Tag: Trump administration

United States | H-1B Denial Rates Up Slightly From 2022

H-1B denial rates in fiscal year 2023 increased slightly from FY 2022, according to a National Foundation for American Policy analysis of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services data.

Despite the increase, H-1B denial rates for FY 2023 still remain substantially lower than during the Trump administration when they peaked in FY 2018.

Fiscal Year New Employment H-1B Denial Rate
2023 3.5%
2022 2.2%
2021 4%
2020 13%
2019 21%
2018 24%
2017 13%

The low denial rate in recent years is at least in part due to legal challenges that forced USCIS to issue new guidance on the adjudication of H-1B visas in June 2020.

The NFAP analysis stated that “H-1B temporary status remains often the only practical way for an international student or other high-skilled foreign national to work long term in the United States” and said the 85,000 H-1B cap “remains the leading immigration problem for most tech companies.” The report can be read here.

©2024 Berry Appleman & Leiden. All Rights Reserved.
by: BAL U.S. Practice Group of Berry Appleman & Leiden
For more on H-1B, visit the NLR Immigration section.

USTR Seeks Comments on Section 301 Tariffs on Chinese Goods; Portal Opens Nov. 15

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) announced Oct. 17 that starting Nov. 15, it will begin soliciting comments on the effectiveness of Section 301 tariffs the Trump administration placed on Chinese goods. The notice and request for comments relate to USTR’s ongoing four-year statutory review of the Section 301 investigation of China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation.

In the Federal Registrar Notice, USTR said it is seeking “public comments on the effectiveness of the actions in achieving the objectives of the investigation, other actions that could be taken, and the effects of such actions on the United States economy, including consumers.”

The USTR is specifically interested in comments on the following:

  • The effectiveness of the actions in obtaining the elimination of China’s acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation.
  • The effectiveness of the actions in counteracting China’s acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation.
  • Other actions or modifications that would be more effective in obtaining the elimination of or in counteracting China’s acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation.
  • The effects of the actions on the U.S. economy, including on U.S. consumers.
  • The effects of the actions on domestic manufacturing, including in terms of capital investments, domestic capacity and production levels, industry concentrations, and profits.
  • The effects of the actions on U.S. technology, including in terms of U.S. technological leadership and U.S. technological development.
  • The effects of the actions on U.S. workers, including with respect to employment and wages.
  • The effects of the actions on U.S. small businesses.
  • The effects of the actions on U.S. supply chain resilience.
  • The effects of the actions on the goals of U.S. critical supply chains.
  • Whether the actions have resulted in higher additional duties on inputs used for additional manufacturing in the United States than the additional duties on particular downstream product(s) or finished good(s) incorporating those inputs.

The continuing assessment of these additional duties has been criticized by some business groups and lawmakers who believe they have hurt both U.S. businesses and U.S. consumers but have not checked China’s behavior. They also have called for the reinstatement of previously issued exclusions and for a new, robust tariff exclusion process. Some labor and civil society groups, however, want the tariffs to remain in place. The fate of these tariffs is closely tied to the Biden administration’s ongoing review and the overall U.S.–China trade relationship. The controversial tariff program that covers upwards of $300 billion worth of imports from China has sparked lawsuits from more than 3,500 importers.

The comment period begins on Nov. 15 and extends until Jan. 17. USTR said it will post specific questions on its website Nov. 1 before the portal opens.

Article By Laura Siegel Rabinowitz, Donald S. Stein, and Madeline Orlando of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

For more trade regulation news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

CEQ Reverses First Set of Trump-Era NEPA Regulatory Reforms

On April 20, 2022, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) published a final rule rolling back minor regulatory changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process that it had promulgated in 2020. The new rule reverts to the language of CEQ’s original 1978 NEPA regulations but otherwise does not substantially alter the regulatory landscape. This is the first of an anticipated two-step process as identified in CEQ’s October proposed rule. The next regulatory proposal is expected to “more broadly revisit” the 2020 regulations and propose further changes to promote environmental justice, climate change, and other Biden administration “objectives.”

The Phase 1 final rule attracted significant public comment and media coverage, but in practice, it should not meaningfully affect NEPA reviews. The regulatory changes themselves are very confined. The final rule features three main components:

Purpose & Need/Alternatives

NEPA reviews of proposed federal agency actions begin by defining a statement of purpose and need and identifying a reasonable range of alternatives. In doing so, agencies routinely give substantial weight to the project proponent’s objectives, rather than reinventing what is proposed. The 2020 rule had codified that longstanding policy by adding language expressly directing federal agencies to consider their statutory authority and the goals of the project proponent when formulating statements of purpose and need and identifying a reasonable range of alternatives that could meet the purpose and need. The new final rule deletes reference to the applicant’s goals to avoid perceived “bias” and restore “flexibility.” Yet, the final rule does not prohibit agencies from considering the applicant’s goals, and instead recognizes they remain “important.” The final rule also retains the fundamental NEPA concept that a “reasonable” alternative must “meet the purpose and need for the proposed action.”

