Category: Immigration

Employment-Based Petitions Exempt (at Least for Now) Under New NTA Policy

Beginning October 1, 2018, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) will begin a staggered rollout of a new notice to appear (NTA) policy. The first phase of the rollout does not include employment-based petitions.

The NTA policy authorizes immigration officers to issue NTAs and thus initiate the first step in removal (deportation) proceedings for those deemed to be removable from the United States after the denial of an immigration benefit. USCIS deployed the NTA policy in July 2018 but then later put it on hold while it developed additional guidance for the policy’s application.

In a recent announcement and during a September 27, 2018, stakeholder teleconference, USCIS offered additional details about the policy’s implementation and highlighted the following information:

  • The initial focus is on applications (as opposed to petitions) and the policy affects adjustments of status (Form I-485), applications for naturalization (Form N-400), and applications to extend or change nonimmigrant status (Form I-539), among others.
  • Employment-based petitions (including those based on Forms I-129 and I-140) are not included in the initial rollout, nor are humanitarian applications and petitions.
  • Generally speaking, USCIS will not immediately issue an NTA upon the denial of an immigration benefit. It will wait for the expiration of the motion or appeal period before issuing an NTA—though it is worth noting that USCIS reserves the right to issue an NTA at any point during the adjudication period, where appropriate.
  • The NTA policy does not affect motions to reconsider or reopen, or appeals. If USCIS ultimately approves an application after an NTA has been issued, it will coordinate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to make sure that ICE is aware of the favorable outcome. USCIS cannot cancel or withdraw an NTA that it has issued.
  • The NTA policy does not include initial requests for deferred action for arrivals (DACA), renewals, or requests for DACA-related benefits.
  • USCIS may, in its discretion, issue an NTA at the request of a removable foreign national so that he or she may seek lawful status or other relief during removal proceedings.
  • As USCIS begins implementing the NTA policy, it will create a public-facing web page that will provide additional guidance on the policy and examples of scenarios that may trigger the issuance of NTAs.

USCIS has not provided a timeline for any additional implementation measures.

 

© 2018, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.
Read more on Immigration on the National Law Review’s Immigration Type of law page.

Recent Developments In Case Law And Policy Applicable To Immigrants And Their Employees

In these turbulent times for immigrants, we would like to signal a few recent developments in case law and policy that apply to immigrants and/or their employers.

1. Deportation and Removal

In the case of Pereira v. Sessions decided on June 21, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that individuals with prior deportation orders may now apply to reconsider/ reopen their cases if they were served with a written notice to appear in removal proceedings that did not specify the “time and place at which the removal proceedings will be held”. It is worth noting that most notices to appear served before June 2018 DID NOT SPECIFY the required time and place for the removal proceedings, hence many individuals would be eligible to reopen their removal orders under the Pereira case. The Pereira case would benefit in particular those who have been continuously present in the U.S. for 10 years or longer and have a spouse, child(ren) or parent(s) who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents. To take advantage of the path to legalization that this case offers, it is imperative that you contact our office no later than September 21, 2018, which is the deadline for filing motions to reconsider/ reopen under the Pereira case.

2. Employment-Based Immigration

USCIS announced that it is extending the temporary suspension of premium processing for April 2018 cap-based H-1B petitions and, beginning September 11, 2018, will be expanding this suspension to include ALL H-1B petitions filed at Vermont and California Service Centers (and CT falls under the jurisdiction of the Vermont Service Center) except H-1B petitions for extension of status to continue on with the same employer and certain cap-exempt filings. The suspension is expected to last until February 19, 2019. The practical effects on employers will be felt in the areas of April 2018 cap-subject petitions and H-1B transfers which will now take several months to adjudicate. H-1B employees may be impacted in their ability to travel abroad while the H-1B is still pending and we highly recommend consulting us before any international travel. We advise employers looking to petition for H-1B transfers to use premium processing, if desired, no later than September 10, 2018.

In other employment-based immigration categories we are seeing increased processing times for work permits (EADs) from 3 to 6 months, a much higher incidence of Requests for Evidence (RFEs) on most work visa and green card categories, a higher incidence of fraud investigations on a wide range of cases, and as a consequence a spike in the need for highly skilled immigration counsel to ensure strict compliance with applicable laws and policies.

