The DHS / USCIS is considering new regulations to end the extension of H1-B work visas. The new rule potentially could stop hundreds of thousands of foreign workers from keeping their H-1B visas while their green card applications are pending. It will affect many tech and IT professionals, especially from India and China.

“This would be a major catastrophic development as many people have been waiting in line for green cards for over a decade, have U.S. citizen children, own a home."

“The idea is to create a sort of ‘self-deportation’ of hundreds of thousands of Indian tech workers in the United States to open up those jobs for Americans,” said a source briefed by Homeland Security officials.

“The agency is considering a number of policy and regulatory changes to carry out the President’s Buy American, Hire American Executive Order, including a thorough review of employment-based visa programs,” confirmed USCIS.

UPDATE 01-09-2018: 

Under pressure from the business and technology communities, USCIS appears to be backing away from a policy change that could have forced foreign tech workers out of the country. The administration denies they considered abolishing H-1B extensions. 

“The agency is considering a number of policy and regulatory changes to carry out the President’s Buy American, Hire American Executive Order, including a thorough review of employment based visa programs,” Jonathan Withington, chief of media relations for USCIS, said Monday.

“What we can say, however, is that USCIS is not considering a regulatory change that would force H-1B visa holders to leave the United States by changing our interpretation of section 104(c) of AC-21, which provides for H-1B extensions beyond the 6 year limit,” the agency told McClatchy. “Even if it were, such a change would not likely result in these H-1B visa holders having to leave the United States because employers could request extensions in one-year increments under section 106(a)-(b) of AC21 instead.”
​
Pressure against this discriminatory proposal, and explaining to USCIS that the decision would have been illegal and in violation of federal law worked!

Read more here.

#visa #workvisa #H1B #H1Bextension #USCIS #deportation

Read more 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 [email protected].

On August 28, 2017, USCIS had announced a new policy (effective date 10/02/2017) requiring all adjustment of status applicants seeking employment-based green cards to appear for an interview at a USCIS field office. The adjustment of status application is the final step in the green card process for foreign non-immigrant employees looking to move to permanent resident status.

Prior to this change, which went into effect on October 2, 2017, USCIS required interviews in only 5 to 10 percent of all employment-based adjustment cases.

The new policy applies to all Form I-485 adjustment of status applications filed on or after March 6, 2017, where the underlying immigrant petition is an employment-based Form I-140 (EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3). The USCIS has indicated that adjustment cases filed prior to March 6, 2017, will be adjudicated in accordance with previous procedures.

Because thousands of extra interviews will be conducted annually, there will be additional delays in the processing of these employment-based adjustment applications. USCIS has estimated that these applications will ultimately account for approximately 17 percent of the USCIS’s entire field operations workload. As a result, the change will impact the processing times for all other types of USCIS filings, such as family-based adjustment applications and naturalization cases.

What Should the Applicant Expect at the Interview? (based on the stats for October-November 2017)
The applicant could be asked about almost anything. 

• Any information provided on the Form I-485 (review the copy of the form I-485, and be prepared to answer questions).
• Issues relating to the applicant’s eligibility or admissibility, such as any arrests or misrepresentations made to an immigration officer (talk to your attorney if you ever had a DUI, arrests, domestic violence protection order filed against you, charges that were later dismissed, convictions, lied on the application, worked without authorization, etc).
• The applicant’s entire immigration history, particularly whether the applicant has properly maintained his non-immigrant status (if you worked without authorization while in a student status, etc)
• Family members applying as derivative to the employment-based principal applicant should anticipate questions about their relationship to the principal and the bona fides of that relationship (similar to a family-based green card interview).

If the field officer conducting the interview is not satisfied with an applicant’s answers and believes that an applicant is not eligible for adjustment, the Form I-485 can be denied, or a RFE (request for evidence) could be sent, or NOID (notice of intent to deny) could be issued.

Will the Field Officer Re-Adjudicate the Form I-140? USCIS has said that the interviewing field officers have been instructed not to re-adjudicate the underlying Form I-140. However, the agency has also made clear that the officers will be charged with assessing the validity of the documents used to approve the Form I-140 petition to ensure that the supporting evidence was accurate and credible. If the officer determines that that evidence is not credible, he can recommend that the Form I-140 be revoked by the service center that originally issued the approval (officer can send I-140 for revocation back to USCIS Service Center which originally approved the petition).

It is important that the applicant understands the basis for the Form I-140 petition and be prepared to articulate at the interview how his employment qualified for approval. The applicant should review the Form I-140 petition and any underlying PERM application in advance and address any tricky issues with the employer or counsel. The applicant will almost certainly be questioned about the job for which he was sponsored as well as about his own educational background and work experience. This new requirement could present a challenge because I-140 is an employer's petition, and applicants don't usually have an access to the form I-140, PERM, etc. 

An attorney can prepare the applicant on what to expect during the interview, and coordinate with the employer and the applicant to make sure that the applicant takes the appropriate documentation to the interview, knows what I-140 and PERM was about, has a copy of his I-485 form, has clean criminal record and no status violations, etc. The adjustment of status interview notices that are currently being sent to applicants are generic and confusing because they include a list of the documents that do not even apply in employment-based cases. 

On Monday, December 4, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two orders staying lower courts’ (Maryland & Hawaii) preliminary injunctions of President's September 24, 2017 presidential proclamation or 3rd travel ban. 