Individual Agency NEPA Regulations

While CEQ’s regulations apply across the federal government, individual federal departments and agencies also have their own rules and procedures for implementing NEPA specific to the particular types of actions they typically undertake. CEQ oversees these agency efforts. To promote consistency in agency NEPA reviews, including those involving multiple agencies, the 2020 rule sought to restrict agencies from adopting requirements stricter than CEQ’s rules. The new Phase I rule removes this ceiling. To be clear, this change does not allow agency-specific NEPA rules and procedures to conflict with CEQ’s regulations, but it does increase the potential for inconsistencies in the application of NEPA procedures across federal agencies. That said, many federal agencies developed their own NEPA regulations and procedures years ago, did not amend those regulations and procedures in response to the 2020 rule, and are not expected to substantially alter their procedures at least while CEQ is still developing its future Phase 2 rule.

Effects

The 2020 rule simplified the regulatory definition of “effects” or “impacts” of the proposed action and alternatives to eliminate separate terms for “direct,” “indirect,” and “cumulative” effects, and to clarify which effects are “reasonably foreseeable.” It specifically provided that a “but for” causal relationship is insufficient to attribute an effect to a proposed project, while excluding potential effects from analysis “if they are remote in time, geographically remote, or the product of a lengthy causal chain” or if they are beyond the agency’s control. But the 2020 rule did not preclude consideration of cumulative impacts or climate change and allowed for their incorporation as part of the baseline for the “no action” alternative. The new Phase 1 rule simply reverses those minor changes including restoring the separate “effects” definitions. This reversion may foster more expansive indirect and cumulative impacts analysis in NEPA documents akin to the analyses developed before the 2020 rule. However, particularly because the 2020 rule did not overrule case law overwhelmingly requiring consideration of cumulative impacts and climate change, the practical implication of these changes should be minimal.

© 2022 Beveridge & Diamond PC
For more regulatory updates, visit the NLR Administrative & Regulatory section.

Trump-Era EEOC Conciliation Rule Repealed

On June 30, 2021, President Biden signed a joint resolution narrowly passed by Congress to repeal a Trump-era rule that would have increased the EEOC’s information-sharing requirements during the statutorily mandated conciliation process.

Under the Trump-era rule, the EEOC would have been required to give each employer the identity of the complainant, a written summary of the facts of the case, its legal bases for finding discrimination, and the criteria it would use to identify potential class members, as well as an estimate of the potential class size, if applicable.

The EEOC was not previously required to share this information upon initiating conciliation. Rather, conciliation has historically been an informal, voluntary, and confidential process during which the EEOC, charging party, and employer consider settlement once the EEOC has found reasonable cause to believe discrimination occurred.

Before the Trump-era rule, the EEOC followed the Supreme Court’s guidance set forth in Mach Mining, LLC v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission when meeting its conciliation requirements, which have been viewed by employers as minimal. Now that Congress has overturned the more rigid conciliation rule with President Biden’s support, the EEOC will revert to the standards set forth by Mach Mining to satisfy its conciliation obligations.

EEOC Chair Charlotte Burrows lauded Congress’s repeal of the Trump-era rule, stating that the change “restores the Commission’s flexibility to tailor the conciliation process to the facts and circumstances of each case, thus increasing the likelihood of a successful resolution.”

In short, because of the rule change, the EEOC retains its discretion to limit the amount of information shared with the employer at the conciliation stage.  Employers should not be surprised if certain relevant information—such as witness identities, factual evidence, and damages information—is not shared through the conciliation process.

Copyright © 2021, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.
For more articles on the EEOC, visit the NLRAdministrative & Regulatory section.

Surprise! President Trump Nominates Democrat and Republican to FERC

On July 27, 2020, President Trump nominated two candidates to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), securing a Republican majority on the Commission through June 2021 while also ensuring a continued quorum.

Trump nominated Allison Clements, the Democrats’ top pick, alongside Republican Mark C. Christie. Clements currently serves as founder and president of Goodgrid, LLC, an energy policy and strategy consulting firm. She previously worked for over a decade at the Natural Resources Defense Council, and spent two years as director of the clean energy markets program at the Energy Foundation. Christie currently serves as chairman of the Virginia State Corporation Commission, having served for 16 years on the Virginia board that oversees utilities.

FERC is a five-member agency that should have no more than three members of any one party. For much of the past year it has been operating with three Republicans and one Democrat. FERC’s newest commissioner, James Danly, was confirmed in March despite requests from Democrats to pair his nomination with Clements. Clements would fill the seat left vacant by Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur in August 2019. If confirmed, Christie will take the seat of Republican Commissioner Bernard McNamee, whose tenure expired in June but who plans to stay on until his replacement is seated.

Republican Chairman Chatterjee has announced that he will remain on the Commission until the end of his term, which expires June 2021, although the next President will determine if he continues to serve as chairman. Trump’s appointment of Christie, paired with Chairman Chatterjee’s intention to fulfill his term, could secure a Republican-held Commission for the first months of a Biden presidency in the event the Democratic nominee is successful in November.

©2020 Pierce Atwood LLP. All rights reserved.

