Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Deportation & Removal

by

people-2557399_1280

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has released a new policy memorandum that may soon change the way the accrual of unlawful presence is calculated for individuals currently in the United States on an F, J, or M non-immigrant visa type, as well as their dependents accompanying them in the United States.

The new policy proposes that F, J, and M nonimmigrants who fail to maintain their nonimmigrant status before August 9, 2018, will begin accruing unlawful presence on that day.

Generally, F, J, and M nonimmigrants who fail to maintain their nonimmigrant status on or after August 9, 2018, will begin to accrue unlawful presence the day after they abandon their course of study or authorized activity, or engage in an unauthorized activity.

Current Policy

Since 1997, it has been USCIS policy to begin calculating the accrual of unlawful presence, for a F or J nonimmigrant admitted to the United States in duration of status (D/S), one day after finding the nonimmigrant in violation of their nonimmigrant status while adjudicating a request for another immigration benefit (such as a change of status petition) or on the day after an immigration judge has ordered the exclusion, removal, or deportation of the nonimmigrant, whichever comes first.

F, J, and M nonimmigrants admitted for a specified date (not D/S) began to accrue unlawful presence on the day their Form I-94 expired, on the day after finding the nonimmigrant in violation of their nonimmigrant status while adjudicating a request for another immigration benefit (such as a change of status petition) or on the day after an immigration judge has ordered the exclusion, removal, or deportation of the nonimmigrant, whichever comes first.

DHS recently conducted a study to determine the number of nonimmigrants in F, J, or M status who have overstayed. For FY 2016, DHS calculated that out of a total of 1,456,556 aliens in F, J, and M nonimmigrant status expected to change status or depart the United States, 6.19% of F nonimmigrants, 3.80% of J nonimmigrants, and 11.60% of M nonimmigrants actually overstayed their status.

This minuscule percentage has caused USCIS to revise its policy and change how the accrual of unlawful presence is calculated for this demographic.

Continue reading

by

trump-2815558_1280

Our fears have come true. On May 4, 2018, we reported that the Department of Homeland Security would be making an official announcement terminating the TPS designation for the country of Honduras. Shortly after our report, DHS published a formal announcement terminating the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation for Honduras, with a delayed date of termination for a period of 18 months. The official date of termination will be January 5, 2020.

This means that nationals of Honduras living in the United States under TPS will have a period of 18 months to arrange for their departure from the United States or seek alternative legal status to remain lawfully present in the United States.

According to a statement released by DHS, the decision was made after the Secretary determined that “the disruption of living conditions in Honduras from Hurricane Mitch that served as the basis for the TPS designation” in 1999 were no longer substantial enough to justify continuation of the designation.

The report also claims that conditions in 1999 have greatly improved, and the country has made “substantial progress in post-hurricane recovery and reconstruction from the 1998 Hurricane Mitch.”

Continue reading

by

international-2693200_1280

Temporary Protected Status has come under vigorous attack by the Trump administration. As previously reported, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, appointed by President Trump has been instructed by the administration to scrutinize the TPS program closely to align with the President’s hard line stance on immigration. Within the last few months, the Department has mounted an aggressive attack on the TPS program, stripping El Salvador, Nicaragua, Haiti, and Nepal of its TPS designation.

As readers may recall, during November of 2017, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced that the TPS designation for Honduras would be extended for a period of 6 months from January 5, 2018 to the new expiration date of July 5, 2018, granting Hondurans under TPS an automatic extension. This extension was granted because the administration needed more information to determine whether the country’s designation would continue. As the new expiration date approaches, the day of reckoning may finally be here for nationals of Honduras under TPS.

According to reports released by the New York Times this afternoon, officials speaking on condition of anonymity have told reporters that the Trump administration has already decided to end the TPS designation for the country of Honduras, but has yet to formally announce the termination. The decision to terminate the TPS designation for Honduras is expected to be handed down on Friday.

