ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
© 1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

All Blog Entries

  1. DHS Statement On SCOTUS Decision On Trump's Executive Order

    by , 06-26-2017 at 01:38 PM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    Release Date:
    June 26, 2017

    For Immediate Release
    Office of the Press Secretary
    Contact: 202-282-8010

    WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court today has allowed the Department of Homeland Security to largely implement the President's Executive Order and take rational and necessary steps to protect our nation from persons looking to enter and potentially do harm. The granting of a partial stay of the circuit injunctions with regard to many aliens abroad restores to the Executive Branch crucial and long-held constitutional authority to defend our national borders.

    The Department will provide additional details on implementation after consultation with the Departments of Justice and State. The implementation of the Executive Order will be done professionally, with clear and sufficient public notice, particularly to potentially affected travelers, and in coordination with partners in the travel industry.
  2. Supreme Court Hands Trump Pyrrhic "Victory" by Upholding Muslim Ban Only Against People Not Likely to Come to U.S. Anyway. Roger Algase

    Update: June 26, 9:15 pm:

    For another opinion supporting my own view that the June 26 Supreme Court decision reinstating parts of Trump's Muslim entry ban order was considerably less than an overwhelming victory for the president; and that it can even be looked at a resounding defeat for Trump if one focuses on the fact that lifting the injunction will probably make very little difference in who actually gets admitted to the US from the six countries affected, with or without the entry ban, see:

    Sabrina Saddiqui, writing in The Guardian:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...uling-analysis

    Nonetheless, even if the president's "victory" in having at least part of his ban reinstated may be more symbolic than in actual practice, the message that the Supreme Court is sending to the Muslims of America - and the world - is highly disconcerting for the future of religious freedom in America and of our democracy.

    The message is that the highest court in the most powerful and respected nation in the world is willing to wheel and deal away basic religious equality and human rights for almost 200 million people in the six countries and their co-religionists in the US, and accept second-class status for American Muslims, while branding their religion as a pariah one that is just a bit less "equal" than the others.

    By banning, even "temporarily" (and of course Trump is going to extend the ban, most likely re-branded as "extreme vetting", for as long and as often as he can, especially encouraged by the failure of the Supreme Court to oppose him more vigorously this time around - that is a given) almost 200 million people who do not have close ties with America, simply because of their religion, the Court is not only rewarding the president for his bigotry, bad faith and grab at imperial power in issuing the ban orders in the first place, but is encouraging him to adopt even wider, more bigoted and dangerous (for our democracy) ban or exclusion policies in the future.

    Today, Trump may have only succeeded in imposing a largely theoretical ban against a group of people who might not have been able to get visas anyway even without the ban.

    But who knows who will be the object of Trump's immigration bans or "extreme vetting" tomorrow? Most or all immigrants from outside Europe, as in the infamous 1924 Johnson-Reed law which both Trump's AG, Jeff Sessions (in 2015) and, (90 years earlier) an aspiring young German politician named Adolf Hitler wrote about so favorably?

    Any immigrant or visitor from anywhere in the world who has ever spoken out against Trump, or who refuses to pledge personal loyalty to him, as Trump allegedly asked former FBI Director James Comey to do before firing him? It has happened in other countries. It could happen in America.

    Did the Supreme Court, on June 26, 2017 just make it even more likely that, one day soon, it will happen in America?

    Update: June 26, 2:10 pm:

    In its decision to uphold the parts of the lower courts' temporary injunctions against enforcing Trump's entry ban that would bar citizens of the six targeted Muslim countries against people from those countries who have bona fide connections with the United States (see below), the Supreme Court, for the fist time that I am aware of, appears to be putting non-permanent resident foreign citizens who have bona fide connections with the US in the same category along with permanent residents in terms of having rights that take precedence over the executive's claimed unlimited right to decide who can enter the United States under the Plenary Power doctrine.

    In doing so, the Supreme Court may have opened the door to a significant weakening of that doctrine, which dates from the period of the infamous Chinese exclusion laws. "Plenary Power" at least in theory, gives the executive and Congress exclusive power over all admissions to the US by foreign citizens.

    While the Court did not specifically discuss Plenary Power in its decision, by making this important distinction, the Court may have weakened the Plenary Power doctrine to the point where, possibly at some time in the future, this doctrine might wind up in the dustbin of American immigration law history where it deserves to be.

    This is not to deny, of course, that any judicial support for Trump's Muslim ban, directed against even one person based on religion, is still a vote in favor of prejudice and bigotry, and against the values of equal justice and human rights on which America is based, and which are now under unprecedented attack in this administration.

    My original comment follows:

    In a per curiam decision from which the Court's three most conservative Justices dissented in part, the Supreme Court on June 26 agreed to hear the Trump administration's appeal from two Circuit Court decision enjoining implementation of the entry ban against citizens of six targeted almost 100 percent Muslim countries, but denied the government's motion to lift the Circuit Court injunctions against enforcing the ban against citizens of those countries who have a bona fide connection to the US - i.e. the people who are most likely to want to come to this country and who were the main targets of Trumps ban orders.

    The Court, in an evident bone thrown to the administration and to the Justice Department lawyers defending the Muslim ban, agreed to lift, for 90 days, the lower courts' injunctions against banning people who would be the least likely to want to come to the US or to be able to receive visas if they applied - namely people who have no connection with the U.S.

