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

DACA: Current Status and Options, February 2017

2/3/2017

President Trump said during his election campaign that he would terminate the DACA program. He has not terminated DACA program yet, so DACA is still available and the government is still accepting and approving DACA initial and renewal applications.

However, the DACA program could be terminated at any time.

Although the DACA is still currently available, applying now is risky. Initial applications take several months to be processed, so a new application will most likely not be approved before the DACA program is changed or terminated. Therefore, you may lose your application $495 fee. Furthermore, you risk exposure to immigration authorities by sending them your personal data.

DACA Renewals – Recommended for Certain Applicants.

Advance Parole – Not Recommended.

Here is a PDF 3-page DACA advisory from ILRC.

Practice Advisory in Russian: Executive Orders on Immigration: ПРАКТИЧЕСКИЕ СОВЕТЫ

2/1/2017

ПРАКТИЧЕСКИЕ СОВЕТЫ: ЗНАЙ СВОИ ПРАВА И КРАТКИЙ ОБЗОР УКАЗОВ ПРЕЗИДЕНТА ОБ ИММИГРАЦИИ ОТ 25 И 27 ЯНВАРЯ 2017.

****************************************************************************************************************
Ситуация с указами президента меняется каждый день: помните, что информация и законодательство постоянно обновляются, и мы не в состоянии вовремя опубликовать изменения и дополнения на этом блоге. Если вам нужен юридический совет адвоката, свяжитесь с нами по электронной почте и мы договоримся о дате и времени консультации по телефону или через скайп.

После решения федерального судьи о том, что некоторые положения указа президента должны быть приостановлены от 3 февраля 2017, 4 февраля DHS, USCIS, CBP, ICE DOS и все другие департаменты и агенства официально заявили, что они возвращаются к старым процедурам, как это было в силе до подписания указа. И пока указ президента находится на рассмотрении в суде, они не будут его применять.
****************************************************************************************************************

25 и 27 января 2017 Президент США Трамп подписал три важных указа, касающихся иммиграции, виз и национальной безопасности страны.

Полный текст этих указов можно прочитать по линкам:

Указ номер 1 касается постройки стены на границе между США и Мексикой.

Указ номер 2 касается новых приоритетов в депортации из США, а также изменения во взаимоотношении федерального правительства и так называемых "sanctuary cities", городов, не выдающих нелегальных иммигрантов. Если такие города будут отказываться сотрудничать с федеральными орнанами, и не согласятся передавать им информацию о нелегалах, федеральное правительство угрожает отменой федерального финансирования для некоторых программ. Следует помнить, что это касается только тех программ, которые финансируются федералным правительством США, так как большая часть программ в любом штате финансируется за счет бюджета штата.

Указ номер 3 был подписан и вступил в силу 27 января 2017, и получил самую большую огласку и вызвал шквал негодования и возмущения граждан и политиков как в нутри США, так и за пределами. Указ предусматривает следующее: (1) вводится временный на 90 дней запрет на въезд в США лиц имеющих отношение к семи исламским странам Ближнего Востока (указ не расшифровал, что значит national): Иран, Ирак, Сирия, Судан, Ливия, Йемен и Сомалия; (2) временно на 120 дней приостанавливается въезд беженцев в США изо всех стран мира; (3) на неопределенное время запрещен въезд в США лиц, имеющих отношение к Сирии (важно подчеркнуть, что запрет не ограничен по времени, он относится как к лицам, имеющим гражданство Сирии, так и рожденным там, и может относится к лицам, которые имеют паспорта или travel documents, выданные Сирией, но рожденным в других странах, (4) отменена процедура выдачи виз в США без интервью.

Также в понедельник 30 января 2017 года Иммиграционная Служба США USCIS объявила своим сотрудникам, что на неопределенное время приостанавливается вынесение решений по всем заявлениям и петициям от заявителей из этих семи стран (Иран, Ирак, Сирия, Судан, Ливия, Йемен и Сомалия). Вот это уже очень серьезно. Так как большая часть заявителей находятся в США, и они будут подавать заявления на продление и смену статуса, на получение или продление разрешения на работу, на грин карту, на гражданство и т.п., и USCIS будет вынуждено откладывать их дела "until further notice", так как им запрещено принимать окончательные решения, даже если заявитель успешно прошел интервью (например, на грин карту или гражданство). Пока не понятно, что будет происходить на практике. Скорее всего в течение 2017 года этот запрет будет снят, но конкретной информации пока нет.

