Category: Enforcement

New: USCIS to Remind About I-864 Affidavit of Support at Green Card Interview

7/1/2019

On June 14, 2019, USCIS announced the implementation of the “Presidential Memorandum on Enforcing the Legal Responsibilities of Sponsors of Aliens,” issued May 23, 2019.

Now, USCIS officers are required to remind applicants and their petitioners at the adjustment of status (aka green card) interviews of their sponsors’ responsibilities:

Officers must remind applicants and sponsors that the Affidavit of Support is a legal and enforceable contract between the sponsor and the federal government, and that the sponsor must be willing and able to financially support the intending immigrant.
If the sponsored immigrant receives any federal means-tested public benefits, the sponsor “will be expected to reimburse the benefits-granting agency for every dollar of benefits received by the immigrant,” USCIS said.

USCIS announcement is here; Presidential Memorandum is here.

DHS has revised the definition of “public charge” to incorporate consideration of more kinds of public benefits received, which the Department believes will better ensure that applicants subject to the public charge inadmissibility ground are self-sufficient. The rule defines the term “public charge” to mean an individual who receives one or more designated public benefits for more than 12 months, in the aggregate, within any 36-month period (such that, for instance, receipt of two benefits in one month counts as two months). The rule further defines the term “public benefit” to include any cash benefits for income maintenance, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), most forms of Medicaid, and certain housing programs.
The regulation also excludes from the public benefits definition: public benefits received by individuals who are serving in active duty or in the Ready Reserve component of the U.S. armed forces, and their spouses and children; public benefits received by certain international adoptees and children acquiring U.S. citizenship; Medicaid for aliens under 21 and pregnant women; Medicaid for school-based services (including services provided under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act); and Medicaid benefits for emergency medical services.
This rule also makes certain nonimmigrant aliens in the United States who have received designated public benefits above the designated threshold ineligible for change of status and extension of stay if they received the benefits after obtaining the nonimmigrant status they seek to extend or from which they seek to change.
Importantly, this regulation does not apply to humanitarian-based immigration programs for refugees, asylees, Special Immigrant Juveniles (SIJs), certain trafficking victims (T nonimmigrants), victims of qualifying criminal activity (U nonimmigrants), or victims of domestic violence (VAWA self-petitioners), among others.
This rule also explains how USCIS will exercise its discretionary authority, in limited circumstances, to offer an alien inadmissible only on the public charge ground the opportunity to post a public charge bond. The final rule sets the minimum bond amount at $8,100; the actual bond amount will be dependent on the individual’s circumstances.
This final rule supersedes the 1999 Interim Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds and goes into effect at 12:00 a.m. Eastern on Oct. 15, 2019, 60 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register. USCIS will apply the public charge inadmissibility final rule only to applications and petitions postmarked (or, if applicable, submitted electronically) on or after the effective date. Applications and petitions already pending with USCIS on the effective date of the rule (postmarked and accepted by USCIS) will be adjudicated based on the 1999 Interim Guidance.

0 Comments

I-864 Affidavit of Support Creates Enforceable Contract Between Sponsor and Immigrant: Effect of Divorce

8/21/2017

0 Comments

On July 28, 2017, the California Court of Appeal, ruled that the USCIS form I-864, Affidavit of Support, creates an enforceable CONTRACT between the sponsor and an immigrant.

In Re Kumar case, an immigrant spouse asked court to enforce her right for support from her US citizen sponsor (spouse), based on the Form I-864, Affidavit of Support (“Form I-864”) that her U.S. spouse submitted to the U.S. federal government in connection with the Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative he filed on her behalf.

The court held: "We hold that an immigrant spouse has standing to enforce the support obligation created by an I–864 affidavit in state court. We further hold that an immigrant spouse bringing such a claim has no duty to mitigate damages. Because the trial court's ruling in this matter conflicts with our holdings, we reverse. We remand to the trial court to consider the immigrant spouse's contract claim in accordance with this decision."

Facts: US citizen spouse filed a form I–130 immigration visa petition for alien relative on behalf of his foreign wife, and the petition was approved. In connection with bringing his new wife to the United States, he signed a form I–864 affidavit of support (I–864 affidavit) and submitted it to the federal government. The purpose of an I–864 affidavit is “to ensure that an immigrant does not become a public charge.” (Younis v. Farooqi (D.Md. 2009) 597 F.Supp.2d 552, 557, fn. 5.)

