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

EB-5 Immigrant Investor Class Action Lawsuit Notice

2/14/2019

On Nov. 30, 2018, in Zhang v. USCIS, No. 15-cv-995, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia certified a class that includes any individual with a Form I-526, Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur, that was or will be denied on the sole basis of investing loan proceeds that were not secured by the individual’s own assets.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia vacated these denials and ordered USCIS to reconsider the petitions.

If you believe you have received an I-526 denial solely on this ground and would like to identify yourself as a potential class member, USCIS had provided a contact email USCIS.ImmigrantInvestorProgram@uscis.dhs.gov, and advised to contact them using the subject line “Zhang Class,” and provide the following:

Name
Alien Number (if any)
Date of birth
I-526 receipt number (if available)
Date of I-526 denial
Copy of I-526 denial (if available)

Lawful permanent resident can enlist in the U.S. Military: judge overturned Trump's ban

12/7/2018

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.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld DACA

11/8/2018

On November 8, 2018, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld federal DACA program established in 2012. Therefore, DACA law is still a valid law. The 9th Circuit decision preserves the status quo for the moment and will require the administration to continue accepting DACA renewal applications.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Trump’s decision to phase out the Obama-era DACA program, which allows roughly 700,000 undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children to obtain work permits and protects them from deportation, was likely “arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”

Read more here.

Lawsuit Challenges New USCIS Policy on 'Unlawful Presence' for Foreign Students and Exchange Visitors

11/5/2018

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.

USCIS is preparing to rescind the International Entrepreneur Rule

5/12/2018

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.

Second DACA Injunction: DACA Renewal Applications Still Accepted

2/14/2018

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.

USCIS Begins Accepting DACA Renewal Applications Following a Court Order

1/14/2018

On January 13, 2018, following a federal court order (a preliminary injunction), USCIS had made an announcement confirming that they will accept DACA renewal applications (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals).

Until further notice, the applicants should use pre-September 5, 2017 applications, 2017 edition forms, instructions, fees.

I-821D direct filing address depends on your state of residence.

Don't forget to include form I-765 and I-765WS (worksheet explaining your economic necessity).

Please note that you can't file a new DACA application if you had never had it approved before. You can't file an application for advance parole (travel document). This announcement applies only to DACA renewal applications.

Additional information will be forthcoming.

#DACA #DACADreamers #DACARenewal #DREAMAct #Dreamers

Details of this announcement are here.

DACA Renewals Can Be Submitted: Judge Temporary Reopens DACA Program

1/10/2018

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).

Federal judge rejected delay of foreign entrepreneur or startup parole rule

12/2/2017

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 Imposed Nationwide Temp Injunction on Muslim Ban Executive Order Effective Immediately Feb 3 2017

2/3/2017

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.
****************************************************************************************************************

Court Order: Every Person in the Possession of a Valid Immigrant Visa Should be Allowed Admission to USA

2/2/2017

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.

Artist Vasya Lozhkin. Картина Васи Ложкина.

Federal lawsuit filed in California to reinstate expanded DACA and a new DAPA programs

11/5/2016

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.