Category Archives: Asylum law

Biden Administration and Immigration in 2022

Posted on by

CNN — How many times has the Biden White House had an unresolved conflict between idealism and pragmatism on the issue of immigration? How many times has it hesitated to take action, opting instead for political messaging? The sad answer to both questions is: every time.

Most of the officials appointed by President Joe Biden to work on immigration have resigned in frustration, according to a bombshell report from The New York Times in April. “The White House has been divided by furious debates over how – and whether – to proceed in the face of a surge of migrants crossing the southwest border,” the report said.

Some wanted more openness to immigrants of all kinds. Others wanted a coherent set of rules to be applied to the millions of people at the border. And some others wanted a compromise with Republicans to create a new merit-based, green-card system. They all got nothing.

A new report from the Department of Homeland Security for August confirmed over 2 million border apprehensions and expulsions this year so far. Previously, the United States only experienced more than 1 1/2 million apprehensions a few times in its history: during the late 1990s and then in 2021. At the current pace, that record could be doubled by the end of this year. And next year, if no policies change, it could double again…

Open border chaos increases human trafficking and drug trafficking. It turns what should be a foreign policy strength into a national security weakness.

When we ponder what Biden should do to address the immigration mess at the border, the honest answer is: something, anything. Because the status quo of playing politics while seemingly ignoring policy is not only politically divisive, but it’s also missing a golden opportunity.

Biden should take advantage of his moment in history to boldly reform American refugee policy. He could, at the stroke of a pen, redefine how many refugees are allowed into the United States by taking advantage of the distinction our laws make between those granted temporary protection and those awarded permanent residency.

Editor’s Note: Tim Kane is the president of the American Lyceum and a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution. His most recent book is “The Immigrant Superpower.” The views expressed in this commentary are his own. View more opinion on CNN.https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/05/opinions/immigration-policy-biden-administration-kane/index.html

REINSTATMENT OF REMOVAL

Posted on by

“Reinstatement of removal” is a summary removal procedure pursuant to § 241(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5), 8 C.F.R. § 241.8. With limited statutory and judicial exceptions, the reinstatement statute applies to noncitizens who return to the United States without authorization after having been removed under a prior order of deportation, exclusion, or removal.

Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 241 (a)(5) states, “if the Attorney General finds that an alien has reentered the United States illegally after having been removed or having departed voluntarily, under an order of removal, the prior order of removal is reinstated from its original date and is not subject to being reopened or reviewed, the alien is not eligible and may not apply for any relief under this chapter, and the alien shall be removed under the prior order at any time after the reentry.”

Reinstatement of removal is applied to noncitizens who reenter the United States illegally after having been removed under an order of deportation and makes such individuals ineligible for all forms of discretionary relief, including adjustment of status, under the INA. It does not apply to noncitizens who were ordered deported or excluded but failed to comply with the order.

For more information about reinstatement of removal, call the Law Offices of Norka M. Schell, LLC at (212) 258-0713.

Proposed Two New Rules for Immigrants and Asylum Seekers

Posted on by

On November 14, 2019, the Trump Administration published two proposed rules that will detrimentally impact individuals who are seeking to legally live and work in the United States. One would adjust USCIS’s fees by a weighted average increase of 21 percent, add new fees, and make other changes.

  1.  DHS proposed rule which would make multiple changes to the regulations governing asylum applications and eligibility for employment. See Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2019 / Proposed Rules.

2. DHS proposed rule which would make changes to the USCIS fee schedule. DHS proposes to adjust fees by a weighted average increase of 21 percent,             add new fees, and make other changes, including form changes and the introduction of several new forms. See Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 220 /               Thursday, November 14, 2019 / Proposed Rules.

Comments on these proposed rules are due December 16, 2019.

