Category: Immigration

172 Immigrants Arrested in Sanctuary Cities by ICE in Six Days

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and United States Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) concluded a targeted enforcement operation, which lasted for a week. The operation resulted in 170+ at-large illegal immigrants arrested throughout the United States in states with sanctuary policies.

About the Immigrants Arrested

ICE officers from the field offices of New York; Seattle; Denver; Philadelphia; Baltimore; and Washington, D.C., conducted the enforcement actions from October 3 through October 9. The arrests were targeted on aliens who have criminal convictions and were arrested but released by state or local law enforcement agencies despite having immigration detainers placed on the immigrants. In a press release, ICE announced that out of the 170+ arrested, more than 80% of the aliens arrested had criminal convictions or pending criminal charges at the time of the arrest.

The immigrants arrested include 54 in New York; 35 in Seattle; 34 in Denver; 26 in Philadelphia; 12 in Baltimore; and 11 in Washington, D.C. Just at the end of September, ICE announced the arrest of 128 aliens in California from where the operation was conducted from September 28 to October 2, as part of immigration enforcement actions. The news released by ICE also had data of the arrested aliens in the fiscal year 2019: ICE arrested more than 1,900 convictions and charges for homicide, 1,800 for kidnapping, 12,000 sex offenses, 5, 000 sexual assaults, 45,000 assaults, 67,000 crimes involving drugs, 10,000 weapons offenses, and 74,000 DUIs.

Acting DHS Secretary Chad F. Wolf said, “Last fiscal year, 86 percent of people arrested by ICE had criminal convictions or pending charges. ICE focuses its resources on those who pose the greatest threat to public safety. The men and women of ICE put their lives on the line every day to keep these individuals off the streets,” He further stated that, “The Department will continue to carry out lawful enforcement actions in order to keep our communities safe, regardless of whether or not we have cooperation from state and local officials. Politics will not come before safety when enforcing the law and keeping our citizens safe.”

Though the arrests made by ICE hints that it primarily targets immigrants with a criminal record, the press release by ICE stated that it does not exempt classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement.

About Sanctuary States

Sanctuary states are states with immigrant-friendly laws, that restrict cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The non-cooperation by the state or local law enforcement agencies acts as an impediment in ICE’s ability to arrest criminal aliens in such communities. It further stated that all those in violation of immigration laws can be subject to arrest, detention, and subsequently removable based on a removal order. Additionally, ICE stated that cooperation with local law enforcement is essential to maintaining public safety.

©2020 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights Reserved
For more articles on ICE, visit the National Law Review Immigration section.

This is Big: Visa Pathway Opens for Foreign Workers Seeking H-1B; H-2B; L-1 and J-1 Visa Stamps

An important court ruling by Judge Jeffrey S. White of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has opened a visa pathway for temporary workers and their employers.

On June 22, 2020 President Trump issued a Presidential Proclamation 10052 (“Visa Ban”) which suspended the issuance of four types of visas:  H-1B; H-2B; L-1 and J-1, and also prohibited the admission into the U.S. until at least December 31, 2020 of persons subject to this Visa Ban.  Our past alerts on this Visa Ban may be accessed here.

The President claimed that he issued this Visa Ban purely for domestic economic reasons: to protect the U.S. labor force in the wake of the pandemic. But there is a strong argument that the President overstepped his authority in issuing this Visa Ban, since the underlying rationale of this Proclamation related to domestic policy-making (as opposed to keeping immigrants out of the U.S. for national security reasons).  Further, by a stroke of his pen, the President wiped out the availability of four categories of work visas specifically enacted into law by Congress.

Because the Proclamation allows for such limited exceptions to its broad reach, this Visa Ban has adversely impacted thousands of employers and temporary workers across the United States.  People who are subject to it simply cannot get L-1 or H-1B visa stamps at US Consulates abroad while the ban is in place (unless they fit into an exception/exemption based on the nature of their work).

As noted above, yesterday, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California upheld a legal challenge to this Visa Ban filed by plaintiffs including Intrax, Inc., the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (AmCham); the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the National Retail Federation, and TechNet.  The above-referenced association plaintiffs had filed the lawsuit on behalf of their association members claiming that the Proclamation exceeded the President’s authority and that it violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).   Now that the federal court in California has enjoined this Ban, members of the plaintiff associations can benefit from the injunction.  This means if an employer can show it is a member of one of these associations, or becomes a member of one of them, it can argue that the injunction applies both (a) when its employees apply for a visa abroad in one of these categories, and (b) when seeking to enter the U.S. in one of these otherwise banned visa categories.  

