Blog Posts - ABIL-Immigration-Updates

Protesting Trump's Muslim Ban Through Art: An Immigration Lawyer's Perspective

3/12/2017

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

There are many ways to protest Trump’s travel ban, also known as the Muslim ban. Lawyers have successfully sued against the ban in the courts. People protested at airports in an unprecedented and spontaneous manner. Art can also be a powerful form of protest against the ban. The Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) has also joined the protests by displayng works of artists from the banned countries among other iconic works of art in its permanent collection. One has to go through the galleries housing the permanent collection to serendipitously come across the work of an artist from a banned country, which in the age of Trump, have also attained iconic status. Art is able to inspire the lawyer in protesting the ban. Trump’s exclusion of an entire people from a banned country casts all of them as terrorists, including the artist. This is both legally wrong and morally shameful.

These are three of my favorites among the works of the artists from the banned countries at the MOMA. I have also included at the end the works of two artists from my own very modest art collection. I am happy to possess these works, which have always been beautiful, but resonate more powerfully today. They inspire me as I protest Trump’s ban.

Charles Hossein Zenderoudi – born in Iran

Ibrahim el- Salahi – born in Sudan

Parviz Tanavoli – born in Iran

These are two works from my own collection, the first which I acquired in 1993 and the second in 2010.

Reza Derakshani – born in Iran

Mary Yahya – born in Iraq

Is There A Hidden Agenda? Suspension of Premium Processing for All H-1B Petitions

3/8/2017

by Cora-Ann Pestaina, Partner with ABIL member, Cyrus D. Mehta
The Insightful Immigration Blog

In one move that we did not see coming, USCIS has announced that, starting April 3, 2017, it will temporarily suspend premium processing service for all H-1B petitions. Petitioners will not be able to file Form I-907, Request for Premium Processing Service, for a Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker which requests the H-1B nonimmigrant classification. This includes cap-subject H-1B petitions, petitions for H-1B extensions or amendments and petitions for change of H-1B employer. This suspension may last up to 6 months and USCIS will notify the public before resuming premium processing for H-1B petitions. The temporary suspension will not apply to other eligible nonimmigrant classifications filed on Form I-129.

As background, premium processing service provides expedited processing for a specific list of employment-based immigrant and nonimmigrant petitions. This list has always included the H-1B petition. The request is submitted on Form I-907 which carries a fee of $1,225. Upon receipt of this request, USCIS guarantees 15 calendar day processing or USCIS will refund the fee. Within the initial 15 days, USCIS will issue an approval or denial notice, a notice of intent to deny (NOID) or a request for evidence (RFE). If a NOID or RFE is issued, a new 15 calendar day period will begin upon USCIS’ receipt of a complete response. Premium processing service is also quite desirable because it allows petitioners and attorneys to communicate directly with USCIS officers via telephone or email. USCIS also issues an email notification when the case has been received and when it is approved. Also, rather than having to wait for snail mail to arrive, petitioners receive RFE’s and denial notifications via fax.

Each year, thousands of petitioners request premium processing service for their H-1B petitions filed under the H-1B cap. The initial email notification and the 15 day adjudication period can go a long way toward providing peace of mind for anxious H-1B petitioners and beneficiaries. For petitions filed under regular processing, USCIS receipt notices are sometimes not received until May or even June and the petition can remain pending for months, even past the October 1 employment start date. Cap-subject H-1B petitions are accepted during the first five business days of April. This year, since April 1 falls on a Saturday, cap-subject H-1B petitions for the 2018 fiscal year (FY18) will be accepted from Monday, April 3 to Friday, April 7, 2017. The suspension will therefore apply to all petitions filed for the FY18 H-1B regular cap and master’s advanced degree cap exemption (the “master’s cap”). USCIS will reject any Form I-907 filed with an H-1B petition. Therefore, if the petitioner submits one combined check for both the Form I-907 and Form I-129 H-1B fees, USCIS will reject both forms.

USCIS has stated that the suspension will help the agency to reduce its overall H-1B processing time and allow it to process long-pending petitions which it has been unable to process due to the high volume of incoming petitions and the significant surge in premium processing requests over the past few years. USCIS also claims that the suspension will allow the agency to prioritize the adjudication of H-1B extension of status cases that are nearing the 240 day mark. Under 8 CFR § 274a.12(b)(20), an H-1B worker is authorized to continue working for the same employer for up to 240 days beyond the expiration of the current immigration status (i.e. beyond the date listed on their most recent Form I-94) if the employer files an H-1B extension request in a “timely” manner. In recent times, the processing times for H-1B petitions have come close to or even moved beyond 240 days. This is probably attributable to increased filings as a result of the decision in Matter of Simeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542 (AAO 2015) which mandates the filing of H-1B petitions for amendment whenever there is a change in the H-1B work location. Once the 240 day period has passed, the employee may remain in the US awaiting the adjudication of the petition but will no longer be authorized to work. If the H-1B worker works past the 240 days, not only will he or she be in violation of status, but will lose the tolling exception to unlawful presence too. According to USCIS guidance, unlawful presence is tolled when a timely extension request is filed, but that tolling will be lost if the foreign national engages in unauthorized employment either before or after the timely extension has been filed. Thus, working beyond 240 days will result in the loss of the tolling protection to unlawful presence.

We hope that we can trust in USCIS’ stated intent and that there is nothing more sinister behind the suspension. It is no secret that some people in charge of immigration policy in the Trump administration do not like the H-1B visa as it is perceived, albeit erroneously, to be taking away jobs that should go to American workers. There are ongoing efforts within Congress to change how the H-1B system works. One bipartisan bill, H-1B and L-1 Visa Reform Act of 2017, proposes to reform the program by instructing officials to grant visas on merit, rather than through a lottery. Is the stoppage of premium processing for 6 months really just a way to slow down the H-1B program and thus make it more difficult for employers to retain skilled H-1B workers? Is this in keeping with Bannon’s goal for the endless deconstruction of the administrative state? Granted, this is not the first time that premium processing service has been suspended. Last year, USCIS announced that in order to prioritize data entry for cap-subject H-1B petitions, while they would still accept Forms I-907, they would actually begin any requested premium processing for H-1B cap-subject petitions by May 16, 2016. That suspension applied only to cab-subject H-1B petitions and was implemented for a very short-term with a firm end-date indicated. It was therefore not only understandable but moreover, believable, as a means to cope with an expected influx of petitions. This time, the timeline could be indefinite, as USCIS vaguely states that the suspension may last up to 6 months, and USCIS has applied the suspension across the board on all H-1B petitions, a move that will most likely lead to an increase in the very backlogs that they are allegedly seeking to eliminate.

The suspension of premium processing service could also result in very serious complications for H-1B employees. The inability to upgrade the petition to premium processing will mean that H-1B employees might be unable to travel outside the US. An H-1B worker with a pending petition whose immigration status has expired will need to apply for and obtain a new H-1B visa at a US Consulate abroad if he travels outside the US. Such an employee would be ill-advised to embark on an international trip when there is no indication as to when the pending H-1B will be adjudicated. Also, some states require an H-1B approval notice in order to extend driver’s licenses. If the H-1B worker needs to drive to work every day, the inability to obtain an expeditious H-1B approval could mean that he is unable to work.

An H-1B worker who is porting to a new employer may begin working for the new employer upon the filing of a nonfrivolous H-1B petition on his behalf provided, inter alia, that this petition was filed before the end of his period of authorized stay. It has always been advisable to obtain an approval of the new H-1B petition and the security that comes along with that before making the leap to new H-1B employment. The suspension of premium processing service means that more H-1B workers will be forced to take a chance and port to the new employer before the H-1B petition is approved. If the H-1B petition is ultimately denied, they do have the option to return to the first H-1B employer but, realistically, not only is it most likely that those bridges will have burnt but that initial H-1B employer is also obligated to notify USCIS when the H-1B worker is no longer employed. If USCIS has already been notified then that initial H-1B would no longer be viable even if the employer were willing to rehire the H-1B worker.

Also, where an H-1B worker has ported to new H-1B employment based on a pending petition timely filed by employer B, the worker may port again to employment with employer C while the petition filed by employer B is still pending but provided that the H-1B worker’s initial period of authorized stay, as indicated on his Form I-94, has not yet expired. The suspension of premium processing service will likely increase the processing time for all H-1B petitions and therefore significantly increase the likelihood that H-1B workers will no longer be able to take advantage of such privileges.

USCIS has indicated, however, that it will continue to accept requests for expedited processing during the suspension period. Petitioners may submit a request to expedite an H-1B petition if they meet the criteria on the Expedite Criteria webpage. It is the petitioner’s responsibility to demonstrate that they meet at least one of the expedite criteria, which include severe financial loss to company or person; emergency situation; and humanitarian reasons. USCIS has stated that it will review all expedite requests on a case-by-case basis and that requests will be granted at the discretion of the office leadership.

If the H-1B visa system is gummed up in this manner, US employers will not be able to attract the best global talent. Some of the employers that will be hit the hardest will be technology companies seeking to attract the best talent before their competitors do. It is already difficult to do so given the H-1B annual cap of a measly 65,000 visas with an additional 20,000 for master’s degrees. The United States is no longer the only game in town. Frustrated workers will leave for more hospitable countries. The H-1B system is already a mess. Why the need to mess it up even more?

There Trump Goes Again--The Executive Order, The Ban, and Six Things You Need to Know

3/6/2017

Charles Kuck, ABIL Past President
Musings on Immigration

President Trump's newly signed an Executive Order on February 6, 2017, entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States" modifies and somewhat tempers his prior Executive Order on a similar topic. In order to correct the typos, faulty legal analysis, lack of justification, and failure of common sense in the prior Executive Order, this new Executive Order is four times longer the the one Trump signed on January 27, 2017, more than five weeks ago. The new Executive Order, has some immediate and some delayed effects on people traveling to the United States, but also has a long term impact on individuals with visas and permanent residence in the United States today, as well as severely, negatively impacting refugee admission into the United States.

First, this Order specifically restricts any and all visa-issuance for individuals from Syria, Yemen, Libya, Sudan and Somalia, and Iran, e.g. “Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern." Iraq is now off the list because in 39 days, apparently, it has made sufficient efforts to "share" data with the US (what that is, no one actually knows), enough to calm the folks in Trump's anti-immigrant circle (or perhaps it was the fear that Trump's ill-advised January 27, 2017 EO was putting our troops at risk). The memo continues to state that additional countries could be included at a later date. Anyone who was issued a visa prior to January 28, 2017, can, apparently, travel freely to the from these six countries to and from the United States. Yet, what remains is that USCIS and the Department of State cannot grant lawful permanent residence, or issue approvals for status changes, or issue visas to people born in these countries for the duration of the Executive Order, likely for at least 90 days. In addition, this means that Customs and Border Protection cannot "admit" anyone into the United States traveling on an immigrant visa or any type of nonimmigrant visa for 90 days. The start day of this Executive Order is on March 16, 2017. The mad rush for visas and consular processing is now one.

Our Advice: If you are citizen of one of these six countries, make sure that you comply with the detailed exceptions outlined in the Executive Order. Travel from the U.S. to any other country MAY result in your inability to return to the US if you were born in one of these seven countries, regardless of what other passport or nationality you hold. Consult your ABIL attorney with your questions about this.

Second, the Executive Order also halts, again, the resettlement of refugees in the U.S. for 120 days, giving the Trump Administration time to evaluate the efficacy of the security screening process. Further, Syrian refugees are no longer permanently barred from being part of the refugee program, once the program is restarted. Please note that this provision of the Executive Order, may be contrary to existing law. Certainly the reduction of refugees in FY2017 from 100,000 to 50,000 is contrary to existing law. If any part of this Executive Order is likely to be struck down, it is this.

Our Advise: If you have completed refugee processing travel to the US before March 16, 2017. If you or your loved one's are stuck in this hold, you may have to repeat the entire background check process. While we do believe that the hold will be lifted in 120 days, President Trump has done an effective job of vilifying the most-vetted and most-vulnerable group of immigrants to America. There will be many court cases filed in the coming days. Please note that this ban does NOT affect pending Asylum cases. In specific matters, please consult your ABIL Attorney.

Third, before travel for immigrant and nonimmigrant visa holders can be reinstated, the Department of Homeland Security is required to report whether these named countries have provided "information needed from each country for adjudications" by DHS/DOS. If not, the country would have 50 days to comply, or the travel ban would become indefinite.

Our Advice: This Executive Order gave Trump a chance to walk back a number of faults with his original order, including a ban on anyone from a third country who had traveled to one of these countries. We believe that while no longer explicitly mentioned in the ban, third country nationals who have traveled to one of these six countries, may face serious additional scrutiny by both consulates and CBP. Failure of these countries to comply may result in a permanent ban on visa issuance. We will post additional advice as information becomes available, but please watch for a permanent ban on travel from some of these countries later this year.

Fourth, if you are a lawful permanent resident (green card holder) or a dual citizen of the US and one of these countries, the Trump Administration and the Department of Homeland Security have now both said that you are to be admitted to the U.S. However, Lawful Permanent Residents should remain cautious of remaining outside the United States for more than 6 months in any 12 month period, and should be cognizant that traveling to tone of this six countries will result in increased scrutiny upon reentry to the United States. Even then, we need you to be patient and vigilant. There are reports of CBP trying to convince Lawful Permanent Residents to sign for an abandonment of their residence. DO NOT SIGN such a waiver. Request a hearing before an immigration judge, and ask to call you attorney.

Our Advice: For now, for individuals from these six countries (not the whole world), we recommend that you refrain from traveling outside of the United States if you are already here, or try to return to the United States as soon as possible if they are outside of the country. Consult your ABIL attorney prior to traveling if you need case specific advice.

Fifth, in recent years some consulates have been waiving interviews for issuance of visa, from various countries around the world. This program has, once again, been suspended. Everyone who needs a visa will be required to attend an in-person interview.

Our Advise: Make sure your travel plans include enough time to obtain the visa prior to returning to the US, and do not travel if you do not have the necessary time. There will be lengthy delays in some countries, such as India and China. Consult your ABIL attorney prior to traveling.

Sixth, the Trump Administration is going to complete the "Entry/Exit" control system authorized by Congress in 1996, but never funded. But, now, the time period is lengthened, at least for reports from DHS, to at least a year. To be clear, completion of this system will cost billions of dollars, the refitting of EVERY international airport in the United States to control for exits, new exit lanes and roads leaving the US, the hiring of thousands of new CBP officer (beyond the 5,000 Border Agents), and other massive infrastructure enhancements. NONE of this has been funded by Congress, ever.

Our Advice: Please don't think this is happening tomorrow. An Entry/Exit system will make the US like every other country in the world that monitors departures from the country. That said, nothing can be done here without billions of dollars authorized by Congress, so don't hold your breath for a working system for several years.

Tips for Surviving in a Time of Immigration Uncertainty

3/3/2017

by ABIL Member, Stephen Yale-Loehr and Dan Berger
Miller Mayer, LLP

We planned to write a blog about the revised travel ban Executive Order as soon as it came out. That the revised order was delayed for several weeks until March 6 highlights the uncertainty we face in 2017.[2] Below we try to answer various questions we regularly receive about immigration issues.

