Angelo Paparelli, ABIL Immediate Past President
Nation of Immigrators

The EB-5 immigrant investor green card program resembles a multi-country version of Chutes and Ladders, the "game of rewards and consequences".  In the EB-5 edition, the ladder represents progress toward a green card and the chute is an ICE-tunneled luge ride ending in immigration court at a removal hearing.  This comparison only begins to approach the bewildering array of laws, regulations, holographic policy interpretations and artificial, bureaucratically-contrived traps for the unwary that lead up -- in two stages -- to the grant or denial to foreign investors of U.S. lawful permanent resident status.

Recently, however, the agency administering the EB-5 program, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), has made some encouraging moves.  In a message from its Director, Alejandro Mayorkas, the agency announced a variety of program changes. They include the formation of the Office of Immigrant Investor Programs, to be led an individual with business experience, though not necessarily a lawyer, the creation of a regional center Review Board, the employment of eight economists, and the hiring of attorneys with transactional experience.  

Some of these green-shoots changes -- though heartening -- smack of a "been there, done that" moment. Veterans of the EB-5 program will recall the 2005 "Establishment of an Investor and Regional Center Unit," which placed control of the program within USCIS Headquarters, and the termination of the Unit by memorandum in 2009.  The decision to shut down what had evolved into a useful, facilitative practice of Headquarters engagement with EB-5 stakeholders, also included the unhelpful and ill-advised transfer of authority in EB-5 matters to the USCIS's California Service Center, and the decision to allow agency communication with only one lawyer in each investor's case, even though every EB-5 matter before USCIS typically includes multiple parties with varying legal interests, each represented by separate legal counsel.

As I noted in my October 22, 2012 New York Law Journal article (coauthored with Ted Chiappari), "Dollars and Jobs for EB-5 Green Cards:  A Challenging Route to U.S. Residency," this “Back to the Future” moment by itself is not enough:

The sad truth is that investors pursuing an EB-5 green card put their lives and their wealth at risk. In doing so, they may well face the predicament of Jack Benny, the American comedian known for his tightwad ways.  When confronted by a mugger who screamed: “Don't make a move, this is a stickup. . . . Your money or your life,” Benny paused. The mugger insisted: “Look, bud! I said your money or your life!” Exasperated, Benny responded: “I'm thinking it over!” Such, sadly, is too often the unpalatable choice faced by incautious investors who leap without first looking carefully into the still perilous, but possibly improving, EB-5 immigrant visa program.

by Cyrus D. Mehta, ABIL Lawyer and Gary Endelman
The Insightful Immigration Blog

“The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice.” Dr. Martin Luther King

As if the non-recognition by the governors of Arizona, Nebraska, Texas and Mississippi of Obama’s Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was not enough, a lawsuit filed by disgruntled ICE agents further reveals the misguided hate against a most vulnerable and sympathetic immigrant population in the US – young  people who entered the US before they turned 16, and who are not in a lawful status through no fault of their own.

The law suit, Crane v. Napolitano, has been filed by 10 ICE agents in a federal court in Texas who are being represented by Kris Kobach – the architect of the anti-immigrant state laws of Arizona and Alabama. It is being bank rolled by NumbersUSA, an anti-immigrant organization, which has been called a hate group. Even the head of the AFL-CIO has slammed the plaintiffs as not representing legitimate union grievances (as 9 out of the 10 plaintiffs belong to the ICE Union) but as “working with some of the most anti-immigrant forces in the country, forces that have long sowed division and destruction.”

The law suit alleges that the recent prosecutorial discretion policies enunciated in the Memo by ICE Director John Morton  and DACA command ICE officers to violate federal law. In essence, ICE officers, according to plaintiffs,  are required to remove non-citizens who are not here legally while DACA prohibits an officer from doing just that, which among other things, requires the individual to have entered the US under the age of 16;  been continuously residing in the US from June 15, 2007 until June 15, 2012, and was present on June 15, 2012;  is currently in school, has graduated from high school or obtained a GED or has been honorably discharged from the Armed Forces or the Coast Guard;  and is not above the age of 30. Also, the qualified individual should not have been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, or multiple misdemeanor offenses, and does not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.

The law suit invokes provisions from the 1996 Immigration Act. The complaint alleges as follows:  “8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1) [INA § 235(a)(1)] requires that “an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted…shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” This designation triggers 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(3) [INA § 235(a)(3)] which requires that all applicants for admission “shall be inspected by immigration officers.” This in turn triggers 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A)  [INA § 235(b)(2)(A)] which mandates that “if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a proceeding under section 1229a of this title.” The proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a [INA § 240] are removal proceedings in the United States immigration courts.”

Deferred action is neither recent nor radical. Widows of US citizens have been granted this benefit. Battered immigrants  have also known its sheltering arms.  Never has the size of a vulnerable population been a valid reason to say no. Knowing this, the extension of such relief to DACA applicants is less a leap into the unknown justified by some wild, lawless ideology than a sober reaffirmation of an existing tool for remediation in prior emergencies. Moreover, many EWIs are also eligible for adjustment of status under special provisions of the law, but they are not routinely detained under INA § 235(b)(2)(A).  While they may be entitled to admission beyond a clear doubt, such a determination is not been made upon the mere filing of the adjustment application. Moreover, this argument is clearly not applicable to individuals who enter the US on a valid visa and overstay, which is the case with many DACA applicants.

Also, Kobach's law suit conveniently omits to mention INA § 103(a)(1), which charges the DHS Secretary with the administration and enforcement of the Act, which in turn implies that the DHS can decide when to and when not to remove an alien. He also fails to mention INA 274A(h)(3)(B), which excludes from the definition of “unauthorized alien” any alien “authorized to be so employed . . . by the Attorney General.” After all, 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(14),  which authorizes the grant of employment authorization to one who has been granted deferred action, has been around for several decades. The only new thing about DACA is that the guidance memorandum set forth criteria for the grant of deferred action, and work authorization under 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(14).

Congress too has recognized “deferred action” in § 202(c)(2)(B)(viii) of the REAL ID Act as a status,  which can allow an alien to receive a driver’s license.  This stands in marked contrast to the stated refusal of the Republican gubernatorial quartet noted supra to allow issuance of state driver’s licenses. Texas Governor Perry apparently does not realize that current Texas law already allows deferred action beneficiaries who have an employment authorization document to get a one-year Texas license.

There is a direct conflict between these Governors and the provisions of the Real ID act that, as of January 1, 2013, will sanction issuance of state driver’s license to deferred action grantees, This has been brought out vividly in Nightmare in Arizona: Governor Brewer’s Nonsensical And Mean-Spirited Executive Order Against Dreamers, and is a classic example of conflict pre-emption that is constitutionally impermissible under Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 183  L.Ed.2d  351 (2012). Whatever state executives may think, when confronted with the expressed intent of Congress in the Real ID Act, their opposition to deferred action having state driver’s licenses must give way. State law cannot “stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz,  312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941). We suggest that the enemies of Dream Act relief tread softly and with great care. Gary Endelman & Cynthia Lange, The Perils of Preemption: Immigration and the Federalist Paradox, 13 Bender's Immigr. Bull. 1217 (Oct. 1, 2008).