Travel Bans are Legal Diplomatic Tools to Further Foreign Policy

Commentary on Travel Bans

In spite of national and international criticism, the Trump Administration continues to use travel bans as part of its strategy to pursue American foreign policy objectives. On May 29th, President Trump signed an executive order on the Suspension of Entry as Nonimmigrants of Certain Students and Researchers.

This order bans Chinese graduate students and researchers who have ties to an entity that “implements or supports” China’s “military-civil fusion strategy.” It also calls on the State Department to consider if Chinese graduate students currently in the U.S. should have their visas revoked.  The goal of this travel ban is to prevent China from acquiring sensitive American technologies and intellectual property that could modernize and enhance the Chinese military.

This is just the latest in a series of travel bans that the Administration has used to pursue foreign policy interests.  In Syria, the U.S. has a tenuous relationship with the Assad regime and the security infrastructure was ravaged by years of civil war and radical insurgents. There is no mechanism for meaningful security and information sharing between the two nations.  The Administration has a full travel ban on Syrians to guard America’s security.

In Iran, the U.S. relationship has been tense for over four decades. The Trump Administration withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and 1955 amity treaty. However, Trump’s foreign policy objective is to make a new nuclear deal with Iran.  Trump’s travel ban in Iran allows Iranian students to receive visas as a path for dialogue.

Nigeria and America are allies and major trade partners.  However countering the Islamic militant group Boko Haram, which abducted 300 girls in 2014, is also part of America’s foreign policy.  The travel ban in Nigeria is limited to only immigrant visas.  The State Department issued over 99,000 visas in Nigeria in 2019.  Of these only 6,746, or 7%, were immigrant visas.  Banning 7% of Nigerians sends a message that the Nigerian government must to more to counter terrorism. But it stops short of banning all travelers from a main trade partner.

Some Chinese graduate students are now part of a growing list of banned travelers to the United States.  Travel bans are controversial, but our government has the obligation to use all legal tactics at its disposal to pursue its foreign policy goals and to secure its citizens. Travel bans are diplomatic tools, not political weapons.

The opinions and views stated herein are the sole opinions of the author and do not reflect the views or opinions of the National Law Review or any of its affiliates.

© 2020 George Farag
For more on travel bans, see the National Law Review Immigration law section.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act: Flight of Fancy or Enduring Change?

The Trump Administration has issued a proposed rule, 85 Fed. Reg. 5915 (February 3, 2020), that would codify its interpretation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq., as applying only to the direct take of birds subject to the Act.  For decades, the federal government interpreted the MBTA as criminalizing both the direct (intentional) and incidental (unintentional and incident to an otherwise lawful activity) take of birds, their nests, and eggs covered by the Act.  Permission could be obtained for direct take, for example for hunting or for control of nuisance birds, but no such MBTA-specific framework existed to evaluate and permit incidental take under the Act.  As a result, project proponents, such as builders of wind farms, were left negotiating informal arrangements with the federal government in some circumstances or found themselves at the mercy of “prosecutorial discretion,” in others.  The leading causes of incidental bird deaths — cats, collisions with buildings, and collisions with cars — were left largely unaddressed by the federal government in implementation of the MBTA.  Judicial decisions addressing the scope of the Act have held both that the Act does criminalize incidental take and that it does not.

Into this flighty situation stepped the Trump Administration.  On December 22, 2017, the Principal Deputy Solicitor of the Department of the Interior issued a legal opinion that reversed years of practice and a prior legal opinion, concluding that the MBTA does not prohibit incidental take.  Consistent with that opinion, on February 3, 2020, the Administration issued a proposed rule that would codify the revised interpretation.  The proposed rule relies on the plain language of the statute, its history, and on constitutional concerns surrounding the extension of criminal liability under a statute that is ambiguous at best.

The MBTA makes it unlawful: “at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, possess . . . any migratory bird, any part, next, or egg of any such bird . . . .”  16 U.S.C. 703(a).  Proponents of the prior interpretation urge that the language “at any time, by any means or any manner” evidences an intent to broadly criminalize any acts that result in bird deaths, even if they are not deliberate and not targeted at birds.  The proposed rule rests on a contrary view – that the words “hunt, take, capture, kill” are all affirmative acts directed at birds that have the purpose of reducing them to human control.   In the proposed rule, the Administration considers the legislative history of the Act and concludes that it confirms the view that the MBTA was enacted to address the direct take of birds — in response to over-hunting of birds and to Canadian concerns regarding the impact of U.S. actions on bird populations in Canada – and not to broadly criminalize any and all behavior that may kill birds.

The Trump Administration’s interpretation is already under review in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.  In that case, the plaintiffs brought a direct challenge to the Department of the Interior’s 2017 legal opinion.   The court denied the government’s Motion to Dismiss the matter; summary judgment briefing is ongoing.

Comments on the proposed rule can be submitted through March 19, 2020, in Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2018-0090 at www.regulations.gov.

© 2020 Bracewell LLP

ARTICLE BY Ann D. Navaro of Bracewell LLP.

DACA: Updates and Options for Dreamers

This November, the United States Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on the case that will decide the fate of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.[1] This program, established through executive action, has offered a temporary reprieve from removal (deportation) to nearly 800,000 students and young professionals raised in the United States.[2] While the program protects a generation categorically denied opportunity to gain legal status,[3] it is very limited in scope. Remarkably, DACA does not confer any immigration status itself nor offer a separate pathway to any other status including permanent residency.[4]

The idea that someone can be present in the United States without legal status while not unlawfully present is confusing – not only to the general public, but apparently to the Supreme Court. In oral argument for U.S. v. Texas, Chief Justice John Roberts wondered, “I’m sorry, that just so I get that right… Lawfully present does not mean that you’re legally present.”[5] Justice Samuel Alito also asked, “[H]ow can it be lawful to work here but not lawful to be here?”[6] If members of this nation’s highest court struggle with this concept, it is no wonder there is confusion surrounding DACA.

DACA: Benefits and Limitations

The DACA recipients, or “Dreamers,”[*] are in legal limbo: allowed to work in the United States, but with no legal status. DACA recipients are permitted to continue their education, and receive a social security number.[7] In some states, recipients can also apply for a driver’s license.[8] DACA also offers a reprieve from accruing “unlawful presence,” a legal term for time spent in the United States without status as an adult, which can lead to future bars to reentry to the US.[9] However, the deferred action program does not, on its own basis, allow its recipients to apply for a separate status.[10] DACA protections expire every two years, and require subsequent renewal applications.[11]

It is no wonder that Dreamers have been called “the best and brightest young people.”[12] The DACA protections only extend to a group of educated youth that have never been convicted of most categories of crimes.[13] To qualify, an applicant must have arrived to the country under the age of sixteen, attend school or have completed their education, and be under the age of thirty, among other requirements.[14] By the nature of the program, recipients arrived as children and therefore may not have a connection to their country of birth. As a result, many Dreamers are attending universities, building careers, and living their lives in the United States without a guarantee that they can obtain legal status to stay permanently.

DACA is Unique Only in its Limited Scope

Deferred action is a commonly used exercise of prosecutorial discretion.[15] As with many other government actions, officials set enforcement priorities to manage limited resources. In addition, the Department of Homeland Security can grant deferred action on an individual basis at any time.[16] The Dreamers’ immigration standing is also not unique, because, as Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito learned, many foreign nationals in the US can work legally but do not have legal status. This includes applicants for adjustment of status to permanent residence, and foreign nationals of countries granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS).[17] Applicants for political asylum are also permitted to work legally in the US after a certain time period while awaiting a final decision on their applications.[18]

The DACA program is part of a long history of executive actions related to immigration. In 1961, the Kennedy Administration established a program to give immigrant visas to Cuban refugees, as well as provide financial help, medical care, and other resettlement services.[19] The program benefitted around one million Cuban Americans.[20] Subsequently, when an influx of both Cubans and Haitians arrived on Florida shores in 1980, most were discretionarily admitted to the country.[21] Several years later, President Reagan announced that immigration standards for 200,000 undocumented Nicaraguans would be eased, and directed the immigration service to “encourage and expedite” their work authorizations.[22] After the 1986 immigration reform bill offered a pathway to residence to many undocumented families, around 100,000 children of those families were shielded from deportation by executive action.[23] In 1990, former President Bush expanded the program by creating an application process for undocumented individuals to stay in the United States and receive work permits.[24] Two consecutive administrations also expanded the TPS status of thousands of Salvadorans and Nicaraguans until they were offered a pathway to permanent residency by law.[25] Within this context, DACA is much less beneficial to eligible foreign nationals than other major executive actions on immigration, because it provides no pathway to any other immigration status and certainly not permanent residence.

The DACA program was designed as a solution to a problem created by more recent changes to immigration law, which were promoted by many of the same immigration restrictionists that now oppose DACA. For most of American history, migrants from Mexico and other countries travelled back and forth across the border for work in the United States, but maintained a primary residence in their home countries.[26] Migration consisted of seasonal flows from Mexico corresponding to the need for agricultural and railroad workers.[27] There was often no need to stay permanently, so workers returned home in the winter.[28] As a result, families often stayed in Central America instead of relocating to the U.S.[29]

During the second half of the 20th century, U.S. law made it difficult to legally migrate from Central America.[30] As a result, it became risky to travel across the border and entire families settled undocumented.[31] While DACA did not fix this legal status discrepancy, it allowed the children of these families to stay and continue their education and careers.

Recent Changes to the DACA Program

In 2017, the Trump Administration attempted to end the DACA program.[32] After several lawsuits were filed to challenge the termination of DACA, injunctions were issued to order the Department of Homeland Security to continue to process DACA renewals and employment authorizations, but the government could refuse new applications.[33] The pending litigation challenges whether the Trump administration acted with proper authority in attempting to end the program, and whether the Court has the authority to review the administration’s decision.[34]

Even if the Supreme Court upholds the Trump Administration’s decision to end the DACA program, there remains a chance that Congress will act to protect Dreamers. An amendment to immigration law would render the pending case moot and take precedence over any Department of Homeland Security administrative decision. Although at least ten iterations of the bill have been introduced, none have passed.[35] This year, the House passed the American Dream and Promise Act which would grant DACA recipients permanent, statutory protections.[36] However, the bill still has to pass the hurdle of a favorable Senate vote.[37]

The situation of Dreamers is that of legal purgatory – with the door shut to legal status and very few options to leave the United States and return with a visa. Legislative action has been stalled for decades and now a conservative Court is poised to hear the case in the coming weeks. Dreamers and activists alike hope the Court will see DACA as a rational response to protect 800,000 young people from the legal conundrum created by U.S. immigration law.

