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

All Blog Entries

  1. 150,000 Starving Yemeni Children Show Extent of Trump's Cruelty in Latest Muslim Ban, Which the Supreme Ct. Has Reinstated in Full. Roger Algase

    In the wake of the December 4 Supreme Court decision allowing Trump's latest version of his Muslim ban to go into full effect pendente lite, the sheer inhumanity behind all of his Muslim and refugee entry ban orders, especially as it affects people trying to escape some of the worst humanitarian disasters in modern history, is becoming more and more apparent.

    A December 6 article describing the effect of the Supreme Court's latest order on members of America's Yemeni community, concerned about the horrendous famine in that country caused by its ongoing civil war, reports as follows:

    "There is a devastating civil war raging in Yemen, and [Yemeni women living in the US] were so visibly shaken by reports of famine..."

    The report continues

    "It makes an already tragic situation even worse, eliminating these and other Yemeni nationals ability to bring family members fleeing the conflict to the United States. Issa-Ibrahim - who is from Syria, another country on the list, doesn't even know when she'll see her own father."

    For just one of many articles on the devastating humanitarian crisis caused by Yemen's civil war, see: Middle East Eye (July 20)

    Nowhere to run: Death follows Yemen's destitute war refugees

    Meanwhile, The Guardian reports that according to the UN, more than 3 million people in Yemen could be pushed into starvation and that 150,000 malnourished Yemeni children could die within the coming months if the Saudi blockade of supplies to that country in connection with its civil war is not lifted.

    The Associated Press also reports that the UN Security Council is warning of the "dire and deteriorating humanitarian situation in Yemen."

    Oxfam America also warns that:

    "Millions will die in a historic famine and public health crisis"

    if the blockade by Saudi Arabia, a major US arms customer, is not lifted.

    While the same article also reports that Trump has, commendably, called on Saudi Arabia to end the blockade of food and other supplies into Yemen, his inclusion of Yemen on the Muslim Ban list only adds to the suffering of potentially millions of innocent people in that country.

    Yemen, of course, is not the only Muslim country with devastating humanitarian problems affected by the various permutations of Trump's Muslim Ban orders, which are nothing but a series variations on the same Islamophobic theme. Trump once again made this clear beyond any possible doubt himself by retweeting a series of hate videos from extremists in the UK purporting to show all Muslims as violent criminals to his 43 million Twitter followers only a week or two ago.

    Syria and Libya are other examples of Muslim countries which millions of desperate people are trying to escape from, but cannot have any hope of finding safety in America because of Trump's ban. And it is even more ironic, that Trump, who purports to be a friend of the Jewish people and has just issued a highly controversial announcement that he will move the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, is overlooking the fact that America has already been down the sorry road of barring people facing intolerable conditions in their home countries from America solely because of their race or religion - namely Jews fleeing Nazi persecution - once before.

    Thanks to Trump's Muslim and refugee ban orders, and the Supreme Court's latest action in allowing the latest order to take effect in full pending a final decision, barring the most vulnerable and desperate people imaginable from this Land of the Free and Nation of Immigrants is once again the Law of the Land in America, just as it was in the 1930's when the Jews of Europe tried to escape Hitler's genocide, as a wide range of US Jewish leaders recognized immediately when the original version of Trump's Muslim and Refugee ban was issued last January. See:

    Jewish Groups Across the Spectrum Unite in Condemnation of Trump's Refugee Ban

    What has happened to America's role as a country of refuge for the oppressed and a nation of humanitarian values, when, instead of making plans to airlift as many of Yemen's starving children as possible to the United States, our president and his administration keep on battling in court to stop as many people as possible from as many almost 100 per cent Muslim countries as possible from coming to the United States on a variety of constantly changing pretexts?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 12-08-2017 at 09:34 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  2. Columbine Management Settles National Origin Lawsuit for $335,000

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law PLLC

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Columbine Health Systems.gif 
Views:	13 
Size:	16.8 KB 
ID:	1242

    Columbine Management Services Inc. has agreed to pay $335,000 to settle allegations by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that it fired care providers because they were from Ethiopia or Sudan.

    Columbine Management also agreed to change the employees’ terminations to resignations, provide them with neutral references, and administer Title VII training (related to non-discrimination based on national origin and other protected classes) to supervisory and managerial employees for a two-year decree.