We refer our readers to the excellent Immigration Impact blog on why Kobach and the plaintiffs will likely lose. One compelling argument that the blog makes is that the court will dismiss for lack of jurisdiction since a federal case cannot be made out of a difference of opinion between government employees and their superiors. The blog’s author Ben Winograd draws this apt analogy: “ICE agents hauling the head of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) into court is like a law clerk suing a judge for writing a decision with which she disagrees—or Kobach’s own subordinates in Kansas seeking an injunction requiring him to perform his actual job as Kansas Secretary of State. It’s just not how the legal system works.”

We propose further suggestions why the law suit may have no merit. We now revive the argument that we made in The Tyranny of Priority Dates that the courts will most likely give deference to the administration’s interpretation of INA provisions in the event that it grants benefits, such as work authorization, through executive action. Indeed, in the recent past, another restrictionist group filed a similar law suit against an administrative measure, which failed. In Programmers Guild v. Chertoff,  08-cv-2666 (D.N.J. 2008), the Programmers Guild sued DHS challenging the regulation extending Optional Practical Training from 12 months to 29 months for STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) students. The plaintiffs in seeking a preliminary injunction argued that DHS had invented its own guest worker program without Congressional authorization. The court dismissed the suit for injunction on the ground that DHS was entitled to deference under Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Under the oft quoted Chevron doctrine, courts will pay deference to the regulatory interpretation of the agency charged with executing the laws of the United States when there is ambiguity in the statute. The courts will step in only when the agency’s interpretation is irrational or in error. Similarly, the Supreme Court in Nat’l Cable & Telecomm. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005), while affirming Chevron, held that if there is an ambiguous statute requiring agency deference under Chevron,  the agency’s interpretation will also trump a judicial decision interpreting the same statute. The court in dismissing the Programmers Guild lawsuit discussed the rulings in Chevron and Brand X to uphold the DHS’s ability to extend the student F-1 OPT regulation. Programmers Guild appealed and the Third Circuit also dismissed the lawsuit based on the fact that the Plaintiffs did not have standing. Programmers Guild, Inc. v. Chertoff,  338 Fed. Appx. 239 (3rd Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Nov. 13, 2009) (No. 09-590). While the Third Circuit did not address Chevron or Brand X – there was no need to – it interestingly cited Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 580 (1978), which held that Congress is presumed to be aware of an administrative interpretation of a statute and to adopt that interpretation when it reenacts its statutes without change. Here, the F-1 practical training regulation was devoid of any reference to the displacement of domestic labor, and Congress chose not to enact any such reference, which is why the Programmers Guild lacked standing.

In the ICE agents’ case against DACA, the same arguments can be forcefully made. In the event that the court finds jurisdiction, a similar argument can be made that the DHS be given deference in interpreting INA § 103(a)(1), which would allow the DHS Secretary to set forth policies regarding the exercise of prosecutorial discretion as in the Morton Memo and under DACA. Surely, the “body of experience” and the “informed judgment” that DHS brings to the Dream Act provide its interpretations with  “ the power to persuade.” Skidmore  v. Swift  & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944). As Justice Elena Kagan famously noted when she served as the Dean of the Harvard Law School, the increasingly vigorous resort to federal regulation as a tool for policy transformation by all Presidents since Ronald Reagan has made “the regulatory activities of the executive branch agencies more and more an extension of the President’s own policy and political agenda.” Elena Kagan, Presidential Administration, 114 Harv. L. Rev. 2245, 2246 (2001).

Kobach and his clients might profitably peruse Randolph J. May, Defining Deference Down: Independent Agencies and Chevron Deference, 58 Admin. L. Rev. 429 (2006) if they really want to know why they are wrong.  Writing for the Brand X majority, Justice Thomas noted that, in Chevron itself, the Supreme Court deferred to the reversal by the Reagan EPA in 1981 as to the meaning of “statutory source” in the 1977 Clean Air Act amendments. Id. at 440, n. 66.   If  Kobach does not know if the DHS has the power to act, or what the constitutional wellsprings of the DACA memoranda are, we suggest that the Supreme Court does. The very notion of Chevron-deference is “premised on the theory that a statute’s ambiguity constitutes an implicit delegation from Congress to the agency to fill in the statutory gap.” FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 US 120, 159 (2000).  That is precisely what the DHS has done. Moreover, INA § 274A(h)(3)(B) provides authority to the Executive Branch to grant employment authorization  to whomever it wants. Deferred action has also been around for decades, and Congress has been aware of this administrative benefit, which it recognized when enacting the Real ID Act. Until now, Chevron, and Brand X in particular, have been feared by the immigration bar and immigration advocates for its negative potential as a legitimization of government repression. Yet, it has a positive potential by enabling the Executive to expand individual rights and grant benefits sua sponte. We do not need to live in fear of Brand X. We can make it our own – at least in this law suit challenging DACA.

It is also worth mentioning that while the law suit may argue that there is no express Congressional authorization for the Obama Administration to implement such measures, the President may act within a “twilight zone” in which he may have concurrent authority with Congress. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring). Unlike Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, where the Supreme Court held that the President could not seize a steel mill to resolve a labor dispute without Congressional authorization, the Administration under through the Morton Memo and DACA is well acting within Congressional authorization. In his famous concurring opinion, Justice Jackson reminded us that, however meritorious, separation of powers itself was not without limit: “While the Constitution diffuses power the better to secure liberty, it also contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government. It enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity.” Id. at 635. Nativist lawyers look in vain for explicit authority in the INA that supports DACA relief. They can stop searching:

Finally, one cannot separate the vitriol against DREAMers in states like Arizona and the law suit challenging DACA. They emanate from the same xenophobia against immigrants without being able to see that the deserving beneficiaries of DACA are out of status for no fault of their own, and even if one pinpoints the blame on their parents, the reason for such a huge undocumented population is because of a broken immigration system that does not provide sufficient avenues to legalize oneself. This law suit challenging DACA, along with the opposition to DACA by the Arizona and other states, essentially challenges the federal government’s authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion. We think this is a losing proposition. In the Arizona v. USA decision, the Supreme Court acknowledged the federal government’s role in exercising prosecutorial discretion, where Justice Kennedy writing for the majority in that decision noted, “A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials…Federal officials as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all.”  Kobach wants the Dreamers kicked out; neither he nor his ICE agents get to make that call; it is up to DHS to decide when, or whether, to initiate such an enforcement campaign.  Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 835 (1985).  The reason is not hard to figure out;   inherent in the exercise of discretion is the bedrock truth that there is simply “no law to apply.” Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 410(1971). The good sense and fundamental decency of the American people, guided by the continuing truth of the Constitution, will have to make due. It has served us pretty well so far.

