A newly-released document obtained under the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) shows that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is making radical changes
to the
immigration court system
that deliberately contradict the recommendations given to the department by
its own independent evaluators.
The recommendations were made in an April 2017
Booz Allen Hamilton report
commissioned by The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)—the
agency that houses the immigration courts. The year-long analysis
summarized in the report recommended steps to resolve
inefficiencies
...
It is not easy being a citizen of India who wants to live and work in the
U.S. and become a legal permanent resident and possibly a citizen of the
U.S. We know – – we represent many of them.
Our Indian clients don’t just face a “double whammy”. They face a
multi-front coordinated series of hurdles and roadblocks.
Let’s set out the problem, and then we’ll provide what, for many, is the
only solution.
The present Administration in Washington has been no friend to Indian
citizens. Here’s why:
Upon completion of studies, our Indian client is often eligible for
practical training (“OPT”). The present Administration is actively
attempting to restrict OPT, which has been the subject
...
On April 26, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in
Trump v. Hawaii
, the "travel ban" case. The questions presented are as follows:
(1) Whether the respondents’ challenge to the president’s suspension of
entry of aliens abroad is justiciable;
(2) whether the proclamation – which suspends entry, subject to exceptions
and case-by-case waivers, of certain categories of aliens abroad from eight
countries that do not share adequate information with the United States or
that present other risk factors – is a lawful exercise of the president’s
authority to suspend entry of aliens abroad;
(3) whether the global injunction barring enforcement of the proclamation’s
entry suspensions worldwide, except as to nationals of two countries and as
to persons without a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a
person or entity in the United States, is impermissibly overbroad; and
(4) whether the proclamation violates the establishment clause of the
Constitution.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)—the Border Patrol in
particular—has a reputation for repeatedly and systematically
violating the rights of immigrants
and U.S. citizens alike. Border Patrol agents are known for regularly using
excessive force during apprehensions, detaining people under inhumane
conditions, and resorting to coercion and misinformation in order to remove
people from the United States. Despite the growing number of reports and
studies which document these misdeeds and recommend systemic reforms to
prevent them, a pattern of abusiveness remains.
For instance, in April 2018, a video from March 2017 surfaced which
captured an incident in which two Border Patrol agents operating along the
border in El Centro, California, tried to
dump an injured and incoherent man
on the Mexican side without even verifying from what country he actually
came. When Mexican
...
In the last few years, the Supreme Court has decided a steady number of
criminal-removal cases. In light of the Trump administration’s emphasis on
the removal of “criminal aliens,” we will likely see even more
criminal-removal cases in the future.
Most of the removal cases that have recently come before the court,
including
Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions,
which was decided last term, have involved ordinary issues of statutory
interpretation and deference to administrative agencies.
Sessions v. Dimaya
, which the court decided today in a 5-4 ruling, is different. The case
began as a constitutional challenge to a criminal-removal provision in the
immigration laws, which historically have been almost wholly immune from
judicial review. It was originally argued last term, when the court was
short-handed after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, and the justices
ordered reargument, suggesting that they were divided on the merits.
An immigrant convicted of an “aggravated felony” under 8 U.S.C.
§1101(a)(43) is subject to
...
Immigrants—both documented and undocumented—contribute billions of dollars
in taxes to the United States every year.
Immigrants who are authorized to work in the United States file the same
taxes as any U.S.-native including local, state, and federal taxes.
Unauthorized
immigrants pay taxes
as well, often using the
Individual Tax Identification Number
and consequently are paying the U.S. government for benefits they can’t
even use.
These tax contributions add up. Immigrant-led households across the country
collectively paid $223.6 billion in federal taxes and $104.6 billion in
combined states and local taxes in 2014, the most recent year for which
Census data is available.
Undocumented immigrants also contributed more than their fair share of
taxes. In 2014, they paid an estimated $11.7 billion in combined state and
local taxes. Notably, that contribution would rise to an
...
Yesterday's
SCOTUSBlog's Petition of the Day
was filed in an immigration case. The petition, filed in
Estrada v. United States
, presents the following question: Whether the deprivation of a lawful
permanent resident’s opportunity to pursue statutorily available
discretionary relief from removal can render entry of the removal order
fundamentally unfair. I did not think much of the issue until I read the
petition (Wilmer Cutler is the Counsel of Record) and saw that there is a
circuit split with the Second and Ninth Circuits on one side and the
Sixth Circuit
on the other.
Here are the facts of the case, which involves the removal of a long-term
lawful permanent resident with U.S. citizen children, from the Petition:
"As of 2007, Emilio Estrada had been a lawful permanent
...
EB-5 success stories often occur but are rarely publicized. On the other
hand, news about “failing” EB-5 projects, or the involvement of the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), or lawsuits brought by EB-5
investors against project developers or Regional Centers attract readership
and are aplenty.
Of course, the definition of a “failing” EB-5 project is subject to
interpretation. Ideally, what most EB-5 investors seek is full green card
status for the principal applicant and derivative beneficiaries, return of
the principal investment, and a return (usually nominal) on that
investment.
But if the principal goal of the EB-5 investment of
permanent residency within the U.S., then is a project that creates
sufficient jobs for I-829 approval a failure, even if the EB-5 investment
is not returned?
...
Over the past few weeks, the Klasko EB-1 team has shared insights on how
individuals in
clinical
and
creative
professions can position themselves for EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
classification—the so-called “Einstein Visa.” By approaching EB-1
petitioning as a series of achievements that are already wedded to ongoing
success in your field, rather than defining it as a singular spectacular
triumph, strategies for success can be crafted even in the absence of major
awards or global stardom. And though the regulatory language requiring
‘national or international acclaim’ can make EB-1 classification seem
intimidating to professionals
...
At the halfway point of fiscal year 2018, the Trump administration has
resettled 87 percent of the European refugee cap, but other regions are
lagging far behind. Just 21 percent is filled for Africa, 20 percent for
Latin America and the Caribbean, and 16 percent for the Near East and South
Asia, according to data from the State Department’s
Refugee Processing Center
. The U.S. has resettled just 23 percent of the overall refugee cap after
six months.
Each year the President sets an overall refugee cap that includes regional
allotments. President Trump
set
a 45,000 refugee cap for FY2018—the
lowest
in the history of the modern refugee program. Regionally, the ceilings are
set at 19,000 from Africa, 5,000 from East Asia, 2,000 from Europe, 1,500
from Latin America and the Caribbean, and 17,500 from the Near East and
South Asia.
Regional Resettlement Discrepancies Were Lower in Previous Years
After six months, not only are the total numbers for refugees resettled in
the country low, but they are unbalanced. Almost four times as many
Europeans have been resettled than those from around the world, as a
proportion of their respective caps; the Near East/South Asia, Africa, and
Latin America/Caribbean regions are dramatically lagging in total percent
resettled.
Why?
The U.S. has resettled so few refugees from regions other than Europe
because the administration has slowly—but deliberately—depleted resources
away from certain regions. The situation is further exacerbated by the
implementation of “extreme vetting” procedures for 11 mostly Middle Eastern
and African countries alleged to be “high-risk nations.”
The stark difference in regional resettlement percentages is not normal.
...
As predicted in our
previous blog
, Vietnam retrogression has occurred in the
May 2018 Visa Bulletin
, and now, only Vietnamese EB-5 applicants who filed before July 22, 2014
will be eligible to receive an EB-5 immigrant visa. Here are five things to
know about this new development:
Update in Visa Bulletin
. The May 2018 Visa Bulletin indicates:
Continued heavy applicant demand will result in the Vietnam Employment
Fifth preference (EB-5) category reaching the per-country annual limit
during April. As a result it has been necessary to impose a final action
date on this preference for the month of May to control number use for the
remainder of the fiscal year. It can be expected that the Vietnam
Employment Fifth preference category will remain subject to a final action
date for the foreseeable future.
Tag Cloud