Также Госдеп США прекратил выдачу виз гражданам из этих же семи стран (Иран, Ирак, Сирия, Судан, Ливия, Йемен и Сомалия). 27 января 2017 мы получили меморандум из Госдепа о том, что все визы, выданные гражданам этих стран считаются "условно аннулированы" с 27 января.

Запрет на въезд в США относится также к лицам с двойным гражданством. Например, если у вас одно гражданство Ирана и второе Германии, и ранее вы могли ездить в США без визы по Visa Waiver Program по немецкому паспорту, то теперь это невозможно. (2 февраля 2017 Госдеп США опубликовал инструкцию о том, что они продолжают выдавать визы лицам с двойным гражданством, и ставят визу в паспорт той страны, которая не включена в список семи стран).

Запрет на въезд в США по этому указу президента от 27 января 2017 все также относится и к постоянным жителям США (тем, у кого грин карта или вид на жительство в США). За последние дни несколько федеральных судов приняли решения о том, что постоянные жители должны быть допущены в США, но это пока не отменило положение указа. И инструкции от DHS позволяют въезд постоянных жителей, так как это "в национальных интересах" США, что не отменяет сам запрет. Постоянные жители США должны пройти secondary inspection при въезде в США, и доказать, что не являются риском для национальной безопасности.

Если вы имеете вид на жительство США и при въезде в США, сотрудники CBP пытаются отобрать вашу грин карту или не впустить вас в страну, читайте наши практические советы тут.

Будьте осторожны, если вы подпадаете под одну из невъездных категорий. Всегда лучше проконсультироваться с адвокатом заранее.

Ожидается еще один указ президента о рабочих визах H-1B visa. Некоторые веб сайты поместили черновик предполагаемого указа. Этот указ внесет изменения в порядок выдачи рабочей визы H-1B и разрешения на работу EAD для супругов H-4. Предполагается, что указ изменит порядок проведения лотереи для виз H-1B, где упор будет делаться на том, получено ли образование в США и какую зарплату готов платить работодатель, а также фокус будет на выдаче рабочих виз "самым лучшим и самым умным" (расшифровка такой нетипичной для юридического документа фразы, я надеюсь, последует когда указ будут подписан).

ПРАКТИЧЕСКИЕ СОВЕТЫ:

Если вы из одной из семи стран (гражданин, рождены, имеете какое-то другое задокументированное отношение), воздержитесь от поездок в США или от поездок за пределы США в ближайшие 90 дней, или пока указ находится в силе, или вообще на неопределенное время, если вы имеете отношение к Сирии
Если вы постоянный житель США, имеющий отношение к одной из семи стран, воздержитесь от поездок за предеыл США в течение 90 дней или пока указ находится в силе (а если вы из Сирии - то вообще не выезжайте из США, так как запрет на неопределенное время).
Если вы из любой другой мусульманской страны, будьте на чеку. Ваша страна может быть добавлена в "список семи". Возможно, что вам стоит заранее подать какие-то заявления, которые вы откладывали, продлить документы, истекающие в скором будущем.
Если вы из одной из семи стран, и ваше заявление уже находится на рассмотрении в USCIS, будьте готовы к долгому ожиданию, так как они обязаны отложить все такие заявления и им запрещено выносить решения по делу. Теоретически возможно подать иск в федеральный суд, чтобы принудить государство принять решение по вашему делу, но практический совет будет подождать прецедентов и официальных разъяснений от иммиграционной службы.
Визы уже выданные лицам из семи стран были "условно аннулированы" 27 января 2017. Выдача новых виза в настоящий момент приостановлена.
Если вы планируете подать петицию на маму, отца, брата, сестру, детей, жену или мужа - и по настоящим законам вы вправе подать такую петицию, не откладывайте и подавайте петицию. По некоторым сведениям целые визовые категории могут быть отменены, изменены или уменьшены в будущем.
Если вы нелегал, проконсультируйтесь с адвокатом и определитесь, есть ли у вас какие-то варианты.