Angelo Paparelli, ABIL Immediate Past President
Nation of Immigrators

Andrew Jackson had his "Kitchen Cabinet," Franklin Roosevelt his "Brain Trust."   Seth Godin has his "Tribes," web-based "silos of interest."

I've been a member of many tribes (as I write this I'm recalling my tattered T-shirt from my own and my adult daughter's Indian Princess days, many moons ago [click here to see the shirt]).

In the Googlean sense, immigration lawyers likewise have their "circles" (if a noun can become a verb, I guess it can be an adjective as well). We lawyers of the immigration arts congregate privately in many places including local bar associations, on IMMLOG (a practitioners' list serve run by Kevin Dixler) and IMMPROF (a list serve for professors of immigration law, hosted by Hiroshi Motomura), through the American Immigration lawyers Association (the national immigration bar), which has a New Members Division, a group for Senior Lawyers (known as the Silver Foxes, led by Ken Stern), and numerous AILA Interest Groups. There's even "Cool Immigration Lawyers," a private meeting place on Facebook "for cool immigration attorneys who think it is awesome to help people and to insist on justice for everyone."

My prime immigration tribe is the Alliance of Business Immigration Lawyers (ABIL).  It's expanded wonderfully over the last 10+ years since I founded it; but it still performs its original mission very well.  ABIL was established on the principle of "competitive empathy," the notion that although we operate in separate law firms, "none of us is as smart as all of us." I liken it to a 12-Step Group for battle-weary immigration practitioners who acknowledge we're "powerless" over the ever-crashing waves of change washing over our chosen field of law.

The most recent tsunami -- the Obama Administration's program of immigration enforcement abatement, known as DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) -- has flooded the immigration tribal counsel with challenges and questions since August 15 when U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) released DACA forms, instructions and FAQs.  These include Form I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, with nine pages of instructions, Form I-765WS, a work-need worksheet, and a DACA web page with FAQ.

The challenges include concerns among DREAMers and immigration community-based organizations that lawyers may price-gouge to handle DACA cases, reflected recently by perhaps the most-famous DREAMer, Jose Antonio Vargas, who tweeted from @Joseiswriting on August 16: "I try to be positive, but there is a special place in hell for lawyers who take advantage of #DACA by overcharging, etc." (I tweeted back to Jose, who is my client: "[Jose]: Please don't jump to conclusions. You need to know the facts of the case to know if the fee is fair or foul."  He responded by kindly urging his Twitter followers to follow: "@angelopaparelli: a great lawyer who's been advising me and, in turn, keeping me sane. [T]hank you for the help and support!")

The flip side of this concern is the difficulty individual immigration lawyers have had setting an ethically proper and reasonable fee in a practice area where fixed, project-based fees are the norm. Outside observers without an institutional history of how immigration-benefits programs have been (mis)managed might naïvely assume that the task must not be too complex, just three forms, the I-821D, the work permit application and the corresponding worksheet to show economic need, supported by written proof of a few "simple" facts (entry to the U.S. before age 15, five-years of continuous presence as of June 15, 2012, presence in the country on that day, no older than 30, and no serious criminal history.)  They would be mistaken.

USCIS knows that Congress, the Media, the Presidential campaigns, and the pro- and anti-immigration interest groups will be watching closely to see whether the agency can handle the estimated 1.7 million youth potentially eligible for DACA, whether fraud will infect the program or be minimized, whether the agency will act with humanitarian compassion under law or ICE-like negativity in exercising prosecutorial discretion, and whether employers who help a DREAMer acknowledge physical presence and past or current employment in the U.S. will face investigation and enforcement actions by USCIS's Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS) or by ICE.

The immigration bar, electronically-transmitting the 21st Century equivalent of tribal smoke signals over these last frenetic days, knows that immigration confusion and complexity will flourish like a Chia pet on growth hormones as USCIS's implementation of DACA unfolds. Witness the many unanswered issues and concerns that DACA has generated as reflected in the notes of the USCIS's DACA Public Engagement on August 14, provided courtesy of Sally Kinoshita, an immigration lawyer and Deputy Director at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC), the ILRC's DACA Criminal Bars Chart, and postings of the American Immigration Council by its Legal Action Center (DACA Practice Advisory) and Immigration Policy Center (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals: A Q&A Guide [Updated]). 

Even the most mundane issues involve significant costs that clients or lawyers must bear unless answered soon.  Attorney Marty Rosenbluth, Executive Director at the North Carolina Immigrant Rights Project asks of Facebook's "Cool Immigration Lawyers":

* * *

Thank goodness for immigration-lawyer tribes. Besides "help[ing] people and . . . insist[ing] on justice for everyone," while trying to keep our staffs paid and doors open, we also dedicate our time and talent to advise and represent DREAMers as they wade through DACA's treacherous waters. Were it not for these collegial tribes, many of us (probably myself included) would have thrown in the towel years ago, mirroring the fate of Murray Burns, the protagonist in Herb Gardner's A Thousand Clowns.

Played by Jason Robards in the classic 1965 film, Murray explains why he finally had had enough and quit his job as TV personality, Chuckles the Clown. While ordering a martini one evening after work, he was asked by the bartender if he wanted an onion or olive with it. Murray responds: "Gosh and golly, you betcha!"  We are not clownish robots with pens and swords. Our immigration tribes help remind us of who we are and why we do what we do.

Although I'd seen the film and loved it, I couldn't find the Chuckles the Clown quote on the internet except in stray chats and a web-published book, The Robot's Pen and Sword, by an unnamed author whose site is the source of the photo above.

My last blog post, Immigration D-Day for DACA: Get Protection!, generated a thoughtful, heartfelt critique by a good friend, and fellow immigration tribesman, Gary Endelman.  Gary took me to task for my "use of the Holocaust as a standard of comparison" to the plight of the DREAMers. On reflection, I was wrong, and apologized to Gary, and now do likewise to anyone else offended by my inapt metaphor. Gary, who is not only an immigration scholar of well-deserved repute, but also a Doctor of History, gave me permission to follow up on my blog to communicate a larger point, which he eloquently laid out, and with which I fully agree:

I also apologize to any Native Americans and others who may have been offended by my fondly recalled participation in the Indian Princesses, a Girls-Dads group sponsored by the YMCA's Indian Guides. No offense is intended; only admiration for the Indian nations' wholesome, natural and eco-friendly way of living on the earth.

by Cyrus D. Mehta, ABIL Lawyer
The Insightful Immigration Blog

On August 15, 2012, the day that the Consideration of Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals programs (DACA) took effect, thousands of young undocumented people lined up at legal assistance clinics with hope and joy. They got to know whether they were eligible to file an application under DACA, and by filing an application, their deportation would be deferred and they would also obtain employment authorization.

It was extremely gratifying to be an immigration attorney that day volunteering at a DACA legal assistance clinic organized by the New York Immigration Coalition, among others. I could see in the twinkle in the eyes of each potential youth applicant when told that he or she could file under DACA. That twinkle revealed a whole new world of opportunity opening up. The sky seemed to be the limit, which before the June 15, 2012 announcement was simply unimaginable.

I could not help broadcast this tweet, @cyrusmehta.com:

To see hope and joy in the faces of 100s lining up at pro bono #DACA clinic of #NYIC+ #AILA NY makes being an #immigration attorney gratifying

As I was basking in the glow of that day and returning home on the New York subway, I saw on my Twitter feed that Governor Brewer of Arizona passed a mean spirited and hateful executive order that evening. According to the executive order, since deferred action does not confer lawful status or lawful presence, the alien granted employment authorization under DACA continues to be unlawfully present, and thus cannot avail of benefits in Arizona, including a driver’s license. I love Twitter because I can instantly express my thoughts, and hopefully there is an audience. These were my new tweets, quite different from the prior exuberant one, in reaction to the horror of Brewer’s executive order:

Brewer's executive order is unlawful & wicked - there are many who are allowed to remain without lawful status. When is she being sued? #DACA

Brewer's mean spirited exec order against granting #DACA applicants AZ driver's licenses will help Obama in elections, http://bit.ly/N4LE8E

I write this blog to expand on my impetuous tweets of last evening.

First, deferred action has existed for several decades. Many have been granted deferred action, including John Lennon. Prior the announcement of DACA, non-citizens who have demonstrated extenuating circumstances, such as medical emergencies or who have lost parents, have been granted deferred action. In recent times, battered spouses, crime victims and widows/ers of US citizens have also been granted deferred action. There are other non-ctiizens who may not have lawful status but are allowed to remain in the US. These include people who are presently in removal proceedings. Even those who have been ordered removed, such as through the grant of withholding of removal (based on persecution in their home countries), can remain in the US and obtain work authorization. Moreover, due to a quirky split in jurisdiction involving arriving aliens between Immigration Court and USCIS, arriving aliens cannot file defensive adjustment applications in Immigration Court, but have to file them with the USCIS while an Immigration Judge can still order them removed. If the adjustment application is approved, they can become lawful permanent residents despite the removal order. How will Brewer’s executive order be able to differentiate between each of these categories of people who have been allowed to remain in the US?

Second, the grant of deferred action stops the accrual of unlawful presence. However, unlawful presence is different from unlawful status. Governor Brewer’s executive order does not seem to understand the difference. Unlawful presence is relevant, according to the USCIS DACA guidance, only with respect to determining whether one is inadmissible under the 3 and 10 year bars. Unlawful presence has nothing to do with status or the ability to remain in the US. There are situations when one may not be in lawful status and yet not be accruing unlawful presence since they are in a “period of stay authorized by the Attorney General.” A classic example is someone who entered lawfully as a tourist, fell in love with a US citizen and married him. She filed an adjustment of status application based on the US citizen spouse’s green card sponsorship. She is allowed to remain in the US while waiting for the green card, although her underlying tourist visa has expired. Such a person may not be in lawful status but is in a “period of stay authorized by the Attorney General” and is also not accruing unlawful presence. Governor Brewer’s executive order does not seem to have grasped any of these distinctions.

Third, in Arizona v. USA, the Supreme Court acknowledged the federal government’s role in exercising prosecutorial discretion. As noted in a prior blog I wrote with Gary Endelman, Justice Kennedy writing for the majority in that decision noted:

A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials…... Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all. If removal proceedings commence, aliens may seek asylum and other discretionary relief allowing them to remain in the country or at least to leave without formal removal….

Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns. Unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime. The equities of an individual case may turn on many factors, including whether the alien has children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished military service. Some discretionary decisions involve policy choices that bear on this Nation’s international relations. Returning an alien to his own country may be deemed inappropriate even where he has committed a removable offense or fails to meet the criteria for admission. The foreign state maybe mired in civil war, complicit in political persecution, or enduring conditions that create a real risk that the alien or his family will be harmed upon return. The dynamic nature of relations with other countries requires the Executive Branch to ensure that enforcement policies are consistent with this Nation’s foreign policy with respect to these and other realities.

Arizona v. USA, supra, Slip Op. at pages 4-5.

Although the Supreme Court struck down all of the other provisions of Arizona’s SB 1070, it narrowly upheld 2(B), the “show me your papers” law, which requires state officers to make “a reasonable attempt….to determine the immigration status” of any person they stop, detain, or arrest on some other legitimate basis if “reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States.” Section 2(B) further provides that “[a]ny person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.” The Supreme Court upheld the provision, for now, since it had not taken effect, but cautioned that a person’s detention under an Arizona provision cannot be prolonged because the state cannot readily determine this person’s immigration status.

Governor Brewer, through her executive order, has perhaps unwittingly opened up another challenge to 2(B). By not recognizing that a grant of deferred action to remain lawfully and work in the US, it will be disregarded by Arizona’s law enforcement personnel, such as by the notorious Sheriff Joe, and his troopers, when he stops a non-citizen for jay walking and suspects that a person is unlawfully present in the US. Even if this DREAMer show Sherrif Joe an employment authorization that was issued through a DACA filing, it could be disregarded and the person’s detention could be needlessly prolonged even though the federal government has allowed this person to lawfully remain in the US and no longer considers him unlawfully present for purposes of the 3 or 10 year bar.

Finally, it remains to be seen whether Brewer’s executive order will be politically viable. The GOP may see more Latino voters flee by the November elections, and the future of the party without support from Hispanics and minorities looks grim. Moreover, the granting of status to undocumented youth under the proposed DREAM Act, with promise to do well and contribute to the US, has broad support among the American people. Governor Brewer will likely find herself on the wrong side of history, only to be relegated forever in its garbage heap.

Angelo Paparelli, ABIL Immediate Past President
Nation of Immigrators

[Blogger's note:  Tomorrow, August 15, 2012, is perhaps as momentous to DREAMers as D-Day, June 6, 1944, was to The Greatest Generation.   The invasion of Normandy marked the end of World War II in Europe and the fall of a tyrannical Nazi regime that made mincemeat of the rule of law. Though the comparison may seem hyperbolic to some, I remember well my first visit to the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington.  As a lawyer, I was stunned by Hitler's atrocious perversion of the legal system, the issuance within a half-year after the Nazis' 1933 ascendancy to power of what would become roughly 400 decrees and regulations that "restricted all aspects of the public and private lives" of Jewish citizens. 

Conversely, doors that have been legally shut to persons solely by virtue of their status are now to be opened a tad, as Julia Preston of The New York Times notes in today's edition.  She reports on the Obama Administration's temporary clemency program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which may lead to the grant of employment authorization for youthful entrants to America found worthy of discretionary de-escalation of enforcement by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS):

Thus, just like those for whom the Allied invasion of Normandy launched a new life, one transformed from the status of a nonperson to that of a free member of society, DACA stands as a tiny step in the direction of reversing the application of perverse laws.  In this case the perversion of laws are found in America's Immigration and Nationality Act, a statute chockablock with befuddling provisions that punish innocent children for the mistakes of their parents. 

USCIS has today issued DACA instructions and forms:  Form I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, with nine pages of instructions, a Form I-765WS, a worksheet to establish one's economic need for employment, and a Form G-1145, E-Notification of Application/Petition Acceptance, and has published a DACA web page with FAQ along with a warning about "Avoiding Scams and Preventing Fraud."  The agency also dove deep into the minutiae of the process in today's telephonic Public Engagement which answered many but by far not all questions.  The engagement followed an earlier internal tussle within DHS over the contours and devilish details of the program reflected in a 92-page draft as reported recently by FoxNews.com ("DHS document shows Obama administration wrestling with 'DREAM Act' policy").

When it takes the government almost 100 pages to tussle internally over the fine points of a discretionary policy, the question arises whether a DACA applicant should be represented by legal counsel.  Recently, in a YouTube video, two federal lawmakers, Senator Dick Durbin and Representative Luis Gutierrez, usually immigration-reform stalwarts, said a lawyer's help was unnecessary.  Curiously, the link now reflects that "[this] video has been removed by the user." 

Perhaps the takedown occurred because of a flood of postings that challenged the legislators' suggestion: See, Do DREAMers really need a lawyer? and Dreamers Do Need Lawyers and Obama's immigration changes cause confusion and Do You Need an Attorney to Apply for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)? 

My guest columnist, Karin Wolman, agrees that a lawyer's counsel and representation is necessary in DACA cases (as do I).  I recall the mess created by the legacy immigration bureaucracy, Immigration and Naturalization Service, when it tried to interpret and implement a comparable change in policy, the 1986 legalization program, a misguided agency effort that spawned decades of litigation.  So, DREAMers, don't take a chance.  Even if you think your case is straightforward, get good referrals, and talk to a competent lawyer who regularly practices immigration law.  Your life as a nonperson will end and your civil rights will be recognized only if you do DACA right.]

Durbin & Gutierrez Put DREAMers at Risk
By Karin Wolman

Senator Dick Durbin and Representative Luis Gutierrez released a video message to the DREAMers on August 6 that is one of the most irresponsible and dangerous public messages from a voice of authority in living memory. It is a deep disgrace that supposed champions and co-sponsors of the DREAM Act would advise young people who are eligible for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, "Do Not Hire a Lawyer." Yet Sen. Durbin said those words, doing a huge disservice to the very vulnerable class of people they are ostensibly trying to help.

These elected representatives perpetuate a dangerous source of confusion between unscrupulous "notarios" who engage in the unauthorized practice of law, and licensed, trained attorneys who are subject to ethical rules and have the ability to advise DREAMers properly on the process and potential consequences of applying for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

An experienced immigration lawyer who has carefully reviewed the applicant's background and documents can ensure that DREAMers file applications which will have the best possible chance of success. This is why Senator Durbin's patently false claim that "Virtually everyone will be able to go through this process without a lawyer," is so disturbing. Perhaps he has already forgotten that the Deferred Action application process includes no right of appeal, and permits no motions to reopen. This is a one-shot opportunity. Applicants must get it right on the first try, or else they face a discretionary denial that is final and cannot be reviewed.

Perhaps Sen. Durbin and Rep. Gutierrez have also forgotten that both USCIS and ICE have extremely poor track records with respect to granting any forms of discretionary relief to applicants who are unrepresented by counsel. The memos of June 2011 from ICE Director John Morton authorized broad use of prosecutorial discretion for those already in proceedings who have no criminal convictions, but the rate at which such relief has been granted in immigration courts is less than 2%. Self-represented applicants who misunderstand any of the Deferred Action criteria and thus fail to interpret their own eligibility correctly, or who get the standard right but provide documentation that USCIS regards as insufficient, or who believe that the information they provide will remain confidential, may be placing themselves and their families at risk of deportation. These are some of the key reasons why it is so very important for DREAMers seeking Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals to consult with a knowledgeable immigration attorney or legal service organization, and why the message from Messrs. Durbin & Gutierrez will do real harm.

Charles Kuck, ABIL President
Musings on Immigration

In a press conference today, Director Mayorkas stated that the forms to be used in applying for DACA will be available on the USCIS website on Tuesday, August 14, 2012. The Form I-821D, along with the Form I-765 and the Form I-765WS will be required as part of the filing. The Form I-821D is the form to be used for actual deferred action status. The Form I-765 and Form I-765WS are the forms needed to applying for working permission and in showing the economic need to work. The Forms and supporting documentation will be accepted starting on Wednesay, August 15, 2012. There is NO deadline in filing. So, there is no rush to be the first to get a DACA Application in on the first day. It is best to take your time and make sure the forms are completed accurately and completely.

Some good news in today's application is that to qualify for the education requirements, being "currently enrolled" also includes an education, literacy, or vocational training schools, and education program leading to a GED!!! So, you do NOT need to have a GED to apply, you just need to be enrolled in a program leading to a GED.

The Application will be filed at the defined location! Great news. We urge you to make sure that you speak to an attorney before filing anything under this program to ensure you are eligible and to be sure the application is prepared correctly.

Charles Kuck, ABIL President
Musings on Immigration

In a recent case, the Board of Immigration Appeals opened up an entire new area for individuals who have until now found themselves ineligible to obtain permanent residence without leaving the United States, or going through a complicated and unpredictable waiver process.

In Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, 25 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012), the Board of Immigration ruled that an individual who came into the US illegally but who is now on an adjustment of status applicant, who obtains a travel documents (advance parole) through USCIS and then leaves the US and reenters on that Advance parole, is eligible to adjust status IN the US (with an available immigrant visa), and is NOT subject to the 10 year bar waiver typically associated with his departure after having been illegally in the US for longer than 1 year. This is an AMAZING development and unexpected good news for several hundred thousand people. TPS status holders are eligible for the same type of advance parole document.

What does this mean in practical terms? This is best understood by example:

• Maria is a Honduran national (or any other current TPS holder) who came into the United States without a visa;
• Subsequently, Maria becomes eligible for AND obtains TPS through the normal USCIS process;
• Maria decides to travel to her home country either for family illness or because of long family separation. She files for and properly obtains from USCIS an "advance parole" or a travel document allowing her to leave and reenter the US to resume her TPS;
• Maria leaves the US and timely returns on the Advance Parole;
• Maria is married to a US Citizen, has a US Citizen child older than 21, or is the beneficiary of an immediately available immigrant visa through other family or through an employer (and has no unlawful employment--their are exceptions);
• Maria can file an adjustment of status in the US without having to pay a fine, and without having to file for an unlawful presence waiver, because she now has both lawful status AND a lawful entry!

