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 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 June 26, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court partially reinstated Trump’s travel ban 2nd executive order 13780, Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States, and agreed to hear the arguments in the fall 2017.

In the meantime, the 90-day ban #TravelBan #MuslimBan and 120-day ban on refugee admission will become effective in 72 hours, on June 29, 2017, and will apply to people entering the U.S. from six predominantly Muslim countries. The partially reinstated executive order will ban the entry of nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen to the United States for 90 days, and suspends the admission of all refugees for 120 days. 

The ban will not apply to people who have a "credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." That includes people visiting a close family member, students who have been admitted to a university or workers who have accepted an employment offer.

What this means is that individuals from the six countries will be permitted to enter the United States if they have a “close familial relationship” with someone already here or if they have a “formal, documented” relationship with an American entity formed “in the ordinary course” of business. However, the Court said that such relationships cannot be established for the purpose of avoiding the travel ban. The government will likely begin applying the travel ban in the limited fashion permitted by the Supreme Court on June 29, 2017.

Who is likely (probably) to be allowed to enter the United States:

• Individuals who have valid immigrant or non-immigrant visas issued on or before June 26, 2017: These individuals are not included in the travel ban.
• Individuals with visas coming to live or visit with family members: The Court’s order is clear that individuals who “wish to enter the United States to live with or visit a family member” have close familial relationships. The Court used both a spouse and a mother-in-law as examples of qualifying relationships, but it is unclear whether more distant relatives would qualify.
• Students who have been admitted to a U.S. university, workers who have accepted offers of employment with U.S. companies, and lecturers invited to address an American audience: The Court provided these three examples of individuals who have credible claims of a bona fide relationship to an American entity.
• Other types of business travelers: It is unclear whether individuals with employment-based visas that do not require a petitioning employer will be able to demonstrate the requisite relationship with a U.S. entity.
• Refugees: Most refugees processed overseas have family or other connections to the United States including with refugee resettlement agencies. The Court ruled that such individuals may not be excluded even if the 50,000 cap on refugees has been reached or exceeded.

Who may have trouble entering the United States:

• Individuals who form bona fide relationships with individuals or entities in the United States after June 26, 2017: The Court’s decision is not clear. The court's decision could result in numerous lawsuits, disputing the decision that they lack "connection" required.
• Tourists: Nationals of the designated countries who are not planning to visit family members in the United States and who are coming for other reasons (including sight-seeing) may be barred from entering.

The real problems will emerge when the government (CBP, TSA, DHS, Dept of State) will start implementing the executive order, and deciding who has sufficient ties or who doesn't, and who should be admitted or who should be banned/visa revoked/placed on a return flight. 

Three justices published a separate opinion, where Justice Thomas noted: "I fear that the Court’s remedy will prove unworkable. Today’s compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding—on peril of contempt— whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country. See ante, at 11– 12. The compromise also will invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle to determine what exactly constitutes a “bona fide relationship,” who precisely has a “credible claim” to that relationship, and whether the claimed relationship was formed “simply to avoid §2(c)” of Executive Order No. 13780, ante, at 11, 12. "

​#TravelBan #MuslimBan #ExecutiveOrder

​Read the decision here.

UPDATE June 29, 2017:

The Executive Orders Travel Ban 90-day suspension of entry will be implemented
worldwide at 8:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on June 29, 2017. 
 
The U.S. Department of State had clarified in the cable who is considered to have a "credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States."

According to the State Department, this “bona fide relationship” rule encompasses parents, parents-in-law, spouses, children, adult children, sons- and daughters-in law, and siblings (whole or half). This includes also step-parents and step-children.

According to the US DoS 06-29-2017 cable, there is no sufficient "bona fide relationship" and a visa will not be issued to the foreign nationals who are "grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-in-laws and sisters-in-law, fiancés and any other ‘extended’ family members.”
The Supreme Court clarified that “a foreign national who wishes to enter the United States to live with or visit … [his] mother-in-law … clearly has such a relationship.” (Emphasis added.) Under the Trump administration’s guidelines, a foreign national must be exempted from the ban if she wishes to visit her half-sister or mother-in-law, but is banned if she wants to see a grandmother or aunt who raised her.

The text of the cable, dated June 28, 2017 at 7:57:39 PM EDT, Subject: (SBU) IMPLEMENTING EXECUTIVE ORDER 13780 FOLLOWING SUPREME COURT RULING -- GUIDANCE TO VISA-ADJUDICATING POSTS From:   SECSTATE WASHDC Action: ALL DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR POSTS COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE is here.


UPDATE 09:00 PM CST June 29, 2017:

The U.S. Department of state had updated its morning cable and included fiancees into the list of "close family" required to establish "bona fide relationship" for a visa to USA from one of six affected countries.

"Close family” is defined as a parent (including parent-in-law), spouse, fiancee, child, adult son or daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, sibling, whether whole or half.  This includes step relationships. 

Close family” does not include grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-laws and sisters-in-law, and any other “extended” family members."

The US DoS also clarified the "fate" of Canadian permanent residents who hold passports from one of the six affected countries.

Good news for the Canadian residents:
"Are there special rules for permanent residents of Canada?
Permanent residents of Canada who hold passports of a restricted country can apply for an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa to the United States if the individual presents that passport, and proof of permanent resident status, to a consular officer.  These applications must be made at a U.S. consular section in Canada.  A consular officer will carefully review each case to determine whether the applicant is affected by the E.O. and, if so, whether the case qualifies for a waiver." See 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.
****************************************************************************************************************

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

​

On Friday, October 16, 2015, a federal judge in Texas declined to order Texas officials to institute a temporary fix so children of undocumented immigrants born in the United States can get their birth certificates while a lawsuit filed by their parents is being tried.  

Instead of issuing a temporary injunction order sought by the plaintiffs (the undocumented immigrants who were denied their U.S. citizen children's birth certificates), U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman ruled that the case should proceed through the full hearing process given the complexity of the issues involved. 

Pitman’s ruling comes two weeks after attorneys for the families told the judge that the children’s civil rights had been violated because county registrars, by order of the Texas Department of State Health Services, would not issue birth certificates because the parents did not present one or more acceptable forms of ID. More than 30 families have joined the suit since the initial complaint was filed in May.

“Although the Plaintiffs have provided evidence which raises grave concerns regarding the treatment of citizen children born to immigrant parents, this case requires additional determinations which can be made only upon development and presentation of an evidentiary record,” Pitman wrote in a 27-page decision.

The parents in the lawsuit contend that IDs previously used to obtain the vital records, specifically the Mexican Consular ID (called the matrícula consular) and foreign passports, were accepted in some counties just months ago until the department amended its policies without warning.

Now, some of the undocumented immigrants parents can't request their US-born children's birth certificates because the parents lack proper and acceptable by the Organs of Vital Statistics photo ID documents.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton called the ruling an “important first step in ensuring the integrity of birth certificates and personal identity information. Before issuing any official documents, it’s important for the state to have a way to accurately verify people are who they say they are through reliable identification mechanisms.”

Read news here and court opinion here.