Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: Digesting the Argument in U.S. v. Texas: What Is Lawful Presence and Why Does It Not Mean What It Sounds Like? Beth Werlin

Collapse
X
Collapse

  • Article: Digesting the Argument in U.S. v. Texas: What Is Lawful Presence and Why Does It Not Mean What It Sounds Like? Beth Werlin

    Digesting the Argument in U.S. v. Texas: What Is Lawful Presence and Why Does It Not Mean What It Sounds Like?

    by




    The oral argument in United States v. Texas shined a light on the confusion between the term “lawful presence” and what it means to have a legal immigration status in the United States. Early in the argument, Chief Justice Roberts noted that in its brief, the United States asserted that individuals covered by DAPA are “lawfully present in the United States,” but then on the following page said that individuals with deferred action are “present in violation of the law.” The Chief Justice expressed some confusion, “Lawfully present does not mean you’re legally present.” Following up on this exchange, Justice Alito asked, “How can it be lawful to work here but not lawful to be here?”

    The simple answer to the Justices’ questions is that yes, under the complex, and often confusing immigration laws, a person’s actions can be both lawful and unlawful. Part of the confusion is that many legal immigration terms carry technical meanings that sometimes differ from what the common meaning of a word might suggest. As Solicitor General Verrilli, who was arguing on behalf of the U.S. government, said yesterday, unlawful presence “means something different to people in the immigration world.”

    So, let’s break it down. What is “lawful presence” and how can it be that someone with lawful presence still is present in violation of the law?

    It begins by understanding what deferred action is and is not. Deferred action has long been a discretionary decision by the immigration agency to grant a temporary, time-limited reprieve from deportation to a noncitizen in the United States without authorization. As an immigration regulation (8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(14)) states, deferred action is “an act of administrative convenience to the government which gives some cases lower priority.” It does not confer any type of lawful immigration status or any ability to remain in the United States, and it does not create any defense to removal. It is simply a forbearance policy.

    However, the immigration regulations also state that a person who has deferred action is considered “lawfully present” in the United States for purposes of participating in certain benefits programs (i.e., social security). This means that a person with deferred action may remain present in the United States for so long as the immigration agency continues to forbear, but that the person may be able to pay into social security.

    But just because someone is lawfully present does not change the fact that he or she is in violation of the law or lacks a lawful immigration status. Lawful status is a term of art that refers to being in the United States in a specific immigrant or non-immigrant visa classification and complying with its terms.

    Just as a person who is present in violation of the law can be “lawfully present,” he or she also can be authorized to work. Congress has long authorized the head of the immigration agency to decide what categories of individuals should be eligible for work authorization. Dating back to 1981, the immigration agencies have allowed individuals without legal status to obtain work authorization. Deferred action recipients always have been among those eligible to obtain work authorization.

    This is just commonsense. As Solicitor General Verrilli said yesterday, “if you can’t work lawfully, you’re going to either not be able to support yourself and be forced into the underground economy.” Yet another reminder to the Supreme Court that not only is DAPA a lawful exercise of discretion, but it is good policy.

    Photo by Mike Shoup.

    This post originally appeared on Immigration Impact. © 2016 Immigration Impact. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission


    About The Author

    Beth Werlin Beth Werlin directs the Council’s Policy program. Prior to assuming the position of Director of Policy, Beth worked for over 13 years in the Council’s legal program and was involved in nearly every major legal issue the Council tackled over the last decade. She has worked to protect the rights of noncitizens and ensure that the immigration agencies are held accountable for violations of the law. She has represented plaintiffs and amicus curiae in immigration litigation in the federal courts and before the Board of Immigration Appeals and is the author of numerous practice advisories. Beth first joined the legal team in 2001 as a NAPIL fellow and before that was a judicial law clerk at the immigration court in Boston, Massachusetts. She earned her J.D. from Boston College Law School and her B.A. from Tufts University.


    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.


    • Guest's Avatar
      #1
      Guest commented
      Editing a comment
      Great explanation - as a former USCIS and INS official, I got the briefing every year at agency conferences. Sometimes the federal officials giving the briefings would get mixed up, or change policy as to who was lawfully present. Your explanation is exactly what I was taught while working for immigration.
    Posting comments is disabled.

Categories

Collapse

article_tags

Collapse

There are no tags yet.

Latest Articles

Collapse

  • Birthright Citizenship Is Not A Legal Assumption; It's the Law by Kristie De Pena
    ImmigrationDaily

    08-21-2018, 03:12 PM
  • Blogging: Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation.. By Roger Algase
    ImmigrationDaily
    Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation. Trashing Immigrant Rights Endangers Freedom of All Americans.

