The current administration plans to postpone and eventually to rescind the previous administration's rule allowing foreign entrepreneurs to come to the U.S. to start companies, so called "startup visa". or "startup parole"

​In January 2017, DHS estimated that 2,940 entrepreneurs would be eligible under the rule annually.

The rule, called the International Entrepreneur Rule, was scheduled to go into effect July 17, 2017.

DHS announced that the implementation of the rule will be delayed until March 14, 2018, and that the agency may rescind the rule entirely. A USCIS spokesperson said the rule is "under review." 

The notice is was published in Federal Register. DHS has announced that it will accept public comments regarding the delay and potential elimination of the Rule until August 10, 2017. 

As a first step, USCIS will postpone or delay the implementation date. The agency is expected to start the formal process to eliminate or rescind the rule. 

More details on the rule here.

​

DHS is considering a new rule that would require foreign F1 students to reapply for permission to stay in the United States every year, which would create new unnecessary costs and paperwork for thousands of visa holders, international students, who are paying full tuition (which in turn is used to fund scholarships for American students).
​
The plan is in the preliminary stages and could take a minimum of 18 months. The plan may also require agreement from the State Department, which issues visas. The officials say the proposal seeks to enhance national security by more closely monitoring the students.
The discussions are emerging at a time when foreign student enrollment has reached a historic high in the United States and is injecting billions of dollars into the economy.
The changes could lead to fewer foreign students coming to the United States and greater administrative costs for the schools to keep their students’ paperwork up to date, according to people familiar with the discussions.

The most recent stats, as of May 2017, Asian students accounted for 77 percent of international students this year, according to a recent ICE report. China has 362,368 students in the United States this year, the most of any country, according to ICE. India, which has one of the fastest-growing populations of citizens on student visas in the United States, has 206,698.

​Read here.

On June 29, 2017, the U.S. Department of State sent out a cable, explaining how the US consulates will continue issuing (or denying) various visas to applicants from 6 predominantly Muslim countries, affected by the Executive Order's Travel Ban (Libya, Syria, Iran, Somalia, Yemen and Sudan).

People who were selected as winners in the 2017 DV Lottery or Green Card Lottery appear to be in the worst situation. Only some of them will be issued immigrant DV visas, if they can prove required "bona fide relationship" or qualify for en exemption or a waiver. The 2017 DV Lottery period will end on September 30, 2017, and the travel ban effective period of 90 days will end on or around September 29, 2017.

It's anticipated even by the US Department of State officials that the majority of the otherwise eligible applicants who paid the visa fee, attended their visa interviews will be denied a visa under 221(g) in accordance with the president's executive order and its most recent interpretation by the U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Department of State.

The US DoS says in the cable: "Based on the Department’s experience with the DV program , we anticipate that very few DV applicants are likely to be exempt from the E.O.’s suspension of
entry or to qualify for a waiver."   

The full text of the U.S. Dept of State cable is here.

(SBU) Diversity Visas.

8.  (SBU) For Diversity Visa (DV) applicants already scheduled for
interviews falling after the E.O. implementation date of 8:00 p.m. EDTJune
29, 2017, post should interview the applicants.  Posts
should interview applicants following these procedures:

a.) Officers should first determine whether the applicant is eligible for the
DV, without regard to the E.O.  If the applicant is not eligible, the
application should be refused according to standard procedures.

b.) If an applicant is found otherwise eligible, the consular officer will need
to determine during the interview whether the applicant is exempt from the
E.O.’s suspension of entry provision (see paragraphs 10-13), and if not,
whether the applicant qualifies for a waiver (paragraphs 14 and 15).

c.) DV applicants who are not exempt from the E.O.’s suspension of entry
provision and who do not qualify for a waiver should be refused 221(g) and the
consular officer should request an advisory opinion from VO/L/A following
current guidance in 9 FAM 304.3-1.

Based on the Department’s experience with the DV program, we anticipate that
very few DV applicants are likely to be exempt from the E.O.’s suspension of
entry or to qualify for a waiver.  CA will notify DV applicants from the
affected nationalities with scheduled interviews of the additional criteria to
allow the potential applicants to determine whether they wish to pursue their
application.

9.  (SBU) The Kentucky Consular Center (KCC) will continue to schedule
additional DV-2017 appointments for cases in which the principal applicant is
from one of these six nationalities.  While the Department is mindful of
the requirement to issue Diversity Visas prior to the end of the Fiscal
Year on September 30, direction and
guidance to resume normal processing of visas following the 90-day suspension
will be sent septel.

Executive order's suspension (or travel ban) to be enforced only against foreign
nationals who lack a “bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the
United States.” 

What does it take, for example, to establish that a DV visa applicant has required "bona fide relationsip" with a family member in the United States?
 
"11.  (SBU) “Close family” is defined as a parent (including
parent-in-law), spouse, child, adult son or daughter, son-in-law,
daughter-in-law, sibling, whether whole or half.  This includes step
relationships.  “Close family” does not include grandparents,
grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-laws and
sisters-in-law, fiancés, and any other “extended” family members."

See more here.

Effective June 19, 2017, Canada has made major amendments to its Citizenship Act.

The immediate changes include:

• Elimination of the requirement that new citizens continue to reside on a full-time basis in Canada after receiving citizenship; 
• Elimination of provisions that allowed authorities to revoke the Canadian citizenship of dual citizens convicted of crimes “against the national interest.” With this change, dual citizens will be treated the same as non-dual citizens under the Canadian justice system.

Additional changes, slated for later this year, include:

• Reduction of the required time permanent residents must be physically present in Canada before becoming eligible to apply for citizenship. The amended rules will reduce the required period of time from four out of six years to three out of five years;
• Revision of the age range for the language and citizenship knowledge requirements from 14 to 64 years of age to 18 to 54 years of age; and
• Allowing time spent in Canada as a temporary resident or protected person to count toward the required permanent residency period. Each day in Canada as a temporary resident will be counted as a half day of permanent residency in calculating the required residency period.

The official announcement detailing the changes can be found on the Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) website.

​

On June 26, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court partially reinstated Trump’s travel ban 2nd executive order 13780, Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States, and agreed to hear the arguments in the fall 2017.

In the meantime, the 90-day ban #TravelBan #MuslimBan and 120-day ban on refugee admission will become effective in 72 hours, on June 29, 2017, and will apply to people entering the U.S. from six predominantly Muslim countries. The partially reinstated executive order will ban the entry of nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen to the United States for 90 days, and suspends the admission of all refugees for 120 days. 

The ban will not apply to people who have a "credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." That includes people visiting a close family member, students who have been admitted to a university or workers who have accepted an employment offer.

What this means is that individuals from the six countries will be permitted to enter the United States if they have a “close familial relationship” with someone already here or if they have a “formal, documented” relationship with an American entity formed “in the ordinary course” of business. However, the Court said that such relationships cannot be established for the purpose of avoiding the travel ban. The government will likely begin applying the travel ban in the limited fashion permitted by the Supreme Court on June 29, 2017.

Who is likely (probably) to be allowed to enter the United States:

• Individuals who have valid immigrant or non-immigrant visas issued on or before June 26, 2017: These individuals are not included in the travel ban.
• Individuals with visas coming to live or visit with family members: The Court’s order is clear that individuals who “wish to enter the United States to live with or visit a family member” have close familial relationships. The Court used both a spouse and a mother-in-law as examples of qualifying relationships, but it is unclear whether more distant relatives would qualify.
• Students who have been admitted to a U.S. university, workers who have accepted offers of employment with U.S. companies, and lecturers invited to address an American audience: The Court provided these three examples of individuals who have credible claims of a bona fide relationship to an American entity.
• Other types of business travelers: It is unclear whether individuals with employment-based visas that do not require a petitioning employer will be able to demonstrate the requisite relationship with a U.S. entity.
• Refugees: Most refugees processed overseas have family or other connections to the United States including with refugee resettlement agencies. The Court ruled that such individuals may not be excluded even if the 50,000 cap on refugees has been reached or exceeded.

Who may have trouble entering the United States:

• Individuals who form bona fide relationships with individuals or entities in the United States after June 26, 2017: The Court’s decision is not clear. The court's decision could result in numerous lawsuits, disputing the decision that they lack "connection" required.
• Tourists: Nationals of the designated countries who are not planning to visit family members in the United States and who are coming for other reasons (including sight-seeing) may be barred from entering.

