Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Court Decisions

by

boy-2027487_1280In the last few days, the immigration world has been reeling from the results of the Presidential election. People across the nation are preparing for an incoming Trump administration that promises to be extremely tough on immigration.

While the future of many hangs in the balance, the federal courts have started taking action to undo the immigration policies of the Biden administration.

Just two days after Americans cast their ballots and elected Donald Trump to become the next President of the United States, federal Judge J. Campbell Barker of the Eastern District Court of Texas issued a court order in the case Texas et. al. vs. DHS et. al., Case No. 6:24-cv-00306 (E.D. Tex.), ending President Biden’s Keeping Families Together parole program.

In a short one-page ruling, the judge declared that the Biden administration lacked the authority to grant parole in place to undocumented aliens, and therefore set aside and vacated Biden’s Keeping Families Together program.

In doing so, judge Barker delivered the first major blow to Biden’s immigration friendly policies. This decision stops the government from accepting applications for parole in place under the program, which would have allowed undocumented spouses and stepchildren of U.S. Citizens to remain together during the immigration process.

Continue reading

by

ai-generated-8489042_1280New details have emerged relating to a pending lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas known as  Texas et. al. vs. DHS et. al., Case No. 6:24-cv-00306 (E.D. Tex.), which is currently blocking the approval of applications filed under the Biden administration’s parole in place program.

Litigation Updates

On August 26th eleven individual intervening parties who stood to benefit from the parole in place program filed a motion to intervene in the Texas lawsuit.

Thereafter, on September 3rd the Texas district court judge denied the motion to intervene. As a result, the intervening parties filed an appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit claiming the lower court’s denial of the motion to intervene was unjustified.

On September 11th  the Fifth Circuit Court ordered the lower court to freeze all proceedings until they have had the opportunity to hear the intervenors appeal.

A hearing date of October 10th has been set and the court has said that no further action can be taken in the lower court until that date.

The appellate court’s order states as follows, “Meaning no criticism of the district court’s recognition of the need for prompt resolution, this panel must have an opportunity to consider the merits briefs, scheduled to be received by September 16, and to hear argument on the appeal of the denial of intervention. Accordingly, we administratively STAY proceedings in the district court pending a decision on the merits or other order of this court. The stay issued by the district court will remain in effect pending further order of this court.”

What does this mean for parole in place applications?

In the meantime, USCIS can continue accepting and processing parole in place applications under the Keeping Families Together program, but it cannot approve cases until further notice.

Continue reading

by

judgment-8442199_1280We have new developments to report relating to pending litigation for parole in place applications in the case Texas et. al. vs. DHS et. al., Case No. 6:24-cv-00306 (E.D. Tex.).

Yesterday evening, federal Judge J. Campbell Barker of the Eastern District Court of Texas issued a court order extending his previous administrative stay on parole in place (PIP) approvals for an additional 14-day period expiring on September 23, 2024.

The judge’s initial stay (of August 26th), which was set to expire on September 9, 2024, will now continue through September 23rd.

What does this mean for parole in place applications?

While the administrative stay is in place, those eligible for parole in place under the Keeping Families Together program can continue to submit the online Form I-131F, Application for Parole in Place for Certain Noncitizen Spouses and Stepchildren of U.S. Citizens with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

USCIS will also continue to issue biometrics appointment notices to capture applicant biometrics during the administrative stay.

However, USCIS is prohibited from approving applications received for as long as the administrative stay is in place (currently until September 23rd)

This is because the Texas lawsuit challenges the legality of the Keeping Families Together program and approvals must be paused while the parties in the case make their arguments before the court, and a final ruling is made.

What’s next in the Texas lawsuit?

The court has ordered an accelerated hearing where motions for preliminary and permanent relief will be heard on September 18th.  The accelerated proceedings in this case mean that the judge could make a decision on the merits of the case in the coming months. However, despite the outcome in this case appeals are likely to be filed in district court.

Can the judge extend the administrative stay past September 23rd?

Yes. The judge may decide to extend the administrative stay past September 23rd in the future if it finds that good cause exists to do so throughout the litigation process.

Continue reading

by

hands-7107606_1280-2

Parole in Place – Keeping Families Together Updates

As previously reported, a federal judge in Texas has temporarily blocked the Biden administration from approving parole requests under the Keeping Families Together program.

What does this mean for parole in place applications?

Due to a 14-day administrative stay handed down by District Court Judge J. Campbell Barker on August 26, 2024, in the case, Texas v. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) cannot approve parole in place applications filed under the Keeping Families Together program.