Accordingly, President's most recent travel ban, so-called Muslim Ban 3, will go into effect while the appeals are pending.  The U.S. Supreme Court encouraged the appeals courts to quickly decide whether the most recent travel ban was lawful.

The September 24, 2017, Presidential Proclamation on Enhancing Vetting Capabilities & Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats indefinitely blocks the entry for certain individuals from eight countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Chad, North Korea, Syria, Somalia, Venezuela and Yemen. 

Travel Restriction for Nationals of Eight Countries – Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Venezuela, Syria, and Yemen

General Rules:

• Only applies to individuals who are (i) outside of the U.S. on the day the travel ban goes into effect, and (ii) who do not have a valid visa on the day travel ban goes into effect, and (iii) who have not obtained a waiver under Section 3(c) of the Proclamation
• Does not apply to:
  • Lawful permanent residents (green card holders);
  • Individuals admitted or paroled into the U.S. on or after the effective date;
  • Those with a document other than a visa that allows them to travel to the U.S., if the document is dated on or after the effective date;
  • Dual-nationals traveling on a passport from a non-designated country;
  • Individuals granted asylum;
  • Refugees already admitted to the U.S.; or
  • Individuals granted withholding of removal, advance parole, or protection under the Convention against Torture

Previously-Impacted Countries – Restrictions Effective Immediately:

• Iran
  • Effective immediately, immigrant and nonimmigrant entry are suspended for Iranian nationals except for those with F, J, or M visas.
  • Those with F, J, or M visas will most likely be subject to “enhanced screening and vetting requirements.”
• Libya
  • Effective immediately, immigrants and nonimmigrants on business (B-1), tourist (B-2), business/tourist (B-1/B-2) visas are suspended except those with a bona fide relationship to the U.S.
• Somalia
  • Effective immediately, immigrant visas are suspended for Somali nationals
  • Non-immigrant visas are permitted, subjected to heightened screening.
  • The bona fide relationship exemption ends October 18, 2017.
• Syria
  • Effective immediately, immigrant and nonimmigrant entry is suspended for Syrian nationals
• Sudan
  • Sudan was removed from the list of restricted countries in MB-4.
  • Sudanese visa holders who were impacted by earlier Muslim Bans should now be able to reapply for visa.
• Yemen
  • Effective immediately, all immigrant visas and nonimmigrant business (B-1), tourist (B-2), and business/tourist (B-1/B-2) visas are suspended,

​Newly Impacted Countries (Added):

• Chad
  • All immigrant visas and with nonimmigrant business (B-1), tourist (B-2), and business/tourist (B-1/B-2) visas are suspended from entering the U.S.
• North Korea
  • All immigrant and nonimmigrant visa holders are suspended from entering the U.S.
• Venezuela
  • The entry of officials of government agencies of Venezuela involved in screening and vetting procedures and their immediate family members, as nonimmigrants on business (B-1), tourist (B-2), and business/tourist (B-1/B-2) visas, is suspended. Additionally, nationals of Venezuela who are visa holders are subject to additional measures.
  • Per Section 3(b)(v) of MB-4, certain Venezuelans traveling on diplomatic visas are not affected by this order.

Waivers:

If you are from one of the countries covered by the travel ban and do not yet have a valid U.S. visa, you cannot obtain a visa at this time unless you qualify for a waiver.  Consular officers may, on a case-by-case and discretionary basis, grant a waiver to affected individuals for certain reasons. To obtain a waiver and a visa, the person seeking admission must prove:

• denying entry to the U.S. would cause the foreign national undue hardship;
• admission would not pose a threat to the national security or public safety of the United States; 
• entry would be in the U.S. national interest.

 
Travel Risks for People from Affected Countries with Valid Visas:

If you are from one of the impacted countries and hold a valid visa, you may be able to apply for admission to the United States. The newest travel ban states that no visas will be automatically revoked and that those with a valid visa are not covered by the travel ban. However, travel outside the United States at this time carries risk. 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled to partially uphold President's third attempt on a travel ban, so called Muslim Ban or Travel Ban 3.0.

Ruling on the injunction issued by the District Court in Hawaii that temporarily blocked the enforcement of the new ban, the Ninth Circuit held that the travel ban could go into effect, except with regard to people with a “bona fide relationship” with close family or with an entity in the U.S., such as an employer or a university. This standard was borrowed from the Supreme Court’s June 2017 decision on a previous travel ban.

Individuals from six countries (Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen) may be banned from entry, unless they have a bona fide relationship with a U.S. family member or entity.

The Ninth Circuit decided that in addition to parents, spouses, and children living in the U.S., bona fide relationships could extend to grandparents, grandchildren, cousins, aunts, uncles, and brothers- or sisters-in-law. Entity relationships must be “formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course,” including universities, businesses, and other institutions.

The travel bans on North Korea and Venezuela were not included in the original suit brought before the Hawaii District Court. Travel of immigrants or nonimmigrants from North Korea and Venezuela remains suspended (all travel for North Korea and entry in tourist or business visitor status remains suspended for officials of certain Venezuelan government agencies and their immediate family members).

​The court ruling is here.

​

The Omaha City Council (Omaha, Nebraska) approved a resolution today, on October 17, 2017, urging the U.S. Congress to act swiftly to protect "Dreamers", students protected by DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program).

The vote was 5-0, with two council members not voting.
​
Nebraska Republican Congressman Don Bacon submitted a letter in support of the resolution, saying he is committed to protecting law-abiding DACA youth from deportation.