The real problems will emerge when the government (CBP, TSA, DHS, Dept of State) will start implementing the executive order, and deciding who has sufficient ties or who doesn't, and who should be admitted or who should be banned/visa revoked/placed on a return flight. 

Three justices published a separate opinion, where Justice Thomas noted: "I fear that the Court’s remedy will prove unworkable. Today’s compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding—on peril of contempt— whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country. See ante, at 11– 12. The compromise also will invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle to determine what exactly constitutes a “bona fide relationship,” who precisely has a “credible claim” to that relationship, and whether the claimed relationship was formed “simply to avoid §2(c)” of Executive Order No. 13780, ante, at 11, 12. "

​#TravelBan #MuslimBan #ExecutiveOrder

​Read the decision here.

UPDATE June 29, 2017:

The Executive Orders Travel Ban 90-day suspension of entry will be implemented
worldwide at 8:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on June 29, 2017. 
 
The U.S. Department of State had clarified in the cable who is considered to have a "credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States."

According to the State Department, this “bona fide relationship” rule encompasses parents, parents-in-law, spouses, children, adult children, sons- and daughters-in law, and siblings (whole or half). This includes also step-parents and step-children.

According to the US DoS 06-29-2017 cable, there is no sufficient "bona fide relationship" and a visa will not be issued to the foreign nationals who are "grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-in-laws and sisters-in-law, fiancés and any other ‘extended’ family members.”
The Supreme Court clarified that “a foreign national who wishes to enter the United States to live with or visit … [his] mother-in-law … clearly has such a relationship.” (Emphasis added.) Under the Trump administration’s guidelines, a foreign national must be exempted from the ban if she wishes to visit her half-sister or mother-in-law, but is banned if she wants to see a grandmother or aunt who raised her.

The text of the cable, dated June 28, 2017 at 7:57:39 PM EDT, Subject: (SBU) IMPLEMENTING EXECUTIVE ORDER 13780 FOLLOWING SUPREME COURT RULING -- GUIDANCE TO VISA-ADJUDICATING POSTS From:   SECSTATE WASHDC Action: ALL DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR POSTS COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE is here.


UPDATE 09:00 PM CST June 29, 2017:

The U.S. Department of state had updated its morning cable and included fiancees into the list of "close family" required to establish "bona fide relationship" for a visa to USA from one of six affected countries.

"Close family” is defined as a parent (including parent-in-law), spouse, fiancee, child, adult son or daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, sibling, whether whole or half.  This includes step relationships. 

Close family” does not include grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-laws and sisters-in-law, and any other “extended” family members."

The US DoS also clarified the "fate" of Canadian permanent residents who hold passports from one of the six affected countries.

Good news for the Canadian residents:
"Are there special rules for permanent residents of Canada?
Permanent residents of Canada who hold passports of a restricted country can apply for an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa to the United States if the individual presents that passport, and proof of permanent resident status, to a consular officer.  These applications must be made at a U.S. consular section in Canada.  A consular officer will carefully review each case to determine whether the applicant is affected by the E.O. and, if so, whether the case qualifies for a waiver." See here. ​

On Friday, June 23, 2017, in Jae Lee v United States the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of an immigrant, a lawful permanent resident for over 30 years, whose lawyer (criminal defense attorney) falsely told him that pleading guilty to a drug distribution charge in a criminal case would not lead to his deportation. 

The court ruled that attorney's incompetence and ineffective assistance of counsel will give an immigrant another chance to reopen his criminal case.

Two justices dissented: the evidence in criminal case was exceptionally strong. The police had found large quantities of drugs (ecstasy) at his home, the defendant was preparing to distribute these drugs at his restaurant, and prosecutors were prepared to present a witness ready to testify. 

“In the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt and in the absence of a bona fide defense, a reasonable court or jury applying the law to the facts of this case would find the defendant guilty,” Justice Thomas wrote. “There is no reasonable probability of any other verdict.”

“A defendant in petitioner’s shoes, therefore, would have suffered the same deportation consequences regardless of whether he accepted a plea or went to trial,” he wrote. “He is thus plainly better off for having accepted his plea: Had he gone to trial, he not only would have faced the same deportation consequences, he also likely would have received a higher prison sentence.”

Read more here.

Read the court decision here.

Briefly in Russian:

23 июня 2017 Верховный Суд США опубликовал решение по делу иммигранта, постоянного жителя США более 30 лет, родом из Южной Кореи, который был обвинен в попытке распространения и прожажи огромного количества наркотических веществ (экстази) в своем ресторане. Так как иммигрант получил неверный совет от своего защитника в уголовном деле, который ему сказал "ты был постоянным жителем США более 30 лет, никто тебя не депортирует, признавай свою вину и получишь меньше лет в тюрьме". В результате признания своей вины по делу о наркотиках иммигрант был направлен на депортацию.

По решению Верховного Суда, уголовное дело против иммигранта будет открыто опять, и ему будет предоставлена возможность доказать свою невиновность в суде.

Двое судей выразили несогласие с мнением большинства, объяснив это тем, что доказательства и свидетельские показания по делу были настолько серьезные, что у иммигранта просто не было никаких шансов выиграть свое дело в суде присяжных, и приговор возможно был бы намного более серьезный, если бы он не признал свою вину и пошел с суд.

​Решение суда тут.

​

On June 12, 2017 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a new decision on acquisition of U.S. citizenship from birth by a child born abroad and out of wedlock, when one parent is a U. S. citizen and the other a citizen of another nation, striking down on equal protection grounds the distinction in INA 309 between the physical presence required for unwed fathers and mothers when the child is born out of wedlock: 
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1191_2a34.pdf.

Applicable to married couples, the main rule in effect at the time here relevant, 8 U. S. C. §1401(a)(7) (1958 ed.), required the U.S.-citizen parent to have ten years’ physical presence in the United States prior to the child’s birth, “at least five of which were after attaining” age 14.

The same rule is made applicable to unwed U.S.-citizen fathers by §1409(a), but §1409(c) created an exception for an unwed U. S.-citizen mother, whose citizenship can be transmitted to a child born abroad if she has lived continuously in the United States for just one year prior to the child’s birth. 

Under the US Supreme Court ruling, the government (USCIS and US Dept of State) is going to equally apply to mothers and fathers the more restrictive rule for fathers (10 years of physical presence), rather than the much less restrictive rule (exception) for mothers (one-year rule).

This should apply (probably, not clear at this time) only to children of unwed mothers who are born after June 12, 2017, because citizenship is automatically acquired at birth, and a later decision can't strip you of it.

This new law will be relevant in many N-600 applications.

Read the U.S. Supreme Court decision here.

In Russian:

12 июня 2017 Верховный Суд США вынес решение по делу автоматического получения американского гражданства внебрачным ребенком, рожденным за пределами США, когда один из родителей (мать или отец) являются гражданином США, и когда родители не состоят в законном браке.

По старому закону, правила были более жесткие по отношению к отцу внебрачного ребенка.

Теперь после решения суда от 12 июня 2017, суд ужесточил закон о по отношению детей, рожденных вне брака, где американская гражданка - это мать ребенка. По новому закону, мать должна доказать физическое проживание в США в течение как минимум 10 лет (ранее это был всего год).

Пока закон не изменится Конгрессом США, это новое правило будет применяться везде в США и за пределами США во всех посольствах и консульствах.

Решение суда можно почитать тут. 

​

Matter of FALODUN, 27 I&N Dec. 52 (BIA 2017).

There is a big difference between Certificate of Citizenship and Certificate of Naturalization. Both of them serve as evidence of U.S. citizenship status. However, unlike Certificate of Naturalization, Certificate of Citizenship does not confer United States citizenship but merely provides evidence that the applicant previously obtained citizenship status (derived through a parent).

When a person has a Certificate of Naturalization, it means that they applied for U.S. citizenship, passed the test and all background clearances, and their application was approved, and U.S. citizenship was granted.

​When a person has a Certificate of Citizenship, it means that they applied for a document as evidence of their U.S. citizen status. When USCIS approves the application for Certificate of Citizenship, the USCIS merely verifies the records and issues a document, as a proof of the U.S. citizenship status. The applicant doesn't apply for citizenship and doesn't take the test. The applicant applies for a proof or evidence of his or her citizenship. 

On June 2nd 2017, the BIA held that institution of judicial proceedings to revoke naturalization are not required to cancel a certificate of citizenship, which the Department of Homeland Security can cancel administratively upon a determination that an applicant is not entitled to the claimed citizenship status.