Options for the Future

With the future of the DACA program uncertain, many Dreamers and employers are assessing their options. The following section is an overview of considerations for DACA recipients, who are in a unique and challenging legal position. With each type of visa, there are exceptions and complicating factors, such as criminal convictions, that may affect eligibility. Although immigration law permits waivers of certain conditions, waivers are granted only in narrow circumstances. As a result, each individual should discuss their unique situation with an experienced immigration attorney.

Immigrant Visa Petitions.

There are several types of immigrant visas available for individuals wishing to become permanent residents, including primarily (1) immediate relative petitions, (2) family-based petitions, and (3) employment-based petitions.[38] The first category can be filed by a U.S. citizen spouse, parent, or an adult child (over the age of twenty-one).[39] The second two types of immigrant visas, based on family and employment, each have different subcategories and are subject to numerical annual limits.[40]

Even if a DACA recipient can qualify for an immigrant visa, there are unique issues that may prevent many from receiving the green card. There are two avenues to receive permanent residency: consular processing at a U.S. Consular Post abroad; and adjustment of status while present in the United States.

Adjustment of Status. Whether a DACA recipient can adjust their immigration status to permanent resident depends on the time spent in the United States without legal status, the manner of U.S. entry, and the type of immigration sponsor. As a general rule, Dreamers cannot adjust status with a family-based petition because it requires continuous lawful status.[41] Employment-based petitions are only available if the individual has less than 180 days of unlawful presence.[42] Thankfully, the immediate relative petition allows adjustment to those who have been undocumented for many years.[43] However, like all petitions, the immediate relative petition requires lawful entry to the United States with either a visa or a travel authorization document.[44] Dreamers who marry a U.S. citizen may have other options even without lawful entry, but will want to seek the advice of an immigration attorney.

Consular Processing. The alternative to adjustment of status is applying for an immigrant visa and interviewing at a U.S. embassy. Most DACA recipients will face challenges in this method, as well. Beginning at age eighteen, any person who has spent over 180 days without legal status faces a three year bar to reentry to the United States.[45] This bar increases to ten years after one year of unlawful presence.[46] Therefore, leaving the country for an interview at a U.S. embassy is a practical impossibility for many recipients who have accrued unlawful presence before approval under DACA.

Non-Immigrant Visa Petitions.

There are numerous types of temporary visas. The F-1 student visa, the O-1 extraordinary ability visa, H-1B work visa, and the B visas for tourism and business are all examples.[47] Most DACA recipients face one fundamental challenge to receiving any of these visas: a grant of a temporary status while living in the U.S. requires an existing, valid underlying status. DACA does not confer any non-immigrant status for this purpose.

Thus, Dreamers seeking a temporary visa are in a similar position as those hoping to receive a green card through consular processing. The process requires leaving the United States and reentering with a visa, a path complicated by three-year and ten-year statutory bars. If available, Dreamers may want to pursue a position abroad with their company. In addition, individuals who are eligible may want to consider whether they qualify for Temporary Protected Status (TPS), which would confer the ability to apply for other temporary statuses.

Humanitarian Petitions.

It is worth noting that there are a few pathways in immigration law for humanitarian-based relief, including the special immigrant juvenile visa, asylum, and visas available for survivors of crimes and domestic abuse.[48] These options may present a pathway to permanent residency for DACA recipients, but only for those that qualify and receive a favorable exercise of discretion.

In summary, individuals temporarily protected under DACA should consider alternatives in the coming months before the Supreme Court’s decision. Though the pathway to permanent residency is narrow, there may be a few options available to stay continuously or to work abroad and return after a few years. The most important step is to continue to renew DACA in the meantime. Finally, it is important to consult with an experienced immigration attorney to help navigate the available options.

[*] The name “Dreamers” originated from the name of the legislative act, the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, originally introduced in 2001.

[1] See DHS v. Regents of the Univ. of Calif., 139 S.Ct. 2779 (2019). The case was consolidated with two other lawsuits, Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen and NAACP v. Trump, with oral arguments set for November 12, 2019 and decision expected around June 2020. DACA Litigation Timeline, Nat’l Immigration Law Center, https://www.nilc.org/issues/daca/daca-litigation-timeline/ (Last updated Sep. 28, 2019).

[2] Gustavo Lopez & Jens Manuel Krogstad, Key Facts about Unauthorized Immigrants Enrolled in DACA, Pew Research Cent. (Sep. 25, 2017), https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/25/key-facts-about-unauthorized-immigrants-enrolled-in-daca/.

[3] See Dara Lind, Why Ending DACA is so Unprecedented, Vox (Sep. 5, 2017), https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/5/16236116/daca-history (noting DACA protects individuals largely without legal pathways to permanent residency).