Is domestic airplane travel OK? This may sound like a simple question, but recent events suggest more caution may be wise. For example, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents recently met a plane landing at JFK Airport in New York City, and asked everyone about their immigration status.[3] The agents were looking for someone who had an old deportation order, but it is possible that anyone without evidence of status could have faced delays. This is a good time to remind ourselves that the law requires anyone who is not a U.S. citizen to carry evidence of status at all times (green card, Employment Authorization Document (EAD), Form I-94 or electronic I-94 printout, valid, unexpired nonimmigrant DHS admission or parole stamp in a foreign passport, etc.).[4] Try to make it easy for a government officer.
Isn’t that overreacting based on one incident? Maybe, but the bigger picture is that immigration enforcement agents have more discretion and wider operating room than before.[5] Two memos issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on February 20 allow for “expedited removal,” which is a fast track process that skips a hearing with an immigration judge.[6] Expedited removal now can apply to anyone who entered the country within the past 2 years (used to be 2 weeks), and anywhere in the United States (used to be within 100 miles of the border).[7] Expedited removal happens quickly, sometimes within a matter of days. Having a copy of a document showing status and that you have been in the United States more than two years could help avoid questioning and expedited removal.
How about electronic devices? Can those be searched at the airport or border? The simple answer is “yes,” and this is happening more often.[8] We recommend that private information, such as a doctor with patient information, should be encrypted. According to the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) website,[9] CBP officers may search laptops, cell phones, or other electronic devices. CBP may not select someone for a personal search or secondary inspection based on religion, race, national origin, gender, ethnicity, or political beliefs. U.S. citizens may also be questioned and have their devices seized for refusal to provide passwords or unlock devices, but cannot be prevented from entering the United States. Noncitizens may, however, be denied entry. Adding to the uncertainty about how this will play out is a section in one of the January Executive Orders that directs federal government agencies to make sure they “exclude persons who are not United States citizens or lawful permanent residents” from Privacy Act protections concerning personal information.
What does this mean for people from the six countries covered by the new travel ban? Will the court battle still continue? The new order clarifies that green card holders and Iraqis are NOT affected by the visa ban, and that people who had visas revoked or cancelled by the first order may be able to get a travel letter to return. The new order takes effect March 16, 2017, and lasts for 90 days. People with valid visas stamps in their passports can still use them, but new visa stamps will not be issued with very limited discretionary exceptions. The Visa Interview Waiver program is suspended for all countries, and the order states that DHS may add countries to the list after further review. People who are citizens of the six countries can still face additional questioning when they enter the United States as part of a general pattern of enhanced vetting. Travel for citizens of the six countries remains a calculated risk. We expect that court challenges will continue. The ban still focuses on six predominently Muslim countries, which some see as a religious-based action.[10] There are still arguments about the negative effects on U.S. business and academic programs.
What does this all mean for DACA recipients? The January Executive Orders state that the deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA) program remains in effect, but that DACA “will be addressed in future guidance.” This is good news for the 750,000 plus people who have DACA. However, continuation of the program is not guaranteed. And the January Executive Orders call for greater enforcement against anyone with any kind of criminal issue or with a previous deportation order. Some DACA recipients have minor criminal issues – will they be able to renew? Some recipients have previous deportation orders – how will they be treated? DACA recipients should carry their DACA approval and work card with them, should keep investigating ways to get back into status, and talk to an attorney or legal service agency if they have ANY criminal issue, no matter how minor.
What does this mean for undocumented parents of students who want to fly within the United States for their child’s graduation? Some of them have traveled before with no problems. President Obama’s “Priorities Memo” used the idea of prosecutorial discretion to give some level of comfort to those at the bottom of the priority list for enforcement. The new orders make clear that there is a top of the list, but no bottom. The law is the law, and anyone undocumented who is caught could be removed. Anyone who is undocumented who is considering traveling should talk to an attorney or legal service agency to evaluate their own particular situation. For example, immigrationlawhelp.org has a list of accredited agencies. Also, this is not a completely new situation. Every year we see family members abroad who do not receive tourist visas to come to the United States. For those situations, some schools have set up a Skype feed of the ceremony through someone’s cell phone, or sent the family a photo of the student graduating, or other clever ways of trying to include the family in the event.
Speaking of DACA, can many of them really move beyond DACA now? It is certainly worth asking. Many filed for DACA on their own, and have never had a legal consultation despite the fact that their immigration histories can be incredibly complicated. Most interestingly, a growing number of DACA recipients got DACA under age 18½ and now have degrees. Those people MAY (emphasize “may”) not have what is called “unlawful presence,” and MAY be able to consular process an employment based visa or green card.
Going beyond travel, are there any other ways campuses can prepare for new immigration enforcement priorities, short of declaring a “sanctuary campus”? Yes, there are some basic steps that campuses can take. One set of model guidelines focuses on interaction with government officials.[11] Campus response has varied but generally been strong in favor of international education and diversity. A Washington Post article found that the vast majority of schools have made some kind of statement.[12] Some schools have been concerned about the political effects of opposing the travel bans. They worry that if they declare themselves immigration sanctuaries they may put a target on their backs. While some schools may be less vocal in their responses, most are supporting students and scholars who are concerned, and connecting students with extra services including counseling and legal services.
If I feel my school is not doing enough, what can I do? In immigration, stories matter. For example, an Iranian graduate student may be thinking of leaving the United States to do a post doc in another country, or cannot travel to present work at a conference abroad, or is simply not sleeping or eating well out of concern, or have a spouse is not still able to enter the United States. These stories help show the real impact of the travel ban. And facts matters – there are some good articles and websites that provide data on the basis of the travel ban and the effects, and also on the positive impact of immigrants on our economy.[13]
I heard the Executive Orders canceled all of President Obama’s orders except for DACA. Does that include the “sensitive locations” memo that said enforcement should not take place at sensitive locations such as campuses, churches, and hospitals? It appears that the ban on enforcement at sensitive locations survives. This policy is still on the ICE website, and in a DHS Q&A.[14] We hope this will continue.
Is it true that the Administration and Congress plan to cut back F-1 STEM OPT and the H-1B program, and raise the minimum salaries for H-1B workers? A lot of ideas and draft memos are floating around Washington how to “fix” immigration, including the H-1B system. Bills pending in Congress would amend the H-1B process. The White House may ask DHS to conduct a study of the visa process to determine which visa regulations may or may not be in the national interest, and to make recommendations on how to improve visa systems, including the H-1B system. Are we sure that nothing like this will happen quickly, surprising us the way the travel ban did? Not sure, but passing legislation in Congress and amending federal regulations are normally long-term projects. Remember, the Obama administration was successfully sued for trying to make big changes without formal procedures.
That’s 11 questions – anything else I should know? We all need to remember the energy it takes to operate in uncertainty. In a recent presentation at a university, the director of the counseling center explained that uncertainty can be more tiring and emotionally challenging than bad news. At least with bad news, we can focus attention on how to address it. So hang in there!

[1] Dan Berger (dhb@curranberger.com) is a partner at Curran & Berger, LLP in Northampton, MA. He has been a Senior Editor of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA)’s Immigration and Nationality Law Handbook (now Immigration Practice Pointers) since 2000. Dan was editor-in-chief of AILA’s Immigration Options for Academics and Researchers (2005 and 2011 editions), and various other AILA publications.
Stephen Yale-Loehr (swy1@cornell.edu) is co-author of Immigration Law and Procedure, the leading 21-volume immigration law treatise. He also teaches immigration law at Cornell Law School and practices immigration law at Miller Mayer LLP in Ithaca, NY. He graduated from Cornell Law School in 1981 cum laude, where he was Editor-in-Chief of the Cornell International Law Journal. He received AILA’s Elmer Fried award for excellence in teaching in 2001, and AILA’s Edith Lowenstein award for excellence in the practice of immigration law in 2004.
[2] The new executive order is at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states (Mar. 6, 2017).
[3] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/papers-please/517887/?utm_source=fbb.
[4] INA § 264(e) provides: “Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d). Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.” 8 C.F.R. § 264.1(b) lists the acceptable types of “registration” document that must be carried.
[5] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/25/us/ice-immigrant-deportations-trump.html.
[6] The DHS memos and accompanying fact sheets and Q&As are at https://www.dhs.gov/executive-orders-protecting-homeland.
[7] For an article discussing whether expedited removal is constitutional, see David Savage, Trump’s fast-track deportations face legal hurdle: Do unauthorized immigrants have a right to a hearing before a judge?, Mar. 3, 2017, http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-deport-legal-20170302-story.html.
[8] For general information on the rights of travelers regarding social media accounts and electronic devices, see https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-when-encountering-law-enforcement-airports-and-other-ports-entry-us. For an interesting NPR piece on this issue, see http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2017/02/16/border-agent-unlock-phone.
[9] https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states.
[10] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-evidence-for-trumps-travel-ban-simply-isnt-there/2017/02/27/90e228ac-fd36-11e6-8f41-ea6ed597e4ca_story.html; http://wapo.st/2mZbkx8.
[11] https://www.nilc.org/issues/immigration-enforcement/campus-safe-zones-language-college/.
[12] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/02/20/universities-overwhelmingly-objected-to-the-trump-travel-ban-here-are-the-values-they-emphasized/
[13]https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/visas-impact/; https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-31/trump-s-immigration-ban-could-cost-u-s-colleges-700-million; immigrationimpact.org.
[14] https://www.ice.gov/ero/enforcement/sensitive-loc; https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/02/21/qa-dhs-implementation-executive-order-border-security-and-immigration-enforcement (Question 28).