BIA held: "A certificate of citizenship only provides documentation of United States citizenship for persons who claim to have obtained that status derivatively. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 341.1, 341.2(c) (2016). It does not confer United States citizenship but only furnishes recognition and evidence that the applicant has previously obtained such status derivatively, that is, upon the naturalization of a parent or parents. See Section 341(a) of the Act. Thus, the issuance of a certificate of citizenship, like a United States passport, only serves as indicia of citizenship. It is not a grant of United States citizenship. Because the respondent’s United States citizenship claim was based on fraud, his Certificate of Citizenship is void." 

Facts: The respondent is a native and citizen of Nigeria who was born in Benin City, Nigeria, on June 30, 1981. He obtained lawful permanent resident status in 1996 as the stepchild of a United States citizen who was married to the respondent’s alleged adoptive father. The respondent’s claim to United States citizenship derives from the naturalization of his putative custodial adoptive father in 1995. On February 17, 1998, the respondent was issued a Certificate of Citizenship (Form N-560).

In removal proceedings, evidence of foreign birth gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of alienage, shifting the burden to the respondent to come forward with evidence to substantiate his citizenship claim. Matter of Rodriguez-Tejedor, 23 I&N Dec. 153, 164 (BIA 2001) (citing Matter of Leyva, 16 I&N Dec. 118, 119 (BIA 1977)); Matter of Tijerina-Villarreal, 13 I&N Dec. 327, 330 (BIA 1969).

Assessing the respondent’s claim to citizenship, the Immigration Judge noted that the evidence of record raises serious questions whether the respondent has ever qualified as a United States citizen. Specifically, the record includes an August 20, 2002, notice of intent to cancel the respondent’s Certificate of Citizenship (“NOIC”) issued by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”), alleging that the certificate had been obtained by fraud.

The NOIC was based on information obtained in connection with a Federal criminal investigation. This investigation revealed that the respondent’s putative adoptive father was actually his biological brother. Although the respondent claimed that his biological father had died in 1983, records indicated that, as of 2002, he was alive and living in Nigeria. The NOIC further alleged that the respondent submitted a fraudulent adoption certificate. In his October 23, 2002, response to the NOIC, the respondent presented a letter from an attorney specifically denying each of the allegations in the NOIC. He also submitted a purported death certificate for the person the respondent alleged was his biological father. The death certificate was issued more than 8 months after this individual’s death and just days before the respondent’s response to the NOIC was due.

In a decision dated April 21, 2003, the District Director concluded that the evidence the respondent provided in response to the NOIC was insufficient to overcome the evidence supporting the cancellation of the Certificate of Citizenship. He determined that the Nigerian adoption decree submitted on the respondent’s behalf was fraudulent and that he did not derive United States citizenship through his biological brother under former section 321(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a)(2) (1996), which was in effect when the respondent turned 18 years old. The District Director therefore cancelled the respondent’s Certificate of Citizenship after concluding that it had been obtained by fraud. On March 29, 2004, the Administrative Appeals Office (“AAO”) dismissed the respondent’s appeal from the District Director’s decision
 
The respondent does not claim United States citizenship through naturalization. Instead, he was issued his Certificate of Citizenship under section 341 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1452 (1996), based on his claim of derivative citizenship through the naturalization of his brother, who the respondent fraudulently claimed was his adoptive father.

To read the decision, click here.

A new Department of Defense and DHS rule that bars MAVNI recruits from receiving security clearances until they complete their first term of service has crippled the ability of soldiers to earn a commission and prevents the military from using their talent for years.
Earlier this spring, Dr. Kusuma Nio was anticipating two things in May. The trauma surgeon hoped to deploy with his Army Reserve unit to Afghanistan, where his expertise in treating catastrophic injuries would be vital to U.S. and Afghan forces roiled by resurgent militants.
The other thing: on May 5th, he was expected to naturalize and become a U.S. citizen.
Instead, he is watching his fellow soldiers of the 1st Forward Surgical Team based in New York leave for war. His path to citizenship has been delayed "indefinitely".

His citizenship oath was postponed indefinitely April 13 2017 by the United States Citizenship Immigration Service, who told him the Defense Department has suspended all applications from foreign-born recruits looking to serve.
​
MAVNI or Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest program was implemented in 2009 to take advantage of medical and language skills critical to the success of military operations around the world.
Newly imposed requirements issued in a Pentagon memo Sept. 30, 2016 — when the program was renewed — have created a backlog of applicants.

A rule that bars MAVNI recruits from receiving a security clearance until they complete their first term of service has crippled the ability of soldiers like Nio to earn a commission and prevents the military from using their talent for years. Until then, his time as a reserve specialist is spent cleaning scalpels instead of using them in life-saving surgery.
Nio and others are left asking a simple question: If the military wanted their talents, why are they sitting around not using them?

“I’m a fully qualified and American-trained surgeon. It doesn’t make sense to me,” Nio said.
Margaret Stock, a retired Army officer central in creating the MAVNI program, said May 8, 2017 that the reforms are so severely counter to the original intent of the program that it is now imploding, sending ripples throughout the military that will hurt recruiting, undermine its security missions and send personnel spending into a frenzy as the force pays bills for native troops to receive top medical and language training.
“This isn’t extending the program,” Stock said of the new measures. “This is destroying the program.”
Stalled by new rulesThe MAVNI program has attracted thousands of legal immigrants, offering a fast track to citizenship in exchange for vital medical expertise and cultural and language skills. The military identifies skills in “critical shortfall” and sets goals to bring qualified candidates into the service, according to the Sept. 30 Pentagon memo extending the program until September.

About 10,400 soldiers have entered the Army through the program since 2009, Army spokesman Hank Minitrez said May 9 in an email.

The decision to bar MAVNI recruits from receiving security clearances during their first enlistment term severely limits the contributions that soldiers like Nio can make, Stock said. Doctors cannot receive a commission without the clearance. Enlisted troops cannot enter special operations, civil affairs or intelligence fields, while troops with deep skills in languages such as Russian, Arabic and Pashto are restricted for years from doing the job the Pentagon said they desperately need to be done now.
Another big change: Applicants were required to have a legal immigration status for two years and complete background checks in order to enlist. They could start the Tier-5 investigation before shipping off to training while the long process unfolded, Minitrez said.

Now, recruits must complete a Tier-5 investigation before they get orders for training. The process takes months and involves investigations from the Justice and Defense departments and intelligence agencies, Minitrez said.

Stock said the Army was unprepared for the flood of additional requirements, leaving personnel soldiers scrambling to complete case files without proper training while soldiers piled up in the system. Soldiers like Nio are trapped in a classic military Catch-22 as he continues as a reservist, still unable to attend the basic officer leaders course.

“We haven’t been naturalized, so we can’t go to basic. But we can’t go to basic because we haven’t been naturalized,” he said.
Applicants are screened by the State and Homeland Security departments and other agencies when they get visas, which makes them the most vetted recruits in the military, Stock said.

Green-card holders, who are permanent residents but not citizens, are not subject to the rules, she said.
​
“The new rule is especially pernicious because the requirements for passing [additional screenings] are completely different from the ‘good moral character’ required for citizenship,” Stock said.
“That’s not the legal standard for naturalization,” and the new requirements have not been imposed on immigrants naturalized in the past few years, Stock said.
Process breakdownThe Army, which according to service data is the biggest user of the MAVNI program, has defended the new security measures.
“The background checks are time-consuming and extensive, but we owe it to our soldiers in the ranks and the American people to ensure everyone joining has been properly vetted,” Minitrez said.
MAVNI recruits have been highly sought in Special Operations Command, for instance, due to their reliability and cultural skills vital to training and fighting with foreign troops.
“If you’re going to sneak into the military, this is the last program you’d go through,” she said.
The Army has acknowledged the new Pentagon requirements have severely bottlenecked the process since September.

About 1,000 Army recruits — nearly a quarter of the 4,200 waiting for background check approvals — have been in limbo so long that they no longer have legal immigration status and need extensions or exemptions from USCIS, according to an internal Army document marked “for official use only” but posted online in April. Minitrez and others were listed as the point of contact for information. The document is no longer online.

Minitrez declined to confirm that number, referring the query to DHS and USCIS. The New York Times reported that the number could be as high as 1,500.

