Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Injunctions

by

map-3953229_1920

We are very happy to announce a recent federal court ruling that grants DV-2020 diversity visa lottery winners the ability to apply for and obtain their immigrant visas.

Following the issuance of Presidential Proclamation 10014 on April 22, 2020 (which suspended the entry of all immigrants into the United States for a period of two months, except for limited classes of individuals) our office received an outpouring of emails, messages, and phone calls from readers asking whether DV-2020 lottery winners qualified for an exception, allowing them to apply for and obtain a DV immigrant visa before the September 30, 2020 deadline.

Unfortunately, we did not have any good news. The April 20th proclamation meant that DV-2020 lottery winners would have to wait for the ban to be lifted in order to apply for their visas. Then two months later, the President issued Proclamation 10052, further extending the visa ban until December 31, 2020. Rightfully so, this action caused anger among lottery winners, because it meant that DV-2020 lottery winners would not be able to apply for their visas by the deadline, and would lose out on the opportunity to receive an immigrant visa. For many this was a devastating realization.

In response, hundreds of DV-2020 lottery winners banded together and filed the lawsuit Gomez, et al. v. Trump, et al. against the government seeking an injunction to prevent the government from enforcing the Proclamations against DV lottery winners.

On September 4, 2020, their demands were answered. Federal Judge Mehta has issued a set of orders granting DV-2020 lottery winners a preliminary injunction which stops the government from applying the Proclamations against them. Unfortunately, however the judge’s order only grants relief to DV-2020 lottery winners and does not grant relief to non-DV immigrant visa applicants. We would like to remind our readers that the Judge’s orders are temporary and have been issued to prevent further injury to DV-2020 lottery winners, while the lawsuit comes to a final resolution through the court system.

Continue reading

by

covid-4948866_1920

We have great news for visa applicants regarding the public charge rule. On August 7, 2020, the U.S. Department of State issued an important update explaining that the agency will be complying with the July 29th injunction issued by a federal judge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York which temporarily blocks the government from “enforcing, applying, implementing, or treating as effective,” the public charge rule known as “Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds,” which was implemented on February 20, 2020.

As a result, effective June 29th (the date of the Judge’s order) neither Consular officials nor the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) can enforce any part of the public charge rule for any period during which there is a declared national health emergency in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, and for as long as the injunction remains in place.

In other words, visa applicants applying for both immigrant and non-immigrant visas at a U.S. Consulate or Embassy abroad, can rest assured that Consular officials will not enforce the public charge rule known as “Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds,” in any way pursuant to the Court’s ruling on June 29th.

In their statement the Department of State made clear, “the Department is complying with the court’s order and is in the process of updating its guidance to consular officers on how to proceed under the preliminary injunction. In the interim, visa applications that appear to be ineligible under INA 212(a)(4) will be refused for administrative processing to allow for consultation with the Department, including legal review to ensure compliance with applicable court orders.  Visa applicants are not requested to take any additional steps at this time and should attend their visa interviews as scheduled.  Applicants are not required to complete, nor should they present the DS-5540, Public Charge Questionnaire.”

Continue reading

by

justice-2071539_1920

We have great news for our readers regarding a recent court’s decision to temporarily halt the “public charge” rule during the Coronavirus pandemic. On Wednesday, July 29, a federal judge in the state of New York issued a ruling that blocks the government’s enforcement of the “public charge” rule on non-citizens seeking permanent residency in the United States, and nonimmigrant visa applicants alike, for as long as the coronavirus pandemic remains a public health emergency. The ruling was made in response to a federal lawsuit filed by several states against the government entitled, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) in State of New York, et al. v. DHS, et al. and Make the Road NY et al. v. Cuccinelli, et al.

What does this mean for visa and adjustment of status applicants?

Federal Judge George Daniels has approved a nationwide injunction, immediately stopping the government from “enforcing, applying, implementing, or treating,” as effective the “public charge” rule for any period during which there is a declared national health emergency in response to the COVID-19 outbreak.

This means that effective June 29th both consular officers and USCIS immigration officials cannot enforce any part of the “public charge” rule for as long as the injunction remains and place, and a national public health emergency exists.

Why did the judge make this ruling?

The judge agreed with the states of New York, Connecticut, and Vermont that the “public charge” rule would cause irreparable harm on non-citizens seeking entry to the United States because the rule discourages such individuals from obtaining the necessary treatment and care needed during the Coronavirus pandemic. The judge considered the “substantial harm” the public would suffer if the government continued to enforce the “public charge” rule and found that the temporarily injunction was necessary to allow non-citizens to obtain much needed public benefits for preservation of the public’s health and safety.

In defense of his opinion, the judge stated, “no person should hesitate to seek medical care, nor should they endure punishment or penalty if they seek temporary financial aid as a result of the pandemic’s impact.”

The judge further stated in his ruling that the continued application of the “public charge” rule during the global pandemic, “would only contribute to the spread of COVID-19 in our communities.”

Continue reading

by

kae-ng-PZw1B7JFW5w-unsplash-scaled

We continue to have good news for international students. As you already know, on July 8th Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) filed a lawsuit to stop the government from enforcing new guidelines on international students that would prohibit them from taking online classes during the Fall semester, despite increasing coronavirus cases nationwide. The new guidelines announced by the federal Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) would refuse visas to students in schools that plan to teach classes fully online this fall and would bar these students from entering the country. Students already in the United States enrolled in schools teaching online classes would need to leave the country or transfer to a school with in-person instruction to keep their visas.

Since the Harvard-MIT lawsuit was filed, Northeastern university has joined the fight. In addition, many other universities across the United States have rallied together in support of their students, including the University of California school system, Princeton, Cornell, John Hopkins University, and the University of Pennsylvania. These institutions have filed amicus briefs supporting the Harvard-MIT lawsuit and/or filed lawsuits of their own in district court.

On July 9th Attorney General Xavier Becerra also filed a lawsuit on behalf of the State of California against the Trump administration to stop the government’s new policies from going into effect.

Like the state of California, many more states are expected to file their own lawsuits in the coming week.

Continue reading

by

naassom-azevedo-Q_Sei-TqSlc-unsplash-scaled

We have news that may be some relief to international students across the United States.

Today, Wednesday, July 8, 2020, Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) filed a lawsuit in District Court in Boston against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), challenging new guidelines that prohibit international students from taking online classes during the upcoming fall semester.

The lawsuit seeks a temporary restraining order, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief to bar the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, from enforcing recent federal guidelines just announced on Monday, that prohibit international students from attending U.S. colleges and universities offering only online instruction during the upcoming Fall 2020 semester.

As our loyal followers know, early this week, Immigration and Customs Enforcement issued a news release introducing a new set of guidelines for international students who will take courses in the U.S. during the upcoming fall semester.

Among the new guidelines, we learned that F-1 and M-1 students will be prohibited from taking courses entirely online during the fall semester. The announcement stated that the Department of State would not issue visas to students enrolled in schools and/or programs operating entirely online, and Customs and Border Protection would not allow such students to enter the United States.

International students in the United States enrolled in schools and/or programs operating entirely online were only given two options (1) depart the United States or (2) take other measures such as transferring to a school with in-person instruction to remain in lawful status.

Continue reading

by

jennifer-lo-mxrpqMFgIjw-unsplash-scaled
Great news has come down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit this afternoon.

Dealing a blow to the Trump administration, the court issued a majority decision denying the federal government’s motion to lift a lower court injunction that prevented the government from implementing Presidential Proclamation No. 9945, signed by the President on October 4, 2019.

The Proclamation attempted to bar certain individuals from entering the United States pursuant to an immigrant visa, unless they could demonstrate (1) that they would be covered by certain approved health insurance within 30 days of entry or (2) that they had the sufficient financial resources to cover foreseeable healthcare costs.

Continue reading

by

bill-oxford-OXGhu60NwxU-unsplash-scaled

It’s been just a few days since President Trump signed his long awaited executive order entitled, “Proclamation Suspending the Entry of Immigrants Who Present Risk to the U.S. Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the COVID-19 Outbreak,” and already it is being challenged in federal court.

On April 25, 2020, the first of what is sure to be many lawsuits, Doe v. Trump, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon challenging the President’s new executive order.

The lawsuit was filed by several individuals and the organization Latino Network against President Trump and the federal government.

Plaintiffs in this case have filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order to block the government from enforcing the new executive order, because the executive order does not contain exceptions that preserve the opportunity to request urgent or emergency services for immigrant visa applicants, including for children of immigrants who are at risk of aging out of their current visa eligibility status “by the simple passage of time.”

The lawsuit is concerned specifically with children who are in danger of aging out of their place in the visa queue because they do not have access to emergency services that would have otherwise been available had the proclamation not been issued.

“Without access to such emergency services, children whose underage preference relative status will result in unnecessary and prolonged family separation “for years—or even decades,” the lawsuit says.

