The Recent Announcement by Ms. Clinton, and Mr. Brooks’ bill to keep DACAs out of the military
As many had expected and some had hoped, Hillary Clinton recently announced her position on immigration, confirming that she supported a full path to citizenship for the undocumented. Just prior to that, Mo Brooks’(R-AL) introduced a bill that would prohibit people holding DACA status from serving in the US military. Both Clinton and Brooks surely think that their positions reflect good politics, because they appeal to their core supporters. In retrospect, neither seems interested in finding a practical
Alberta employers whose employees are seeking permanent residence through the Alberta Provincial Nominee Program.
On April 1, 2011, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) announced that subject to various exceptions, work permits in Canada would be capped at four years. Thereafter, workers would need to be absent for a further four years before they might work in Canada again. CIC said at that time that the provision was not retrospective; as such, the first possible date that someone could hit the four year cap was April 1, 2015. There are therefore people at this moment who are starting to be caught by this provision, and whose work permits will not be renewable.
There are three different types of Humanitarian Benefits related to Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative: Conversion of Form I-130 to Form I-360 for Surviving Spouses; Section 204(l) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA); and Humanitarian Reinstatement under INA Section 205 and 8 CFR 205.1(a)(3)(C)(2).
This article will focus on the Humanitarian Benefit available under Section 204(l) of the INA. Also, this article will detail who could act as a “Substitute Sponsor” when requesting Humanitarian Benefits under Section 204(l) of the INA and Humanitarian Reinstatement under INA Section 205 and 8 CFR 205.1(a)(3)(C)(2).
Humanitarian Benefit under Section 204(l) of INA
Section 568(d) of the FY 10 DFIS Appropriations Act created INA section 204(l) and was enacted on October 28, 2009. It applies to any petition adjudicated on or after that date - even if the case was filed before that date. While eligibility for relief under INA 204(l) is not limited to I-130 cases, this article will focus on I-130 cases.
In the context of family-based petitions, the following surviving beneficiaries are potentially eligible for benefits under INA 204(l):
The principal beneficiary of an Immediate Relative or family-based preference visa petition; and
The derivative beneficiary of a family-based preference visa petition.
The petition may have been pending or approved when the petitioner or principal beneficiary passed away. Further, to qualify under INA 204(l), the surviving
1. USCIS will Increase the Minimum Investment Amounts.
Since the minimum investment amounts have not been adjusted since the program was created 25 years ago, the minimum amounts will be increased both for investments into TEAs and for investments in other areas. That amount presently has the purchasing power of only $275,235. USCIS will exercise its authority to raise the minimum investment by regulation. Adjusted
Historically, film studios and producers have used many different types of financing to cover the costs of film production, including government grants, pre-sales, debt financing, and private equity. In recent years, the film industry has sought funding through the EB-5 program.
Since 2009, international media conglomerates Sony Pictures Entertainment, Lionsgate Films, and Warner Brothers have all looked to the EB-5 program to raise funds for film projects. For instance, in 2011, USCIS approved over 200 EB-5 investor petitions to finance film projects produced by Sony Pictures. Time Warner also received an EB-5 loan from 240 investors in 2012.
Independent film and media production companies have also pursued EB-5 financing. One example is Free Mind Films, which developed its own federally approved regional center, the Free Mind Films Regional Center. Free Mind Films provides media solutions to business partners and produces educational and narrative entertainment films “dedicated to truth in information.” One of its films, A Noble Lie, has won numerous awards from film festivals for its documentary exposé of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.
A number of federally approved regional centers have been established that focus on investments in the motion picture and television industry under the industry category “Film Making (NAICS 5121)”. For instance, HFC (Rosti Capital LLC D/B/A Hollywood Film Capital) is a federally designated EB-5 Regional Center approved to finance film, television, and content creation projects in Los Angeles and throughout Southern California. According to HFC’s federally approved job creation economic model, EB-5 capital can account for
It has lately become fashionable for states that oppose President Obama’s immigration executive actions to sue in federal court on grounds that they are unconstitutional. But in order to get heard in court, a state must demonstrate standing.
In the Texas v. United States litigation
challenging President Obama’s November 2014 Deferred Action for Parent
Accountability Program (DAPA) and expanded Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrival (DACA) programs, plaintiff states led by Texas successfully invoked
standing by equating immigrants to noxious air pollutants that cause greenhouse
gases. While greenhouse gases can only cause harm, immigrants, legal or not,
are more likely to confer benefits than harm. Is it appropriate for a judge to
give standing to a state opposing federal immigration policy based on the sort
of harm that pollutants would cause it?
Parties seeking to resolve disputes in federal court must present actual “Cases” or “Controversies” under Article III of the US Constitution. Plaintiffs must demonstrate that they have standing in order to satisfy Article III. They must establish three elements set forth in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) that there is 1) an injury in fact, (2) a sufficient causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.
In Texas v. United States, the states attempted
to show harm through the influx of immigrants who will remain in the United
States through deferrals of their removals and thus burden them. The basis for
linking the harm caused by immigrants to noxious pollutants stems from the seminal
Supreme Court decision in