New Public Charge rules are in effect since February 24, 2020.
New federal poverty guidelines are in effect since March 1, 2020. https://www.uscis.gov/i-864p

Public charge does not apply to all immigrants. Every family is different, and the programs that help your
family might not be part of new changes to the policy.

WHAT IS CONSIDERED PUBLIC CHARGE:

- Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, “EBT” or “Food Stamps”)
- Federal Public Housing and Section 8 assistance
- Medicaid (except for emergency services, children under 21 years, pregnant
women, and new mothers)
- Cash assistance programs (like SSI, TANF, General Assistance)

Most people who are subject to the new rule are not eligible for the above listed benefits.
Services that are not listed above will not be counted in the public charge test. This includes
WIC, CHIP, school lunches, food banks, shelters, state or local health care programs, and
many more.

The immigration officer will consider the immigrant's:

• health
• age
• education and skills
• family support and sponsor
• use of some kinds of public benefits

The officer weighs all these factors. The officer decides if the person is "likely to become a Public Charge." They consider positive factors, like a job or skills. They consider negative factors, like low income or health problems. They can deny the application if they think the person will depend too much on public benefits in the future.

​Who is Affected by the Public Charge Rule

The Public Charge rule mostly affects people who are:

• applying for a Green card (Permanent Residence) with a family-based petition.
• Permanent Residents who traveled outside the U.S. for more than six months.

A slightly different rule applies to some "nonimmigrants" applying to change or extend their status. Example: student visas.

New Public Charge Rule doesn't apply to:

• U.S. citizens
• Permanent Residents (Green card holders) applying for citizenship or card renewals
• Refugees: people applying for refugee status, or for a Green card as a refugee
• Asylum: people applying for asylum, or for a Green card as an Asylee
• TPS: people applying for initial or re-registration of Temporary Protected Status
• DACA: people applying to renew Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
• SIJS: people applying for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status or applying for a Green card thru SIJS
• U Visa: people applying for a U visa or U visa holders applying for a Green card
• T Visa: people applying for a T visa; and T visa holders applying for a Green card
• VAWA: people applying for Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), and people with VAWA who are applying for a Green card
• People applying for withholding of removal or Convention Against Torture benefits
• Cubans applying under the Cuban Adjustment Act
• Amerasians who are applying for admission
• SIV: Afghan and Iraqi interpreters and translators who are applying for special immigrant visas
• Registry: People applying for registry (lived in the U.S. since before January 1, 1972)
• NACARA: People applying for Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act benefits
• HRIFA: People applying for Haitian Relief and Immigrant Fairness Act (HRIFA) benefits
• Lautenberg parolees
• Certain other "humanitarian" immigrants

You can find many great resources below:

• Supreme Court opinion issued February 21, 2020 is here.
• DS-5540, DOS Public Charge Questionnaire is here.
• Updated DOS Foreign Affairs Manual section on public charge is here.
• USCIS revised forms and updated policy guidance is here.
• USCIS policy alert is here.
• USCIS announcement is here.
• Immigrant Legal Resource Center, Public Charge Toolkit, including a “Totality of the Circumstances Worksheet” with ideas for positive evidence, is here.
• National Immigration Law Center, Protecting Immigrant Families page is here; summary of developments is here.
• Additional resources are here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who may have trouble entering the United States:

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

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

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

​#TravelBan #MuslimBan #ExecutiveOrder

​Read the decision here.

UPDATE June 29, 2017:

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

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

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

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


UPDATE 09:00 PM CST June 29, 2017:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unused skills

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

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

​Read the article at Stars and Stripes here.

On November 20, 2014, the President announced a series of executive actions. However, not all of these initiatives have been implemented, and USCIS is not accepting any DAPA or expanded DACA applications at this time. 

Beware of anyone who offers to help you submit an application or a request for any of these actions before they are available. You could become a victim of an immigration scam. 

If you need legal advice on immigration matters, make sure that the person you rely on is an attorney who is authorized to give you legal advice. Only an attorney or an accredited representative working for a Board of Immigration Appeals-recognized organization can give you legal advice. An immigration attorney can be licensed in any state because immigration law is federal law. It's important to consult an experienced and knowledgeable attorney before submitting any immigration applications.

The Internet, newspapers, radio, community bulletin boards and local businesses storefronts are filled with advertisements offering immigration help. Not all of this information is from attorneys and accredited representatives. There is a lot of information that comes from organizations and individuals who are not authorized to give you legal advice, such as “notarios” and other unauthorized representatives. The wrong help can hurt. Here is some important information that can help you avoid common immigration scams.

Here are some examples of common immigration scams:

**Telephone Scams**.

Do not fall victim to telephone scammers posing as USCIS personnel or other government officials. In most instances, scammers will:

• request personal information (Social Security number, Passport number, or A-number);
• identify false problems with your immigration record; and
• ask for payment to correct the records.

If a scammer calls you, say “No, thank you” and hang up. These phone calls are being made by immigration scammers attempting to take your money and your credit card information. USCIS will not call you to ask for any form of payment over the phone. Don’t give payment over the phone to anyone who claims to be a USCIS official.

If you have been a victim of this telephone scam, please report it to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Learn more about telephone scams and telephone scammers’ techniques by visiting Federal Trade Commission-Telemarketing-Scams. 

**"Notario Publico"**.

In many Latin American countries, the term “notario publico” (for “notary public”) stands for something very different than what it means in the United States. In many Spanish-speaking nations, “notarios” are powerful attorneys with special legal credentials. In the U.S., however, notary publics are people appointed by state governments to witness the signing of important documents and administer oaths. "Notarios publico,” are not authorized to provide you with any legal services related to immigration.

Please see the National Notary Association website "What is a Notary Public" for more information.

**Local Businesses who are not law firms and not attorneys or lawyers**.

Some businesses in your community “guarantee” they can get you benefits such as a:

• Visa
• Green Card
• Employment Authorization Document

These businesses sometimes charge you a higher fee to file the application than even a licensed attorney (but will tell you that attorneys charge more "for the same work"). They claim they can do this faster than if you applied directly with USCIS. These claims are false. 

**Dot-com websites - operated by non-attorneys or people not authorized to give legal advice**.

Some websites offering step-by-step guidance on completing a USCIS application or petition will claim to be affiliated with USCIS. Many of these websites are scammers or fraudsters, often taking money for blank forms or minimal assistance without attorney supervision.

USCIS has its own official website: www.uscis.gov with:

• Free downloadable forms
• Form Instructions
• Information on filing fees and processing times

Do not pay for blank USCIS forms either in person or over the Internet. You can download forms for free at www.uscis.gov.

Do not pay to a non-attorney (not a lawyer) for help with immigration paperwork, applications, affidavit. Oftentimes, they give you wrong advice and can potentially damage your chances of ever becoming a permanent resident (getting a green card).

**Green Card Lottery or DV Lottery scams**.

Once a year in fall, the Department of State (DOS) makes 50,000 diversity visas (DVs) available via random selection to persons meeting strict eligibility requirements and who come from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States. During this time or often around the year, it is common for immigration scammers to advertise in emails or websites that reference either the:

• DV lottery
• Visa lottery
• Green Card lottery

These emails and websites often claim that they can make it easier to enter the annual Diversity Immigrant Visa Program. Some scammers even identify you as a DV lottery “winner” and ask for significant amount of money "helping get a visa". These emails and websites are fraudulent. 

The only way to apply for the DV lottery is through an official government application process (Department of State website, and only when it's open, during an application period which is usually in October-November only). DOS does not send emails to applicants. 

On or after May 1st, you can visit the Department of State website to verify if you are actually a winner in the DV lottery. 

If need help, consult a licensed attorney (not one of the "green card lottery" websites).

**INS doesn't exist. It's been replaced by DHS and USCIS**.

To this day, some local businesses, websites, "notarios"  and individuals make reference to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). This agency no longer exists! 

If someone refers to USCIS as "INS", it's a sign that they are not an attorney, but rather someone unqualified with little knowledge in immigration matters.

INS was dismantled on March 1, 2003, and most of its functions were transferred from the Department of Justice to three new components within the newly formed Department of Homeland Security. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is the component that grants immigration benefits. The other two components are U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

All official correspondence regarding your immigration case will come from USCIS. USCIS will communicate with you and your attorney by mail, by mailing you notices, approved work permit and green card through USPS (postal service).

If you need a legal assistance, we will be glad to help. Our contact information is here.

Read here. 

Big news for Cuba: on May 29, 2015, U.S. Department of State rescinded Cuba's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. 

Cuba’s removal from the list of countries – now confined only to Iran, Sudan and Syria – is an important step in Obama's administration effort to move past the Cold War era hostility. 

In December 2014, the President instructed the Secretary of State to immediately launch a review of Cuba’s designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, and provide a report to him within six months regarding Cuba’s support for international terrorism. On April 8, 2015, the Secretary of State completed that review and recommended to the President that Cuba no longer be designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism.

Accordingly, on April 14, 2015, the President submitted to Congress the statutorily required report indicating the Administration’s intent to rescind Cuba’s State Sponsor of Terrorism designation, including the certification that Cuba has not provided any support for international terrorism during the previous six-months; and that Cuba has provided assurances that it will not support acts of international terrorism in the future. 

The 45-day Congressional pre-notification period has expired, and the Secretary of State has made the final decision to rescind Cuba’s designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, effective today, May 29, 2015.

The rescission of Cuba’s designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism reflects our assessment that Cuba meets the statutory criteria for rescission. While the United States has significant concerns and disagreements with a wide range of Cuba’s policies and actions, these fall outside the criteria relevant to the rescission of a State Sponsor of Terrorism designation.


Read at: http://m.state.gov/md242986.htm

Nebraska will start issuing driver's licenses to DREAMers or young people who were granted deferred action under DACA  ("DACA grantees"). 

Nebraska is the last state to join the other 49 states who are already issuing driver's licenses to young people with approved DACA deferred action. This program has been in effect since 2012.

On Tuesday, Nebraska Legislature overrode Governor's veto on this bill by 34 to 10 vote.

Read here. 

Twenty-six states (the “states”) are challenging the government’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program (“DAPA”) as violative of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the Take Care Clause of the Constitution. 

The district court determined that the states are likely to succeed on their procedural APA claim, so it temporarily enjoined implementation of the program. Texas v. United States, Civ. No. B-14-254, 2015 WL 648579 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 16, 2015). 

The United States appealed the preliminary injunction and moved for a stay of the injunction pending resolution of the merits of that appeal. Because the government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its appeal of the injunction, we deny the motion for stay and the request to narrow the scope of the injunction. Read full text of the decision here. 

First, the Court of Appeals rejected the Obama administration's argument that the 26 states challenging DACA and DAPA lack standing. The panel found that the burden on Texas in having to issue drivers licenses to DAPA status immigrants was "real and concrete."

Second, the court rejected the Obama administration's main argument, which is that the actions are truly discretionary and thus "committed to agency discretion by law." The court said that the executive actions didn't allow for any real exercise of discretion by agency employees, rather they simply were blanket changes to the immigration laws.

There are other provisions in Obama’s executive action on immigration, which will be considered by a different panel of judges of the Fifth Circuit the week of July 6, 2015. That panel could decide to lift the injunction. 

The injunction could remain in place for the rest of President Obama’s term in office – unless it is lifted by the courts.

As a practical matter, the injunction prevents the government from processing DAPA and extended DACA applications. Only original 2012 DACA is still in effect.

It appears that DAPA and extended DACA may never become law.

Read the court opinion here.

Obama administration’s immigration policy faces a shake-up next week—and the court’s ruling could reverberate in the 2016 presidential campaign.

At issue is whether it’s legal to essentially lock up women and children who have crossed the border illegally, part of the administration’s response to summer 2014 unaccompanied-minors crisis. 

Lawyers for some of these families sued the government, and last month, a U.S. District judge in Los Angeles issued a tentative ruling, a summary of which was obtained by Newsweek, stating that the administration policy violates a settlement in a 1997 immigration case, Flores v. Meese.

Judge gave the two sides 30 days to negotiate an agreement that would lead the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency to release the minors and their parents from the family detention centers where they are being held. Those 30 days run out on Sunday, May 24, 2015.

The judge issued a gag order, so it’s quite difficult to know whether or not there will be a real settlement by May 25, 2015. 

Obama’s detention and deportation of hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants remains a sore spot for immigrant rights and Latino activists, even after the president granted a reprieve, via executive order and under DACA program, to millions of young people who came to the United States as children and to those who have children who were born here and thus are American citizens (DAPA, which is not effective yet, pending another court case). 

The practice of holding thousands of women and their children in detention for many months—it’s just mothers and their kids in these detention facilities (in Texas and Pennsylvania), most of them fleeing dire circumstances in Central America—has prompted a particularly strong backlash.

Immigrant rights groups have been very critical of this practice.

Read more at Newsweek. 

Beginning Friday, May 1, 2015 USCIS will accept only the new version (edition date: 10/23/14) of Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker. The edition date is printed at the bottom of every page. 

On or after May 1st 2015, USCIS will reject all previous editions of this form.

Form I-129 is used to apply for many work visas (H1B, R-1, O, L, P, etc). 

A new form I-129 can be found at: http://www.uscis.gov/i-129 

USCIS launched a new interactive webportal myUSCIS. 

See at: https://my.uscis.gov/

USCIS recently introduced another useful webportal, where customers can submit e-request to ask questions about a pending case, report non-delivery of a document (work permit, green card, etc) or official letter (Receipt or Approval Notice, Form I-797), request certain accommodations. I found it to be a very useful tool.

See at: https://egov.uscis.gov/e-Request/Intro.do?locale=en_US

Almost daily, I hear from some of our callers: "I don't need legal consultation, I don't want to hire an attorney. I have only one or two very simple (or quick, or easy) questions, and I want an attorney to answer my questions right now and free of charge because my questions are so simple, quick, and easy!"

I will try to explain why this request doesn't make any sense and how to get proper legal advice.

U.S. immigration law is very complex and constantly changing. There have been no major immigration reforms or amnesties in the past few years (which requires a law to be approved by Congress and signed by the President). However, there have been significant changes introduced by our current and former administrations and the executive branch of the government: executive actions; executive orders of the President; USCIS and DHS memorandums and policy guidance; official and unofficial practice advisories; and changes through our judicial branch (federal and immigration courts), such as, the decisions by the BIA, AAO, Courts of Appeals, US Supreme Court, and even by federal district court judges (for example, an injunction by a federal judge can place on hold an executive order of the President of the United States).

U.S. immigration law is federal in nature and is the same in all states. However, it may apply differently to your situation depending on your background, your place of residence or domicile, US embassy in the country where you apply for a visa, etc.

An experienced immigration attorney may be able to guide you and advise you about specifics, loopholes, various options, and can spot possible problems before they happen, even if it seems to you that your case is pretty straightforward and you have only "one quick question". A seemingly simple or quick question not always can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no" answer. You may not realize it, but a situation may have a lot of hidden issues or variables depending on your venue, court jurisdiction, your factual circumstances, your arrest and criminal record, your family situation and status, prior legal assistance, prior legal actions and applications filed, or even timing, etc.

You can find a lot of useful immigration-related INFORMATION on our Blog. We compiled useful information and links: USCIS forms and fees, case status inquiry, processing times, AR-11 Change of Address, Department of State and NVC, and much more here. Hope you find this information helpful!

To ask basic questions about USCIS immigration forms, filing fees or to inquire about status of your pending case, you can contact USCIS, Department of Homeland Security, by calling their 800 Customer Service Hotline (number is on their website), or send an e-request via a webportal at USCIS website. Case status can be checked online, as well. Immigration courts, U.S. embassies and consulates and National Visa Center each have their own hotlines, call centers or other ways to contact them.

To receive a case-specific legal advice you should talk to a lawyer. Before a lawyer can advise you, we usually email you our confidential immigration questionnaire, and ask you to complete and return it to us. In some cases, we can ask you to email us copies of your immigration forms, paperwork, personal documents. When an attorney reviews your answers to our questionnaire and your documents, it helps her to get to know you, your situation, and decide what legal and/or visa options you shall consider, what are your best chances of obtaining certain visas and immigration benefits, how and when can you bring your family to USA, are you eligible for permanent residency or a green card in the United States, are you eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship, how can your children become U.S. citizens, etc.

It's important that you provide truthful, accurate and complete answers to our questions because an attorney's advice to you is based on information you provide to an attorney. It could be dangerous to give misleading, incomplete or incorrect answers to an attorney.

An attorney or a lawyer is often called "a counselor in law". It means that an attorney counsels and advises you, helps you to understand your situation better, anticipates any possible future issues or complications, offers guidance, and a long-term strategy and planning for yourself and your family.

Legal advice is never a simple "yes" or "no" answer, it's never "use this form"  or "this is the link where you can find all information and all answers you need". Legal advice or consultation is like going to see a doctor. A doctor will ask you questions, take your vitals and administer necessary tests, then she will be able to diagnose you and offer you an appropriate treatment plan. The same is true about work of a good and ethical attorney. An attorney will have to ask you a number of questions, review your documents and paperwork, and only then she will be able to advise you, and offer you guidance and counsel.

In order to avoid mistakes and future complications, it's smart to consult an attorney before starting any legal, immigrant or visa process. Consultation with knowledgeable and ethical attorney should serve as a preventative measure and a way to establish a roadmap and plan your future.

In over twelve years of practice as an immigration attorney in the United States, I have come across of many unfortunate individuals who got themselves into trouble after reading and following wrong advice on internet forums, listening to their friends, co-workers, relatives and neighbors advice, or paying to complete their "paperwork" to an unlicensed "immigration consultant", or "notario", or "tax preparer", or somebody else who speaks their native language in their immigrant community but has no proper training and is not a licensed attorney. In some of these cases, individual's chances of living in USA legally can be permanently destroyed. Some people can become permanently banned from the United States, no matter how many close family members (wife, kids, parents) and other ties they have in USA. Immigration law is very complex and unforgiving, and non-compliance, fraud or misrepresentation could bring consequences more severe than penalties in an average criminal case. Where a convicted criminal can usually expect to be released from prison after a number of months or years and be reunited with his family, a person who was deported and permanently banned from USA may never be able to reunite with his family and loved ones in the United States. Lack of knowledge or bad advice is not an excuse in immigration law. "Simple mistakes" in immigration law context could be costly and often irreversible.

Do yourself a favor and consult a knowledgeable immigration attorney before filing any applications or petitions with the USCIS Department of Homeland Security, or before submitting any visa applications online. You can also schedule a consultation to seek a second opinion, if not sure that your current or former attorney's advice is correct as applies to you. When you have questions or need legal advice you can email us to schedule a consultation. We will be glad to help you.