Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Iraqi Refugees

by

confused-gda7145471_1280

In today’s blog post, we share some interesting Question and Answer responses recently provided by the Department of State’s Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for Consular Affairs (L/CA), in a meeting with the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA).

The responses below provide some important insight into current immigration policies and procedures taking place amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Here, we summarize the most interesting questions covered during the January 20 meeting:

Department of State/AILA Liaison Committee Meeting

January 20, 2022 Q & A Highlights

Q: What role do Consular sections assume when determining whether an individual is exempt from the CDC COVID-19 vaccine requirement to gain entry to the U.S.?

A: Consular sections’ role in the process is to ensure that an individual’s request for a [vaccine] exception is filled out in full, and to transmit those requests to the CDC.

Q: If consular posts are involved in transmitting information in support of a humanitarian exception to CDC, what is the process, if any, for making such a request of a consular post outside the context of a visa interview?

A: Travelers should contact the consular section of the nearest embassy or consulate using the information provided on that embassies or consulate’s website

Q: What is the Department of State doing to alleviate the substantial backlogs created by the slowdown of operations at Consular posts and Embassies worldwide?

A: The Department is planning to hire foreign service officers above attrition in FY 2022. The majority will be assigned to a consular position after initial training. Additionally, the Department continues to recruit Limited Non-career Appointment (LNA) Consular Professionals. With very limited LNA hiring in FY 2020 and a pause on LNA hiring in FY 2021 due to CA’s budgetary constraints, Consular Affairs plans to hire more than 60 LNAs in FY 2022

Consular Affairs is working with State’s office of Global Talent Management to ramp up hiring in FY 2022, but many posts will not see these new officers until the second half of FY 2022 or FY 2023, particularly for officers assigned to positions requiring language training. Increased hiring will not have an immediate effect on reducing current visa wait times. Because local pandemic restrictions continue to impact a significant number of our overseas posts, extra staff alone is not sufficient to combat wait times for interviews.

Q: Can Consular Affairs please advise regarding efforts to resume routine consular services?

A: Consular sections abroad must exercise prudence given COVID’s continuing unpredictability. The emergence of the Omicron variant has prompted countries to reevaluate plans to relax travel bans, thereby leading consular sections abroad to recalibrate plans to resume services. Some posts have already fully resumed routine services. Others, in an abundance of caution and out of concern for the health of both consular staff and clientele, are slowly reintroducing some routine services.

Continue reading

by

hr-process-g16e007946_1920

We are happy for you to join us today. In this blog post we share some new updates in the world of immigration law for Diversity Visa Program selectees.

The Department of State has just released important procedures for Diversity Visa Applicants selected in the 2022 DV program with cases assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Kabul or Baghdad.

The agency is asking all such DV selectees to contact the Embassy in Kabul or Baghdad to request reassignment of their cases to another Embassy or Consulate processing immigrant visa applications abroad. Under the law, cases can be transferred to another Consular post (provided the alternate Consular post will accept them) however applicants must be physically present in the Consular district where the Embassy or Consulate is located at the time of their interview, and have permission to remain in the country by the host government for a period sufficient to complete the processing of their visa application.

Applicants may wish to contact a Congressman for assistance with the transfer of their case. Applicants should also be aware that they should first contact the alternate Embassy to confirm whether their case can be processed there. Each Consular post may have their own rules and regulations governing the DV application process.

What is the procedure for my case to be reassigned?

Under new guidance released by the Department of State, DV 2022 selectees can request reassignment by emailing KCC (Kentucky Consular Center) at KCCDV@state.gov with the subject line “Kabul/Baghdad Reassignment Request.”

To process your request, your email should include the following information:  (1)  full name, (2)  date of birth, (3) case number, and (4) the name of the embassy or consulate where you would like your case to be reassigned.  After KCC reviews your request, you will receive an email confirmation that your reassignment request was successful or, alternatively, requesting more information.  According to KCC, all emails will be reviewed in the order they are received.

When will my reassigned case be scheduled for an immigrant visa interview?

DOS guidance informs DV applicants that reassignment of their case to another embassy or consulate does not mean that it will be automatically scheduled for an immigrant visa interview.  Instead, interviews will be scheduled after the DS-260 immigrant visa application has been fully processed, your case number is current according to the Visa Bulletin, and when the reassigned embassy or consulate has an interview appointment available.