Continue reading

by

highway-1403977_1920

PLEASE NOTE: THE INFORMATION IN THIS POST NO LONGER APPLIES. ON FEBRUARY 21, 2020, THE SUPREME COURT ISSUED A RULING ALLOWING THE GOVERNMENT TO IMPLEMENT THE PUBLIC CHARGE RULE TO RESIDENTS IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. USCIS HAS ANNOUNCED THAT THE PUBLIC CHARGE RULE WILL BE IMPLEMENTED NATIONWIDE INCLUDING IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS TO APPLICATIONS POSTMARKED ON OR AFTER FEBRUARY 24, 2020.

In this blog post we will discuss whether the public charge rule applies to individuals living in Illinois.

The Supreme Court’s decision on January 27, 2020 lifted all lower court injunctions preventing the government’s implementation of the public charge rule, with the exception of an injunction preventing the government from imposing the rule in the state of Illinois.

USCIS has clearly stated that although the agency will implement the public charge rule on February 24, 2020, the agency is prohibited from implementing the rule in the state of Illinois, where it remains enjoined by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Accordingly, at this time, the public charge rule does not apply to individuals living in the state of Illinois. In the event the injunction in Illinois is lifted the public charge rule may apply. If this occurs, USCIS will provide additional guidance for individuals residing in the state of  Illinois on its website.

The following frequently asked questions have been prepared to better inform applicants and petitioners living in the state of Illinois regarding the public charge rule.

Q: Does the rule apply to adjustment of status applicants in State of Illinois?

A: No. USCIS has clearly stated on its website that, “applicants for adjustment of status who live in Illinois and who are subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility are not subject to the final rule.”

Continue reading

by

thinker-28741_1280

In this blog post we answer your frequently asked questions regarding the public charge rule.

Overview:

On October 10, 2018, the Department of Homeland Security first published the final rule “Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds” which dramatically changes the way in which an individual is determined to be a “public charge.” Although five separate courts issued injunctions to stop the government from implementing the final rule, on January 27, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of the Trump administration, allowing the government to implement the public charge rule, except in the state of Illinois where a state-wide injunction remains in place.

The new regulations will make it more difficult for certain adjustment of status and immigrant visa applicants to prove that they are not likely to become a public charge to the United States government.

The following frequently asked questions have been prepared to better inform our readers and address concerns regarding the effect of the public charge rule.

Q: When will the public charge rule take effect?

A: Shortly after the Supreme Court’s ruling, USCIS formally announced on its website that the public charge rule will affect all applications for adjustment of status (green card applications) postmarked on or after February 24, 2020 (except in the state of Illinois, where the rule remains enjoined by a federal court).

Q: Who does the public charge rule apply to?

A: In general, all applicants for admission to the United States are subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility under INA § 212(a)(4) unless specifically exempted.

The following non-citizens are affected by the public charge rule:

  • Applicants for adjustment of status in the United States
  • Applicants for an immigrant visa abroad
  • Applicants for a nonimmigrant visa abroad
  • Applicants for admission at the U.S. border who have been granted an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa, and
  • Nonimmigrants applying for an extension or change of status within the United States (new policy under the final rule).

Applicants seeking lawful permanent resident status (applicants for adjustment of status) based on a family relationship are most affected by the public charge rule.

Continue reading

by

hands-998986_1920

With just a few weeks into the new year, the judicial branch has been hard at work issuing decisions that spell trouble for the Trump administration.

On Wednesday, January 15th a federal judge in Maryland issued a temporary injunction preventing the Trump administration from implementing the President’s executive order “Enhancing State and Local Involvement in Refugee Resettlement,” issued by the President on September 26th of last year.

As part of the executive order, the President authorized state and local governments to refuse the placement or resettlement of refugees in their communities stating that, the Federal government, as an exercise of its broad discretion, “should resettle refugees only in those jurisdictions in which both the State and local governments” consent to receive refugees under the Department of State’s Reception and Placement Program.

The government by its order sought to tighten the placement of refugees in the United States by allowing refugees into the United States only if both the State and local government consent to their placement in the State or locality.

In response to a lawsuit filed by refugee-resettlement organizations challenging the executive order, U.S. District Judge Peter Messitte said that the plaintiffs were “clearly likely to succeed in showing, that, by giving states and local governments veto power over the resettlement of refugees within their borders, the [executive] order is unlawful.”

To preserve the status quo, until a final decision is made on the merits, Judge Messitte issued a temporary injunction blocking the government from enforcing any part of the executive order on a nationwide basis.

Continue reading