    The suit, which the EEOC initiated in July 2015, alleged a director for Columbine’s New Mercer Commons facility told a staff member that the facility should get rid of “these people because they just can’t speak English.” This statement was about employees from Ethiopia or Sudan.

    This case was handled by the EEOC because Columbine Management had 15 or more employees. If an employer has between 4 and 14 employees, the Immigrant and Employee Rights (IER) Section of the Department of Justice has jurisdiction over the national origin discrimination claim.

    This settlement is another example of how employers need to provide training to their supervisory and managerial staff on avoidance of national origin discrimination as well as other types of discrimination. For more information on avoiding national origin discrimination and unfair documentary practices related to employer immigration compliance, I invite you to read my new book, The I-9 and E-Verify Handbook, which is available at
  3. Asylum Representation Rates Have Fallen Amid Rising Denial Rates

    by , 12-07-2017 at 09:25 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    Via Syracuse University's TRAC:

    Very recent Immigration Court records reveal that during FY 2017 asylum decisions were up sharply. A total of 30,179 cases were decided by judges last year, a marked increase from 22,312 cases in FY 2016. This is the largest number of asylum cases decided in any one year since FY 2005. While asylum grants increased, denials grew even faster. This pushed the percent who were denied asylum to 61.8 percent. This is the fifth year in a row that denial rates have risen. Five years ago the denial rate was just 44.5 percent.

    The proportion of asylum seekers who are unable to obtain representation has risen markedly. Ten years ago during FY 2007, only 13.6 percent were unrepresented. Five years ago (FY 2012), 15.8 percent were unrepresented. In FY 2017 the unrepresented figure was 20.6 percent. However, the proportion was even higher during FY 2014 when asylum seekers without attorneys suddenly jumped to 23.2 percent. Since then the rate has slowly subsided. However, the proportion of asylum seekers who were unrepresented last year remained significantly higher than levels prior to the 2014 jump.

    Without representation, the deck is stacked against an asylum seeker. Statistically, only one out of every ten win their case. With representation, nearly half are successful. Figure 3 shows trends in asylum denial rates over the past two decades when just decisions in represented cases are examined.
    The number of decisions in represented cases also increased in FY 2017.

    Click here for the rest of the report.
  4. With travel ban, SCOTUS can correct for lower courts' anti-Trump bias. By Nolan Rappaport

    © Getty

    According to Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, the lower U.S. courts have created a “Trump exception” to settled law on presidential powers with their travel ban decisions. They have ignored the Supreme Court’s admonition that courts may not “look behind” a “facially legitimate” reason for an executive order, which in these cases was a national security interest in stricter vetting.

    Trump appealed to the Supreme Court, but his case became moot when he replaced the temporary travel ban with a permanent program with the Presidential Proclamation he issued on September 24, 2017, “Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats.”

    When fourth and ninth circuit courts enjoined implementation of his proclamation, he went back to the Supreme Court. On December 4, 2017, the Court ordered stays of the fourth circuit and the ninth circuitinjunctions.

    The Court did not state its basis for granting Trump’s stay request in either decision, but stays are not granted for meritless cases. I expect Trump to prevail on the merits of his case.

    According to Trump’s memorandum in support of a stay, the proclamation is the culmination of an extensive, worldwide review process, which was conducted by multiple government agencies to determine what information is needed from each foreign country to adjudicate an application by a national of that country for a visa, admission, or other benefit under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

    The baseline incorporates three categories of criteria:

    1. Identity-management information. The United States expects foreign governments to provide information needed to determine whether individuals seeking benefits under our immigration laws are who they claim to be. The criteria in this category include whether a country issues electronic passports embedded with identity data, and whether it reports lost and stolen passports to appropriate entities.
    2. National security and public-safety information. The United States expects foreign governments to provide information about whether nationals of their countries who seek entry into United States pose national security or public-safety risks. This includes such things as whether the country releases suspected terrorist and criminal-history information when it is requested.
    3. National security and public-safety risk assessment. This includes an evaluation of national security risk indicators, such as whether the country provides a safe haven for terrorists, and whether it regularly fails to accept back its nationals who are subject to final orders of removal from the United States.


    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.

  5. With travel ban, SCOTUS can correct for lower courts' anti-Trump bias. By Nolan Rappaport

    Accidental post. Please delete.

    Nolan Rappaport

    Updated 12-06-2017 at 03:35 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: