Immigration Blog Luba Smal Attorney at Law - Smal Immigration Law Office

Temporary Restraining Order Granted in Case Challenging Terminations of F-1 Students’ SEVIS Records

5/9/2025

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.

U.S. Supreme Court Reaffirms That Federal Courts Don't Have Authority to Review Visa Denials

7/12/2024

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/

Effect of Shutdown of the Government on USCIS and Immigration

9/26/2023

A federal government shutdown will impact some, but not all, US immigration and visa programs. The principal distinction is between those programs that are fee-funded and those that rely on congressional appropriations for funding. The greatest business immigration impact will be on US Department of Labor (DOL) programs for permanent (PERM) labor certification and H-1B, E-3, H-1B1, and H-2B matters.
With the growing possibility of a federal government shutdown at the start of its new fiscal year on October 1, 2023, it may be instructive to review how immigration-related agencies operated during prior shutdowns. Any shutdown in FY2023 will also be informed by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) guidance published in 2022 that describes what DHS operations will continue during a federal funding hiatus or lapse in appropriations.
GENERAL SHUTDOWN INFORMATION
If the government agencies close for budgetary reasons, all but “essential” personnel are furloughed and are not allowed to work. Operations that are funded by user fees may face limited operations, but are unlikely to halt completely. Functions that rely on congressional appropriations for their operating funds are likely to shut down all but essential functions.
US CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES
US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is funded by fees paid by stakeholders, and as such this agency typically continues operating because it is not dependent on congressional appropriations to fund its operations. Exceptions to this include the few USCIS programs that do receive appropriated funds: E-Verify, the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Regional Center Program, Conrad 30 J-1 doctors, and non-minister religious workers. These operations will likely be suspended.
E-Verify and I-9
E-Verify will likely go dark during a shutdown. While employers must continue to honor their obligations under Form I-9 rules, they will not be sanctioned for delays arising from the inability to process E-Verify cases in accordance with the “three-day rule.” When E-Verify comes back online, employers should create E-Verify cases based on Forms I-9 completed during the shutdown.
For employees who received a tentative non-confirmation (TNC), the period during which employees may resolve TNCs will be extended. The number of days E-Verify is unavailable will not count toward the days that employees have to begin the process of resolving their TNCs.
USCIS has confirmed that employers may continue to use the new alternate document review process for remote Form I-9 document verification if E-Verify is temporarily unavailable due to a government shutdown.
EB-5
Although the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Regional Center Program receives government funding, its current operations are funded and authorized through September 30, 2027.
STATE DEPARTMENT
Visa and passport operations are fee-funded and are not expected to be impacted by a lapse in funding; however, consular availability and processing may nonetheless be impacted depending on the post and ancillary impacts of the shutdown on consular operations. If a consulate is impacted by the shutdown, then it is likely that services will be limited to diplomatic visas and extreme emergencies.
US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
The processing of labor condition applications for H-1B, E-3, and H-1B1 petitions will be shut down. Similarly, processing of prevailing wage, PERM labor certification, and other operations of the DOL Office of Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC) will cease. DOL/OFLC personnel will not be available to respond to inquiries, and web-based systems for filing, status checks, and uploading documents, among other features, will be offline. Deadlines related to DOL applications and procedures are typically modified.
US CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION
DHS deems passenger and cargo inspection and law enforcement to be essential operations that will continue despite a lapse in appropriations. Ports of entry will be open, and processing of passengers arriving at land, sea, and air ports of entry will continue; however, processing of applications for work visa classification (e.g., TN, H-1B, L-1), particularly at Canadian border posts, may be impacted. Applicants are advised to contact the port of entry in advance to confirm the post’s operational status.
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) enforcement and removal operations will continue, and ICE attorneys will typically focus on the detained docket during a shutdown. The ICE Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) offices (for, e.g., F-1, J-1, M-1 visas) are unaffected since SEVP is funded by fees (AILA Doc. No. 21092710).
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
Immigration court cases on the detained docket will proceed during a lapse in congressional appropriations, while nondetained docket cases will be reset for a later date when funding resumes. Courts with detained dockets will receive all filings but will only process those involving detained dockets.
Courts with only nondetained dockets will not be open and will not accept filings. Courts should issue an updated notice of hearing to respondents or representatives of record for reset hearings. Members may want to check with their local chapters for court-specific instructions (AILA Doc. No. 21092710).
CIS OMBUDSMAN
The DHS Office of the CIS Ombudsman would close and would not accept any inquiries through its online case intake system (AILA Doc. No. 21092710).

US Supreme Court Ruled for Biden Administration ICE Enforcement Policies

6/28/2023

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

Public Charge Rule was vacated nationwide by a court on November 2 2020

11/2/2020

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.

Lawful permanent resident can enlist in the U.S. Military: judge overturned Trump's ban

12/7/2018

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.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld DACA

11/8/2018

On November 8, 2018, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld federal DACA program established in 2012. Therefore, DACA law is still a valid law. The 9th Circuit decision preserves the status quo for the moment and will require the administration to continue accepting DACA renewal applications.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Trump’s decision to phase out the Obama-era DACA program, which allows roughly 700,000 undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children to obtain work permits and protects them from deportation, was likely “arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”

Read more here.

Lawsuit Challenges New USCIS Policy on 'Unlawful Presence' for Foreign Students and Exchange Visitors

11/5/2018

In a new lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, several colleges and universities have challenged a recently announced new immigration policy, which become effective on August 9, 2018. Lawsuit changes the calculation of the number of days of “unlawful presence” for nonimmigrant foreign students from the date U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) or an immigration judge finds a violation or orders the student removed to the date the status lapsed.

In 1997, the United States established objective rules that provided visa holders notice. If the authorized period of stay ended on a date certain on which the individual was required to leave the country, unlawful presence began following that date. And for all individuals, unlawful presence began the day after either a government official or immigration judge made a determination that the individual was out-of-status. This provided an opportunity to cure their circumstances and remain in the country or to depart the country within 180 days. Either way, individuals acting in good faith had an opportunity to avoid imposition of a three- or ten-year reentry bar.

Now, based on the USCIS memo, effective August 9, 2018, when a government official or immigration judge determines that an F, J, or M visa holder is out-of-status, the unlawful‑presence clock will be backdated to the day on which the agency concludes that the visa holder first fell out-of-status.

The complaint states that the immigration system “is beset with processing delays, and many of these status determinations are made when an individual is applying for new immigration benefits.” Thus, the new policy’s use of a backdated unlawful-presence clock “will render tens of thousands of F, J, and M visa holders subject to three- and ten-year reentry bars without any opportunity to cure,” the complaint states. “This policy, accordingly, will result in the three- or ten-year banishment of untold numbers of international students and exchange visitors acting in good faith.”

By disrupting the ability of these individuals to continue studying at their schools or continuing their research, teaching, or other scholarly pursuits, the August 2018 policy memorandum fundamentally upsets student-school and employee-school relationships. This results in concrete, significant harms to colleges and universities, including through the loss of irreplaceable community members, loss of tuition dollars, and loss of trained employees. The complaint asserts that the new policy is unlawful for several reasons, including, among other things, that the defendants “failed to undertake the notice and comment required in these circumstances,” such as by not publishing advance notice in the Federal Register and responding to public comments, and by not complying with the Administrative Procedure Act.

The text of the complaint is here.

New Performance Review Standards and Quotas For Immigration Judges

10/29/2018

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.)

Judge ruled: DACA must be fully restored

8/6/2018

On August 3, 2018, a federal judge ruled that the government must fully restore the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or DACA program, saying that the government's rationale for dropping it is inadequate. The government has 20 days to appeal. If not, DACA will have to be fully implemented on August 23 2018. The court order is linked below.

Briefly in Russian:

3 августа 2018 федеральный судья принял решение, что правительство должно полностью восстановить федеральную программу ДАКА, которая защищала от депортации молодежь, которых в детском возрасте привезли в США и с тех пор они живут в США без статуса. Программа была отменена указом президента в сентябре 2017 г. Если правительство не подаст аппеляционную жалобу до 23 августа 2018, то решение судьи вступит в законную силу 23 августа.

Court order if here.

Are Summary Denials Without a Full Hearing Coming to Immigration Court?

6/25/2018

"An attorney recently reported the following: at a Master Calendar hearing, an immigration judge advised that if on the Individual Hearing date, both the court and the ICE attorney do not believe the respondent is prima facie eligible for asylum based on the written submissions, the judge will deny asylum summarily without hearing testimony. The judge stated that other immigration judges around the country were already entering such summary judgments, in light of recent decisions of the Attorney General.I have been telling reporters lately that no one decision or policy of the AG, the EOIR Director, or the BIA should be viewed in isolation. Rather, all are pieces in a puzzle. Back in March, in a very unusual decision, Jeff Sessions certified to himself a four-year-old BIA precedent decision while it was administratively closed (and therefore off-calendar) at the immigration judge level, and then vacated the decision for the most convoluted of reasons. Matter of E-F-H-L-, had held that all asylum applicants had the right to a full hearing on their application without first having to establish prima facie eligibility for such relief. It was pretty clear that Sessions wanted this requirement eliminated.
On January 4 of this year, Sessions certified to himself the case of Matter of Castro-Tum, in which he asked whether immigration judges and the BIA should continue to have the right to administratively close cases, a useful and common docket management tool. On January 19, the BIA published its decision in Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, in which it required asylum applicants to clearly delineate their claimed particular social group before the immigration judge (an extremely complicated task beyond the ability of most unrepresented applicants), and stated that the BIA will not consider reformulations of the social group on appeal.
On March 5, 2018, Sessions vacated Matter of E-F-H-L-. Two days later, on March 7, Sessions certified to himself an immigration judge’s decision in Matter of A-B-, engaging in procedural irregularity in taking the case from the BIA before it could rule on the matter, and then completely transforming the issues presented in the case, suddenly challenging whether anyone fearing private criminal actors could qualify for asylum.
On March 22, Sessions certified to himself Matter of L-A-B-R- et al., to determine under what circumstances immigration judges may grant continuances to respondents in removal proceedings. Although this decision is still pending, immigration judges are already having to defend their decisions to grant continuances to their supervisors at the instigation of the EOIR Director’s Office, which is tracking all IJ continuances.
On March 30, EOIR issued a memo stating that immigration judges would be subjected to performance metrics, or quotas, requiring them to complete 700 cases per year, 95 percent at the first scheduled individual hearing, and further requiring that no more than 15 percent of their decisions be remanded. On May 17, Sessions decided Castro-Tum in the negative, stripping judges of the ability to manage their own dockets by administratively closing worthy cases.
On June 11, Sessions decided Matter of A-B-, vacating the BIA’s 2014 decision recognizing the ability of victims of domestic violence to qualify for asylum as members of a particular social group. In that decision, Sessions included headnote 4: “If an asylum application is fatally flawed in one respect, an immigration judge or the Board need not examine the remaining elements of the asylum claim.” The case was intentionally issued on the first day of the Immigration Judges training conference, at which the need to complete more cases in less time was a repeatedly emphasized.
Within the past few months, the immigration judges have been warned that their livelihood will depend on their completing large numbers of cases, without the ability to grant continuances or administratively close cases. They have had the need to hold a full asylum hearing stripped away, while at the same time, having pointed out to them several ways to quickly dispose of an asylum claim that until weeks ago, would have been clearly grantable under settled case law.
There has been much discussion lately of EOIR’s improper politicized hirings of immigration judges. The above developments have created something of a Rorschach test for determining an immigration judge’s ideology.
The judges that conclude from the above the best practice is to summarily deny asylum without testimony are exactly the type of judges the present administration wants on the bench. They can find a “fatal flaw” in the claim - either in the formulation (or lack thereof) of the particular social group, or in the lack of preliminary documentation as to the persecutor’s motive, the government’s inability to protect, or the unreasonableness of internal relocation, and simply deny the right to a hearing. It should be noted that these issues are often resolved by the detailed testimony offered at a full merits hearing, which is the purpose of holding such hearings in the first place.
On the other hand, more thoughtful, liberal judges will find that in light of the above developments, they must afford more time for asylum claims based on domestic violence, gang threats, or other claims involving non-governmental actors. And in doing so, they will find it extremely difficult to meet the completion quotas set out by the agency with Sessions’ blessing. The removal of Castro-Tum’s case from the docket of Judge Morley is clearly a warning that the agency does not wish for judges to behave as independent and impartial adjudicators, but rather to act in lockstep with the agency’s enforcement agenda.
There is another very significant issue: most asylum claims also apply for protection under Article III of the U.N. Convention Against Torture. Unlike asylum, “CAT” relief is mandatory, and as it does not require a nexus to a protected ground, it is unaffected by the AG’s holding in A-B-. So won’t those judges pondering summary dismissal still have to hold full hearings on CAT protection? It would seem that a refusal to hold a full CAT hearing would result in a remand, if not from the BIA, than at the circuit court level."
Opinion by Jeffrey S. Chase, immigration attorney and former immigration judge you can read here.

USCIS is preparing to rescind the International Entrepreneur Rule

5/12/2018

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has taken the first step to officially rescind the International Entrepreneur Rule (IER), a program that allows qualifying foreign entrepreneurs an opportunity to stay in the United States while building start-up businesses. The proposed rescission cleared the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) on May 2, 2018. DHS is expected to publish a formal notice of the rule in the Federal Register in the coming weeks.

The IER was enacted by the Obama administration in an effort to “increase and enhance entrepreneurship, innovation, and job creation in the United States.” The rule gave DHS discretionary authority to allow certain foreign entrepreneurs of start-up businesses with a “demonstrated potential for rapid business growth and job creation,” to enter under a parole status and stay in the United States to oversee and grow their start-up businesses.

However, mere days before the rule’s July 17, 2017, effective date, DHS filed a new rule delaying the implementation of the IER until March 14, 2018. DHS cited President's “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements” executive order as the reason for the delay. DHS explained that the executive order requires that parole be granted only on a case-by-case basis “when an individual demonstrates urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit derived from such parole.”

On December 1, 2017, a federal judge invalidated USCIS's delay, and found that DHS had violated the Administrative Procedure Act by not providing notice or an opportunity for advance public comment on the rule. As a result of this court order, USCIS had to launch the IER and began accepting applications.

In a statement appearing on the USCIS website, DHS makes clear its intention to rescind the IER “because it is not the appropriate vehicle for attracting and retaining international entrepreneurs and does not adequately protect U.S. investors and U.S. workers.” That statement also provides that “while DHS complies with the court order and implements the IER parole program, DHS is also in the final stages of publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking seeking to remove the IER.”

Once the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register, the rule will be opened up to the general public for comment, usually for a period of 30 or 60 days. After the comment period, DHS must resubmit its final rule to OIRA for one last review before the final rule can be published in the Federal Register. This process will likely take several months. At this time IER is still in effect, but is expected to be eliminated soon.

Second DACA Injunction: DACA Renewal Applications Still Accepted

2/14/2018

In the second injunction that blocks the Trump administration efforts to end DACA, Judge Nicholas Garaufis of the Eastern District of New York on Feb. 13, 2018 ordered U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to accept certain DACA applications while litigation continues.

The ordered relief mirrors the preliminary injunction issued by Judge William Haskell Alsup in the Northern District of California on Jan. 9. It required USCIS to resume accepting DACA renewal applications from people who had previously been granted that relief. This second nationwide injunction similarly requires the Department of Homeland Security to maintain the DACA program on the same terms and conditions that existed before the administration on Sept. 5, 2017, issued a memo to rescind DACA, with the following exceptions:

DHS need not consider new applications from individuals who have never before held DACA
DHS is not required to provide advance parole to DACA beneficiaries
DHS retains the discretion to adjudicate DACA renewal requests on a case-by-case, individualized basis.

The Department of Justice has requested that the U.S. Supreme Court review Alsup’s order on its merits, bypassing the usual process of appealing to 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. As early as Feb. 16, 2018, the Supreme Court could announce a decision to review the injunction.

While the injunctions remain in place, USCIS has advised people who have previously received DACA that they may request renewal by filing the following forms:

Form I-821D
Form I-765, and
I-765 Worksheet

Applicants whose DACA expired on or after Sept. 5, 2016 may file as renewal requestors. Applicants who previously held DACA and whose DACA expired before Sept. 5, 2016 may file as initial requestors. Applications from those who have never received DACA will be NOT be accepted, nor will applications requesting advance parole.

DACA policy will be operated on the terms in place before Sept. 5, 2017.

USCIS Begins Accepting DACA Renewal Applications Following a Court Order

1/14/2018

On January 13, 2018, following a federal court order (a preliminary injunction), USCIS had made an announcement confirming that they will accept DACA renewal applications (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals).

Until further notice, the applicants should use pre-September 5, 2017 applications, 2017 edition forms, instructions, fees.

I-821D direct filing address depends on your state of residence.

Don't forget to include form I-765 and I-765WS (worksheet explaining your economic necessity).

Please note that you can't file a new DACA application if you had never had it approved before. You can't file an application for advance parole (travel document). This announcement applies only to DACA renewal applications.

Additional information will be forthcoming.

#DACA #DACADreamers #DACARenewal #DREAMAct #Dreamers

Details of this announcement are here.

DACA Renewals Can Be Submitted: Judge Temporary Reopens DACA Program

1/10/2018

On January 9, 2018, a federal judge in San Francisco, CA temporarily blocked the Trump administration from ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that protects certain immigrants from deportation. The decision applies NATIONWIDE.

Judge said the Obama-era program must remain in place while litigation over Trump’s decision to end the program is pending. In a court ruling, Judge W. Alsup said the Department of Homeland Security's "decision to rescind DACA was based on a flawed legal premise."

Judge ordered USCIS to publish new DACA renewal instructions on their website, and start accepting applications.

As a result of this court ruling, DACA grantees can renew expired DACA, but can't file a new DACA.
(1) DACA recipients who failed to renew their status by the last year’s deadline can submit renewal applications. It is better to wait for the instructions from USCIS, to avoid any possible erroneous denial or rejection by a USCIS employees.
(2) The decision does not, however, allow new applications to be submitted.

Read an advisory here.

In Russian:

9 января 2018 федеральный судья вынес решение о том, что президент превысил свои полномочия, когда 5 сентября 2017 отменил иммиграционную программу ДАКА / DACA для молодежи, кого привезли в США в детстве и кто вырос в США, но не имеет ни грин карты, ни гражданства.

Судья приказал Департаменту госбезопасности (DHS - USCIS) опубликовать инструкции и порядок подачи заявлений на продление ДАКА статуса и получение разрешения на работу через ДАКА. Судья приказал USCIS начать прием заявлений немедленно, и опубликовать новые инструкции.

Лучше всего будет дождаться выхода официальных инструкций на вебсайте USCIS, скорее всего на следующей неделе, чтобы избежать ошибочного отказа. Хотя некоторые адвокаты советуют, что подавать заявление можно уже сейчас, так как судья временно приостановил действие указа президента в отношении DACA, и приказал USCIS игнорировать решение от отмене DACA как незаконное, и возобновить прием заявлений.

Что можно -- подать заявление на продление - DACA renewal.
Что нельзя -- подать новое заявление (new DACA application), или заявление на advance parole (travel document).

USCIS to Begin Accepting Applications under the International Entrepreneur or Startup Parole Rule

12/15/2017

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.

Federal judge rejected delay of foreign entrepreneur or startup parole rule

12/2/2017

On Friday, December 1, 2017, a federal judge in the District of Columbia ordered the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to rescind its delay of a rule that allows some foreign entrepreneurs to stay in the United States to grow their companies.

Judge ruled in favor of a lawsuit filed by a U.S. venture capitalist group in September challenging a delay by DHS of the International Entrepreneur Rule.

The Startup Parole or International Entrepreneur Rule, passed by the administration of President Barack Obama in January 2017, would allow some foreign startup founders to stay in the United States for up to five years to develop their businesses.

Instead, in July 2017, just before the rule should have become effective, current White House administration delayed the implementation to March 2018, and even said it was “highly likely” to rescind the rule.

Judge agreed that the government’s actions violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires advance notice of new rules.

Read new here.

Information about Start-up rule on our Blog is here and July delay is here.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Partially Approves Travel Ban 3.0, Bona Fide Relationship Test

11/16/2017

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.

Federal Judge Blocks Muslim Ban 3.0, Except North Korea and Venezuela

10/17/2017

Federal Judge's order put a temporary injunction on a so called Muslim Ban 3.0 #MuslimBan3 (Travel Ban) with respect to all the countries except North Korea and Venezuela.

It means that citizens of Syria, Libya, Iran, Yemen, Chad, Somalia are no longer subject to the ban (at least while the judge's order is valid and wasn't overruled).

Only citizens of North Korea and Venezuela remain subject to this renewed travel ban signed by the president in September.

The decision from U.S. District Judge Derrick K. Watson in Hawaii will be appealed by the government, but for now, it means that the White House administration cannot ban the entry of travelers from six of the eight banned countries. This is good news for more than 150 million people, nationals of the six countries.

#ExecutiveOrder #MuslimBan #TravelBan

Read more here.

9th Circuit: US v RUFINO PERALTA-SANCHEZ: No 5th Amendment Right to Counsel in Expedited Removal

2/14/2017

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.

Federal Judge Imposed Nationwide Temp Injunction on Muslim Ban Executive Order Effective Immediately Feb 3 2017

2/3/2017

Breaking News 02/03/2017:

A U.S. federal judge on Friday, February 03 2017 imposed a nationwide hold (injunction) on President's 01/27/2017 executive order, banning travelers and immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries.

The judge agreed with two states (Minnesota and Washington) that had challenged the executive order.
"The state has met its burden in demonstrating immediate and irreparable injury," judge said. "This TRO (temporary restraining order) is granted on a nationwide basis ..."

A State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Friday: "We are working closely with the Department of Homeland Security and our legal teams to determine how this affects our operations. We will announce any changes affecting travelers to the United States as soon as that information is available."

It means that as of February 3, 2017, the president's 01/27/2017 executive order is unenforceable, and the White House, DHS, ICE, CBP, DOS must follow the judge's order (not the president's executive order). The government will appeal, and the judge will hear the arguments and make the final decision at a later date.

Read here.

UPDATE Following the court order, on Saturday, February 4, 2017, the DHS released the following statement:

"From the Department of Homeland Security (DHS):In accordance with the judge's ruling, DHS has suspended any and all actions implementing the affected sections of the Executive Order entitled, "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States."
This includes actions to suspend passenger system rules that flag travelers for operational action subject to the Executive Order.
DHS personnel will resume inspection of travelers in accordance with standard policy and procedure.
At the earliest possible time, the Department of Justice intends to file an emergency stay of this order and defend the President's Executive Order, which is lawful and appropriate. The Order is intended to protect the homeland and the American people, and the President has no higher duty and responsibility than to do so.
For the latest information, please visit the DHS website: https://www.dhs.gov/news"

****************************************************************************************************************
Ситуация с указами президента меняется каждый день: помните, что информация и законодательство постоянно обновляются, и мы не в состоянии вовремя опубликовать изменения и дополнения на этом блоге. Если вам нужен юридический совет адвоката, свяжитесь с нами по электронной почте и мы договоримся о дате и времени консультации по телефону или через скайп.

После решения федерального судьи о том, что некоторые положения указа президента должны быть приостановлены от 3 февраля 2017, 4 февраля DHS, USCIS, CBP, ICE DOS и все другие департаменты и агентства официально заявили, что они возвращаются к старым процедурам, как это было в силе до подписания указа. И пока указ президента находится на рассмотрении в суде, они не будут его применять.
****************************************************************************************************************

Court Order: Every Person in the Possession of a Valid Immigrant Visa Should be Allowed Admission to USA

2/2/2017

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.

Artist Vasya Lozhkin. Картина Васи Ложкина.

ILRC post-election DACA update and resources

11/10/2016

Post-Election DACA update and resources provided by ILRC.

November 10, 2016

President-elect Donald Trump pledged to end DACA immigration program when he becomes President. He will be inaugurated on January 20, 2017. Until that time, DACA will remain in place and USCIS will continue to process both initial and renewal DACA requests.

The risk. Those who receive or apply for DACA will not necessarily be targeted for deportation. Administrative programs like this have never been used for wholesale deportation in the past. It would be extremely costly for the government to try to deport all 700K+ DACA recipients. However, we do not really know what to expect. Anything is possible.

Initial DACA applications. For those who have not yet applied for DACA, the processing of those applications is taking long enough now that they would likely not be adjudicated until after January 2017, and it is possible the DACA program will not exist by then. Therefore, at this point potential applicants’ efforts to assemble an initial DACA application and pay the filing fees (which go up in December 2016) may result in no benefit and expose them to DHS.

DACA renewals. It is unknown whether the next Administration will terminate existing DACA grants or instead not allow DACA recipients to renew. Those who have already received DACA are known by the government. Therefore, renewing DACA does not carry a new risk. In fact, renewing DACA may mean a DACA recipient can have a work permit until it expires one to two years into the next Administration. One risk, however, is again that the renewal might not be adjudicated before Trump becomes President, and the effort and money to renew will be for nothing. People who file to renew soon may be successful, as DACA renewals are currently being processed in 8 weeks with USCIS' upgraded system. The cost may be offset by loans and other funding available through Mission Asset Fund, the Mexican Consulate, some DACA collaboratives and/or other programs.

Advance parole. At this point, advance parole may be a little bit harder to get, because processing time is three months or more, which would put approvals (even if filed today) and subsequent travel in February 2017. Emergency advance parole requests, however, may still be useful in helping people travel and subsequently adjust status under 245(a).

What the Future Holds

Based on Trump’s campaign rhetoric and the new composition of Congress, we do not expect a comprehensive immigration reform that includes legalization to be introduced in the coming years.

We do not expect expanded DACA or DAPA to make it through the courts.

It is possible that some states will try to introduce additional state legislation creating benefits and some protections for immigrants like California has done. Some other states may introduce legislation that increases immigration enforcement at the local level.

What Immigrants Can Do Now

People should go to a legal services provider to be screened for any possible immigration options other than DACA for which they may already be eligible.

The ILRC has a comprehensive client intake form to assist practitioners in screening. It can be found online at https://www.ilrc.org/screening-immigration-relief-client-intake-form-and-notes.

The Immigration Advocates Network maintains a national directory of more than 950 free or low-cost nonprofit immigration legal services providers in all 50 states. It can be found online at https://www.immigrationlawhelp.org.

Community members should be warned of fraudulent service provider schemes and educated about how to seek competent immigration help. The ILRC has created community education flyers about this available in English and Spanish available online at https://www.ilrc.org/anti-fraud-flyers.

People should know their rights when in contact with an immigration agency.

The ILRC has created Red Cards to help both citizens and noncitizens defend themselves against constitutional violations during ICE raids. These cards provide citizens and noncitizens with information about how to assert their constitution rights and an explanation for ICE agents that the individuals are indeed asserting their constitutional rights. Go https://www.ilrc.org/red-cards for more information and contact us at[email protected] to order.

People should continue to avoid negative interaction with law enforcement. Something like a DUI or conviction related to drugs can have irreversible negative immigration consequences.

If filing to renew DACA, applicants need to be aware that the filing fee increases to $495 on December 23, 2016.

Information provided by ILRC.

Federal lawsuit filed in California to reinstate expanded DACA and a new DAPA programs

11/5/2016

A new federal lawsuit filed in California advances efforts to reinstate the Obama administration’s immigration relief initiatives, DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents) and expanded DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals).

The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by Rocío Sanchez Ponce, a DACA recipient, is the third lawsuit to challenge the reach of an injunction in U.S. v. Texas.

It follows similar lawsuits by Martín Batalla Vidal in the Eastern District of New York and by José Lopez in the Northern District of Illinois.

The three lawsuits seek to fix a wrongdoing suffered by thousands of DACA recipients who are not party to the Texas case, and they could open up a new pathway for the implementation of DAPA and expanded DACA outside of Texas, providing relief to millions of families.

Sanchez Ponce, 23, is a longtime resident of Hayward, Calif., who came to the U.S. from Mexico when she was six years old. She is represented by the National Immigration Law Center (NILC).

In February 2015, Sanchez Ponce received a three-year work permit from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services under newly issued rules for DACA. That same month, Judge Andrew S. Hanen, of the federal district court in South Texas, issued an injunction in U.S. v. Texas that blocked DAPA and the expansion of DACA nationwide, based solely on claims of alleged costs to Texas. The federal government relied on that injunction to revoke three-year work permits that had been issued to thousands of DACA recipients across the country, including to Sanchez Ponce and the plaintiffs in the New York and Illinois lawsuits.

Sanchez Ponce seeks reinstatement of her three-year work permit because its revocation on the basis of the overbroad injunction was unlawful. Furthermore, by challenging the scope of the Texas injunction, the lawsuit could lead to the reinstatement of DAPA and expanded DACA for millions of families in states that are not part of the Texas lawsuit.

Announced in 2012, DACA allows some young undocumented immigrants such as Sanchez Ponce, who came to the U.S. as children, to live and work in the country temporarily if they meet certain eligibility requirements.

In November 2014, the Obama administration sought to build on the success of that initiative by expanding eligibility requirements to include more immigrant youth and by creating the DAPA program, which would similarly allow some undocumented parents of U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident children to live and work in the U.S. temporarily. At the same time, the Department of Homeland Security announced that new and renewing DACA applicants would be approved for three- rather than two-year periods. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services began issuing three-year work permits that same month.

In December 2014, Texas and 25 other states sued to stop the implementation of DAPA and expansion of DACA. In February 2015, Judge Hanen issued a nationwide injunction blocking both initiatives. The case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which last refused to rehear the case after deadlocking and issuing no decision in June 2016. This federal injunction still stands.

The complaint filed today is available at www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Sanchez-Ponce-v-Baran-complaint-2016-11-03.pdf.

Class action federal case pending in Texas: state officials refuse to issue birth certificates to US born children of undocumented immigrants without a proper ID.

10/21/2015

On Friday, October 16, 2015, a federal judge in Texas declined to order Texas officials to institute a temporary fix so children of undocumented immigrants born in the United States can get their birth certificates while a lawsuit filed by their parents is being tried.

Instead of issuing a temporary injunction order sought by the plaintiffs (the undocumented immigrants who were denied their U.S. citizen children's birth certificates), U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman ruled that the case should proceed through the full hearing process given the complexity of the issues involved.

Pitman’s ruling comes two weeks after attorneys for the families told the judge that the children’s civil rights had been violated because county registrars, by order of the Texas Department of State Health Services, would not issue birth certificates because the parents did not present one or more acceptable forms of ID. More than 30 families have joined the suit since the initial complaint was filed in May.

“Although the Plaintiffs have provided evidence which raises grave concerns regarding the treatment of citizen children born to immigrant parents, this case requires additional determinations which can be made only upon development and presentation of an evidentiary record,” Pitman wrote in a 27-page decision.

The parents in the lawsuit contend that IDs previously used to obtain the vital records, specifically the Mexican Consular ID (called the matrícula consular) and foreign passports, were accepted in some counties just months ago until the department amended its policies without warning.

Now, some of the undocumented immigrants parents can't request their US-born children's birth certificates because the parents lack proper and acceptable by the Organs of Vital Statistics photo ID documents.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton called the ruling an “important first step in ensuring the integrity of birth certificates and personal identity information. Before issuing any official documents, it’s important for the state to have a way to accurately verify people are who they say they are through reliable identification mechanisms.”

Read news here and court opinion here.