This is good news for Omaha area DACA protected young people whose protection is set to expire on March 6, 2018, six months after September 6, 2017 announcement by the White House of their rescission of DACA program.

Briefly in Russian:

Городской совет города Омаха штата Небраска единогласно проголосовал сегодня за то, чтобы ходатайствовать Конгресс США о восстановлении недавно отмененной программы DACA, которая предоставляла защиту от депортации, разрешение на работу, номер соцстрахования, возможность получить водительские права молодежи, которые называются "Мечтатели", Dreamers. Президент отменил эту программу 6 сентября 2017, и дата закрытия программы 6 марта 2018.

Это хорошие новости для молодежи в городе Омаха, у которых был или есть статус DACA.

#DACA #Dreamers #Nebraska #Omaha

Read 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.

On October 8, 2017, the White House released a list of immigration priorities addressing border security, interior enforcement, and a merit-based immigration system. 

The priority list calls for the hiring of 10,000 ICE agents, 300 federal prosecutors, 370 immigration judges and 1,000 ICE attorneys.  

The Department of Homeland Security would be authorized to raise and collect fees from visa services and border crossings to fund border security and enforcement activities. 

The border security measures include funding the southern border wall, ending the abuse of the asylum system, discouraging illegal re-entry by enhancing penalties and expanding categories of inadmissibility, and improving expedited removal of undocumented immigrants.

Making E-Verify mandatory, putting an end to sanctuary cities by authorizing and incentivizing states and localities to help enforce federal immigration laws, and improving visa security (which was recently declared unconstitutional by a federal judge).

With regards to the merit-based immigration system, the White House's priority list reiterates what was previously announced on August 2, 2017, when President Trump unveiled the revised RAISE Act (Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment). This law would reduce the number of eligible family-based green cards and create a new point-based system for awarding green cards. 

Specifically, the RAISE Act would establish a 30-point threshold for green cards, awarding an applicant higher point totals for higher-salaried jobs, professional degrees, English-speaking ability, younger applicant age, higher future salary, extraordinary achievements, and an applicant’s investing $1.35 million or more in the United States.

Some of these new immigration priorities were previously announced in the form of President's executive orders, proclamations and memos:

• January 23, 2017 EO: Protecting American Jobs and Workers by Strengthening the Integrity of Foreign Worker Visa Programs
• January 25, 2017 executive orders: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States and the Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements
• February 20, 2017 memo: Implementing the President's Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvement Policies
• March 6, 2017 EO:  Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States
• March 6, 2017 Memo: Implementing Immediate Heightened Screening and Vetting of Applications for Visas and Other Immigration Benefits, Ensuring Enforcement of All Laws for Entry into the United States, and Increasing Transparency Among Departments and Agencies of the Federal Government and for the American People
• April 18, 2017 EO: Buy American and Hire American
• September 24, 2017 presidential proclamation:  Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats

​If these priorities/proposals will become law, what does this mean for employers/employees? 

Employers will face higher costs in sponsoring foreign workers for visas, and for the employees it will become increasingly difficult to meet a high point-based system threshold in order to obtain a green card.
There will be additional delays in visa issuance due to the additional screening required. There will be litigation, and not all of the priorities will become the law.

On September 24, 2017, the White House issued a Presidential Proclamation which replaced expiring portions of the President's March 6, 2017 Executive Order, Travel Ban 2.0, and expanded the list of the banned countries to eight. 

The following eight countries are now subject to travel restrictions (travel ban): Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, Somalia.

There was no clear explanation why the U.S. ally in Africa, Chad, was added to the list of the banned countries. 

Iraq and Sudan were removed from the travel ban list, but the Proclamation Travel Ban recommends “additional scrutiny” for nationals of Iraq and Sudan.

This travel ban applies differently to citizens of different banned countries:

** Citizens of North Korea are barred from all types of immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States;

** Citizens of Chad are only barred from entering on immigrant visas and on non-immigrant business (B-1), tourist (B-2), and business/tourist (B-1/B-2) visas; and

** Citizens of Iran are barred in all immigrant and nonimmigrant categories except for student (F and M) and exchange visitor (J) visas. Therefore, it is expected that visa issuance and entry in categories not subject to the ban will continue uninterrupted.

The Proclamation Travel Ban goes into effect on different dates for different countries.  

For foreign nationals already subject to the Travel Ban 2.0 and who do not have a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the US, the restrictions in the Proclamation Travel Ban went into effect immediately on September 24, 2017. For all nationals of the recently added countries, travel ban will apply on October 18, 2017.

Effective October 18, 2017, the proclamation appears to get rid of the “bona fide relationship” protection implemented by the Supreme Court under its temporary ruling on the EO Travel Ban 2.0, which exempted travelers with certain qualifying family and employment relationships in the US. Most likely, this issue will be litigated again.

Contrary to the Travel Ban 2.0, the new Proclamation Travel Ban has no expiration date.  Government agencies will be presenting reports every 180 days, and the Travel Ban 3.0 can be revised based on the reports and recommendations.

Additional countries may be added in the future. 

Countries may be removed if they are recommended for removal by the DHS, in consultation with US Department of State and other relevant US agencies.