Joining a Plaintiff association is a straightforward matter.  For example, a company can join the American Chamber of Commerce by paying a fee of $250. U.S. Consulates should honor proof of membership in a plaintiff association in considering visa applications for one of these impacted visa categories.

It is rare to be able to take advantage of a legal ruling in this way, and all U.S. employers who depend upon their valued H-1B, H-2B, L-1 and J-1 workers, should immediately try to leverage this opportunity presented by this injunction.

©1994-2020 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

ARTICLE BY Susan J. Cohen of Mintz
For more articles on visas, visit the National Law Review Immigration section.

DHS Expands Use of Biometric Data in Immigration

Last week, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) announced plans to expand the use of biometric data in determining family relationships for immigration purposes. A proposed rule with the new protocols for biometrics use is expected to be published soon. This rule is also said to allow more uses of new technology as they become available.

The Use of Biometric Data in Immigration

The proposed rule will give the DHS the authority to require biometrics use for every application, petition, or related immigration matter. The current practice by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) requires biometrics only for applications that require background checks. This new rule is intended to give the DHS broad authority to use biometrics technology. The DHS can use voiceprints, iris scans, palm prints, and facial photos, as well as additional technologies developed in the future.

“As those technologies become available and can be incorporated as appropriate, it gives the agency the flexibility to utilize them. And then it also would give the agency the authority down the road, as new technologies become available and are reliable, secure, etc., to pivot to using those, as well,” said one USCIS official. And while children under age 14 are now generally exempt from the collection of biometric data, the proposed rule will also remove the age restriction.

DNA can be collected by the agency to verify a genetic relationship where establishing a genetic or familial relationship is a prima facie requirement of receiving an immigration benefit. Though the raw DNA will not be stored by the DHS, the test results will be saved in the immigrant’s Alien file, also known as the “A-file.” The A-file is the official file that the DHS maintains with all of the immigrant’s immigration and naturalization records. Any such information collected may be shared with law enforcement, but there is no procedural change in other agencies gaining access to the A-files.

Reactions From Immigration Leaders

The additional collection of biometric data will not result in an increase in existing filing fees, as the cost is covered under new filing fees set to go effect October 2, 2020. The DHS has emphasized that the biometrics rule is to be given top priority; nevertheless, it will undergo the standard review process.

This proposed rule quickly drew severe criticism from pro-immigration activists. Andrea Flores from the American Civil Liberties Union called it an “unprecedented” collection of personal information from immigrants and U.S. citizens. She said, “collecting a massive database of genetic blueprints won’t make us safer – it will simply make it easier for the government to surveil and target our communities and to bring us closer to a dystopian nightmare.”

DHS Acting Deputy Secretary Ken Cuccinelli welcomed the rule, stating that “leveraging readily available technology to verify the identity of an individual we are screening is responsible governing.” He added that “the collection of biometric information also guards against identity theft and thwarts fraudsters who are not who they claim to be.”

©2020 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights Reserved
For more articles on DHS, visit the National Law Review Immigration section.

Returning Resident Visas and COVID-19 Travel

With global travel disruptions reaching six months, lawful permanent residents (LPRs) and conditional permanent residents (CPRs) who are abroad and cannot currently travel back to the United States due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic are experiencing extended absences from the United States. Absences from the United States between six months to one year by a permanent resident may result in questioning at the time of reentry to the United States by the inspecting officer. Absences from the United States of more than one year can be more problematic. Those LPRs or CPRs who cannot, for whatever reason, return to the United States within the required timeframe may need to secure a “returning resident visa” from a U.S. consulate or embassy abroad.

LPRs or CPRs who have remained outside the United States for longer than one year, or beyond the validity period of a two-year re-entry permit, may require a returning resident visa to re-enter the United States and resume permanent residence. The returning resident visa is intended for LPRs or CPRs who departed the United States with the intention of returning to the United States, and only prolonged their stay outside the country due to circumstances beyond their control. For an LPR or CPR, qualifying reasons for remaining outside the United States for longer than one year or beyond the validity period of a two-year re-entry permit could include, but are not limited to, severe illness, pregnancy, third-party withholding of passport or travel documents, or government restrictions on outbound international travel such as those that may have been caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Returning resident visa applicants must be able to justify their excessive absence from the United States due to circumstances “beyond their control” while presenting sufficient support for their continuous desire to promptly resume residence in the United States due to strong and continuous financial, employment, family, and social ties to the country.

LPRs or CPRs abroad with the possibility of remaining outside the United States for longer than one year, or beyond the validity period of a two-year re-entry permit, should be cognizant of the requirement of maintaining and being able to document continuous financial, employment, family and social ties to the United States. Such documents could include copies of U.S. income tax returns, property ownership documentation, employment documentation, and evidence of family and social ties, among other relevant documentation. This documentation will potentially establish that the original intent of the trip was temporary in nature. Due to the infrequent availability of appointment dates as U.S. consulates and embassies worldwide gradually resume routine services following initial closures due to COVID-19, returning resident visa applicants are encouraged to plan their applications sooner rather than later to avoid prolonging their stays abroad even further throughout the application process, which is substantively similar to that of other immigrant visa applications and also requires a medical examination.

*Special thanks to Chris Costa for his valuable assistance with this GT blog post.

©2020 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

ARTICLE BY Jennifer Hermansky of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

For more articles on immigration, visit the National Law Review Immigration, VISA, USCIS, ICE, & DHS Legal Updates section.

DHS Rules Effective August 2020 Will Push Asylum Seekers Further into Poverty and Marginalization

In late June 2020, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced two regulatory changes intended to deprive asylum applicants of the ability to work lawfully in the United States while they await the adjudication of their asylum applications.  By increasing the obstacles asylum seekers overcome to obtain an Employment Authorization Document, commonly known as a “work permit,” the new rules endanger the health and safety of asylum seekers and their families.

The first rule change, effective August 21, 2020, eliminates the requirement that USCIS must process employment authorization applications within 30 days of receiving the application.  This rule change allows USCIS to adjudicate work permit applications for an indeterminate period of time, which will inevitably result in delays.  The government claims this move will deter immigrants from filing “frivolous, fraudulent, or otherwise non-meritorious [asylum] claims.”  But the rule change is more likely to force asylum seekers further into poverty and informal economies, thereby making it more difficult for them to meet their basic needs.

The second rule change, effective August 25, 2020, severely restricts eligibility for work permits while simultaneously increasing the waiting time for work permits.  This too will have dire consequences for asylum seekers struggling to survive while their asylum applications remain pending.  The new measures mandate the government to:

  1. substantially delay the issuance of work permits by more than doubling the waiting period to apply from 150 days to 365 days;
  2. bar asylum seekers from receiving a work permit if they attempt to enter the United States without inspection on or after August 25, 2020, unless they qualify for very limited exceptions;
  3. deny employment authorization for asylum seekers who file their asylum application after the one-year filing deadline, unless granted an exception;
  4. prohibit employment authorization for applicants who have been convicted of certain crimes or who are “believed” to have committed a serious non-political crime outside the United States;
  5. deny employment authorization applications if the underlying asylum application has experienced “unresolved applicant-caused delays,” such as a request to amend or supplement the asylum application or if the application is being transferred to a different asylum office due to a change in the applicant’s address;
  6. automatically terminate an asylum seeker’s work permit without provision for renewal if an immigration judge denies the asylum case and the applicant does not appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) within 30 days, or if the applicant does appeal but the BIA denies the appeal; and
  7. limit the employment authorization validity period to a maximum of two years.

The effects of these new directives will be devastating. Currently, the inability to work lawfully for at least six months after seeking asylum often leaves applicants homeless, hungry, and without access to health care.  Because federal law does not provide support such as income, housing, or food assistance to asylum applicants, dramatically increasing the waiting period for a work permit will exacerbate the conditions of poverty in which many asylum applicants find themselves.  Without employment authorization, asylum seekers cannot obtain health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, and often cannot apply for a driver’s license or benefit from public assistance programs that offer safe housing and access to food.  Federal law permits states to provide state-funded benefits to asylum seekers, but only about half of the states have extended benefits to that population.   Even when states do provide some public benefits to asylum applicants, it is often only for children, the elderly, or asylum seekers with specific health conditions.

Given these consequences, pro bono attorneys representing asylum seekers who are eligible to apply for a new work permit or to renew an existing work permit now should consider filing employment authorization applications before August 21, when the first of these rules goes into effect.

 

© 2020 Proskauer Rose LLP.

ARTICLE BY Erin M. Meyer and Angela Gichinga at Proskauer Rose LLP.
For more on the topic, see the National Law Review Immigration Law section.

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.

Supreme Court of the United States Upholds DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals)

In a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts on Department of Homeland Security et al vs. Regents of the University of California, the Supreme Court held that the DACA rescission was improper under the Administrative Procedures Act.

In the decision, Chief Justice Roberts concludes “that the acting secretary violated the [Administrative Procedure Act]” and thus the decision to end the DACA program must be vacated. Today, over 700,000 foreign nationals have availed themselves of the opportunities provided by DACA.

In his opinion, Chief Justice Roberts writes:

“We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies. ‘The wisdom’ of those decisions ‘is none of our concern.’ Chenery II, 332 U. S., at 207. We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action. Here the agency failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients. That dual failure raises doubts about whether the agency appreciated the scope of its discretion or exercised that discretion in a reasonable manner. The appropriate recourse is therefore to remand to DHS so that it may consider the problem anew.”

Chief Justice Roberts was joined in the majority by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sotomayor. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh filed opinions that concurred with parts of the dissent and majority.

On June 15, 2012, then-Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano issued a memorandum creating a non-congressionally authorized administration program that allowed certain individuals who entered the United States as children and met various other requirements, namely lacking current lawful immigration status, to request deferred action for an initial period of up to two years, with the ability to renew thereafter, and eligibility for work authorization. This program became known as DACA – Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

The program has faced continuous constitutional scrutiny since its creation, including the Department of Homeland Security’s order that ended the program in 2017. Lower court rulings enabled the DACA program to continue, ultimately leading to suit being brought before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s decision is not a final resolution on DACA, but instead rules that the Trump Administration’s total recession of DACA was “arbitrary and capricious” and that the administration failed to give adequate justification for ending the program. This decision keeps the DACA program in place.

The full ruling on the case can be found here.

©2020 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

To Reverify or Not: Form I-9 and Lawful Permanent Residents

On Friday, May 15, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a notice clarifying to employers that they cannot reverify Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) who presented evidence of permanent residence status that was unexpired at the time of the employee’s initial Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, regardless of later expiration. While employers were never required to reverify LPRs, there has long lacked specific instruction on this, leading many involved in human resources across Pennsylvania and New Jersey to conduct reverifications of LPRs in violation of federal law.

What is Form I-9?

Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification (“Form I-9”), is used to:

verify the identity and employment authorization of individuals hired for employment in the United States.” All employers in the United States must are required to implement procedures for the use of Form I-9 that ensure its proper completion for each individual that is hired for employment in the United States—citizens and noncitizens alike.

Federal law requires employers to “allow employees to choose which document(s) they will present from the Lists of Acceptable Documents” that is included with Form I-9. As the DHS M-274, Handbook for Employers, notes, in “Section 1, an LPR may choose to present a List A document (such as Form I-551, Permanent Resident Card, commonly referred to as a Green Card) or a List B and C document combination (such as a state-issued driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card).”

LPRs are issued a Form I-551, Permanent Resident Card (LPR Card) as evidence of permanent resident status. If an individual is an LPR and presents a valid LPR Card when completing Form I-9, the LPR Card is deemed a sufficient “List A” document, thereby rendering successful the employer’s verification of the individual’s identity and ability to work in the United States. An employee need not present any further evidence. Acceptable LPR Cards include:

  • Those issued from January 1977 to August 1989 that have no expiration date;
  • Currently unexpired, but with 10-year expiration dates; and
  • Currently unexpired, but with 2-year expiration dates.

To Reverify or Not to Reverify?

The DHS notice informs that employers who successfully complete the Form I-9 verification process with an LPR Card that either did not have an expiration date or was a 10- or 2-year LPR Card that was unexpired at the time of verification must not seek to reverify the employee in the future even if the LPR Card later expires.

