• On November 2, 2020, a federal district court in Illinois has vacated the Department of Homeland Security/USCIS February 24, 2020 Public Charge Rule as a violation of administrative law.
• The court ruling prevents USCIS from applying the public charge rule nationwide starting today, November 2, 2020.
• USCIS is expected to issue guidance on the impact of the decision to applicants for adjustment of status and nonimmigrant changes and extensions of status, but has not yet done so.
• DHS is expected to appeal the court ruling, but the district court decision will remain in place while that appeal is pending.
• Today’s decision follows a string of judicial rulings regarding preliminary injunctions of the public charge rule, which concerned temporary bars to enforcement of the rule while several lawsuits continue. The most recent preliminary injunction ruling was the Second Circuit's September 11, 2020 decision, which allowed USCIS to resume applying the public charge rule nationwide while Second Circuit legal challenges are pending. Today’s Cook County decision is within the jurisdiction of the Seventh Circuit and is a final decision on the merits of the district court case. It therefore supersedes the September 11 decision, and will remain in place unless and until it is overturned by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals or by the U.S. Supreme Court.
• The legality of the public charge rule is being challenged in various jurisdictions. Disagreements among appeals courts could mean that the U.S. Supreme Court makes a final decision on whether the public charge rule is lawful.

Briefly in Russian:
2 ноября 2020 федеральный суд опять признал незаконным закон от 24 февряля 2020 о финансовой состоятельности Public Charge rule. USCIS не имеет право применять этот закон начиная с сегодняшнего дня.

Read the text of the decision here.

A federal court issued a ruling on Friday, December 7, 2018, that halts a Trump administration policy that blocked hundreds of lawful permanent residents from serving in the U.S. military.

Lawful permanent resident or green card holders can enlist and serve in the U.S. Military, and can apply for naturalization or U.S. citizenship through their military service.

Judge held that the Department of Defense likely violated the federal Administrative Procedure Act after it implemented a policy discriminating against lawful permanent resident enlistees. Judge's ruling finds that the Defense Department provided no rational justification for the policy change, stating that it provided no evidence indicating that lawful permanent resident enlistees posed more of a risk than U.S. citizens.

​Read more here.

Please note that in October 2017, the Department of Defense issued new policies that impact lawful permanent residents and other non-U.S. citizens in the military. The ILRC's practice advisory discusses how these policies affect those who seek to enlist, and those who currently serve in the military, including in the Reserve Components. 

The DoD policy changes will not affect MAVNI enlistees because the MAVNI program was suspended in October 2016. No one has been able to enlist in MAVNI since that time.

Before making a decision to enlist and to apply for naturalization, please review the practice advisory (dated 03/2018 - will be revised soon) and consider that under new rules "expedited" naturalization may not be much faster than a naturalization under a default rule.

In a new lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, several colleges and universities have challenged a recently announced new immigration policy, which become effective on August 9, 2018. Lawsuit changes the calculation of the number of days of “unlawful presence” for nonimmigrant foreign students from the date U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) or an immigration judge finds a violation or orders the student removed to the date the status lapsed.

In 1997, the United States established objective rules that provided visa holders notice. If the authorized period of stay ended on a date certain on which the individual was required to leave the country, unlawful presence began following that date. And for all individuals, unlawful presence began the day after either a government official or immigration judge made a determination that the individual was out-of-status. This provided an opportunity to cure their circumstances and remain in the country or to depart the country within 180 days. Either way, individuals acting in good faith had an opportunity to avoid imposition of a three- or ten-year reentry bar.

Now, based on the USCIS memo, effective August 9, 2018, when a government official or immigration judge determines that an F, J, or M visa holder is out-of-status, the unlawful‑presence clock will be backdated to the day on which the agency concludes that the visa holder first fell out-of-status.

The complaint states that the immigration system “is beset with processing delays, and many of these status determinations are made when an individual is applying for new immigration benefits.” Thus, the new policy’s use of a backdated unlawful-presence clock “will render tens of thousands of F, J, and M visa holders subject to three- and ten-year reentry bars without any opportunity to cure,” the complaint states. “This policy, accordingly, will result in the three- or ten-year banishment of untold numbers of international students and exchange visitors acting in good faith.”

By disrupting the ability of these individuals to continue studying at their schools or continuing their research, teaching, or other scholarly pursuits, the August 2018 policy memorandum fundamentally upsets student-school and employee-school relationships. This results in concrete, significant harms to colleges and universities, including through the loss of irreplaceable community members, loss of tuition dollars, and loss of trained employees. The complaint asserts that the new policy is unlawful for several reasons, including, among other things, that the defendants “failed to undertake the notice and comment required in these circumstances,” such as by not publishing advance notice in the Federal Register and responding to public comments, and by not complying with the Administrative Procedure Act.