This is a huge change in the way the law functions. If you have TPS and are married to a US Citizen, or have a US Citizen child over the age of 21, you are now eligible for permanent residence without processing in your home country and without having to file a waiver! You simply need to obtain the advance parole, briefly travel, reenter, and then file for adjustment. A word of warning, immigration laws are complicated, and there are ALWAYS exceptions to a general rule. Criminal convictions will doom you. Consult and use an immigration attorney to assist BEFORE making your plans to ensure a successful conclusion to your case.

by Cyrus D. Mehta, ABIL Lawyer and Gary Endelman
The Insightful Immigration Blog

“Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
― Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

Arrabally and Yerrabelly are not characters in a children’s fantasy story book. They were the respondents in a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals styled Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, 25 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012), which to immigration attorneys is like a fairy tale story come true. The decision is magical, and truly benefits foreign nationals who are subject to the 3 and 10 year bars even if they travel abroad.

Indeed, Arrabally and Yerrabelly, husband and wife respectively, were unlawfully present for more than 1 year. A departure after being unlawfully present from the US for one year renders the individual inadmissible for a period of 10 years. Specifically, § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides:

Any alien (other than an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence) who –

(II) has been unlawfully present in the United States for one year or more , and who again seeks admission within 10 years of the date of such alien’s departure or removal from the United States, is inadmissible

A companion provision, INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) triggers a 3 year bar if the non-citizen is unlawfully present for more than 180 days and less than one year, and leaves the US prior to the commencement of removal proceedings.

The 3 and 10 year bars create a federal Catch-22. An individual who is unlawfully present cannot generally apply for lawful permanent residence in the US through adjustment of status unless he or she falls under limited exceptions. Such an individual who is ineligible to apply for a green card in the US must leave the US to process for an immigrant visa at an overseas consular post. But here’s the catch: If this person leaves the US he or she will trigger the bar and cannot return for 10 years. Thus, this person, even though approved for a green card, remains in immigration limbo.

Arrabally and Yerrabelly were unlawfully present too for more than 1 year, and would have triggered the 10 year bar had they “departed” the US. Fortunately, they were able to file Form I-485 applications for adjustment of status under an exception, INA § 245(i), after the employer’s I-140 petition got approved. § 245(i), which expired on April 30, 2001 but which could still grandfather someone if an immigrant petition or labor certification was filed on or before that date,  allows those who are out of status to  be able adjust status to permanent residence in the US. Due to a family emergency in India, they left the US under advance parole, which is a special travel dispensation one can obtain when one is a pending applicant for adjustment of status. At issue is their case was whether they effectuated a “departure” under advance parole and thus triggered the 10 year bar.

The DHS has always taken the position that leaving the United States under advance parole effectuates a departure and thus triggers the 10 year bar under § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) if the individual is unlawfully present for one year.

The adjustment of status applications of Arrabally and Yerrabelly were denied on the basis that they were inadmissible for 10 years, and were subsequently placed in removal proceedings. The Immigration Judge affirmed the DHS’s finding, but the BIA like magic reversed on the ground that their leaving the US under advance parole did not result in a departure pursuant to § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) thus rendering them inadmissible under the 10 year bar. The BIA reasoned that travel under a  grant of advance parole is different from a regular departure from the US, since the individual is given the assurance that he or she will be paroled back in the US to continue to seek the benefit of adjustment of status. Thus, traveling outside the US under advance parole does not trigger the 10 year bar. Although Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly interpreted the 10 year bar provision under § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I), its logic can apply equally to the 3 year bar under § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I).

The decision now allows foreign nationals like Arrabally and Yerabelly, who may have been unlawfully present to travel outside the US on advance parole while their adjustment of status applications are pending without fearing the 10 year bar. But the decision opens up other amazing possibilities too. If a person is unable to adjust status by virtue of being out of status, and cannot do so under the § 245(i) exception, another exception is by adjusting status as an immediate relative of a US citizen. The spouse, minor child or parent of a US citizen can adjust status in the US even if they have violated their status. However, this individual must still be able to demonstrate that he or she was “inspected and admitted or paroled” in the United States under INA § 245(a) as a pre-condition to file an adjustment of status application in the US.  Thus, a person who enters the US surreptitiously without inspection is ineligible to adjust status to permanent residence in the US despite being married to a US citizen. Such a person may still have to proceed overseas at a US consulate for immigrant visa processing, and will need to overcome the 10 year bar through a waiver.  This would not be necessary if such immediate relative could be granted “parole-in-place” which at this point of time is only granted to spouses of military personnel in active duty. In the leaked July 2010 memorandum to USCIS Director Mayorkas, the suggestion is made that the USCIS “reexamine past interpretations of terms such as ‘departure’ and ‘seeking admission again’ within the context of unlawful presence and adjustment of status.”

Notwithstanding the lack of “parole in place” for all applicants,  in yet another ground breaking case, Matter of Quilantan, 25 I&N Dec. 285 (BIA 2010), the BIA held that someone who presents herself at the border, but is waived through, is still inspected for purposes of adjustment eligibility. For example, a person who is a passenger in a car, and is waived through a border post at the Mexico-US border can still establish a lawful entry into the US. Matter of Quilantan can be further extended to someone who enters the US with a photo-switched fraudulent non-US passport. Such a person has also been inspected, albeit through a fraudulent identity. Foreign nationals in such situations, if they can prove that they were inspected, can qualify to apply for their green cards in the US through adjustment of status if they marry a US citizen or are the minor children or parents of US citizens.  They may however be subject to other grounds of inadmissibility, such as fraud or misrepresentation, but they can at least file those waivers with an I-485 application in the US. While it is true that in another feat of administrative innovation, the DHS has proposed that some can apply for the waiver of the 3 and 10 year bars in the US prior to their departure, this rule may not extend to applicants who are applying for an additional waiver, such as to overcome the fraud ground of inadmissibility.

Despite Matter of Quilantan, USCIS examiners during an adjustment of status interview require corroborating evidence of this admission, and may not accept only the sworn statement of the applicant regarding the manner of his or her entry into the US. They may want to actually see the photo-switched passport, which may no longer in the possession of the applicant.  Such a person may still be found ineligible to adjust status despite being inspected and admitted in the above manner under Matter of Quilantan. But if this person, after filing an adjustment of status application, left the US under advance  parole and returned to the US, he or she would be considered  “paroled” into the US and qualify for a new adjustment of status application as an immediate relative of a US citizen. If the first I-485 application is denied, he or she could file this second application where the “parole” would be a clearer basis for adjustment eligibility than the initial “waived through” or fraudulent admission.  Moreover, under Matter of Arrabally and Yerabelly, this individual would not have triggered the 10 year bar during travel under advance parole during the pendency of the first adjustment application. Travelling abroad under advance parole during the first adjustment application without triggering the 10 year bar could give an applicant a second bite at the apple in filing another adjustment application if the first one gets denied for lack of evidence of an admission. There is one caveat though. This is still an untested theory but the authors do not see why it could not be argued in the event of a denial of the first adjustment application, assuming it was filed in good faith and denied only because of lack of corroboration of the admission. Using Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly in the manner we propose seeks to do just that. Once again, as with the concept of parole, we seek to build on past innovation to achieve future gain.

Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly can come to the rescue of DREAMers too. In our recent blog, DEFERRED ACTION: THE NEXT GENERATION, June 19, 2012, we proposed extending the holding of Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly to beneficiaries of deferred action. There are bound to be many who will be granted deferred action who will also be on the pathway to permanent residence by being beneficiaries of approved I-130 or I-140 petitions.  As already explained, unless one is being sponsored as an immediate relative, i.e. as a spouse, child or parent of a US citizen, and has also been admitted and inspected, filing an application for adjustment of status to permanent residence will generally not be possible for an individual who has failed to maintain a lawful status under INA § 245(a). Such individuals will have to depart the US to process their immigrant visas at a US consulate in their home countries. Although the grant of deferred action will stop unlawful presence from accruing, it does not erase any past unlawful presence. Thus, one who has accrued over one year of unlawful presence and departs the US in order to process for an immigrant visa will most likely face the 10 year bar under INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II). While some may be able to take advantage of the proposed provisional waiver rule, where one can apply in the US for a waiver before leaving the US, not all will be eligible under this new rule.  A case in point is someone who is sponsored by an employer under the employment-based second preference, and who may not even have a qualifying relative to apply for the waiver of the 10 year bar.

Since the publication of our blog, the USCIS has issued extensive guidelines for consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) in the form of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), which will take effect on August 15, 2012.  We were pleasantly surprised to find in the FAQ that those granted deferred action beneficiaries can apply for advance parole.  It is yet unclear whether one who has been granted deferred action and who has accrued unlawful presence and travels under advance parole can take advantage of Arrabally and Yerrabelly and the current FAQ does not suggest it.  At this point, a DACA applicant should assume that Arrabally and Yerrabelly will not apply, and an individual who has accrued over one-year of unlawful presence and leaves even under advance parole could face the 10-year bar.    Still, there is no reason for Arrabally and Yerabelly’s magic to not apply in this case too. Here too, the individual will be leaving the US under advance parole, which under Matter of Arrabally and Yerabelly, did not effectuate the departure under INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II). This is something worth advocating for with the USCIS as the DACA program unfolds. Obviously, USCIS will tread carefully as it is already facing criticism from opponents of the program, including members of Congress. Yet, applying Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly to young people who have been granted a fresh lease of life would be a logical extension.  The FAQ also indicates that the USCIS will only grant advance parole if one is travelling for humanitarian purposes, education purposes or employment purposes. Again, the FAQ does not expand on what humanitarian, education or employment purposes mean.  A deferred action beneficiary with an approved I-130 or I-140, which has become current for green card processing, can conceivably apply for advance parole based on humanitarian purposes to apply for immigrant visa at the consular post overseas.   His or her departure under advance parole, if Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly applies, will not trigger the 10 year bar. If this person successfully comes back on an  immigrant visa to be granted permanent residence upon admission, query whether the holding will still apply.  After all, the BIA in Arrabally and Yerrabelly contemplated a return as a parolee and not as a permanent resident.  Yet, again, just as the BIA performed magic when interpreting "departure" to not apply to those leaving the US under advadnce parole, there is no reason for the USCIS to not stretch it to a scenario where the deferred action beneficiary will leave on advance parole, thus not triggering the 10 year bar, in order to return to the US as an immigrant.  This is clearly not the current position of the USCIS as articulated in its FAQ.  The purpose of our blog is to advance interpretations that would be favorable for DREAMers down the road.

On the other hand, Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly can be more readily applied to those who otherwise would not be able to adjust status if they made an entry without inspection but were immediate relatives of US citizens. Such people would not need to process an immigrant visa at a US consulate overseas if they could adjust status.  Unlike an adjustment of status applicant, a DACA applicant can file an application for deferred action even if he or she entered without inspection. If later, this applicant, now granted deferred action, married a US citizen, he or she could leave under advance parole and not trigger the 10 year bar. At the same time, he or she would have also been paroled back into the US, making him or her eligible to adjust status, which prior to the parole would not have been possible. This fact pattern clearly falls under the four corners of Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly as opposed to someone proceeding overseas under advance parole and returning as a permanent resident. Yet, we reiterate, at this point, it is not at all clear whether Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly will apply to deferred action beneficiaries who travel abroad, and they should seek the advice of competent legal counsel before they wish to apply for advance parole in order to travel.

While DACA is clearly not designed to create a pathway to permanent residence, Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly can facilitate this indirectly through independent I-130 or I-140 petitions that were filed on behalf of the deferred action beneficiary. Although only Congress can change the law, the President can find new ways to expand the relief available under current law. Our proposal would relieve the Administration from the burdens of extending deferred action every two years (assuming the program lasts for that long) once the beneficiary is granted permanent residence. After all, until Congress acts to reform our broken immigration system, it behooves us to be wildly creative, even to the extent of imagining that fairy tales might become reality, like what the BIA achieved in Matter of Arrabelly and Yerrabelly. Indeed, precisely because DACA is a remedial initiative, it deserves and should be granted the most generous administration infused with the central goal of remaining true to the reasons that inspired its creation. For this to happen, we turn to the wisdom of Albert Einstein:

When I examine myself and my methods of thought, I come to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than any talent for abstract, positive thinking

All we have to do is dream!

Angelo Paparelli, ABIL Immediate Past President
Nation of Immigrators

"[A] riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma"
~ Winston Churchill

The most quotable of British Prime Ministers could well have been talking about the American immigration system rather than describing Russia in 1939.  U.S. immigration law is like stratified rock, revealing layer on layer of Congressional accretions laid down over many years, with the superstructure upended in tectonic shifts triggered by the baffling and contradictory interpretations of multiple agencies and courts.  Not surprisingly, Thomas Stanley in The Millionaire Next Door recommended immigration law as a career, predicting that many foreign citizens, whether affluent or less so, would find America an attractive destination and need a chaperone to guide them through the maze of red tape.

If Congress ever grows enough of a spine to tackle comprehensive immigration reform, it must do more than merely resolve the big items -- border and interior enforcement; legalization of unauthorized migrants already here; and a plan for future flows of sojourners and permanent residents.  It must also strive to simplify the law.  

Consider what should be a straightforward concept -- following the rules.  How does a noncitizen comply with the immigration laws?  What does it take to maintain legal immigration status?  Sadly, the answer is as clear as fracking fluid runoff.  

For example, without any malevolent intent or affirmative act of misconduct, a temporary entrant (a "nonimmigrant") through the action of a third party, say a parent or spouse, a spouse's employer, a university official, or a lawyer, can "fail to maintain nonimmigrant status," be in a condition known as "unlawful presence" and "not [be] in a lawful nonimmigrant status" -- three phrases in law or regulation that often don't mean the same thing. Thus, a hapless individual may be seen by the authorities as having violated legal status but not be unlawfully present. This could occur, as one example among many, where the person is the spouse of a J-1 exchange visitor who is working under a form of employment permission known as curricular practical training, and the J-1 worker is fired. (This outcome would arise because unlawful presence only occurs if one overstays the period of status authorized, and an exchange visitor, like an academic or vocational student, is admitted for "duration of status," a condition that carries no date-certain expiration. Go figure.) 

Or, a foreign citizen can depart the U.S. holding a government certificate allowing permission to return (known as "advance parole") and then reenter in order to await the grant of a green card under the adjustment of status process.  Such a person would not have maintained nonimmigrant status -- indeed would not have any legal status (because parole is not a status) -- and yet would not have violated the immigration law. In essence, he or she would be in a non-status as an applicant under color of law awaiting the grant of a pending benefit.

Or, consider a foreign person with a U.S. work permit.  As I've noted in an earlier post about human levitation, you may have the right to work here but not to be here.

Or, you might have successfully changed or extended your work-visa status for one, two or three years and received from the immigration authorities an official approval notice with a clip-out status permit (the Form I-94) bearing a validity period, leave the country for a trip to see Grandma, and be readmitted with a new I-94 for a significantly shorter period. This occurs because one component of the Homeland Security Department, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), limits the I-94 to the expiration date of one's passport, while another DHS component, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), ignores the validity period of the passport, and holds that as a condition of maintaining nonimmigrant status you must always make sure your passport is unexpired.  

Often, the CBP inspector at the port of entry says nothing about having short-changed the expiration date on the I-94; hence, the entrant may not realize his/her status document has been unduly shortened.  The too-frequent result: An unwitting overstay occurs, thereby triggering unlawful presence. And even if the shortening of the status period is noted, the individual could reasonably believe that the longer of the two I-94s (in this case, the clip-out version) prevails over the shorter expiration period.  Or s/he may be misled by the DMV who issues a driver's license with a validity period extending to the end date on the clip-out I-94.  

Whether or not the person is confused or misled, a USCIS adjudicator, a consular official abroad, a CBP inspector, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer or an immigration judge, when examining the person's immigration compliance history on some future date, may well deny an immigration benefit, refuse a visa, prevent entry or order removal -- all because of confusion over the simple concept of maintaining legal immigration status.

If that's not complicated enough, the legacy agency, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, repeatedly floated a notion (not a published regulation) known misleadingly as the "last action rule" in order to reconcile discrepancies in ending dates on two or more I-94 status documents. The "rule" sounds simple enough: Whichever status was the last one granted ("the last action") controls the person's nonimmigrant status.  Except, however, where the last action granted was based on a change rather than an extension of status, then the last action rule is inapplicable. For the stew that is the last action rule, see these confusing links: Bednarz letter, Cook Memo (and referenced Simmons letter), Hernandez letter, and unapproved AILA/INS October 17, 2001 liaison meeting minutes (Item II). 

Still worse, if the immigration laws make it virtually impossible to know who's in legal status, they make it harder than a Rubik's Cube to figure out who's here illegally, as DREAM activist Prerna Lal explains in "It's More Complicated than Legal vs. Illegal," her open letter to Ruben Navarette -- which challenges his defense of the slur, "illegal immigrant."

If my effort to explain the mumbo-jumbo of immigration violations and last actions remains confusing, I ask your pardon. Be heartened, however, that errors of these types can be fixed -- assuming that the immigration agency exercises its heart (which it occasionally does).  Still, it's a shame USCIS doesn't heed its stakeholders by expanding the areas of forgivable infractions and Congress does not write intelligible immigration laws for law-abiding individuals to follow, a code unlike the current immigration statutes that "yield up meaning only grudgingly" to reveal "morsels of comprehension [which] must be pried from mollusks of jargon."

Charles Kuck, ABIL President
Musings on Immigration

Today, August 3, 2012, USCIS announced that it would be providing the Form necessary, or the exact details of the "DACA" (yes, a terrible acronym for the Obama Deferred Action process) Plan until the day the application period begins, August 15, 2012. Nothing like allowing folks to prepare in Advance!!

Here is what we know from today:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is finalizing a process by which potentially eligible individuals may request consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals.

USCIS expects to make all forms, instructions, and additional information relevant to the deferred action for childhood arrivals process available on August 15, 2012. USCIS will then immediately begin accepting requests for consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals.

Information shared during today’s call includes the following highlights:

Requestors – those in removal proceedings, those with final orders, and those who have never been in removal proceedings – will be able to affirmatively request consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals with USCIS.

Requestors will use a form developed for this specific purpose.

Requestors will mail their deferred action request together with an application for an employment authorization document and all applicable fees to the USCIS lockbox.

All requestors must provide biometrics and undergo background checks.

Fee waivers cannot be requested for the application for employment authorization and biometric collection. However, fee exemptions will be available in limited circumstances.

The four USCIS Service Centers will review requests.

The Filing fee will be $465. Fee Exemptions are SEVERELY limited.

All information provided to USCIS through this process is PROTECTED from Release to ICE for purposes of further removal proceedings, unless the person is removable under current immigration law (presumably for criminal grounds). But, the information WILL be shared with other agencies for any necessary law enforcement purposes. Information about family members is also protected.

If your case does not involve a criminal offense, fraud, or a threat to national security or public safety, your case will not be referred to ICE for purposes of removal proceedingsexcept if DHS determines there are exceptional circumstances.
Advance Parole Travel Authorization will be available AFTER approval of the Deferred Action and where there are humanitarian grounds requiring the travel.

Additional information regarding the Secretary’s June 15 announcement will be made available on www.uscis.gov on August 15, 2012. It is important to note that this process is not yet in effect and individuals who believe they meet the guidelines of this new process should not request consideration of deferred action before August 15, 2012. Requests submitted before August 15, 2012 will be rejected.
Affidavits proving presence will be severely limited except as to proving GAPS in other evidence, and as applied to describing brief, casual and innocent departures from the US during the five year application period.
What is a Significant Misdemeanor Offense? The maximum term of imprisonment under Federal Law is more than 5 days and less than one year (regardless of sentence), domestic violence, drugs, violent crimes, or DUI. Or, any crime for which the person is sentenced to time in custody of more than 90 days. This is VERY restrictive!! But, the entire criminal history will be reviewed.
"Knowing" lies, or misrepresentations will be treated as an enforcement priority and will result in the person being put into deportation proceedings.
BIG Disclaimer: USCIS can change or rescind these rules at any time!
Call us today to determine whether or not you qualify for this program, and to begin the process to have your package ready to submit an application on August 15, 2012 after USCIS releases the forms necessary to complete this process.