However, when an individual that is an LPR presents the following to an employer during the Form I-9 verification process, it is necessary to reverify:

  • Expired LPR Card and Form I-797, Notice of Action (which is issued when an individual applies to renew an LPR Card), that indicates the LPR Card’s validity has been extended. Employers should consider these documents as acceptable “List C” evidence, requiring reverification at the end of the extension period. Note that the employee must still present a valid, unexpired “List B” document to satisfy the initial Form I-9 verification.
  • Form I-94 or Form I-94A, Arrival-Departure Record, containing an unexpired temporary I-551 stamp and a photograph of the individual. When presented, these documents are acceptable “List A” evidence. Employers must conduct a reverification no later than when the I-551 stamp expires, or one year after the issuance of Form I-94 or Form I-94A, Arrival-Departure Record, should the record not indicate an expiration date.
  • Current foreign passport with a photograph and either a temporary I-551 stamp or I-551 printed notation on a Machine-Readable Immigrant Visa. Additionally, if the current, foreign passport is, in the rare instance, endorsed with “CR-1,” rather than an I-551 stamp, the employer is reminded that the “CR-1” endorsement is the equivalent of an I-551 stamp. Employers must conduct a reverification when the I-551 stamp or I-551 printed notation on the Machine-Readable Immigrant Visa expires. If there is no expiration date listed, the reverification must occur no later than one year from the date that the I-551 was stamped or “CR-1” was endorsed in the foreign passport.

©2020 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights Reserved

For more on employment verification, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.

Immigration and Compliance Briefing: COVID-19 Summary of Government Relief and Potential “Public Charge Rule” Impact on Nonimmigrant and Immigrant Visa Applications

Public Charge Rule

The “Public Charge Rule” implemented by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) on February 24, 2020 mandates that certain individuals applying for U.S. immigration status are generally inadmissible into the U.S. if they are found likely to become a public charge at any time. Individuals inside or outside the U.S. who seek to either obtain Lawful Permanent Resident status (apply for immigrant visas and “green cards”) or to extend or change nonimmigrant status (temporary visas) must now demonstrate that they have not received public benefits, or have received limited public benefits, with some exceptions. This requires individuals to provide with their applications for immigration status additional detailed information regarding finances (such as income, assets, credit scores, bank accounts, taxes, debts, etc.). Public benefits received prior to February 24, 2020 will not weigh heavily against these individuals. Immigration case impact and processing trends are still being determined given the fairly recent implementation of the Public Charge Rule.

Available guidance notes that public benefits considered for a public charge determination include, but are not limited to, the following: any federal, state, local, or tribal cash assistance for income maintenance. Examples include Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Cash Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Section 8 Housing Assistance & Project-Based Rental Assistance, Public Housing; and Medicaid. In contrast, the following are not considered for a public charge determination: tax credits; unemployment benefits; disaster relief assistance; certain forms of nutritional support, including Special Supplemental Nutrition for Women Infants and Children (WIC) and school breakfast and lunch; and certain Medicaid benefits, including emergency medical care, school-based services and benefits, and Medicaid for individuals under 21 years of age.

As a reminder, many non-immigrants (temporary visa holders) are not eligible to receive public benefits. Eligibility for public benefits depends on immigration status, age, and other factors. Use of public benefits to which an individual is not entitled may have adverse immigration consequences beyond the public charge determination. All individuals should carefully review eligibility criteria prior to applying for and/or using public benefits.

COVID-19 Relief Measures

In response to COVID-19, the federal government has enacted broad economic relief policies. These measures include direct financial aid to families through tax credit rebates, expanded unemployment benefits and new relief programs as well as indirect aid through increased federal funding for businesses and healthcare providers. Generally, the use of disaster relief assistance will not impact a public charge determination for individuals seeking immigration benefits. However, the use of public benefits during COVID-19 can still be considered in the public charge analysis.

Healthcare Measures

Federal legislation passed in response to COVID-19 provides additional federal funding for COVID-related testing and treatment, including increased funding for Community Health Centers and for testing and treatment of uninsured and underinsured individuals. USCIS is encouraging anyone experiencing COVID-19 symptoms to seek medical treatment and/or preventative care. Seeking testing, prevention, or treatment of COVID-19 will not factor into a public charge determination for purposes of seeking an immigration benefit, even if the testing/prevention/treatment is federally funded. However, eligibility for Medicaid has not changed, and enrollment in Medicaid during COVID-19 may still be used as a factor for determining an immigration benefit under the Public Charge Rule.

Stimulus Bill Rebate Payments

The CARES Act authorized the federal government to issue one-time tax credit rebate payments to certain taxpaying individuals and households, including certain temporary nonimmigrants. Depending on income, eligible individuals can receive up to $1,200 while eligible households can receive up to $2,400. In addition, eligible individuals with children can receive $500 per dependent child under 17 years of age.