​The text of the complaint is here.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has taken the first step to officially rescind the International Entrepreneur Rule (IER), a program that allows qualifying foreign entrepreneurs an opportunity to stay in the United States while building start-up businesses. The proposed rescission cleared the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) on May 2, 2018. DHS is expected to publish a formal notice of the rule in the Federal Register in the coming weeks.
​
The IER was enacted by the Obama administration in an effort to “increase and enhance entrepreneurship, innovation, and job creation in the United States.” The rule gave DHS discretionary authority to allow certain foreign entrepreneurs of start-up businesses with a “demonstrated potential for rapid business growth and job creation,” to enter under a parole status and stay in the United States to oversee and grow their start-up businesses.

However, mere days before the rule’s July 17, 2017, effective date, DHS filed a new rule delaying the implementation of the IER until March 14, 2018. DHS cited President's “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements” executive order as the reason for the delay. DHS explained that the executive order requires that parole be granted only on a case-by-case basis “when an individual demonstrates urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit derived from such parole.”

On December 1, 2017, a federal judge invalidated USCIS's delay, and found that DHS had violated the Administrative Procedure Act by not providing notice or an opportunity for advance public comment on the rule. As a result of this court order, USCIS had to launch the IER and began accepting applications.

In a statement appearing on the USCIS website, DHS makes clear its intention to rescind the IER “because it is not the appropriate vehicle for attracting and retaining international entrepreneurs and does not adequately protect U.S. investors and U.S. workers.” That statement also provides that “while DHS complies with the court order and implements the IER parole program, DHS is also in the final stages of publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking seeking to remove the IER.”

Once the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register, the rule will be opened up to the general public for comment, usually for a period of 30 or 60 days. After the comment period, DHS must resubmit its final rule to OIRA for one last review before the final rule can be published in the Federal Register. This process will likely take several months. At this time IER is still in effect, but is expected to be eliminated soon.

In the second injunction that blocks the Trump administration efforts to end DACA, Judge Nicholas Garaufis of the Eastern District of New York on Feb. 13, 2018 ordered U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to accept certain DACA applications while litigation continues.

The ordered relief mirrors the preliminary injunction issued by Judge William Haskell Alsup in the Northern District of California on Jan. 9. It required USCIS to resume accepting DACA renewal applications from people who had previously been granted that relief. This second nationwide injunction similarly requires the Department of Homeland Security to maintain the DACA program on the same terms and conditions that existed before the administration on Sept. 5, 2017, issued a memo to rescind DACA, with the following exceptions:

• DHS need not consider new applications from individuals who have never before held DACA
• DHS is not required to provide advance parole to DACA beneficiaries
• DHS retains the discretion to adjudicate DACA renewal requests on a case-by-case, individualized basis.

The Department of Justice  has requested that the U.S. Supreme Court review Alsup’s order on its merits, bypassing the usual process of appealing to 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. As early as Feb. 16, 2018, the Supreme Court could announce a decision to review the injunction.

While the injunctions remain in place, USCIS has advised people who have previously received DACA that they may request renewal by filing the following forms:

• Form I-821D
• Form I-765, and
• I-765 Worksheet

Applicants whose DACA expired on or after Sept. 5, 2016 may file as renewal requestors. Applicants who previously held DACA and whose DACA expired before Sept. 5, 2016 may file as initial requestors. Applications from those who have never received DACA will be NOT be accepted, nor will applications requesting advance parole.

DACA policy will be operated on the terms in place before Sept. 5, 2017.

On January 9, 2018, a federal judge in San Francisco, CA temporarily blocked the Trump administration from ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that protects certain immigrants from deportation. The decision applies NATIONWIDE.
​
Judge said the Obama-era program must remain in place while litigation over Trump’s decision to end the program is pending. In a court ruling, Judge W. Alsup said the Department of Homeland Security's "decision to rescind DACA was based on a flawed legal premise."

Judge ordered USCIS to publish new DACA renewal instructions on their website, and start accepting applications.
​
As a result of this court ruling, DACA grantees can renew expired DACA, but can't file a new DACA.
(1) DACA recipients who failed to renew their status by the last year’s deadline can submit renewal applications. It is better to wait for the instructions from USCIS, to avoid any possible erroneous denial or rejection by a USCIS employees. 
(2) The decision does not, however, allow new applications to be submitted.