    The Supreme Court, in its decision, also indicated that by the time the case comes up for hearing in October, the entire entry ban order may be moot.

    While the president may no doubt try to "Trumpet" this decision as a resounding victory, it is, in reality, closer to the type of victory won by King Pyrrhus in ancient Greek history. This is not the type of "victory" that most rational people are looking for in any situation.

    The decision, however, is likely to cause a good deal of inconvenience, hardship and confusion at US airports this summer as various immigration officers raise questions about whether people from the six countries entering the US have the requisite bona fide connections with the U.S.

    There will no doubt be a good deal of litigation in the lower courts over this question during the next 90 days, and during the periods over which it is virtually certain that Trump will seek to extent the "temporary" (ha, ha, ho, ho, haw, haw haw, - who on earth really believes that?) ban.

    The three dissenting Justices wanted to lift the Circuit Court injunctions in their entirely and reinstate Trump's original six-country ban order against all of the approximately 180 million citizens of those countries, almost all of whom choose to attend mosques rather than churches or synagogues.

    No surprise here in the case of Justices Thomas and Alito, but one can express some surprise about Justice Gorsuch, who strongly stood up in favor of immigrant rights against executive overreach when Obama was president and Gorsuch was sitting on the 10th Circuit, but who now is evidently willing to give Trump virtually imperial powers in this area.

    Et tu, Neil?

    The full text of the Court's decision can be accessed by going to the June 26 Washington Post article:

    Supreme Court Will Hear Travel Ban Case

    and clicking on the direct link to the decision in that article.
    __________________________________
    Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer, and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, who has been helping mainly skilled and professional immigrants from diverse parts of the world with work visas and green cards for more than 35 years.

    Roger focuses mainly on H-1B, O-1 and J-1 work visas, and on green cards through labor certification (PERM) and through opposite sex or same sex marriage. Roger's email address is algaselex@gmail.com

    Updated 06-27-2017 at 06:08 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  3. BALCA Finds Job Duties Outweigh Job Title

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law PLLC

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Sumeru.jpg 
Views:	11 
Size:	5.0 KB 
ID:	1199

    The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) reversed a Certifying Officer’s denial of PERM application stating that a denial based primarily on the foreign national’s lack of prior experience with congruent job titles must be reversed. (Sumeru Inc, 2013-PER-01241).

    Sumeru, Inc. filed an Application for Permanent Employment Certification (“Form 9089”) listing the Alien with a Section H job title of “project manager” and requiring either a master’s degree in Engineering and 24 months’ experience in the field or alternately a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science or Information Systems and 5 years’ experience in the field. The foreign national possessed a bachelor’s degree in Engineering and 4 and ½ years’ experience with Sumeru and 5 years’ prior experience in 3 jobs with titles other than “project manager” but with like duties and responsibilities.

    The CO denied the PERM application stating that hiring the foreign national is not in accordance with the minimum requirements for the job opportunity listed in Form 9089. On appeal, Sumeru filed a Request for Review asked the DOL to focus on the duties of the position in question, not mere title only. Sumeru cited Matter of Maple Derby, Inc., 1989-INA-185 in which an alien qualified for a position despite a difference in job titles. Sumeru also provided a detailed chart aligning each required duty to a duty the Alien maintained in a previous position.

    Upon review, BALCA reversed the denial of labor on grounds that the foreign national’s prior experience was substantially equivalent to the duties required by the employer.
  4. Letters of the Week: June 26 - July 2

  5. Trump ends 20-year policy of hosting Muslim End of Ramadan Dinner at W.H. More Evidence of Religious "Animus" for Courts to Consider? Roger Algase

    The Washington Post reports that Donald Trump has terminated a 20-year White House policy of hosting a dinner to celebrate the Eid, ending the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan, and has issued a short, perfunctory statement marking this important Muslim holiday instead.

    http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news...g-11244746.php

    Holding a White House dinner to celebrate this event dates from the time of President Thomas Jefferson, and had been revived under Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama.

    While of course, the current president has no legal or other obligation to mark this celebration, canceling this event can be read as one more indication that this president does not feel a great deal of empathy or respect for Americans who practice this particular faith.

    There can be little doubt that the president, by cancelling the Eid celebration, intended to send the 3 or 4 million American citizens and permanent residents who practice this religion a clear message about his own personal feelings toward all people who belong to this religious group, not just to citizens of the six countries on his latest entry ban list.

    Could this be additional evidence for the Supreme Court and/or other federal courts to consider of what the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals determined was Trump's clear pattern of "animus" and religious discrimination in general against Muslims as the real motive for his entry ban orders?

    It would not be unreasonable for the courts to reach such a conclusion.

    While extending best wishes to all Muslims for this holiday, it is important to bear in mind that their struggle against religious prejudice and discrimination in America, including but not limited to immigration policy, but also including an appalling increase in anti-Muslim hate crimes in this country (and the U.K.) which our nation's 45th President has done little or nothing to speak out against, is a struggle for justice and equality on behalf of Jews, Christians and all the diverse people of America, regardless of religious affiliation or lack of same.

    As Rabbi Burton L. Visotzky of the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York, and Reverend Bertram Johnson of New York's Riverside Church, two of America's best known and most respected religious organizations, wrote recently in The Hill:

    Jews and Christians must oppose Trump's 'Muslim ban'. Again.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...slim-ban-again

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 06-25-2017 at 04:48 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

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: