In a case challenging terminations of a group of more than 130 F-1 students’ Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) records, a federal judge in Georgia granted a temporary restraining order on April 18, 2025.

The order, effective immediately, directs the government to “reinstate Plaintiffs’ student status and SEVIS authorization, retroactive to March 31, 2025.”

​An attorney for the plaintiffs, said, “Never before has an action like this taken place, ever, and what we see as a result is the terror in these students. This is designed to scare people into leaving, and kudos and bravo to these students for standing up for what their parents sent them here to do, which is to gain a good education.”

A hearing for a preliminary injunction is scheduled for April 24, 2025. The case is similar to other suits filed in California, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Washington, and Texas.

USCIS has issued guidance stating that the expiration dates for Venezuelan Temporary Protected Status (TPS) will revert to those in place on Jan. 17, 2025, when former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas extended the designation by 18 months. The move is pursuant to the Mar. 31, 2025, district court order temporarily halting the DHS’s recission of TPS for Venezuelans. Employers should stay updated on the progress of the litigation.

Expiration dates under the Jan. 17, 2025, extension are as follows:

• The 2021 designation currently expires Sept. 10, 2025. Work authorization documents with expiration dates Sept. 10, 2025, Apr. 2, 2025, Mar. 10, 2024, and Sept. 9, 2022, are auto-extended until Apr. 2, 2026, pending the outcome of litigation.
• The 2023 designation is extended through Oct. 2, 2026. Work authorization documents with expiration dates Sept. 10, 2025, Apr. 2, 2025, Mar. 10, 2024, and Sept. 9, 2022, are auto-extended until Apr. 2, 2026, pending the outcome of litigation.

Accordingly, employees with Venezuela TPS must be re-verified by Apr. 3, 2026. Employers should enter an expiration date of Apr. 2, 2026, on Supplement B of the I-9 form.

​https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/temporary-protected-status/temporary-protected-status-designated-country-venezuela

In a 6-3 ruling in U.S. Department of State et al v. Munoz et al (Case Number 23-334), the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) reaffirmed the doctrine of consular nonreviewability ruling against a U.S. citizen’s spouse who argued that the federal government violated her due process rights by denying her Salvadoran spouse an immigrant visa based on an approved family-based petition. The doctrine of consular nonreviewability holds that because the INA fails to authorize judicial review of consular decisions denying visas, federal courts do not have the authority to review visa denials.
In Munoz, SCOTUS held that U.S. citizens do not have a constitutional fundamental liberty interest in their non-citizen spouse’s ability to be admitted to United States, moreover, that U.S. citizens are not constitutionally entitled to review of denied visas as they could not raise this issue indirectly in their spouse’s case.
Ms. Munoz, a U.S. citizen, and her non-citizen spouse of over 10 years, Mr. Munoz, were forced to live apart for several years. Mr. Munoz was denied a visa following several interviews and without any explanation other than a broad reference to section 212(a)(3)(A)Iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which makes an individual inadmissible if the consular officer “knows, or has reasonable ground to believe” that the individual seeks to enter the United States to engage in unlawful activity. Ms. Munoz eventually guessed (correctly) that the Consulate believed her husband was a member of MS-13, a transnational criminal gang, due to his tattoo. Mr. Munoz asked the Consulate to reconsider its visa denial, but the Consulate denied this request. The couple then filed a federal lawsuit against the Consulate and the Department of State (DOS), arguing, inter alia, that the government had abridged Ms. Munoz’s constitutional liberty interest in her husband’s visa application by failing to give a sufficient reason he was inadmissible under the cited INA provision. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of DOS after DOS admitted the denial was in fact based on a consular officer’s determination that Mr. Munoz had religious tattoos that looked like gang logos. Thereafter, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the judgment, which brought the case next to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In its ruling, SCOTUS indicated that the “’the Due Process Clause specially protects’ only ‘those fundamental rights and liberties which are, objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.’” While Munoz invoked the fundamental right to marriage, SCOTUS concluded that Ms. Munoz was in fact claiming something different – the right to reside with her non-citizen spouse in the U.S. And that, SCOTUS concluded, is not a right deeply rooted in the nation’s history. Indeed, the country’s history instead recognizes instead the government’s sovereign authority to set the terms of admission and exclusion. SCOTUS also noted that while Congress has made some specific exceptions for spouses, Congress has not made spousal immigration a matter of right.
In its decision, SCOTUS distinguished an earlier case, Kerry v. Din, 576 U.S. 86 (2015) where in a concurring opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy assumed that a U.S. citizen would have a liberty interest that would be burdened by a spouse’s visa denial and was therefore entitled to more information than a simple citation explaining the denial. In that case, Justice Kennedy was referring to the fact that a U.S. citizen should have some right to question a denial of a spouse’s visa because there could be “bad faith” denial.
Some advocates are concerned that SCOTUS’ opinion in Munoz could lead to unnecessary family separations and subject U.S. citizen spouses to arbitrary decisions by consular officers, denying them the opportunity to build their lives together with their spouses in the U.S. Moreover, this decision casts fear and uncertainty on non-citizen spouses who have an approved family-based petition who must leave the country temporarily to process their immigrant visas abroad – not knowing whether a consular officer may erroneously deny their visa. Ultimately, SCOTUS’ decision may force U.S. citizen spouses to leave the U.S. so they can live with their spouses abroad – without having had the ability to challenge a potentially erroneous visa denial by a consular officer.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-334.html

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/602/23-334/

Supreme Court Ruled That Texas and Louisiana Lack Standing to Block Biden Immigration Enforcement Guidelines
On June 23, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in U.S. v. Texas that Texas and Louisiana lacked standing to block Biden administration immigration enforcement guidelines that prioritize national security, public safety, and border security threats over focusing on deporting anyone in the United States without authorization.
Justice Kavanaugh wrote, “The States have brought an extraordinarily unusual lawsuit. They want a federal court to order the Executive Branch to alter its arrest policies so as to make more arrests. Federal courts have not traditionally entertained that kind of lawsuit; indeed, the States cite no precedent for a lawsuit like this.” Justice also said that the Executive Branch “does not possess the resources necessary to arrest or remove all of the noncitizens covered by” federal law. “For the last 27 years since [the laws] were enacted in their current form, all five Presidential administrations have determined that resource constraints necessitated prioritization in making immigration arrests.” Justice Alito dissented.
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would reinstate the guidelines, which were paused last summer by the Supreme Court. He said this would “enable DHS to most effectively accomplish its law enforcement mission with the authorities and resources provided by Congress.” Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said that Texas would “continue to deploy the National Guard to repel [and] turn back illegal immigrants trying to enter Texas illegally.”
US. v. Texas (June 23, 2023). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-58_i425.pdf
“The Supreme Court Sides With the Biden Administration in a Fight Over Immigration,” National Public Radio (June 23, 2023). https://www.npr.org/2023/06/23/1182015382/supreme-court-ruling-immigration

• On November 2, 2020, a federal district court in Illinois has vacated the Department of Homeland Security/USCIS February 24, 2020 Public Charge Rule as a violation of administrative law.
• The court ruling prevents USCIS from applying the public charge rule nationwide starting today, November 2, 2020.
• USCIS is expected to issue guidance on the impact of the decision to applicants for adjustment of status and nonimmigrant changes and extensions of status, but has not yet done so.
• DHS is expected to appeal the court ruling, but the district court decision will remain in place while that appeal is pending.
• Today’s decision follows a string of judicial rulings regarding preliminary injunctions of the public charge rule, which concerned temporary bars to enforcement of the rule while several lawsuits continue. The most recent preliminary injunction ruling was the Second Circuit's September 11, 2020 decision, which allowed USCIS to resume applying the public charge rule nationwide while Second Circuit legal challenges are pending. Today’s Cook County decision is within the jurisdiction of the Seventh Circuit and is a final decision on the merits of the district court case. It therefore supersedes the September 11 decision, and will remain in place unless and until it is overturned by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals or by the U.S. Supreme Court.
• The legality of the public charge rule is being challenged in various jurisdictions. Disagreements among appeals courts could mean that the U.S. Supreme Court makes a final decision on whether the public charge rule is lawful.

Briefly in Russian:
2 ноября 2020 федеральный суд опять признал незаконным закон от 24 февряля 2020 о финансовой состоятельности Public Charge rule. USCIS не имеет право применять этот закон начиная с сегодняшнего дня.

Read the text of the decision here.

U.S. Supreme Court Decision
On June 18, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) decision in 2017 to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) because it was implemented without the required Notice and Comment and without publication of a final rule.
DACA Overview
Eligible DACA recipients were brought to the U.S. as young children and grew up without legal status. In 2012, DHS granted them deferred enforcement action and employment authorization. There are 700,000 DACA recipients in the U.S. See further below for our DACA eligibility checklist.
Challenges With Timely Renewal of Work Authorization for DACA Employees
One of the challenges of the DACA-based employment authorization document (EAD) is that DHS does not grant automatic continuing work authorization merely because an extension was timely filed. Instead, an employee whose work authorization is based on DACA must have their new plastic EAD work permit in their hand the day before their current work authorization expires, or they must be temporarily laid off. This has caused a lot of disruption for employers and DACA employees.
DHS does encourage DACA recipients to file their DACA and EAD renewal at least 150 days prior to expiration. However, agency processing delays have still resulted in unintended terminations. Once approved by DHS, both the Deferred Action status and work authorization will be approved for up to 2 years at a time.
DACA Checklist and Eligibility
Requirements

• Entered the United States before age 16 and before June 15, 2007.
• Entered without inspection or did not have legal immigration status as of June 15, 2012.
• Continually physically present in the United States for at least five years as of June 15, 2012.
• Under age 31 as of June 15, 2012 (can file later as long as the age requirement was met as of this date).
• Be at least age 15 at time of application (there are some minor exceptions).
• Attending a U.S. high school, or graduated from a U.S. high school, or obtained a U.S. GED equivalent, or attending a career or vocational job training program, or honorable discharge from the U.S. military.
• Good moral character (and continuing beyond June 15, 2012).
• All criteria must have been met as of June 15, 2012.

​The Nebraska Supreme Court entered an order applicable to all courts on March 12, 2020 imposing requirements upon litigants and attorneys who meet the order’s definition of having an elevated risk of infection with COVID-19.  Attorneys must notify opposing counsel and the Court if any party, witness or attorney meets the order’s definition and shall not attend any hearing, trial, conference, deposition or other proceeding without prior authorization from the Court.  The full text of the order may be found at the link below.


https://supremecourt.nebraska.gov/nebraska-chief-justice-issues-order-regarding-coronavirus-covid-19


All virus related announcements from the Court will be posted at the site listed above.

A federal court issued a ruling on Friday, December 7, 2018, that halts a Trump administration policy that blocked hundreds of lawful permanent residents from serving in the U.S. military.

Lawful permanent resident or green card holders can enlist and serve in the U.S. Military, and can apply for naturalization or U.S. citizenship through their military service.

Judge held that the Department of Defense likely violated the federal Administrative Procedure Act after it implemented a policy discriminating against lawful permanent resident enlistees. Judge's ruling finds that the Defense Department provided no rational justification for the policy change, stating that it provided no evidence indicating that lawful permanent resident enlistees posed more of a risk than U.S. citizens.

​Read more here.

Please note that in October 2017, the Department of Defense issued new policies that impact lawful permanent residents and other non-U.S. citizens in the military. The ILRC's practice advisory discusses how these policies affect those who seek to enlist, and those who currently serve in the military, including in the Reserve Components. 

The DoD policy changes will not affect MAVNI enlistees because the MAVNI program was suspended in October 2016. No one has been able to enlist in MAVNI since that time.

Before making a decision to enlist and to apply for naturalization, please review the practice advisory (dated 03/2018 - will be revised soon) and consider that under new rules "expedited" naturalization may not be much faster than a naturalization under a default rule.

On October 1, 2018, for the first time in history, Immigration Judges were assigned a quota and ordered to complete 700 cases per year (3 cases per day), and will be penalized if over 15% of their decisions are overturned on appeal.

In addition, AG has limited their authority to grant continuances or to administratively close cases where applicants are eligible to apply for an immigration benefit under immigration law.

The American Bar Association has stated that “such quotas have serious implications for decisional independence.” Instead the ABA recommends establishing the immigration courts as Article 1 courts, independent of any executive agency and less susceptible to political currents. 

What do the performance review standards require?

Under the new standards, which are set to go into effect on Oct. 1, 2018, to receive a “satisfactory” review an immigration judge must:

• Complete 700 cases per year, and
• Maintain a remand rate (from the Board of Immigration Appeals and circuit courts) of fewer than 15 percent per year.

Additionally, for a “satisfactory” review an immigration judge must meet at least half of the following benchmarks:

• Issue decisions within three days of completing a merits hearing in 85 percent of non-status detained removal decisions
• Issue decisions within 10 days of completing a merits hearing in 85 percent of non-status non-detained removal decisions (unless completion is prohibited by statute, such as cancellation caps)
• Decide motions within 20 days of receipt in 85 percent of their cases
• Make bond decisions on the day of the hearing in 90 percent of cases
• Complete individual hearings on the initial scheduled hearing date in 95 percent of the cases (unless the Department of Homeland Security does not produce a detained respondent), and
• Issue decisions in 100 percent of cases on the day of the initial hearing in credible fear and reasonable fear reviews (unless DHS does not produce a detained respondent).

Immigration judges are part of the executive branch of government within the Department of Justice reporting to the Attorney General. 

Case completion goals of 700 per year translates into completing – issuing a removal order or granting relief such as asylum, cancellation or adjustment – nearly three cases per day, and it does not account for the hours an immigration judge must spend conducting master calendar hearings, bond hearings, attending trainings and reviewing case files. It is hard to imagine how a judge could ever give fair consideration to three cases per day, while simultaneously preparing for upcoming hearings, writing decisions on complex cases and responding to motions (within newly proscribed time limits.) 

On April 06, 2018, in Matter of Jose MARQUEZ CONDE,  BIA reaffirmed our holding in Matter of Pickering and reiterated that we interpret the definition of a “conviction” to include convictions that have been vacated as a form of post-conviction relief—for example, for rehabilitative purposes—and we will continue to give them effect in immigration proceedings.

However, we consider convictions that have been vacated based on procedural and substantive defects in the underlying criminal proceeding as no longer valid for immigration purposes.

In addition, to promote national uniformity in the application of the immigration laws, BIA will now apply Matter of Pickering, which we have applied in every circuit except for the Fifth Circuit, on a nationwide basis. In this regard, BIA modified Pickering insofar as it exempts the application of its holding in cases arising in the Fifth Circuit. See Matter of Pickering, 23 I&N Dec. at 624 n.2.

BIA decision.

On December 14, 2017, USCIS published an announcement that they will begin accepting applications under the International Entrepreneur Rule or Startup Parole Rule (which was scheduled to take effect on July 17, 2017, but was postponed by current administration with intent to rescind).

The IER was published during the previous administration with an effective date of July 17, 2017, it did not take effect because the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a final rule on July 11, 2017, delaying the IER’s effective date until March 14, 2018. 

However, a December 1, 2017, ruling from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in National Venture Capital Association v. Duke vacated USCIS’ final rule to delay the effective date. The December 1, 2017, court decision is a result of litigation filed in district court on Sept. 19, 2017, which challenged the delay rule.

The IER or Startup Rule was published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2017 to provide the international entrepreneurs a new avenue to apply for parole, enter the U.S., and establish and grow start-up businesses.

Parole is a discretionary grant made by the DHS and is granted only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. The rule established new criteria to guide the adjudication of parole applications from certain foreign entrepreneurs, providing them with temporary permission to come to the country. The rule did not afford a path to citizenship, which only Congress can do.
On Jan. 25, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13767, Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements, which requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to ensure that parole authority is exercised only on a case-by-case basis, and only when an individual demonstrates urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit due to the parole.

Guidance on how to submit IER applications is available on USCIS International Entrepreneur Parole page.
Please note: while DHS implements the IER, DHS will also proceed with issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) seeking to remove the Jan. 17, 2017, IER. DHS is in the final stages of drafting the NPRM.

​Read full text of the announcement at USCIS website here.

It appears that the USCIS made this announcement after the December 1st 2017 court ruling, however, USCIS plans to issue a new rule which will repeal and rescind the Startup Rule in the near future.

Please read our previous blog posts on this topic here , here, and here.

​On December 4, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the government’s motions for emergency stays of preliminary injunctions issued by U.S. District Courts in the Districts of Hawaii and Maryland. The preliminary injunctions had prohibited the government from fully enforcing or implementing the entry restrictions of Presidential Proclamation 9645 (P.P.) titled “Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry into the United States by Terrorists or other Public-Safety Threats” to nationals of six countries: Chad, Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia. Per the Supreme Court’s orders, those restrictions will be implemented fully, in accordance with the Presidential Proclamation, around the world, beginning December 8 at open of business, local time.

The District Court injunctions did not affect implementation of entry restrictions against nationals from North Korea and Venezuela. Those individuals remain subject to the restrictions and limitations listed in the Presidential Proclamation, which went into effect at 12:01 a.m. eastern time on Wednesday, October 18, 2017, with respect to nationals of those countries.

US Dept of State: travel ban CHART.

.".. We will not cancel previously scheduled visa application appointments. In accordance with the Presidential Proclamation, for nationals of the eight designated countries, a consular officer will make a determination whether an applicant otherwise eligible for a visa is exempt from the Proclamation or, if not, may be eligible for a waiver under the Proclamation and therefore issued a visa.

No visas will be revoked pursuant to the Proclamation. Individuals subject to the Proclamation who possess a valid visa or valid travel document generally will be permitted to travel to the United States, irrespective of when the visa was issued". 

Questions and Answers:

Q: I am currently working on my case with NVC.  Can I continue?Yes.  You should continue to pay fees, complete your Form DS-260 immigrant visa applications, and submit your financial and civil supporting documents to NVC.  NVC will continue reviewing cases and scheduling visa interviews overseas.  During the interview, a consular officer will carefully review the case to determine whether the applicant is affected by the Proclamation and, if so, whether the case qualifies for an exception or may qualify for a waiver.

Q: What immigrant visa classes are subject to the Proclamation?
All immigrant visa classifications for nationals of Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia are subject to the Proclamation and restricted.  All immigrant visa classifications for nationals of Venezuela are unrestricted.  An individual who wishes to apply for an immigrant visa should apply for a visa and disclose during the visa interview any information that might demonstrate that he or she is eligible for an exception or waiver per the Proclamation.  A consular officer will carefully review each case to determine whether the applicant is affected by the Proclamation and, if so, whether the case qualifies for an exception or a waiver.

Q: ​Are there special rules for permanent residents of Canada?
Waivers may not be granted categorically to any group of nationals of the eight countries who are subject to visa restrictions pursuant to the Proclamation, but waivers may be appropriate in individual circumstances, on a case-by-case basis.  The Proclamation lists several circumstances in which case-by-case waivers may be appropriate.  That list includes foreign nationals who are Canadian permanent residents who apply for visas at a U.S. consular section in Canada.  Canadian permanent residents should bring proof of their status to a consular officer.
A consular officer will carefully review each case to determine whether the applicant is affected by the Proclamation during each phase of the implementation and, if so, whether the applicant qualifies for an exception or a waiver.

Q: I received my Diversity Visa (visa through the annual Green Card Lottery) but I haven’t yet entered the United States. Can I still travel there using my Diversity Visa?
The Proclamation provides specifically that no visas issued before the effective date of the Proclamation will be revoked pursuant to the Proclamation, and it does not apply to nationals of affected countries who have valid visas on the date it becomes effective. 

Q: I recently had my Diversity Visa interview at a U.S. embassy or consulate overseas, but my case is still being considered.  What will happen now?
If your visa application was refused under Section 221(g) pending updated supporting documents or administrative processing, please provide the requested information.  The U.S. embassy or consulate where you were interviewed will contact you with more information.

Q: Will my case move to the back of the line for an appointment?
No.  KCC schedules appointments by Lottery Rank Number.  When KCC is able to schedule your visa interview, you will receive an appointment before cases with higher Lottery Rank Numbers.

Q: I am currently working on my case with KCC.  Can I continue?
Yes.  You should continue to complete your Form DS-260 immigrant visa application.  KCC will continue reviewing cases and can qualify your case for an appointment.  You will be notified about the scheduling of a visa interview.

Q: What if my spouse or child is a national of one of the countries listed, but I am not?
KCC will continue to schedule new DV interview appointments for nationals of the affected countries.  A national of any of those countries applying as a principal or derivative DV applicant should disclose during the visa interview any information that might qualify the individual for a waiver/exception.  Note that DV 2018 visas, including derivative visas, can only be issued during the program year, which ends September 30, 2018, and only if visa numbers remain available.  There is no guarantee a visa will be available in the future for your derivative spouse or child.
  
Q: What if I am a dual national or permanent resident of Canada?
This Proclamation does not restrict the travel of dual nationals, so long as they are traveling on the passport of a non-designated country.  You may apply for a DV using the passport of a non-designated country even if you selected the nationality of a designated country when you entered the lottery.  Also, permanent residents of Canada applying for DVs in Montreal may be eligible for a waiver per the Proclamation, but will be considered on a case-by-case basis.  If you believe one of these exceptions, or a waiver included in the Proclamation, applies to you and your otherwise current DV case has not been scheduled for interview, contact the U.S. embassy or consulate where your interview will take place/KCC at [email protected].

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled to partially uphold President's third attempt on a travel ban, so called Muslim Ban or Travel Ban 3.0.

Ruling on the injunction issued by the District Court in Hawaii that temporarily blocked the enforcement of the new ban, the Ninth Circuit held that the travel ban could go into effect, except with regard to people with a “bona fide relationship” with close family or with an entity in the U.S., such as an employer or a university. This standard was borrowed from the Supreme Court’s June 2017 decision on a previous travel ban.

Individuals from six countries (Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen) may be banned from entry, unless they have a bona fide relationship with a U.S. family member or entity.

The Ninth Circuit decided that in addition to parents, spouses, and children living in the U.S., bona fide relationships could extend to grandparents, grandchildren, cousins, aunts, uncles, and brothers- or sisters-in-law. Entity relationships must be “formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course,” including universities, businesses, and other institutions.

The travel bans on North Korea and Venezuela were not included in the original suit brought before the Hawaii District Court. Travel of immigrants or nonimmigrants from North Korea and Venezuela remains suspended (all travel for North Korea and entry in tourist or business visitor status remains suspended for officials of certain Venezuelan government agencies and their immediate family members).

​The court ruling is here.

​

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

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

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

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

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

Read more here.

Read the court decision here.

Briefly in Russian:

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

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

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

​Решение суда тут.

​

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

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

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

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.

Today, a federal judge in Los Angeles has ruled that CBP and DHS must allow immigrants with already issued IMMIGRANT Visas to enter the United States from seven Muslim-majority nations, despite an executive order ban.

This new court order applies ONLY to immigrant visas, where an immigrant travels to USA on an immigrant visa and upon admission to USA becomes a lawful permanent resident (received a green card aka permanent residency in USA).

As was reported earlier, effective January 27th 2017, the U.S. Department of State "provisionally cancelled" ALL previously issued visas, including immigrant visas, to natives of the "list of seven" countries.

This court order makes it clear that the government must allow admission of lawful immigrants on valid immigrant visas to the United States, notwithstanding the fact that as of January 27th every single visa issued to people from seven countries is considered "conditionally cancelled".

It was also reported today that DHS opened internal investigation into multiple reports of the DHS and CBP employees refusing admission to people from seven countries in violation of the court orders. 

In Russian:

Сегодня судья федерального суда в Лос Анджелесе, Калифорния вынес еще одно решение, ограничивающее указ президента от 27 января 2017, о запрете на въезд в США лиц из семи стран (Ирак, Иран, Сирия, Судан, Сомалия, Йемен и Ливия).

Это решение распространяется на всю страну, не только на Калифорнию.

По решению суда, въезд в США разрешен всем тем иммигрантам, кто получил иммиграционные визы в США из семи стран, названных в указе. Так как по въезде в страну, они становятся постоянными жителями и получают вид на жительство в США.

Иммиграционная полиция и пограничники обязаны впускать в США всех тех, у кого есть иммиграционные визы (не смотря на то, что 27 января 2017 Госдеп США опубликовал меморандум о том, что они "условно аннулировали" ВСЕ до одной визы гражданам из семи стран).

Также сегодня было объявлено, что DHS начал внутреннее расследование среди своих сотрудников, которые отказываются выполнять решения судов и по прежнему отказывают лицам из семи стран во въезде в США.

Источник. read more here.