Read an advisory here.

In Russian:  

9 января 2018 федеральный судья вынес решение о том, что президент превысил свои полномочия, когда 5 сентября 2017 отменил иммиграционную программу ДАКА / DACA для молодежи, кого привезли в США в детстве и кто вырос в США, но не имеет ни грин карты, ни гражданства. 

Судья приказал Департаменту госбезопасности (DHS - USCIS) опубликовать инструкции и порядок подачи заявлений на продление ДАКА статуса и получение разрешения на работу через ДАКА. Судья приказал USCIS начать прием заявлений немедленно, и опубликовать новые инструкции. 

Лучше всего будет дождаться выхода официальных инструкций на вебсайте USCIS, скорее всего на следующей неделе, чтобы избежать ошибочного отказа. Хотя некоторые адвокаты советуют, что подавать заявление можно уже сейчас, так как судья временно приостановил действие указа президента в отношении DACA, и приказал USCIS игнорировать решение от отмене DACA как незаконное, и возобновить прием заявлений.

Что можно -- подать заявление на продление - DACA renewal.
Что нельзя -- подать новое заявление (new DACA application), или заявление на advance parole (travel document).

On December 14, 2017, USCIS published an announcement that they will begin accepting applications under the International Entrepreneur Rule or Startup Parole Rule (which was scheduled to take effect on July 17, 2017, but was postponed by current administration with intent to rescind).

The IER was published during the previous administration with an effective date of July 17, 2017, it did not take effect because the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a final rule on July 11, 2017, delaying the IER’s effective date until March 14, 2018. 

However, a December 1, 2017, ruling from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in National Venture Capital Association v. Duke vacated USCIS’ final rule to delay the effective date. The December 1, 2017, court decision is a result of litigation filed in district court on Sept. 19, 2017, which challenged the delay rule.

The IER or Startup Rule was published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2017 to provide the international entrepreneurs a new avenue to apply for parole, enter the U.S., and establish and grow start-up businesses.

Parole is a discretionary grant made by the DHS and is granted only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. The rule established new criteria to guide the adjudication of parole applications from certain foreign entrepreneurs, providing them with temporary permission to come to the country. The rule did not afford a path to citizenship, which only Congress can do.
On Jan. 25, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13767, Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements, which requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to ensure that parole authority is exercised only on a case-by-case basis, and only when an individual demonstrates urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit due to the parole.

Guidance on how to submit IER applications is available on USCIS International Entrepreneur Parole page.
Please note: while DHS implements the IER, DHS will also proceed with issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) seeking to remove the Jan. 17, 2017, IER. DHS is in the final stages of drafting the NPRM.

​Read full text of the announcement at USCIS website here.

It appears that the USCIS made this announcement after the December 1st 2017 court ruling, however, USCIS plans to issue a new rule which will repeal and rescind the Startup Rule in the near future.

Please read our previous blog posts on this topic here , here, and here.

​On December 4, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the government’s motions for emergency stays of preliminary injunctions issued by U.S. District Courts in the Districts of Hawaii and Maryland. The preliminary injunctions had prohibited the government from fully enforcing or implementing the entry restrictions of Presidential Proclamation 9645 (P.P.) titled “Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry into the United States by Terrorists or other Public-Safety Threats” to nationals of six countries: Chad, Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia. Per the Supreme Court’s orders, those restrictions will be implemented fully, in accordance with the Presidential Proclamation, around the world, beginning December 8 at open of business, local time.

The District Court injunctions did not affect implementation of entry restrictions against nationals from North Korea and Venezuela. Those individuals remain subject to the restrictions and limitations listed in the Presidential Proclamation, which went into effect at 12:01 a.m. eastern time on Wednesday, October 18, 2017, with respect to nationals of those countries.

US Dept of State: travel ban CHART.

.".. We will not cancel previously scheduled visa application appointments. In accordance with the Presidential Proclamation, for nationals of the eight designated countries, a consular officer will make a determination whether an applicant otherwise eligible for a visa is exempt from the Proclamation or, if not, may be eligible for a waiver under the Proclamation and therefore issued a visa.

No visas will be revoked pursuant to the Proclamation. Individuals subject to the Proclamation who possess a valid visa or valid travel document generally will be permitted to travel to the United States, irrespective of when the visa was issued". 

