Post-Election DACA update and resources provided by ILRC.

November 10, 2016
 

• President-elect Donald Trump pledged to end DACA immigration program when he becomes President. He will be inaugurated on January 20, 2017. Until that time, DACA will remain in place and USCIS will continue to process both initial and renewal DACA requests. 

The risk. Those who receive or apply for DACA will not necessarily be targeted for deportation. Administrative programs like this have never been used for wholesale deportation in the past. It would be extremely costly for the government to try to deport all 700K+ DACA recipients. However, we do not really know what to expect. Anything is possible.
 
Initial DACA applications. For those who have not yet applied for DACA, the processing of those applications is taking long enough now that they would likely not be adjudicated until after January 2017, and it is possible the DACA program will not exist by then. Therefore, at this point potential applicants’ efforts to assemble an initial DACA application and pay the filing fees (which go up in December 2016) may result in no benefit and expose them to DHS.
 
DACA renewals. It is unknown whether the next Administration will terminate existing DACA grants or instead not allow DACA recipients to renew. Those who have already received DACA are known by the government. Therefore, renewing DACA does not carry a new risk. In fact, renewing DACA may mean a DACA recipient can have a work permit until it expires one to two years into the next Administration. One risk, however, is again that the renewal might not be adjudicated before Trump becomes President, and the effort and money to renew will be for nothing. People who file to renew soon may be successful, as DACA renewals are currently being processed in 8 weeks with USCIS' upgraded system. The cost may be offset by loans and other funding available through Mission Asset Fund, the Mexican Consulate, some DACA collaboratives and/or other programs.
 
Advance parole. At this point, advance parole may be a little bit harder to get, because processing time is three months or more, which would put approvals (even if filed today) and subsequent travel in February 2017. Emergency advance parole requests, however, may still be useful in helping people travel and subsequently adjust status under 245(a). 
 

•  What the Future Holds

 

• Based on Trump’s campaign rhetoric and the new composition of Congress, we do not expect a comprehensive immigration reform that includes legalization to be introduced in the coming years.

 

• We do not expect expanded DACA or DAPA to make it through the courts.

 
It is possible that some states will try to introduce additional state legislation creating benefits and some protections for immigrants like California has done. Some other states may introduce legislation that increases immigration enforcement at the local level.
 

• What Immigrants Can Do Now

 
People should go to a legal services provider to be screened for any possible immigration options other than DACA for which they may already be eligible.
 
The ILRC has a comprehensive client intake form to assist practitioners in screening. It can be found online at https://www.ilrc.org/screening-immigration-relief-client-intake-form-and-notes.
 
The Immigration Advocates Network maintains a national directory of more than 950 free or low-cost nonprofit immigration legal services providers in all 50 states. It can be found online at https://www.immigrationlawhelp.org.
 
Community members should be warned of fraudulent service provider schemes and educated about how to seek competent immigration help. The ILRC has created community education flyers about this available in English and Spanish available online at https://www.ilrc.org/anti-fraud-flyers.
 

• People should know their rights when in contact with an immigration agency.

 
The ILRC has created Red Cards to help both citizens and noncitizens defend themselves against constitutional violations during ICE raids. These cards provide citizens and noncitizens with information about how to assert their constitution rights and an explanation for ICE agents that the individuals are indeed asserting their constitutional rights. Go https://www.ilrc.org/red-cards for more information and contact us atredcards@ilrc.org to order.
 

• People should continue to avoid negative interaction with law enforcement. Something like a DUI or conviction related to drugs can have irreversible negative immigration consequences.

 

• If filing to renew DACA, applicants need to be aware that the filing fee increases to $495 on December 23, 2016.

 
Information provided by ILRC.
 

A new federal lawsuit filed in California advances efforts to reinstate the Obama administration’s immigration relief initiatives, DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents) and expanded DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals).

The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by Rocío Sanchez Ponce, a DACA recipient, is the third lawsuit to challenge the reach of an injunction in U.S. v. Texas.

It follows similar lawsuits by Martín Batalla Vidal in the Eastern District of New York and by José Lopez in the Northern District of Illinois.

The three lawsuits seek to fix a wrongdoing suffered by thousands of DACA recipients who are not party to the Texas case, and they could open up a new pathway for the implementation of DAPA and expanded DACA outside of Texas, providing relief to millions of families.

Sanchez Ponce, 23, is a longtime resident of Hayward, Calif., who came to the U.S. from Mexico when she was six years old. She is represented by the National Immigration Law Center (NILC).

In February 2015, Sanchez Ponce received a three-year work permit from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services under newly issued rules for DACA. That same month, Judge Andrew S. Hanen, of the federal district court in South Texas, issued an injunction in U.S. v. Texas that blocked DAPA and the expansion of DACA nationwide, based solely on claims of alleged costs to Texas. The federal government relied on that injunction to revoke three-year work permits that had been issued to thousands of DACA recipients across the country, including to Sanchez Ponce and the plaintiffs in the New York and Illinois lawsuits.

Sanchez Ponce seeks reinstatement of her three-year work permit because its revocation on the basis of the overbroad injunction was unlawful. Furthermore, by challenging the scope of the Texas injunction, the lawsuit could lead to the reinstatement of DAPA and expanded DACA for millions of families in states that are not part of the Texas lawsuit.

Announced in 2012, DACA allows some young undocumented immigrants such as Sanchez Ponce, who came to the U.S. as children, to live and work in the country temporarily if they meet certain eligibility requirements.

In November 2014, the Obama administration sought to build on the success of that initiative by expanding eligibility requirements to include more immigrant youth and by creating the DAPA program, which would similarly allow some undocumented parents of U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident children to live and work in the U.S. temporarily. At the same time, the Department of Homeland Security announced that new and renewing DACA applicants would be approved for three- rather than two-year periods. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services began issuing three-year work permits that same month.

In December 2014, Texas and 25 other states sued to stop the implementation of DAPA and expansion of DACA. In February 2015, Judge Hanen issued a nationwide injunction blocking both initiatives. The case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which last refused to rehear the case after deadlocking and issuing no decision in June 2016. This federal injunction still stands.

The complaint filed today is available at www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Sanchez-Ponce-v-Baran-complaint-2016-11-03.pdf.

​

On July 18, 2016, Department of Justice, DOJ, petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a rehearing after death of the late Justice Antonin Scalia resulted in an eight member Supreme Court and a non-precedential, deadlocked opinion affirming the lower court’s decision.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) petitioned the Supreme Court to rehear U.S. v. Texas, the matter concerning the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA), when a ninth Supreme Court justice is confirmed.

The Court’s 4-4 deadlock in that matter blocked the program, which would have allowed undocumented persons who are the parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to apply to remain in the United States and work.

In the petition, Acting Solicitor General argued that “there is a strong need for definitive resolution by this Court at this state,” and the Court “should grant rehearing to provide for a decision by the Court when it has a full complement of Members, rather than allow a non-precedential affirmance by an equally divided Court to leave in place a nationwide injunction of such significance.”

Although re-hearings are uncommon, the petition noted that they have been granted in some cases where a Court vacancy resulted in a tie. If the rehearing is granted, it is unlikely to occur for some time. More information about the Obama administration’s executive actions on immigration is available here.




​In other news, a national coalition of mayors, Cities for Action, sent an open letter on July 26, 2016, to “the next President of the United States” calling for immigration reform.The letter urges leaders from both the Democratic and Republican parties to commit to supporting immigration reform in the first 100 days of the next presidency, including providing a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
The letter specifically calls for:
* a “broad, humane and timely” path to citizenship;
* supports local economic growth, “while protecting the rights and labor standards of all workers” and upholding “immigrants’ due process rights and the rights of those seeking refuge.”
* It also calls on the presidential candidates “to pledge to defend and expand President Obama’s executive actions on immigration” to offer temporary relief to undocumented immigrants “with deep community ties who are not priorities for enforcement.”
* The letter also asks for a commitment to investments in English classes and legal assistance, municipal ID programs, immigrant entrepreneurial support and language access. “[W]e are ever-deepening our commitment to fostering immigrant-friendly municipalities,” the letter states. “We recognize that the wellbeing of immigrants impacts the wellbeing of all.”
The letter was signed by almost 60 mayors and others, including mayors from Baltimore; Boston; Buffalo; Chicago; Denver; Houston; Los Angeles; Minneapolis; New York City; Philadelphia; Phoenix; Salt Lake City; San Francisco; Seattle; and Washington, DC. These cities represent more than 55 million population of the United States from more than half of the states.

The letter can be viewed here. 

имми

06-23-2016 Breaking news: U.S. Supreme Court, split 4-4, blocks Obama immigration plan. The DAPA and expanded DACA programs will NOT become the law. Only original DACA deferred action program still stands.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling said only the following:

"“The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court.”

The court did not issue a ruling on the merits of the main legal question. Therefore, its action set no legal precedent to bind future presidents. The decision indicates that any major immigration policy change that would address the long-term situation of the estimated 11 million people in the country illegally would have to be enacted by Congress.

Please note that today’s Supreme Court decision doesn’t impact the original DACA deferred action from 2012. Current DACA program is not affected by the Supreme Court’s decision. However, it's possible that the next President could end the DACA program.

DACA beneficiaries must continue renewing their status and work permits 120 days in advance before the expiration date.

Those who qualify and were waiting to apply because they were not 15 years old yet or for any other reason (lack of money to pay the fee or missing a document), can apply for the first time as well when you are ready if you were under 31 years of age on June 15, 2012. 
Note: The Obama Administration and USCIS is expected to announce the expansion of the I-601A provisional hardship waiver program in the near future. It could be helpful to many immigrants.

По-русски:

Верховный Суд США принял решение оставить в силе запрет на иммиграционную реформу администрации Обамы. Только первая иммиграционная реформа от 15 июня 2012 остается в силе (действие этого решения суда на нее не распространяется). Помните, что следующий Президент вправе отменить полностью программу DACA, так как она была введена в силу через акт исполнительной власти, а не Конгрессом.

На практике это означает, что те, кто подпадает под действие закона от 15 июня 2012, могут продолжать подавать в иммиграционную службу США как первичное заявление на статус DACA deferred action, так и заявление на продление статуса и разрешение на работу, work permit, когда им исполнится 15 лет, и если им не было 31 года на 15 июня 2012.

Read here. 

​ On April 18, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of United States v. Texas, the challenge to President Obama’s DAPA and DACA expansion programs.

It is estimated that, if approved, the Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA program) would grant work authorization to over 4 million undocumented parents of the US citizen children, and the expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals  (DACA program) would grant work permits to millions of undocumented persons who entered the United States as children. Original DACA is still in place.

The State of Texas has argued that it has “standing” to bring the lawsuit because the DAPA and DACA programs would increase the number of applicants for drivers licenses in Texas. At least 4 of the Justices (Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer) seem inclined to rule that this is not a sufficient ground to grant the state standing to sue in court to halt the federal programs. 

During the oral arguments, it appeared that the U.S. Supreme Court eight Justices split 4-4 on this case.
If the vote comes to 4-4, the injunction will sta, and the DAPA and expanded DACA programs will not become the law. 

If a single Justice (Roberts, Kennedy, Alito and/or Thomas) joins the other four Justices who appear ready to dismiss the lawsuit and overrule the injunction, the government will be permitted to implement both programs DAPA and expanded DACA). A decision by the Supreme Court is expected in June 2016.

On November 20, 2014, the President announced a series of executive actions. However, not all of these initiatives have been implemented, and USCIS is not accepting any DAPA or expanded DACA applications at this time. 

Beware of anyone who offers to help you submit an application or a request for any of these actions before they are available. You could become a victim of an immigration scam. 

If you need legal advice on immigration matters, make sure that the person you rely on is an attorney who is authorized to give you legal advice. Only an attorney or an accredited representative working for a Board of Immigration Appeals-recognized organization can give you legal advice. An immigration attorney can be licensed in any state because immigration law is federal law. It's important to consult an experienced and knowledgeable attorney before submitting any immigration applications.

The Internet, newspapers, radio, community bulletin boards and local businesses storefronts are filled with advertisements offering immigration help. Not all of this information is from attorneys and accredited representatives. There is a lot of information that comes from organizations and individuals who are not authorized to give you legal advice, such as “notarios” and other unauthorized representatives. The wrong help can hurt. Here is some important information that can help you avoid common immigration scams.

Here are some examples of common immigration scams:

**Telephone Scams**.

Do not fall victim to telephone scammers posing as USCIS personnel or other government officials. In most instances, scammers will:

• request personal information (Social Security number, Passport number, or A-number);
• identify false problems with your immigration record; and
• ask for payment to correct the records.

If a scammer calls you, say “No, thank you” and hang up. These phone calls are being made by immigration scammers attempting to take your money and your credit card information. USCIS will not call you to ask for any form of payment over the phone. Don’t give payment over the phone to anyone who claims to be a USCIS official.

If you have been a victim of this telephone scam, please report it to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Learn more about telephone scams and telephone scammers’ techniques by visiting Federal Trade Commission-Telemarketing-Scams. 

**"Notario Publico"**.

In many Latin American countries, the term “notario publico” (for “notary public”) stands for something very different than what it means in the United States. In many Spanish-speaking nations, “notarios” are powerful attorneys with special legal credentials. In the U.S., however, notary publics are people appointed by state governments to witness the signing of important documents and administer oaths. "Notarios publico,” are not authorized to provide you with any legal services related to immigration.

Please see the National Notary Association website "What is a Notary Public" for more information.

**Local Businesses who are not law firms and not attorneys or lawyers**.

Some businesses in your community “guarantee” they can get you benefits such as a:

• Visa
• Green Card
• Employment Authorization Document

These businesses sometimes charge you a higher fee to file the application than even a licensed attorney (but will tell you that attorneys charge more "for the same work"). They claim they can do this faster than if you applied directly with USCIS. These claims are false. 

**Dot-com websites - operated by non-attorneys or people not authorized to give legal advice**.

Some websites offering step-by-step guidance on completing a USCIS application or petition will claim to be affiliated with USCIS. Many of these websites are scammers or fraudsters, often taking money for blank forms or minimal assistance without attorney supervision.

USCIS has its own official website: www.uscis.gov with:

• Free downloadable forms
• Form Instructions
• Information on filing fees and processing times

Do not pay for blank USCIS forms either in person or over the Internet. You can download forms for free at www.uscis.gov.

Do not pay to a non-attorney (not a lawyer) for help with immigration paperwork, applications, affidavit. Oftentimes, they give you wrong advice and can potentially damage your chances of ever becoming a permanent resident (getting a green card).

**Green Card Lottery or DV Lottery scams**.

Once a year in fall, the Department of State (DOS) makes 50,000 diversity visas (DVs) available via random selection to persons meeting strict eligibility requirements and who come from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States. During this time or often around the year, it is common for immigration scammers to advertise in emails or websites that reference either the:

• DV lottery
• Visa lottery
• Green Card lottery

These emails and websites often claim that they can make it easier to enter the annual Diversity Immigrant Visa Program. Some scammers even identify you as a DV lottery “winner” and ask for significant amount of money "helping get a visa". These emails and websites are fraudulent. 

The only way to apply for the DV lottery is through an official government application process (Department of State website, and only when it's open, during an application period which is usually in October-November only). DOS does not send emails to applicants. 

On or after May 1st, you can visit the Department of State website to verify if you are actually a winner in the DV lottery. 

If need help, consult a licensed attorney (not one of the "green card lottery" websites).

**INS doesn't exist. It's been replaced by DHS and USCIS**.

To this day, some local businesses, websites, "notarios"  and individuals make reference to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). This agency no longer exists! 

If someone refers to USCIS as "INS", it's a sign that they are not an attorney, but rather someone unqualified with little knowledge in immigration matters.

INS was dismantled on March 1, 2003, and most of its functions were transferred from the Department of Justice to three new components within the newly formed Department of Homeland Security. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is the component that grants immigration benefits. The other two components are U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

All official correspondence regarding your immigration case will come from USCIS. USCIS will communicate with you and your attorney by mail, by mailing you notices, approved work permit and green card through USPS (postal service).

If you need a legal assistance, we will be glad to help. Our contact information is here.

Read here. 

Twenty-six states (the “states”) are challenging the government’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program (“DAPA”) as violative of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the Take Care Clause of the Constitution. 

The district court determined that the states are likely to succeed on their procedural APA claim, so it temporarily enjoined implementation of the program. Texas v. United States, Civ. No. B-14-254, 2015 WL 648579 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 16, 2015). 

The United States appealed the preliminary injunction and moved for a stay of the injunction pending resolution of the merits of that appeal. Because the government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its appeal of the injunction, we deny the motion for stay and the request to narrow the scope of the injunction. Read full text of the decision here. 

First, the Court of Appeals rejected the Obama administration's argument that the 26 states challenging DACA and DAPA lack standing. The panel found that the burden on Texas in having to issue drivers licenses to DAPA status immigrants was "real and concrete."

Second, the court rejected the Obama administration's main argument, which is that the actions are truly discretionary and thus "committed to agency discretion by law." The court said that the executive actions didn't allow for any real exercise of discretion by agency employees, rather they simply were blanket changes to the immigration laws.

There are other provisions in Obama’s executive action on immigration, which will be considered by a different panel of judges of the Fifth Circuit the week of July 6, 2015. That panel could decide to lift the injunction. 

The injunction could remain in place for the rest of President Obama’s term in office – unless it is lifted by the courts.

As a practical matter, the injunction prevents the government from processing DAPA and extended DACA applications. Only original 2012 DACA is still in effect.

It appears that DAPA and extended DACA may never become law.

Read the court opinion here.

Obama administration’s immigration policy faces a shake-up next week—and the court’s ruling could reverberate in the 2016 presidential campaign.

At issue is whether it’s legal to essentially lock up women and children who have crossed the border illegally, part of the administration’s response to summer 2014 unaccompanied-minors crisis. 

Lawyers for some of these families sued the government, and last month, a U.S. District judge in Los Angeles issued a tentative ruling, a summary of which was obtained by Newsweek, stating that the administration policy violates a settlement in a 1997 immigration case, Flores v. Meese.

Judge gave the two sides 30 days to negotiate an agreement that would lead the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency to release the minors and their parents from the family detention centers where they are being held. Those 30 days run out on Sunday, May 24, 2015.

The judge issued a gag order, so it’s quite difficult to know whether or not there will be a real settlement by May 25, 2015. 

Obama’s detention and deportation of hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants remains a sore spot for immigrant rights and Latino activists, even after the president granted a reprieve, via executive order and under DACA program, to millions of young people who came to the United States as children and to those who have children who were born here and thus are American citizens (DAPA, which is not effective yet, pending another court case). 

The practice of holding thousands of women and their children in detention for many months—it’s just mothers and their kids in these detention facilities (in Texas and Pennsylvania), most of them fleeing dire circumstances in Central America—has prompted a particularly strong backlash.

Immigrant rights groups have been very critical of this practice.

Read more at Newsweek. 

USCIS launched a new interactive webportal myUSCIS. 

See at: https://my.uscis.gov/

USCIS recently introduced another useful webportal, where customers can submit e-request to ask questions about a pending case, report non-delivery of a document (work permit, green card, etc) or official letter (Receipt or Approval Notice, Form I-797), request certain accommodations. I found it to be a very useful tool.

See at: https://egov.uscis.gov/e-Request/Intro.do?locale=en_US

Almost daily, I hear from some of our callers: "I don't need legal consultation, I don't want to hire an attorney. I have only one or two very simple (or quick, or easy) questions, and I want an attorney to answer my questions right now and free of charge because my questions are so simple, quick, and easy!"

I will try to explain why this request doesn't make any sense and how to get proper legal advice.

U.S. immigration law is very complex and constantly changing. There have been no major immigration reforms or amnesties in the past few years (which requires a law to be approved by Congress and signed by the President). However, there have been significant changes introduced by our current and former administrations and the executive branch of the government: executive actions; executive orders of the President; USCIS and DHS memorandums and policy guidance; official and unofficial practice advisories; and changes through our judicial branch (federal and immigration courts), such as, the decisions by the BIA, AAO, Courts of Appeals, US Supreme Court, and even by federal district court judges (for example, an injunction by a federal judge can place on hold an executive order of the President of the United States).