3. Family-Based and Naturalization

Processing times have increased – in some cases dramatically – for most family-based categories and naturalization cases. For example, in CT the I-751 removal of the condition application now takes 18 months instead of 11-13 months and naturalization cases are currently projected at 8.5 to 19 months instead of the 4-6 months previously.

4. DACA Applications and Advance Parole

Ongoing federal litigation in DACA continues to create confusion with regards to DACA applications, and pending litigation means there will likely be changes to the process in upcoming months. At present, USCIS is not considering first-time filings based on DACA, or requests for Advance Parole based on an approved DACA application. It is, however, processing renewals for those who currently have DACA status, as well as accepting initial DACA applications for those who had DACA status in the past. DACA renewal applications should be filed six months before the expiration of current DACA status so as to minimize the likelihood of having a gap in employment authorization.

In conclusion, we invite you to contact us to discuss and carefully plan the impact that these ever-changing immigration policies may have on your status, international travel, or your ability to hire and retain foreign labor. Please note the above-mentioned deadlines by which to act on your applications/petitions.

© Copyright 2018 Murtha Cullina
This post was written by Dana R. Bucin of Murtha Cullina.

Hiring US Citizens Only for ITAR Compliance Can Violate the Immigration and Nationality Act

The Department of Justice (DOJ), Civil Rights Division, announced on August 29, 2018, its civil settlement with the international law firm, Clifford Chance US LLP, for violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1324b, attributable to Clifford Chance’s overly restrictive interpretation of who can work on projects involving data controlled by the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).

Clifford Chance, for purposes of conducting a large scale document review involving ITAR controlled data, restricted the project to U.S. Citizens only, based on its good faith belief that only U.S. Citizens could work on ITAR projects. But the ITAR generally allows U.S. Persons to have access to ITAR controlled data, and defines a (natural) “U.S. Person” as “a lawful permanent resident as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20)” or “a protected individual as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(3).” See 22 C.F.R. 120.15. Thus the ITAR does not restrict access to U.S. citizens only, but also generally allows access by non-U.S. citizens who fall within the following classes, among others:

  • Nationals of the U.S. (i.e., those born in the “outlaying” possessions of the U.S. meeting specified requirements, or individuals born of a parent who meet specified requirements);
  • Aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence (i.e., “green card” holders);
  • Certain refugees; and
  • Certain asylum seekers.

According to DOJ, Clifford Chance unlawfully discriminated against persons based on their citizenship by excluding eligible non-U.S. citizens from its ITAR project. DOJ rejected Clifford Chance’s argument that it should be absolved of liability because it acted in good faith (there’s no good faith exception to the prohibition against discrimination under 1324b), and Clifford Chance agreed to pay a $132,000 civil penalty, implement various corrective actions, and allow DOJ oversight for a two-year period.

What does that mean for you? If you hire or contract with U.S. Citizens only for purposes of fulfilling your ITAR obligations, you may be violating the INA. You should review your hiring and contracting processes to make sure that you do not limit hiring or outsourcing to U.S. Citizens only, when ITAR compliance is your justification for denying job opportunities based on citizenship or national origin.

 

© 1998-2018 Wiggin and Dana LLP
This post was written by David A. Ring and Najia S. Khalid of Wiggin and Dana LLP.

Federal Judge Determines that California’s Immigration Law Goes Too Far

A federal district judge in California issued a preliminary injunction preventing the State of California from enforcing certain provisions of Assembly Bill (AB) 450, a state statute that, among other things, prohibits private employers from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies in the absence of a judicial warrant or a subpoena. The law, which is also known as the Immigrant Worker Protection Act, went into effect on January 1, 2018. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit in March 2018, alleging that AB 450, and two other California immigration statutes, preempt federal law and interfere with the government’s ability to carry out its duties.

In his July 4, 2018 order, Judge John A. Mendez discussed the difficult position of the court in balancing the federal government’s power to determine immigration law against state powers. Judge Mendez determined that three key parts of AB 450 “impermissibly infringed on the sovereignty of the United States” and discriminate against employers that voluntarily choose to work with the federal government. As a result, the judge granted the DOJ’s motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of the three offending provisions. The judge did, however, uphold the law’s notice requirements, finding that the rule did not interfere with the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration laws.

