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

Travel Ban or Muslim Ban Will Remain in Effect: US Supreme Court Decision

6/26/2018

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld President Trump's travel ban by a 5-4 vote.
In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the ban was "squarely within the scope of Presidential authority under the INA," referring to the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Read the court's full opinion in the case here.

Read Justice Kennedy's full concurring opinion here.

In one of two dissenting opinions, Justice Sonia Sotomayo who was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said the court's decision "fails to safeguard" the "principle of religious neutrality in the First Amendment. It leaves undisturbed a policy first advertised openly and unequivocally as a 'total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States' because the policy now masquerades behind a facade of national-security concerns". Read her full dissent here.

The Travel Ban remains in effect, and travel of citizens or nationals of banned countries to the USA remains either fully banned (all visas) or partially banned (only some visas are not allowed, while others are still permitted).

The full list of the banned countries and the kinds of visas banned for each country is 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.

In Matter of Jose MARQUEZ CONDE BIA held: vacated convictions still considered for immigration purposes

4/6/2018

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

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convictions that have been vacated based on procedural and substantive defects in the underlying criminal proceeding as no longer valid for immigration purposes.

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

BIA decision.

US Supreme Court partially reinstates Travel Ban or Muslim Ban Executive Order No. 2, effective June 29 2017

6/26/2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who may have trouble entering the United States:

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

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

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

#TravelBan #MuslimBan #ExecutiveOrder

Read the decision here.

UPDATE June 29, 2017:

The Executive Orders Travel Ban 90-day suspension of entry will be implemented
worldwide at 8:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on June 29, 2017.

The U.S. Department of State had clarified in the cable who is considered to have a "credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States."

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

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

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

UPDATE 09:00 PM CST June 29, 2017:

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

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

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

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

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

US Supreme Court Ruled on Acquired Citizenship of a Child Born Abroad to Unwed Mothers and Fathers

6/20/2017

On June 12, 2017 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a new decision on acquisition of U.S. citizenship from birth by a child born abroad and out of wedlock, when one parent is a U. S. citizen and the other a citizen of another nation, striking down on equal protection grounds the distinction in INA 309 between the physical presence required for unwed fathers and mothers when the child is born out of wedlock:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1191_2a34.pdf.

Applicable to married couples, the main rule in effect at the time here relevant, 8 U. S. C. §1401(a)(7) (1958 ed.), required the U.S.-citizen parent to have ten years’ physical presence in the United States prior to the child’s birth, “at least five of which were after attaining” age 14.

The same rule is made applicable to unwed U.S.-citizen fathers by §1409(a), but §1409(c) created an exception for an unwed U. S.-citizen mother, whose citizenship can be transmitted to a child born abroad if she has lived continuously in the United States for just one year prior to the child’s birth.

Under the US Supreme Court ruling, the government (USCIS and US Dept of State) is going to equally apply to mothers and fathers the more restrictive rule for fathers (10 years of physical presence), rather than the much less restrictive rule (exception) for mothers (one-year rule).

This should apply (probably, not clear at this time) only to children of unwed mothers who are born after June 12, 2017, because citizenship is automatically acquired at birth, and a later decision can't strip you of it.

This new law will be relevant in many N-600 applications.

Read the U.S. Supreme Court decision here.

In Russian:

12 июня 2017 Верховный Суд США вынес решение по делу автоматического получения американского гражданства внебрачным ребенком, рожденным за пределами США, когда один из родителей (мать или отец) являются гражданином США, и когда родители не состоят в законном браке.

По старому закону, правила были более жесткие по отношению к отцу внебрачного ребенка.

Теперь после решения суда от 12 июня 2017, суд ужесточил закон о по отношению детей, рожденных вне брака, где американская гражданка - это мать ребенка. По новому закону, мать должна доказать физическое проживание в США в течение как минимум 10 лет (ранее это был всего год).

Пока закон не изменится Конгрессом США, это новое правило будет применяться везде в США и за пределами США во всех посольствах и консульствах.

Решение суда можно почитать тут.

9th Circuit Court of Appeals Held: TPS Recipients Are Eligible to Adjust to LPR Status

4/5/2017

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

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

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

What to Do If LPR is Asked to Give Away a Green Card and Sign Form I-407, Abandon LPR Status When Returning to USA

1/30/2017

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS:

What to Do If a LPR is Asked to Relinquish Their Green Card and Sign Form I-407, Abandonment of LPR Status When Returning to USA.

This is a helpful reminder, which became important in light of recent events following an executive order when a number of lawful permanent residents (LPRs) were made to sign Forms I-407, were not allowed into the U.S., and returned to the foreign countries were they came from.

First of all, upon returning to the U.S., Legal Permanent Residents (LPR) should not automatically surrender their green cards if asked to do so.

An individual does not lose LPR status as a result of time abroad. They remain an LPR until a final order of removal is issued by Immigration Court and the government must prove abandonment by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence which a higher evidentiary standard than clear and convincing. See Matter of Huang, 19 I&N Dec. 749 (BIA 1988).

Form I-407 must be signed voluntarily and there are no potential negative ramifications for refusing to sign. Neither failure to sign nor abandonment is grounds for detention.

***If a LPR refuses to sign Form I-407 and insists on being admitted to the United States, the CBP officer must issue a Notice to Appear (NTA) so that an immigration judge can determine whether they have lost their LPR status.
When abandonment question is raised, a LPR can offer evidence of the following: their ties to the U.S., the purpose of their visit outside of the U.S., and the expected termination date of the visit abroad or occurrence of facts showing why a date certain is or was not possible. Precedent decision Matter of Kane, 15 I&N Dec. 258 (BIA 1975). The burden of proof at this stage is preponderance of the evidence, which is more likely than not (more than 51%) that you did not abandon your residence in USA. See Matter of Y-G-, 20 I&N Dec. 794 (BIA 1994).

Totality of the circumstances are relevant and must be considered. If the officer is nevertheless, not convinced, you should ask for a hearing before an immigration judge.

***If your green card is confiscated, you must be provided with alternative evidence of their LPR status, such as an I-94 and/or passport stamp that says "Evidence of Temporary Residence."
Abandonment of residence is not a ground of inadmissibility. Thus, the basis for the NTA is violation of INA §237(a)(1)(A) for being inadmissible at the time of admission because LPRs travel abroad and reenter the U.S. as "special immigrants" per INA §101(a)(27).

A LPR who is placed in removal proceedings, doesn't lose his or her status until a final order of removal is issued by Immigration Judge. See 8 CFR §1.2 (defining "lawfully admitted for permanent resident"). Read more at AILA Doc. No. 17012960.

In Russian:

ЗНАЙ СВОИ ПРАВА:

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

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

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

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

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

New NIW Test National Interest Waiver under Dhanasar precedent by AAO

1/4/2017

On December 27, 2016, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security has designated as precedential the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office’s (AAO) decision in Matter of Dhanasar. This precedent decision vacated the previous precedent, NYSDOT -- Matter of New York State Dep’t of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Acting Assoc. Comm’r 1998).

The Dhanasar case overview:

Mr. Dhanasar has a Ph.D. in aeronautical engineering, 2 M.S. degrees and an impressive credentials and resume, a "rocket scientist". However, when he self-petitioned for a green card under the National Interest Waiver program, the USCIS denied his I-140 petition under the old law (old 1998 precedent, case NYSDOT, which was now overruled by Dhanasar case). The AAO applied a preponderance of the evidence standard and a new NIW test, and decided that: (1) the petitioner’s research in aerospace engineering has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) the petitioner is well positioned to advance his research; and (3) on balance, it is beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. We find that the petitioner has established eligibility for and otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.

On appeal, on 12/27/2016 the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) concluded that the old precedent, NYSDOT test, was overly restrictive and approved the I-140 petition as a National Interest Waiver. AAO also changed the NIW test.

On December 27, 2016, DHS had relaxed rules for applying for NIW National Interest Waiver green card in EB-2 category. It will benefit many potential immigrants who consider applying for a green card under NIW. Many will be able to concurrently submit I-140, I-485, and applications for a work permit and advance parole. Except for India and China, where because of a backlog in EB-2 category, applicants from India and China will be unable to apply immediately for adjustment of status. Being able to qualify for a EB-2 green card as a NIW, will help many to avoid PERM and having an employer to petition for them, and will speed up the process of becoming a permanent resident.

This new precedent decision means that USCIS may grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner proves three elements of the test:

(1) that the foreign national’s proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; and
(2) that he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and
(3) that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirement of a job offer and thus of a labor certification.

The new NIW test still leaves discretion in the USCIS hands to determine whether to approve or deny the National Interest Waiver I-140 EB-2 petition. However, each of the three NIW requirements has been relaxed to make it easier for an applicant to prove his case.

For more information on the AAO please visit www.uscis.gov/aao.
The case can be found in the Virtual Law Library of the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review.

Вкратце по-русски:

27 декабря 2016 решение Административного аппеляционного офиса по иммиграционным делам по делу Дханасар было официально признано DHS / USCIS новым прецедентом для всех последующих дел и петиций USCIS I-140 на грин карту по программе Вейвера в Национальных Интересах (National Interest Waiver).
Вкратце факты дела Дханасар: Г-н Дханасар имеет степень доктора наук и две степени мастера, а также длинный послужной список и впечатляюшее резюме, он эксперт в области ракетостроения и космоса. Когда он подал заявление на грин карту по программе Вейвера в Национальных Интересах, ему было отказано по причине несоответствия тесту на NIW в предыдущем прецеденте, деле 1998 года NYSDOT. Старый тест было очень сложно доказать, особенно третье требование.
Новое прецедентное решение ААО в корне изменило старый тест на NIW: все три требования по тесту были изменены и облегчены. В результате многим заявителям будет проще получить грин карту по этой программе, и избежать PERM и петицию от работодателя. Также многие смогут сразу подать заявления на грин карту adjustment of status, разрешение на работу и поездки за границу пока adjustment of status находится на рассмотрении.
Дело Дханасар тут: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/920996/download