Destroying the Case In Order to Save It: Why Returning Asylum Applicants to Contiguous Territory Under INA §235(b)(2)(C) Would Often Violate Both Law and Common Sense

2/28/2017

by David Isaacson, Partner with ABIL member, Cyrus D. Mehta
The Insightful Immigration Blog

During the Vietnam War, an American official was once quoted as saying of the town of Ben Tre that “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.” This author was reminded of that quote recently when considering the approach to certain removal proceedings proposed in a recent Executive Order issued by Donald Trump and implementing memorandum issued by Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly. Depending on how one reads this guidance, it appears that the government may be proposing that certain asylum applicants should be returned to the country from which they fear persecution, or to a country from which they risk being returned to that country of persecution, pending a determination of whether their fear of harm upon such return is well-founded. To force such a return in the course of adjudicating an asylum claim risks destruction of the claim and the claimant, in defiance of law and common sense.

Section 7 of the January 25, 2017, Executive Order entitled “Border Security and Immigration Improvements” provided as follows:

Sec. 7. Return to Territory. The Secretary shall take appropriate action, consistent with the requirements of section 1232 of title 8, United States Code, to ensure that aliens described in section 235(b)(2)(C) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2)(C)) are returned to the territory from which they came pending a formal removal proceeding.

The cited section of the INA, §235(b)(2)(C), provides as follows:

Treatment of aliens arriving from contiguous territory.-In the case of an alien described in subparagraph (A) who is arriving on land (whether or not at a designated port of arrival) from a foreign territory contiguous to the United States, the Attorney General may return the alien to that territory pending a proceeding under section 240.

Subparagraph (A), in turn, refers to “an alien who is an applicant for admission, if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted,” and does not by its terms exclude those who are applying for asylum.

The February 20, 2017, implementing memorandum of Secretary Kelly, entitled “Implementing the President’s Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements Policies,” expands further on this proposal:

Section 235(b)(2)(C) of the INA authorizes the Department to.return aliens arriving on land from a foreign territory contiguous to the United States, to the territory from which they arrived, pending a formal removal proceeding under section 240 of the INA. When aliens so apprehended do not pose a risk of a subsequent illegal entry or attempted illegal entry, returning them to the foreign contiguous territory from which they arrived, pending the outcome of removal proceedings saves the Department’s detention and adjudication resources for other priority aliens.

Accordingly, subject to the requirements of section 1232, Title 8, United States Code, related to unaccompanied alien children and to the extent otherwise consistent with the law and U.S. international treaty obligations, CBP and ICE personnel shall, to the extent appropriate and reasonably practicable, return aliens described in section 235(b)(2)(A) of the INA, who are placed in removal proceedings under section 240 of the INA-and who, consistent with the guidance of an ICE Field Office Director, CBP Chief Patrol Agent, or CBP Director of Field Operations, pose no risk of recidivism-to the territory of the foreign contiguous country from which they arrived pending such removal proceedings. To facilitate the completion of removal proceedings for aliens so returned to the contiguous country, ICE Field Office Directors, ICE Special Agents-in-Charge, CBP Chief Patrol Agent, and CBP Directors of Field Operations shall make available facilities for such aliens to appear via video teleconference. The Director of ICE and the Commissioner of CBP shall consult with the Director of EOIR to establish a functional, interoperable video teleconference system to ensure maximum capability to conduct video teleconference removal hearings for those aliens so returned to the contiguous country.

Since the Executive Order and border memorandum appear to be primarily (although not exclusively) focused on the Mexico/U.S. border, and the significant majority of those who seek to enter from Mexico and are placed in removal proceedings under INA §240, rather than being admitted into the U.S. or removed without §240 proceedings, will be those who have established a credible fear of persecution and seek to apply for asylum, one’s attention is naturally drawn to how these directives might operate with respect to such asylum applicants. It is true that there will be others who could be subjected to this §235(b)(2)(C) procedure, and indeed there have been “port courts” held on the Canadian border under this procedure for some time, but asylum applicants at the Mexican border seem likely to be among the principal groups affected by an expansion of §235(b)(2)(C) usage under the Executive Order and implementing memorandum.

When the U.S. government seeks to return an asylum applicant to Mexico pending further proceedings, there are three logical possibilities. First, the person may be a citizen of Mexico. Second, the person may be a citizen of some third country, but have a valid immigration status in Mexico which would allow them to remain there. Third, the person may be a citizen of some third country and lack valid immigration status in Mexico. In the first and third cases, returning the person to Mexico under §235(b)(2)(C) pending removal proceedings would be deeply problematic.

If a Mexican national is claiming a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country of Mexico, then returning them to Mexico, pending a determination of whether that fear is indeed well-founded, would be nonsensical. One would hope it is obvious that a journalist at risk due to his reporting on abuses by members of the Mexican military, for example, should not be returned to the jurisdiction of that military, and so placed again at risk of persecution, pending a determination of the magnitude of that risk. A former police officer killed by a drug cartel will not be helped by a subsequent determination that yes, he had a well-founded fear of this occurring. If Mexico is the place where an asylum applicant fears persecution, then it would make no sense to return that applicant to Mexico before determining whether this fear is justified.

Returning a Mexican national to Mexico prior to determining the well-foundedness of that Mexican national’s fear of persecution would also violate the law. Section 241(b)(3) of the INA indicates that, with limited exceptions not at issue here, “the Attorney General may not remove an alien to a country if the Attorney General decides that the alien’s life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (often referred to as “CAT” for short) similarly restricts the ability of the United States to return someone to a country in which that person will be tortured. While the issue has not previously been litigated, so far as this author is aware, because the United States has not been brazen enough to attempt to return someone to their country of claimed persecution or torture pending a decision on whether they will indeed be persecuted or tortured, there is a strong argument that these prohibitions would be violated by a §235(b)(2)(C) return to Mexico of a Mexican asylum applicant.

Returning to Mexico a non-Mexican asylum applicant who had passed through Mexico, but lacked any immigration status there, could create similar practical and legal problems, because of the possibility of such a person’s being deported from Mexico back to their home country. In that event, irreparable harm could befall the asylum applicant before their application was processed, and it could be difficult for them to get back to the U.S. border to have their application processed at all. Moreover, by potentially causing the return of the asylum applicant to a country where they would be persecuted or tortured, such action would again be deeply problematic under INA §241(b)(3) and the CAT.

Another problem with returning non-Mexican nationals to Mexico pending a removal hearing is that Mexico has indicated it will not accept them. It is true that in Jama v. ICE, 543 U.S. 335 (2005), a case involving removal to Somalia, the Supreme Court indicated that the advance consent of a receiving government was not a necessary precondition for certain removals, but trying to return asylum applicants to Mexico without Mexico’s permission could create mind-boggling consequences. Does the Trump Administration envision pushing people out onto bridges across the international boundary, despite knowing that Mexico will not receive them on the other end of the bridge, thus creating a sort of impromptu refugee camp in the middle of each bridge which would lead to substantial human suffering as well as blocking traffic? I certainly hope not.
It may be that DHS will understand these problems, and recognize that, in the language of Secretary Kelly’s memo, it is not “appropriate and reasonably practicable” or “otherwise consistent with law and U.S. international treaty obligations” to return most asylum applicants to Mexico pending their removal proceedings. In that case, the proposed expansion of §235(b)(2)(C) will have comparatively little practical effect. It is reasonable to be concerned, however, about whether the proposal to expand use of §235(b)(2)(C) will indeed be cabined by these bounds of law and practicality.

No Matter How Many New Travel Bans Trump Issues, Maximum Power Does Not Mean Absolute Power

2/18/2017

by Cyrus D. Mehta, ABIL Lawyer and Sophia Genovese-Halvorson
The Insightful Immigration Blog

We have numerous justifiable concerns with the immigration policies of the Trump Administration on behalf of our clients and all Americans who feel that our values are being undermined, especially the Executive Order entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.” Fortunately, courts across the country seem to agree except for one. Most notable were United States District Judge Robart’s nation-wide temporary restraining order (TRO) of the EO in the Western District of Washington and United States District Judge Brinkema’s Virginia-wide injunction against the EO in the Eastern District of Virginia. Due to these and many other orders, as well as heavy backlash, the Trump Administration has now stepped back and have stated that they will replace the January 27 EO with a new Executive Order sometime next week that will survive judicial scrutiny. It is our view, however, that even this new EO in whatever way repackaged will be unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

As a reminder, the January 27 EO suspended for 90 days the entry of persons from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days, and banned Syrian refugees indefinitely, unless they received an exemption from DHS for being a “religious-minority.” The EO immediately disrupted the lives of thousands of people, from non-immigrants, immigrants, LPRs, and even dual-citizen holders. The first suit against the EO came only a day after its enactment in the Eastern District of New York, which issued an emergency stay that temporarily blocked the government from sending people out of the country after they have landed at a U.S. airport with valid visas, including green card holders. There were several other injunctions that followed. Then the States of Washington and Minnesota filed suit in the Western District of Washington, requesting, among other things, a restraining order on the ban. Judge Robart issued a nationwide temporary restraining order against the ban, which was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. Judge Robart’s ruling on the merits is still pending. Meanwhile, Judge Brinkema in the Eastern District of Virginia granted a Virginia-wide injunction against the EO, citing specifically to the Establishment Clause.