The new Proclamation Travel Ban 3.0 does not apply to certain categories of travelers:

• Lawful permanent residents..
• Travelers who already hold a valid US visa.
• Dual citizens of the designated (banned) countries who are traveling on the passport of a non-designated country.
• People already granted asylum in the US or admitted to the US in refugee status, and those already granted withholding of removal, advance parole, or protection under the Convention Against Torture.
• People traveling with a document other than a visa valid on the effective date (for example, an advance parole document) that permits them to travel to the USA .
• Holders of diplomatic visas, NATA visas, UN C-2 visas, G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas;

​A case-by-case waiver may be issued by consular and border officers when determined to be appropriate. The waiver grant guidance is expected to be released soon by the US Department of State. The waiver guidance will consider the US national interest and potential security risks for each individual, among other categories.

Full test of the Presidential Proclamation is here.

​

On September 5, 2017, on behalf of the President and current White House administration, the U.S. Attorney General formally announced the end by rescission of the 2012 immigration deferred action program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ("DACA").

DACA did not confer any legal immigration status nor it was a path to the U.S. citizenship. DACA provided protection from deportation and work permits and advance parole/travel documents to approximately 800,000 young, undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children from deportation and provided them with legal work authorization. his is disheartening to youth who have contributed so much both economically and culturally.
​
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") and USCIS will stop processing any initial DACA accepted at the USCIS office after September 5, 2017.

Any applications already accepted by this date will be processed. DHS/USCIS indicated that current beneficiaries of DACA will not be impacted before March 5, 2018, so "Congress can have time to deliver on appropriate legislative solutions."

DHS has also announced that it plans to continue to accept DACA renewal applications for any DACA beneficiary whose status expires between September 5, 2017 and March 5, 2018, so long as these applications are accepted by October 5, 2017. Any applications received after October 5 will be rejected. 

Note: if your DACA work permit expires after March 5th 2018, you will not be able to renew it for additional two years, as those who can apply to renew IF their work permit expires before March 5th 2018.

In addition, DACA recipients whose valid employment authorization document is lost, stolen or destroyed may still request a replacement through the normal process.

Important: USCIS will no longer adjudicate advance parole request associated with DACA, any applications for advance parole that are currently pending will be administratively closed and filing fees refunded.

US Citizenship and Immigration Services says that information provided in support of the application will not be proactively provided to Immigration and customs Enforcement (ICE) or to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for the purpose of immigration enforcement proceedings, unless the requestor meets the criteria for the issuance of a Notice to Appear or a referral to ICE. However, a DHS spokesman stated that if Congress does not act, then DACA beneficiaries would be treated as any other person who is in the country illegally, and therefore, subject to deportation or removal.

Additionally, all of the information provided to the government by DACA applicants will remain in the DHS system.

DHS has provided a Frequency Asked Questions webpage .

Briefly in Russian:

5 сентября 2017 Генеральный прокурор США заявил об окончании федеральной программы ДАКА, которая вступила в силу в 2012 году во время предыдущей администрации. По этой программе около 800,000 молодых людей получили разрешение на работу, поездки за границу и временную защиту от депортации.

ДАКА заявления поданные до 5 сентября 2017 будут рассмотрены, и утверждены, если соответствуют требованиям программы.

Заявления на продление разрешения на работу, находящиеся на рассмотрении на 5 сентября 2017, также будут рассмотрены.

Заявления на продление разрешения на работу, которое истекает между 5 сентября 2017 и 5 марта 2018, будут приняты и рассмотрены, если заявление на продление получено в иммиграционной службе ДО 5 октября 2017. То есть остался только месяц!

Помните, что если ваше разрешение на работу истекает после 5 марта 2018, вы уже не сможете его продлить на два года, как те, у кого они истекает до 5 марта 2018.

Заявления на разрешение на поездки за границу (advance parole) рассматриваться и утверждаться не будет.

Правительство заявило, что информация о молодых людях, подавших заявление ДАКА, не будет передаваться в соответствующие органы на депортацию (пока), но в будущем, если Конгресс не примет нового закона о защите иммигрантской молодежи, иммиграционная служба будет рекомендовать их на депортацию, так же как и всех других категорий лиц, проживающих в США нелегально.

Вопросы и ответы можно почитать тут.

On August 31, 2017, the US Department of State announced it will close down the Russian consulate in San Francisco, CA, as well as annexes in Washington, DC and New York, NY in response to mandated 755 staff cuts at the US mission in Russia in July 2017

The move comes one day before September 1st Moscow's deadline for US personnel to leave their positions and will take effect Saturday.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters that the decision to close the Russian diplomatic facilities was made directly by President.

In late 2016, President Obama ordered the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats, and the seizure of two Russian government compounds in response to alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election.

Earlier in August 2017, the U.S, Consulates in Russia stopped issuing nonimmigrant visas to Russian citizens in response to Russian sanctions announced in July 2017.

Briefly in Russian:

Госдеп США объявил сегодня о закрытии Российского Консульства в Сан Франциско, Калифорнии, и двух консульских отделов в Вашингтоне и Нью-Йорке.

По словам пресс секретяря Белого Дома, это решение было принято лично президентом.

Напомню, что еще в 2016 президент Обама выдворил из США 35 российских дипломатов и конфисковал два объекта недвижимости за подозрение во вмешательстве в выборы президента США.

Read here.

​

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will begin conducting in-person "green card" interviews for new categories of the applicants, who were approved without an interview in the past.

This change complies with Executive Order 13780, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” and is part of the strategy to improve the detection and prevention of fraud and enhance the integrity of the immigration system.
 