The order may be extended by the judge at the conclusion of the 14-day period.

USCIS has stated on its webpage that during the district court’s administrative stay, USCIS will:

USCIS also reminds the public that the administrative stay does not affect any parole in place applications that were approved before the court’s administrative stay order was issued at 6:46 p.m. Eastern Time on August. 26, 2024.

Those who are eligible must consult with an immigration attorney as soon as possible to determine whether to proceed with applying for parole in place while applications are still being accepted by USCIS.

For more information about this lawsuit, please click here.

EB-1 Visa Updates

Recently, the State Department confirmed that all numbers in the EB-1 preference category have been utilized for fiscal year 2024 and that no further EB-1 visas/green cards will be issued for the remainder of this fiscal year which ends on September 30, 2024.

It is also foreseeable that the EB-2 and EB-4 categories will become unavailable in the near future.

Continue reading

by

IMPORTANT ALERT: On August 26, 2024, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, in Texas v. Department of Homeland Security, Case Number 24-cv-306 administratively stayed DHS from granting parole in place under Keeping Families Together for 14 days; the District Court might extend the period of this administrative stay.

While the administrative stay is in place, USCIS will:

  • Not grant any pending parole in place requests under Keeping Families Together.
  • Continue to accept filings of Form I-131F, Application for Parole in Place for Certain Noncitizen Spouses and Stepchildren of U.S. Citizens.

The District Court’s administrative stay order does not impact parole applications that were approved before the administrative stay order was issued by the court.

WARNING:

The court expects that good cause may exist to extend the administrative stay for additional periods through mid-October. The court is also scheduled to decide whether the plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Summary Judgment will be issued during the month of October.

Immediate Call to Action

If you are eligible for parole in place under the Keeping Families Together program, you must take immediate action and submit the online application Form I-131F, Application for Parole in Place for Certain Noncitizen Spouses and Stepchildren of U.S. Citizens, as soon as possible before time runs out. A court order may soon prohibit USCIS from accepting applications for parole in place. For assistance with your application, contact us at 619-819-9204 or text 619-569-1768 for a consultation. 

gavel-7233485_1280We bring you this breaking news to announce that on Friday, August 23, 2024, Texas along with 15 other Republican-led states filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, seeking to invalidate the parole in place program established by President Biden’s June executive order.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) began accepting applications for parole in place on Monday August 19th to keep families of U.S. Citizens together. This program allows certain undocumented spouses and stepchildren of U.S. Citizens who entered the country without inspection, to legalize their status without departing the United States.

Those eligible can apply for parole in place using the new online Form I-131F, and if approved, are given three years to apply for temporary work authorization and permanent residency. The administration estimates about 500,000 people could be eligible, plus about 50,000 of their children.

The program is meant to eliminate the need for such individuals to go through the cumbersome extreme hardship “waiver” process, which requires undocumented spouses of U.S. Citizens to receive an approved waiver from USCIS, before applying for an immigrant visa at a U.S. Consulate abroad.

Unfortunately, the Republican-led coalition is seeking to put an end to the program claiming that the Biden administration has abused their power in creating it. These states argue that only Congress has the authority to enact legislation that would authorize a program like parole in place.

Court filings also accuse the Biden administration of unlawfully creating a pathway to permanent residency for these individuals solely for political purposes, due to the fast-approaching presidential election.

Continue reading

by

united-states-supreme-court-6330563_1280The recent Supreme Court decisions handed down in Loper Bright v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Dep’t of Commerce, have overturned a longstanding rule known as the “Chevron” doctrine, which eliminates the need for federal courts to defer to federal agency decisions and regulations moving forward. This move essentially strips power away from federal agency interpretations of the law and gives it back to the courts.

This is positive news in the world of immigration, considering that a federal agency’s interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) will no longer automatically prevail when litigating cases in court and filing immigration challenges to visa denials.

This will benefit many immigrants and businesses who for many years have been blocked by federal agencies from obtaining employment-based visas and green cards based on ambiguous agency interpretations of their cases.

For instance, in removal cases, those seeking review of decisions previously made by immigration judges’ or the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) will now have a clean slate, since courts no longer have to rely on an agency’s standpoint and can now interpret unclear laws with a new set of eyes.

These rulings could also pave the way for new litigation to be filed to defend challenges to previous visa denials. Where interpretations of the law once made by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) were automatically upheld in court, they will now be challenged forcefully.

