ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network




Connect to us

Make us Homepage



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
© 1995-
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Recent Blogs Posts

  1. IER Settles Immigration-Related Discrimination Claims Against J.C. Penney

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law

    The Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER), a Division of the Justice Department, has reached a settlement agreement with J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc. The agreement resolves two investigations, one into whether J.C. Penney unlawfully rejected a lawful permanent resident’s valid work authorization documentation, and the other into whether J.C. Penney violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by unlawfully reverifying the work authorization of certain non-U.S. citizens.

    The first investigation was prompted by a lawful permanent resident’s charge alleging J.C. Penney violated the INA’s anti-discrimination provision when J.C. Penney fired her in August 2016. The investigation found J.C. Penney had improperly rejected the worker’s unexpired Permanent Resident Card as proof of her work authorization. The second investigation found J.C. Penney had unlawfully reverified the work authorization of certain non-U.S. citizens solely based on their citizenship status, even though those non-citizens had presented the same type of valid work authorization documents as U.S. citizens when first hired.

    The IER also found J.C. Penney unlawfully requested specific immigration documents from certain workers during the process of reverifying their work authorization because of their immigration status. Among other things, the INA prohibits employers from (1) rejecting valid work authorization documents, (2) limiting a worker’s choice of documentation to present for employment verification or reverification purposes, and (3) subjecting employees to different or unnecessary documentary demands, based on the employee’s citizenship, immigration status, or national origin.

    Under the terms of the settlement, J.C. Penney will pay a civil penalty of $14,430 to the United States; pay $11,177.60 in back pay to the worker who filed the charge; train its staff and corporate human resources personnel on their legal obligations to not discriminate on the basis of citizenship, immigration status, and national origin; require HR personnel to take an open book multiple choice test on the I-9 process; revise any existing employment policies so that they prohibit discrimination based on citizenship, immigration status, and national origin; honor employees’ documentation that appears genuine and relates to the person; not request more of different documents than required by law; post notices informing workers about their rights under the INA’s anti-discrimination provision; and be subject to departmental monitoring and reporting requirements for two years.

    It appears the IER is requiring more and more from employers entering into settlements. For example, HR personnel at J.C. Penney will be required to pass a test. This is a method to make sure that the law as relates to the I-9 process will be followed in the future. For answers to many other questions related to the IER and immigration compliance, I invite you to read The I-9 and E-Verify Handbook, a book that I co-authored with Greg Siskind, and available at
  2. Trump, Congress have options on the table to prevent family separation. By Nolan Rappaport

    Attorney General Jeff Sessions' “zero-tolerance policy” for illegal entrieshas caused widespread outrage, but he has just modified a similar zero-tolerance policy that was already in effect.

    President George Bush initiated Operation Streamline in 2005, which required criminal prosecution of all unlawful border crossers in certain sectors. Magistrate judges conducted en masse hearings. As many as 80 defendants at a time pled guilty.

    The program continued when Barack Obama became the president.
    This graph depicts the number of illegal entry prosecutions from April 2007 – April 2018.

    With Operation Streamline, however, deference was given to limits in judicial and detention capacity, which resulted in daily caps on the number of aliens who were charged.

    Executive Order.

    President Donald Trump has issued an executive order stopping DHS from separating children from their parents while they are being detained.

    But the Settlement Agreement in Flores v. Sessions requires the release of detained alien children “without unnecessary delay,” which has been interpreted to be no more than 20 days.


    Published originally on The Hill.

    About the author. Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an executive branch immigration law expert for three years; he subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years.

  3. ICE Agent Allegedly Breaks Foot and Detains Immigration Lawyer Surrendering Child for Deportation

    by , 06-26-2018 at 01:40 PM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    Via The Daily Beast:

    An immigration attorney said an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer broke her foot and locked her in a room early Tuesday morning in Kansas City, Missouri.

    Sharma Crawford attorneys at law issued the following update on their Facebook page:


    This is from Attorney Andrea Martinez about what happened to her this morning. This is outrageous.

    Kansas City ICE ERO deportation officer Everett Chase pushed me and caused a fracture in my right foot this morning, as well as a bloody left leg. This was because he was mad that he had so many cameras filming him as he was deporting my 3-year-old client and his pregnant mother. Then he detained me and wouldn’t let me out of a locked ICE office and then called the Federal Protective Service (FPS) “police” and made up stories about me trying to “force my way” into the ICE lobby when he had originally invited us in and then forcibly pushed attorney Megan Galicia and I out.

    Click here
    for more.

    Updated 06-26-2018 at 02:23 PM by MKolken

  4. Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban. Posted by Nolan Rappaport

    The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that President Trump has the authority to ban travelers from certain majority-Muslim countries if he thinks that it is necessary to protect the country, a victory in what has been a priority since Trump’s first weeks in office and a major affirmation of presidential power.

    The vote was 5 to 4, with conservatives in the majority and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. writing the opinion.

    Lower courts had struck down each of the three iterations of the president’s travel ban, the first of which was issued in January 2017. But the administration had been hopeful about the Supreme Court, because it had previously decided to let the ban go into effect while considering the challenges to it.

    Roberts wrote that the presidential proclamation that led to the ban “is squarely within the scope of presidential authority.” And he rejected arguments that it was based on the predominant religion of most of the affected countries.

    “The Proclamation is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices,” he wrote. “The text says nothing about religion.”


    Tags: travel ban Add / Edit Tags
  5. Supreme Court Upholds Trump's Muslim Ban as Exercise of Presidential Power. Will This Allow Trump to Rewrite All Immigration Laws Alone? Roger Algase

    In what is already being called a "Sad Day for America" and drawing comparisons with the notorious Dred Scott and Korematsu decisions. the 5-4 right wing Supreme Court has upheld Trump's Muslim ban order as a "legitimate" exercise of presidential power.

    Will this give Trump authority to rewrite all of the nation's immigration laws by himself in a white supremacist image? I will withhold further comment until after I have seen and read the decision, other than to point out that based on these preliminary reports, the Court majority appears to have deliberately closed its eyes to the overwhelming evidence that all of Trump's Muslim ban orders were motivated by hatred and prejudice against Muslims and their religion, not by any legitimate or genuine national security considerations.

    The danger is that this decision may not only lead to depriving Muslim immigrants and US citizens of all constitutional protections, but could accelerate America's march toward dictatorship under Donald Trump.

    What will come next from this right wing Supreme Court majority? Will the next step be to uphold internment of all Muslims in a throwback to Korematsu if there is another terrorist attack? Will this court uphold internment of all of Trump's opponents on "national security" grounds as some of the dictators that Trump had expressed admiration for are now doing?

    Or will the right-wing dominated Court one day soon uphold a ban on immigration by every racial or religious group that Trump regards as less than human and wants to keep out of America because its members do not have white skins or come from "Countries like Norway"?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 06-26-2018 at 11:24 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: