Comment: Protecting EB5 Investors and DAPA Alternatives
Today's issue carries two commentaries on Supreme Court decision on DAPA, including a DAPA alternative, a blog the systemic failure to protect EB-5 investors, a blog on victimization of terror victims, a DHS testimony on Visa Overstays, and much more.
Focus: EB-5 Regional Center Roundtable June 28
ILW.COM is pleased to present a monthly telephone seminar series for existing EB-5 Regional Centers and for developers and dealmakers planning to apply for Regional Center designation or establish syndicated EB-5 investments involving multiple investors.
Each 30-minute session is presented at no charge. The sessions feature renowned immigration lawyer, Angelo Paparelli, and invited experts focusing on current developments and best practices in the EB-5 arena from the point of view of Regional Centers and syndicated EB-5 investment
Today the Supreme Court upheld the denial of the DAPA program in a split, 4 to 4 tie decision, issuing only a one sentence ruling, "The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court." That means that DAPA (and also expanded DACA) will not go into effect. The current DACA program remains unaffected, however, and will continue.
With the nation's highest court ruling effectively that DAPA cannot proceed, it is now time for the administration to consider implementing an alternative, which I proposed last year, which would also lead to work permits being issued to parents of american citizens with a long residence in the United States. The alternative is the "Turn Self in for Deportation" alternative, and it is linked to a different executive power than the DACA program, and one that is less likely to fail in court like the DAPA program. The alternative is founded on current law, the "cancellation of removal" statute, and the power of the executive branch to "commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders" without judicial review. The alternative, in short, requires the administration to allow the individuals who have been here for 10 years and who have a U.S. citizen or permanent resident child, spouse or parent to be issued a Notice to Appear (NTA) in immigration
The Supreme Court has ruled on the immigration case of Texas v U.S. It was a split, four to four decision. It was the correct decision.
This was the best of all possible decisions. It means that the decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stands. Had Justice Scalia lived the law would have been struck down. Had it gone the other way it would have supported a significant extension of the president’s power. Both results would be troubling as a matter of law and the separations of powers. This issue is better left to the future.
The president has to comply with the law. The argument for President Obama’s decision was that it was prosecutorial discretion. I would argue that