    CNN reports on August 21 that 175 former US officials have denounced Donald Trump for revoking the security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan for speaking out in opposition to Trump.

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/20/polit...ent/index.html

    Presidential use of "national security"
    ...
    08-21-2018, 12:54 PM
  • Article: The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process By H. Ronald Klasko
    ImmigrationDaily

    If you are having difficulty viewing this document please click here.

    08-20-2018, 08:15 AM
  • Article: Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence By Karolina Walters
    ImmigrationDaily
    Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence by Karolina Walters The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union that represents the nation’s immigration judges, is challenging the government’s decision to remove an immigration judge from a well-known case and replace him with a judge who immediately ordered the immigrant in the case deported. NAIJ’s grievance addresses the treatment of one immigration judge, but its resolution will have implications for judicial independence throughout the entire immigration court system. The grievance was filed on behalf of Philadelphia-based immigration judge Steven A. Morley, who was presiding over the case of Mr. Reynaldo Castro-Tum. Castro-Tum’s case rose to national importance earlier this year when Attorney General Jeff Sessions chose to refer the case to himself to reconsider the Board of Immigration Appeals’ previous decision in the case. In reconsidering the decision, Sessions effectively eliminated judges’ use of administrative closure, a docket management tool. Sessions sent Castro-Tum’s case back to Judge Morley, noting that the immigration court order Castro-Tum removed if he did not appear at his next hearing. Castro-Tum did not appear at the next hearing. However, Judge Morley continued the case to resolve whether Castro-Tum received adequate notice of the hearing. Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given notice of proceedings and an opportunity to be heard by a judge. But before the next hearing could take place, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) replaced Judge Morley with an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who ordered Castro-Tum removed when he did not appear at court again. In their grievance, NAIJ asserts that the decision to remove Judge Morley from Castro-Tum’s case and reassign many other cases from his docket resulted in unacceptable interference with judicial independence. The grievance specifically claims that EOIR’s actions violate immigration judges’ authority under the regulations to exerci...
    08-17-2018, 11:12 AM
  • Article: Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico By Sophia Genovese
    ImmigrationDaily
    Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico by Sophia Genovese The Trump Administration is seeking to create and implement a safe third country agreement with Mexico . Under this agreement, asylum seekers arriving at the US border who have travelled through Mexico would be denied the ability to file their asylum claims in the US. Such an agreement would trample on the rights of asylum-seekers, violating both international and US asylum law. In particular, the US would be violating the international principle of non-refoulement , which provides that no State “shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened,” where Mexico has a proven track record of being anything but safe for asylum seekers . The US has also codified Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention into Section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which provides that it will not return an asylum seeker to his or her country of origin, but may, at the determination of the Attorney General, remove the asylum seeker to a “safe third country… where the [asylum seeker] would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.” Although Mexican officials have not yet indicated whether they would sign a safe third country agreement with the US, asylum advocates should proactively seek to prevent such a devastating policy with a country that lacks adequate asylum protections. As reported by Human Rights First and Amnesty International , 75 percent of asylum seekers apprehended and detained by the National Institute of Migration (INM), the Mexican immigration enforcement agency, were not informed of their right to seek asylum. Even if asylum seekers are able to make their claims, only 30% of the asylum proceedings are ever concluded , and even fewer are granted, leaving many bona fide asylum seekers stranded without a resolution. The treatment of unaccompanied minors’ asylum claims in Mexico are even more dismal. Of the 35,000 minors apprehended by the INM in the first half of 2016, only 138 were able to apply for asylum , of which only 77 were granted protection. Beyond the failing asylum system in Mexico, asylum seekers are also in extreme danger of kidnapping, murder, rape, trafficking, and other crimes by INM officers and civilians. A safe third country agreement with Mexico would violate the United States’ international obligations under the 1967 Optional Protocol to the Refugee Convention, to which we are a signatory, which adopts by incorporation the obligations outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the US is not a signatory. Take the example of an asylum-seeker, Mrs. H, who is fleeing politically-motivated violence in Honduras. Her husband, Mr. H, was a vocal political activist who opposed the National Party and members of the Honduran government. Mr. H began to receive death threats due to his political beliefs and reported such threats to the authorities. The authorities, however, di...
    08-16-2018, 02:32 PM
  • Article: Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence By Eugene Goldstein, Esq.
    ImmigrationDaily

    Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence

    by


    On August 9, 2018 USCIS published a “Policy Memorandum” restricting the 20-year-old calculation of Duration of Status (D/S) for F-1, J-1 and M-1 entrants (and their derivative families). https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...immigrants.pdf

    USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors https://www.uscis.gov/news/uscis-iss...hange-visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

    08-15-2018, 12:57 PM
Working...
X