President Trump continues to argue that the President has extensive powers granted to him under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 212(f), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), and proffers that the judiciary cannot exercise jurisdiction over an EO due to the plenary powers doctrine. In relevant part, INA § 212(f) states that,

However, as Judge Brinkema rightfully pointed out in her decision, “maximum power does not mean absolute power.” Aziz v. Trump, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20889, at *11 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2017). In her analysis, Judge Brinkema reaffirms that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that no one, not even the President, can violate its terms. Citing to landmark cases such as Zadvdas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (finding that the power of the Executive is “subject to important constitutional limitations,” holding that LPRs are entitled to due process rights, and that their indefinite detention is a violation of those rights), Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) (noting that the President’s Article II powers are subject to review, holding that citizens held as enemy combatants must be afforded due process rights, namely the meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for their detention), among others, she proves this point.

The Ninth Circuit that affirmed Judge Robart’s TRO also provided precedent on the reviewability of the Executive, citing to Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 765 (2008) (specifically noting that the political branches cannot “switch the Constitution on or off at will” and providing the right of habeas review to a non-citizen outside the US) and INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (noting that Courts are empowered to review whether or not “Congress has chosen a constitutionally permissible means of implementing” the “regulation of aliens.”). The Ninth Circuit goes so far to say that even under Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972), the Court can review the actions of the Executive branch, noting that but for their ability to review, there would be no “facially legitimate and bona fide reason” test to measure executive exercises of immigration authority.

In short, there is no doubt that Trump’s Executive Orders are subject to review when there is an alleged violation of the Constitution. But what specifically is unconstitutional about Trump’s ban? Or a rewrite of the ban even if it does not apply to lawful permanent residents or non-immigrants who have already been in the United States? One indication of the new EO by DHS Secretary Kelly is that it would give time for people to come back in , and would presumably include the same 7 nations whose nationals would be barred from future entries.

The Establishment Clause

The Establishment Clause argument has great merit, and it is the opinion of these authors that this argument will likely prevent Trump from prevailing on even his latest Executive Order, where it is likely he will include even non-Muslim countries, so as to appear non-discriminatory. The Virginia Court, in relevant part, explains that,

“The clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.” The Supreme Court has articulated various tests for determining whether that command has been violated. The first such test is that the law “must have a secular…purpose.” “In the past, [this] test has not been fatal very often, presumably because government does not generally act unconstitutionally, with the predominant purpose of advancing” one religion over the other. The secular purpose requirement “‘nevertheless serves an important function,’” because “[b]y showing a purpose to favor religion, the government sends the…message to…nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members.” This message of exclusion from the political community is all the more conspicuous when the government acts with a specific purpose to disfavor a particular religion. (internal citations omitted).

(Aziz, at *13-14).

In order to assess whether there was discriminatory intent in the January 27 EO, Judge Brinkema cites heavily to statements made by Trump during his campaign, especially noting that a “Muslim Ban” was a central feature of his platform. She also pointed to post-election and post-inaugural interviews where he speaks about the need to prioritize Christian refugees. She also cites to a particularly intriguing quote by Rudy Giuliani, who stated after the EO’s enactment, that “when [Trump] first announced it, he said ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, ‘Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’…And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger—the areas of the word that create danger for us…Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that’s what the ban is based on. It’s not based on religion. It’s based on places where there are [sic] substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.” Additionally, Judge Brinkema noted that post-hoc statements by DHS Secretary Kelly and White House Chief Counsel proclaiming that this is not a Muslim ban will be given little weight because we are looking to past intent in our analysis.

These statements taken together go to show that the ultimate aim of the Trump Administration is to ban Muslims. Even in light of the new EO, which may or may not include non-Muslim majority countries, these statements cannot be washed away. The intent to ban Muslims is there. The intent to violate the Establishment Clause, without outright saying it, is there. “‘The world is not made brand new every morning,’ a person is not made brand new simply by taking the oath of office.” Aziz, at *15. Trump’s new EO is only being reissued because he and his Administration know it is likely that his January 27 EO is unconstitutional. Essentially, the new EO will be a repackaging of the old. The intent, therefore, remains to ban Muslims. This is the case even if the new EO proposes to ban future entrants. While people with no ties to the US may not have the same constitutional rights as lawful permanent residents, such a person who wishes to visit a US citizen relative or attend a US educational institution could still likely be able to challenge an unconstitutional EO pursuant to Boumediene v. Bush and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

Balancing the Government and State’s Interests

Given that plaintiffs can likely prevail on the Establishment Clause argument, the government must prove that its national security concerns are bona fide. This means that the government must present evidence to support its assertions that these EOs are vital for the preservation of national security. Judge Brinkema again notes that in the Virginia case, the government failed to provide any evidence to support their claim. The Ninth Circuit also noted that no evidence had been proffered to point to terrorist threats of nationals from the original seven banned countries. In fact, Judge Brinkema states that the only evidence offered in this regard is the declaration of 10 national security experts who declared that the January 27 EO only serves to make the country less safe. It is possible, though, that a court may follow what the Massachusetts district court in Louhghalam v. Trump did, and grant the President this authority and not find discriminatory intent (although the court rendered this decision to justify not extending the injunction indefinitely, which it did initially, and did not analyze the discriminatory intent).

It is clear to us, and hopefully to a court that hears the new challenge, that the discriminatory intent will still exist in this new EO, thereby remaining in violation of the Establishment Clause. While it remains unclear if courts will find that this new EO puts forth facially legitimate national security concerns, it will still possess discriminatory intent, specifically banning Muslims, and will fail under the “bona fide” prong put forth in Kleindienst. See also American Academy of Religions v. Napolitano, 573 F.3d 115 (2009). If the EO is found to possess facially legitimate national security concerns, but also formed in bad faith, it will be up to the courts to decide if these national security concerns have enough muster to overcome constitutional constraints. But history has repeatedly shown that national security concerns have been conveniently and falsely invoked even to deprive US citizens of their rights as with the shameful internment of Japanese Americans.
These national security concerns, in our opinion, are invalid and cannot even pass the facially legitimate prong. Immigrants and refugees face numerous screenings before being granted admission into the United States. In addition, the immigration process can take years. The government in the January 27 EO proceedings failed to offer evidence that these processes were defective in their ability to screen out security threats. Further, it is unlikely that a terrorist would go through the trouble of filing an nonimmigrant/immigrant petition, only to be vetted several times over, then be subjected to a consular interview, and then still have to make it through Customs and Border Protection. It is an inefficient means to their end. Even attempting to ban prospective entrants who have not had ties with the United States cannot be justified if the ban violates the Establishment Clause. Since Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), the Supreme Court has recognized that when a government action is in conflict with the Constitution, it is for the judiciary to say what the law is. This is the wonderful balance that preserves American democracy. White House advisor Stephen Miller was wrong to assert that an unelected judge cannot check the President’s power in the area of immigration. The will of the majority, even in a democracy, cannot trample upon the rights of others. If that happens, the judiciary applies the breaks on such abuse of power so as to protect those who are trampled upon by the majority.

But most importantly, the majority of people seeking to temporarily visit or immigrate to the United States are peaceful people. Just because they share a different religion, worldview, or skin tone than some Americans does not mean that they are somehow violent or a threat. In fact, the opposite is true. Immigrants have been critical in the continued advancement of our country. From science and technology, to social ingenuity and progress, immigrants have helped to continue moving our country forward. To equate immigrants or non-immigrants, especially those from Muslim-majority countries with terrorists is not only bigoted, but it is simply untrue. Profiling all people from a specific country cannot serve as a proxy for individualized suspicion and guilt. It is also a sloppy law enforcement technique as an individual who desires to harm the country can evade being part of the profile. There are other smart law enforcement techniques that have been successfully deployed to track and apprehend people who intend to do us harm than profiling all people of a country.