”Under the heading “Part 8. Sponsor's Contract,” the I–864 affidavit signed by the sponsor gave the following warning: “Please note that, by signing this Form I–864, you agree to assume certain specific obligations under the Immigration and Nationality Act and other Federal laws.” On the same page, the affidavit explained that, by signing the affidavit, the sponsor agreed to “provide the intending immigrant any support necessary to maintain him or her at an income that is at least 125 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines for his or her household size ․” The affidavit further stated, “If you do not provide sufficient support to the person who becomes a permanent resident based on the Form I–864 that you signed, that person may sue you for this support.”

This continues recent court rulings which have expanded the scope of liability for family-based immigration sponsors through the Form I-864, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit did in June 2017.

The purpose of a Form I-864 is to ensure that an immigrant does not become a “public charge” and receive certain publicly funded benefits that would render that immigrant inadmissible under INA § 212(a)(4).

A Form I-864 is required for most family-based immigrants and some employment-based immigrants to show that they have adequate means of financial support and are not likely to rely on the U.S. government for financial support. A sponsor must show on a Form I-864 that he/she has income and/or assets to maintain the intending immigrant(s) and the rest of his/her household at 125 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines.

As indicated in the instructions of the Form I-864, the affidavit of support is a contract between a sponsor and the U.S. Government. However, Part 8 of the Form I-864 states that “if an intending immigrant becomes a lawful permanent resident in the United States based on a Form I-864 that you have signed, then, until your obligations under Form I-864 terminate, you must [p]provide the intending immigrant any support necessary to maintain him or her at an income that is at least 125 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines for his or her household size.”

In Re Kumar case, the California Court of Appeal looked to the statute, applicable regulations, the actual Form I-864 signed by the U.S. citizen, and federal and other state’s court’s opinions to guide its ruling. In particular, the court cited 8 C.F.R. § 213a.2(c)(2)(i)(C)(2), a federal regulation which provides that
“The intending immigrants and any Federal, state, or local agency or private entity that provides a means-tested public benefit to an intending immigrant are third party beneficiaries of the contract between the sponsor and the other individual or individuals on whose income the sponsor relies and may bring an action to enforce the contract in the same manner as third party beneficiaries of other contracts.”

Additionally, the court ruled that an immigrant spouse seeking to enforce the support obligation of Form I-864 has no duty to seek employment to mitigate damages. The court used the plain language at 8 U.S.C. § 1183a(a) and the rationale included in the case Liu v. Mund, 686 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 2012) to rule that “an alien’s failing to seek work or otherwise failing to mitigate his or her damages” is not an “excusing condition” of the sponsor’s obligations under the Form I-864.

In response to this case, it is important that U.S. sponsors or immigrants speak with experienced U.S. immigration attorney about the affidavit of support issue before signing any divorce documents. It is important to remember that:
*** the Affidavit of Support obligations don't end with divorce.
***Joint sponsor's obligations don't end with divorce, as well.
***An immigrant doesn't have to work or seek employment in order to mitigate sponsor's obligation of support.
***Sponsor's obligations end, for example, when an immigrant becomes a naturalized U.S. citizen, so it might be in sponsor's interests to ensure that a former spouse becomes a US citizen in order to end his or her financial support.

0 Comments

Unaccompanied Minors or UAC & New Executive Orders: Guidance as of March 2017

3/22/2017

0 Comments

Starting in January 2017, a new administration has issued multiple immigration-related Executive Orders and implementing memoranda.

These orders and memoranda touch on nearly all areas of immigration enforcement, including the treatment of immigrant children.

March 2017 ILRC guidance addresses possible ways that UACs may be affected by these changes.

We do not know how these policies will play out in practice, and there will likely be legal and advocacy challenges to their implementation.

Limiting Who Can Be Considered a UAC.

UAC is defined as a child who:

1) has no immigration status in the U.S.;

2) is under 18 years old; and

3) has no parent or legal guardian in the U.S., or no parent or legal guardian in the U.S. who is available to provide care and physical custody.

When children from non-contiguous countries are apprehended by Customs & Border Protection (CBP) or Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE), those agencies must notify the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) within 48 hours, and transfer the child to HHS within 72 hours of determining them to be a UAC.

Such notice and transfer are also required for UACs from contiguous countries, provided that they trigger trafficking or asylum concerns or are unable to make an independent decision to withdraw their application for admission.

Many UACs are apprehended by CBP at the border, such that even those who do have parent(s) in the U.S. typically do not have parents that are “available to provide care and physical custody” in the short time in which CBP must determine if the child meets the UAC definition. Because of this, some children are classified as UACs even though they have a parent in the U.S., consistent with the definition’s disjunctive third prong.

Under previous USCIS guidance and practice, once a child is classified as a UAC, the child continues to be treated as a UAC, regardless of whether they continue to meet the definition. The UAC designation is generally beneficial because the law provides for more child-friendly standards for UACs. In an apparent effort to limit the number of youth who are classified as UACs, the Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) Memorandum implementing the recent Executive Order on border enforcement (“Border Enforcement Memo”) directs U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS), CBP, and ICE to develop “uniform written guidance and training” on who should be classified as a UAC, and when and how that classification should be reassessed.5 This guidance has not yet been developed.

But we anticipate that we may see any or all of the following changes:

-- Fewer children being classified as UACs upon apprehension. This could result in these children being subject to expedited removal (fast-track deportation without seeing an Immigration Judge), rather than being placed in removal proceedings under INA § 240, as the law requires for all UACs from non-contiguous countries and those who pass the screening from contiguous countries.

-- This could also result in more children being detained by DHS in detention centers rather than by HHS in less restrictive settings.

-- Children who are initially classified as UACs being stripped of that designation—formally or informally--once they turn 18 and/or reunify with a parent and/or obtain a legal guardian.

Federal law offers certain benefits to UACs. Losing that designation may deprive the affected children of those protections, meaning that they may:
1) no longer be able to avail themselves of the provision of law that allows UACs to file their asylum applications with USCIS in a non-adversarial setting despite being in removal proceedings;
2) be subject to expedited removal after being released from HHS custody rather than being placed in removal proceedings under INA § 240;
3) not receive post release services from HHS;
4) no longer be eligible for certain government-funded legal representation programs for UACs; and
5) no longer be eligible for voluntary departure at no cost.

Punishing Sponsors & Family Members of UACs

The Border Enforcement Memo also seeks to penalize parents, family members, and any other individual who “directly or indirectly . . . facilitates the smuggling or trafficking of an alien child into the U.S.” This could include persons who help to arrange the child’s travel to the U.S., help pay for a guide for the child from their home country to the U.S., or otherwise encourage the child to enter the U.S.10 Pursuant to the Border Enforcement Memo, enforcement against parents, family members or other individuals involved in the child’s unlawful entry into the U.S. could include (but is not limited to) placing such person in removal proceedings if they are removable, or referring them for criminal prosecution. We do not know how this provision will play out in practice.

But even the inclusion of this language in the memo may cause panic and dissuade parents, family members or other adults from 1) sending children to the U.S. (typically done when children face imminent harm in their home country); 2) sponsoring children out of HHS custody once they are in the U.S.; 3) assisting in children’s applications for immigration relief, including asylum; 4) otherwise assisting children in fighting against deportation.

Criminalizing Young People

Under the DHS memo implementing the Executive Order on interior enforcement, DHS’s enforcement priorities have been vastly expanded. While DHS previously focused its resources on removing people with serious criminal convictions, now DHS will take action to deport anyone it considers a “criminal alien.” The current administration’s definition of a criminal alien is incredibly broad, including people with criminal convictions, but also those charged with criminal offenses, or who have committed acts that could constitute a criminal offense.

Immigration law has long treated juvenile delinquency differently than criminal convictions, and that law is unchanged. However, it is unclear given the broad scope of the new enforcement plan whether delinquency will be considered a “criminal offense” and thus a priority for purposes of enforcement (even though it may not make a person inadmissible or deportable under the immigration laws). It remains to be seen how these expanded enforcement priorities will play out.

See a new March 2017 guidance here.

0 Comments

DHS Publishes List of Jurisdictions Sanctuary Cities That Rejected ICE Immigrant Detainer Requests

3/20/2017

0 Comments

On Monday, March 20, 2017, The Department of Homeland Security made good on a current administration's promise to publicly shame cities and counties that don't cooperate with federal immigration authorities, and to publish a list of Sanctuary Cities and Counties. The administration also stated that sanctuary jurisdictions will be denied federal funding.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, released its first weekly list of local jails and jurisdictions that haven't honored so-called immigrant detainer requests.

Detainer requests on behalf of ICE go to cities and counties asking that local law enforcement hold an inmate who is in the country illegally and has been arrested or charged with a crime. The intent is to have such prisoners detained for up to 48 hours so that federal officials can decide whether to pick them up and deport them.

Such cities and counties, commonly described as "sanctuary jurisdictions," may not cooperate with the detainer requests for a variety of reasons. Some say that cooperating can undermine local trust in the police if immigrants are afraid that reporting a crime will result in their own deportation. Other jurisdictions cite court rulings that have cast doubt on the constitutionality of the detainers.

The list published today covers the period from January 28 to February 3, 2017. It comes during the week following President's executive order on the interior enforcement of the nation's immigration laws. The order directed DHS to compile and publicize a list "of criminal actions committed by aliens" and identify any jurisdiction that ignored any federal detainer requests.

The list covers the cases of 206 unnamed individuals who ICE says committed "notable criminal activity" and the jails from which they were released. (206 of ignored detainers represent less than 10 percent of the 3,083 detainer requests that were issued nationwide.)

The vast majority of the offenders are from Mexico and Central America. The jurisdictions listed include Los Angeles, Colorado, New York and Travis County, Texas.

ICE sanctuary jurisdictions list can be found here.

ICE Immigration Detainer to a local law enforcement is a request for a voluntary action

0 Comments

DHS USCIS Memos: New Border and Interior Enforcement Immigration Policies

2/21/2017

0 Comments

Image by Bryan Cox via AP

On February 20 and 21, 2017, DHS USCIS had published several Memorandums, Fact Sheets and Q&As at their official website, explaining changed border and interior immigration policies and priorities, following the executive branch's January 2017 executive orders.

Two USCIS Memorandums, both dated February 20, 2017, and signed by the DHS Secretary John Kelly, authorize CBP, ICE and USCIS to significantly increase interior and border enforcement efforts:

Border protection and enforcement, building the wall and hiring at least 10,000 more ICE agents; expedited removal will apply to a broader class of undocumented immigrants; changes to asylum application process and credible fear interview, intended to make it more difficult to get a grant of asylum; criminal sanctions for parents of unaccompanied children; anyone present in USA without a proper visa or status will be subject to deportation; changing old DHS removal priorities from criminal aliens to all undocumented aliens; DACA grantees are safe from deportation at present time.

Actions (Fact Sheet, 02/21/2017, Executive Order: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements ):

Enforcing the law. Under this executive order, with extremely limited exceptions, DHS will not exempt classes or categories of removal aliens from potential enforcement. All of those in violation of the immigration laws may be subject to enforcement proceedings, up to and including removal from the United States. The guidance makes clear, however, that ICE should prioritize several categories of removable aliens who have committed crimes, beginning with those convicted of a criminal offense.
Establishing policies regarding the apprehension and detention of aliens. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will release aliens from custody only under limited circumstances, such as when removing them from the country, when an alien obtains an order granting relief by statute, when it is determined that the alien is a U.S. citizen, legal permanent resident, refugee, or asylee, or that the alien holds another protected status, when an arriving alien has been found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture and the alien satisfactorily establishes his identity and that he is not a security or flight risk, or when otherwise required to do so by statute or order by a competent judicial or administrative authority.
Hiring more CBP agents and officers. CBP will immediately begin the process of hiring 5,000 additional Border Patrol agents, as well as 500 Air & Marine agents and officers, while ensuring consistency in training and standards.
Identifying and quantifying sources of aid to Mexico. The President has directed the heads of all executive departments to identify and quantify all sources of direct and indirect federal aid or assistance to the government of Mexico. DHS will identify all sources of aid for each of the last five fiscal years.
Expansion of the 287(g) program in the border region. Section 287(g) of the INA authorizes written agreements with a state or political subdivision to authorize qualified officers or employees to perform the functions of an immigration officer. Empowering state and local law enforcement agencies to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law is critical to an effective enforcement strategy, and CBP and ICE will work with interested and eligible jurisdictions.
Commissioning a comprehensive study of border security. DHS will conduct a comprehensive study of the security of the southern border (air, land, and maritime) to identify vulnerabilities and provide recommendations to enhance border security. This will include all aspects of the current border security environment, including the availability of federal and state resources to develop and implement an effective border security strategy that will achieve complete operational control of the border.
Constructing and funding a border wall. DHS will immediately identify and allocate all sources of available funding for the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of a wall, including the attendant lighting, technology (including sensors), as well as patrol and access roads, and develop requirements for total ownership cost of this project.
Expanding expedited removal. The DHS Secretary has the authority to apply expedited removal provisions to aliens who have not been admitted or paroled into the United States, who are inadmissible, and who have not been continuously physically present in the United States for the two-year period immediately prior to the determination of their inadmissibility, so that such aliens are immediately removed unless the alien is an unaccompanied minor, intends to apply for asylum or has a fear of persecution or torture in their home country, or claims to have lawful immigration status. To date, expedited removal has been exercised only for aliens encountered within 100 air miles of the border and 14 days of entry, and aliens who arrived in the United States by sea other than at a port of entry. The Department will publish in the Federal Register a new Notice Designating Aliens Subject to Expedited Removal Under Section 235(b)(1)(a)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act that expands the category of aliens subject to expedited removal to the extent the DHS Secretary determines is appropriate, and CBP and ICE are directed to conform the use of expedited removal procedures to the designations made in this notice upon its publication.
Returning aliens to contiguous countries. When aliens apprehended do not pose a risk of a subsequent illegal entry, returning them to the foreign contiguous territory from which they arrived, pending the outcome of removal proceedings, saves DHS detention and adjudication resources for other priority aliens. CBP and ICE personnel shall, to the extent lawful, appropriate and reasonably practicable, return such aliens to such territories pending their hearings.
Enhancing Asylum Referrals and Credible Fear Determinations. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officers will conduct credible fear interviews in a manner that allows the interviewing officer to elicit all relevant information from the alien as is necessary to make a legally sufficient determination. USCIS will also increase the operational capacity of the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate.
Allocating resources and personnel to the southern border for detention of aliens and adjudication of claims. CBP and ICE will allocate available resources to expand detention capabilities and capacities at or near the border with Mexico to the greatest extent practicable. CBP will focus on short-term detention of 72 hours or less; ICE will focus on all other detention capabilities.
Properly using parole authority. Parole into the United States will be used sparingly and only in cases where, after careful consideration of the circumstances, parole is needed because of demonstrated urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. Notwithstanding other more general implementation guidance, and pending further review by the Secretary and further guidance from the Director of ICE, the ICE policy directive with respect to parole for certain arriving aliens found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture shall remain in full force and effect.
Processing and treatment of unaccompanied alien minors encountered at the border. CBP, ICE, and USCIS will establish standardized review procedures to confirm that alien children who are initially determined to be unaccompanied alien children continue to fall within the statutory definition when being considered for the legal protections afforded to such children as they go through the removal process.
Putting into place accountability measures to protect alien children from exploitation and prevent abuses of immigration laws. The smuggling or trafficking of alien children into the United States puts those children at grave risk of violence and sexual exploitation. CBP and ICE will ensure the proper enforcement of our immigration laws against those who facilitate such smuggling or trafficking.
Prioritizing criminal prosecutions for immigration offenses committed at the border. To counter the ongoing threat to the security of the southern border, the directors of the Joint Task Forces-West, -East, and -Investigations, as well as the ICE-led Border Enforcement Security Task Forces (BESTs), are directed to plan and implement enhanced counter-network operations directed at disrupting transnational criminal organizations, focused on those involved in human smuggling.
Public Reporting of Border Apprehensions Data. In order to promote transparency, CBP and ICE will develop a standardized method for public reporting of statistical data regarding aliens apprehended at or near the border for violating the immigration law.

Actions (Fact Sheet, 02/21/2017: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States)

Enforcing the law. Under this executive order, with extremely limited exceptions, DHS will not exempt classes or categories of removal aliens from potential enforcement. All of those in violation of the immigration laws may be subject to enforcement proceedings, up to and including removal from the United States. The guidance makes clear, however, that ICE should prioritize several categories of removable aliens who have committed crimes, beginning with those convicted of a criminal offense.
The Department’s Enforcement Priorities. Congress has defined the Department’s role and responsibilities regarding the enforcement of the immigration laws of the United States. Effective immediately, and consistent with Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution and Section 3331 of Title 5, U.S. Code, Department personnel shall faithfully execute the immigration laws of the United States against all removable aliens.
Strengthening Programs to Facilitate the Efficient and Faithful Execution of the Immigration Laws of the United States. Facilitating the efficient and faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States—and prioritizing the Department’s resources—requires the use of all available systems and enforcement tools by Department personnel.
Exercise of Prosecutorial Discretion. Unless otherwise directed, Department personnel may initiate enforcement actions against removable aliens encountered during the performance of their official duties. Department personnel should act consistently with the President’s enforcement priorities as identified in his executive order and any further guidance issued by the director of ICE, the commissioner of CBP, and the director of USCIS prioritizing the removal of particularly dangerous aliens, such as convicted felons, gang members, and drug traffickers.
Establishing the Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE) Office. The Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE) Office within the Office of the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will create a programmatic liaison between ICE and the known victims of crimes committed by removable aliens. The liaison will facilitate engagement with the victims and their families to ensure, to the extent permitted by law, that they are provided with information about the offender, including the offender’s immigration status and custody status, and that their questions and concerns regarding immigration enforcement efforts are addressed.
Hiring Additional ICE Officers and Agents. To effectively enforce the immigration laws in the interior of the United States in accordance with the president’s directives, additional ICE agents and officers are necessary. The director of ICE shall—while ensuring consistency in training and standards—take all appropriate action to expeditiously hire 10,000 agents and officers, as well as additional mission support and legal staff necessary to support their activities.
Establishment of Programs to Collect Authorized Civil Fines and Penalties. As soon as practicable, the director of ICE, the commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) shall issue guidance and promulgate regulations, where required by law, to ensure the assessment and collection of all fines and penalties for which the Department is authorized under the law to assess and collect from removable aliens and from those who facilitate their unlawful presence in the United States.
Aligning the Department’s Privacy Policies with the Law. The Department will no longer afford Privacy Act rights and protections to persons who are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents.
Collecting and Reporting Data on Alien Apprehensions and Releases. The collection of data regarding aliens apprehended by ICE and the disposition of their cases will assist in the development of agency performance metrics and provide transparency in the immigration enforcement mission.
No Private Right of Action. This document provides only internal DHS policy guidance, which may be modified, rescinded, or superseded at any time without notice.

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS.

Q20: How does the expansion of expedited removal account for those who may be eligible for immigration benefits?
A20: The Secretary’s intentions regarding expedited removal are under development and will be set forth and effective upon publication of a notice in the Federal Register.
Q21: How soon will DHS make changes to more closely align its use of the expedited removal authority with Congressional intent?
A21: DHS is working to issue appropriate parameters in which expedited removal in these kinds of cases will be used.

Q22: Is it true that DHS is going to make the threshold for meeting credible fear in asylum cases more difficult to meet?
A22: The goal of DHS is to ensure the asylum process is not abused. Generally speaking, to establish a credible fear of persecution, an alien must demonstrate that there is a “significant possibility” that the alien could establish eligibility for asylum, taking into account the credibility of the statements made by the alien in support of the claim and such other facts as are known to the officer.
Asylum officers are being directed to conduct credible fear interviews in a manner that allows the interviewing officer to elicit all relevant information from the alien as is necessary to make a legally sufficient determination. In determining whether the alien has demonstrated a significant possibility that the alien could establish eligibility for asylum or torture protection, the asylum officer shall consider the statements of the alien and determine the credibility of the alien’s statements made in support of his or her claim and shall consider other facts known to the officer, consistent with the statute.

