The Board of Immigration Appeals BIA has issued an important precedent decision in Matter of PAK, 28 I&N Dec. 113 (BIA 2020).

SUMMARY: Where there is substantial and probative evidence that a beneficiary’s prior marriage was fraudulent and entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws, a subsequent visa petition filed on the beneficiary’s behalf is properly denied pursuant to section 204(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c) (2018), even if the first visa petition was denied because of insufficient evidence of a bona fide marital relationship.

Analysis: "The plain language of the statute and the regulation does not foreclose the application of the section 204(c) bar in cases where the prior visa petition filed on the beneficiary’s behalf was denied based on failure to establish a bona fide marital relationship, but the marriage had not been determined to be fraudulent.3 See Matter of R.I. Ortega, 28 I&N Dec. 9, 12 (BIA 2020) (stating that “[u]nder settled rules of statutory construction, we look first to the plain meaning of the language”). Instead, the broad phrasing and the absence of a temporal requirement suggest that section 204(c) may be applied based on a marriage fraud finding whenever it becomes evident that there is substantial and probative evidence of an attempt or conspiracy to enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws. Our prior precedent further supports this interpretation. In Matter of Kahy, 19 I&N Dec. 803, 804–05 (BIA 1988), we considered whether the District Director properly denied a subsequent visa petition under section 204(c) of the Act where the beneficiary’s ex-wife had indicated in a sworn statement that she agreed to marry him for $1,000 so he could remain in the United States, but she never actually sought an immigration benefit based on the fraudulent marriage because an unidentified person had forged her signature on the visa petition. Even though the beneficiary had not pursued an immigration benefit, we held that “where there is evidence in the record to indicate that the beneficiary has been an active participant in a marriage fraud conspiracy, the burden shifts to the petitioner to establish that the beneficiary did not seek nonquota or preference status based on a prior fraudulent marriage.” Id. at 806–07. Since the petitioner did not rebut the charge, we affirmed the denial of the visa petition. We similarly addressed the breadth of section 204(c) of the Act and the absence of a specific timeline for its imposition in Matter of Tawfik, 20 I&N Dec. at 168–69. In that case, the District Director revoked approval of the petitioner’s subsequent visa petition on the ground that the beneficiary had previously attempted to be accorded immediate relative status as the spouse of a United States citizen by reason of a fraudulent marriage. Id. at 166–67. In reviewing this determination, we stated that “[n]either section 204(c) of the Act nor the regulations specify . . . at what point” the determination of whether an alien has attempted or conspired to enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws may be made. Id. at 168. We also concluded that the Director “should not give conclusive effect to determinations made in a prior proceeding, but, rather, should reach his own independent conclusion based on the evidence before him.” Id. In that regard, we held that the approvability of the subsequent visa petition “will depend on a determination of whether there is, at present, sufficient evidence, inclusive of evidence relied upon in the determination of the first visa petition, to support the contention that the beneficiary’s previous marriage to a United States citizen was entered into for purposes of evading the immigration laws.” Id. at 168–69. Applying these standards, we found that the record lacked sufficient documentation to support the District Director’s conclusion that the beneficiary had entered into a fraudulent marriage, and we reversed the revocation of the visa petition. Id. at 169–70. The petitioner also contests the propriety of the Director’s finding that the beneficiary’s prior marriage was fraudulent. Evidence of a fraudulent marriage “must be documented in the alien’s file and must be substantial and probative.” Id. at 167. “[T]he degree of proof required for a finding of marriage fraud sufficient to support the denial of a visa petition under section 204(c) of the Act [is] higher than a preponderance of the evidence and closer to clear and convincing evidence.” Matter of P. Singh, 27 I&N Dec. 598, 607 (BIA 2019). Thus, “to be ‘substantial and probative,’ the evidence must establish that it is more than probably true that the marriage is fraudulent.” Id. “The application of the ‘substantial and probative evidence’ standard requires the examination of all of the relevant evidence and a determination as to whether such evidence, when viewed in its totality, establishes, with sufficient probability, that the marriage is fraudulent.” Id. In response to the Notice of Intent to Deny, the petitioner submitted a psychological report in support of her assertion that the beneficiary has memory problems, which she claims explain the discrepancies in his answers about his prior marriage. The Director provided reasons for discounting the psychological report. However, even crediting this evidence, the Director identified conduct of the couple after the marriage that, unrelated to any memory issues, indicates their subjective state of mind when they married. In particular, he concluded that the Summary of Findings detailing the September 21, 2012, site visit to the claimed marital residence establishes fraud. See id. at 609 (“Detailed reports from on-site visits and field investigations are especially important pieces of evidence that may reveal the presence of fraud.”). The Summary of Findings describes significant discrepancies in the accounts given by the beneficiary and his first wife regarding (1) whether and for how long the couple lived at the claimed marital residence; (2) their places and type of employment (and whether they, in fact, worked at the same store owned by the beneficiary’s father); and (3) the former wife’s living arrangements in Salem and the reasons why the beneficiary paid rent for her apartment there. Additionally, the record contains documentation of contradictions that arose during the beneficiary’s two visa interviews regarding how, when, and where he met his first wife, as well as how their relationship progressed to marriage. The petitioner submitted no new documentary evidence showing a joint life between the beneficiary and his first wife, apart from affidavits from the petitioner, the beneficiary, and the pastor who conducted the beneficiary’s ​first wedding ceremony. Affidavits of this nature, alone, “will generally not be sufficient to overcome evidence of marriage fraud in the record without objective documentary evidence to corroborate the assertions made by the affiants.” Id. The Director correctly conducted an independent determination based on the facts available when the petitioner filed the current visa petition. See Matter of Tawfik, 20 I&N Dec. at 168–69. In doing so, the Director permissibly relied on “relevant evidence, including evidence having its origin in prior [visa petition] proceedings involving the beneficiary.” Id. at 168. We conclude that the Director properly conducted an independent analysis of section 204(c)’s applicability in adjudicating the petitioner’s visa petition. In so doing, he did not erroneously equate the beneficiary’s first wife’s failure to prove the bona fides of their marriage with the beneficiary’s intent in entering into that marriage. III. CONCLUSION The fact that the visa petition filed by the beneficiary’s first wife was denied for failure to establish a bona fide marriage does not preclude the Director from denying the petitioner’s visa petition under section 204(c) of the Act. Moreover, having reviewed all the relevant evidence in its totality, we uphold the Director’s finding that there is substantial and probative evidence in the record that the beneficiary’s prior marriage was fraudulent and entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws. See Matter of P. Singh, 27 I&N Dec. at 607; Matter of Tawfik, 20 I&N Dec. at 167. We further conclude that the petitioner did not rebut this evidence when given the opportunity to do so. We therefore affirm the denial of the petitioner’s visa petition pursuant to section 204(c) of the Act."

​See text of the decision here.

After almost three months of using facial recognition biometrics to help verify international travelers at U.S. points of entry, Customs and Border Protection officials say they have used the technology to prevent 26 alleged imposters from entering the country.

Border Protection officials began rolling out facial biometric projects at airports and land crossings this summer. As travelers enter the U.S., they are ushered directly to a CBP official, who checks their documentation while overhead cameras match their faces to a gallery of images. For U.S. citizens, the picture is matched to the passport photo on file. If the photos don’t match, the travel is pulled aside for further investigation.

Washington Dulles International Airport recorded the first detention due to facial recognition technology just three days after the new system was turned on, stopping a Congolese national attempting to enter the country on a false French passport. Since that time, Dulles’ program has stopped two more alleged imposters.

The facial recognition entry program is currently running at 15 international airports, though no others have reported detentions or arrests due to the systems, according to CBP figures.

Facial biometric programs in place at land border crossings have proven more useful, according to the numbers. As of Nov. 20, 2018, CBP officers have apprehended 23 people trying to enter the country illegally at the southwest border in Arizona: 18 at the crossing in Nogales and five at San Luis.

With land and air pilots running, CBP recently began testing the technology at sea, as well. Facial recognition pilots have started for travelers debarking in the U.S. from Royal Caribbean, Norwegian and Celebrity cruise lines. These pilots have yet to flag any potential imposters traveling aboard.

Several airlines and eight international airports are also using facial recognition for boarding planes, including Air France/KLM, Scandinavian Airlines and some United flights out of Dulles.

Read here.

The 2016-2017 report revealed that first-time international students dropped 3 percent, indicating that the decline had begun before current president took office. The number of newly arriving international students declined an average 7 percent in fall 2017, with 45 percent of campuses reporting drops in new international enrollment, according to a survey of nearly 500 campuses across the country by the Institute of International Education.

The decline is much more serious in some Midwestern colleges and universities. At the University of Iowa, overall international enrollment this fall (2017) was 3,564, down from 4,100 in fall of 2015. Iowa primarily lost Chinese students.

The University of Central Missouri experienced a sharp decline this year in students from India. In the fall of 2016, the Warrensburg, Missouri, university had 2,638 international students. This fall (2017) it has only 944 international student. It's a big financial impact on the university.It’s a mix of factors. Concerns around the travel ban had a lot to do with concerns around personal safety based on a few incidents involving international students, raise in hate crimes, crimes against foreigners, and a generalized concern about whether they’re safe. Another reason for the decline is increasing competition from colleges and universities in other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, Britain and Australia. ​Read more here.

On a separate note, it became increasingly difficult to get approval of the Change of Status from B2 visitor to F1 foreign student through USCIS (for those prospective student who arrived in the United States as visitors or tourists). Processing times increased by many months, which results in students being too late to start the semester, losing their status and wasting time and money.

Since September 1, 2017, a new 90-day rule took effect (90 days fraud or misrepresentation rule), which also affected those applying for a change of status: with long waiting time, students are expected to wait at least 90 days before they file an application for a change of status. (We posted about 90-day rule here and here ). 

In summer 2017, DHS announced their intention to change the rules to require foreign students to re-register with USCIS every year, which will make study in the USA more expensive, cumbersome, and unnecessarily complicated.

As a result, the best option for many students is to apply for a F-1 student visa abroad at the U.S. embassy or consulate in their home country. There is always a risk of denial and no visa can be guaranteed, however, at present time (2017-2018), a bona fide student with sufficient funds and ties to his home country stands a better chance of approval through consular processing rather than applying for a change of status through USCIS Department of Homeland Security.

US Department of State 09/16/2017 cable provides guidance to U.S. consular posts, embassies and consulates abroad, on applying the new “90 day rule,” introduced on September 1, 2017. 

This new rule presumes that individuals have made a material misrepresentation on prior visa applications or in their applications for admission to the U.S. if they violate or engage in conduct inconsistent with their nonimmigrant status within the first 90 days of entry into the U.S.

SUMMARY: This cable advises posts on the application of INA section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) as it pertains to revised guidance at 9 FAM 302.9-4(B)(3)(g-h) regarding the 90 day rule, formerly known as the “30/60 day rule.” Interagency working groups agreed to a change in policy and expanded the 30/60 day timeframe to 90 days for aliens who enter the United States and engage in activity inconsistent with their nonimmigrant status before procuring a change or adjustment of status. 

The 90 day rule

The following revised guidance replaces the 30/60 day rule and applies to all adjudications that occur after September 1, 2017.

The guidance should not be applied retroactively.

As detailed in the revisions to 9 FAM 302.9-4(B)(3)(g-h), aliens who violate or engage in conduct inconsistent with his or her nonimmigrant status within 90 days of entry into the United States by:
1) engaging in unauthorized employment;
2) enrolling in a course of unauthorized academic study;
3) marrying a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident and taking up residence in the United States while in a nonimmigrant visa classification that prohibits immigrant intent; or
4) undertaking any other activity for which a change of status or adjustment of status would be required prior to obtaining such change or adjustment, may be presumed to have made a material misrepresentation.

You must give the alien the opportunity to present evidence to rebut the presumption that he or she made a willful misrepresentation on prior visa applications or in their applications for admission to the United States before you can find the applicant ineligible under 212(a)(6)(C)(i).

If the applicant is unable to overcome the presumption that he or she engaged in a willful misrepresentation, post must request an Advisory Opinion (AO) from the Visa Office of Advisory Opinions (CA/VO/L/A) per 9 FAM 302.9-4(B)(3)(h)(2)(b).

If an alien violates or engages in conduct inconsistent with his or her nonimmigrant status after 90 days of entry into the United States, there generally is no presumption of willful misrepresentation. However, if facts in the case give you a reason to believe that the alien misrepresented his or her purpose of travel at the time of the visa application or application for admission, you must request an AO from CA/VO/L/A.

You can see the text of the DoS cable here. Or download a pdf file here.

On September 1, 2017, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) has published an updated policy guidance on inadmissibility under INA 212(a)(6)(c)(i) (“Misrepresentation”).

9 FAM 302.9 was updated and effective September 1, 2017, new "90-day rule" replaced old "30-60 day rule".

In the new guidance, 9 FAM 302.9, entitled “Inconsistent Conduct Within 90 Days of Entry” Consular Officers are advised:

“…if an alien violates or engages in conduct inconsistent with his or her nonimmigrant status within 90 days of entry…you may presume that the applicant's representations about engaging in only status-compliant activity were willful misrepresentations of his or her intention in seeking a visa or entry.

For purposes of applying the 90-day rule, conduct that violates or is otherwise inconsistent with an alien’s nonimmigrant status includes, but is not limited to:

1. Engaging in unauthorized employment;
2. Enrolling in a course of academic study, if such study is not authorized for that nonimmigrant classification (e.g. B status);
3. A nonimmigrant in B or F status, or any other status prohibiting immigrant intent, marrying a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident and taking up residence in the United States; or
4. Undertaking any other activity for which a change of status or an adjustment of status would be required, without the benefit of such a change or adjustment.”

Effective September 1, 2017, this new 90-day rule applies to the U.S. consulates and embassies abroad.
It's possible that the DHS and USCIS will adopt this more strict interpretation instead of the current 30-60 day rule
--------------------------------------
*** 9 FAM 302.9-4(B)(3)  (U) Interpretation of the Term Misrepresentation
g. (U) Activities that Indicate Violation of Status or Conduct Inconsistent with Status
(1)  (U) In General:
(a)  (U) In determining whether a misrepresentation has been made, some of the most difficult questions arise from cases involving aliens in the United States who conduct themselves in a manner inconsistent with representations they made to consular officers concerning their intentions at the time of visa application or to DHS when applying for admission or for an immigration benefit.  Such cases occur most frequently with respect to aliens who, after having obtained visas as nonimmigrants and been admitted to the United States, either:
(i)     (U) Apply for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident; or
(ii)    (U) Fail to maintain their nonimmigrant status (for example, by engaging in unauthorized study or employment).
(b)  (U) Applications for adjustment or change of status in the United States are adjudicated by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), other than in those cases where the application is made before an Immigration Judge.  If you become aware of derogatory information indicating that an alien in the United States who has a valid visa, may have misrepresented his or her intentions to you at the time of visa application, or to DHS at the port of entry or in a filing for an immigration benefit, you may bring the derogatory information to the attention of the Department for potential revocation.  See 9 FAM 403.11-5.  If you become aware of derogatory information indicating that an alien in the United States without a valid visa but who is not a Lawful Permanent Resident may have misrepresented his or her intentions to you at the time of visa application, or to DHS at the port of entry or in a filing for an immigration benefit, then you may enter a P6C1 lookout in CLASS with the appropriate information.  See 9 FAM 403.10-3(C)(1).  Do not request an advisory opinion from the Advisory Opinions Division (CA/VO/L/A) in these cases, because it would not be binding on USCIS.
(c)  (U) With respect to the second category referred to above in subparagraph g(1)(a)(ii), nonimmigrant visa holders who fail to maintain their nonimmigrant status, the fact that an alien's subsequent actions are inconsistent with those stated at the time of visa application or admission or in a filing for an immigrant benefit does not necessarily prove that the alien's intentions were misrepresented at the time of application or entry.  You should consider carefully the precise circumstances of the change in activities when determining whether the applicant made a knowing and willful misrepresentation.  To conclude there was a misrepresentation, you must have direct or circumstantial evidence sufficient to meet the "reason to believe” standard, which requires more than mere suspicion but less than a preponderance of the evidence.
(2)  (U) Inconsistent Conduct Within 90 Days of Entry:
(a)  (U) However, if an alien violates or engages in conduct inconsistent with his or her nonimmigrant status within 90 days of entry, as described in subparagraph (2)(b) below, you may presume that the applicant's representations about engaging in only status-compliant activity were willful misrepresentations of his or her intention in seeking a visa or entry.  To make a finding of inadmissibility for misrepresentation based on conduct inconsistent with status within 90 days of entry, you must request an AO from CA/VO/L/A. As with other grounds that do not require a formal AO, the AO may be informal.  See 9 FAM 304.3-2.
(b)  (U) For purposes of applying the 90-day rule, conduct that violates or is otherwise inconsistent with an alien’s nonimmigrant status includes, but is not limited to:
(i)     (U) Engaging in unauthorized employment;
(ii      (U) Enrolling in a course of academic study, if such study is not authorized for that nonimmigrant classification (e.g. B status);
(iii)    (U) A nonimmigrant in B or F status, or any other status prohibiting immigrant intent, marrying a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident and taking up residence in the United States; or
(iv)    (U) Undertaking any other activity for which a change of status or an adjustment of status would be required, without the benefit of such a change or adjustment.
(3)  (U) After 90 Days:  If an alien violates or engages in conduct inconsistent with his or her nonimmigrant status more than 90 days after entry into the United States, no presumption of willful misrepresentation arises.  However, if the facts in the case give you reasonable belief that the alien misrepresented his or her purpose of travel at the time of the visa application or application for admission, you must request an AO from CA/VO/L/A.  (See 9 FAM 302.9-4(C)(2)).  

9 FAM 302.9-4(B)(3)(g)(2) link is here.
--------------------------------------------------

In Russian:

Если в течение первых 90 дней после вашего въезда в США, вы подадите заявление на смену статуса, выйдите замуж, или совершите другие действия, не совместимые с вашим неиммиграционным статусом -- то Госдеп США, посольства, консульства, пограничные и иммиграционные службы теперь будут рассматривать это как обманное действие (мошенничество), что может повлечь пожизненный запрет на въезд в США.

1 сентября 2017 года Государственный департамент США обновил правило в Кодексе для Консульских Сотрудников, под номером 9 FAM 302.9-4(B)(3). Эта статья описывает “несогласования” между типом визы, полученной неиммигрантом, и его действиями по приезде в США.

Новая статья содержит раздел под названием "Непоследовательное поведение в течение 90 дней после въезда", в котором говорится: 

“Если иностранец предпринимает действия, несовместимые с полученным им или ею неиммиграционным статусом, в течение 90 дней после въезда США, стоит понимать, что указанные им данные для получения визы или статуса были умышленно искаженными с намерением получить возможность въехать в США”.
В случае, если иммиграционный офицер "установит, что иностранец, находящийся в Соединенных Штатах по действительной визе, исказил свои намерения в момент подачи заявления на визу, в порту въезда в страну или при подаче заявки об иммиграции", он обязан “предоставить эту информацию Департаменту внутренней безопасности (DHS) для возможного отзыва визы”.
В статье Иммиграционного Кодекса 212 (a) (6) (C) говорится, что любому иностранцу, который путем преднамеренного искажения существенного факта пытался получить визу, другие документы при въезде в США или любые иммиграционные привилегии, может быть пожизненно запрещен въезд в США.
--------------------------------------
​
1. Несогласованное поведение (не соответствует визе или заявлениям сделанным в посольстве)
Поведение, которое нарушает или противоречит неиммиграционному статусу иностранцев, включает в себя:

• Трудовая деятельность без соответствующего разрешения;
• Регистрация на курсы или другие виды обучения в США, если это не разрешено полученной визой;
• Заключение брака с гражданином или постоянным резидентом США и подача заявки на проживание в стране, если въезд в страну осуществлялся по туристической, студенческой или любой другой визе, не предусматривающей дальнейшее получение иммиграционного статуса;
• Выполнение любых других видов деятельности, для которых потребуется изменение или корректировка статуса даже в случае, если заявка на эти изменения не была подана.

2. Презумпция умышленного искажения основывается на сроке 90 дней после въезда в США.
Новая статья в FAM устанавливает презумпцию преднамеренного искажения данных при подаче на визу, если деятельность иностранца противоречит полученному статусу в течение 90 дней после въезда в США. В таком случае бремя доказывания невиновности ложится на иностранца, который должен доказать, что его поведение и действия в этот 90-дневный срок были допустимы в соответствии с полученным им неиммиграционным статусом.
Консульские должностные лица должны предоставить иностранцу «возможность опровергнуть презумпцию преднамеренного искажения информации путем представления доказательств для ее опровержения».
3. Что случилось со старым правилом “30-60”, и может ли новое руководство FAM иметь обратное действие?
Обновленное правило по сути дело заменило старое правило "30-60 дней" в отношении изменения неиммиграционного статуса после въезда в США.
Правило 30-60 дней действовало так:

• Иностранец, который подал заявку на смену статуса в течение 30 дней после въезда, автоматически сталкивается с презумпцией преднамеренного искажения информации и намерений при подаче заявки на визу. В результате чего лицо могло быть выдворено из страны с пожизненным запретом на въезд в США.
• Если заявка на смену статуса подавалась в период от 30 до 60 дней после въезда, презумпция намеренного искажения информации не возникала. Однако, если чиновники имели логические доводы и факты, доказывающие возможное искажение, тогда иностранец должен был представить встречные доказательства.
• Если заявка на смену  статуса происходила более чем через 60 дней после въезда в США, как правило, должностные лица считали, что оснований для подозрений в преднамеренном искажении информации при въезде нет.

На вебсайте USCIS правило “30-60” пока не было заменено, но это может произойти в ближайшем будущем.

9 FAM 302.9 не упоминает о ретроспективном применении нового руководства, но указывает, что оно вступило в силу с 1 сентября 2017 года. 

4. Будьте внимательны, подавая заявку на смену статуса
Новое правило предполагает, что Госдепартамент США проверит иностранцев, которые въехали в США по программе Visa Waiver (она разрешает поездки в США гражданам некоторых стран для туризма или бизнеса на срок до 90 дней без предварительного получения визы), а также тех, кто въехал по визе B-1/B-2, и подали заявки на получение статуса постоянного резидента.

Даже если заявление на смену статуса подается по истечении 90 дней после въезда, от иностранца могут потребовать доказательств того, что произошло конкретное событие, на которое он не рассчитывал и которого не планировал, требующее изменения его иммиграционного статуса.

5. Является ли подача заявки на иммиграционную визу и получение визы (грин карты) через посольство или консульство лучшим вариантом?

Несмотря на то что USCIS пока не ввела новое руководство DOS в действие, и пока не ясно, намерена ли USCIS это делать, становится все более безопасным получение статуса постоянного резидента США через консульские учреждения за рубежом (consular processing), чем подача заявки на изменение статуса, находясь на территории США (adjustment of status). 

Всегда лучше проконсультироваться с компетентным иммиграционным адвокатом перед тем, как начинать какой-то иммиграционный процесс, например, по смене статуса, или если вы планируете боак и подать заявление на грин карту, не выезжая из страны.

​Если вам нужна помощь или совет, вы можете связаться с нами по электронной почте.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Department of Homeland Security granted citizenship to hundreds of people who had previously been ordered deported or removed under different names because of flaws in keeping fingerprint records, according to a report released Monday.
The report from the department’s Office of Inspector General found that nearly 900 individuals were granted citizenship because neither the agency nor the F.B.I. databases contained all of the fingerprint records of people who had previously been ordered to be deported.

Nearly 150,000 older fingerprint records were not digitized or simply were not included in the Department of Homeland Security’s databases when they were being developed, the report said. In other cases, fingerprints that were taken by immigration officials during the deportation process were not forwarded to the F.B.I.

“This situation created opportunities for individuals to gain rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship through fraud,” said John Roth, the inspector general at Homeland Security.
Officials say the findings illustrate a major security gap.

“This failure represents a significant risk to America’s national security as these naturalized individuals have access to serve in positions of public trust and the ability to obtain security clearances,” Senator Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican who is chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, wrote in a letter to Jeh Johnson, the secretary of Homeland Security.

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, an agency within Homeland Security that oversees citizenship, is supposed to check the fingerprints of applicants for citizenship against a number of databases to make sure that they do not have criminal records or pose a threat.

But since the fingerprint databases are incomplete, the agency had no way of knowing if the individuals were actually who they said they were.

Investigators found that in more than 200 cases they examined, none of the individuals disclosed that they had another identity or that they had final deportation orders on their naturalization application.
As naturalized citizens, these individuals retain many of the rights and privileges of American citizenship, including serving in law enforcement, obtaining a security clearance and sponsoring the entry of other foreigners into the United States, the report said.

For example, investigators with the inspector general’s office said they learned that at least three people, who became naturalized citizens after having been deported under a different name, had obtained the necessary clearances to conduct security-sensitive work at commercial airports or at ports and aboard ships. Since being identified, all have had their credentials revoked, the report said.

The inspector general’s report said the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency had investigated few of the naturalized citizens to determine if their citizenship should be revoked. That agency is working to increase its inquiries and digitize all its fingerprint records.