While those delay occur, recruits without legal status can’t obtain a job if they are reservists and are subject to deportation.

Unused skills

The Army’s execution of new regulations has frustrated Nio.
Before recent changes, MAVNI could churn out minted troops with citizenship in hand in one to four months, Stock said. But the new restrictions have jolted the program enough to turn off future applicants, Stock said. While recruits with language skills await security clearances to begin training, they must enlist in other specialties that do not correspond with their skills.
“There’s no point to the program if all it does is produce extremely well-vetted truck drivers,” she said.
Nio said his motivations were different than some others. He holds a visa reserved for immigrants with special skills, and the hospital where he works can easily sponsor his legal status.
“This is a perfect way to give back and to serve and to learn,” Nio said about his path to becoming an Army doctor. “There is nothing like combat surgery.”
After earning his doctorate at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, Nio enlisted as a specialist in 2015 with the agreement that he would earn his commission as a captain. His contract required him to serve six years in the Army Reserve and two in the inactive Reserve, he said. He finished his background investigation in April 2016, with his oath of citizenship and commissioning on track for this month, he said. But the restrictions have stopped all progress, he said.
Nio works at a Level 1 trauma center in his civilian job, where he treats patients with gunshot wounds, severe burns and injuries sustained from car wrecks, along with surgeries for conditions like appendicitis and hernias, he said.
Contrast that with his placeholder Army reservist occupation: operating room specialist. The job involves sterilizing equipment and cleaning rooms between patients. The experience disparity equates to a pilot grounded to scrape bug splatter off an F-16.
“I’m almost through a third of my service time already,” he said. “You have someone ready to go, and sitting as a specialist?”

Luckily, Nio said, his unit sympathizes with the disconnect between his skill and his rank.
Surgical teams in his unit conduct realistic training during their drill weekends, he said. Patients eviscerated by imaginary IEDs and gunfire flood medical tents. Nurses and medics buzz around Nio, who plays the role of trauma surgeon.
The training is realistic, but his authority is a facade. Once Nio removes his scrubs and stores his instruments, he steps out of the tent as a junior enlisted soldier.
Nio’s unit will arrive in Afghanistan this month as the country braces for another Taliban offensive and Islamic State militants seek to regain footholds. Sharp violence has recently struck U.S. troops there. Two Army Rangers were killed April 26 during a fierce battle with Islamic State militants, and three soldiers were wounded in a suicide car bomb explosion May 3 in Kabul.
“My unit is desperate for surgeons to go on this deployment,” he said. “And I’m just saying goodbye to everyone.”

​Read the article at Stars and Stripes here.

On May 4, 2017, the U.S. Department of State published in the Federal Register the following public notice: Public Notice: 9984, Notice of Information Collection Under OMB Emergency Review: Supplemental Questions for Visa Applicants. 

"The Department proposes requesting the following information, if not already included in an application, from a subset of visa applicants worldwide, in order to more rigorously evaluate applicants for terrorism or other national security-related visa ineligibilities:

• Travel history during the last fifteen years, including source of funding for travel;
• Address history during the last fifteen years;
• Employment history during the last fifteen years;
• All passport numbers and country of issuance held by the applicant;
• Names and dates of birth for all siblings;
• Name and dates of birth for all children;
• Names and dates of birth for all current and former spouses, or civil or domestic partners;
• Social media platforms and identifiers, also known as handles, used during the last five years; and
• Phone numbers and email addresses used during the last five years.

Most of this information is already collected on visa applications but for a shorter time period, e.g. five years rather than fifteen years.

Requests for names and dates of birth of siblings and, for some applicants, children are new. The request for social media identifiers and associated platforms is new for the Department of State, although it is already collected on a voluntary basis by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for certain individuals.

The estimated number of respondents represents the estimate of relevant State Department officials that 0.5% of U.S. visa applicants worldwide, or in the range of 65,000 individuals per year, will present a "threat profile", based on individual circumstances and information they provide, that will lead U.S. consular officers at posts around the world to conclude the applicant warrants enhanced screening that takes into account the information that is proposed to be collected."

"Regarding travel history, applicants may be requested to provide details of their international or domestic (within their country of nationality) travel, if it appears to the consular officer that the applicant has been in an area while the area was under the operational control of a terrorist organization as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi). Applicants may be asked to recount or explain the details of their travel, and when possible, provide supporting documentation."

"This information collection implements the directive of the President, in the Memorandum for the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security of March 6, 2017, to implement additional protocols and procedures focused on ‘‘ensur[ing] the proper collection of all information necessary to rigorously evaluate all grounds of inadmissibility or deportability, or grounds for the denial of other immigration benefits.’’ 

Extreme vetting or enhanced screening protocols will not apply to all visa applicants, but to select ones, who present potentially a "threat profile".

In Russian:

В исполнение указа президента США от 6 марта 2017, Госдеп США опубликовал план новой программы усиленной проверки подозрительных заявителей на визу, так называемых "threat profiles".

Усиленной проверке будут подвергаться не все заявители на визу, а выборочная группа лиц. Например, лица, которые подозреваются в связи с террористическими организациями, которые путешествовали в старын или регионы, где такие группы существуют.

По расчетам Госдепа США, такх лиц наберется около 65 000 в год, то есть пока они не собираются применять эти меры ко всем заявителем на визу.

4 мая 2017 Госдеп опубликовал новый список мер: 

• Требование предоставить историю поездок за границу за последние 15 лет.
• Возможны детальные расспросы о поездках на интервью на визу, и затребование документов.
• Все адреса проживания за последние 15 лет.
• Трудовая история за последние 15 лет.
• Все номера паспортов и страны выдавшие паспорта
• Имена и даты рождения всех братьев и сестер.
• Имена и даты рождения всех детей, вне зависимости от возраста, проживания
• Имена и даты рождения всех бывших мужей и жен. А также всех гражданских жен и мужей (это совершенно новое требование, которое может быть истолковано очень широко)
• Все ваши аккаунты на социальных платформах social media accounts, которыми вы пользовались в последние 5 лет. (Они пока не указывают, что будут тредовать пароль или доступ, а только указать имя на аккаунте)
• Все номера телефонов и email addresses, которыми вы пользовались в течение последних 5 лет.

International students enrolled at an ACICS-accredited school should contact their designated school officials (DSOs) immediately to better understand if and how the loss of recognized accreditation will impact the F or M student status, STEM OPT application, application for reinstatement of F1 status, application for change of status and/or other immigration benefits application(s).

On December 12, 2016, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) announced that it no longer recognizes the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS) as an accrediting agency.

This determination immediately affects two immigration-related programs: 

• English language study programs, as the programs are required to be accredited under the Accreditation of English Language Training Programs Act.  
• F-1 students applying for a 24-month science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) optional practical training (OPT) extension, as the regulations require them to  use a degree from an accredited, Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP)-certified school as the basis of their STEM OPT extension. The school must be accredited at the time of the application; this is the date of the Designated School Official’s (DSO) recommendation on the Form I-20.

SEVP will provide guidance to affected students in notification letters, should their schools’ certification be withdrawn. However, students enrolled at an ACICS-accredited school should contact their designated school officials (DSOs) immediately to better understand if and how the loss of recognized accreditation will impact the F/M student’s status and/or immigration benefits application(s).
If an ACICS-accredited school voluntarily withdraws from SEVP certification or cannot provide evidence in lieu of accreditation for programs listed on their Form I-17, international students at these schools will have 18 months to:

• Transfer to a new SEVP-certified program;
• Continue their program of study until the current session end date listed on their Form I-20 (not to exceed 18 months); or
• Depart the United States.

After this 18-month grace period, SEVP will terminate the SEVIS records of any active F/M student at an ACICS-accredited school who has not transferred to an SEVP-certified school or departed the United States. Please note, this guidance applies equally to all F/M students—regardless of program of study and the 18-month period is valid for English as a Second Language (ESL) students as well.
ACICS-accredited schools will be unable to issue program extensions, and students will only be allowed to finish their current session if the ACICS-accredited school selects to voluntarily withdraw its certification or is withdrawn by SEVP. If a student’s ACICS-accredited school is able to provide evidence of an ED-recognized accrediting agency or evidence in lieu of accreditation within the allotted timeframe, the student may remain at the school to complete their program of study.