President Trump derives his authority to assert maximum power through the plenary power doctrine, which arose from a Supreme Court case in the late 1800s, Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581, that upheld the racist Chinese Exclusion Act. In the 21st century, after the United States has made such strides in civil rights, women’s rights, and marriage equality, there is no longer place for plenary power as a justification to violate the Constitution. Allowing President Trump to assert such maximum power, based on the plenary power doctrine, only takes America back more than a hundred years after all the progress that has been achieved. The plenary power, as asserted in the travel ban EO, also sends a wrong message to the world that America is no longer a welcoming place for people to travel, do business, temporarily work, or to make a permanent home. Being unwelcoming, arbitrary and intolerant is inconsistent with the notion of America as a great nation. On this President’s Day, it is important to reflect whether now is the opportune moment to reassess the plenary power doctrine that was grounded in a racist law whose purpose was to exclude Chinese nationals just as the current or future EO is aimed against banning Muslims. It is high time for the courts to once and for all recognize the supremacy of the Constitution over the president’s absolute power.

Resisting President Trump's Visa Revocations

2/9/2017

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

President Trump signed an Executive Order the afternoon of Friday, January 27, 2017 which, according to its introduction, is intended to “protect Americans” but had the effect of banning travel of certain persons into to the United States who are mainly nationals of mainly Muslim countries. Citing INA 212(f), which broadly authorizes the President to suspend “any aliens or class of aliens into the United States” that would be detrimental to its interest, the EO became effective as of the date of signing, though it is currently subject to a Temporary Restraining Order. Prior to the TRO, the issuance of the EO without notice caused a great deal of hardship to legitimate travelers who had already embarked on their journey to the United States and stranded others who had not yet commenced their journey. The EO has been subject to widespread condemnation, protests and lawsuits. Although there is much debate on the validity of the EO and whether the President has authority to impose a blanket ban on legitimate travelers from predominantly Muslim countries, which appeared to be consistent with his campaign statements to impose a “Muslim ban,” there has not been much discussion on the practical impact of revocations of the underlying nonimmigrant and immigrant visas that had been issued to at least 60,000 individuals when the EO took effect.

Among the EO’s key provisions are, although further details can be found on our firm’s FAQ:

A 90-day ban on the issuance of U.S. visas to and entry to the United States of anyone who is a national of one of seven (7) “designated” countries—Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.
An immediate review by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of the information needed from any country to adequately determine the identity of any individual seeking a visa, admission or other immigration benefit and that they are not “security or public-safety threat[s].” This report must be submitted within 30 days and must include a list of countries that do not provide adequate information.
The suspension of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days.
The implementation of “uniform screening standards for all immigration programs” including reinstituting “in person” interviews.
A requirement that all individuals who need visas apply for them in person at U.S. consulates, rather than allowing “mail-in” or drop-box applications.

Although the EO is currently not in effect as a result of the TRO issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on February 3, 2017, this blog will focus on the impact of the revocation of a nonimmigrant visa of an individual who is already in the United States assuming the TRO is lifted. A panel in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is currently considering the government’s appeal for an emergency stay of the Western District of Washington TRO. [Update: later in the day on February 9, after this blog post was published, the Ninth Circuit panel issued a published decision denying the government’s emergency motion for a stay pending appeal.] Even if the Ninth Circuit does not issue the stay, the government will most likely seek an emergency stay from the Supreme Court, and thus the fate of the EO, and of the hundreds of thousands impacted under it, still hang in balance at the time of writing.

In conjunction with the EO, the Department of State issued a notification provisionally revoking all valid immigrant and nonimmigrant visas, as follows:

Upon request of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and pursuant to sections 212(f) and 221(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and 22 CFR 41.122 and 42.82, and in implementation of’ section 3(c) of the Executive Order on Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by Foreign Nationals, I hereby provisionally revoke all valid nonimmigrant and immigrant visas nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, subject to the exceptions discussed below.

The revocation does not apply to visas in the following nonimmigrant classifications: A-1, A-2, G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, NATO, C-2, or certain diplomatic visas.

The revocation also does not apply to any visa exempted on the basis of a determination made by the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security pursuant to section 3(g) of the Executive Order on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest.

This document is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any person.

What is the impact of the revocation of a visa of someone who is already lawfully in the United States? Take the example of a national from one of the banned countries who was issued an F-1 student visa, and has already been admitted into the United States in F-1 status when the visa is revoked. The revocation of the visa would not impact this student’s ability to maintain F-1 status so long as she is enrolled in the designated school and is complying with all the other terms of her status, such as not engaging in unauthorized employment. If the student leaves the United States, assuming the EO is in effect, she will not be able to come back to the United States. Hence, it is imperative to remain in the United States and continue to maintain status until such time that the ban has been lifted, and the revocation of the underlying visa has also been lifted. After the court issued the TRO, the State Department restored the visas and the above revocation notification is not in effect. However, the visas of the nationals of the 7 countries will again likely get provisionally revoked if the TRO is stayed.

Some people who came into the United States while the ban was still in effect had their visas actually cancelled. This is different to the situation when the visa got provisionally revoked after the EO came into effect. They would have to seek new visas or will need to have their admissions without a visa waived if they arrive at a port of entry so long as the ban is not in effect. Unless there is an emergent circumstance for a person with a cancelled visa to attempt to come to the United States and seek a waiver, it is advisable that such a person apply for a new visa before entering the United States.

In the event that the President adds other countries in a future Executive Order, those nationals will also be subject to visa revocation, and if they are already in the United States, they must maintain status. For example, if the affected national is in H-1B status, he must continue to remain in the employment of the petitioning entity that applied for the H-1B visa classification on his behalf. This individual may also seek an extension of status or change of status while in the United States. It is also likely that visas will get revoked of persons even if their countries are not on a banned list if there is basis or suspicion of future inadmissibility such as becoming a public charge. Even prior to President Trump, the DOS was provisionally revoking visas if a nonimmigrant in the US was convicted of a driving while intoxicated offense. A person caught in this situation besides maintaining status, and is unable to overcome the ground of inadmissibility at the US consulate (which is unlikely if there is a blanket ban on the person’s country) should remain in the United States and continue to maintain status. So long as the individual maintains status, and does not stay year beyond the expiration of the I-94, the revocation of the visa should also not trigger unlawful presence for purposes of triggering the 3 and 10 year bars under INA 212(a)(9)(B). This individual must also make efforts to become a permanent resident as soon as possible either through a family-based or employment-based sponsorship. Adjusting to permanent resident status in the United States would be the solution to the problem. The government has clarified that the travel ban under the EO does not apply to permanent residents. Still, permanent residents must also be careful to not be coerced in signing I-407 abandonment applications. Permanent residents have a right to seek a removal hearing, and the government has a heavy burden to provide that a permanent resident is not entitled to that status.

Note that a nonimmigrant whose visa has been revoked is technically subject to removal. INA 237(a)(1)(B) provides:

Present in violation of law. _ Any alien who is present in the United States in violation of this Act or any other law of the United States, or whose nonimmigrant visa (or other documentation authorization admission into the United States as a nonimmigrant) has been revoked under section 221(i) is deportable.

Thus, even if one is not in violation of the INA, but whose nonimmigrant visa has been revoked, is amenable to be placed in removal proceedings. If the sole basis of placing the individual in removal proceedings was due to the revocation, under INA 221(i), the revocation can be challenged in removal proceeding. There is an arguable basis to challenge such a revocation based on INA 212(f), which provides in part:

Suspension of entry of imposition of restriction by President. – Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamations, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

INA 212(f) applies to a suspension of an entry into the United States. An individual who was previously admitted in nonimmigrant status has already made such an “entry” into the United States and should therefore not be subject to a visa revocation under INA 212(f).

Finally, the revocation of an immigrant visa, once the individual has already been admitted as a permanent resident, should have no adverse impact. There would obviously be an adverse impact if the immigrant visa is revoked before the individual has proceeded to the United States. Even under these circumstances, if the immigrant visa is revoked unbeknownst to the person and could not have been ascertained through reasonable diligence, she can seek a waiver under 212(k) either at the port of entry or in removal proceedings, and if victorious, can be admitted as a permanent resident. If the EO takes effect, the DOS will revoke the visas en masse as was done the last time, and this individual is not likely to be aware of the revocation while on the journey to the United States and would thus be a good candidate for a waiver under INA 212(k).