In a statement, Homeland Security acknowledged the issues raised in the report. The statement added, “It is important to note that the fact that fingerprint records in these cases may have been incomplete at the time of the naturalization interview does not necessarily mean that the applicant was in fact granted naturalization, or that the applicant obtained naturalization fraudulently.”

​Read here. 

Article from my Moscow colleague in Russian below: how to avoid making mistakes when choosing and retaining an attorney, lawyer, immigration attorney; or when deciding whether to file anything, and what steps should be taken to protect and secure your legal rights. 

Why an offer of a "free first consultation" or "free chat with our representative through our website" is usually an indication of a scam and an unqualified lawyer (or even a non-lawyer who pretends to be an attorney) who is ready to "promise" and "guarantee" success to anyone as long as the client is paying, no matter the consequences to a client.

*****************
Как известно, нередко недобросовестные юристы и юрфирмы клиентов привлекают через интернет, где обещают провести бесплатную консультацию (заманивают бесплатными консультациями). 

Например, человек заходит на юридические сайты, где пытается найти ответы на свои вопросы бесплатно. Всплывает окошко чата, где виртуальный оператор предлагает его проконсультировать. Человек излагает проблему. Но будьте уверены, что исчерпывающе и пошагово никто его консультировать не собирается. Его попросят оставить номер телефона. Когда ему перезвонят, то вся суть разговора сведется к тому, что ему пообещают, что *обязательно помогут* и *гарантирую успех* за определенную сумму денег.

Не секрет, что многие предпочитают слышать то, что лишь хотят услышать. Так происходит и при обращении к юристам. Некоторые люди, как им кажется, "знают все сами", а иногда и больше специалистов. Так вот, если некоторым людям добросовестный юрист говорит, что шансов мало или их нет вовсе, они уверенно отправляются к тем юристам, из уст которых они услышат слова поддержки и гарантию успеха.

Следует помнить: 1) бесплатный сыр бывает только в мышеловке, 2) добросовестный адвокат не имеет право гарантировать успех, 3) хороший адвокат не предоставляет бесплатных консультаций, так как зачем ему/ей это нужно, и на это просто нет времени, к тому же хороший адвокат понимает, что самое главное, это предварительно изучить дело клиента и дать ему правильный совет, а только затем переходить к действиям и заключать договор.

Очень полезная статья по-русски от моих московских коллег тут.

In Russian: 

Российская газета "Новые Известия" опубликовала дельную статью про опасность "бесплатных юридических консультаций". Журналисты проинтервьюировали некоторых моих московских партнеров и коллег. 

Как известно, бесплатный сыр бывает только в мышеловке. Ты получаешь то, за что заплатил.

Хороший компетентный и этический адвокат НЕ будет предоставлять консультацию (давать юридический совет) бесплатно. В оказании юридических услуг самое главное - это получить правильный совет и знать что делать и как поступить.  

Среди "юридических фирм" и "иммиграционных консультантов" попадается немало мошенников или недобросовестных и малограмотных "специалистов". Особенно много вебсайтов на интернете, которые в поисковике выходят в самом начале как реклама (так как вебсайт платит за такое выгодное размещение) и нелицензированных "иммиграционных консультантов" или "нотариусов", которые предлагают "первую" консультацию бесплатно и готовы перезвонить потенциальному клиенту в течение 5 минут. Что следует дальше, об этом люди не задумываются. А им навязывается контракт на завышенную сумму, с ненужными сервисами или предлагаются ненужные или вредные для дела действия (которые дорого стоят). После предоставления бесплатной консультации, такому специалисту ведь нужно как-то заработать на клиенте (на которого было потрачено время) -- если уж не брать оплату за консультацию, то ее используют как ловушку для доверчивых граждан, готовых повестись на обман.

Следует иметь в виду, что хороший опытный адвокат не будет и не имеет права давать "гарантии" успеха или гарантии выигрыша вашего дела. Опытный адвокат ценит свое и ваше время, и для того, чтобы проконсультировать клиента ей/ему нужно изучить ваши обстоятельства и проанализировать возможные варианты и осложнения перед тем как давать платный (ни в коем случае не бесплатный совет). 

Хорошая статья обо всем этом в Новых Известиях, с консультациями моих Московских партнеров и коллег.