Continue reading

by

Continue reading

by

2928233768_eed5819469_z

On Wednesday, July 19, 2017, the United States Supreme Court responded to the Trump administration’s motion seeking clarification regarding the Supreme Court’s June 26th preliminary ruling, which held that the President could enforce the travel ban against foreign nationals from Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia, who lack a credible “bona fide” relationship to a person residing in the United States, or entity such as an employer, religious, or academic institution.

The government sought clarification from the United States Supreme Court after the state of Hawaii challenged the government’s interpretation of a “close familial relationship,” and convinced a federal court judge that the Supreme Court intended close family members to include extended family members such as “grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States.” Federal judge Watson was also convinced that refugees with a formal assurance from a resettlement agency were exempt from the travel ban.

In a brief order, the Supreme Court denied the government’s motion seeking clarification of the court’s June 26, 2017 preliminary order, and reversed judge Watson’s decision regarding the admission of refugees with a formal assurance from a resettlement agency. The Supreme Court has ruled that refugees with a formal assurance from a resettlement agency will not be granted admission to the United States pending the resolution of the government’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Continue reading

by

Last week, Thursday, July 13, 2017, U.S. District Court Judge Derrick K. Watson handed down a ruling which exempts extended family members from President Trump’s travel ban including: “grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States.” These familial relationships are to be considered bona fide relationships that qualify such foreign nationals from gaining admission into the United States.  Thursday’s ruling also makes refugees with assurances from a resettlement agency, exempt from the President’s travel ban.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that they would hear arguments challenging the President’s travel ban when the Court reconvenes in October of next year. As part of their announcement, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, in the interim, the President could enforce the travel ban against foreign nationals from Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia, who lack a credible “bona fide” relationship to a person residing in the United States, or entity such as an employer, religious, or academic institution.

28754197084_0ca901c9cb_z

In their ruling, the Supreme Court however provided little guidance on what types of familial relationships would qualify as a credible bona fide relationship. The Supreme Court vaguely stated that “close familial” relationships would qualify as a bona fide relationship, citing mother-in-law’s and spouses as an example of a qualifying familial relationship. However, the Court was silent regarding extended family members.

This prompted the State of Hawaii to seek clarification from federal judge Watson, regarding what types of familial relationships would be subject to the ban. The State of Hawaii argued that the Trump administration had wrongfully interpreted the Court’s ruling to exclude close family members such as grandparents, after the administration issued a diplomatic cable to U.S. consular posts and embassies abroad that defined a “close familial relationship” to include parents, children, and in-laws, but not grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, and cousins.

Continue reading

by

31373809060_9b1ec4c10a_z

ICE Memo Discusses Immigration Enforcement of EOs 13767 and 13768  

In a new memorandum entitled “Implementing the President’s Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Policies,” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), outlines the President’s policies going forward in implementing Executive Order 13767, “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements,” and Executive Order 13768 “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” signed by the President on January 25, 2017.

The memorandum makes clear that enforcement and removal operations will be taken immediately against all removable aliens, prioritizing expedited removal of aliens with criminal history or prior immigration violations such as fraud or material misrepresentation. Accordingly, the Department of Homeland security “will no longer exempt classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement” under EO 13767 and 13768.

Under these directives, officers will prioritize efforts to remove individuals who:

  • Have been convicted of any criminal offense;
  • Have been charged with any criminal offense that has not been resolved;
  • Have committed acts which constitute a chargeable criminal offense;
  • Have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter before a governmental agency;
  • Have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits;
  • Are subject to a final order of removal but have not complied with their legal obligation to depart the United States; or
  • In the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security.

Continue reading

by

31769361243_67e4218d01_z

As previously reported, the U.S. Supreme Court recently announced that the court will be hearing arguments in defense of and in opposition to the President’s controversial executive order “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” also known as the “travel ban” in October of this year.

In the meantime, the Supreme Court has allowed some parts of the President’s executive order to take effect until it makes a final ruling later this year. This means that certain foreign nationals will be prevented from gaining admission to the United States. Today, the Department of State announced that per the Supreme Court’s instructions, the President’s 90-day temporary suspension will be implemented worldwide at 8:00 PM (EST) beginning today, June 29, 2017.

Who will be affected?

Foreign nationals from the six countries of concern mentioned in the President’s executive order, including Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Iran, Libya, and Yemen, who do not have a bona fide relationship with a person, entity (such as a religious or academic institution), or employer in the United States, will not be granted admission to the United States for a period of 90 days, beginning, June 29, 2017 8:00 PM EST, unless the foreign national can demonstrate that they have a credible qualifying bona fide relationship with a person, employer, or entity in the United States. Such individuals may qualify for a case-by-case waiver.

In addition, refugees will not be admitted to the United States for a period of 90 days, beginning June 29, 2017 8:00 PM EST, unless they can demonstrate a legitimate claim of “concrete hardship,” to be weighed against the country’s concern for its national security.

Continue reading

by

On Monday morning, the United States Supreme Court announced that it will hear arguments for and against the President’s controversial executive order, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” otherwise known as the “travel ban,”when it reconvenes in October of this year. The President’s executive order seeks to block the admission of foreign nationals from 6 predominantly Muslim countries (Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Iran, Libya, and Yemen) for a period of 90 days, and suspend the admission of refugees for a period of 120 days.

This announcement sets in motion the end of a long legal battle challenging the scope of the President’s executive power on immigration. This Fall, the Court will be tasked with determining whether the ban violates the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution, as well as key provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, signed into law by Congress.

In the meantime, the Supreme Court has announced, in their per curiam opinion, that a limited version of the President’s executive order will remain in effect, until the Court makes its final ruling. In their opinion, the Court ruled that foreigners who have no ties or relationships in the United States may be prohibited from entering the country. This would include individuals applying for visas who have never been to the United States, or have no family, business, or other ties.

Continue reading

by

32447754372_323436bfcc_z

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has handed down a ruling this morning, dealing yet another blow to the President’s embattled travel ban. The Court has refused to reinstate the President’s 90-day travel ban on Muslims from Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen and the 120-day travel ban on refugees. The Virginia court held that the President’s travel ban does not pass constitutional muster, given that it violates the establishment clause of the United States Constitution. The ruling upholds a lower court’s decision to block the President’s revised travel ban. The Fourth Circuit was forced to weigh the importance of the President’s travel ban in relation to our national security against potentially impinging on a person’s freedom of religion. In their decision, the Fourth Circuit stated that they did not believe that the President’s executive order “has more to do with national security than it does with effectuating the president’s proposed Muslim ban.”

As we previously reported, during the month of March, the President revised his travel ban after the Ninth Circuit Court rejected major portions of the travel ban declaring it unconstitutional. The President revised the travel ban hoping that the revised version would pass constitutional muster and would not be blocked by the federal courts. The revised executive order which was set to go into effect March 16, 2017, called for a 90-day travel ban on non-immigrants of six Muslim countries including Syria, Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen, and a 120-day travel ban on the admission of refugees into the United States.

Continue reading

by
10753794774_02490d652f_z

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals San Francisco, CA

A three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has unanimously ruled that the President’s Executive Order “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” banning the entry of immigrants and non-immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries will not be reinstated. The Court refused to reinstate the Order after hearing oral arguments from the solicitor general of Washington state arguing for the states of Washington and Minnesota, and counsel from Washington D.C. The panel was tasked with reviewing a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) that was handed down by a federal judge from Seattle, an order which brought President Trump’s Executive Order “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” to a screeching halt. Since then several lawsuits have been filed against the President’s executive order and are making their way through the courts.

The Court considered four central questions before reaching their decision:

  • Whether the stay applicant “Government” has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits;
  • Whether the applicant “Government” will be irreparably injured absent a stay;
  • Whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding and;
  • Where the public interest lies.

The Court concluded that the government failed to satisfy the first questions, and that arguments made by the government’s attorney in support of the last two questions did not justify the issuance of a stay to lift the temporary restraining order and reinstate the Executive Order. The Court reasoned that the government failed to show that it would be likely to succeed on appeal, noting the seriousness of the allegations raised by the States regarding religious discrimination and significant constitutional questions. In a powerful statement the Court noted that “the government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States.” The Court further stated that the States “offered ample evidence that if the Executive Order were reinstated even temporarily, it would substantially injure the States and multiple other interested parties.”

Continue reading