Impact on Employers

Until further notice, private employers in California will not be in violation of state law in the following circumstances:

  • If theemployer voluntarily consents and allows an immigration enforcement agent to enter nonpublic areas of a place of business, even if the agent does not have a warrant.
  • If the employer voluntarily provides an immigration enforcement agent with access to employee records without a subpoena or court order.
  • If the employer reverifies an employee’s eligibility to work even when not strictly required by federal statutory law.

It is important to note that the notice requirements under AB 450 were upheld and are still in effect. The law’s notice requirements are as follows.

Prior to Inspection

  • The law requires employers to notify each current employee, within 72 hours of receiving notice of an inspection, that an immigration agency will be inspecting I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms or other records.
  • The law requires employers to post the notice “in the language the employer normally uses to communicate employment-related information to the employee.”
  • The notice must include the following information:
  1. “The name of the immigration agency conducting the inspections of I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms or other employment records.
  2. The date that the employer received notice of the inspection.
  3. The nature of the inspection to the extent known.
  4. A copy of the Notice of Inspection of I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms for the inspection to be conducted.”
  • The California Labor Commissioner’s Office released a template notice form to help employers comply with the posting requirements.

After Inspection

  • “Except as otherwise required by federal law, an employer shall provide to each current affected employee, and to the employee’s authorized representative, if any, a copy of the written immigration agency notice that provides the results of the inspection of I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms or other employment records within 72 hours of receipt of the notice.”
  • Employers must also provide “each affected employee, and to the affected employee’s authorized representative, if any, written notice of the obligations of the employer and the affected employee arising from the results of the inspection of I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms or other employment records.
  • This notice is required to be hand delivered directly to the affected employee at the workplace, if possible. If hand delivery is not possible, the notice must be delivered by mail and email to the employee’s email address, if known, and to the employee’s authorized representative.
  • “The notice shall contain the following information:
  1. A description of any and all deficiencies or other items identified in the written immigration inspection results notice related to the affected employee.
  2. The time period for correcting any potential deficiencies identified by the immigration agency.
  3. The time and date of any meeting with the employer to correct any identified deficiencies.
  4. Notice that the employee has the right to representation during any meeting scheduled with the employer.”

Employers that fail to provide the required notices are subject to penalties of $2,000–5,000 for a first violation and $5,000–10,000 for each subsequent violation. AB 450 does not assess penalties against employers that fail to provide notice to employees at the express request of the federal government.

 

© 2018, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.
More immigration news is available on the National Law Review’s Immigration Page.

Some California “Sanctuary State” Employer Obligations Are Struck Down

On July 4th, U.S. District Judge John. A. Mendez issued an order enjoining California from enforcing parts of the California Immigration Workers Protection Act (Assembly Bill 450), a new state law that restricted private employers from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement.

Among other things, the law imposed fines on private employers of up to $10,000 per violation if they “voluntarily consent” to giving federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas of a “place of labor” and/or to employee records, and it mandated that the employer insist that the authorities obtain a judicial warrant or subpoena before such information would be turned over. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 7285.1 and 7285.2. The court sided with the U.S. Department of Justice in finding that several provisions of AB 450 discriminate against private employers who cooperate with the federal government.

In his Order, Judge Mendez stated that “these fines inflict a burden on those employers who acquiesce in a federal investigation but not on those who do not.” Thus, the court found that “a law which imposes monetary penalties on an employer solely because the employer voluntarily consents to federal immigration enforcement’s entry into nonpublic areas of their place of business or access to their employment records impermissibly discriminates against those who choose to deal with the federal government.”

The court also struck down a provision of the law limiting an employer’s ability to re-verify an employee’s employment eligibility unless otherwise required by federal law on the ground that it “frustrates the system of accountability that Congress designed.” Cal. Lab. Code § 1019.2. The court left standing an employer obligation to warn employees in writing of an imminent inspection of I-9 forms by federal immigration authorities. Cal. Lab. Code § 90.2(a)(1).

This decision means that private sector employers may not be prosecuted for: (i) consenting to a federal immigration enforcement agent’s request to enter nonpublic areas in the workplace; (ii) granting federal immigration enforcement agents access to employee records; or (iii) re-verifying an employee’s eligibility to work in the United States. The decision will likely be appealed, which means there may be more twists in store.

