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.

On February 27, 2017, USCIS had published a new completely revised edition of the Form I-130 (prior edition had 2 pages, and the new edition is 12 pages long, plus a new Form I-130A was introduced).

The old edition of the Form I-130 (edition date 12/23/2016) will be acceptable only until April 28, 2017. After 04/28/2017, only the most recent 12-page form I-130 will be accepted.

If you are filing for your spouse, he or she must submit Form I-130A, Supplemental Information for Spouse Beneficiary. If your spouse is overseas, Form I-130A must still be completed, but your spouse does not have to sign Form I-130A. Form I-130A must be submitted with Form I-130. However, a spouse still has to sign form G-28, if you have an attorney.

Please note that you can't file Form I-130 for a spouse (wife or husband) if you married your spouse while he or she was the subject of an exclusion, deportation, removal, or rescission proceeding regarding his or her right to be admitted into or to remain in the United States, or while a decision in any of these proceedings was before any court on judicial review.

However, you may be eligible for the bona fide marriage exemption under INA section 245(e)(3) if:

A. You request in writing a bona fide marriage exemption and prove by clear and convincing evidence that the marriage is legally valid where it took place and that you and your spouse married in good faith and not for the purpose of obtaining lawful permanent resident status for your spouse and that no fee or any other consideration (other than appropriate attorney fees) was given to you for your filing of this petition. The request must be submitted with Form I-130; OR
​
B. Your spouse has lived outside the United States, after the marriage, for a period of at least two years.

Biometric Services Appointment. USCIS may require that a US citizen Petitioner and/or foreign national Beneficiary appear for an interview or provide fingerprints, photograph, and/or signature at any time to verify identity, obtain additional information, and conduct background and security checks, including a check of criminal history records maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), before making a decision on petition.

After USCIS receives the I-130 petition, USCIS will inform you in writing, if you need to attend a biometric services appointment. If an appointment is necessary, the notice will provide you the location of your local or designated USCIS Application Support Center (ASC) and the date and time of your appointment or, if you are currently overseas, instruct you to contact a U.S. Embassy, U.S. Consulate, or USCIS office outside the United States to set up an appointment.

If you are required to provide biometrics, at your appointment you must sign an oath reaffirming that:
1. You provided or authorized all information in the petition;
2. You reviewed and understood all of the information contained in, and submitted with, your petition; and
3. All of this information was complete, true, and correct at the time of filing.

If you fail to attend your biometric services appointment, USCIS may deny your petition.

Also note that the Form G-325A is still valid and required when, for example, applying for adjustment of status.

Please take a note that the federal government updated their federal poverty guidelines, and a new I-864P was released on 03/01/2017. The new I-864P is applicable to all pending and new applications for adjustment of status or immigrant visa.

What Is UPL or UPIL:

The “Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law (UPIL): A State-by-State Overview of Legal Mechanisms to Combat these Deceptive Practices” resource is intended for immigration attorneys, recognized and accredited representative, and community-based organizations assisting noncitizen clients who have been victims of unauthorized practice of immigration law.

Unauthorized practitioners of immigration law are often referred to as “notarios,” which is notary public in Spanish, or immigration “consultants.” These individuals can delay immigration matters, at best, and pose a threat to the ability of a noncitizen to successfully qualify for immigration benefits, at worst. Victims of unauthorized practice of immigration law also face indescribable loss, including dashed hopes for legal status in the United States, depletion of limited financial resources, and possibly deportation from the United States.

NEBRASKA

UPL Statute SummaryNebraska Revised Statutes, 64-105.03, Notary public, unauthorized practice of law; prohibited

1. A notary public who is not an attorney shall not engage in the unauthorized practice of law as provided in this section.
2. If notarial certificate wording is not provided or indicated for a document, a notary public who is not an attorney shall not determine the type of notarial act or certificate to be used.
3. A notary public who is not an attorney shall not assist another person in drafting, completing, selecting, or understanding a document or transaction requiring a notarial act.
4. A notary public who is not an attorney shall not claim to have powers, qualifications, rights, or privileges that the office of notary public does not provide, including the power to counsel on immigration matters.
5. A notary public who is not an attorney and who advertises notarial services in a language other than English shall include in any advertisement, notice, letterhead, or sign a statement prominently displayed in the same language as follows: "I am not an attorney and have no authority to give advice on immigration or other legal matters".
6. A notary public who is not an attorney may not use the term notario publico or any equivalent non-English term in any business card, advertisement, notice, or sign.
7. This section does not preclude a notary public who is duly qualified, trained, or experienced in a particular industry or professional field from selecting, drafting, completing, or advising on a document or certificate related to a matter within that industry or field.
8. A violation of any of the provisions of this section shall be considered the unauthorized practice of law and subject to the penalties provided in section 7-101.

Nebraska Revised Statutes, 7-101. Unauthorized practice of law; penalty.

Except as provided in section 7-101.01, no person shall practice as an attorney or counselor at law, or commence, conduct or defend any action or proceeding to which he is not a party, either by using or subscribing his own name, or the name of any other person, or by drawing pleadings or other papers to be signed and filed by a party, in any court of record of this state, unless he has been previously admitted to the bar by order of the Supreme Court of this state. No such paper shall be received or filed in any action or proceeding unless the same bears the endorsement of some admitted attorney, or is drawn, signed, and presented by a party to the action or proceeding. It is hereby made the duty of the judges of such courts to enforce this prohibition. Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class III misdemeanor, but this section shall not apply to persons admitted to the bar under preexisting laws.

Enforcement Mechanisms/Complaint Processes for UPIL Victims may file a complaint with the Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division, under the Nebraska Deceptive Trade Practices Act, which may be accessed here.

Nebraska consumer protection information and contact forms are here.

One may also submit a complaint to the Nebraska Judicial Branch’s Commission on the Unauthorized Practice of Law. Contact information may be obtained here.

If you are looking for any other state, you can find state-by-state UPIL rules and information here.

We hope you find this information helpful!
​
(Sometimes government web links might have been moved, updated or changed and no longer work.)

#UPL #UPIL #unauthorizedpracticeoflaw #notarioscam 

​

Interesting statistics from Pew Research Center:

Muslim population of the world is expected to reach 73% in 2050. Islam is going to be a predominant religion, not a minority.

In 2015, according to Pew Research Center's best estimate, there were 3.3 million Muslims in the U.S., or about 1% of the U.S. population.

A majority of U.S. Muslims (63%) are immigrants. The government should treat them with respect and adjust our immigration policies to avoid alienating our own citizens.

Year 2050 is only 33 years away.

Rew Research Center: 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/27/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/

​

 On March 06, 2017, President signed a new Executive Order replacing the previous EO. 

On Monday, March 06, 2017, the President signed a new "Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States" (to replace the previous EO, so called "Travel Ban" or "Muslim Ban" which was placed on hold by the courts). 

New executive order narrowed a scope of the travel ban to block only new applicants for visas from 6 countries (LIst of Six instead of List of Seven), and removed Iraq from its coverage.

The new order, which goes into effect one minute after midnight on March 16, 2017, prohibits entry into the United States for citizens of six countries—Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen—for 90 days for those who do not already hold a valid visa. Iraq was removed from the "List of Seven".

New visas will not be issued and expired visas will not be renewed for citizens from the six countries during the 90-day period.

DHS had clarified the new ban: "If you're in the United States on the effective date of this order, which is March 16 2017, it does not apply to you. If you have a valid visa on the effective date of this order, it does not apply to you."

Like its predecessor, the new order shuts down the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days, effectively halting the admission of new refugees into the United States for four months. But March 6th order no longer includes the January 27 2017 order’s permanent ban on Syrian refugee admissions. Syrian refugees resettlement is temporarily halted for 120 days (not permanently as it was in the previous EO).

The new executive order will not apply to anyone who already holds a green card or a valid U.S. visa or has been granted official refugee or asylum status. 

The new executive order restores visas that were revoked “as a result of” the previous order. 

Sec.12 (d): "Any individual whose visa was marked revoked or marked canceled as a result of Executive Order 13769 shall be entitled to a travel document confirming that the individual is permitted to travel to the United States and seek entry.  Any prior cancellation or revocation of a visa that was solely pursuant to Executive Order 13769 shall not be the basis of inadmissibility for any future determination about entry or admissibility."

And it removes Iraq from the list of targeted countries, creating a "List of Six" from the previous "List of Seven".

Moreover, the new order expands the government’s ability to issue “case-by-case waivers” to immigrants affected by the ban. The old ban allowed these waivers only when they were “in the national interest”. Under the new order, Customs and Border Protection agents, as well as consular officers, may grant a waiver to immigrants from the six targeted countries if they fall under a number of categories. 

Those waiver categories include:

- foreign students stranded outside the United States on the day the order is signed; 
- immigrants with “previously established significant contacts” with the U.S. who are outside the country when the order is signed; 
- foreign nationals with “significant business or professional obligations” in the U.S.; 
- foreign nationals “seeking to enter the United States to visit or reside with a close family member … who is a United States citizen, lawful permanent resident, or alien lawfully admitted on a valid nonimmigrant visa”; 
- children and those in need of “urgent medical care", or “someone whose entry is otherwise justified by the special circumstances of the case”; and
- immigrants who have previously served on behalf of the U.S. government (if they can prove their service).

The updated and revised executive order on immigration took into consideration many legal objections to its predecessor, and the court of appeals decision. However, the second revised EO is not immune to litigation. We will keep you posted.
​
#EO #executiveorder #travelban #muslimban

The answers below were provided to AILA on February 27, 2017 by the U.S. Department of State, in response to issues raised by the president's January 27th executive order, so called "Travel Ban", which resulted in numerous visa cancellations and revocations.

The first January 27th executive order was replaced by March 06th executive order. Some answers provided by the U.S. Department of State still stand because they addressed several important issues which arose during the previous executive order's travel ban enforcement. Some answers would have to be adjusted because of a new March 6th executive order.

To clarify visa revocation and cancellation matters, the DoS provided the following answers:
​
Q1: What happened to the passports of applicants who had been cleared for visa issuance and were awaiting the return of their passports at the time the January 27, 2017, Presidential Executive Order (EO) was signed? If passports were returned to the applicants without the visa, what is the process for reinstating the application and receiving the visa at this time?

Answer: If visa issuance had been authorized, but the passport and visa remained in the consular section, we would have expected the consular section to spoil the visa, deny the application, and call the applicant in to pick up the passport with any issued visa having been revoked. Visa denials under the Executive Order were final, but the applicant may reapply without prejudice.

Q2: Do nonimmigrant visa applicants whose visa interviews were scheduled and then cancelled when the EO was signed need to reschedule their interviews, or are posts taking steps to reschedule them affirmatively? If visa applicants must take affirmative steps to reschedule their interviews, what is the process? What is the process for immigrant visa applicants?

Answer: We instructed our embassies and consulates to resume regular processing of visas for nationals of the seven countries subject to Executive Order 13769. Nonimmigrant visa applicants should contact their nearest U.S. Embassy or Consulate for information about scheduling an interview. The National Visa Center cancelled all scheduled immigrant visa interviews for these applicants scheduled in February 2017. The National Visa Center or U.S. Embassy will contact those affected to reschedule interview appointments.

Q3: In lieu of issuing a new nonimmigrant visa, can posts assist individuals whose nonimmigrant visa was physically cancelled (as opposed to provisionally revoked) in obtaining a boarding or transportation letter to facilitate embarkation to travel to the U.S.? Are boarding letters available for individuals with physically cancelled immigrant visas?

Answer: Visa cancellation by CBP constitutes visa revocation precluding travel. In certain situations, consular sections have issued boarding letters at CBP’s request. Other affected visa holders should apply for a new nonimmigrant visa, or contact the U.S. Embassy or Consulate where they received an immigrant visa for further instruction.

Q4: For dual nationals, please confirm that only nonimmigrant visas issued in a passport of a restricted country were provisionally revoked, and that nonimmigrant visas issued in a passport of an unrestricted country continued to remain valid. 

Answer: Given that the provisional revocation was reversed on February 3, 2017, any visas that were not canceled or revoked on other grounds were reinstated. If you have concerns about a particular case, please explain the circumstances and current status of the visa holder.

Q5: Were the nonimmigrant visas of citizens or nationals of the seven restricted countries who were present in the U.S. when the EO took effect provisionally revoked? If so, please confirm whether they have been reinstated.

Answer: When the provisional revocation was reversed on February 3, 2017, any visas that were not canceled or revoked on other grounds were reinstated.

Q6: Are individuals whose visas were provisionally revoked and then reinstated as a result of the TRO required to indicate on future applications that they have had a visa revoked?

Answer: Holders are not required to indicate on future applications that they have had a visa revoked.

Q7: Has DOS taken any additional steps has to notify individuals that their visas have been revoked other than the general notice on state.gov? Have these individuals been notified that their visas have been reinstated? If no notices have been provided, what steps can an individual take to proactively determine if his or her visa has been provisionally revoked and/or reinstated? 

Answer: When the provisional revocation was reversed on February 3, 2017, any visas that were not canceled or revoked on other grounds were reinstated. Individuals with any questions should contact their nearest U.S. Embassy or Consulate.

Q8: Did the EO have any effect on the processing of J-1 waiver applications for applicants from the restricted countries? 

Answer: The Waiver Review Division in the Visa Office generally continued processing of J-1 waiver applications while the EO was in effect.
​
******************************************************

P.S. On March 06, 2017, President signed a new Executive Order replacing the previous EO. 

On Monday, March 06, 2017, the President signed a new Executive Order on Immigration (to replace the previous EO, so called "Travel Ban" or "Muslim Ban" which was placed on hold by the courts). 

New executive order narrowed a scope of the travel ban to block only new applicants for visas from 6 countries (LIst of Six instead of List of Seven), and removed Iraq from its coverage.

The new order, which goes into effect on March 16, 2017, and bans entry into the United States for 90 days for citizens of six countries—Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen-- for those people who do not already hold a valid visa. 

Visas revoked under the first executive order have been declared "restored".

Sec.12 (d): "Any individual whose visa was marked revoked or marked canceled as a result of Executive Order 13769 shall be entitled to a travel document confirming that the individual is permitted to travel to the United States and seek entry.  Any prior cancellation or revocation of a visa that was solely pursuant to Executive Order 13769 shall not be the basis of inadmissibility for any future determination about entry or admissibility."

Read more at our blog here.

#EO #executiveorder #travelban #muslimban

DACA: CURRENT STATUS AND OPTIONS as of March 1, 2017

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program is still available and the government is still accepting and approving DACA initial and renewal applications. However, the program could be terminated at any time.

As a result, the information in this document could change so always stay up to date.

At this time, DACA should continue to provide you the same benefits–protection from deportation, work authorization and more.

However, even if you have DACA, immigration authorities may detain you and terminate your DACA if you, after receiving a DACA grant:
 are arrested or convicted for any criminal offense,
 admit to any criminal offense,
 are determined to pose a threat to public safety or national security,
 admit to fraud in connection with a government agency (such as use of a false social security number), or
 admit to gang affiliation.

According to DHS, if you disclosed the above information in previous DACA applications and your case was approved, you will continue to hold DACA.

If you failed to disclose any criminal history in your application or experience new criminal issues after receiving DACA, you should speak to an attorney as you may be at risk.

Initial DACA Applications – Recommended Only With Attorney Representation

Applying for DACA for the first time presents both benefits and risks. You should only apply after consulting with an attorney and considering the risks and benefits of your case. Be sure to have an attorney help you prepare your application. Prior criminal, immigration, fraud or gang issues could be particularly risky.

Be sure to consult an expert before applying if you have:
 previous criminal arrests or charges (even without a conviction);
 any type of criminal conviction (including either misdemeanors or felonies);
 any history of fraud related to a government agency (such as use of a false social security number); or  been deported or been ordered deported from the United States before.

Initial applications may take anywhere from a few weeks to several months to be processed. If a new application is not approved before the DACA program is changed or terminated, you may lose your application $495 fee. Furthermore, you risk exposure to immigration authorities by sending them your personal data. If pending federal legislation (the BRIDGE Act) passes to replace DACA, you may be eligible for another, less risky opportunity to be protected from deportation and receive a work permit. 

See DACA guide updated on 03/01/2017 here.

​​

Update: March 05 2017:

Major changes are expected in H-1B work visa program, either by the president's executive order or by the act of Congress, or both. A new bill was introduced in Congress. And DHS had already suspended Premium Processing for all H-1B I-129 applications file on April 3, 2017.

Read a detailed overview here.

--------------------------------------------------------------
USCIS published the following announcement:

Starting April 3, 2017, USCIS will temporarily suspend premium processing for all H-1B petitions. This suspension may last up to 6 months. While H-1B premium processing is suspended, petitioners will not be able to file Form I-907, Request for Premium Processing Service for a Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker which requests the H-1B nonimmigrant classification.

We will notify the public before resuming premium processing for H-1B petitions.

Who Is Affected

The temporary suspension applies to all H-1B petitions filed on or after April 3, 2017. Since FY18 cap-subject H-1B petitions cannot be filed before April 3, 2017, this suspension will apply to all petitions filed for the FY18 H-1B regular cap and master’s advanced degree cap exemption (the “master’s cap”). The suspension also applies to petitions that may be cap-exempt.

While premium processing is suspended, we will reject any Form I-907 filed with an H-1B petition. If the petitioner submits one combined check for both the Form I-907 and Form I-129 H-1B fees, we will have to reject both forms.

We will continue to premium process Form I-129 H-1B petitions if the petitioner properly filed an associated Form I-907 before April 3, 2017.

Therefore, we will refund the premium processing fee if:

1. The petitioner filed the Form I-907 for an H-1B petition before April 3, 2017, and
2. We did not take adjudicative action on the case within the 15-calendar-day processing period.

This temporary suspension of premium processing does not apply to other eligible nonimmigrant classifications filed on Form I-129.

Requesting Expedited Processing

While premium processing is suspended, petitioners may submit a request to expedite an H-1B petition if they meet the criteria on the Expedite Criteria webpage. It is the petitioner’s responsibility to demonstrate that they meet at least one of the expedite criteria, and we encourage petitioners to submit documentary evidence to support their expedite request.

As a rule, USCIS may expedite a​ petition or application if it meets one or more of the following criteria:​

• Severe financial loss to company or ​person​;​
• Emergency situation;​
• Humanitarian reasons;​
• Nonprofit organization whose request is in furtherance of the cultural and social interests of the United States​;​
• Department of Defense or ​n​ational ​i​nterest ​s​ituation (These particular expedite requests must come from an official U.S. government entity and state that delay will be detrimental to the government.);​
• USCIS error; or​
• Compelling interest of USCIS.​

We review all expedite requests on a case-by-case basis and requests are granted at the discretion of the office leadership.

Why We Are Temporarily Suspending Premium Processing for H-1B Petitions

This temporary suspension will help to reduce overall H-1B processing times. By temporarily suspending premium processing, we will be able to:

• Process long-pending petitions, which we have currently been unable to process due to the high volume of incoming petitions and the significant surge in premium processing requests over the past few years; and
• Prioritize adjudication of H-1B extension of status cases that are nearing the 240 day mark. 

On February 24, 2017 USCIS announced that they are re-issuing and mailing new receipts to applicants for a work permit EAD. No need to worry if you receive a second receipt, USCIS Form I-797. It's to notify you that your old expired work permit or EAD was automatically extended for additional 180 days if you filed I-765 while your previous EAD was still valid. This applies to applications filed after July 21, 2016 and before January 16, 2017. Applications filed after January 17, 2017 already receive a new form of I-797 extending EAD for 180 days.

USCIS Release Date: February 24, 2017

Starting February 16, 2017, USCIS began reissuing receipt notices (Form I-797) to individuals who applied to renew their Employment Authorization Document (EAD) between July 21, 2016 and January 16, 2017, and whose applications remain pending in the following categories: 

• (a)(3) Refugee
• (a)(5) Asylee
• (a)(7) N-8 or N-9
• (a)(8) Citizen of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, or Palau
• (a)(10) Withholding of deportation or removal granted
• (c)(8) Asylum application pending
• (c)(9) Pending adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act
• (c)(10) Suspension of deportation applicants (filed before April 1, 1997), cancellation of removal applicants, and special rule cancellation of removal applicants under NACARA
• (c)(16) Creation of record (Adjustment based on continuous residence since January 1, 1972)
• (c)(20) Section 210 Legalization (pending Form I-700)
• (c)(22) Section 245A Legalization (pending Form I-687)
• (c)(24) LIFE Legalization
• (c)(31) VAWA self-petitioners

On January 17, 2017, USCIS began automatically extending expiring EADs for up to 180 days for renewal applicants in these categories. However, some of the receipt notices that USCIS sent out before that date did not contain the applicant’s EAD eligibility category. Therefore, the reissued receipt notices will contain: 

• The applicant’s EAD eligibility category;
• The receipt date, which is the date USCIS received the EAD renewal application and which employers must use to determine whether the automatic EAD extension applies;
• The notice date, which is the date USCIS reissued the receipt notice; and
• New information about the 180-day EAD extension.  

Applicants may present the reissued receipt notice with their expired EAD to their employer as a List A document for the Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, to show that they are authorized for employment.      
Applicants with an EAD based on Temporary Protected Status (TPS) who filed their EAD renewal applications before January 17, 2017, already received a 6-month extension through the Federal Register notice that extended their country’s TPS designation. Therefore, these applicants will not receive a reissued receipt notice. Please visit the Temporary Protected Status page for current information on each TPS designation. All renewal applicants who file Form I-765 applications on or after January 17, 2017, including TPS renewal applicants, will be receiving Form I-797 receipt notices that contain eligibility category information and information about the 180-day EAD extension. 

In Russian:

24 февраля 2017 г USCIS иммиграционная служба США опубликовала пресс релиз для публики о том, что после 16 февраля 2017 они начали высылать новые уведомления I-797 о принятии заявление на продление разрешения на работу, форма I-765. Нет необходимости пугаться и звонить в иммиграционую службу. Это делается потому, что по новым правилам, если вы подали заявление на продление разрешения на работу до истечения срока действия (после 21 июля 2016 и до 16 января 2017), то его автоматически продлили на 180 дней. Вы можете показать это уведомление вашему работодателю, когда вы оформляетесь на работу как доказательство того, что вам разрешено работать в США в течние следующих 180 дней пока вы ждете новое разрешение на работу. Оно имеет такую же юридическую силу как само разрешение на работу.

​
​On February 20 and 21, 2017, DHS USCIS had published several Memorandums, Fact Sheets and Q&As at their official website, explaining changed border and interior immigration policies and priorities, following the executive branch's January 2017 executive orders. 

Two USCIS Memorandums, both dated February 20, 2017, and signed by the DHS Secretary John Kelly, authorize CBP, ICE and USCIS to significantly increase interior and border enforcement efforts:

Border protection and enforcement, building the wall and hiring at least 10,000 more ICE agents; expedited removal will apply to a broader class of undocumented immigrants; changes to asylum application process and credible fear interview, intended to make it more difficult to get a grant of asylum; criminal sanctions for parents of unaccompanied children; anyone present in USA without a proper visa or status will be subject to deportation; changing old DHS removal priorities from criminal aliens to all undocumented aliens; DACA grantees are safe from deportation at present time.

• Implementing the President's Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements Policies
• Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest
• Fact Sheet: Executive Order: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements
• Fact Sheet: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States
• Q&A: DHS Implementation of the Executive Order on Border Security and Immigration Enforcement
• Q&A: DHS Implementation of the Executive Order on Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States

Actions (Fact Sheet, 02/21/2017, Executive Order: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements ):

• Enforcing the law. Under this executive order, with extremely limited exceptions, DHS will not exempt classes or categories of removal aliens from potential enforcement. All of those in violation of the immigration laws may be subject to enforcement proceedings, up to and including removal from the United States. The guidance makes clear, however, that ICE should prioritize several categories of removable aliens who have committed crimes, beginning with those convicted of a criminal offense. 
• Establishing policies regarding the apprehension and detention of aliens. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will release aliens from custody only under limited circumstances, such as when removing them from the country, when an alien obtains an order granting relief by statute, when it is determined that the alien is a U.S. citizen, legal permanent resident, refugee, or asylee, or that the alien holds another protected status, when an arriving alien has been found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture and the alien satisfactorily establishes his identity and that he is not a security or flight risk, or when otherwise required to do so by statute or order by a competent judicial or administrative authority.
• Hiring more CBP agents and officers. CBP will immediately begin the process of hiring 5,000 additional Border Patrol agents, as well as 500 Air & Marine agents and officers, while ensuring consistency in training and standards.
• Identifying and quantifying sources of aid to Mexico. The President has directed the heads of all executive departments to identify and quantify all sources of direct and indirect federal aid or assistance to the government of Mexico. DHS will identify all sources of aid for each of the last five fiscal years.
• Expansion of the 287(g) program in the border region. Section 287(g) of the INA authorizes written agreements with a state or political subdivision to authorize qualified officers or employees to perform the functions of an immigration officer. Empowering state and local law enforcement agencies to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law is critical to an effective enforcement strategy, and CBP and ICE will work with interested and eligible jurisdictions.
• Commissioning a comprehensive study of border security. DHS will conduct a comprehensive study of the security of the southern border (air, land, and maritime) to identify vulnerabilities and provide recommendations to enhance border security. This will include all aspects of the current border security environment, including the availability of federal and state resources to develop and implement an effective border security strategy that will achieve complete operational control of the border.
• Constructing and funding a border wall. DHS will immediately identify and allocate all sources of available funding for the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of a wall, including the attendant lighting, technology (including sensors), as well as patrol and access roads, and develop requirements for total ownership cost of this project.
• Expanding expedited removal. The DHS Secretary has the authority to apply expedited removal provisions to aliens who have not been admitted or paroled into the United States, who are inadmissible, and who have not been continuously physically present in the United States for the two-year period immediately prior to the determination of their inadmissibility, so that such aliens are immediately removed unless the alien is an unaccompanied minor, intends to apply for asylum or has a fear of persecution or torture in their home country, or claims to have lawful immigration status. To date, expedited removal has been exercised only for aliens encountered within 100 air miles of the border and 14 days of entry, and aliens who arrived in the United States by sea other than at a port of entry. The Department will publish in the Federal Register a new Notice Designating Aliens Subject to Expedited Removal Under Section 235(b)(1)(a)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act that expands the category of aliens subject to expedited removal to the extent the DHS Secretary determines is appropriate, and CBP and ICE are directed to conform the use of expedited removal procedures to the designations made in this notice upon its publication.
• Returning aliens to contiguous countries. When aliens apprehended do not pose a risk of a subsequent illegal entry, returning them to the foreign contiguous territory from which they arrived, pending the outcome of removal proceedings, saves DHS detention and adjudication resources for other priority aliens.  CBP and ICE personnel shall, to the extent lawful, appropriate and reasonably practicable, return such aliens to such territories pending their hearings.
• Enhancing Asylum Referrals and Credible Fear Determinations. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officers will conduct credible fear interviews in a manner that allows the interviewing officer to elicit all relevant information from the alien as is necessary to make a legally sufficient determination. USCIS will also increase the operational capacity of the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate.
• Allocating resources and personnel to the southern border for detention of aliens and adjudication of claims. CBP and ICE will allocate available resources to expand detention capabilities and capacities at or near the border with Mexico to the greatest extent practicable. CBP will focus on short-term detention of 72 hours or less; ICE will focus on all other detention capabilities.
• Properly using parole authority. Parole into the United States will be used sparingly and only in cases where, after careful consideration of the circumstances, parole is needed because of demonstrated urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. Notwithstanding other more general implementation guidance, and pending further review by the Secretary and further guidance from the Director of ICE, the ICE policy directive with respect to parole for certain arriving aliens found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture shall remain in full force and effect.
• Processing and treatment of unaccompanied alien minors encountered at the border. CBP, ICE, and USCIS will establish standardized review procedures to confirm that alien children who are initially determined to be unaccompanied alien children continue to fall within the statutory definition when being considered for the legal protections afforded to such children as they go through the removal process.
• Putting into place accountability measures to protect alien children from exploitation and prevent abuses of immigration laws. The smuggling or trafficking of alien children into the United States puts those children at grave risk of violence and sexual exploitation.  CBP and ICE will ensure the proper enforcement of our immigration laws against those who facilitate such smuggling or trafficking.
• Prioritizing criminal prosecutions for immigration offenses committed at the border. To counter the ongoing threat to the security of the southern border, the directors of the Joint Task Forces-West, -East, and -Investigations, as well as the ICE-led Border Enforcement Security Task Forces (BESTs), are directed to plan and implement enhanced counter-network operations directed at disrupting transnational criminal organizations, focused on those involved in human smuggling.
• Public Reporting of Border Apprehensions Data. In order to promote transparency, CBP and ICE will develop a standardized method for public reporting of statistical data regarding aliens apprehended at or near the border for violating the immigration law.

Actions (Fact Sheet, 02/21/2017: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States)

• Enforcing the law. Under this executive order, with extremely limited exceptions, DHS will not exempt classes or categories of removal aliens from potential enforcement. All of those in violation of the immigration laws may be subject to enforcement proceedings, up to and including removal from the United States. The guidance makes clear, however, that ICE should prioritize several categories of removable aliens who have committed crimes, beginning with those convicted of a criminal offense. 
• The Department’s Enforcement Priorities. Congress has defined the Department’s role and responsibilities regarding the enforcement of the immigration laws of the United States. Effective immediately, and consistent with Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution and Section 3331 of Title 5, U.S. Code, Department personnel shall faithfully execute the immigration laws of the United States against all removable aliens. 
• Strengthening Programs to Facilitate the Efficient and Faithful Execution of the Immigration Laws of the United States. Facilitating the efficient and faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States—and prioritizing the Department’s resources—requires the use of all available systems and enforcement tools by Department personnel.
• Exercise of Prosecutorial Discretion. Unless otherwise directed, Department personnel may initiate enforcement actions against removable aliens encountered during the performance of their official duties. Department personnel should act consistently with the President’s enforcement priorities as identified in his executive order and any further guidance issued by the director of ICE, the commissioner of CBP, and the director of USCIS prioritizing the removal of particularly dangerous aliens, such as convicted felons, gang members, and drug traffickers.
• Establishing the Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE) Office. The Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE) Office within the Office of the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will create a programmatic liaison between ICE and the known victims of crimes committed by removable aliens. The liaison will facilitate engagement with the victims and their families to ensure, to the extent permitted by law, that they are provided with information about the offender, including the offender’s immigration status and custody status, and that their questions and concerns regarding immigration enforcement efforts are addressed.
• Hiring Additional ICE Officers and Agents. To effectively enforce the immigration laws in the interior of the United States in accordance with the president’s directives, additional ICE agents and officers are necessary. The director of ICE shall—while ensuring consistency in training and standards—take all appropriate action to expeditiously hire 10,000 agents and officers, as well as additional mission support and legal staff necessary to support their activities.
• Establishment of Programs to Collect Authorized Civil Fines and Penalties. As soon as practicable, the director of ICE, the commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) shall issue guidance and promulgate regulations, where required by law, to ensure the assessment and collection of all fines and penalties for which the Department is authorized under the law to assess and collect from removable aliens and from those who facilitate their unlawful presence in the United States.
• Aligning the Department’s Privacy Policies with the Law. The Department will no longer afford Privacy Act rights and protections to persons who are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents. 
• Collecting and Reporting Data on Alien Apprehensions and Releases. The collection of data regarding aliens apprehended by ICE and the disposition of their cases will assist in the development of agency performance metrics and provide transparency in the immigration enforcement mission.
• No Private Right of Action. This document provides only internal DHS policy guidance, which may be modified, rescinded, or superseded at any time without notice.

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS.

Q20: How does the expansion of expedited removal account for those who may be eligible for immigration benefits?
A20: The Secretary’s intentions regarding expedited removal are under development and will be set forth and effective upon publication of a notice in the Federal Register.
Q21: How soon will DHS make changes to more closely align its use of the expedited removal authority with Congressional intent?
A21: DHS is working to issue appropriate parameters in which expedited removal in these kinds of cases will be used.

Q22: Is it true that DHS is going to make the threshold for meeting credible fear in asylum cases more difficult to meet?
A22: The goal of DHS is to ensure the asylum process is not abused. Generally speaking, to establish a credible fear of persecution, an alien must demonstrate that there is a “significant possibility” that the alien could establish eligibility for asylum, taking into account the credibility of the statements made by the alien in support of the claim and such other facts as are known to the officer.
Asylum officers are being directed to conduct credible fear interviews in a manner that allows the interviewing officer to elicit all relevant information from the alien as is necessary to make a legally sufficient determination. In determining whether the alien has demonstrated a significant possibility that the alien could establish eligibility for asylum or torture protection, the asylum officer shall consider the statements of the alien and determine the credibility of the alien’s statements made in support of his or her claim and shall consider other facts known to the officer, consistent with the statute.

Q23: How will the enhancements to asylum referrals and credible fear determinations under INA section 235(b)(1) affect the work of USCIS?
A23: The Secretary’s memorandum outlines several points:

• The director of USCIS shall ensure that asylum officers conduct credible fear interviews in a manner that allows the interviewing officer to elicit all relevant information from the alien as is necessary to make a legally sufficient determination.
• The director shall also increase the operational capacity of Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) and continue to strengthen its integration to support the Field Operations Directorate (FOD), Refugee Asylum and International Operations (RAIO), and Service Center Operations (SCOPS), consulting with Operational Policy and Strategy (OP&S) as appropriate.
• The USCIS director, CBP commissioner, and ICE director shall review their agencies’ fraud detection, deterrence, and prevention measures and report to the Secretary within 90 days regarding fraud vulnerabilities in the asylum and benefits adjudication processes, and propose measures to enhance fraud detection, deterrence, and prevention.
• The asylum officer, as part of making a credible fear finding, shall determine the credibility of statements made by the individual in support of his or her claim. This determination should include, but is not limited to, consideration of the statistical likelihood that the claim would be granted by the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).
• The asylum officer shall make a positive credible fear finding only after the officer has considered all relevant evidence and determined, based on credible evidence, that the alien has a significant possibility of establishing eligibility for asylum, or for withholding or deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture, based on established legal authority.


• Q25: Is it true that in cases of UACs (unaccompanied children) who travel to the U.S. to reunite with a parent, if a parent is identified by ORR as an appropriate guardian, that parent could also be prosecuted for possibly having their child smuggled into the U.S.?

• A25: Correct. The parents and family members of these children, who are often illegally present in the United States, often pay smugglers several thousand dollars to bring their children into this country. Tragically, many of these children fall victim to robbery, extortion, kidnapping, sexual assault, and other crimes of violence by the smugglers and other criminal elements along the dangerous journey through Mexico to the United States. Regardless of the desires for family reunification, or conditions in other countries, the smuggling or trafficking of alien children is intolerable. Accordingly, DHS shall ensure the proper enforcement of our immigration laws against those who—directly or indirectly—facilitate the smuggling or trafficking of alien children into the United States. This includes placing parents or guardian who are removable aliens into removal proceedings, or referring such individuals for criminal prosecution, as appropriate.
  and report to the Secretary within 90 days regarding fraud vulnerabilities in the asylum and benefits adjudication processes, and propose measures to enhance fraud detection, deterrence, and prevention.

Q12: Will ICE still be hiring the 10,000 officers called for in the executive orders?
A12: ICE is currently developing a hiring plan.

Q13: What is the 287(g) program and how will it be used by ICE?A13: The 287(g) program allows local law enforcement agencies to participate as an active partner in identifying criminal aliens in their custody, and placing ICE detainers on these individuals. ... To strengthen the 287(g) program, ICE field leadership has begun examining local operational needs and liaising with potential 287(g) partners and will collaborate with CBP in these efforts. Existing 287(g) applications are also undergoing an expedited review process. 

Q14: Are 287(g) officers now going to do ICE’s job?A14: The 287(g) program, one of ICE’s top partnership initiatives, enables state and local law enforcement agencies to enter into a partnership with ICE, under a joint memorandum of agreement. The state or local entity receives delegated authority for immigration enforcement within their jurisdictions.

Q15: When will 287(g) task force agreements be available to local jurisdictions? Will these new task force agreements be modeled after the previously canceled task force model?A15: ICE and CBP will be  is developing a strategy to further expand the 287(g) Program, to include types of 287(g) programs, locations, and recruitment strategies.  ... Existing 287(g) applications are also undergoing an expedited review process. ...

Q16: How will ICE accommodate an immigration judge in each of its facilities? How about asylum officers?A16: ICE is working with the Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to review current procedures and resources in order to identify efficiencies and best practices to improve the system. Most dedicated detention facilities already house immigration courts and have enough space to accommodate asylum officers. ICE is also seeking to increase the use of technology, mainly through the use of video teleconferencing, in locations with insufficient space or staffing.

Q&A: DHS Implementation of the Executive Order on Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States Release Date: February 21, 2017

Q2: How is ICE conducting interior enforcement operations based on this executive order?A2: Effective immediately, ICE will direct its personnel as well as its state and local partners through the 287(g) program to apply the enforcement priorities stated in Executive Order No. 13768. 
To that end, within 180 days, ICE will carry out a number of actions to implement the enforcement priorities stated in the executive order. Some of those actions include, but are not limited to, conducting targeted enforcement operations and allocating resources to work in jurisdictions with violent crime tied to gang activities.
​
Q3: Does this new memoranda substantively change the authority of immigration enforcement officers throughout DHS to exercise traditional law enforcement discretion?A3: DHS officers and agents maintain discretion to determine which action(s) to take against removable aliens, but they have been provided with additional guidance by the president and secretary. 

Q5: What are ICE’s priorities under this executive order?A5: Under this Executive Order, ICE will not exempt classes or categories of removal aliens from potential enforcement. All of those in violation of the immigration laws may be subject to immigration arrest, detention and, if found removable by final order, removal from the United States. 

Q14: When is the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) being terminated (Previous Administration's policy)?
A14: ICE has terminated the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) and restored Secure Communities, directing its personnel to take enforcement action consistent with the priorities set forth in the executive orders. 

Q18: What threshold of abuse of a public benefit program will render someone removable?
A18: Those who have knowingly defrauded the government or a public benefit system will be priority enforcement targets.

Q22: Do these memoranda affect recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)?
A22: No. (Presently, new immigration enforcement policies do not affect DACA grantees. However, there have been recent arrests of DACA grantees)

​Expedited removal is a procedure that allows a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official to summarily remove a noncitizen without a hearing before an immigration judge or review by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). See 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1).

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), any individual who arrives at a port of entry in the United States and who is inadmissible under either 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C) (misrepresentations and false claims to U.S. citizenship) or § 1182(a)(7) (lack of valid entry documents), is subject to expedited removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i).

Additionally, the Secretary of DHS has the authority to apply expedited removal to any individual apprehended at a place other than a port of entry, who is inadmissible under either of those grounds, has not been admitted or paroled, and cannot show that he or she has been continuously present in the United States for two or more years. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b)(1)(A)(i), (iii).

A detailed 12-page Expedited Removal Guidance dated 02-17-2017 from National Immigration Project, ACLU, and American Immigration Council can be seen here. EXPEDITED REMOVAL: WHAT HAS CHANGED SINCE EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 13767, BORDER SECURITY AND IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT IMPROVEMENTS (ISSUED ON JANUARY 25, 2017).

When a person is arriving at the U.S. border and applying for admission to the United States, the CBP officers are required to determine the nationality or citizenship of each applicant for admission (including U.S. citizens).

When a a non-U.S. citizen applies for admission to USA, a decision is made by the CBP officer as to whether the applicant is admissible to the U.S.A. or inadmissible and should be removed or not allowed to enter the U.S. 

Even a lawful permanent resident returning to the U.S. after an extended stay abroad, in certain situations can be questioned as a person applying for admission.

All travelers to the U.S.A. should know the following:

1. Border Search Authority. Federal regulations are clear regarding CBP’s authority to conduct a search: “All persons, baggage, and merchandise arriving in the Customs territory of the United States from places outside thereof are liable for inspection and search by a Customs officer.” For those traveling to the U.S. in a vehicle, a CPB officer may stop, search, and examine any vehicle or search any trunk wherever found.  However, CBP cannot conduct intrusive searches (such as strip searches) or repeated detentions unless there is a “reasonable suspicion” of an immigration violation or crime.  Additionally, CBP’s policy requires that all searches be “conducted in a manner that is safe, secure, humane, dignified, and professional.”
2. Electronic Devices Search (smartphones, laptops, tablets). CBP’s border search authority also includes the right to examine electronic devices, such as computers, disks, hard drives, cell phones, and other electronic or digital storage devices, without “reasonable suspicion”. CBP officers conduct border searches of electronic devices to determine whether a violation of U.S. law has occurred.  While the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a warrantless search and seizure of digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional in violation of the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, there appears to be an exception for individuals desiring to enter the U.S.  If your electronic device is seized for further examination, which may include copying of data, you will receive a written receipt (Form 6051-D) that details what item(s) are being detained, who at CBP will be your point of contact, and the contact information (including telephone number) you provide to facilitate the return of your property upon completion of the examination.  Unless extenuating circumstances exist, the detention of devices should not exceed 5 days.
3. Discrimination and Coercion. An individual may not be searched on any discriminatory basis (e.g. race, gender, religion, ethnic background).  Nevertheless, a search based on consideration of citizenship or travel itinerary that includes a narcotics source or transit country is not deemed  unlawful. Additionally, CBP cannot threaten a person being questioned; if there is coercion, any statements obtained may be excluded in a subsequent removal proceeding under the Due Process Clause.  You can file a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security if you believe there has been improper discrimination, inappropriate questioning, or other civil rights and civil liberties violations.
4. Right to Attorney. Any applicant for admission (including U.S. citizens) is not entitled to representation in primary or secondary inspections, unless he or she has become the focus of a criminal investigation and has been taken into custody. Foreign nationals attempting to come to the United States, either temporarily or permanently, have very few rights during the application and screening process.
5. Right to Remain Silent, But Be Prepared to Answer Questions. Even though you have the right to remain silent, if you don’t answer questions to establish your citizenship, officials may deny entry to the U.S. or detain you for a search and/or questioning. CBP officers can ask people applying for admission to the U.S. almost any question.  If you choose not to answer all or some of the questions, you can be denied admission to the U.S. or delayed by the CBP officer if selected for secondary inspection, search of your electronic devices. Make sure you can answer the following questions:

• What is the purpose of your visit? (what do you plan to do in USA)
• Where will you be staying? (address)
• Who will you be visiting? (name, address, contact phone number)
• How often do you travel to the U.S.? (for example, how many times a year; every 3 months)

When a non-US citizen applies for admission to the U.S., it’s important to be clear that your purpose for the visit to U.S.A. must be consistent with the visa category held. For example, if you are arriving on a tourist or visitor's visa, the purpose of the visit is to engage in tourist activities or visit family or friends, or if you a student, it’s to study, if you are a temporary worker it’s to work, and if you are returning as a permanent resident, the purpose must be to return to the U.S. as a place of your permanent residence.

Please read our guidance for lawful permanent residents returning to the USA who are facing  request from the CBP to sign the form I-407 and to abandon permanent residency (aka green card).

#knowyourrights #CBP #DHS #USCIS #GreenCard #admissiontoUSA #I407 #search #seizure #bordersearch #electronicdevicesearch #righttoattorney #detention

Certain abused nonimmigrant spouses may use new USCIS Form I-765V (edition date 01-19-2017) to request an employment authorization document (EAD).

You may file for employment authorization if you are, or were, the abused spouse of a nonimmigrant who was admitted under INA section 101(a)(15)(A), (E)(iii), (G), or (H) [admitted in A, E-3, G, or H nonimmigrant status], and you either accompanied or followed to join your abusive nonimmigrant spouse.

Please note that this doesn't apply to all nonimmigrants, but only to those whose spouse is A, G, E-3 and H visa holder, and an abused spouse was admitted to the United States on an appropriate dependent visa.

The INA section 106 employment authorization categories are subdivided as listed below:
1. Abused spouse of an A nonimmigrant – (c)(27).
2. Abused spouse of an E-3 nonimmigrant – (c)(28).
3. Abused spouse of a G nonimmigrant – (c)(29).
4. Abused spouse of an H nonimmigrant – (c)(30).

Also, this doesn't entitle an applicant to a future claim to a lawful permanent resident status (aka green card). This is intended to be a temporary work permit only, to allow a foreign national to work, live, get a SSN in USA.

In Russian:

USCIS опубликовал новую форму I-765V заявление на разрешение на работу для некоторых жен и мужей НЕиммигрантов, которые подвергались домашнему насилию в семье, и находящихся в США временно в соответствии с неиммиграционной визой, полученной как супруг A, G, H, E-3.

Форма заявления была опубликована 19 января 2017 и может быть найдена тут.

Помните, что это временное разрешение на работу, и получение этого разрешения не гарантирует и не является основанием для последующего получения грин карты в США. Это временная мера помощи неиммигранту, попавшему в тяжелую ситуацию из-за насилия в семье.

​

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the defendant had no Fifth Amendment due process right to hire counsel in the expedited removal proceeding under 8 U.S.C. § 1225, and that he cannot demonstrate prejudice from the failure to notify him of the right to withdraw his application for admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(4).

As a result, the panel concluded that the defendant’s 2012 expedited removal could be used as a predicate for his illegal reentry conviction, and affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment and the subsequent judgment and sentence as well as the revocation of his supervised release. 

"We find that Peralta had no Fifth Amendment due process right to hire counsel in the expedited removal proceeding and that he was not prejudiced by the government’s failure to inform him of the possibility of withdrawal relief."

"When we refer to the “right to counsel” in this case, we mean the right of an alien to hire counsel at no expense to the government. We do not refer to a right to government-appointed counsel."

The decision was published on Feb 7, 2017 and can be found here.

In Russian:

Апелляционный суд 9-го федерального округа опубликовал решение 7 февраля 2017, где решил, что обвиняемый не имеет конституционного права на адвоката когда он находится в иммиграционном процессе "ускоренной депортации" из США, так называемая expedited removal.

Суд уточнил, что это решение распространяется на тех, кто находится под ускоренной депортацией, не пробыл в США более двух лет, и здесь имеется в виду право нанять адвоката за свой счет (так как в иммиграционном праве США не существует права на бесплатного защитника, как, например, в уголовном процессе). В иммиграционном суде США в процессе, который не является "ускоренной депортацией", у обвиняемого обычно есть конституционное право нанять адвоката за свой счет. Решение суда тут.

ЗНАЙ СВОИ ПРАВА: ИММИГРАЦИОННЫЕ РЕЙДЫ И ОБЛАВЫ НА ОСНОВАНИИ УКАЗОВ ПРЕЗИДЕНТА ОБ УСИЛЕНИИ ИММИГРАЦИОННОГО КОНТРОЛЯ ОТ 25 ЯНВАРЯ 2017.

25 и 27 января 2017 Президент США Трамп подписал три важных указа, касающихся иммиграции, виз и национальной безопасности страны.
 
Полный текст этих указов можно прочитать по линкам:

1. Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements (01-25-2017)
2. Enhancing Security in the Interior of the United States (01-25-2017)
3. Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States (01-27-2017)

Указ номер 1 касается постройки стены на границе между США и Мексикой. 
 
Указ номер 2 касается новых приоритетов в депортации из США, а также изменения во взаимоотношении федерального правительства и так называемых "sanctuary cities", городов, не выдающих нелегальных иммигрантов. Если такие города будут отказываться сотрудничать с федеральными орнанами, и не согласятся передавать им информацию о нелегалах, федеральное правительство угрожает отменой федерального финансирования для некоторых программ. Следует помнить, что это касается только тех программ, которые финансируются федералным правительством США, так как большая часть программ в любом штате финансируется за счет бюджета штата.

Указ номер 3 был подписан и вступил в силу 27 января 2017, и получил самую большую огласку и вызвал шквал негодования и возмущения граждан и политиков как в нутри США, так и за пределами (после 3 февраля 2017 применение этого указа временно приостановлено). Указ предусматривает следующее: (1) вводится временный на 90 дней запрет на въезд в США лиц имеющих отношение к семи исламским странам Ближнего Востока (указ не расшифровал, что значит national): Иран, Ирак, Сирия, Судан, Ливия, Йемен и Сомалия; (2)временно на 120 дней приостанавливается въезд беженцев в США изо всех стран мира; (3) на неопрееленное время запрещен въезд в США лиц, имеющих отношение к Сирии (важно подчерктунть, что запрет неограничен по времени, он относится как к лицам, имеющим гражданство Сирии, так и рожденным там, и может относится к лицам, которые имеют паспорта или travel documents, выданные Сирией, но рожденным в других странах, (4) отменена процедура выдачи виз в США без интервью.
 
Как известно, 9 февраля 2017 г апелляционный суд 9-го федерального округа вынес единогласное решение оставить в силе запрет федерального судьи на выполнение многих положений Указа президента номер 3 (суд признал многине положение указа недействительными, как противоречащие Конституции США). 

Федеральный апелляционный суд 9 округа собирается провести еще одно рассмотрение этого дела, в полном составе 11 судей, так называемое заседание суда en banc. 
 
Решение апелляционного суда Президент собирается либо обжаловать в вышестоящий суд или, по сообщениям из Белого Дома, готовится новый проект Указа Президента США, который заменит собой Указ номер 3. Даты подписания этого нового "передаланного" Указа может быть уже на следующей неделе (13 февраля или позже). Если новый указ будет подписан, то ожидается повторение ситуации с запретом на въезд беженцев и запрет на въезд лиц из определенных стран!

ИММИГРАЦИОННЫЕ РЕЙДЫ:
 
Вчера 9 февраля 2017 во многих городах и штатах в США прошли иммиграционные рейды ICE. Иммиграционная полиция арестовывала нелегальных иммигрантов в домах и на работе. Это был первый день таких усиленных рейдов в исполнение Указа президента от 25 января 2017, BORDER SECURITY AND IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT IMPROVEMENTS.
 
По сообщениям медиа, ICE рейды прошли в южной Калифорнии, Лос Анджелес, Остин. Техас, Атланта, Джорджия, Чикаго, Иллинойс, во многих городах штатов Нью-Йорк и Нью-Джерси, Северной Каролине, Финикс, Аризона и мнгогих других.
 
Рейды и облавы на иммигрантов стали готовиться уже после 25 января 2017, после выхода указа. По результатам рейдов 9 февраля, складывается впечатление, что задерживали, арестовывали и депортировали всех тех, кто "под руку" попался. Не было строгой и логичной системы, как ранее, когда например, приоритет был на депортации уголовников и лиц с судимостями. В этот раз депортировали также и лиц без судимостей и матерей, у которых остались в США американские граждане дети. Депортировали и тех, кто пришел отметиться в местный участок ICE, как они делали годами до этого.
 
Помните, что могут депортировать не только тех, кто въехал в США без визы, например, путем нелагального пересечения границы с Мексикой. Депортированы могут быть и те, кто приехал по визе, но срок пребывания по визе истек (например, приехал по гостевой визе на 6 месяцев и остался в США, ожидая пока муж или ребенок получит гражданство, чтобы самому получить грин карту через них, или приехал как студент, но прекратил посещать колледж и статус был аннулирован и т.п.).
 
В некоторых штатах 9 февраля устраивались облавы на водителей автомобилей, так называемые checkpoints или roadblocks на дорогах. Эта практика была признана нелегальной в прошлом, когда такие облавы проводились в борьбе с наркоманами и водителями в нетрезвом состоянии (так как обычно полиция должна иметь причину для остановки именно вашей машины и для проверки именно ваших документов). Но пока не было судебных запретов на облавы на иммигрантов. Это значит, что если вы ведете машину, и вас остановят на таком roadblock с единственной целью проверить ваши документы и узнать какой у вас иммиграционный статус, вам придется показать свои документы иммиграционной полиции, и они могут обыскать вас, ваших пассажиров и машину.

ЗНАЙ СВОИ ПРАВА:

Помните, что у вас есть права в соответствии с Конституцией США, а именно: право хранить молчание и не отвечать на вопросы (кроме как правдиво предоставить свое имя и фамилию), право нанять адвоката (нет права на бесплатного адвоката, и на адвоката в ситуации "ускоренной депортации (expedited removal),  что применяется в отношении нелегальных иммигрантов, находящихся в США менее двух лет и нередко на границе с Мексикой), право не открывать дверь если к вам пришли без ордера на арест или обыск, право отказаться подписывать документы если вы не понимаете, что вы подписываете.

Если вас пытаются депортировать по правилам "ускоренной депортации" (expedited removal), полезно иметь при себе доказательства своего длительного непрерывного проживания в США более двух лет (налоговые декларации, счета, платежки и т.п.
 
Помните, что если полиция спрашивает ваше имя, вы обязаны ответить и представиться (назвать свое настоящее имя и фамилию).
 
Помните, что нельзя иметь при себе фальшивые или поддельные документы (например, если вас зовут Сергей Иванов, а карточка соц страхования или водительские права в вашем бумажнике на имя Джордж Смит).
 
Но вы не обязаны отвечать на другие вопросы: например, адрес или страна где вы родились, или семейное положение, или где вы работаете. Если вы скажете, что вы родились в России, на Украине, или в Казахстане - это автоматически дает основания иммиграционой полиции подозревать вас в том, что вы не гражданин США, и начать расспрашивать вас о визе, грин карте, вашем иммиграционном статусе.
 