[4] See U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children 3 (2012), https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s1-exercising-prosecutorial-discretion-individuals-who-came-to-us-as-children.pdf; See also Frequently Asked Questions, Nat’l Immigration Law Center https://www.nilc.org/issues/daca/faqdeferredactionyouth/ (Last updated Dec. 16, 2016).

[5] Transcript of Oral Argument at 28, United States v. Texas, 136 S.Ct. 2271 (2016) (No. 15-674).

[6] Transcript of Oral Argument at 28, United States v. Texas, 136 S.Ct. 2271 (2016) (No. 15-674).

[7] DACA, Immigration Legal Resource Center, https://www.ilrc.org/daca, (Last visited Oct. 18, 2019).

[8] Immigration Legal Resource Center, Preparing for the Future 15 (2019), https://www.ilrc.org/preparing-future-understanding-rights-and-options-daca-recipients.

[9] Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility, USCIS, https://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/unlawful-presence-and-bars-admissi… (Last visited Oct. 18, 2019); Understanding Unlawful Presence Under INA § 212(a)(9)(B) and Waivers of Unlawful Presence, Immigrant Legal resource Center 3 (2019), https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/understanding_unlawful_presence_march_2019.pdf.

[10] See U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children 1 (2012), https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s1-exercising-prosecutorial-discretion-individuals-who-came-to-us-as-children.pdf (“This memorandum confers no substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship.”).

[11] See Id.; The Dream Act, DACA, and Other Policies Designed to Protect Dreamers, American Immigration Council 3 (2019), https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/the_dream_act_daca_and_other_policies_designed_to_protect_dreamers.pdf.

[12] Get the Facts on the DREAM Act, The White House President Barack Obama (Dec. 1, 2010), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2010/12/01/get-facts-dream-act; See also The Dreamers Are a Good Part of America’s Future, The Wall Street Journal (July 25, 2017), https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-dreamers-are-a-good-part-of-americas-future-1501002274; Power to the Doers and Dreamers, Unleashing the Best and Brightest, Int’l Business Times (Aug. 16, 2010), https://www.ibtimes.com/power-doers-dreamers-unleashing-best-brightest-193274; Gabrielle Levy, Obama: Trump’s DACA Decision ‘Cast a Shadow’ of Deportation Over ‘Best and Brightest’ U.S. News (Sep. 5, 2017), https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-09-05/obama-trumps-daca-decision-cast-a-shadow-of-deportation-over-best-and-brightest.

[13] U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children 1 (2012), https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s1-exercising-prosecutorial-discretion-individuals-who-came-to-us-as-children.pdf.

[14] Id.

[15] See Shoba S. Wadhia, The Role of Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Law, 9 Conn. Pub. L. J. 243, 246 (2010)

[16] Id.

[17]Employment Authorization Document, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, https://www.uscis.gov/greencard/employment-authorization-document (Last updated Apr. 5, 2018).

[18] Id.

[19] See Larry Nackerud et al., The End of the Cuban Contradiction in U.S. Refugee Policy, 33 Int’l Migration Rev. 176, 177 (1999); See also Drew Desilver, Executive Actions on Immigration Have a Long History, Pew Research Center (Nov. 4, 2014), https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/21/executive-actions-on-immigration-have-long-history/.

[20] See Larry Nackerud et al., The End of the Cuban Contradiction in U.S. Refugee Policy, 33 Int’l Migration Rev. 176, 177 (1999)

[21] See Drew Desilver, Executive Actions on Immigration Have a Long History, Pew Research Center (Nov. 4, 2014), https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/21/executive-actions-on-immigration-have-long-history/; See also Julio Capo, The White House Used This Moment as Proof the U.S. Should Cut Immigration, It’s Real History is More Complicated, Time (Aug. 4, 2017), https://time.com/4888381/immigration-act-mariel-boatlift-history/.

[22] Immigration Rules Are Eased for Nicaraguan Exiles in the U.S., New York Times (July 9, 1987), https://www.nytimes.com/1987/07/09/world/immigration-rules-are-eased-for-nicaraguan-exiles-in-us.html.

[23] Am. Immigration Council, Reagan-Bush Family Fairness (Dec. 2014), https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/reagan_bush_family_fairness_final_0.pdf.

[24] Id.

[25] See Drew Desilver, Executive Actions on Immigration Have a Long History, Pew Research Center (Nov. 4, 2014), https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/21/executive-actions-on-immigration-have-long-history/; See also Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act, 8 C.F.R. § 240.60 (2014).

[26] See Dara Lind, Why Ending DACA is so Unprecedented, Vox (Sep. 5, 2017), https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/5/16236116/daca-history (noting DACA protects individuals largely without legal pathways to permanent residency); See also Douglas Massey & Karen Pren, Unintended Consequences of US Immigration Policy 38 Population and Dev. Review 1-3 (2012), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2012.00470.x.; Marc Rosenblum & Kate Brick, US Migration and Policy and Mexican/Central American Migration Flows 1-3 (2011)

[27] Marc Rosenblum & Kate Brick, US Migration and Policy and Mexican/Central American Migration Flows 3 (2011).

[28] Id.