В заключение я хочу добавить, что хотя в большинстве случаев, этот третий указ президента от 27 января 2017 не имеет отношения к лицам из русскоговорящего сообщества в США, но есть и такие, к кому этот указ имеет прямое отношение. Например, если вы родились на территории одной из семи стран, где ваши родители жили, учились или работали, даже если у вас нет гражданства из одной из семи стран, вы подпадаете под действие указа. Например, если вы лицо без гражданства, но ваши документы были выданы Сирией или одной из семи стран, или вы в прошлом постоянно указывали Сирию, Ирак, Иран и т.п. как страну своей национальности - вы тоже подпадаете под действие указа. Многие положения указа нуждаются в дальнейшей расшифровке и детальном объяснении (например, что такое "лицо имеющее отношение к одной из семи стран"). Такие официальные объяснения обычно публикуются через соответствующие каналы в иммиграционной службе USCIS и через Госдеп США Department of State. Мы будем вас держать в курсе!

January 2017 Executive Orders on Immigration: Advisory, Know Your Rights

2/1/2017

On January 25 and 27, 2017, President signed several Executive Orders. Here are the links to full text of three Executive Orders on Immigration:

Executive Order Number 1 concerns building a wall along the 2,000 mile border between the US and Mexico.

Executive Order Number 2 would prioritize the deportation or removal of criminals from USA. It would also compel state and local agencies to participate in federal deportation program, by targeting so called Sanctuary Cities, Districts, states. If a sanctuary city doesn't comply, the federal funding can be cut off. Lawsuits are expected to follow. Some jurisdictions, such as, for example, Miami, already declared that they are abolishing their sanctuary city status.

Executive Order Number 3 immediately (1) Implemented a travel ban from seven designated predominantly Muslim countries for 90 days (Iran; Iraq; Libya; Somalia; Sudan; Syria; and Yemen); (2) suspended refugee admissions from all countries of the world for 120 days; (3) indefinitely suspended admission for nationals of Syria, and (4) suspends interview waivers at US consulates abroad.

On Monday January 30, 2017, the USCIS has announced that it will put a hold on all applications and petitions benefitting citizens/nationals of the 7 countries (Iran; Iraq; Libya; Somalia; Sudan; Syria; and Yemen), be they in the US or abroad. That means that a green card holder from one of seven countries cannot be sworn in as a US citizen, or a work permit can't be approved, or a green card application can't be approved -- even if a person was already interviewed, and there are no issues with the person's background and he/she is otherwise eligible for a green card, work permit, visa or US citizenship. Because a person is a "national" of one of the seven countries, his or her application will be placed on hold "until further notice".

The US Department of State had stopped issuing any visas to nationals from the seven enumerated countries: Iran; Iraq; Libya; Somalia; Sudan; Syria; and Yemen.

If you are a national of one of the seven countries, even if you were already issued a visa, you are no longer able to travel to USA on a that visa while this ban remains in place. Effective January 27, 2017, US Department of State had "provisionally revoked" all visas issued to the nationals of seven countries (click here to read the DoS memorandum).

Even if a national of one of the seven countries has a passport from another "unrestricted" country (dual citizenship), he or she will not be allowed to travel to USA while the ban is in place. (Update: on Feb 2, 2017, DOS issued a clarification on dual nationals: "We will continue to issue nonimmigrant and immigrant visas to otherwise eligible visa applicants who apply with a passport from an unrestricted country, even if they hold dual nationality from one of the seven restricted countries.")

The executive order also suspends the “interview waiver” program at US consulates abroad. However, ESTA or the Visa Waiver Program is not directly impacted by the new executive order. The “interview waiver” program is a policy whereby some foreign nationals applying for a renewal of a visa abroad are exempt from an in person interview at US consulates since they have been previously screened. By eliminating the interview waiver program, interview wait times at US consulates will likely increase.

The executive order also suspends all refugee admissions for 120 days and indefinitely suspends admission of Syrian refugees for an undefined amount of time. During the 120 days, government agencies are instructed to implement new procedures to help secure the “national interest.”

Upon resumption of the refugee program, the executive order instructs the government to prioritize admission of Christians over other religions, which will result in more lawsuits to follow.

Yes, the executive order still applies to lawful permanent residents. Please keep in mind that the ban was not cancelled but merely modified as it applies to green card holders nationals of one of the seven enumerated countries.

As of result of litigation, on Sunday, January 29, 2017 DHS stated that permanent residents are allowed to board planes and come to the US, but will undergo additional secondary inspection screening upon their entry. The same day DHS issued a statement stating that allowing permanent residents to enter the US on a “case by case basis” is in the “national interest” but that permanent residents will continue to undergo increased interrogation. Even after DHS’ announcement softening how the ban applies to permanent residents, anyone returning from one of the seven designated countries should anticipate increased interrogation, potential detention and long delays when returning from trips abroad.

Please see our previous posts on executive orders on travel ban and about sanctuary cities here.

A draft copy of a 4th unsigned Executive Order entitled “Protecting American Jobs and Workers by Strengthening the Integrity of Foreign Worker Visa Program” was made available at some websites. This Order would impact the H-1B and H-4 EAD programs, provide for site visits to L-1 employers and expand the E-Verify Program. It will change the way the H-1B Lottery is operated, giving preference to "the best and the brightest" applicants with the degree from the US university and higher salary.

A good article about the H-1B visas could be found here.

ADVISORY or GUIDANCE for Lawful Permanent Residents of USA, Dual Citizens, People with Pending Applications, Workers, Students and Visitors to the United States:

If you are from one of the seven countries listed above, do not leave the country unless you do not plan to return to the USA.
If you are a lawful permanent resident (a green card holder) from one of the seven countries, beware that the ban also applies to you. The ban was merely modified by DHS. On 01-29-2017, the DHS clarified that they will allow permanent residents to enter the US on a “case by case basis” is in the “national interest” but that permanent residents will continue to undergo increased interrogation and secondary inspection (therefore, they can be denied re-admission to USA). Read our guidance on what to do if you are being denied admission at the airport and the CBP agent tries to take away your green card.
If you are from a Muslim country, remember that your country also maybe added to the list of the "banned countries" while you are outside of the USA.
If you are a national from one of the seven countries, and have a visa in your passport, your visa was "provisionally revoked" by the US Dept of State effective 01-27-2017, which means your visa was made invalid and you can't travel to USA.
If you are have a pending application/petition for immigration benefits with USCIS and you are from one of the 7 countries, your application will be placed on hold. At this time, this hold is indefinite or "until further notice". It might be possible to file a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus in Federal Court to try to force the government to take action on your pending application/petition.
If you are from a Muslim country which is not on the List of 7, you may want to file your application for immigration benefits now before your country is added to the list of banned countries.
If you are a green card holder, no matter what country you were born in, you may be wish to apply for naturalization as soon as possible in order to assure that you will be able to travel abroad and can always return to your home in USA in the future.
If you are present in the US on temporary visa and wish to extend or change your status, consult an attorney before filing any application.
If you are undocumented, see an immigration attorney to see if there are any possibilities for you to apply for lawful status.
If you plan to sponsor a relative for a green card, do so immediately as the family-based categories may be severely restricted in the future.
If you are on a temporary working visa and wish to apply for a green card, ask your employer to sponsor you now before it's too late.
If you are a dual citizen from one of the seven countries and any other country (except USA), you are not allowed to travel to USA. (Update: on Feb 2, 2017, DOS issued a clarification on dual nationals: "We will continue to issue nonimmigrant and immigrant visas to otherwise eligible visa applicants who apply with a passport from an unrestricted country, even if they hold dual nationality from one of the seven restricted countries.")
Even if you are a lawful permanent resident of USA and plan to travel internationally or plan to return to USA after a trip abroad, you should consult an attorney.
The EO also suspends the “interview waiver” program at US consulates abroad. Importantly, ESTA or the Visa Waiver Program is not directly impacted by the new EO. The “interview waiver” program is a policy whereby some foreign nationals applying for a renewal of a visa abroad are exempt from an in person interview at US consulates since they have been previously screened. By eliminating the interview waiver program, interview wait times at US consulates will likely increase.

What to Do If LPR is Asked to Give Away a Green Card and Sign Form I-407, Abandon LPR Status When Returning to USA

1/30/2017

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS:

What to Do If a LPR is Asked to Relinquish Their Green Card and Sign Form I-407, Abandonment of LPR Status When Returning to USA.

This is a helpful reminder, which became important in light of recent events following an executive order when a number of lawful permanent residents (LPRs) were made to sign Forms I-407, were not allowed into the U.S., and returned to the foreign countries were they came from.

First of all, upon returning to the U.S., Legal Permanent Residents (LPR) should not automatically surrender their green cards if asked to do so.

An individual does not lose LPR status as a result of time abroad. They remain an LPR until a final order of removal is issued by Immigration Court and the government must prove abandonment by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence which a higher evidentiary standard than clear and convincing. See Matter of Huang, 19 I&N Dec. 749 (BIA 1988).

Form I-407 must be signed voluntarily and there are no potential negative ramifications for refusing to sign. Neither failure to sign nor abandonment is grounds for detention.

***If a LPR refuses to sign Form I-407 and insists on being admitted to the United States, the CBP officer must issue a Notice to Appear (NTA) so that an immigration judge can determine whether they have lost their LPR status.
When abandonment question is raised, a LPR can offer evidence of the following: their ties to the U.S., the purpose of their visit outside of the U.S., and the expected termination date of the visit abroad or occurrence of facts showing why a date certain is or was not possible. Precedent decision Matter of Kane, 15 I&N Dec. 258 (BIA 1975). The burden of proof at this stage is preponderance of the evidence, which is more likely than not (more than 51%) that you did not abandon your residence in USA. See Matter of Y-G-, 20 I&N Dec. 794 (BIA 1994).

Totality of the circumstances are relevant and must be considered. If the officer is nevertheless, not convinced, you should ask for a hearing before an immigration judge.

***If your green card is confiscated, you must be provided with alternative evidence of their LPR status, such as an I-94 and/or passport stamp that says "Evidence of Temporary Residence."
Abandonment of residence is not a ground of inadmissibility. Thus, the basis for the NTA is violation of INA §237(a)(1)(A) for being inadmissible at the time of admission because LPRs travel abroad and reenter the U.S. as "special immigrants" per INA §101(a)(27).

A LPR who is placed in removal proceedings, doesn't lose his or her status until a final order of removal is issued by Immigration Judge. See 8 CFR §1.2 (defining "lawfully admitted for permanent resident"). Read more at AILA Doc. No. 17012960.

In Russian:

ЗНАЙ СВОИ ПРАВА:

ЧТО ДЕЛАТЬ, ЕСЛИ ВЫ ПОСТОЯННЫЙ ЖИТЕЛЬ США (У ВАС ГРИН КАРТА), И НА ВЪЕЗДЕ В США, СОТРУДНИК ИММИГРАЦИОННОЙ СЛУЖБЫ ПЫТАЕТСЯ ОТОБРАТЬ ВАШУ ГРИН КАРТУ, ЗАСТАВЛЯЕТ ВАС ПОДПИСАТЬ ФОРМУ I-407, И ПЫТАЕТСЯ ВЫДВОРИТЬ ВАС ИЗ СТРАНЫ.

Полезная памятка для грин карт холдеров (постоянных жителей США), которые возвращаются в США и которых принуждают к отказу от грин карты и сдаче грин карты прямо в аэропорту сотруднику CBP. Эта ситуация случается нередко в аэропортах, но в последнее время требования к отказу участились, и нередко без веских оснований.

Помните, что если вас принуждают к подписи на форме I-407, Отказ от грин карты, вы не обязаны ее подписывать. Если вы не согласны и не хотите лишаться вида еа жительство в США, то не подписывайте эту форму.

Если сотрудник CBP продолжает настаивать, что вы потеряли свое резиденство (вид на жительство) в США, например, из-за длительного отсутствия за пределами США (более года), или потому, что вы являетесь лицом родившимся или имеющим паспорт из одной из семи стран на Ближнем Востоке, указанных в недавнем указе президента от 27 января 2017 г - то они должны вас все же впустить в страну и выписать форму NTA, приглашение на явку в иммиграционный суд США, куда они должны передать ваше дело для решения вопроса о том, потеряли ли вы статус постоянного жителя или нет.