U.S. immigration law is federal in nature and is the same in all states. However, it may apply differently to your situation depending on your background, your place of residence or domicile, US embassy in the country where you apply for a visa, etc.

An experienced immigration attorney may be able to guide you and advise you about specifics, loopholes, various options, and can spot possible problems before they happen, even if it seems to you that your case is pretty straightforward and you have only "one quick question". A seemingly simple or quick question not always can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no" answer. You may not realize it, but a situation may have a lot of hidden issues or variables depending on your venue, court jurisdiction, your factual circumstances, your arrest and criminal record, your family situation and status, prior legal assistance, prior legal actions and applications filed, or even timing, etc.

You can find a lot of useful immigration-related INFORMATION on our Blog. We compiled useful information and links: USCIS forms and fees, case status inquiry, processing times, AR-11 Change of Address, Department of State and NVC, and much more here. Hope you find this information helpful!

To ask basic questions about USCIS immigration forms, filing fees or to inquire about status of your pending case, you can contact USCIS, Department of Homeland Security, by calling their 800 Customer Service Hotline (number is on their website), or send an e-request via a webportal at USCIS website. Case status can be checked online, as well. Immigration courts, U.S. embassies and consulates and National Visa Center each have their own hotlines, call centers or other ways to contact them.

To receive a case-specific legal advice you should talk to a lawyer. Before a lawyer can advise you, we usually email you our confidential immigration questionnaire, and ask you to complete and return it to us. In some cases, we can ask you to email us copies of your immigration forms, paperwork, personal documents. When an attorney reviews your answers to our questionnaire and your documents, it helps her to get to know you, your situation, and decide what legal and/or visa options you shall consider, what are your best chances of obtaining certain visas and immigration benefits, how and when can you bring your family to USA, are you eligible for permanent residency or a green card in the United States, are you eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship, how can your children become U.S. citizens, etc.

It's important that you provide truthful, accurate and complete answers to our questions because an attorney's advice to you is based on information you provide to an attorney. It could be dangerous to give misleading, incomplete or incorrect answers to an attorney.

An attorney or a lawyer is often called "a counselor in law". It means that an attorney counsels and advises you, helps you to understand your situation better, anticipates any possible future issues or complications, offers guidance, and a long-term strategy and planning for yourself and your family.

Legal advice is never a simple "yes" or "no" answer, it's never "use this form"  or "this is the link where you can find all information and all answers you need". Legal advice or consultation is like going to see a doctor. A doctor will ask you questions, take your vitals and administer necessary tests, then she will be able to diagnose you and offer you an appropriate treatment plan. The same is true about work of a good and ethical attorney. An attorney will have to ask you a number of questions, review your documents and paperwork, and only then she will be able to advise you, and offer you guidance and counsel.

In order to avoid mistakes and future complications, it's smart to consult an attorney before starting any legal, immigrant or visa process. Consultation with knowledgeable and ethical attorney should serve as a preventative measure and a way to establish a roadmap and plan your future.

In over twelve years of practice as an immigration attorney in the United States, I have come across of many unfortunate individuals who got themselves into trouble after reading and following wrong advice on internet forums, listening to their friends, co-workers, relatives and neighbors advice, or paying to complete their "paperwork" to an unlicensed "immigration consultant", or "notario", or "tax preparer", or somebody else who speaks their native language in their immigrant community but has no proper training and is not a licensed attorney. In some of these cases, individual's chances of living in USA legally can be permanently destroyed. Some people can become permanently banned from the United States, no matter how many close family members (wife, kids, parents) and other ties they have in USA. Immigration law is very complex and unforgiving, and non-compliance, fraud or misrepresentation could bring consequences more severe than penalties in an average criminal case. Where a convicted criminal can usually expect to be released from prison after a number of months or years and be reunited with his family, a person who was deported and permanently banned from USA may never be able to reunite with his family and loved ones in the United States. Lack of knowledge or bad advice is not an excuse in immigration law. "Simple mistakes" in immigration law context could be costly and often irreversible.

Do yourself a favor and consult a knowledgeable immigration attorney before filing any applications or petitions with the USCIS Department of Homeland Security, or before submitting any visa applications online. You can also schedule a consultation to seek a second opinion, if not sure that your current or former attorney's advice is correct as applies to you. When you have questions or need legal advice you can email us to schedule a consultation. We will be glad to help you.

(As a practical matter, preliminary injunction means that effective February 18th 2015, there will be no filings under new expanded DACA program, and DAPA is placed on hold. Please be careful as to what applications and forms you file with USCIS. Consult a licensed experienced attorney and verify your eligibility before you apply.)

A Texas Judge has placed a preliminary hold on the two initiatives announced by President Obama last November that would expand the two-year-old Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)  and Deferred Action for Parents of U.S. Citizens and Legal Permanent Residents (DAPA). These two programs would provide temporary relief from deportation to approximately 5 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States.  The order issued overnight, and two days before the government was set to begin the DACA expansion, bars federal immigration officials from implementing “any and all aspects” of these programs. 

The coalition of 26 states, led by Texas and made up of mostly conservative states in the South and Midwest, argues that Obama has violated the "Take Care Clause" of the U.S. Constitution, which they say limits the scope of presidential power, and that his executive actions would be difficult to undo once immigrants started to apply for deferred action. They also say Obama's order would force increased investment in law enforcement, health care and education.

Among those supporting Obama's executive order is a group of 12 states, including Washington and California, as well as the District of Columbia. They filed a motion with the judge in support of Obama, arguing the directives will substantially benefit states and will further the public interest.

A group of law enforcement officials, including the Major Cities Chiefs Association and more than 20 police chiefs and sheriffs from across the country, also filed a motion in support, arguing the executive action will improve public safety by encouraging cooperation between police and individuals with concerns about their immigration status.

Read more at: http://news.yahoo.com/federal-judge-stalls-obamas-executive-action-immigration-052549363.html

*****

On February 17, 2015, USCIS had released their official statement in response to injunction granted by a federal judge in Texas, which effectively put a stop to DACA expansion (which was planned for February 18th 2015) and suspended DAPA (originally planned to start on May 19, 2015).

Since November 2014, USCIS had hired and trained additional 1,000 full-time employees in anticipation of a high volume of DACA and DAPA applications in 2015.

--------------------------
(via email): Statement by Secretary Jeh C. Johnson Concerning the District Court’s Ruling Concerning DAPA and DACA

"I strongly disagree with Judge Hanen’s decision to temporarily enjoin implementation of Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The Department of Justice will appeal that temporary injunction; in the meantime, we recognize we must comply with it.

Accordingly, the Department of Homeland Security will not begin accepting requests for the expansion of DACA tomorrow, February 18, as originally planned. Until further notice, we will also suspend the plan to accept requests for DAPA.

The Department of Justice, legal scholars, immigration experts and even other courts have said that our actions are well within our legal authority. Our actions will also benefit the economy and promote law enforcement. We fully expect to ultimately prevail in the courts, and we will be prepared to implement DAPA and expanded DACA once we do.

It is important to emphasize what the District Court’s order does not affect.

The Court’s order does not affect the existing DACA. Individuals may continue to come forward and request initial grant of DACA or renewal of DACA pursuant to the guidelines established in 2012.

Nor does the Court’s order affect this Department’s ability to set and implement enforcement priorities. The priorities established in my November 20, 2014 memorandum entitled “Policies for the Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants” remain in full force and effect."

-------------------------

USCIS could struggle to process millions of undocumented immigrants who may apply for legal protection under President Barack Obama's recent announcements on immigration, a Senate committee was told on Wednesday.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which handles immigrant visa and naturalization petitions, could be overwhelmed by the surge in workload later this year even if it hires an additional 1,000 workers as planned.

USCIS is expected to receive 4.5 million new DACA and DAPA deferred action applications in the coming months.

Congressional Republicans say Obama has overstepped his constitutional bounds and are trying to pass legislation to block funding for his immigration policies but Democrats in the Senate on Tuesday derailed the Republican effort. As the legislative battle continues, funding for the entire Department of Homeland Security, of which USCIS is a part, runs out at the end of February.

"The administration has informed this committee that it plans to hire 1,000 new workers" to process the applications, Bellocchi said, but "questions immediately surface whether this number will be sufficient without creating extreme backlogs."

He said new workers would have to process and adjudicate 4,500 applications each during the six-month target period. "Including weekends, that would mean 25 to 27 applications per day for 1,000 adjudicators," Bellocchi, who is now an immigration attorney in the private sector, told the committee.

USCIS has roughly 13,000 full-time officers and 5,000 contractors and they handle most applications on paper. Read at: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/04/us-usa-congress-immigration-idUSKBN0L81Q320150204

***Our office is ready to provide legal assistance to DACA and DAPA applicants. 
DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents) is a new deferred action program. It was expected that DAPA application period will open around May 20, 2015. It means that USCIS is not accepting DAPA applications just yet (applications from parents of US citizen children and lawful permanent resident children). You can start work on preparing your supporting documents for USCIS, however, you have to wait to file until USCIS  is ready. New application forms and official guidelines are expected to be released in May 2015. As of February 16, 2015, both expanded DACA and DAPA have been placed on hold until further notice. Avoid notario scam and don't pay anyone to submit your DAPA applications until it's been announced by the USCIS that they start accepting applications. It might be later than May 2015, if a federal case is still pending. If you need help please email an attorney at attorney@law-visa-usa.com .*** 

A group of mayors of led by New York Mayor Bill de Blasio and Los Angeles' Eric Garcetti are coming to the defense of President Barack Obama on immigration.

Twenty-eight (28) mayors have signed on to file an amicus brief this coming Monday in support of Obama's November 2014 executive actions on immigration, which are currently the target of a lawsuit from 25 states, led by Texas. The suit aims to block the president'sdeportation relief policies that will apply to some undocumented young people as well as undocumented parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents -- specifically, allowing them to stay in the country and work legally. Republicans in Congress are likewise seeking to block the programs.

Obama is backed by a dozen states and the District of Columbia, all of which filed an amicus brief earlier this month in support of the executive actions on immigration. The states in that brief were California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington, along with the District of Columbia. Their amicus brief argues that new immigration policies announced by President Obama in November 2014 are legal and will have a positive impact.

The mayors' defense will be similar, arguing that Obama's executive actions serve the public interest. They will ask that the policies be allowed to move forward despite the lawsuit against them. Along with de Blasio and Garcetti, mayors from Washington, D.C., Chicago, Atlanta, Philadelphia, San Francisco and St. Louis were among those who signed on.

The amicus brief comes after a summit de Blasio hosted last month to discuss implementation of Obama's executive actions.

Here's the full list of mayors, according to a press release:

The following Mayors have signed on to the amicus brief:
Mayor Bill de Blasio, New York, New York
Mayor Eric Garcetti, Los Angeles, California
Mayor Kasim Reed, Atlanta, Georgia
Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, Baltimore, Maryland
Mayor Byron Browm, Buffalo, New York
Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Chicago, Illinois
Mayor Steve Benjamin, Columbia, South Carolina
Mayor Nan Whaley, Dayton, Ohio
Mayor Michael Hancock, Denver, Colorado
Mayor Muriel Bowser, Washington, D.C.
Mayor Pedro Segarra, Hartford, Connecticut
Mayor Annise Parker, Houston, Texas
Mayor Steven Fulop, Jersey City, New Jersey
Mayor Paul Soglin, Madison, Wisconsin
Mayor Ras Baraka, Newark, New Jersey
Mayor Michael Nutter, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Mayor Bill Peduto, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Mayor Charles Hales, Portland, Oregon
Mayor John Dickert, Racine, Wisconsin
Mayor Tom Butt, Richmond, California
Mayor Lovely Warren, Rochester, New York
Mayor Ralph Becker, Salt Lake City, Utah
Mayor Ed Lee, San Francisco, California
Mayor Gary McCarthy, Schenectady, New York
Mayor Ed Murray, Seattle, Washington
Mayor Francis Slay, St. Louis, Missouri
Mayor Marilyn Strickland, Tacoma, Washington
Mayor Mike Spano, Yonkers, New York

The following mayors have expressed their support and will sign on to the brief, pending final local approvals:

Mayor Karen Majewski, Hamtramck, Michigan
Mayor Virg Bernero, Lansing, Michigan
Mayor Tom Barrett, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Mayor Betsy Hodges, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Mayor Greg Stanton, Phoenix, Arizona

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/23/mayors-amicus-brief-immigration_n_6532926.html

A U.S. federal judge has decided to make permanent an injunction overturning Arizona’s ban on issuing driver’s licenses to young immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children and granted Deferred Action status under new DACA program started by President Obama in 2012.

Judge issued the permanent injunction on Thursday, citing the “irreparable harm” caused to the young immigrants by not being able to have a license under an executive order issued by former Gov. Jan Brewer. 

In the ruling, Judge Campbell cited examples of penalized immigrants, including one man unable to pursue a career as a firefighter because the local department required a license, and a graphic designer whose days were consumed by commuting by public transportation to meet clients.

These young immigrants, who were brought to the United States as children and grew up here, known as DREAMERS (or DACA grantees), were able to get driver’s licenses for the first time last month, after the United States Supreme Court let stand a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to stay the ban.

Read more at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/23/us/politics/us-judge-says-dreamers-can-keep-drivers-licenses.html

SUMMARY of DACA and DACA Deferred Action Programs based on Obama's November 20, 2014 announcement of Immigration Reform.
(repost from our blog)

President Obama’s Immigration Announcement Includes Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) & Expansion of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). On November 20, 2014, President Obama announced 10 areas where his Administration will modify immigration policy. In general, these reforms fall into three categories: (i) changes to immigration enforcement policy; (ii) deferred action expansion; and (iii) changes to our legal immigration system. This Fact Sheet will focus exclusively on the expansion of deferred action, memorialized in a Memorandum by Jeh Johnson entitled Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children and with Respect to Certain Individuals Whose Parents are U.S. Citizens or Permanent Residents (“Deferred Action Memo”).

Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA):

Deferred action is a temporary protection from deportation. Through it, a person is authorized to remain in the United States temporarily and to receive employment authorization. A grant of deferred action does not provide a path to lawful permanent resident status or U.S. citizenship.

The Deferred Action Memo calls on USCIS to establish a process, similar to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, for granting deferred action to individuals who:
·         Have, as of November 20, 2014, a son or daughter of any age, who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident;
·         Have continuously resided in the United States since before January 1, 2010;
·         Are physically present in the United States on November 20, 2014, and at the time of making a DAPA request;
·         Have no lawful status on November 20, 2014;
·         Are not an enforcement priority, defined as: people suspected of terrorism, gang associations, or visa abusers, unlawful border crossers, and people convicted of felonies, aggravated felonies, significant misdemeanors, or three or more misdemeanors;[1] and
·         Present no other factors that would cause USCIS to deny the request in its exercise of discretion. 

The DAPA process shall be available to people with final orders of removal who meet the above criteria. Applicants must pay a $465 filing fee and submit to biometrics. As with DACA, there will be a very limited fee exemption and no fee waivers. Those who receive deferred action under the DAPA program will receive employment authorization for a three-year period. 

USCIS plans to begin accepting applications for DAPA by May 19, 2015.

The Deferred Action Memo applies to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Those agencies are instructed to exercise discretion for individuals who meet the DAPA criteria, including individuals in immigration custody, in removal proceedings, or whom ICE or CBP encounters.

Expansion of DACA (as of February 16, 2015, it was placed on hold):

Beginning on February 18, 2015, you may request consideration for deferred action under DACA if you:

1. Came to the United States before reaching your 16th birthday;
2. Have continuously resided in the United States since January 1, 2010, up to the present time;
3. Were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making your request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS;
4. Had no lawful status on June 15, 2012, meaning that:

• You never had a lawful immigration status on or before June 15, 2012, or
• Any lawful immigration status or parole that you obtained prior to June 15, 2012, had expired as of June 15, 2012.

1. Are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a General Educational Development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and
2. Have not been convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.

The Deferred Action Memo makes three major modifications to the DACA program:

1.       It removes the age cap. The Deferred Action Memo eliminates the requirement that an individual be under the age of 31 on June 15, 2012.
2.       The start date for the continuous residence period is advanced from June 15, 2007 to January 1, 2010. At this time, to be eligible for DACA an individual must have resided in the United States continuously from January 1, 2010 up to the present.
3.       DACA grants will now last three years instead of two. Effective November 24, 2014, all first-time DACA approvals as well as all DACA renewals shall be effective for three years instead of two.

The rest of the DACA requirements remain the same:

1. Had no lawful status on June 15, 2012, meaning that:

• You never had a lawful immigration status on or before June 15, 2012, or
• Any lawful immigration status or parole that you obtained prior to June 15, 2012, had expired as of June 15, 2012.

1. Are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a General Educational Development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and
2. Have not been convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.

USCIS was planning to begin accepting applications under the new criteria by February 18, 2015. However, on February 16, 2015, a temporary injunction by a federal judge resulted in DACA and DAPA programs being put on hold. Please see our blog for updates.

Although the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has released some information about these programs, we expect DHS will produce detailed explanations and instructions in the coming months. Visit www.uscis.gov and http://www.adminrelief.org/ for more information.

[1] Immigration enforcement priorities include other categories detailed in the Jeh Johnson Memorandum entitled “Policies for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants” (Nov. 20, 2014). Summary from ILRC.

On November 20, 2014, USCIS had published a MEMORANDUM, which can be fund here:
http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14_1120_memo_deferred_action.pdf

USCIS had published FAQs at: 
http://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/consideration-deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-process/frequently-asked-questions

SEATTLE — On January 12, 2015, Attorney General for the state of Washington announced the filing of an amicus curiae — or “friend of the court” — brief in support of the Obama Administration’s recent executive action on immigration policy. The brief was filed in Texas v. United States, a legal challenge by Texas and other states to the President’s legal authority. A preliminary hearing is set in that case for Thursday, January 15.  The Washington State Attorney’s General Office authored the brief, which was joined by the Attorneys General of California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont and the District of Columbia.

“By properly using his authority to set enforcement priorities, the President’s action benefits Washington and other states by improving public safety, keeping families together, and aiding our economy,” said Attorney General Ferguson. “Hard working, tax paying immigrants can now emerge from the shadows.”

In their brief, Washington and the other states argue that, rather than presenting a burden, the Obama Administration’s actions — enabling working families to participate more fully in American society, earn a fair, legal wage and pay their fair share of taxes — benefit the states by raising revenue and reducing demand for social services. 

“The President took necessary and humane steps to help keep families together and provide relief to law-abiding Washington families,” Washington Governor Jay Inslee said. “He acted because Congress has not, and Washington state and the rest of the country should not have to wait any longer for sensible immigration reform.  I applaud the Attorney General’s effort to set the record straight about the President’s authority to pursue commonsense executive action.”

The brief can be found here.

The Center for American Progress estimates that Washington’s tax revenues will grow by $57 million over the next five years as the result of the Administration’s policies. Tax receipts in Texas — one of the plaintiff states challenging the President’s authority — could increase by $338 million over the same period.

Because states will actually benefit from the President’s action, the filing asserts, the plaintiff states challenging the President’s decision cannot meet their burden of showing an irreparable harm. As such, they have not met the standard for the immediate injunctive relief they seek. 

The brief, filed today in The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, also argues that the plaintiff states fail the other applicable legal tests for injunctive relief: a likelihood of success on the merits of the case, whether the potential harm to the plaintiffs outweighs the burden imposed by the requested injunction, and whether the injunction is in the public interest.

The hearing is set for Thursday, January 15, 2015, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Brownsville Division.

Washington State Attorney General Ferguson spearheads legal brief in support of Obama Administration’s action on immigration.

Read at http://www.atg.wa.gov/pressrelease.aspx?&id=32511#.VLbtCivF-Dq