Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Immigration Crackdown

by

hollywood-4133249_1280Los Angeles has become the first of many cities to use its legislative powers to protect undocumented immigrants from the threat of deportation.

On November 19, 2024, the Los Angeles City Council passed a “sanctuary city” ordinance, prohibiting the use of the city’s resources and personnel to carry out federal immigration enforcement actions. This move was made ahead of the President-elect’s campaign promise to carry out mass deportations.

Los Angeles has long protected the rights of immigrants by refusing to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Now that commitment has been codified by law.

More than 11 states have taken similar actions to reduce their cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Upon taking office, Trump could retaliate by issuing an executive order to withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities like Los Angeles. His administration has also vowed to pass legislation to outlaw sanctuary cities.

While it is not yet known the degree to which Trump will deliver on his campaign promises, individuals close to his administration have spoken to the media about his plans on condition of anonymity.

According to a recent report by NBC news, on Day One of his presidency, Trump is expected to issue five executive orders delivering on his promise to put a stop to illegal immigration. Many other executive orders are expected to follow, designed to undo the Biden administration’s policies on subjects like abortion and gender affirming care.

Continue reading

by

donald-trump-2030308_1280In this blog post, we discuss how Trump’s return to the White House on January 20th could impact employment-based visa applicants and their employers in the years ahead.

While the Trump campaign has been very vocal about their zero-tolerance policy toward illegal immigration, much less has been said about employment-based immigration. For that reason, it has been hard to know exactly what lies ahead for foreign workers.

While we don’t have all the answers, Trump’s track record on employment-based immigration helps provide insights into the changes we are likely to see during his second term.

To help readers understand how the incoming Trump administration may impact employment-based immigration, we have drawn up the top five areas where there is a high likelihood that changes may be introduced either by executive action or internal policymaking.

This information is based on our collective experience dealing with immigration agencies during Trump’s first term in office. Readers should be aware that none of this information is set in stone. Immigration policies are likely to evolve as the Trump administration settles in and as the political climate becomes more balanced.

Increasing Vetting and Processing Times for Employment-Based Workers

Foreign workers who plan to file employment-based cases should be aware of the following potential changes in the months ahead.

  1. The Return of Employment-Based Green Card Interviews?

In 2017, the Trump administration made the employment-based green card application process much more difficult when it required adjustment of status applicants to attend in-person interviews.

This directive was handed down with the passage of Trump’s executive order known as “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.” This executive order was meant to crack down on immigration, by combating fraud and abuse in the green card process.

The decision to reinstate visa interviews for employment-based green card applicants led to a sharp increase in processing times at USCIS offices nationwide. This was due to the increased demand for interviews and limited resources available to accommodate the surge in applicants.

While in-person interviews are generally required under the law, prior to Trump’s presidency, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) waived in-person interviews for a broad category of applicants, including employment-based green card applicants to better allocate resources toward higher risk cases.

Continue reading

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

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

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

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