English Language Study Programs

USCIS will issue requests for evidence (RFEs) to any individual who has filed Form I-539, Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status, on or after December 12, 2016, requesting a change of status or reinstatement in order to attend an ACICS-accredited English language study program. Upon receiving an RFE, individuals will have an opportunity to provide evidence in response, such as documentation showing that the English language study program they are seeking to enroll in meets the accreditation requirements. 

If the student does not submit a new Form I-20 from an accredited school, USCIS will deny a change of status or reinstatement request because the program of study is no longer accredited by an entity recognized by ED. 
For more information about the loss of ACICS accreditation on English language study programs, see U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s page on ACICS Loss of Accreditation Recognition.

The 24-Month STEM OPT Extension Program

F-1 students wishing to participate in the STEM OPT extension must have a degree from an ED-recognized accredited U.S. educational institution at the time they file their STEM OPT application. As noted above, USCIS considers the filing of the application to be the date of the DSO’s recommendation on the Form I-20.
USCIS will issue a denial to any F-1 student filing a Form I-765 STEM OPT extension if: 

• The STEM degree that is the basis for the STEM OPT extension was obtained from a college or university that was accredited by ACICS; and
• The student’s DSO recommendation for a STEM OPT extension, and as indicated on Form I-20, is dated on or after December 12, 2016 (i.e., the date on which ACICS ceased to be recognized as an accrediting agency).

Because there is a requirement that students use a STEM degree from an accredited, SEVP-certified school at the time of application, the ACICS loss of accreditation prevents these students from qualifying for a STEM OPT extension. Students who receive a denial will have 60 days to prepare for departure from the United States, transfer to a different school, or to begin a new course of study at an accredited, SEVP-certified school.
​
Students whose Forms I-20 have a DSO recommendation date prior to December 12, 2016, are not affected. For more information about the impact of loss of ACICS recognition on the STEM OPT extension program, see U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s page on ACICS Loss of Accreditation Recognition.

​

USCIS announced a redesign to the Permanent Resident Card (aka a Green Card) and the Employment Authorization Document (EAD). USCIS will begin issuing the new cards on May 1, 2017.

NEW the Redesigned Cards will:

• Display the individual’s photos on both sides;
• Show a unique graphic image and color palette:
• Green Cards will have an image of the Statue of Liberty and a predominately green palette;
• EAD cards will have an image of a bald eagle and a predominately red palette;
• Have embedded holographic images; and
• No longer display the individual’s signature.

Also, Green Cards will no longer have an optical stripe on the back.

Some Green Cards and EADs issued after May 1, 2017, may still display the existing design format because USCIS will continue using existing card stock until current supplies are depleted. Both the existing and the new Green Cards and EADs will remain valid until the expiration date shown on the card.

In Russian:

Начиная с 1 мая 2017, иммиграционная служба США начнет выдавать грин карты и разрешения на работу нового образца. Изменения сделаны с целью сделать федеральные документы более защищенными от подделок. 

Новые грин карты и разрешения на работу будут другого цвета, подпись с карточки уберут, оптическую полоску уберут с грин карты, фото будет на обоих сторонах грин карты и т.п. 

Если после 1 мая вы получите грин карту или разрешение на работу старого образца, не волнуйтесь, они тоже действительны до конца срока действия документа. Таким образом USCIS избавляются от запасов карточек старого образца перед тем как начать использовать карточки нового образца.

There have been several important announcements and policy changes concerning H-1B work visa.

First: On April 3, 2017, USCIS announced that it would introduce several new measures with intent of detecting and deterring H-1B visa fraud and abuses.  According to an official USCIS press release, USCIS will be conducting site visits to H-1B petitioners and worksites, where

(i) USCIS cannot validate the employer’s basic information through commercially available data;
(ii) H-1B dependent employers (companies with high ratio of H-1B workers as compared to U.S. workers: companies with 25 or fewer full-time employees, more than 7 H-1B workers; companies with 26-50 full-time employees, more than 12 H-1B employees; and companies with 50 or more full-time employees, 15% or more H-1B employees); and,
(iii) employers petitioning H-1B workers who work off-site. 

The site visits have been around since 2009. It's not something new. USCIS emphasized that these site visits will be random and unannounced, and are meant to identify companies that abuse the H-1B system. 

USCIS established an email address, which allows the public to submit tips, alleged violations and other information about potential H-1B abuse. The employers that are reported via this email address will also become targets for site investigations.

Second: 

On March 31, 2017, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) issued a new Policy Memorandum made available April 3, 2017, which rescinds the December 22, 2000 memorandum titled “Guidance memo on H1B computer related positions.”

The new policy implements a significant change to the adjudication of H-1B petitions for computer programming positions.

2017 H1B Policy Changes and Updates:  The December 22, 2000 memorandum titled “Guidance memo on H-1B computer related positions” provided the policy that most computer programmers had a bachelor’s degree or higher based on information provided by the Occupational Outlook Handbook (“OOH”), which is published by the Department of Labor.  Petitioners were usually able to meet their burden of proving a particular position is a specialty occupation, if it were to prove through information provided in the OOH that a baccalaureate or higher degree is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position.  By rescinding the policy, USCIS has stated that the OOH is no longer sufficient evidence to prove a particular position in computer programming is a specialty occupation and has thus drastically changed how H-1B petitions for computer programmers are to be adjudicated.

Petitioner's Burden of Proof:  The consequence of rescinding the “Guidance memo on H1B computer related positions” is that USCIS has heightened the burden for petitioners.  Petitioners may not rely solely on the OOH to prove that a position in computer science is normally required. Rather, USCIS has clarified its position that petitioners must provide additional evidence to establish that the particular position is a specialty occupation as defined by 8 CFR 214.2(h) (4) (ii) for computer programming.

Entry-Level Positions in Computer Related Positions: The Policy Memorandum clarifies that USCIS must determine whether the attestations and content of the LCA correspond to and support the H-1B visa petition. A petitioner’s designation that a position is a Level I, entry-level position “would likely contradict a claim that the proffered position is particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation.”  USCIS is changing a long established tradition, by clarifying that most entry-level positions are not specialized occupations within the computer programmer occupation. This provides a basis to deny many of the now pending petitions, filed in April 2017 for the FY 2018. 

Put American Workers First Approach in Tech Companies:  It appears restricting H-1B visas is part of the current administration’s attempt to “put American workers first.” As technology continues to grow, the job of a computer programmer was in the top 5 H-1B job titles for the FY 2017 H-1B petitions.  

Last Minute Policy Change Published on the First Day of the FY 2018 Filing Period for H-1B: The Policy Memorandum is dated March 31, 2017, but only made available April, 3, 2017, as a result, many of the new H-1B petitions have already been filed following the long-established standards of the now “outdated” USCIS 2000 guidance memo.  Employers can now expect to receive RFE (Requests for Evidence) questioning eligibility and requesting additional documentation, and many petitions can be denied.

USCIS allows only 5 days a year in April to file new, cap-subject H-1B petitions for the next fiscal year. In 2016 for FY 2017, 236,000 H-1B visa applicants competed for the 85,000 quota available annually. 

Affirming the district court's summary judgment, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that under INA §244(f)(4), a Temporary Protected Status (TPS) recipient is deemed to be in lawful status as a nonimmigrant—and has thereby satisfied the requirements for becoming a nonimmigrant, including inspection and admission--for purposes of adjustment of status under INA §245(a).

The 9th Circuit court of appeals decision means that a person in TPS status (even the person who came to the U.S. without a visa, EWI) is eligible to obtain lawful permanent residence through adjustment of status application. 

The court's decision published on March 31, 2017 is here. 

March 30, 2017 update on MAVNI program (U.S. citizenship through military service):

At some point in the past, it was a very popular and efficient program allowing foreign nationals to become US citizens through service in the U.S. Military: Army, Navy, Airforce, Marines and National Guard. 

In a video, the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and immigration attorney Margaret Stock share the most recent developments. Since fall 2016, the MAVNI program is effectively being shut down. There are numerous delays in naturalization (currently, NSC official processing time is two years!), applicants are facing additional and retroactive requirements. In many cases, USCIS started doing a second round of security background checks, even for those applicants who were already approved. There have been reports of applicants being denied because they had a certain foreign relative living abroad (of course, foreign recruits would have foreign relatives -- they are foreign nationals!). There have been reports of U.S. citizens (former MAVNI recruits) being denied promotion in the military because they are naturalized citizens.

