Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Deportation & Removal

by

usa-1327105_1280The U.S. presidential election is set to be held in just fifteen days and the stakes couldn’t be higher for immigrants at the mercy of our broken immigration system.

In this blog post, we discuss where the presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump stand on key issues relating to immigration.

What would immigration look like under the Harris administration?

Vice President Kamala Harris is expected to continue many of the immigration policies proposed under President Biden. Among them, illegal immigration continues to be a hot button issue.

Illegal Immigration

Harris plans to tackle the border crisis by pushing for bipartisan legislation that would provide additional funding to hire thousands of new border patrol agents to secure our southern border.

In keeping with Biden’s proposals, Kamala also supports closing the border once border crossings have reached an average of more than 5,000 migrants per day over a week period. She has also said she will throw her support behind Biden’s policies barring asylum applications from individuals crossing the border illegally.

Since becoming Vice President, she has become tougher on illegal immigration telling CNN, “We have laws that have to be followed and enforced that address and deal with people who cross our border illegally. And there should be consequences.”

Concerning pathways to permanent residence, she supports “an earned pathway to citizenship” for undocumented immigrants. However, no details have been provided by her campaign regarding necessary criteria to become legalized.

Continue reading

by

megaphone-6587769_1280In a shocking turn of events, the Biden administration recently announced that it will not be renewing humanitarian parole protections for nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. The CHNV parole program was first launched in October of 2022 to discourage illegal border crossings.

It previously allowed qualifying nationals and their immediate members to apply for advanced travel authorization and granted them a temporary period of parole of up to two years for urgent humanitarian reasons.

Individuals were required to have a U.S. based sponsor and pass security checks as part of the application process. Once paroled into the United States, applicants were eligible to apply for an employment authorization document (EAD) with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

Now the humanitarian parole program is no more. The government has said that those who came to the United States using the parole policy, will need to obtain legal status through other means before their parole period terminates to remain in the United States. Those who have no lawful basis to remain in the country beyond the parole period will be required to depart or risk being placed in removal proceedings.

According to government data, approximately 538,000 migrants have used the program to travel to the United States (214,000 Haitians, 117,000 Venezuelans, 111,000 Cubans, and 96,000 Nicaraguans).

The first group of nationals who will begin losing their parole status are Venezuelans who arrived in the U.S. through the CHNV program in October 2022. The parole periods of Cubans, Haitians, and Nicaraguans are set to begin expiring early next year.

Continue reading

by

joshua-sukoff-SYHi8oX0JC8-unsplash-scaledThis is a developing story

The world of immigration has been shaken up by new reports that the Biden administration intends to release a groundbreaking executive action on immigration. The President’s order could soon allow spouses of U.S. Citizens to legalize their status in the United States.

According to government officials speaking on condition of anonymity, full details of the executive action are expected to be released as early as Tuesday – the twelfth anniversary of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. If passed, it would be one of the largest immigration relief proposals in recent history.

Essentially, a plan has been in the works to create a program known as “Parole in Place” that would offer work permits and deportation protections to undocumented immigrants married to U.S. Citizens, so long as they have lived in the United States for at least 10 years.

Such a program would eliminate the need for spouses of U.S. Citizens to travel outside of the United States to legalize their status through an extreme hardship “waiver” process, that has posed obstacles for many to become legalized.

Instead, the program would open a pathway to permanent residence for spouses of U.S. Citizens to adjust their status to permanent residence from the United States, without having to depart the country.

If passed, the White House’s measure could benefit more than 1.1 million undocumented spouses of U.S. Citizens, if they can meet the eligibility requirements.

Continue reading

by

smile-5621670_1280-1On Tuesday June 4, 2024, President Joe Biden’s rumored executive action on immigration was unveiled by the White House.

Among its sweeping provisions, effective Wednesday June 5, 2024, the order will limit the number of migrants who can claim asylum at ports of entry along the southern U.S. border, while there are high levels of illegal crossings at the southern border.

Specifically, migrants seeking asylum will be turned away at the border when the seven-day average of daily border crossings exceeds 2,500 daily encounters between ports of entry. Since the number of encounters currently exceeds this figure, the order will go into effect immediately.

This means that starting June 5th U.S. border officials will stop conducting credible fear interviews for asylum claims and will instead quickly expel migrants seeking asylum at the border.

Migrants who are expelled under the order will receive a minimum five-year bar on reentry to the United States and potentially be subject to criminal prosecution.