Enhancing State and Local Involvement in Refugee Resettlement

Posted on by

President Document 

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 1, 2019/ President Document

Executive Order 13888 of September 26, 2019

Enhancing State and Local Involvement in Refugee Resettlement

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

” Section 1. Purpose. In resettling refugees into the American communities, it is the policy fo the United States to cooperate and consult with State and local government, to take into account the preferences of State governments, and to provide a pathway for refugees to become self-sufficient. These policies support each other. Close cooperation with State and local governments ensure that refugees are resettled in communities that are eager and equipped to support their successful integration into American society and the labor force.

The Federal Government consults with State and local governments not only to identify the best environments for refugees but also to be respectful of those communities that may not be able to accommodate refugee resettlement, State and local governments are best positioned to know the resources and capacities they may or may not have available to devote to sustainable resettlement, which maximizes the likelihood refugees places in the area will become self-sufficient and free from long-term dependence on public assistance. Some States and localities, however, have viewed existing consultation as insufficient, and there is a need for closer coordination and a more clearly defined role for State and local governments in the refugee resettlement process. My Administration seeks to enhance these consultations.

Section 6(d) of Executive Order 13780 of March 6, 2017 (Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States), directed the Secretary of the State to determine the extent to which, consistent with applicable law, State and local jurisdictions could have greater involvement in the process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and to advise a proposal to promote such involvement.

I have consulted with the Secretary of State and determined that, with limited exceptions, the Federal Government, as an exercise of its broad discretion concerning  refugee placement accorded to it by the Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act, should resettled only in those jurisdictions in which both State and local governments have consented to receive refugees under the Department of State’s Reception and Placement Program (Program)….”

District Court Enjoins ICE from Issuing Detainers Based on Error-Filled Databases

Posted on by

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued a permanent injunction enjoining ICE from issuing detainers to state and local law enforcement agencies in states where there is no explicit state statute authorizing civil immigration arrests on detainers, and also enjoining ICE from issuing detainers based solely on database searches that rely upon information from sources that lack sufficient indicia of reliability for a probable cause determination for removal. (Gonzalez, et al. v. ICE, et al., 9/27/19).

 

 

J-1 Immigrant Visa for Physician

Posted on by

The U.S. immigration system has been in need of reform on a variety of fronts—from the challenges facing those in the country without documentation to the need for fairer asylum laws, to often-inefficient processing of employment-based immigration benefits—and is crying out for common-sense solutions. Sadly, no immigration legislation has passed both houses of Congress since 2005, and the outcome of the 2016 presidential and congressional elections has exacerbated an already taxed system.

For physicians, several new government policies—both proposed and already implemented—can cause serious consequences and derail genuine attempts to immigrate lawfully to the United States. Because these changes largely are policy-based—i.e., the government decided to apply the law differently than it had before, and were not created by regulation or legislation—they have escaped close public scrutiny leaving many affected individuals unaware of them or at least unaware of their possible impact.

The government’s policy changes largely are justified as implementing the Buy American, Hire American (BAHA) Executive Order, which President Donald Trump signed on April 18, 2017. BAHA directs all federal agencies that deal with immigration matters to review all immigration-related policies and regulations and to consider the effect of those rules and policies on American workers.

Under the new policy, USCIS officers are mandated to issue an NTA when the denial of a petition or application leaves an individual without lawful status. USCIS has been implementing the new NTA memo in stages; so far, it applies only to applications that have been denied, such as I-539s and I-485s, but broader implementation is planned. In addition, USCIS says it will delay issuance of an NTA for enough time to allow an individual to move to reopen the denied case in case an error was made. But the bottom line is that the consequences of a denial are greater than ever.

The consequences of the NTA memo make the other policy memorandum from the summer of 2018 even harder to swallow. Past USCIS policy required officers to issue a request for evidence (RFE) or notice of intent to deny (NOID) before denying a petition or application in order to afford the petitioner and beneficiary an opportunity to cure whatever defect(s) the officer found.

As an immigration attorney, I remain ever vigilant in staying apprised of the government’s policy changes.