Effective October 1, 2017, USCIS will begin to phase-in interviews for the following:
 
• Adjustment of status applications based on employment, EB categories (Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status).
 
• Refugee/asylee relative petitions (Form I-730) for beneficiaries who are in the United States and are petitioning to join a principal asylee/refugee applicant.
 
Previously, applicants in these categories did not require an in-person interview with USCIS officers in order for their application for permanent residency to be adjudicated.

Beyond these categories, USCIS is planning an incremental expansion of interviews to other benefit types. 

As a practical matter, this new rule may result in severe backlogs now in the USCIS system, and "green card" interview wait times going up to over a year or more in some field offices. 

Read more here.

Briefly in Russian:

Начиная с 1 октября 2017, USCIS вводит интервью на грин карту по всем рабочим категориям, а также для родственников тех, кто получил статус политическое убежище или статус беженца, и находится в США.

Ранее эти категорий заявителей на интервью не вызывали.

Также USCIS намекает, не вдаваясь в детали, что в будущем они введут обязательные интервью и для других категорий дел (не только грин карты).

На практике это приведет к задержкам по рассмотрению заявлений на грин карты. Если на сегодняшний день в некоторых городах и штатах США ожидание интервью на грин карту занимает 8-12 месяцев, то эти сроки могут увеличится вдвое. 

On June 29, 2017, the U.S. Department of State sent out a cable, explaining how the US consulates will continue issuing (or denying) various visas to applicants from 6 predominantly Muslim countries, affected by the Executive Order's Travel Ban (Libya, Syria, Iran, Somalia, Yemen and Sudan).

People who were selected as winners in the 2017 DV Lottery or Green Card Lottery appear to be in the worst situation. Only some of them will be issued immigrant DV visas, if they can prove required "bona fide relationship" or qualify for en exemption or a waiver. The 2017 DV Lottery period will end on September 30, 2017, and the travel ban effective period of 90 days will end on or around September 29, 2017.

It's anticipated even by the US Department of State officials that the majority of the otherwise eligible applicants who paid the visa fee, attended their visa interviews will be denied a visa under 221(g) in accordance with the president's executive order and its most recent interpretation by the U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Department of State.

The US DoS says in the cable: "Based on the Department’s experience with the DV program , we anticipate that very few DV applicants are likely to be exempt from the E.O.’s suspension of
entry or to qualify for a waiver."   

The full text of the U.S. Dept of State cable is here.

(SBU) Diversity Visas.

8.  (SBU) For Diversity Visa (DV) applicants already scheduled for
interviews falling after the E.O. implementation date of 8:00 p.m. EDTJune
29, 2017, post should interview the applicants.  Posts
should interview applicants following these procedures:

a.) Officers should first determine whether the applicant is eligible for the
DV, without regard to the E.O.  If the applicant is not eligible, the
application should be refused according to standard procedures.

b.) If an applicant is found otherwise eligible, the consular officer will need
to determine during the interview whether the applicant is exempt from the
E.O.’s suspension of entry provision (see paragraphs 10-13), and if not,
whether the applicant qualifies for a waiver (paragraphs 14 and 15).

c.) DV applicants who are not exempt from the E.O.’s suspension of entry
provision and who do not qualify for a waiver should be refused 221(g) and the
consular officer should request an advisory opinion from VO/L/A following
current guidance in 9 FAM 304.3-1.

Based on the Department’s experience with the DV program, we anticipate that
very few DV applicants are likely to be exempt from the E.O.’s suspension of
entry or to qualify for a waiver.  CA will notify DV applicants from the
affected nationalities with scheduled interviews of the additional criteria to
allow the potential applicants to determine whether they wish to pursue their
application.

9.  (SBU) The Kentucky Consular Center (KCC) will continue to schedule
additional DV-2017 appointments for cases in which the principal applicant is
from one of these six nationalities.  While the Department is mindful of
the requirement to issue Diversity Visas prior to the end of the Fiscal
Year on September 30, direction and
guidance to resume normal processing of visas following the 90-day suspension
will be sent septel.

Executive order's suspension (or travel ban) to be enforced only against foreign
nationals who lack a “bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the
United States.” 

What does it take, for example, to establish that a DV visa applicant has required "bona fide relationsip" with a family member in the United States?
 
"11.  (SBU) “Close family” is defined as a parent (including
parent-in-law), spouse, 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, fiancés, and any other “extended” family members."

See more here.

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. ​

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

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

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

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

Limiting Who Can Be Considered a UAC.

 UAC is defined as a child who:

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

2) is under 18 years old; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Punishing Sponsors & Family Members of UACs

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

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

Criminalizing Young People

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

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

See a new March 2017 guidance here.

​

On Tuesday, March 21, 2017, the DHS announced new restrictions or ban for personal electronics on direct flights to the U.S. from 10 airports in 8 countries in the Middle East and North Africa.

Electronic devices larger than a cellphone will not be allowed in the cabin, though they will be allowed in checked baggage.

Size of the cell phone is not defined. The UK introduced similar ban, and they defined the dimensions of the cell phone allowed on the flight as no bigger than 16 cm x 9.3 cm x 1.5 cm [6.3 inches x 3.7 inches x 0.6 inches].

Who is impacted: For flights to the US, the electronic restriction applies only to direct flights on foreign carriers. The affected airlines are only foreign airlines flying from ten (10) airports in eight (8) Muslim countries. It is estimated 50 flights each day into the United States would be affected.