 

© 2018 Proskauer Rose LLP.
This post was written by Anthony J Oncidi and Tracey L Silver of Proskauer Rose LLP.

“The Executive Order Has No Clothes!” Lawyer Moms of America Speak Out About Immigration Policy and Plan Action

News of children being taken away from their parents as both are sent to immigration detention centers has dominated the news cycle over the past few weeks, and a group of Lawyer Moms are doing something about it.  Specifically, the group is writing an open letter that demands a “just and humane” resolution to the crisis at the border, and they are planning a day of action to deliver their message directly to elected officials at their offices on June 29th.

The Trump Administration’s “zero-tolerance” policy has resulted in parents and children being separated at the southern border. And the images and audio of the distraught children and parents have prompted both Americans and pundits here and abroad to express their outrage.  The continuous media coverage and wide-spread outcry forced the issue and President Trump bowed to the political pressure, signing an Executive Order on Wednesday, June 20, saying that while the administration will enforce immigration laws “it is also the policy of this Administration to maintain family unity.”

Four self-described lawyer Moms, distraught by the images coming in the media surrounding this crisis, formed the group Lawyer Moms of America on Facebook.  Erin Albanese, one of the founding members says, that it all started with a Facebook posting.  One of the other co-founders, an immigration attorney, posted about her client, who had her child taken away and had not seen nor heard from her child in several weeks.  Albanese, says this story resonated, and she and the other co-founders thought, “there’s got to be something more that we can do.”

It turns out, there was.  The four co-founders, Tovah Kopah, Laura Latta, Elizabeth Gray Nuñez and Albanese started the group on June 7, and this group has grown to about 14,000 members as people are looking for ways to get involved and take action.  The group drafted an open letter to political leaders on the situation and are asking individuals and groups to sign it, they intend to deliver the letter on June 29th. Additionally, Albanese says, “we are working with organizations in this space that are already doing work and trying to amplify their efforts and connect people to places where they could volunteer or donate and get more information as well.”

Lawyers Mom’s Seek More than the Executive Order

The Lawyer Moms of America read the Executive Order and were not impressed.  Albanese says, “our catchphrase is ‘the Executive Order has no clothes’.  The more we look at it, the more unhappy we are.”   The group has determined that their number one concern is getting the families back together, and the Executive Order “EO” does not articulate how that is going to happen.  Albanese says, “The number one glaring issue is that it [the EO] doesn’t mention family reunification at all . . . It seems like there hasn’t really been a system for tracking families that have been separated and bringing them back together.”  This analysis has proven precedent, as of the 2500 children taken away from their parents, as of Saturday only 522 had been reunited.  Additionally, the Executive Order seems to solve the problem of family separation by creating indefinite detention, creating “internment camps” to house families for the foreseeable future, with little idea of when they will be released.  Albanese points out in her criticism of the Executive Order that, “Ending family separation by indefinite family detention is not a great fit.”  Perhaps most problematic, Trump’s Order does not address the root of the problem–the policy of “zero-tolerance” that created this situation in the first place.

This issue has proved a hot-button one for many, as it hits at something fundamental.  Albanese says, “Many have had a visceral reaction to this, because every one of us can put ourselves in that place or that child or that mother.”  With the situation far from resolved, there is still plenty of work to do.  Lawyer Moms of America have created a list of actions concerned individuals can take, and they are asking people to sign their open letter.  The Lawyer Moms of America group is aware that there are a lot of great groups at work on this issue, and they are focused on helping those groups in their respective missions.  Albanese says, “We are mobilizing and using the energy to help make some noise.   We’re trying to funnel resources to the folks that are already doing this and doing it well.”

On June 29, the group is looking to hand-deliver the letter to elected officials across the country, demanding action in a show of unity.  Albanese says, “Our goal would be to, at a minimum,  that we hit somebody’s office in every state. We’d love to hit every member of Congress’s office. But we’ll see if we get there.”

With a track record that includes a Facebook group growing from 4 to 14,000 members in a few days?  There’s a good chance it’ll happen.

 

Copyright ©2018 National Law Forum, LLC
This post was written by Eilene Spear of the National Law Forum, LLC.