Questions and Answers:

Q: I am currently working on my case with NVC.  Can I continue?Yes.  You should continue to pay fees, complete your Form DS-260 immigrant visa applications, and submit your financial and civil supporting documents to NVC.  NVC will continue reviewing cases and scheduling visa interviews overseas.  During the interview, a consular officer will carefully review the case to determine whether the applicant is affected by the Proclamation and, if so, whether the case qualifies for an exception or may qualify for a waiver.

Q: What immigrant visa classes are subject to the Proclamation?
All immigrant visa classifications for nationals of Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia are subject to the Proclamation and restricted.  All immigrant visa classifications for nationals of Venezuela are unrestricted.  An individual who wishes to apply for an immigrant visa should apply for a visa and disclose during the visa interview any information that might demonstrate that he or she is eligible for an exception or waiver per the Proclamation.  A consular officer will carefully review each case to determine whether the applicant is affected by the Proclamation and, if so, whether the case qualifies for an exception or a waiver.

Q: ​Are there special rules for permanent residents of Canada?
Waivers may not be granted categorically to any group of nationals of the eight countries who are subject to visa restrictions pursuant to the Proclamation, but waivers may be appropriate in individual circumstances, on a case-by-case basis.  The Proclamation lists several circumstances in which case-by-case waivers may be appropriate.  That list includes foreign nationals who are Canadian permanent residents who apply for visas at a U.S. consular section in Canada.  Canadian permanent residents should bring proof of their status to a consular officer.
A consular officer will carefully review each case to determine whether the applicant is affected by the Proclamation during each phase of the implementation and, if so, whether the applicant qualifies for an exception or a waiver.

Q: I received my Diversity Visa (visa through the annual Green Card Lottery) but I haven’t yet entered the United States. Can I still travel there using my Diversity Visa?
The Proclamation provides specifically that no visas issued before the effective date of the Proclamation will be revoked pursuant to the Proclamation, and it does not apply to nationals of affected countries who have valid visas on the date it becomes effective. 

Q: I recently had my Diversity Visa interview at a U.S. embassy or consulate overseas, but my case is still being considered.  What will happen now?
If your visa application was refused under Section 221(g) pending updated supporting documents or administrative processing, please provide the requested information.  The U.S. embassy or consulate where you were interviewed will contact you with more information.

Q: Will my case move to the back of the line for an appointment?
No.  KCC schedules appointments by Lottery Rank Number.  When KCC is able to schedule your visa interview, you will receive an appointment before cases with higher Lottery Rank Numbers.

Q: I am currently working on my case with KCC.  Can I continue?
Yes.  You should continue to complete your Form DS-260 immigrant visa application.  KCC will continue reviewing cases and can qualify your case for an appointment.  You will be notified about the scheduling of a visa interview.

Q: What if my spouse or child is a national of one of the countries listed, but I am not?
KCC will continue to schedule new DV interview appointments for nationals of the affected countries.  A national of any of those countries applying as a principal or derivative DV applicant should disclose during the visa interview any information that might qualify the individual for a waiver/exception.  Note that DV 2018 visas, including derivative visas, can only be issued during the program year, which ends September 30, 2018, and only if visa numbers remain available.  There is no guarantee a visa will be available in the future for your derivative spouse or child.
  
Q: What if I am a dual national or permanent resident of Canada?
This Proclamation does not restrict the travel of dual nationals, so long as they are traveling on the passport of a non-designated country.  You may apply for a DV using the passport of a non-designated country even if you selected the nationality of a designated country when you entered the lottery.  Also, permanent residents of Canada applying for DVs in Montreal may be eligible for a waiver per the Proclamation, but will be considered on a case-by-case basis.  If you believe one of these exceptions, or a waiver included in the Proclamation, applies to you and your otherwise current DV case has not been scheduled for interview, contact the U.S. embassy or consulate where your interview will take place/KCC at KCCDV@state.gov.

On Friday, December 1, 2017, a federal judge in the District of Columbia ordered the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to rescind its delay of a rule that allows some foreign entrepreneurs to stay in the United States to grow their companies.

Judge ruled in favor of a lawsuit filed by a U.S. venture capitalist group in September challenging a delay by DHS of the International Entrepreneur Rule. 

The Startup Parole or International Entrepreneur Rule, passed by the administration of President Barack Obama in January 2017, would allow some foreign startup founders to stay in the United States for up to five years to develop their businesses.

Instead, in July 2017, just before the rule should have become effective, current White House administration delayed the implementation to March 2018, and even said it was “highly likely” to rescind the rule.

​Judge agreed that the government’s actions violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires advance notice of new rules.

Read new here.

Information about Start-up rule on our Blog is here and July delay is here.

Federal Judge's order put a temporary injunction on a so called Muslim Ban 3.0 #MuslimBan3 (Travel Ban) with respect to all the countries except North Korea and Venezuela.

It means that citizens of Syria, Libya, Iran, Yemen, Chad, Somalia are no longer subject to the ban (at least while the judge's order is valid and wasn't overruled).
​
Only citizens of North Korea and Venezuela remain subject to this renewed travel ban signed by the president in September.

The decision from U.S. District Judge Derrick K. Watson in Hawaii will be appealed by the government, but for now, it means that the White House administration cannot ban the entry of travelers from six of the eight banned countries. This is good news for more than 150 million people, nationals of the six countries.

#ExecutiveOrder #MuslimBan #TravelBan

Read more here.

Breaking News 02/03/2017:

A U.S. federal judge on Friday, February 03 2017 imposed a nationwide hold (injunction) on President's 01/27/2017 executive order, banning travelers and immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries.

The judge agreed with two states (Minnesota and Washington) that had challenged the executive order.
"The state has met its burden in demonstrating immediate and irreparable injury," judge said. "This TRO (temporary restraining order) is granted on a nationwide basis ..."

​A State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Friday: "We are working closely with the Department of Homeland Security and our legal teams to determine how this affects our operations. We will announce any changes affecting travelers to the United States as soon as that information is available." 

It means that as of February 3, 2017,  the president's 01/27/2017 executive order is unenforceable, and the White House, DHS, ICE, CBP, DOS must follow the judge's order (not the president's executive order). The government will appeal, and the judge will hear the arguments and make the final decision at a later date.

​Read here.

UPDATE Following the court order, on Saturday, February 4, 2017, the DHS released the following statement:

"From the Department of Homeland Security (DHS):In accordance with the judge's ruling, DHS has suspended any and all actions implementing the affected sections of the Executive Order entitled, "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States."
This includes actions to suspend passenger system rules that flag travelers for operational action subject to the Executive Order.
DHS personnel will resume inspection of travelers in accordance with standard policy and procedure.
At the earliest possible time, the Department of Justice intends to file an emergency stay of this order and defend the President's Executive Order, which is lawful and appropriate. The Order is intended to protect the homeland and the American people, and the President has no higher duty and responsibility than to do so.
For the latest information, please visit the DHS website: https://www.dhs.gov/news"

​****************************************************************************************************************
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 агентства 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.
****************************************************************************************************************

Today, a federal judge in Los Angeles has ruled that CBP and DHS must allow immigrants with already issued IMMIGRANT Visas to enter the United States from seven Muslim-majority nations, despite an executive order ban.

This new court order applies ONLY to immigrant visas, where an immigrant travels to USA on an immigrant visa and upon admission to USA becomes a lawful permanent resident (received a green card aka permanent residency in USA).

As was reported earlier, effective January 27th 2017, the U.S. Department of State "provisionally cancelled" ALL previously issued visas, including immigrant visas, to natives of the "list of seven" countries.

This court order makes it clear that the government must allow admission of lawful immigrants on valid immigrant visas to the United States, notwithstanding the fact that as of January 27th every single visa issued to people from seven countries is considered "conditionally cancelled".

It was also reported today that DHS opened internal investigation into multiple reports of the DHS and CBP employees refusing admission to people from seven countries in violation of the court orders. 

In Russian:

Сегодня судья федерального суда в Лос Анджелесе, Калифорния вынес еще одно решение, ограничивающее указ президента от 27 января 2017, о запрете на въезд в США лиц из семи стран (Ирак, Иран, Сирия, Судан, Сомалия, Йемен и Ливия).

Это решение распространяется на всю страну, не только на Калифорнию.

По решению суда, въезд в США разрешен всем тем иммигрантам, кто получил иммиграционные визы в США из семи стран, названных в указе. Так как по въезде в страну, они становятся постоянными жителями и получают вид на жительство в США.

Иммиграционная полиция и пограничники обязаны впускать в США всех тех, у кого есть иммиграционные визы (не смотря на то, что 27 января 2017 Госдеп США опубликовал меморандум о том, что они "условно аннулировали" ВСЕ до одной визы гражданам из семи стран).

Также сегодня было объявлено, что DHS начал внутреннее расследование среди своих сотрудников, которые отказываются выполнять решения судов и по прежнему отказывают лицам из семи стран во въезде в США.

Источник. read more here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

​

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.