The government will only accept asylum claims at the border if 14 days have passed, and the number of daily encounters has declined to 1,500 migrants or less at U.S. ports of entry.

Apart from unaccompanied minors, the order applies to all noncitizens, encountered along the southern border, irrespective of their country of origin.

What does the order do?

This executive order will temporarily suspend the entry of noncitizens who cross the border without prior authorization, or a legal basis to do so, including those claiming asylum at the border during periods of high border crossings.

Can migrants still claim asylum through scheduled appointments on the Customs and Border Protection’s One App?

Yes. The executive order does not prohibit migrants from using the CBP One app to make appointments at the border where they are able to claim asylum. The executive order only prohibits “unscheduled” asylum claims at the border.

Continue reading

by

politics-2361943_1280News reports from the Associated Press and other media outlets indicate that the Biden administration is on the verge of signing an executive order that could halt asylum requests at the U.S. Mexico border, and introduce new admissions quotas by invoking the President’s authority under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

As the U.S. presidential election draws closer, the Biden administration has been looking for new ways to appease voters and get tougher on immigration.

President Biden aims to discourage migration by controlling the entrance of undocumented immigrants claiming asylum at the border.

The administration is considering capping the number of daily border crossings to 4,000 over a week, and is weighing whether this limit would include asylum-seekers arriving to the U.S. who have made appointments ahead of time on the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s mobile app. There are currently 1,450 such appointments per day.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, government officials divulged that migrants who arrive after the border reaches a certain threshold may be subject to automatic removal in a process similar to deportation. Those removed would not be able to return to the United States easily.

Republicans have argued that the President has not done enough to stop the flow of illegal immigration to the U.S. which has led the administration to become much more conservative on immigration than ever before.

Continue reading

by

student-5473769_1280A new California legislative bill known as AB 2586 may soon grant undocumented students the ability to work on college campuses without having a work permit.

The assembly bill introduced by David Alvarez is meant to provide relief to the millions of undocumented students unable to apply for employment authorization under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

As our readers may know, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) stopped processing new DACA applications in 2017, when former President Donald Trump rescinded the program. Since then, only renewal applications have been accepted by USCIS, putting millions of undocumented students out of work who can no longer apply for and obtain work permits.

Continue reading

by

courthouse-1223279_1280The federal government has sued the state of Oklahoma in a new lawsuit seeking to block HB 4156 from taking effect, a new anti-immigration law that regulates the entry of noncitizens by detaining and fining migrants who are unlawfully present in the state.

The U.S. government filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on May 21st arguing that HB 4156 is unconstitutional because the federal government maintains exclusive jurisdiction over the subject of immigration and the status of noncitizens under the supremacy clause and foreign commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Oklahoma’s HB 4156 which was slated to take effect July 1st considers the unlawful presence of a noncitizen in the state to be an “impermissible occupation” and directs law enforcement officials to arrest and jail undocumented immigrants.

The law aims to protect the state’s citizens against undocumented immigrants who could “potentially harm” its residents. Under the law, a first conviction would be a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in county jail and a $500 fine. A second conviction would rise to a felony and carry a sentence of up to two years in county jail and a $1,000 fine.

Those convicted would be required to leave the state of Oklahoma within three days of being released from county jail.

In attempting to enforce this law, the Justice Department argues that the state is circumventing established law and constitutional authority by trying to take matters into its own hands.

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

election-4745282_1280

As the 2024 U.S. presidential elections draw nearer, Biden and Mexico’s President Andres Manual Lopez Obrador, have announced joint efforts to combat illegal border crossings.

The two leaders have said that their administrations will take steps to decrease illegal border crossings by ordering their national security teams to cooperate. While specific details were not disclosed, a government official has said that immigration enforcement actions may include a crackdown to prevent railways, buses, and airports from being used for illegal border crossings.

The issue of immigration will likely sway voting age Americans who believe President Biden has not done enough to prevent illegal immigration.

Under intense scrutiny and political pressure, the Biden administration has attempted to appease these voters by getting tougher on immigration. Recently, the Biden administration attempted to include restrictive immigration policies as part of a $95 billion foreign aid package for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. Biden called the immigration reform measure the “strongest border security bill this country has ever seen.” If passed, the measure would have given him the authority to turn away migrants at the U.S. Mexico border.

Against political gridlock however, Congress blocked the inclusion of the measure from the bill. This has left the Biden administration to consider the possibility of executive action and internal policy decisions to ramp up its enforcement efforts.

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