Administration Considering New Rule on Lawfully Present Immigrants Who Use Public Benefits?

The Trump Administration reportedly is considering a new rule that would make it easier for the government to deny visas to individuals on “public charge” grounds. This has drawn the criticism of many New York legislators.

The Administration may have been contemplating the move for a while. In January 2017, when the first travel ban was implemented, the Administration reportedly had been working on a draft executive order meant to fulfill some of President Donald Trump’s campaign promises based on the assumption that “households headed by aliens (legal and illegal) are much more likely than households headed by native-born citizens to use federal means-tested public benefits.” That executive order was never signed and never formally released.

More than 70 New York State legislators, headed by Assemblyman Andrew D. Hevesi, sent a letter to Trump on June 8, 2018, opposing the proposed rule because they would “fundamentally and negatively alter who we are as a nation, directly threaten the health and well-being of millions of New Yorkers, and impose a significant economic burden on [New York].”

Under current regulations, the government may deny individuals seeking visas or permanent resident status if they likely will become “primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance, or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.” That cash assistance includes Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and state or local cash assistance programs known as “general assistance.” However, according to the USCIS Fact Sheet, simple receipt of those benefits does not necessarily lead to a public charge determination. “Each determination is made on a case-by-case basis in the context of the totality of the circumstances.” USCIS would not consider many government programs, including Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), housing benefits, and unemployment compensation, among many others, in making public charge determinations.

Reportedly, under the proposed changes, programs not previously considered in making a public charge determination will be considered, including:

  • Certain health care subsidies

  • Some educational benefits, including Head Start

  • Affordable Care Act subsidies

  • Food Stamps, now known as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

  • Women, Infants and Children assistance (WIC)

  • CHIP

  • Certain housing benefits

  • Transit vouchers

The New York legislators noted that immigrants, including those with U.S. citizen children, might stop enrolling in healthcare programs to preserve their ability to obtain immigration benefits. “It is not difficult to imagine the dire outcome for New York of hundreds of thousands of children disenrolling from health insurance benefits,” they observed.

The proposal has not yet been approved by Secretary of Homeland Security, Kirstjen Nielsen. The New York legislators have urged the Administration “to reject outright this ill-advised change in policy and recognize that this nation is not strong in spite of immigration; it is strong because of immigration.” States with large immigrant populations (such as New York and California) would be particularly affected by any change.

A Migration Policy Institute study found that almost half of noncitizens legally in the U.S. could be affected by the proposed rule – only three percent are affected by the current rule. Moreover, studies have shown that native-born Americans use public benefits at roughly the same rate as the foreign-born population.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2018
This post was written by Enrique Alberto Maciel-Matos of Jackson Lewis P.C.
Read more Immigration news on the National Law Review’s Immigration Page.

Temporary Protected Status for Honduras to End in January 2020

In a not unexpected move, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, announced on May 4, 2018 that Temporary Protected Status would terminate for Honduras on January 5, 2020. This will give the approximately 60,000 Honduran TPS beneficiaries eighteen months to arrange for their departure or seek an alternative lawful immigration status.  The American Immigration Council has noted that these TPS beneficiaries may have as many as 50,000 children who are U.S. citizens.

TPS for Hondurans began in 1999 as a consequence of Hurricane Mitch. Secretary Nielsen noted that “conditions in Honduras that resulted from the hurricane have notably improved . . . [and] Honduras has made substantial progress in post-hurricane recovery and reconstruction.”

Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R. Fla.), advocating for legislation that would allow immigrants who received TPS prior to 2011 to apply for legal permanent residence, stated: “Sadly, Hondurans are only the latest group of people in my South Florida community losing their TPS status this year following Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Salvadorians. The administration’s wrongheaded decision to rescind TPS for thousands of Hondurans in the United States will impact their lives in a tragic way. The loss of these hardworking people will have a negative impact on our economy, in addition to disrupting so many lives in our community.”

Other advocates for TPS have noted that Honduras is regularly listed as one of the world’s most dangerous countries and that Honduras is not ready to repatriate the TPS beneficiaries due to poverty, political unrest, a recent three-year drought and widespread gang violence.

Those Hondurans currently in TPS status will be able to re-register and extend their EADs until January 5, 2020. Details about this process will be forthcoming in the Federal Register. Hondurans should not submit re-registration applications until after the announcement appears.