The rebate payments authorized by the CARES Act are considered tax credit payments, which will not factor into a public charge determination.  However, note the following:

  • Eligibility for tax-credit rebate payments depends on filing 2018 and/or 2019 taxes and tax residency status and requires all recipients to possess a valid social security number with limited exceptions for certain military households and adopted dependent children. This means that many mixed-status families (families with individuals in different immigration statuses) may not be eligible for the stimulus check.
  • Receiving tax credit payments in error may lead to an individual or household owing taxes, which could be used in a public charge determination for purposes of seeking an immigration benefit. It is very important that any individual receiving a tax credit rebate check ensure that they are in fact eligible to receive it.

Food and Nutritional Assistance

The Families First Act authorizes states to provide supplemental SNAP benefits to SNAP households and creates a new program, Pandemic EBT (“P-EBT”), authorizing states to provide meal assistance to children who are out of school due to COVID-19 and who would otherwise receive free or reduced school lunches. P-EBT is considered disaster relief assistance and will not factor into a Public Charge determination. However, eligibility for SNAP has not changed and enrollment in SNAP may still be used as a factor for determining an immigration benefit under the Public Charge Rule.

Unemployment Benefits

When individuals become unemployed through no fault of their own, they may qualify for relief through unemployment benefits. Unemployment benefits pay out a portion of an individual’s prior income while the individual is unemployed, and are administered by states with oversight from the Department of Labor (DOL). The benefits program is funded through taxes paid by employers. Although the federal government has set a few eligibility requirements, states are largely able to determine their own individual eligibility criteria and benefit levels for basic unemployment benefits.

While eligibility requirements for unemployment benefits vary by state, generally someone must be considered “able and available to work” before s/he is eligible to collect unemployment benefits. Since many temporary nonimmigrant work visas (such as H-1Bs and L-1s) require employer sponsorship prior to employment authorization, most people with these types of visas are not considered to be able and available to work. Individuals with other types of work authorization, such as an unrestricted EAD (Employment Authorization Document), may be eligible for unemployment benefits.

The CARES Act expands on basic unemployment benefits through three programs: Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (PUC), Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC), and Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA). These programs increase coverage and availability, but eligibility criteria are still determined by individual states.   Some states have temporarily waived eligibility requirements due to COVID-19, including the able and available requirement. This waiver may expand the types of non-U.S. workers who qualify for unemployment benefits in those states. Additionally, some states have waived waiting periods and increased payments.

Unemployment benefits are considered earned benefits and will not factor into a public charge determination.

SBA Loans

COVID-19 relief packages provide funding for small businesses in the form of loans, interest relief for certain loans, and waivers of certain fees.  Certain non-U.S. citizens who own or share ownership in qualifying businesses may apply for an SBA (Small Business Administration) loan.

SBA loans are unlikely to impact a public charge determination because generally disaster relief programs are not considered in the analysis. Also, an SBA loan is granted to a company rather than to an individual, while a public charge determination focuses on an individual

Given that this is a rapidly changing situation, please also refer to the following online resources, and be sure to review the “last updated” date:

© 1998-2020 Wiggin and Dana LLP

For more on the public charge rule, see the National Law Review Immigration law section.

Update: Suspension of Trusted Traveler Enrollment Extended to June 1, 2020

On April 22, 2020, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced it is extending its suspension of operations at all Trusted Traveler enrollment centers until at least June 1, 2020 to protect CBP officers and the general public from exposure to COVID-19.

Applicants with a previously scheduled appointment for a final interview will need to re-schedule for a date after June 1st. Applicants can log in to their online TTP accounts for more information on available appointments and to review the status of a pending application. Designated airports will continue to allow enrollment on arrival for conditionally approved applicants entering the United States.

The temporary closures apply to all enrollment centers – Global Entry, NEXUS, Sentri, and FAST.

The closures are expected to add to the already extensive backlog of pending applications. In response to this, CBP will allow current members to continue using their trusted traveler benefits for 18 months after the date of expiration provided members submit an application for renewal before their current membership expires. Additionally, applicants now have 485 days (just under 16 months) to complete their final interview from the date of conditional approval.

Please click the following links for our previous posts on this issue:

COVID-19 Immigration-Related Updates

Trusted Traveler Processing Delays 

 

©1994-2020 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

Authored by Colleen DiNicola in the Immigration Practice at Mintz Levin.
For more on travel restrictions, see the National Law Review Immigration law page.