Q23: How will the enhancements to asylum referrals and credible fear determinations under INA section 235(b)(1) affect the work of USCIS?
A23: The Secretary’s memorandum outlines several points:

The director of USCIS shall ensure that asylum officers conduct credible fear interviews in a manner that allows the interviewing officer to elicit all relevant information from the alien as is necessary to make a legally sufficient determination.
The director shall also increase the operational capacity of Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) and continue to strengthen its integration to support the Field Operations Directorate (FOD), Refugee Asylum and International Operations (RAIO), and Service Center Operations (SCOPS), consulting with Operational Policy and Strategy (OP&S) as appropriate.
The USCIS director, CBP commissioner, and ICE director shall review their agencies’ fraud detection, deterrence, and prevention measures and report to the Secretary within 90 days regarding fraud vulnerabilities in the asylum and benefits adjudication processes, and propose measures to enhance fraud detection, deterrence, and prevention.
The asylum officer, as part of making a credible fear finding, shall determine the credibility of statements made by the individual in support of his or her claim. This determination should include, but is not limited to, consideration of the statistical likelihood that the claim would be granted by the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).
The asylum officer shall make a positive credible fear finding only after the officer has considered all relevant evidence and determined, based on credible evidence, that the alien has a significant possibility of establishing eligibility for asylum, or for withholding or deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture, based on established legal authority.

Q25: Is it true that in cases of UACs (unaccompanied children) who travel to the U.S. to reunite with a parent, if a parent is identified by ORR as an appropriate guardian, that parent could also be prosecuted for possibly having their child smuggled into the U.S.?

A25: Correct. The parents and family members of these children, who are often illegally present in the United States, often pay smugglers several thousand dollars to bring their children into this country. Tragically, many of these children fall victim to robbery, extortion, kidnapping, sexual assault, and other crimes of violence by the smugglers and other criminal elements along the dangerous journey through Mexico to the United States. Regardless of the desires for family reunification, or conditions in other countries, the smuggling or trafficking of alien children is intolerable. Accordingly, DHS shall ensure the proper enforcement of our immigration laws against those who—directly or indirectly—facilitate the smuggling or trafficking of alien children into the United States. This includes placing parents or guardian who are removable aliens into removal proceedings, or referring such individuals for criminal prosecution, as appropriate.
and report to the Secretary within 90 days regarding fraud vulnerabilities in the asylum and benefits adjudication processes, and propose measures to enhance fraud detection, deterrence, and prevention.

Q12: Will ICE still be hiring the 10,000 officers called for in the executive orders?
A12: ICE is currently developing a hiring plan.

Q13: What is the 287(g) program and how will it be used by ICE?A13: The 287(g) program allows local law enforcement agencies to participate as an active partner in identifying criminal aliens in their custody, and placing ICE detainers on these individuals. ... To strengthen the 287(g) program, ICE field leadership has begun examining local operational needs and liaising with potential 287(g) partners and will collaborate with CBP in these efforts. Existing 287(g) applications are also undergoing an expedited review process.

Q14: Are 287(g) officers now going to do ICE’s job?A14: The 287(g) program, one of ICE’s top partnership initiatives, enables state and local law enforcement agencies to enter into a partnership with ICE, under a joint memorandum of agreement. The state or local entity receives delegated authority for immigration enforcement within their jurisdictions.

Q15: When will 287(g) task force agreements be available to local jurisdictions? Will these new task force agreements be modeled after the previously canceled task force model?A15: ICE and CBP will be is developing a strategy to further expand the 287(g) Program, to include types of 287(g) programs, locations, and recruitment strategies. ... Existing 287(g) applications are also undergoing an expedited review process. ...

Q16: How will ICE accommodate an immigration judge in each of its facilities? How about asylum officers?A16: ICE is working with the Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to review current procedures and resources in order to identify efficiencies and best practices to improve the system. Most dedicated detention facilities already house immigration courts and have enough space to accommodate asylum officers. ICE is also seeking to increase the use of technology, mainly through the use of video teleconferencing, in locations with insufficient space or staffing.

Q&A: DHS Implementation of the Executive Order on Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States Release Date: February 21, 2017

Q2: How is ICE conducting interior enforcement operations based on this executive order?A2: Effective immediately, ICE will direct its personnel as well as its state and local partners through the 287(g) program to apply the enforcement priorities stated in Executive Order No. 13768.
To that end, within 180 days, ICE will carry out a number of actions to implement the enforcement priorities stated in the executive order. Some of those actions include, but are not limited to, conducting targeted enforcement operations and allocating resources to work in jurisdictions with violent crime tied to gang activities.

Q3: Does this new memoranda substantively change the authority of immigration enforcement officers throughout DHS to exercise traditional law enforcement discretion?A3: DHS officers and agents maintain discretion to determine which action(s) to take against removable aliens, but they have been provided with additional guidance by the president and secretary.

Q5: What are ICE’s priorities under this executive order?A5: Under this Executive Order, ICE will not exempt classes or categories of removal aliens from potential enforcement. All of those in violation of the immigration laws may be subject to immigration arrest, detention and, if found removable by final order, removal from the United States.

Q14: When is the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) being terminated (Previous Administration's policy)?
A14: ICE has terminated the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) and restored Secure Communities, directing its personnel to take enforcement action consistent with the priorities set forth in the executive orders.

Q18: What threshold of abuse of a public benefit program will render someone removable?
A18: Those who have knowingly defrauded the government or a public benefit system will be priority enforcement targets.

Q22: Do these memoranda affect recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)?
A22: No. (Presently, new immigration enforcement policies do not affect DACA grantees. However, there have been recent arrests of DACA grantees)

0 Comments

TSA Notifies of Upcoming January 2018 REAL ID Airport Enforcement

1/19/2017

0 Comments

TSA to Notify Travelers of Upcoming 2018 REAL ID Airport Enforcement.

Beginning January 22, 2018 TSA will start enforcing REAL ID requirements at all airport security checkpoints, meaning that travelers seeking to use their state-issued driver’s license or identification card for boarding commercial aircraft may only use such documents if they are issued by a REAL ID compliant state or a non-compliant state with an extension.

Effective January 22, 2018, TSA will only accept state-issued driver’s licenses or identification cards if they are issued by a REAL ID compliant state or a non-compliant state with an extension. As always, travelers may use alternate forms of identification such as a passport, military ID, or permanent resident card. A complete list of identification documents accepted at TSA checkpoints is available on tsa.gov and at dhs.gov here.

The REAL ID Act, passed by Congress in 2005, establishes the minimum security standards for state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards.

List of acceptable ID documents:

IdentificationAdult passengers 18 and over must show valid identification at the airport checkpoint in order to travel. TSA does not require children under 18 to provide identification when traveling with a companion within the United States. Contact the airline for questions regarding specific ID requirements for travelers under 18.

Driver's licenses or other state photo identity cards issued by Department of Motor Vehicles (or equivalent)
U.S. passport
U.S. passport card
DHS trusted traveler cards (Global Entry, NEXUS, SENTRI, FAST)
U.S. military ID (active duty or retired military and their dependents, and DoD civilians)
Permanent resident card
Border crossing card
DHS-designated enhanced driver's license
Airline or airport-issued ID (if issued under a TSA-approved security plan)
Federally recognized, tribal-issued photo ID
HSPD-12 PIV card
Foreign government-issued passport
Canadian provincial driver's license or Indian and Northern Affairs Canada card
Transportation worker identification credential
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Employment Authorization Card (I-766), work permit
U.S. Merchant Mariner Credential

ID requirements at the checkpoint will change beginning Jan. 22, 2018.
You can check if your state and your driver's license is in compliance with federal Real ID Act here.

Briefly in Russian:

Сегодня TSA напомнила, что начиная с 22 января 2018 года в аэропортах в США TSA будут принимать только те водительские права, которые выданы штатами США, полностью в соответствии с требованиями закона Real ID Act или теми штатами, кторые получили отсрочку.

Некоторые штаты США до сих пор выдают водительские права, которые не соответствуют требованиям этого закона. Тем кто путешествуют по таким "несоответствующим" водительским правам после 22 января 2018 г будет отказано в посадке на рейс в аэророрту.

Список штатов, водительские права которых соответствуют Real ID Act, штатов, которые получили отсрочку, или штатов, которые до сих пор не соответствуют закону - тут по ссылке.

0 Comments

New: USCIS to Remind About I-864 Affidavit of Support at Green Card Interview

I-864 Affidavit of Support Creates Enforceable Contract Between Sponsor and Immigrant: Effect of Divorce

Unaccompanied Minors or UAC & New Executive Orders: Guidance as of March 2017

DHS Publishes List of Jurisdictions Sanctuary Cities That Rejected ICE Immigrant Detainer Requests

DHS USCIS Memos: New Border and Interior Enforcement Immigration Policies

TSA Notifies of Upcoming January 2018 REAL ID Airport Enforcement

Author

Archives

Categories