[29] See Dara Lind, Why Ending DACA is so Unprecedented, Vox (Sep. 5, 2017), https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/5/16236116/daca-history

[30] See Douglas Massey & Karen Pren, Unintended Consequences of US Immigration Policy 38 Population & Dev. Rev. 1-3 (2012), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2012.00470.x; Marc Rosenblum & Kate Brick, US Migration and Policy and Mexican/Central American Migration Flows 1-3 (2011).

[31] See Dara Lind, Why Ending DACA is so Unprecedented, Vox (Sep. 5, 2017), https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/5/16236116/daca-history.

[32] Michael Shear & Julie Davis, Trump Moves to End DACA and Calls on Congress to Act, New York Times (Sep. 5, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/us/politics/trump-daca-dreamers-immigration.html.

[33] See DACA Litigation Timeline, Nat’l Immigrant Justice Cent., https://www.nilc.org/issues/daca/daca-litigation-timeline/ (Last Updated Sep. 28, 2019); See also Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. DHS, 908 F.3d 476 (9th Cir. 2018).

[34] Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. DHS, 908 F.3d 476 (9th Cir. 2018).

[35] Id.

[36] American Dream and Promise Act of 2019, 116th Congress, H.R.6 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6.

[37] See Alan Gomez and Ledyard King, House Passes Bill to Protect ‘Dreamers’, but Faces Long Odds in Republican-led Senate, U.S.A. Today (Jun. 4, 2019), https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/04/house-passes-bill-dreamers-tps-but-senate-unlikely/1337753001/; Natalie Andrews & Andrew Duehren, House Passes Bill Aimed at Protecting Immigrants Brought Illegally to the U.S. as Children, Wall Street Journal (Jun. 4, 2019), https://www.wsj.com/articles/house-passes-bill-aimed-at-protecting-immigrants-brought-illegally-to-u-s-as-children-11559689659.

[38] See 8. U.S.C. § 1151 (2018).

[39] See 8. U.S.C. § 1151(b)(2)(A)(i) (2018).

[40] See 8. U.S.C. § 1151 (2018).

[41] See 8 C.F.R. §245.1(b)(6) (2018).

[42] Applicability of Section 245(k) to Certain Employment-Based Adjustment of Status Applications, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (July 14, 2008), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/Static_Files_Memoranda/Archives%201998-2008/2008/245%28k%29_14jul08.pdf.

[43] See 8 C.F.R. §245.1(b)(6) (2018).

[44] See 8 C.F.R. §245.1(b)(3) (2018).

[45] See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(b) (2018).

[46] See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(b) (2018).

[47] See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15) (2018).

[48] See Humanitarian, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian (Last visited Nov. 1, 2019). For additional resources, see Humanitarian Protection, Am. Immigration Council https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/topics/humanitarian-protection (Last visited Nov. 1, 2019).

©1994-2019 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

ARTICLE BY Lauren Watford & the Immigration Practice at Mintz Levin.
For more on DACA/Dreamers, see the National Law Review Immigration law page.

DACA Program Continues as U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Expedite Consideration of Cases

The “Dreamers” have received another reprieve from the U.S. Supreme Court.

DACA litigation has been in the news since September 2017, when then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the DACA program would be terminated. In response to that announcement, multiple lawsuits were filed in federal courts in California, New York, Maryland, Texas, and the District of Columbia, resulting in multiple nationwide injunctions blocking the termination of the program. Indeed, the injunctions have forced USCIS to continue granting DACA renewals.

According to Vice President Mike Pence, the Trump Administration is looking for a way to prevent U.S. District Courts from imposing nationwide injunctions. In a speech in May, he said these injunctions are “judicial obstruction.” Absent relief from these injunctions, the Administration is attempting to expedite review of pending cases that are blocking its policies.

For instance, the Administration attempted to force the Supreme Court’s early consideration of the DACA cases in early-2018, which the Court rejected. At the end of May 2019, the government again sought to expedite the case by filing a brief urging the Court to decide whether to grant review by the end of this term, i.e., by June 24, 2019. The Administration argued, “The very existence of this pending litigation (and lingering uncertainty) continues to impede efforts to enact legislation addressing the legitimate policy concerns underlying the DACA policy.” But that argument did not prevail. On June 3, 2019, the Court rejected the Administration’s request.

The Court probably will not even consider reviewing the DACA cases until the fall and, if it grants review, a decision might not come down until sometime in 2020.

For now, the “Dreamers” can continue to renew their status, but they also will have to continue to live with the uncertainty. There is always the possibility that Congress will pass legislation that might provide a permanent solution for the “Dreamers,” but the legislative route has been bumpy. While numerous deals have been proposed regarding a DACA solution, stumbling blocks continue to appear in the form of unacceptable “quid pro quos.” Indeed, DACA was even a pawn in the most recent government shutdown.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2019

This post was written by Forrest G. Read IV of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Get updates on Immigration and the Dreamers on our Immigration type of law page.

Federal Court Allows Challenge to Government Policy of Using Detained Immigrant Children as Bait to Arrest Families

A November 15th ruling in the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia could have a major effect on the Trump Administration’s policy, which unnecessarily detains 1000’s of immigrant children for extended periods of time and which in effect traps certain sponsor’s of the detained immigrant children who try to claim them. The Government’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought on behalf of detained immigrant children was denied by the court on five of the six counts of the amended complaint allowing the lawsuit to move forward. Judge Leonie Brinkema’s decision also has implications for immigration battles to come, not only in Virginia but throughout the United States. (see J.E.C.M., a minor, by and through his next friend JOSE JIMENEZ SARAVIA, et al. v. SCOTT LLOYD, Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement, et al. Case No.1:18-CV-903-LMB ).

Legal Aid Justice Center (LAJC), together with the Washington, D.C. intellectual property law firm of Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein, and Fox(Sterne Kessler), brought this first-of-its-kind class action lawsuit on behalf of four minor immigrants challenging the Trump Administration’s recent policy of sharing the sponsor information of immigration children and information about the sponsors’ household members with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This policy has resulted in the arrest of people who come forward to help undocumented migrant children including family and friends that came forward to bring their children home.

In April 2018, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHS) and the Department Health and Human Service (HHS) entered into an agreement, which went into effect May 13, 2018, for the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), the branch of HHS that is in charge of housing immigrant children, to transfer fingerprints and other information on immigrant children’s sponsors and other adult members of the sponsor’s household to ICE.

As reported by the Guardian in September:  ICE’s acting deputy director, Matthew Albence, said at a Senate committee hearing:

We’ve arrested 41 individuals thus far.  Our data that we’ve received thus far indicates close to 80% of the individuals that are either sponsors or household members of sponsors are here in the country illegally, and a large chunk of those are criminal aliens. So we will continue to pursue those individuals.

The November 15th ruling stems from a case where four children were detained and held in custody for a five-month period by the ORR in Virginia, while their relatives attempted to bring them home.

The children involved in the lawsuit claimed they were fleeing violence and neglect in their home countries of Honduras and Guatemala. Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala, consistently rank among the most violent countries in the world. Together these countries form a region known as the Northern Triangle, whose extreme violence stems from civil wars in the 1980s, which left a legacy of violence and fragile governmental institutions. The region remains menaced by corruption, drug trafficking, and gang violence despite tough police and judicial reforms according to the Council on Foreign Relations.

In this case, three of the four detained children were reunited with their families weeks before the court’s ruling. One of the children was reunited only one week before the court’s decision. For the three children who were released from custody first, their cases were dismissed by the court. The court allowed the case to go forward for the fourth child, who remained in custody for a six-month period and was held apart from his sister for the duration of the proceedings.

Groups including the Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law and the LAJC’s lead attorney on the case, Becky Wolozin, say the lawsuit highlights how:

The Trump administration has been carrying out a backdoor family separation agenda, keeping immigrant children apart from their families and using children as bait to break up the very families they have traveled so far and risked so much to join.

Working alongside Sterne Kessler, Wolozin and the LAJC challenged the ICE Policy for unaccompanied children entering the country and other related issues, which has resulted in arrests of families and friends trying to bring their children home. With more than 13,000 children being held by the ORR, this case’s outcome will possibly impact all families covered under the Administration’s current detainment policies. 

Wolozin goes onto highlight the importance of this decision as being “An important victory and decision for immigrant families and children who are being detained.” Per Wolosim, Judge Brinkema acknowledged Constitutional violations in this case and the violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in administering her decision.

Stern Kessler Director, Salvador Bezos, head of the firm’s immigration pro bono practice, says, “For years, ORR has neglected its obligations under the Administrative Procedure Act.” Bezos further noted, “The APA provides essential protections against this kind of agency overreach. I am proud of my colleagues’ and LAJC’s efforts to force the government to meet its obligations to the children in its custody.”

LAJC’s Legal Director of the Immigration Advocacy Program, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, also weighed in on the decision, saying “ORR is supposed to protect vulnerable immigrant children. Instead, it is placing them in harm’s way under the guise of child welfare.” “[These] policies and their enforcement undermine successfully placing children with their families and the vast surveillance actions are destabilizing immigrant communities.”

Wolozin, further details the importance of the decision. She states:

The exponential increase in the number of immigrant children in government custody has not been caused by more children crossing the border, but instead by ORR’s own policies dramatically increasing the amount of time ORR holds children in its custody. In denying the motion to dismiss, Judge Brinkema recognized the failure of due process for these children and their families, the disregard for the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, and importantly, the tantamount importance of protecting all people’s constitutional right to family unity, even when not between a parent and a child.

The Virginia case will move forward as LAJC works to certify the class and the parties work to complete discovery.

Monday another setback for the Trump Administration was issued by Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court in San Francisco, which may at least temporarily, stall the administration’s attempt to clamp down on the rights of immigrants seeking asylum in response to the wave of Central Americans crossing the border. Judge Tigar ordered the Trump administration to resume accepting asylum claims from migrants no matter where or how they entered the United States. “Whatever the scope of the president’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden,” Judge Tigar wrote in his order and issued a temporary restraining order that blocks the government from carrying out a new rule issued this month that denies protections to people who enter the country illegally. The order, which suspends the rule until the case is decided by the court, applies nationally.

 

Copyright ©2018 National Law Forum, LLC
This post was written by Jennifer Schaller and Alessandra de Faria of the National Law Review.