Помните, что хотя существует презумпция, что статус "автоматически" теряется после более одного года, проведенного за границей, но на самом деле все не так уж автоматически. Государство должно это доказать, и у вас есть право на доказательство своей правоты в иммиграционном суде США. Только судья может принять решение том, чтобы отобрать у вас грин карту, а не сотрудник в аэропорту (естественно, вы можете решить отказаться от своей грин карты и добровольно ее отдать и подписать форму I-407).

Undocumented immigrants eligible to become legal residents often don’t know how to apply due to a lack of resources and information.

6/21/2016

It’s a common problem: some unauthorized immigrants in USA are eligible to become legal residents using already existing laws and regulations. In many cases, they just don’t know about their eligibility and how to apply due to a lack of resources and information. They also find it difficult to navigate the complex immigration process by themselves.

A UCLA study found that individuals in removal (deportation) proceedings who had a lawyer were 15 (!) times more likely to apply for relief from removal than those without lawyers, and 5.5 times more likely to be granted or approved some sort of legal status that permitted them to stay in the United States.

Unlike criminal defendants, however, unauthorized immigrants don’t have a constitutional right to a government-funded lawyer (no "free lawyers" or public defenders in immigration court proceedings).

According to the UCLA study, only 37 percent of all immigrants, and 14 percent of detained immigrants, are represented by lawyers. Children also go unrepresented in immigration court.

Many immigrants often erroneously consider themselves qualified to "do it yourself", or consult unauthorized "immigration consultants" or "Notarios", who are not lawyers, while others can't afford a lawyer.

It's advisable not to file any immigration petitions and applications with USCIS without first consulting a qualified immigration attorney. If you have been referred for removal to immigration court, you must retain an attorney to represent you in the court.

По-русски:

Одна из очень распространенных проблем среди иммигрантов и незаконных иммигрантов (так называемых "нелегалов") в США, это то, что многие даже не подозревают, что имеют право подать заявление на какие-то иммиграционные бенефиты, включая грин карту (вид на жительство). А если и знают об этом, то не понимают все тонкости системы, и не знают как и когда можно подать такое заявление, как подать правильно, как получить положительное решение а не отказ.

Некоторые считают себя достаточно компетентными подать свои заявления самостоятельно, или используют услуги так называемых "консультантов", которые оперируют нелегально и без лицензии, и не являются адвокатами. У некторых просто нет средств.

К сожалению, в иммиграционной системе и суде в США нет права на бесплатного иммиграционного адвоката (даже в суде, и даже детям). Либо вы нанимаете защиту и платите за их услуги, либо иногда можно получить помощь по сниженным расценкам или бесплатно в местных организациях (но там строгий отбор и они берут небольшой процент дел), либо вы сами представляете свои интересы в иммиграционной суде и органах госбезопасности США.

По статистике, только 37% всех иммигрантов в США имеют адвоката или законного представителя, и только 14% иммигрантов находящихся в заключении имеют своего адвоката. Это пугающая статистика, учитывая, что многие и по-английски толком говорить не могут, не то что грамотно составить заявление.

Возраст также не имеет значения. Маленьким детям суд не обязан предоствлять защитника. Как сказал один иммиграционный судья, " я могу все прекрасно объяснить и 3-х летнему ребенку, так что ему не нужен адвокат в моем суде..."

Рекомендуется не подавать никакие заявления в иммиграционные органы без предварительной консультации с адвокатом, не говоря уже о суде.

Read more here.

USCIS revised procedures for determining VISA availability for adjustment of status applicants (I-485) in both family-based and employment-based visa categories.

9/9/2015

On September 09 2015, USCIS Announces Revised Procedures for Determining Visa Availability for Applicants Waiting to File for Adjustment of Status.

USCIS, in coordination with Department of State (DOS), is revising the procedures for determining visa availability for applicants waiting to file for employment-based or family-sponsored preference adjustment of status. The revised process will better connect USCIS procedures with the US Department of State (DOS) procedures, which are used for foreign nationals who seek to become U.S. permanent residents by applying for immigrant visas at U.S. consulates and embassies abroad.