Presently, the US Department of Defense requires all applicants to be "in a lawful immigrant status" when they go to the basic training, and if not in a lawful status, they are required to apply for "deferred action" through USCIS, which is often denied. Atlanta, Georgia is noted as one of the jurisdictions with the most denials. DACA program is a form of a deferred action, which is accepted into this program, as well.

Briefly in-Russian:

Программа получения американского гражданства через военную службу, MAVNI program, претерпевает огромные изменения в сторону ужесточения правил (проводятся проверки "задним числом" уже после утверждения). К заявителям на американское гражданство через военную службу теперь предъявляются "новые" требования. Как говорят адвокаты, начали проводиться дополнительные расследования - в том числе тех, кого уже утвердили.

Иммиграционные адвокаты делятся статистикой отказов (множество отказов из Атланты, Джорджия). Адвокаты приводят примеры того, как их клиенты получили отказ по причине наличия определенных "близких родственников" за пределами США, которые не являются гражданами США. Ну конечно у них будут такие родственники - ведь суть этой программы в том, чтобы дать возможность получения гражданства США иностранными гражданам, и само собой, у них еть родственники за границей!

​Сроки ожидания гражданства через службу в армии (по статистике из иммиграционного центра в Небраске) в настоящий момент составляют 2 года.

Адвокаты, специализирующиеся в натурализации через воинскую службу, предсказывают увеличение количества судебных исков от рекрутов как результат отказа или задержек в рассмотрении заявлений на натурализацию. 

Министерство обороны США с осени 2016 ввело новое требование к рекрутам: теперь они требуют, чтобы заявитель был в "легальном статусе", и отсюда вытекающее новое требование получить статус deferred action, которое USCIS нередко отказывают. С точки зрения права, это требование не имеет смысла, так как deferred action не дает никакого легального статуса человеку, находящемуся в США после истечения статуса (визы), а только определенную и небезграничную защиту от депортации.

В целом, анализ заставляет задуматься о том, что возможно в будущем программа MAVNI будет аннулирована или станет непрактична или нереалистична для большинства рекрутов, желающих таким образом получить американское гражданство.

Вы можете посмотреть официальное видео от Американской ассоциации иммиграционных адвокатов, датированное 30 марта 2017 на youtube. 

​

The American Immigration Lawyers Association’s Customs and Border Patrol Office of Field Operations Liaison Committee released new guidance (ed. 03-22-2017) on the due process rights of lawful permanent residents (LPRs, or Green Card holders) at U.S. ports of entry.  It is important that LPRs understand their rights when attempting to enter the country, especially in this new age of increased immigration enforcement. Nonimmigrants applying for admission to the United States may have even less rights at the border.

Rights of LPRs at Ports of Entry

Upon return to the United States from travel abroad, Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) have certain due process rights, including the right to a hearing before an immigration judge before they can be stripped of their permanent resident status. In addition, given the increasing reports of CBP inspection of traveler’s electronic devices and/or social media accounts, it is important for members to advise LPR clients of the risks of refusing such a request.

Due Process Rights of LPRs (lawful permanent residents)

LPRs enjoy greater due process rights than nonimmigrants when returning to the United States after travel abroad. Like all international travelers, upon return, LPRs are subject to inspection by CBP. CBP may question and screen LPRs to determine whether they are a “returning resident” or whether they should be treated as an “arriving alien.”

Under INA §101(a)(13)(C), a returning resident shall not be regarded as seeking “admission” to the United States, (i.e., shall not be treated as an arriving alien), unless he or she:

• Has abandoned or relinquished LPR status;
• Has been absent from the United States for a continuous period in excess of 180 days;
• Has engaged in illegal activity after having departed the United States;
• Has departed from the United States while under legal process seeking removal of the alien from the United States, including removal proceedings under the INA and extradition proceedings;
• Has committed an offense under INA §212(a)(2) [criminal and related grounds of inadmissibility], unless since such offense the alien has been granted relief under INA §212(h) [waiver of inadmissibility] or §240A(a) [cancellation of removal for permanent residents]; or
• Is attempting to enter at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers or has not been admitted to the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.

An LPR who is deemed to be seeking admission may be charged as removable from the United States as an arriving alien. LPRs that are charged as removable, including those who are alleged to have abandoned their U.S. residence, have the right to a hearing before an immigration judge. See Matter of Huang, 19 I&N Dec. 749 (BIA 1988). Despite this, CBP may attempt to convince an LPR that their absence from the United States resulted in automatic abandonment of their U.S. residence, and urge them to sign a Form I-407, Record of Abandonment of Lawful Permanent Resident Status. As AILA recently advised, an individual does not lose LPR status merely because of time spent abroad. An LPR remains an LPR unless the government proves abandonment by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence and until an order of removal is issued and becomes final.

Form I-407 must be signed voluntarily and there are no negative consequences if an LPR refuses to sign the form. Neither failure to sign nor abandonment of LPR status by itself is grounds for detention by CBP. If CBP makes a determination, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the LPR abandoned his or her residence in the U.S., and the LPR refuses to sign a Form I-407, CBP’s only recourse is to issue a Notice to Appear (NTA) before an immigration judge. Even LPRs who have signed a Form I-407 retain the right to request a hearing before an immigration judge to determine whether LPR status was abandoned. See Matter of Wood, No. A24-653-925 (BIA 1992). Should CBP confiscate the LPR’s permanent resident card, the LPR has the right to alternative evidence of LPR status, such as an I-94 card and/or passport stamp.

CBP Search of Electronic Devices and Social Media Accounts

In 2009, CBP released to the public its current policy on searches of electronic devices. This policy states that all electronic devices, including those belonging to U.S. citizens, can be searched at a port of entry “without individualized suspicion.” There appear to be only very narrow limitations to the scope of CBP’s search authority. For example, section 5.2.1 indicates that privileged material, such as attorney/client communications, while not necessarily exempt from a search, may be subject to special handling procedures which require approval from CBP Associate/Assistant Chief Counsel.
CBP’s right to conduct suspicion-less searches of persons and conveyances has long been upheld by the Supreme Court as a “border search exception” to the 4th Amendment. While the 4th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” the Supreme Court held in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925), that it is “reasonable” to conduct border searches without a warrant due to national security interests.

CBP’s policy of conducting suspicion-less searches of electronic devices has not yet been meaningfully challenged. Following the publication of the 2009 guidance, the Supreme Court held, in Riley v California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014), that the police may not search and seize the digital contents of a person’s cell phone or electronic device, incident to an arrest, without first obtaining a search warrant.  In arriving at this conclusion, the Court noted that cell phones have become “such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy.” Riley, 134 S. Ct. at 2484. The ability of modern cell phones to contain the digital sum total of one’s “papers and effects,” the Court held, makes police searches of these devices unreasonable without a warrant. This ruling, however, only applies to arrests occurring in the interior of the United States and does not address arrests or searches at the border. Though this issue could be considered by a federal court, given the dire consequences to a foreign national who refuses to submit to such a search (including expedited removal), it is more likely that this issue will be pursued by a U.S. citizen who does not consent and is willing to litigate the matter.

A subsidiary issue to warrantless searches of cell phones and electronic devices is whether CBP may access an individual’s social media accounts. In 2016 CBP began collecting social media identifiers from Visa Waiver travelers through changes to the ESTA application. While the ESTA form makes this question optional, and only asks for social media “identifiers,” (as opposed to “passwords”) so that CBP can presumably view the traveler’s public information, AILA has received several reports of CBP officers requesting log in information so that they can view private social media accounts and messages. While the CBP electronic device search policy has not been updated to address this specific situation, it appears that CBP may view this information as falling within the “border search exception” to the 4th Amendment. For more information, see CBP Inspection of Electronic Devices Tear Sheet.

If a U.S. citizen refuses to consent to a search, CBP may do one of several things, including any of the following or a combination of the following:

• Detain the person until he or she consents.
• Have the person arrested for obstruction of justice.
• Let the person go and seize the device in question.

The CBP policy on search of electronic devices provides that CBP officers (with supervisory approval) make take physical possession of an electronic device either (a) when, upon a search of such a device, with or without suspicion of wrongdoing, a CBP officers discovers probable cause to seize it; or (b) when officers have “technical difficulties” in searching the device, such that technical assistance is required to continue the border search. In the latter case, inability to unlock the device due to non-consent could be deemed a “technical difficulty” justifying detention of the device. The policy provides that devices shall generally be returned within five days, but devices may be kept for up to 15 days and extensions beyond 15 days can be approved in 7-day increments thereafter. While CBP policy is to carefully record information about these detentions in its records, the policy sets no maximum period after which a device is required to be returned to its owner.