More Alternative Facts: The Orwellian Abuse of Language in Connection with Donald Trump’s Recent Executive Orders on Immigration

1/31/2017

by David Isaacson, Partner with ABIL member, Cyrus D. Mehta
The Insightful Immigration Blog

Following an incident in which White House press secretary Sean Spicer provided false numbers regarding the size of the crowds at the inauguration of Donald Trump as President, Trump senior advisor Kellyanne Conway memorably stated on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that Mr. Spicer had merely been providing “alternative facts.” This claim has, deservedly, been the subject of much ridicule. As host Chuck Todd stated during that same interview in response to what one article rightly termed an “Orwellian turn of phrase”: “Alternative facts are not facts. They’re falsehoods.” Such disregard for the truth has been a common feature of the early days of the Trump Administration.

The same Orwellian approach to language has been evident in the Trump Administration’s recently issued executive orders regarding immigration. Both the January 25, 2017, Executive Order entitled “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States” and the January 27, 2017, Executive Order entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” involve in different ways a very troubling relationship with the notion of truth. (The orders also have a number of other deeply objectionable aspects, too many to fully address in one blog post, although many other blog posts, editorials, and op-eds by other authors on the subject are well worth reading.)

The January 25 executive order, among other changes to enforcement policy, creates a list of priorities for removal which, at first glance, is intended to focus in large part on criminals. As the New York Times explained in an article published the day the order was issued, however, the executive order in effect defines the notion of a criminal for these purposes to include people charged with a criminal offense but never convicted of anything, as well as anyone who has “committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense” (or, more precisely, anyone believed by the immigration authorities to have done so).

These priorities thus include people quite far afield from any traditional notion of what it means to be a “criminal”. It is, or used to be, a tradition of long standing in this country that one charged with a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The mere fact that someone has “been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not been resolved,” to quote from Section 5(b) of the January 25 executive order, does not make them a criminal. They might be innocent of any wrongdoing, and might be acquitted as the criminal case moved forward. The idea that any technically removable person will become a high priority by virtue of an unresolved charge, of which they may be completely innocent, is therefore very troubling. While merely being a priority is not itself a basis for removal, the executive order implies that the Administration could pursue removal of someone facing unresolved criminal charges who had overstayed a nonimmigrant admission for a short period of time, or failed to file a change of address and could not sufficiently establish that the failure was non-willful or excusable.

The notion that anyone who has “committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense” will be a priority for removal even if not convicted of any charge is also troubling, and has broader implications than may be apparent at first glance. Entry without inspection is a misdemeanor under 8 U.S.C. 1325, for example, so this priority could be read to apply to anyone who crossed the border without authorization, at least as an adult—even if that entry took place many years ago.

The January 27 executive order, which bars entry by nationals of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Yemen, and Libya for 90 days subject to possible future extensions, and suspends all refugee admissions for 120 days, rests even more fully on a disconnect from the truth. It purports to be focused on protecting the U.S. from “Terrorist” entry, and yet it applies to many people who are extremely unlikely to be terrorists. Besides a distaste for refugee admissions generally, it seems to be based on antagonism towards predominantly Muslim countries, and has thus been referred to as a “Muslim ban”—although it ironically does not apply to the few predominantly Muslim countries whose citizens were responsible for the attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001 that it invokes, such as Saudi Arabia, the country of citizenship of 15 of the 19 September 11th hijackers. (It has been pointed out that the ban appears to leave out countries where Donald Trump has done business.) Instead, the entry ban focuses on countries which either Congress or DHS previously deemed worthy of being a basis for exclusion from the Visa Waiver Program in the event that an otherwise VWP-eligible person had dual nationality in them or had visited them—an exclusion which, while it had some perverse effects, simply meant that such people had to apply for visas and thus be subjected to additional scrutiny. This new order, however, applies to people who already have been granted visas (or documents to travel to the United States as refugees, which are not technically quite the same thing), following intense scrutiny and under circumstances that make it quite unlikely they would actually be terrorists.

Perhaps the first and most obvious example of those who can be deemed potential “terrorists” only by Orwellian abuse of the word are those who were granted permission to immigrate specifically due to their service to the United States, such as the special immigrants issued visas based on their work for the U.S. military in Iraq. The lead plaintiff in the ACLU lawsuit that resulted in the first temporary injunction blocking deportation of those affected by the executive order, Hameed Khalid Darweesh, was a former U.S. Army translator in Iraq who had received his special immigrant visa based on that service and had been twice targeted by terrorists in Iraq because of that service. The Pentagon has now indicated that it will submit to the White House a list of Iraqis who have worked alongside the United States so that they may possibly be exempted from the entry ban. That there was no exemption of such people from the January 27th executive order, and no promise even now that such people will be exempted, is even more outrageous than the executive order itself. The notion that blocking Mr. Darweesh’s entry would protect the U.S. from “terrorists” is a falsehood much graver than Mr. Spicer’s original alternative facts regarding crowd size.

While perhaps the most obvious example, however, those who served the U.S. military in Iraq are far from the only people affected by the January 27 executive order who cannot reasonably be associated with terrorism. The executive order at least temporarily bars refugees from all countries of the world, including countries with no connection whatsoever to any past terrorist attack against the United States. It also bars refugees persecuted by the very same extremist groups which might seek to do us harm, and whose cases have undergone extensive vetting before they reach the stage of applying for admission. The January 27 executive order seemingly ignores the extensive screening that already exists for all refugees and visa applicants.

Despite all this, the Administration has sought to remove people covered by the January 27 executive order from the United States as soon as they arrive, without taking any time to investigate whether they might conceivably be reasonably suspected of any connection with terrorism. Fortunately, the courts have stepped in, with both the aforementioned injunction in Mr. Darweesh’s class action and several others. These injunctions did not come soon enough for all of the innocent victims of the executive order, however. At least one habeas plaintiff was removed from the United States while an application for a temporary restraining order was pending, although Judge Dolly Gee of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has now ordered that Ali Vayeghan be returned to the United States. Others, however, were removed or coerced to withdraw their applications for admission under circumstances that make their return less likely.

The Administration even initially sought to apply the entry ban to Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) of the United States with citizenship in one of the 7 affected countries—that is, people with “green cards”, who have already been cleared to live here permanently. That was extremely legally questionable in the view of this author, given that the power relied upon by the January 27 executive order, section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, authorizes the President to suspend the “entry” of certain aliens, and many LPRs returning from brief trips are under section 101(a)(13)(C) of the INA not to “be regarded as seeking an admission into the United States”. Since section 101(a)(13)(A) of the INA defines “admission” as “the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer,” it would appear to follow that one who is inspected, and should not be regarded as seeking admission, also should not be regarded as seeking entry. That would also be consistent with the purpose of section 101(a)(13)(C) to codify a modified version of the Supreme Court’s decision in Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449 (1963), which held under prior law that an LPR did not make an “entry” following an innocent, casual, and brief departure from the United States. The issue may not need to be resolved in litigation in the near future, however, because the DHS Secretary, General John Kelly, determined Sunday that “the entry of lawful permanent residents is in the national interest”, and so “absent significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare, lawful permanent resident status will be a dispositive factor in [DHS’s] case-by-case determinations.” That is, LPRs from the affected countries will be allowed to return to the United States in most instances. It is consistent with the theme of this blog, though, that the Administration initially sought to redefine “entry” as something other than what it ought to mean under immigration law, and still evidently reserves the right to do so if it feels it is in possession of “significant derogatory information.”

Nor are the redefinition of “entry” and the basic disconnect regarding the relevance of this entry ban to “terrorism” the only alternative facts underpinning the January 27 executive order. The order indicates that when refugee admissions resume, preference is to be given to religious minorities, which has been understood as intended to mean Christians in predominantly Muslim countries (although there are countries where Muslims are in the minority as well). Mr. Trump’s suggestion that Christian refugees had previously had “no chance” of coming to the United States is, however, also untrue. As the New York Times has explained, “In 2016, the United States admitted almost as many Christian refugees (37,521) as Muslim refugees (38,901), according to the Pew Research Center.” Many Christian leaders have denounced the entry ban.

There is also Mr. Trump’s false claim that “My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months.” In fact, the narrowly focused increase in screening of refugees and applicants for Special Immigrant Visas from one country, during which some Iraqis nonetheless continued to be admitted to the United States each month of the six months in question, is in no way “similar” to a months-long outright ban on entry of nearly all citizens from seven countries. Moreover, the heightened screening created in 2011 is still in place, so the fact that scrutiny of Iraqi refugees and visa applicants was increased six years ago cannot reasonably be offered as a reason for suspending their entry now.