Continue reading

by

basketball-888530_1280

Federal Judge John Bates of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia has spoken to protect Dreamers from deportation, where Congress has remained silent. In a Tuesday ruling, Judge Bates called the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to rescind the DACA program “arbitrary and capricious,” and with no sufficient basis to justify rescission of the program, ordered DHS to accept and process new as well as renewal DACA applications.

As part of his opinion Judge Bates vacated the Trump administration’s decision to rescind DACA, for a period of 90 days, giving the Department of Homeland Security an opportunity to explain its decision to rescind the DACA program. If the government fails to adequately explain the grounds for finding the DACA program to be unlawful, DHS must accept and process new and renewal DACA applications. DHS has responded to the ruling in a statement where it vowed to “continue to vigorously defend” its decision to rescind the DACA program and looks “forward to vindicating its position in further litigation.”

This ruling is the third in recent months against the Trump administration’s decision to rescind the DACA program.  Earlier this year, Federal Judges in Brooklyn and San Francisco issued similar rulings to keep the DACA program in place, however the Bates ruling is the first ordering the government to accept new DACA applications.

Continue reading

by

justitia-3222265_1280

The latest string of immigration raids have come very close to home. Last week, federal agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) took part in a five-day immigration sweep throughout San Diego County with the goal of apprehending and removing criminal immigrants at large.

During the sweep 53 undocumented immigrants were arrested including immigrants who were not criminals but had final deportation orders issued by the Immigration Court. 10 of the 53 arrested had been previously deported. These individuals were said to have re-entered the United States after previous deportations or had been found in violation of federal immigration laws. According to USCIS, those detained were of Mexican and Guatemalan nationality and were picked up in Santee, Vista, Encinitas, Chula Vista, Escondido, Oceanside, San Diego, and Imperial Beach.

Gregory Archambeault, the field office director of the San Diego Office for Enforcement and Removal Operations defended the actions adding that these types of operations, “reflect the vital work ERO officers do every day to uphold public safety and protect the integrity of our immigration laws and border controls.”

Continue reading

by

21066639390_0be7893e19_z

The Trump administration has ended an Obama-era policy that required immigration officials to release pregnant women in detention from federal custody. As of at least December, the Trump administration has directed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to treat pregnant detainees as they would any other, except for women who have reached their third trimester. The new policy change aligns with the President’s hard line stance on immigration, and executive orders signed into law by the President during the past few months.

Under the new policy, immigration officials must now make a case-by-case determination “taking any special factors into account,” when deciding whether to release pregnant women in federal custody, including whether the alien has an asylum claim based on a credible fear of persecution. Other factors that are taken into account include the woman’s medical condition, potential danger to the public, and potential for flight. Pregnant women who remain in detention will continue to receive necessary medical care and a record of pregnant women in custody must be kept by immigration officials.

Philip Miller, ICE Deputy Executive Associate Director, divulged that 35 pregnant women are currently in federal custody subject to mandatory detention, and that 506 pregnant women have been detained by ICE since December. Miller however would not comment on how many of these women were deported, or released from detention. “In terms of risks to the community, we look at criminal history. Just as there are men who commit violent acts, heinous acts, so too have we had women in custody who have been convicted of committing heinous, violent acts,” Miller commented when discussing the factors that mitigate against release.

Continue reading

by

25703056681_5c501f1c48_z

H-1B Filing Season Opens Next Week

USCIS will begin accepting H-1B petitions that are subject to the FY 2019 cap on April 2, 2018. To make sure you are prepared click here for a running checklist of supporting documents typically included in a cap-subject petition. In addition please click here to read our H-1B guide. For filing assistance, and tips on increasing your chances of approval please contact our office for a consultation. Best of luck!

Power of Attorney No Longer Accepted

Beginning March 18, 2018, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will no longer accept power of attorney signatures on forms submitted to the agency.

Now, applicants and petitioners for immigration benefits will be required to provide a valid signature on forms submitted to the agency. This prohibition will apply to forms that are filed by a corporation or other legal entity, meaning that an authorized representative or agent of the corporation or entity must be prepared to provide a valid signature on all forms submitted to USCIS.

Individuals who will remain unaffected by this new policy change are minors who are younger than the age of 14, or individuals with qualifying disabilities. USCIS will no longer allow applicants or petitioners the opportunity to correct a faulty signature, and will instead reject a form submitted without a valid signature.

Continue reading

by

37029797541_66310f645d_z

President Donald Trump is digging his heels in on DACA, although he is perhaps much more interested in securing $25 billion in funding, to build his long-promised wall between the United States and Mexico. On Friday, Congress voted to pass a $1.3 trillion spending bill, designed to fund the government through the end of fiscal year 2018.

Early on Friday, the President delivered a threatening message to Congress via Twitter, intimating that he would veto the spending bill, because it did not provide any relief to DACA recipients such as a path to citizenship. The President however failed to mention that also absent from the bill, was a promise from Congress to fully fund the President’s border wall.

Hours later, the President spoke to reporters and said that he had decided to sign the spending bill, despite the absence of a bipartisan compromise for Dreamers, because the bill ultimately provided much-needed funding for the military. The President told reporters, “My highest duty is to keep America safe. We need to take care of our military. I say to Congress, I will never sign another bill like this again.”

The President blamed the Democrats for failing to reach a deal with Republicans that would put Dreamers on a path to citizenship tweeting this morning, “DACA was abandoned by the Democrats. Very unfair to them! Would have been tied to desperately needed wall.” The President has vehemently insisted that any legislative action providing relief to Dreamers, must also concede $25 million in funding to his administration to build the border wall.

https://www.visalawyerblog.com/files/2018/03/Screen-Shot-2018-03-23-at-2.02.34-PM.png

Continue reading

by

2867376201_dcd363e40f_z
Beginning April 1st New Delhi Will No Longer Process IR1/CR1 or IR2/CR2 visas

The U.S. Department of State announced via their website that the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi will no longer process IR1/CR1 visas for spouse of US Citizens or IR2/CR2 visas for unmarried minor children of US Citizens beginning April 1, 2018. Foreign nationals who are in the process of obtaining an IR1/CR1 visa or IR2/CR2 visa with an interview that has been scheduled on or after April 1, 2018, will have their interview at the U.S. Consulate General in Mumbai. We recommend that petitioners be on guard for any letters from the National Visa Center specifying the location of the intending immigrant’s interview, as well as details about how to prepare for the interview stage.

President’s DACA Deadline Passes

Continue reading

by

7022830203_d8c85dc863_z

During the last few days, the Supreme Court has been very busy taking up the issue of immigration. On Tuesday in a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court handed down a controversial ruling strengthening the power of the Trump administration to detain undocumented immigrants facing deportation proceedings for extended periods of time. The Court rejected the opinion of federal judges in California who had previously ruled that detained immigrants facing removal proceedings have a right to a bail hearing after six months in jail.

Today, the Court emphatically disagreed, ruling in the case Jennings v. Rodriguez, that those who face deportation will remain detained while their cases are being considered by an immigration judge. Justice Samuel Alito speaking for the Court said that federal immigration law does not require bail hearings, and that the Ninth Circuit Court has no authority to allow for such hearings.

The Court handed down this ruling after immigrants’ rights activists brought a class action suit representing thousands of non-citizens who had been arrested and held for deportation. Many of these individuals sought asylum in the United States based on a credible fear of persecution. Although the majority of these individuals eventually went on to win their cases in immigration court, they were detained for a year or longer while their cases remained pending. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal had previously ruled that such individuals should have a right to a bail hearing after 6 months, and a right to be released from detention provided they could prove to the Court that they are not a danger to the community or a flight risk.

Continue reading