Заранее найдите список общественных организаций в вашем городе и штате, и имейте при себе телефон иммиграционной клиники или адвоката, а также телефон консульства вашей страны. Также оставьте номера телефонов дома для своей семьи, и составьте план на случай непредвиденной ситуации, emergency plan, если вас задержит иммиграционная полиция.
 
Во многих семьях в США один из супругов американец, дети американские граждане, а второй супруг иностранец. И реальность такова, что по иммиграционному законодательству многие иммигранты не могут получить грин карту даже если они женаты или замужем за американцем (например, если иностранец приехал в США нелегально). Наличие американских граждан детей и супруга не дает автоматического права на грин карту и автоматическую защиту от депортации. В таких ситуациях всегда полезно иметь emergency plan, и оставить телефоны и инструкции своему мужу или жене.
 
Если к вам домой пришла иммиграционная полиция, вы имеете право не открыть им дверь и не пускать к себе в дом, если у них нет ордера на обыск именно вашего дома по вашему адресу (случаются ошибки, когда приходят с обыском в соседний дом или квартиру по ошибке). Возможно, что безопаснее не открывать дверь вообще, так как это может быть расценено как предложение войти в дом. Безопаснее попросить их показать вам ордер через окно, стекло, или просунуть под дверь. В ситуации как это развивается сейчас, из-за огромного количества рейдов на практике может быть множество отступлений от обычной практики проведения обысков и арестов, поэтому стоит быть готовым ко всему. Следует запомнить или записать имена агентов, дату и время рейда, название агентства (ICE, FBI, местный шериф или полиция).
 
Если иммиграционный рейд происходит на вашей работе, обычно полиции нужен или ордер или разрешение вашего работодателя. На практике работодатели обычно дают свое согласие и разрешают обыск и опрос сотрудников без ордера.
 
Если вас задержала иммиграционная полиция, позвоните своей семье и попросите их связаться с адвокатом, или сами звоните адвокату. Имейте при себе карточку с номером телефона адвоката или организации, с которой вы сможете связаться в случае ареста или задержания.
 
Если вы плохо говорите по-английски, тем более не следует отвечать на вопросы кроме как ответить на вопрос "ваше имя и фамилия". Они могут часами повторять те же вопросы, дожидаясь когда вы выдохнитесь, устанете или потеряете терпение и подпишите, чтобы поскорее закончить допрос.

​Вы можете подготовить карточку и иметь при себе, чтобы дать агенту ICE с текстом приблизительно такого содержания:
 
Please be informed that I am choosing to exercise my right to remain silent and the right to refuse to answer your questions.
If I am not detained, I will choose to leave now (спросите если они вас задерживают официально, и если ответ "нет", вы можете уходить, и не задерживаясь уходите).
If I am detained, I request to contact an attorney immediately.
I am also exercising my right to refuse to sign anything until I consult with my attorney.
I would like to contact a lawyer at this number: ....................................................
(Телефон вашего адвоката или организации)
Thank you
 
Если вас задержали и вы подписали какие-то документы в отсутствие адвоката, настаивайте, чтобы вам предоставили копию. По закону вам обязаны предоставить копию, на практике они это редко делают. Особенно важно получить копию своего NTA Notice to Appear, если вам такой дали. Этот документ поможет вашему адвокату соориентироваться какие обвинения против вас были выдвинуты, и как можно добиться в суде выхода под залог (если это возможно).
 
Полезная информация для иммигрантов на английском: знай свои права, когда имеешь дело с сотрудниками иммиграционной полиции. Подробное практическое руководство и пример как выглядит ордер на обыск тут.

На официальном вебсайте иммиграционной полиции ICE существует поисковик, с помощью которого вы можете попытаться разыскать своих близких, если вы знаете или подозреваете, что они были задержаны ICE. Для поиска лучше всего иметь при себе номер А и страну рождения человека, которого вы разыскиваете. Также можно искать по имени и фамилии плюс дата и страна рождения. Во втором случае могут быть ошибки, если имя было написано неверно, или произошла ошибка с датой рождения.

​ЧТО ДЕЛАТЬ, ЕСЛИ ВЫ ПОСТОЯННЫЙ ЖИТЕЛЬ США (У ВАС ГРИН КАРТА), И НА ВЪЕЗДЕ В США, СОТРУДНИК ИММИГРАЦИОННОЙ СЛУЖБЫ ПЫТАЕТСЯ ОТОБРАТЬ ВАШУ ГРИН КАРТУ, ЗАСТАВЛЯЕТ ВАС ПОДПИСАТЬ ФОРМУ I-407, И ПЫТАЕТСЯ ВЫДВОРИТЬ ВАС ИЗ СТРАНЫ.

Полезная памятка для грин карт холдеров (постоянных жителей США), которые возвращаются в США и которых принуждают к отказу от грин карты и сдаче грин карты прямо в аэропорту сотруднику CBP. Эта ситуация случается нередко в аэропортах, но в последнее время требования к отказу участились, и нередко без веских оснований.

Помните, что если вас принуждают к подписи на форме I-407, Отказ от грин карты, вы не обязаны ее подписывать. Если вы не согласны и не хотите лишаться вида еа жительство в США, то не подписывайте эту форму.

Если сотрудник CBP продолжает настаивать, что вы потеряли свое резиденство (вид на жительство) в США, например, из-за длительного отсутствия за пределами США (более года), или потому, что вы являетесь лицом родившимся или имеющим паспорт из одной из семи стран на Ближнем Востоке, указанных в недавнем указе президента от 27 января 2017 г  - то они должны вас все же впустить в страну и выписать форму NTA, приглашение на явку в иммиграционный суд США, куда они должны передать ваше дело для решения вопроса о том, потеряли ли вы статус постоянного жителя или нет.

Помните, что хотя существует презумпция, что статус "автоматически" теряется после более одного года, проведенного за границей, но на самом деле все не так уж автоматически. Государство должно это доказать, и у вас есть право на доказательство своей правоты в иммиграционном суде США. Только судья может принять решение  том, чтобы отобрать у вас грин карту, а не сотрудник в аэропорту (естественно, вы можете решить отказаться от своей грин карты и добровольно ее отдать и подписать форму I-407).

Мы будем держать вас в курсе!

​Если вам нужна консультация или совет адвоката, свяжитесь с нами по электронной почте.

The number of U.S. citizens who renounced their U.S. citizenship or terminated their permanent residency during 2016 is at a record high. This number is growing every year, which is an interesting trend. 

On Friday, February 9th 2017, the Treasury Department published the names of 2,365 individuals who expatriated during the fourth quarter of 2016. Total number for 2016 came to 5,411 American expatriates over the whole year in FY 2016.

In FY 2015, 4,279 US citizens renounced US citizenship, which is 26 percent less than in FY 2016.

According to the International Tax Blog, the escalation of offshore penalties over the past two decades could be a contributing factor in this rise. 

According to Bloomberg, the Treasury began taxing Americans abroad around the time of the Civil War, to prevent citizens from fleeing the country to avoid fighting. Nowadays, the goal of the list is to make sure that all of the income of U.S. citizens — both in the country and abroad — is reported to the Internal Revenue Service.

#renounce #renounceuscitizenship #expat #expatriate #uscitizenship #usacitizenship

In Russian:

В 2016 году выросло количество американцев, отказавшихся от американского гражданства. В 2016 таких было 5 411, что на 26 процента больше, чем  в 2015 году, когда 4 279 американца вышли или отказались от американского гражданства.

Этот интересный тренд усилился после того как американское правительство ужесточило санкции за неуплату налогов на доходы полученные по всему миру, за пределами США, и контроль за счетами американских граждан в банках иностранных стран.

На практике лица, отказавшиеся от гражданства США, имеют второе гражданство или вид на жительство в другой стране, и основная, но "скрытая" причина отказа от гражданства - это нежелание платить налог на доход, полученный за пределами США в Казначейство США. Хотя официально эта причина не указывается, так как это может привести к стутусу невъездного в США.