 

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2018
This post was written by Forrest G. Read IV of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Report: New Internal Oversight Division within USCIS to be Established

The Washington Post has reported that USCIS is establishing an internal oversight division. The new division’s purpose, in part, would be to monitor more closely officers who are too lenient in assessing applications for permanent residence and citizenship, including overlooking negative factors such as misdemeanors and the receipt of government benefits (e.g., food stamps). Employees of USCIS would be encouraged to report any such observed “misconduct” by other staff to the new office, which would report directly to Director Francis Cissna.

Establishing this division follows changes Cissna recently made to the USCIS mission statement. That revised statement emphasizes ensuring that benefits are not provided to those who do not qualify, moving away from prioritizing customer (i.e., applicant) satisfaction.

A USCIS spokesman said the agency has no official announcement to make regarding any reorganization at this time, but did not deny such a division is being considered.

 

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2018
This post was written by Forrest G. Read IV of Jackson Lewis P.C.

The Four Pillars: Trump’s Immigration Plan

In his first State of the Union address, President Trump described four “pillars” to his immigration plan, with mixed reception. The pillars reinforce his campaign slogan to “Buy American, Hire American” and track with the immigration policy priorities he has previously outlined. These priorities include border security, interior enforcement and a merit-based immigration system.

The first two pillars address building a wall along the Southern border as well as a pathway to citizenship for certain undocumented foreign nationals presently in the United States, including about 800,000 young people (Dreamers) who were granted temporary status through the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, now rescinded by President Trump.

The third pillar would end the diversity visa lottery (DV lottery). This program was established by Congress in 1990 and allocates 50,000 green cards to foreign nationals of countries with historically low U.S. immigration rates. Which countries are eligible can vary from year to year based on government-collected statistics as to how many foreign nationals have immigrated from those countries through other non-DV lottery programs. For example, in FY2018, most African countries were eligible, as were most European countries, except Great Britain. Countries that were not eligible included Pakistan, the Philippines, India, Mexico, Brazil, El Salvador, and Peru. The odds of being chosen are poor. Past data reveals about 14.5 million apply annually.

A common misconception, indeed one articulated by President Trump, is that the DV lottery program “randomly hands out green cards without any regard for skill, merit, or the safety of our people”. In fact, however, DV lottery participants must demonstrate that they meet certain educational or skilled work experience requirements in addition to clearing robust government background and security checks. Those selected in the DV lottery must be screened just like any other green card applicant – including family- and employment-based green card applicants. The process is arduous and can take months to complete. Security screenings include biometrics as well as name and fingerprint checks through multiple interagency government databases to identify potential criminal, national security, terrorism, organized crime, gang and other related issues. Applicants also must attend an in-person interview where they are again screened for potential red flags affecting admissibility.

The fourth pillar addresses family-based immigration and would limit it to immediate family members which include spouses and minor children. Referring to “chain migration”, President Trump stated that “a single immigrant can bring in virtually unlimited numbers of distant relatives.” This misconstrues current immigration law. The United States already limits family-based immigration. Family-based green cards are only available to spouses, children, parents and siblings (for U.S. citizens). Grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins and other extended family members are ineligible. The number of family-based green cards are limited by annual quotas. For example, siblings of U.S. citizens who filed family-based petitions between 1994 and 2004 are only now current. In other words, the wait is long. Furthermore, sponsors of family-based green card applicants must also demonstrate that they have the financial means to support the intended beneficiary by signing a contract with the government agreeing to reimburse for any means-tested public benefit the beneficiary should receive, until the beneficiary has worked 10 years, becomes a US. citizen, dies or leaves the United States permanently.

U.S. immigration law is complex and a challenge to understand for those who aren’t regularly walking its trenches. For those curious about the Administration’s regulatory agenda, https://resources.regulations.gov/public/custom/jsp/navigation/main.jsp is a good place to start. Those interested in learning more about U.S. immigration facts can also access the American Immigration Council’s resources available at https://americanimmigration council.org/.

 

Copyright © 2018 Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP All Rights Reserved.
This post was written by Jennifer Cory of Womble Bond Dickinson.
More on Immigration at the National Law Review Immigration Page.