If an LPR or nonimmigrant refuses to consent to a search, CBP could follow any of the courses of action outlined in the previous paragraph with regard to U.S. Citizens and may, in addition, refuse a nonimmigrant admission to the United States and/or utilize the agency’s expedited removal authority. See generally, INA §235 and 8 CFR Part 235.

Right to Counsel (right to an attorney)

CBP has long held that there is no “right to counsel” during the inspection and admission process, although attorneys are sometimes permitted, at the agency’s discretion, to accompany clients who are detained in secondary inspection and/or are ordered to appear at a deferred inspection office. This interpretation is supported by 8 CFR §292.5(b) which applies generally to all immigration proceedings and states:

(b) Right to representation. Whenever an examination is provided for in this chapter, the person involved shall have the right to be represented by an attorney or representative who shall be permitted to examine or cross-examine such person and witnesses, to introduce evidence, to make objections which shall be stated succinctly and entered on the record, and to submit briefs. Provided, that nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to provide any applicant for admission in either primary or secondary inspection the right to representation, unless the applicant for admission has become the focus of a criminal investigation and has been taken into custody. 

In addition, the CBP Inspector’s Field Manual, at chapter 2.9, states:

Dealing with Attorneys and Other Representatives. No applicant for admission, either during primary or secondary inspection has a right to be represented by an attorney – unless the applicant has become the focus of a criminal investigation and has been taken into custody. An attorney who attempts to impede in any way your inspection should be courteously advised of this regulation. This does not preclude you, as an inspecting officer, to permit a relative, friend, or representative access to the inspectional area to provide assistance when the situation warrants such action. he Inspector’s Field Manual (“IFM”) is no longer relied upon as an official source of agency guidance and has been at least partially replaced by the CBP Officer’s Reference Tool (ORT). The ORT is the subject of FOIA litigation and has not yet been released. Nevertheless, the IFM guidance appears to comport with current agency practice.  (Emphasis added).

Should CBP choose to issue an NTA and initiate removal proceedings, INA §101(a)(27) states that there must be at least ten days between service of the NTA and the first removal hearing. However, the issuance of an NTA does not impose upon CBP an obligation to allow the individual to speak with an attorney while being held in a CBP facility, “unless the applicant has become the focus of a criminal investigation and has been taken into custody.” In addition, should CBP detain and hold the person until Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) takes him or her into custody pending a bond hearing, the right to counsel would then attach, as the individual would no longer be an applicant for admission.

​You can view updated Know Your Rights Guidance here.

​If you need legal advice, want to schedule a consultation or want to hire an attorney, please email us and we will get back to you to schedule the best time to talk on the phone or video chat.
​

In recent months, we have heard from many people whose applications for a provisional waiver, I-601A, were rejected for some technical and easily avoidable reason. USCIS had reported that they have seen an increase in rejections of Forms I-601A, Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver.

Please remember that if you are requesting a provisional unlawful presence waiver, you must file the current version of Form I-601A with the proper fee(s) and in accordance with the form instructions.  
When submitting Form I-601A, please make sure you:

• Submit the most current version of Form I-601A (update 04/2019: current edition is 02/13/2019)

• Complete all required fields and sign the form.
• Submit the proper filing fee of $630.(as of 2017). If you are younger than 79, you must also pay $85 for biometric services (for I-601A)

 Also, you must submit:

• A printout from the Electronic Diversity Visa Entrant Status Check page at dvlottery.state.gov confirming that you are a DV Program selectee or derivative

or

• The U.S. Department of State (DOS) National Visa Center immigrant visa processing fee receipt showing you have paid the fee in full.

Note: Documents such as the Immigrant Visa Application Processing Fee Bill Invoice, Affidavit of Support (AOS) Fee receipt or a receipt showing the payment is in process are not accepted and could cause delays in processing your case. You must provide a proof that you paid the immigrant visa fee and the payment was processed.

To ensure that you application is approved, it is your burden, as an applicant, to provide sufficient evidence of extreme hardship, relationship and other supporting documents.

These are all issues that are easy to correct. Do not place yourself in the situation where your application is rejected for a silly and easily avoidable reason, or denied for lack of evidence and supporting documentation. If you need legal advice, want to schedule a consultation or want to hire an attorney, please email us and we will get back to you to schedule the best time to talk on the phone or video chat.

Previously, we posted additional information about filing a provisional waiver application on our blog here, and here and linked to the ILRC practice advisory here. USCIS Practice Manual is here.

​Briefly in Russian:

Напоминание о том как избежать отказа в заявлении на вейвер, по английски extreme hardship waiver USCIS форма заявления I-601 и provisional waiver USCIS форма заявления I-601A. 

• Используйте самое последнее и действительное издание формы. В настоящее время (04-2019) это издание, датированное 13 февраля 2019 г. 
• Перед подачей заявления обязательно проверьте правильную ли форму вы заполнили и уточните сумму госпошлины.
• Приложите чек на правильную сумму за форму I-601A. В настоящее время госпошлина составляет 630 долларов, плюс 85 долларов за отпечатки пальцев, если вам нет 79 лет.
• Заполните все графы и ответьте правильно на все вопросы в заявлении. 
• Приложите все сопутствующие документы и доказательства. Именно для этого, чтобы правильно организовать и представить ваши доказательства, разумно проконсультироваться или нанять адвоката для помощи в ведении дела. Мы оказываем услуги по вейверам и предоставляем платные консультации тем клиентам, кому нужен совет адвоката. Для того, чтобы назначить время и дату консультации, свяжитесь с нами по электронной почте.
• Помните - это ваша обязанность доказать, что вам должны утвердить вейвер. Вам не обязаны утвердить, а могут утвердить ваше заявление на вейвер, ЕСЛИ вы докажете, что "more likely than not" ваш родственник будет в экстремальной ситуации если вам не дадут вейвер и не разрешат вернуться в США. Стандарт в таких делах - preponderance of the evidence.
• Помните, что ваши дети не являются теми родственниками, на ущерб которым вы опираетесь в своем заявлении. Вашим родственником может быть муж, жена, отец, мать - американские граждане или постоянные жители США (но не дети). У вас может быть более одного родственника. Родственник, ущерб которому вы описываете, может быть другой, не тот, кто подал на вас петицию I-130.
• Вы обязаны приложить доказательство того, что вы уже оплатили пошлину за иммиграционную визу или же распечатать уведомление о том, что вас выбрали как победителя лотереи грин карт.
• В последние несколько лет произошли большие изменения в области вейвера I-601 и I-601A. За время новой администрации с 2017 года пока не было никаких существенных изменений в этой области иммиграционного права.
• Перед подачей, убедитесь, что вам нужен вейвер, что у вас есть соответствующий родственник, что вы соответствуете стандарту на вейвер и что у вас достаточно доказательств, и вы сможете грамотно аргументировать почему вам должны утвердить вейвер. Также убедитесь, что вы не подпадаете под "permanent bar", так как в этом случае вам вейвер не положен. Помните, что теперь получение вейвера возможно во всех семейных категориях, не только в категории immediate relative но и во всех family preference categories. 
• Если вам нужен совет и помощь адвоката,  вы можете связаться с нами по этому адресу или нажмите линк внизу. Мы вам вышлем анкету и затем договоримся и времени и дате телефонной консультации.

Starting in January 2017, a new administration has issued multiple immigration-related Executive Orders and implementing memoranda.

These orders and memoranda touch on nearly all areas of immigration enforcement, including the treatment of immigrant children.

March 2017 ILRC guidance addresses possible ways that UACs may be affected by these changes.

We do not know how these policies will play out in practice, and there will likely be legal and advocacy challenges to their implementation.

Limiting Who Can Be Considered a UAC.

 UAC is defined as a child who:

1) has no immigration status in the U.S.;

2) is under 18 years old; and

3) has no parent or legal guardian in the U.S., or no parent or legal guardian in the U.S. who is available to provide care and physical custody.

When children from non-contiguous countries are apprehended by Customs & Border Protection (CBP) or Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE), those agencies must notify the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) within 48 hours, and transfer the child to HHS within 72 hours of determining them to be a UAC.

Such notice and transfer are also required for UACs from contiguous countries, provided that they trigger trafficking or asylum concerns or are unable to make an independent decision to withdraw their application for admission.

Many UACs are apprehended by CBP at the border, such that even those who do have parent(s) in the U.S. typically do not have parents that are “available to provide care and physical custody” in the short time in which CBP must determine if the child meets the UAC definition. Because of this, some children are classified as UACs even though they have a parent in the U.S., consistent with the definition’s disjunctive third prong.

Under previous USCIS guidance and practice, once a child is classified as a UAC, the child continues to be treated as a UAC, regardless of whether they continue to meet the definition. The UAC designation is generally beneficial because the law provides for more child-friendly standards for UACs. In an apparent effort to limit the number of youth who are classified as UACs, the Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) Memorandum implementing the recent Executive Order on border enforcement (“Border Enforcement Memo”) directs U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS), CBP, and ICE to develop “uniform written guidance and training” on who should be classified as a UAC, and when and how that classification should be reassessed.5 This guidance has not yet been developed.

But we anticipate that we may see any or all of the following changes:

--  Fewer children being classified as UACs upon apprehension. This could result in these children being subject to expedited removal (fast-track deportation without seeing an Immigration Judge), rather than being placed in removal proceedings under INA § 240, as the law requires for all UACs from non-contiguous countries and those who pass the screening from contiguous countries.

-- This could also result in more children being detained by DHS in detention centers rather than by HHS in less restrictive settings.

-- Children who are initially classified as UACs being stripped of that designation—formally or informally--once they turn 18 and/or reunify with a parent and/or obtain a legal guardian.

Federal law offers certain benefits to UACs. Losing that designation may deprive the affected children of those protections, meaning that they may:
1) no longer be able to avail themselves of the provision of law that allows UACs to file their asylum applications with USCIS in a non-adversarial setting despite being in removal proceedings;
2) be subject to expedited removal after being released from HHS custody rather than being placed in removal proceedings under INA § 240;
3) not receive post release services from HHS;
4) no longer be eligible for certain government-funded legal representation programs for UACs; and
5) no longer be eligible for voluntary departure at no cost.

Punishing Sponsors & Family Members of UACs

The Border Enforcement Memo also seeks to penalize parents, family members, and any other individual who “directly or indirectly . . . facilitates the smuggling or trafficking of an alien child into the U.S.” This could include persons who help to arrange the child’s travel to the U.S., help pay for a guide for the child from their home country to the U.S., or otherwise encourage the child to enter the U.S.10 Pursuant to the Border Enforcement Memo, enforcement against parents, family members or other individuals involved in the child’s unlawful entry into the U.S. could include (but is not limited to) placing such person in removal proceedings if they are removable, or referring them for criminal prosecution. We do not know how this provision will play out in practice.

​But even the inclusion of this language in the memo may cause panic and dissuade parents, family members or other adults from 1) sending children to the U.S. (typically done when children face imminent harm in their home country); 2) sponsoring children out of HHS custody once they are in the U.S.; 3) assisting in children’s applications for immigration relief, including asylum; 4) otherwise assisting children in fighting against deportation.

Criminalizing Young People

​Under the DHS memo implementing the Executive Order on interior enforcement, DHS’s enforcement priorities have been vastly expanded. While DHS previously focused its resources on removing people with serious criminal convictions, now DHS will take action to deport anyone it considers a “criminal alien.” The current administration’s definition of a criminal alien is incredibly broad, including people with criminal convictions, but also those charged with criminal offenses, or who have committed acts that could constitute a criminal offense.

Immigration law has long treated juvenile delinquency differently than criminal convictions, and that law is unchanged. However, it is unclear given the broad scope of the new enforcement plan whether delinquency will be considered a “criminal offense” and thus a priority for purposes of enforcement (even though it may not make a person inadmissible or deportable under the immigration laws). It remains to be seen how these expanded enforcement priorities will play out. 

See a new March 2017 guidance here.

​

On Tuesday, March 21, 2017, the DHS announced new restrictions or ban for personal electronics on direct flights to the U.S. from 10 airports in 8 countries in the Middle East and North Africa.

Electronic devices larger than a cellphone will not be allowed in the cabin, though they will be allowed in checked baggage.

Size of the cell phone is not defined. The UK introduced similar ban, and they defined the dimensions of the cell phone allowed on the flight as no bigger than 16 cm x 9.3 cm x 1.5 cm [6.3 inches x 3.7 inches x 0.6 inches].

Who is impacted: For flights to the US, the electronic restriction applies only to direct flights on foreign carriers. The affected airlines are only foreign airlines flying from ten (10) airports in eight (8) Muslim countries. It is estimated 50 flights each day into the United States would be affected.

Who is NOT impacted: American-operated airlines from the affected airports, as well as aircraft crews are not impacted.

The list of affected countries and airports (There are 10 specific airports located in 8 countries):

Saudi Arabia (Jidda and Riyadh)
Qatar (Doha)
Kuwait (Kuwait City)
United Arab Emirates (Dubai and Abu Dhabi)
Turkey (Istanbul)
Jordan (Amman)
Egypt (Cairo)
Morocco.(Casablanca) 

Neither of these countries is on the President's #MuslimBan list or #TravelBan or so called #LIstofSeven or #ListofSix, two recent executive orders.

At the same time, the British ban affects both domestic and foreign airlines, including British Airways, Turkish Airlines, Egypt Air, Royal Jordanian, and others. The British ban affects direct flights to the United Kingdom from Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia, and Saudi Arabia.

The travel restriction is not based on any credible, specific threat of an imminent attack. Experts are divided over the need and effectiveness of the new travel restriction. It's not clear why only foreign airlines are affected, but not the US airlines.

Read more here.

On Monday, March 20, 2017, The Department of Homeland Security made good on a current administration's promise to publicly shame cities and counties that don't cooperate with federal immigration authorities, and to publish a list of Sanctuary Cities and Counties. The administration also stated that sanctuary jurisdictions will be denied federal funding.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, released its first weekly list of local jails and jurisdictions that haven't honored so-called immigrant detainer requests.

Detainer requests on behalf of ICE go to cities and counties asking that local law enforcement hold an inmate who is in the country illegally and has been arrested or charged with a crime. The intent is to have such prisoners detained for up to 48 hours so that federal officials can decide whether to pick them up and deport them.

Such cities and counties, commonly described as "sanctuary jurisdictions," may not cooperate with the detainer requests for a variety of reasons. Some say that cooperating can undermine local trust in the police if immigrants are afraid that reporting a crime will result in their own deportation. Other jurisdictions cite court rulings that have cast doubt on the constitutionality of the detainers.

The list published today covers the period from January 28 to February 3, 2017. It comes during the week following President's executive order on the interior enforcement of the nation's immigration laws. The order directed DHS to compile and publicize a list "of criminal actions committed by aliens" and identify any jurisdiction that ignored any federal detainer requests.

The list covers the cases of 206 unnamed individuals who ICE says committed "notable criminal activity" and the jails from which they were released. (206 of ignored detainers represent less than 10 percent of the 3,083 detainer requests that were issued nationwide.)

The vast majority of the offenders are from Mexico and Central America. The jurisdictions listed include Los Angeles, Colorado, New York and Travis County, Texas.

ICE sanctuary jurisdictions list can be found here.

​

​On Wednesday, March 15 2017, a federal judge in Hawaii issued a nationwide temporary restraining order on President's 2nd travel ban hours before it was to take effect.

It means that the travel ban was placed on hold and will not become effective, as of March 16th, all around the United States, not only in Hawaii. #travelban #muslimban #executiveorder

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson issued his ruling after hearing arguments on Hawaii's request for a temporary restraining order involving the ban. His ruling prevents the executive order from going into effect Thursday, March 16, 2017, as it was scheduled.

Judge said he will not stay his ruling should an appeal be pursued. "The Court declines to stay this ruling or hold it in abeyance should an emergency appeal of this order be filed," he said.

Hawaii argued that the ban discriminates on the basis of nationality and would prevent Hawaiian residents from receiving visits from relatives in the six mostly Muslim countries covered by the ban.

The state also argued the ban would harm its tourism industry, as well as its ability to recruit foreign students and workers.

Read here.

Read the text of the court opinion here (pdf file).
​

SCIS Asylum Division Quarterly Stakeholder Meeting took place on Tuesday, February 7, 2017. 

Please note that the answers were provided before the second "Muslim Ban" or "Travel Ban" was signed.

You can find the Questions and Answers here.