The Visa Bulletin revisions implement November 2014 executive actions on immigration announced by President Obama and Secretary of Homeland Security Johnson, as detailed in the White House report, Modernizing and Streamlining Our Legal Immigration System for the 21st century, issued in July 2015.

What is Changing.

Starting October 1, 2015, you will be able to submit your application for adjustment of status or for an immigrant visa before your priority date is current.

Two charts per visa preference category will be posted in the DOS Visa Bulletin:

Current priority dates for particular visa categories; and
The earliest dates for filing application for adjustment of status (earliest dates when applicants may be able to apply).

See October 2015 Visa Bulletin here. However, the priority dates in the Visa Bulletin can retrogress in November. Consult an attorney about your specific case so you won't miss the opportunity of applying earlier.

When filing an application for adjustment of status, I-485, an applicant can concurrently file an application for a work permit and advance parole. This is great news for many immigrants waiting for many years for their priority dates to become current. However, it's a good idea to consult an immigration attorney before applying.

Each month, in coordination with DOS, USCIS will monitor visa numbers and post the relevant DOS Visa Bulletin chart. Applicants can use the charts to determine when to file their Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.

To determine whether additional visas are available, USCIS will compare the number of visas available for the remainder of the fiscal year with:

Documentarily qualified visa applicants reported by DOS;
Pending adjustment of status applications reported by USCIS; and
Historical drop off rate (for example, denials, withdrawals, abandonments).

About the Visa Bulletin.

DOS publishes current immigrant visa availability information in a monthly Visa Bulletin. The Visa Bulletin indicates when statutorily limited visas are available to prospective immigrants based on their individual priority date.

The priority date is generally the date when the applicant’s relative or employer properly filed the immigrant visa petition on the applicant’s behalf with USCIS. If a labor certification is required to be filed with the applicant’s immigrant visa petition, then the priority date is when the labor certification application was accepted for processing by Department of Labor.
Availability of an immigrant visa means eligible applicants are able to take one of the final steps in the process of becoming U.S. permanent residents.

Read more here.

5th Circuit Court of Appeals: DAPA injunction stays in place, the program may never become law. DACA extension injunction stays in place, as well.

5/26/2015

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.

Pending court case can affect Presidential elections in 2016. Issue is whether it’s legal to hold in ICE detention facilities women and children, including unaccompanied minors, who have crossed the border illegally.

5/20/2015

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.

Starting May 26 2015, USCIS temporarily suspends premium processing for H-1B extensions in order to implement policy granting EADs (work permits) to H-4 spouses.

5/19/2015

Starting May 26, 2015, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will temporarily suspend premium processing for all H-1B Extension of Stay petitions until July 27, 2015. During this time frame, petitioners will not be able to file Form I-907, Request for Premium Processing Service, for a Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, requesting an extension of the stay for an H-1B nonimmigrant.

USCIS will continue to premium process H-1B Extension of Stay petitions filed with Form I-907 premium requests prior to May 26, 2015.

This temporary suspension will allow USCIS to implement the Employment Authorization for Certain H-4 Spouses final rule in a timely manner and adjudicate applications for employment authorization filed by H-4 nonimmigrants under the new regulations.

Read more at http://www.uscis.gov/news/uscis-temporarily-suspends-premium-processing-extension-stay-h-1b-petitions

Why should you schedule legal consultation with an attorney. Why an attorney can't give you free legal advice and answer your questions on a spot when you call law office.

4/21/2015

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.

Judge places temporary injunction on DACA & DAPA executive action programs: expanded DACA and DAPA are placed on hold. Until further notice, only original DACA program stays in effect.

2/17/2015

(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."

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

A group of 28 mayors to file an amicus brief in support of Obama's executive action on immigration or immigration reform, November 2014.

1/24/2015

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

Summary of DACA and DAPA deferred action programs: President Obama's November 20, 2014 announcement and executive action.

1/21/2015

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:

Came to the United States before reaching your 16th birthday;
Have continuously resided in the United States since January 1, 2010, up to the present time;
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;
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.

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
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:

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.

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
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

Twelve states and District of Columbia filed briefs in court action in support of President Obama's executive action on immigration.

1/14/2015

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