Immigration Blog Luba Smal Attorney at Law - Smal Immigration Law Office

Beginning November 2018, USCIS will be issuing NTA on denied I-360 VAWA and SIJS, U, T visa applications

11/8/2018

On June 28, 2018, USCIS published Policy Memorandum entitled “Updated Guidance for the Referral of Cases and Issuance of Notices to Appear (NTAs) in Cases Involving Inadmissible and Deportable Aliens.”

Starting October 1, 2018, USCIS started issuing NTA (referrals for deportation) in some cases where they denied a I-485 or I-539 application and the applicant is out-of-status.

Now, USCIS is expanding its right to issue a NTA to other applications as well. It will result in more cases being referred for deportation (removal) to Immigration Court.

Beginning November 19, 2018, USCIS will apply the memorandum to the following denied applications and petitions:

I-914/I-914A, Application for T Nonimmigrant Status
I-918/I-918A, Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status
I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), and
I-360 VAWA Special Immigrant (Violence Against Women Act self-petitions) and
I-360 Special Immigrant Juvenile Status petitions)
I-730, Refugee/Asylee Relative Petitions when the beneficiary is present in the US
I-929, Petition for Qualifying Family Member of a U-1 Nonimmigrant
I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (with the underlying form types listed above).

U, T, VAWA, SIJS are humanitarian applications. Previously, a denial usually didn't result in deportation. This policy changes on November 19, 2018.

Read here.

New Performance Review Standards and Quotas For Immigration Judges

10/29/2018

On October 1, 2018, for the first time in history, Immigration Judges were assigned a quota and ordered to complete 700 cases per year (3 cases per day), and will be penalized if over 15% of their decisions are overturned on appeal.

In addition, AG has limited their authority to grant continuances or to administratively close cases where applicants are eligible to apply for an immigration benefit under immigration law.

The American Bar Association has stated that “such quotas have serious implications for decisional independence.” Instead the ABA recommends establishing the immigration courts as Article 1 courts, independent of any executive agency and less susceptible to political currents.

What do the performance review standards require?

Under the new standards, which are set to go into effect on Oct. 1, 2018, to receive a “satisfactory” review an immigration judge must:

Complete 700 cases per year, and
Maintain a remand rate (from the Board of Immigration Appeals and circuit courts) of fewer than 15 percent per year.

Additionally, for a “satisfactory” review an immigration judge must meet at least half of the following benchmarks:

Issue decisions within three days of completing a merits hearing in 85 percent of non-status detained removal decisions
Issue decisions within 10 days of completing a merits hearing in 85 percent of non-status non-detained removal decisions (unless completion is prohibited by statute, such as cancellation caps)
Decide motions within 20 days of receipt in 85 percent of their cases
Make bond decisions on the day of the hearing in 90 percent of cases
Complete individual hearings on the initial scheduled hearing date in 95 percent of the cases (unless the Department of Homeland Security does not produce a detained respondent), and
Issue decisions in 100 percent of cases on the day of the initial hearing in credible fear and reasonable fear reviews (unless DHS does not produce a detained respondent).

Immigration judges are part of the executive branch of government within the Department of Justice reporting to the Attorney General.

Case completion goals of 700 per year translates into completing – issuing a removal order or granting relief such as asylum, cancellation or adjustment – nearly three cases per day, and it does not account for the hours an immigration judge must spend conducting master calendar hearings, bond hearings, attending trainings and reviewing case files. It is hard to imagine how a judge could ever give fair consideration to three cases per day, while simultaneously preparing for upcoming hearings, writing decisions on complex cases and responding to motions (within newly proscribed time limits.)

Travel Ban or Muslim Ban Will Remain in Effect: US Supreme Court Decision

6/26/2018

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld President Trump's travel ban by a 5-4 vote.
In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the ban was "squarely within the scope of Presidential authority under the INA," referring to the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Read the court's full opinion in the case here.

Read Justice Kennedy's full concurring opinion here.

In one of two dissenting opinions, Justice Sonia Sotomayo who was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said the court's decision "fails to safeguard" the "principle of religious neutrality in the First Amendment. It leaves undisturbed a policy first advertised openly and unequivocally as a 'total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States' because the policy now masquerades behind a facade of national-security concerns". Read her full dissent here.

The Travel Ban remains in effect, and travel of citizens or nationals of banned countries to the USA remains either fully banned (all visas) or partially banned (only some visas are not allowed, while others are still permitted).

The full list of the banned countries and the kinds of visas banned for each country is here.

US Supreme Court Ruled on Acquired Citizenship of a Child Born Abroad to Unwed Mothers and Fathers

6/20/2017

On June 12, 2017 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a new decision on acquisition of U.S. citizenship from birth by a child born abroad and out of wedlock, when one parent is a U. S. citizen and the other a citizen of another nation, striking down on equal protection grounds the distinction in INA 309 between the physical presence required for unwed fathers and mothers when the child is born out of wedlock:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1191_2a34.pdf.

Applicable to married couples, the main rule in effect at the time here relevant, 8 U. S. C. §1401(a)(7) (1958 ed.), required the U.S.-citizen parent to have ten years’ physical presence in the United States prior to the child’s birth, “at least five of which were after attaining” age 14.

The same rule is made applicable to unwed U.S.-citizen fathers by §1409(a), but §1409(c) created an exception for an unwed U. S.-citizen mother, whose citizenship can be transmitted to a child born abroad if she has lived continuously in the United States for just one year prior to the child’s birth.

Under the US Supreme Court ruling, the government (USCIS and US Dept of State) is going to equally apply to mothers and fathers the more restrictive rule for fathers (10 years of physical presence), rather than the much less restrictive rule (exception) for mothers (one-year rule).

This should apply (probably, not clear at this time) only to children of unwed mothers who are born after June 12, 2017, because citizenship is automatically acquired at birth, and a later decision can't strip you of it.

This new law will be relevant in many N-600 applications.

Read the U.S. Supreme Court decision here.

In Russian:

12 июня 2017 Верховный Суд США вынес решение по делу автоматического получения американского гражданства внебрачным ребенком, рожденным за пределами США, когда один из родителей (мать или отец) являются гражданином США, и когда родители не состоят в законном браке.

По старому закону, правила были более жесткие по отношению к отцу внебрачного ребенка.

Теперь после решения суда от 12 июня 2017, суд ужесточил закон о по отношению детей, рожденных вне брака, где американская гражданка - это мать ребенка. По новому закону, мать должна доказать физическое проживание в США в течение как минимум 10 лет (ранее это был всего год).

Пока закон не изменится Конгрессом США, это новое правило будет применяться везде в США и за пределами США во всех посольствах и консульствах.

Решение суда можно почитать тут.

9th Circuit: US v RUFINO PERALTA-SANCHEZ: No 5th Amendment Right to Counsel in Expedited Removal

2/14/2017

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the defendant had no Fifth Amendment due process right to hire counsel in the expedited removal proceeding under 8 U.S.C. § 1225, and that he cannot demonstrate prejudice from the failure to notify him of the right to withdraw his application for admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(4).

As a result, the panel concluded that the defendant’s 2012 expedited removal could be used as a predicate for his illegal reentry conviction, and affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment and the subsequent judgment and sentence as well as the revocation of his supervised release.

"We find that Peralta had no Fifth Amendment due process right to hire counsel in the expedited removal proceeding and that he was not prejudiced by the government’s failure to inform him of the possibility of withdrawal relief."

"When we refer to the “right to counsel” in this case, we mean the right of an alien to hire counsel at no expense to the government. We do not refer to a right to government-appointed counsel."

The decision was published on Feb 7, 2017 and can be found here.

In Russian:

Апелляционный суд 9-го федерального округа опубликовал решение 7 февраля 2017, где решил, что обвиняемый не имеет конституционного права на адвоката когда он находится в иммиграционном процессе "ускоренной депортации" из США, так называемая expedited removal.

Суд уточнил, что это решение распространяется на тех, кто находится под ускоренной депортацией, не пробыл в США более двух лет, и здесь имеется в виду право нанять адвоката за свой счет (так как в иммиграционном праве США не существует права на бесплатного защитника, как, например, в уголовном процессе). В иммиграционном суде США в процессе, который не является "ускоренной депортацией", у обвиняемого обычно есть конституционное право нанять адвоката за свой счет. Решение суда тут.

9th Circuit Court of Appeals Ruled Against Muslim or Travel Ban, Refugee Admission Allowed, Injunction Upheld

2/9/2017

On February 9, 2017, the 9th circuit court of appeals ruled that President's travel ban (aka Muslim Ban) will remain blocked and unenforceable, and the temporary injunction granted by the federal district judge will remain in place (Washington v. Trump, No. C17-0141-JLR, 2017 WL 462040 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017).

The ruling means that citizens and nationals of seven Muslim majority countries will continue to be able to travel to the U.S. (on any non-immigrant or immigrant visa), and refugees will be admitted to the United States of America, despite president's January 27th executive order (Executive Order 13769, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States”. 82 Fed. Reg. 8,977).

Text of the court order (29 pages) is here.

9 февраля 2017, апелляционный суд 9-го федерального округа вынес решение, и поддержал федерального судью, который запретил выполнение некоторых положений указа президента от 27 января 2017 (так называемый Muslim Ban).

Таким образом, запрет на въезд граждан семи мусульманских стран не действителен (и они могут приезжать в США как и раньше, до попытки президента запретить их въезд).

Въезд беженцев в США также разрешен (запрет на въезд беженцев считается недействителен, и все государственные агенства обязаны следовать решению суда)..

Следующий этап - президент уже объявил сегодня на твиттере - правительство и президент подадут апелляцию в Верховный Суд США, который в настоящий момент имеет только 8 судей (нужно 9 для кворума). Решение 4-4 оставит в силе решение нижестоящего суда. Кандидат на 9-ую должность судьи Верховного Суда уже есть, но пока не утвержден. Продолжение следует....

Текст решения суда (29 страниц) тут:
https://www.scribd.com/document/338916954/Washington-vs-Trump#

Judges Richard R. Clifton, William Canby and Michelle T. Friedland - 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

The Hague District Court ruled the surveillance of lawyers by intelligence agencies is an infringement of fundamental rights; and ordered the Dutch State to stop all surveillance of lawyers’ communications until it provided for independent oversight.

10/29/2015

Brussels, 29 October 2015.

Big victory for Dutch lawyers and their clients, and also for any other European lawyers who practice law in the Netherlands.

The District Court of The Hague has ruled that surveillance of lawyers by intelligence agencies constitutes an infringement of fundamental rights and orders the State to stop all surveillance of lawyers’ communications.

Dutch court upholds lower court ruling banning surveillance of lawyers’ communications after successful CCBE intervention. The Dutch State may appeal the ruling within four weeks.

On 27 October 2015, a Dutch Court of Appeal upheld The Hague District court’s ruling in the Prakken d’Oliveira case which ordered the Dutch State to stop all surveillance of lawyers’ communications until it provided for independent oversight.

In its ruling, the Dutch Court of Appeal dismissed all the grounds of appeal alleged by the Dutch State. The Court indicates that according to case law of the European Court of Human Rights surveillance activities must be subject to review by an independent body with the power to prevent or terminate potential infringements of professional secrecy. The current Dutch surveillance regime does not meet the requirements for such independent control and, therefore, conflicts with the right to privacy (article 8 ECHR) and the right to a fair trial (article 6 ECHR). The Court stresses that information obtained from tapping lawyers may not be shared with prosecutors until an independent review has taken place regarding the legality of that information and the way it was obtained. Even the possibility that information is shared with the public prosecutor can result to people refraining from contacting a lawyer. According to the court, that is a violation of the right to a fair trial and undermines the rationale behind professional secrecy. The Court also ruled that the protection of client confidentiality is not limited to communications with Dutch lawyers but extends to communications with all European lawyers rendering services in The Netherlands as referred to in Directive 77/249/EC.

As a result of these findings the Court of Appeal confirmed the lower court’s ruling.

In welcoming the decision, CCBE President Maria Ślązak commented: “the trust between lawyer and client is, at root, an assurance of due process and the rule of law. It is therefore essential that the confidentiality of lawyer-client communications is always respected. Surveillance measures that could undermine this principle have always to be subject to review by an independent body with the power to prevent and/or terminate the infringement. The fact that this has been reaffirmed by the Dutch Court of Appeal is reassuring and an important step to bring Dutch surveillance policy in line with the right to a fair trial.”

**************
Background: in May 2015 the CCBE successfully intervened before The Hague District Court in a challenge brought against the Dutch State by the law firm Prakken d'Oliveira and the Dutch Association of Criminal Defence Lawyers (NVSA). The Court was questioned on the legality of eavesdropping by domestic intelligence agencies on lawyers’ calls and communications. In its verdict delivered on July 1st, the court recognised that the ability to communicate confidentially with a lawyer is a fundamental right which is currently being breached under Dutch surveillance policy. The court therefore ordered the Dutch government to stop all interception of communications between clients and their lawyers under the current regime within six months. In response, the Dutch State fast-tracked an appeal against the judgement. In turn, on 25 August, the CCBE challenged the grounds of the appeal.

Transcript of the judgement (in Dutch): http://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2015:2881
Transcript of the previous judgement (in Dutch):http://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2015:7436
CCBE wins case against the Dutch State on surveillance of lawyers (press release, 02/07/2015):http://www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/NTCdocument/EN_pr_0415pdf1_1435843144.pdf
CCBE takes mass surveillance to court (press release, 27/05/2015):http://www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/NTCdocument/EN_pr_0315pdf1_1432724578.pdf
CCBE Statement on mass electronic surveillance by government bodies (including of European lawyers’ data):http://www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/NTCdocument/EN_14142013_CCBE_Sta1_1382086457.pdf
Dutch Intelligence Service (AIVD) taps Prakken d'Oliveira lawyers:http://www.prakkendoliveira.nl/en/news/dutch-intelligence-service-aivd-taps-prakken-doliveira-lawyers/

*******************
About the CCBE:

The CCBE represents the bars and law societies of 32 member countries and 13 further associate and observer countries, and through them more than 1 million European lawyers.

Founded in 1960, the CCBE is recognised as the voice of the European legal profession by the EU institutions, and acts as the liaison between the EU and Europe's national bars and law societies. The CCBE has regular institutional contacts with those European Commission officials, and members and staff of the European Parliament, who deal with issues affecting the legal profession. The CCBE is an international non-profit-making association incorporated in Belgium.

TRAC 2015 Immigration Courts reports and statistics.

9/6/2015

As of July 2015, backlog of pending immigration cases in all Immigration Courts: see here.

Average wait for an individual hearing in Immigration Courts in USA: see here.

To see denial and approval rate by specific immigration judge, select an individual judge's name here.