Who is NOT impacted: American-operated airlines from the affected airports, as well as aircraft crews are not impacted.

The list of affected countries and airports (There are 10 specific airports located in 8 countries):

Saudi Arabia (Jidda and Riyadh)
Qatar (Doha)
Kuwait (Kuwait City)
United Arab Emirates (Dubai and Abu Dhabi)
Turkey (Istanbul)
Jordan (Amman)
Egypt (Cairo)
Morocco.(Casablanca) 

Neither of these countries is on the President's #MuslimBan list or #TravelBan or so called #LIstofSeven or #ListofSix, two recent executive orders.

At the same time, the British ban affects both domestic and foreign airlines, including British Airways, Turkish Airlines, Egypt Air, Royal Jordanian, and others. The British ban affects direct flights to the United Kingdom from Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia, and Saudi Arabia.

The travel restriction is not based on any credible, specific threat of an imminent attack. Experts are divided over the need and effectiveness of the new travel restriction. It's not clear why only foreign airlines are affected, but not the US airlines.

Read more here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ICE sanctuary jurisdictions list can be found here.

​

​On Wednesday, March 15 2017, a federal judge in Hawaii issued a nationwide temporary restraining order on President's 2nd travel ban hours before it was to take effect.

It means that the travel ban was placed on hold and will not become effective, as of March 16th, all around the United States, not only in Hawaii. #travelban #muslimban #executiveorder

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson issued his ruling after hearing arguments on Hawaii's request for a temporary restraining order involving the ban. His ruling prevents the executive order from going into effect Thursday, March 16, 2017, as it was scheduled.

Judge said he will not stay his ruling should an appeal be pursued. "The Court declines to stay this ruling or hold it in abeyance should an emergency appeal of this order be filed," he said.

Hawaii argued that the ban discriminates on the basis of nationality and would prevent Hawaiian residents from receiving visits from relatives in the six mostly Muslim countries covered by the ban.

The state also argued the ban would harm its tourism industry, as well as its ability to recruit foreign students and workers.

Read here.

Read the text of the court opinion here (pdf file).
​

 On March 06, 2017, President signed a new Executive Order replacing the previous EO. 

On Monday, March 06, 2017, the President signed a new "Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States" (to replace the previous EO, so called "Travel Ban" or "Muslim Ban" which was placed on hold by the courts). 

New executive order narrowed a scope of the travel ban to block only new applicants for visas from 6 countries (LIst of Six instead of List of Seven), and removed Iraq from its coverage.

The new order, which goes into effect one minute after midnight on March 16, 2017, prohibits entry into the United States for citizens of six countries—Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen—for 90 days for those who do not already hold a valid visa. Iraq was removed from the "List of Seven".

New visas will not be issued and expired visas will not be renewed for citizens from the six countries during the 90-day period.

DHS had clarified the new ban: "If you're in the United States on the effective date of this order, which is March 16 2017, it does not apply to you. If you have a valid visa on the effective date of this order, it does not apply to you."

Like its predecessor, the new order shuts down the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days, effectively halting the admission of new refugees into the United States for four months. But March 6th order no longer includes the January 27 2017 order’s permanent ban on Syrian refugee admissions. Syrian refugees resettlement is temporarily halted for 120 days (not permanently as it was in the previous EO).

The new executive order will not apply to anyone who already holds a green card or a valid U.S. visa or has been granted official refugee or asylum status. 

The new executive order restores visas that were revoked “as a result of” the previous order. 

Sec.12 (d): "Any individual whose visa was marked revoked or marked canceled as a result of Executive Order 13769 shall be entitled to a travel document confirming that the individual is permitted to travel to the United States and seek entry.  Any prior cancellation or revocation of a visa that was solely pursuant to Executive Order 13769 shall not be the basis of inadmissibility for any future determination about entry or admissibility."

And it removes Iraq from the list of targeted countries, creating a "List of Six" from the previous "List of Seven".

Moreover, the new order expands the government’s ability to issue “case-by-case waivers” to immigrants affected by the ban. The old ban allowed these waivers only when they were “in the national interest”. Under the new order, Customs and Border Protection agents, as well as consular officers, may grant a waiver to immigrants from the six targeted countries if they fall under a number of categories. 

Those waiver categories include:

- foreign students stranded outside the United States on the day the order is signed; 
- immigrants with “previously established significant contacts” with the U.S. who are outside the country when the order is signed; 
- foreign nationals with “significant business or professional obligations” in the U.S.; 
- foreign nationals “seeking to enter the United States to visit or reside with a close family member … who is a United States citizen, lawful permanent resident, or alien lawfully admitted on a valid nonimmigrant visa”; 
- children and those in need of “urgent medical care", or “someone whose entry is otherwise justified by the special circumstances of the case”; and
- immigrants who have previously served on behalf of the U.S. government (if they can prove their service).

The updated and revised executive order on immigration took into consideration many legal objections to its predecessor, and the court of appeals decision. However, the second revised EO is not immune to litigation. We will keep you posted.
​
#EO #executiveorder #travelban #muslimban

The answers below were provided to AILA on February 27, 2017 by the U.S. Department of State, in response to issues raised by the president's January 27th executive order, so called "Travel Ban", which resulted in numerous visa cancellations and revocations.

The first January 27th executive order was replaced by March 06th executive order. Some answers provided by the U.S. Department of State still stand because they addressed several important issues which arose during the previous executive order's travel ban enforcement. Some answers would have to be adjusted because of a new March 6th executive order.

To clarify visa revocation and cancellation matters, the DoS provided the following answers:
​
Q1: What happened to the passports of applicants who had been cleared for visa issuance and were awaiting the return of their passports at the time the January 27, 2017, Presidential Executive Order (EO) was signed? If passports were returned to the applicants without the visa, what is the process for reinstating the application and receiving the visa at this time?

Answer: If visa issuance had been authorized, but the passport and visa remained in the consular section, we would have expected the consular section to spoil the visa, deny the application, and call the applicant in to pick up the passport with any issued visa having been revoked. Visa denials under the Executive Order were final, but the applicant may reapply without prejudice.

Q2: Do nonimmigrant visa applicants whose visa interviews were scheduled and then cancelled when the EO was signed need to reschedule their interviews, or are posts taking steps to reschedule them affirmatively? If visa applicants must take affirmative steps to reschedule their interviews, what is the process? What is the process for immigrant visa applicants?

Answer: We instructed our embassies and consulates to resume regular processing of visas for nationals of the seven countries subject to Executive Order 13769. Nonimmigrant visa applicants should contact their nearest U.S. Embassy or Consulate for information about scheduling an interview. The National Visa Center cancelled all scheduled immigrant visa interviews for these applicants scheduled in February 2017. The National Visa Center or U.S. Embassy will contact those affected to reschedule interview appointments.

Q3: In lieu of issuing a new nonimmigrant visa, can posts assist individuals whose nonimmigrant visa was physically cancelled (as opposed to provisionally revoked) in obtaining a boarding or transportation letter to facilitate embarkation to travel to the U.S.? Are boarding letters available for individuals with physically cancelled immigrant visas?

Answer: Visa cancellation by CBP constitutes visa revocation precluding travel. In certain situations, consular sections have issued boarding letters at CBP’s request. Other affected visa holders should apply for a new nonimmigrant visa, or contact the U.S. Embassy or Consulate where they received an immigrant visa for further instruction.

Q4: For dual nationals, please confirm that only nonimmigrant visas issued in a passport of a restricted country were provisionally revoked, and that nonimmigrant visas issued in a passport of an unrestricted country continued to remain valid. 

Answer: Given that the provisional revocation was reversed on February 3, 2017, any visas that were not canceled or revoked on other grounds were reinstated. If you have concerns about a particular case, please explain the circumstances and current status of the visa holder.

Q5: Were the nonimmigrant visas of citizens or nationals of the seven restricted countries who were present in the U.S. when the EO took effect provisionally revoked? If so, please confirm whether they have been reinstated.

Answer: When the provisional revocation was reversed on February 3, 2017, any visas that were not canceled or revoked on other grounds were reinstated.

Q6: Are individuals whose visas were provisionally revoked and then reinstated as a result of the TRO required to indicate on future applications that they have had a visa revoked?

Answer: Holders are not required to indicate on future applications that they have had a visa revoked.

Q7: Has DOS taken any additional steps has to notify individuals that their visas have been revoked other than the general notice on state.gov? Have these individuals been notified that their visas have been reinstated? If no notices have been provided, what steps can an individual take to proactively determine if his or her visa has been provisionally revoked and/or reinstated? 

Answer: When the provisional revocation was reversed on February 3, 2017, any visas that were not canceled or revoked on other grounds were reinstated. Individuals with any questions should contact their nearest U.S. Embassy or Consulate.

Q8: Did the EO have any effect on the processing of J-1 waiver applications for applicants from the restricted countries? 

Answer: The Waiver Review Division in the Visa Office generally continued processing of J-1 waiver applications while the EO was in effect.
​
******************************************************

P.S. On March 06, 2017, President signed a new Executive Order replacing the previous EO. 

On Monday, March 06, 2017, the President signed a new Executive Order on Immigration (to replace the previous EO, so called "Travel Ban" or "Muslim Ban" which was placed on hold by the courts). 

New executive order narrowed a scope of the travel ban to block only new applicants for visas from 6 countries (LIst of Six instead of List of Seven), and removed Iraq from its coverage.

The new order, which goes into effect on March 16, 2017, and bans entry into the United States for 90 days for citizens of six countries—Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen-- for those people who do not already hold a valid visa. 

Visas revoked under the first executive order have been declared "restored".

Sec.12 (d): "Any individual whose visa was marked revoked or marked canceled as a result of Executive Order 13769 shall be entitled to a travel document confirming that the individual is permitted to travel to the United States and seek entry.  Any prior cancellation or revocation of a visa that was solely pursuant to Executive Order 13769 shall not be the basis of inadmissibility for any future determination about entry or admissibility."

Read more at our blog here.

#EO #executiveorder #travelban #muslimban

DACA: CURRENT STATUS AND OPTIONS as of March 1, 2017

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program is still available and the government is still accepting and approving DACA initial and renewal applications. However, the program could be terminated at any time.

As a result, the information in this document could change so always stay up to date.

At this time, DACA should continue to provide you the same benefits–protection from deportation, work authorization and more.

However, even if you have DACA, immigration authorities may detain you and terminate your DACA if you, after receiving a DACA grant:
 are arrested or convicted for any criminal offense,
 admit to any criminal offense,
 are determined to pose a threat to public safety or national security,
 admit to fraud in connection with a government agency (such as use of a false social security number), or
 admit to gang affiliation.

According to DHS, if you disclosed the above information in previous DACA applications and your case was approved, you will continue to hold DACA.

If you failed to disclose any criminal history in your application or experience new criminal issues after receiving DACA, you should speak to an attorney as you may be at risk.

Initial DACA Applications – Recommended Only With Attorney Representation

Applying for DACA for the first time presents both benefits and risks. You should only apply after consulting with an attorney and considering the risks and benefits of your case. Be sure to have an attorney help you prepare your application. Prior criminal, immigration, fraud or gang issues could be particularly risky.

Be sure to consult an expert before applying if you have:
 previous criminal arrests or charges (even without a conviction);
 any type of criminal conviction (including either misdemeanors or felonies);
 any history of fraud related to a government agency (such as use of a false social security number); or  been deported or been ordered deported from the United States before.

Initial applications may take anywhere from a few weeks to several months to be processed. If a new application is not approved before the DACA program is changed or terminated, you may lose your application $495 fee. Furthermore, you risk exposure to immigration authorities by sending them your personal data. If pending federal legislation (the BRIDGE Act) passes to replace DACA, you may be eligible for another, less risky opportunity to be protected from deportation and receive a work permit. 

See DACA guide updated on 03/01/2017 here.

​​

Update: March 05 2017:

Major changes are expected in H-1B work visa program, either by the president's executive order or by the act of Congress, or both. A new bill was introduced in Congress. And DHS had already suspended Premium Processing for all H-1B I-129 applications file on April 3, 2017.

Read a detailed overview here.

--------------------------------------------------------------
USCIS published the following announcement:

Starting April 3, 2017, USCIS will temporarily suspend premium processing for all H-1B petitions. This suspension may last up to 6 months. While H-1B premium processing is suspended, 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 which requests the H-1B nonimmigrant classification.

We will notify the public before resuming premium processing for H-1B petitions.

Who Is Affected

The temporary suspension applies to all H-1B petitions filed on or after April 3, 2017. Since FY18 cap-subject H-1B petitions cannot be filed before April 3, 2017, this suspension will apply to all petitions filed for the FY18 H-1B regular cap and master’s advanced degree cap exemption (the “master’s cap”). The suspension also applies to petitions that may be cap-exempt.

While premium processing is suspended, we will reject any Form I-907 filed with an H-1B petition. If the petitioner submits one combined check for both the Form I-907 and Form I-129 H-1B fees, we will have to reject both forms.

We will continue to premium process Form I-129 H-1B petitions if the petitioner properly filed an associated Form I-907 before April 3, 2017.

Therefore, we will refund the premium processing fee if:

1. The petitioner filed the Form I-907 for an H-1B petition before April 3, 2017, and
2. We did not take adjudicative action on the case within the 15-calendar-day processing period.

This temporary suspension of premium processing does not apply to other eligible nonimmigrant classifications filed on Form I-129.

Requesting Expedited Processing

While premium processing is suspended, petitioners may submit a request to expedite an H-1B petition if they meet the criteria on the Expedite Criteria webpage. It is the petitioner’s responsibility to demonstrate that they meet at least one of the expedite criteria, and we encourage petitioners to submit documentary evidence to support their expedite request.

As a rule, USCIS may expedite a​ petition or application if it meets one or more of the following criteria:​

• Severe financial loss to company or ​person​;​
• Emergency situation;​
• Humanitarian reasons;​
• Nonprofit organization whose request is in furtherance of the cultural and social interests of the United States​;​
• Department of Defense or ​n​ational ​i​nterest ​s​ituation (These particular expedite requests must come from an official U.S. government entity and state that delay will be detrimental to the government.);​
• USCIS error; or​
• Compelling interest of USCIS.​

We review all expedite requests on a case-by-case basis and requests are granted at the discretion of the office leadership.

Why We Are Temporarily Suspending Premium Processing for H-1B Petitions

This temporary suspension will help to reduce overall H-1B processing times. By temporarily suspending premium processing, we will be able to:

• Process long-pending petitions, which we have currently been unable to process due to the high volume of incoming petitions and the significant surge in premium processing requests over the past few years; and
• Prioritize adjudication of H-1B extension of status cases that are nearing the 240 day mark. 

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

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

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

• Implementing the President's Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements Policies
• Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest
• Fact Sheet: Executive Order: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements
• Fact Sheet: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States
• Q&A: DHS Implementation of the Executive Order on Border Security and Immigration Enforcement
• Q&A: DHS Implementation of the Executive Order on Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States

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

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

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

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

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q2: How is ICE conducting interior enforcement operations based on this executive order?A2: Effective immediately, ICE will direct its personnel as well as its state and local partners through the 287(g) program to apply the enforcement priorities stated in Executive Order No. 13768. 
To that end, within 180 days, ICE will carry out a number of actions to implement the enforcement priorities stated in the executive order. Some of those actions include, but are not limited to, conducting targeted enforcement operations and allocating resources to work in jurisdictions with violent crime tied to gang activities.
​
Q3: Does this new memoranda substantively change the authority of immigration enforcement officers throughout DHS to exercise traditional law enforcement discretion?A3: DHS officers and agents maintain discretion to determine which action(s) to take against removable aliens, but they have been provided with additional guidance by the president and secretary. 

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

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

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

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