ten-year banishment of untold numbers of international students and exchange visitors acting in good faith.”
By disrupting the ability of these individuals to continue studying at their schools or continuing their research, teaching, or other scholarly pursuits, the August 2018 policy memorandum fundamentally upsets student-school and employee-school relationships. This results in concrete, significant harms to colleges and universities, including through the loss of irreplaceable community members, loss of tuition dollars, and loss of trained employees. The complaint asserts that the new policy is unlawful for several reasons, including, among other things, that the defendants “failed to undertake the notice and comment required in these circumstances,” such as by not publishing advance notice in the Federal Register and responding to public comments, and by not complying with the Administrative Procedure Act.
The text of the complaint is here.
RSS Feed