U.S. employers seeking a favorable interpretation of a statute granting H-1B or L visa classification to a noncitizen worker may also have greater opportunities to argue their cases in court and win on behalf of their clients.

Continue reading

by

gavel-2492011_1280

A recent appellate court decision handed down on June 25th has reversed a lower court’s decision which previously allowed the State Department to adjudicate and approve diversity visa cases from the 2020 and 2021 fiscal years.

The case Goodluck v. Biden, No. 21-5263 (D.C. Cir. June 25, 2024) dealt with the COVID-era presidential proclamation 10014 signed by former President Trump in April 2020, which suspended the entry to the United States of certain immigrant visa applicants following the Coronavirus outbreak.

The suspension had a devastating impact on the Diversity Immigrant Visa program because the State Department refused to issue diversity visas while the presidential proclamation remained in effect. The Department took the position that because the presidential proclamation rendered certain aliens inadmissible to the U.S., it also made them ineligible for visas.

Later, the State Department suspended all routine visa services including the processing of applications for diversity visas due to COVID-19 shelter in place orders.

In response, a class of diversity visa applicants selected in the DV 2020 and 2021 diversity visa lotteries sued the government, arguing that the Department’s policies prevented them from receiving their immigrant visas before the mandated fiscal-year-end deadlines.

As the case moved through litigation, the district courts agreed with the DV selectees ordering the State Department to prioritize processing and issue diversity visas past the end of the fiscal year deadlines.

In subsequent court orders, DV selectees were granted equitable relief which ordered the State Department to reserve diversity visas for DV 2020 and 2021 selectees for processing and issuance after the end of the fiscal year.

Continue reading

by

florida-890553_1280A new week brings new immigration news. Recently, a federal judge issued a temporary injunction blocking part of a Florida law that imposes criminal penalties on those who transport undocumented immigrants into the state of Florida, classifying such actions as felonies.

The order was made in response to a lawsuit filed by the Farmworker Association of Florida and seven individuals who feared traveling in and out of the state of Florida with undocumented friends and family members due to Florida’s controversial law.

In his ruling, Judge Roy Altman indicated that the Florida law is likely unconstitutional because the supremacy clause places the regulation of immigrants under the purview of the federal government.

In his preliminary order, the judge stated that Florida’s law is preempted by the federal government, “By making it a felony to transport into Florida someone who ‘has not been inspected by the federal government since his or her unlawful entry,’ [the law] extends beyond the state’s authority to make arrests for violations of federal immigration law and, in so doing, intrudes into territory that’s preempted.”

The judge further stated that any harm created by the injunction is outweighed by the harm suffered by the plaintiffs and the federal government. As a result, the Florida law will be halted until the judge rules on the merits of the case.

Continue reading

by

justice-6570152_1280

The Department of Homeland Security and Justice Department recently announced a new plan to expedite immigration court proceedings for asylum seekers who have recently arrived in the United States without lawful status.

On May 16th senior administration officials from the Department of Homeland Security and Justice Department made it known to the public that a new Recent Arrivals (RA) docket process will allow undocumented immigrants to resolve their immigration cases more expeditiously – within a period of 180 days.

Under the RA Docket process, DHS will place certain noncitizen single adults on the RA Docket, and EOIR adjudicators will prioritize the adjudication of these cases.

The RA Docket will operate in five cities: Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City. Immigration judges will aim to render final decisions within 180 days, although the time to make a decision in any particular case will remain subject to case-specific circumstances and procedural protections, including allowing time for noncitizens to seek representation where needed.

Continue reading

by

usa-3808026_1280

In this blog post, we share with you the latest regarding the controversial immigration law from the state of Texas known as SB-4.

In a stunning turn of events, on Tuesday March 19th the Supreme Court of the United States cleared the way for the state of Texas to enforce its controversial immigration law SB4, which would allow state officials to arrest and detain those suspected of entering the country illegally.

The Supreme Court rejected the Biden administration’s request to intervene and keep Texas’s strict immigration enforcement law on hold pending litigation.

The legal challenges however did not stop there. Later that day, a federal appeals court put the controversial law back on hold, just hours after the Supreme Court would have allowed Texas to begin enforcing the new law.

The order came down from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in which a three-judge panel voted 2-1 to vacate a previous ruling that had put the law into effect.

The future of the law still hangs in the balance as the 5th Circuit prepares to hear arguments over the controversial law to decide once and for all whether the law is unconstitutional.

Continue reading