The fictional Superman was known for defending “truth, justice, and the American way.” Based on his disregard for the truth, Donald Trump has perpetrated a great injustice, one inconsistent with the American way of hospitality towards immigrants and refugees. Several Democratic leaders have indicated that they will propose bills in Congress to overturn the January 27 executive order, and Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer unsuccessfully attempted Monday to get consent for a vote on such a bill. Such bills face highly uncertain prospects in the Republican Congress, given that House Speaker Paul Ryan seemed to express support for the executive orders in his statement on the subject, but we can hope—and, for those of us whose representatives are not already on record in favor, can contact them to urge their support. Donations to the ACLU in connection with its pending lawsuit against the January 27 executive order are another way to show opposition to the entry ban.

Alternative facts are bad enough when they concern something as trivial as crowd size. That they would be relied upon to harm innocent immigrants is unacceptable.

Justifiable Outrage On Trump’s Muslim Travel Ban By A Client

1/30/2017

by Farhad Wadia, Chief Executive Officer of Samuels Jewelers through Cyrus D. Mehta, ABIL Lawyer
The Insightful Immigration Blog

Editor’s Note: On Friday evening, January 27, 2017, we sent out a notice to our clients relaying the details of President Trump’s executive order blocking the entry of visa-holders, refugees, and LPRs from seven predominantly-Muslim nations, namely Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Yemen. Among other things, we strongly discouraged clients or the employees of corporate clients from these countries from travelling outside the United States. Outraged by Trump’s actions, Farhad K. Wadia wrote to us this spontaneous, eloquent response. Mr. Wadia is the Chief Executive Officer of Samuels Jewelers, a multi-million dollar specialty jewelry chain. Under Mr. Wadia’s leadership, Samuels Jewelers has expanded to 123 stores across twenty-two states and now employs over 800 people. Mr. Wadia, who is a citizen of India, is also a proud lawful permanent resident. Note that there have been some clarifications to the EO since last Friday, the situation remains fluid as interpretations keep on changing.

This weekend, I was shocked to hear that President Trump had not only banned refugees and visitors from seven Muslim countries, but that Lawful Permanent Residents from these nations were also denied entry. Due to the uproar from protests this weekend, the White House has since rolled back on its policy denying entry to LPRs; however, many more people, including temporary workers and students, continue to suffer under this inhumane policy.

This Executive Action has already ripped apart families and shattered the dreams of professionals and students. Twice before in American history have such actions caused untold hardship and suffering to innocent people. The first of which was the U.S. refusal to admit Jews fleeing the Holocaust. Upon return to Nazi Germany, these people were violently persecuted and/or killed at concentration camps. The second was the internment of Japanese-Americans after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, causing immense trauma and untold misery. Trump’s recent actions join these events in the halls of infamy and serve as a degradation of American values.

Despite these spots on its history, America, has historically served as a beacon of hope and opportunity for citizens and immigrants alike. It has allowed me, an immigrant and now proud lawful permanent resident, the opportunity to grow a successful company, contribute to the American economy, and employ hundreds of workers. But I am no exception. America has given millions of people the opportunity to create new and better lives for themselves and become leaders in their communities. Immigrants to America have become influential politicians, doctors, teachers, business leaders, and scientists that have all made this country stronger.

Trump’s Executive Orders against immigrants and refugees stands in stark contrast to these cherished values. This is not the America that the world admires and respects, where the inscription on the Statue of Liberty reads: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” Trump has instead shut America’s door to those most vulnerable by blocking the admission of Syrian refugees, and has disrupted the lives of hundreds of visa holders seeking to continue their studies or careers.

These executive orders, in addition to the recent order heightening the status of Steven Bannon within the National Security Council, lead me to worry about the fate of America. Specifically in regards to immigrant workers, Mr. Bannon has been exceptionally discriminatory against Asian (citizen and noncitizen) workers in Silicon Valley. Relying on made-up statistics, Mr. Bannon has implied that there are too many Asian CEOs and workers in the tech industry. Stephen Miller and Jeff Sessions have both suggested rolling back employment-based immigration, even for the most talented workers that are capable of bringing ingenuity and success to the economy. I fear that this weekend’s actions are only the beginning of what is to come.

The suspension of immigration will only serve to hurt America. This country was built upon the backs of immigrants. Immigrants have made this country better. They have made this country stronger. Trump’s discriminatory orders will only reverse progress and growth, both economically and socially. America is better than this, and now is the time for the American people to stand up and fight against this injustice. As Martin Niemöller once wrote,

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

Let the American people take these words seriously, and refuse to allow Trump and his administration to degrade the values that this country was founded upon.

Is Being Anti-Trump A New Ground Of Inadmissibility?

1/24/2017

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

Over the weekend, a Canadian student of McGill University, Joseph Decunah, who was seeking to be admitted to protest at the Women’s March the day after President Trump’s inauguration was refused admission. He was in the company of two US citizens who were allowed to cross. Decunah was point blank asked “Are you anti or pro-Trump?”

After Decunah indicated he was anti-Trump as he had nothing to hide, the CBP officer engaged in further questioning about why he opposed Trump, and the Canadian entrant spoke about the Affordable Care Act and some of the outrageous statements that Trump has made towards minorities. Then from there, the questioning moved on, according to Decunah, to determine if he and the two others in his group were extremists or not. He was asked about where he had been, and if he has ever been to the Middle East. The CBP officer then asked him about his political engagements, to which Dacunah responded that he had been a member of the NDP (New Democratic Party) in the past.

The CBP officer then alleged that Decunah would engage in “silent disruption” as a protestor in the march. He said, according to Decunah, “Would you agree that by standing in these crowds, that even though you may be a pacifist, that you would be disrupting events?” Decunah’s partner Ruth mentioned that the Women’s March had permits from the Metropolitan Police Department and the National Park Service. “It’s not like we’re participating in anything illegal. [The guard] dropped the term “silent disruption” a few more times and then tried to explain that there were a series of bins Canadians have to fall into when they’re entering the United States,” according to Decunah.” One of those things can be tourism, one of those things can be for work or whatever it may be in that attending a march of any sort wouldn’t fall into one of those bins.”

We hope that this was an isolated incident, and not part of a growing disturbing trend under a Trump presidency. However, there have been other similar reported incidents of Canadians being blocked entry into the United States on the day of the protest. While there is no specific mention in the Foreign Affairs Manual about whether coming to the United States to be part of a peaceful protest is a legitimate activity as a visitor for pleasure, it clearly ought to be. Under 22 CFR 41.31(b)(2) pleasure is defined as “Legitimate activities of a recreational character, including tourism, amusement, visits with friends or relatives, rest, medical treatment and activities of a fraternal, social or service nature.” Clearly, being part of a peaceful protest with like-minded people could constitute activities of a “fraternal” or “social” nature. 9 FAMe 402.2-4(A)(3) also contemplates as visitors for pleasure “[p]articipants in conventions of social organizations.”

Of course, the CBP officer can rely on other grounds of inadmissibility under the INA. One potential ground is under INA 212(a)(3)(A)(i), which allows a consular or border officer to find inadmissible one, if there are reasonable grounds to believe that he or she seeks to enter the United States to engage principally or incidentally in “any other unlawful activity.” It is purely speculative and a stretch for a CBP officer to assume that an anti- Trump protestor, as opposed to a pro-Trump supporter, may more likely engage in a form of civil disobedience, resulting in unlawful activities such as blocking traffic. It is even more absurd to refuse entry to one who will engage in “silent disruption.” The First Amendment of the US Constitution ought to preclude the assumption that exercise of the right to peaceably assemble is likely to involve the violation of law.

Trump, who is likely to continue being a controversial President, will generate more protests in the future. It would undermine America’s image as a free country if visitors from abroad are barred if they are specifically coming to participate in a peaceful anti-Trump protest. Immigration policy does not operate in a vacuum. There have already been troubling signs of Trump repeatedly attacking the press as being dishonest, thus undermining the First Amendment. Consuls and border officers should not feel emboldened as a result by allowing their personal prejudices to cloud their objectivity in determining who is a bona fide visitor. Otherwise, and most unfortunately, being anti-Trump might de facto become a new ground of inadmissibility. This is because there are very limited grounds to challenge the decision of a border officer. Similarly, under the recent Supreme Court decision in Kerry v. Din, a consular officer’s decision is virtually unreviewable if the applicant was simply informed about the section number in the INA as the basis for the denial. These officers are bestowed with great power and must use their power wisely. While they are obligated to ensure that those who potentially threaten to harm the United States do not come in, they should allow peaceful protestors who wish to exercise and celebrate the rights that are enshrined in the First Amendment.