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. Congressman Luis Gutierrez Questions ICE Director Morton on the Administration's Deportation and Detention Policies

    by , 03-20-2013 at 05:18 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    The good Congressman from Illinois takes ICE Director Morton to task for how the administration has implemented their harsh deportation and detention policies over the last four years.

    Thank you Congressman Gutierrez.

    ...And by the way Director Morton, please stop lying about the number of criminal deportations.
    Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
  2. Immigration Reform for Asylum Seekers, Part One

    Now that Comprehensive Immigration Reform is finally on the table, I thought I would discuss my own "wish list" for reforming the asylum and humanitarian relief system. Human Rights First is in the forefront of the effort to include asylum reform in any CIR package, and they-along with scores of other organizations and law professors-have submittedrecommendations*to Congress and the President. Below is my own take on asylum reform, including some thoughts on Withholding of Removal and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture:

    - One Year Filing Deadline: The current law requires aliens to file for asylum within one year of their arrival in the United States. There are two exceptions to this rule: (1) changed circumstances (i.e., it was safe to return home when the alien arrived here, but something changed, and it is no longer safe to return home); and (2) extraordinary circumstances (i.e., something prevented the alien from filing for asylum-maybe she was a child and did not have the capacity to file, or maybe she was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder). Aliens who cannot demonstrate an exception to the rule will be denied asylum if they file more than one year after they arrive in the U.S.


    Also on my wish list: My Little Pony (with brush).

    Supposedly the original purpose of the one-year rule was to prevent fraud. However, the real-life effect of the rule is to block legitimate refugees from obtaining asylum. One group in particular that has been negatively affected are LGBT asylum seekers. In many cases such people are not "out" when they arrive in the U.S., and it takes them time-often more than one year-to understand their sexual orientation and then decide to seek asylum. Other people harmed by the one-year rule include those who are emotionally unable to prepare their cases due to the severe traumas they suffered, people who do not know about the one-year requirement, and people who wait to seek asylum in the hope that country conditions back home will improve.

    Having litigated dozens of cases where the one-year rule was a factor, I don't see how it ever prevented fraud. It is an arbitrary rule, which does nothing except block legitimate asylum seekers from obtaining relief. My number one hope for asylum reform is that the one-year rule will be eliminated.

    - Asylum Clock: I have*written*previously about the Asylum Clock. When an alien files for asylum, DHS starts a "clock." When the clock reaches 150 days, the applicant can file for a work permit. If the applicant does anything to delay her case, the clock stops. Theoretically, when the delay ends, the clock should re-start. But thanks to ambiguous rules governing the Asylum Clock, that does not always happen.

    Although I really can't stand the Asylum Clock, I suppose I recognize that it is a necessary evil. Prior to the clock, it was common for aliens to file frivolous asylum applications in order to obtain a work permit. In those days, cases took years to adjudicate, so anyone claiming asylum could work lawfully in the U.S. for years before their case was denied. The Asylum Clock, combined with the fact that asylum cases-at least at the Asylum Offices-are usually decided in a matter of months, have greatly reduced frivolous applications. Although it has helped to reduce fraud, the Asylum Clock is incredibly annoying.

    The bottom line for me is that the presumption of the Asylum Clock should be in favor of keeping the clock moving. If an Asylum Officer or an Immigration Judge finds that the alien is purposefully delaying his case or that the case is frivolous, they should stop the clock. But the clock should not be stopped for legitimate delays (For example, sometimes an attorney must refuse an appointment date due to a conflict. When this happens, the clock stops. But why should the alien be penalized because the attorney is unavailable on a particular date?). My "wish" here is that the Asylum Clock rules will be re-written to make it easier and faster for asylum seekers to get their work permits.

    - Withholding of Removal and Convention Against Torture ("CAT"): There are two distinct categories of people who receive Withholding or CAT instead of asylum. One group are people who are ineligible for asylum because they are criminals or human rights abusers. The other group are people who missed the one-year filing deadline for asylum (and receive Withholding) and people who face torture in their countries, but not on account of one of the protected grounds for asylum (they receive CAT). Aliens who receive Withholding or CAT receive a work permit, which must be renewed every year, but they can never become residents. Unlike asylees, they cannot petition to bring immediate family members to the U.S. and if they leave the U.S., they cannot return. Finally, because few people have these statuses, people with CAT or Withholding often have trouble obtaining a driver's license and convincing employers that they are lawfully present in the United States.

    Frankly, I am not in favor of giving more benefits to criminals or human rights abusers who receive Withholding or CAT. Some immigration rights advocates would disagree with this (and there are legitimate reasons to disagree), but I feel that there should be consequences for our bad actions, and people who do not qualify for asylum due to their own bad conduct should suffer those consequences.

    On the other hand, it is unfair to penalize people who receive Withholding or CAT because they missed a filing deadline, or because they face torture for some reason other than race, religion, nationality, particular social group or political opinion. My "wish" here is that such people receive some or all of the benefits normally given to asylum seekers. These people have done nothing wrong, and often they have suffered serious abuse in their homelands.

    Well, that's enough for now. I have a few more wishes, but I will cover those in a future post.*

    Originally posted on the Asylumist:

    Updated 07-16-2013 at 01:44 PM by JDzubow

  3. Bloggings: Three Short Comments About Late-Breaking Immigration Developments: By Roger Algase

    Here are three brief thoughts about the latest immigration news.
    1) News item: USCIS warns that the H-1B visas for FY 2014 may run out in the first week of April and a lottery might be required. (ID, March 18 and 19).
    Comment: Say it ain't so, Joe.
    2) News item: Senator Rand Paul (R. Kentucky) supports a Path to Citizenship for 11 million unauthorized  immigrants without saying it. (Politico, March 19).
    Comment: CIR might be voted on without a 13-hour filibuster.
    3) News item: Congressman Lamar Smith (R. Texas) states that America has a long way to go to keep up with the threat posed by asteroids and other objects from outer space (Huffington Post, March 20).
    Comment: Lamar Smith, a long-time immigration restrictionist, is expanding his efforts to keep out unauthorized aliens.

  4. Rand Paul Backs Path to Citizenship

    by , 03-19-2013 at 04:26 AM (Greg Siskind on Immigration Law and Policy)
    The likely 2016 presidential candidate and darling of the libertarian right backs a path to citizenship. The number of opponents of CIR gets smaller. But he is backing an approach with benchmarks tied to progress on border security.
  5. Bloggings: Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Is the Perfect the Enemy of the Good? By Roger Algase

    The announcement by USCIS on March 15 (see the March 18 ID issue) that it anticipates the possibility of receiving more H-1B cap petitions for FY 2014 during this coming April 1-5, the first five days of the filing period, than there are visas available for the entire year, is a stark reminder that there are many other urgent issues involved in immigration reform besides the Pathway to Citizenship for 11 million unauthorized immigrants which has been receiving so much focus in the media.
    The very idea that an advanced country like the US should have to hold a lottery in order to choose which of the most highly skilled and educated foreign professional workers, with all their job creating potential, should be allowed to work in this country is absurd on its face. The notion that American companies should have to wait for lottery results in order to find out if they will be able to hire their most qualified foreign employees is even more absurd and irrational.
    Since there appears to be wide agreement in both parties that the number of H-1B visas should be increased, why not do that without further delay, without holding this badly needed reform hostage to other contentious issues such as the Pathway to Citizenship for unauthorized immigrants?
    If Congress were to increase the number of H-1B visas now, would that prevent it from going ahead with other aspects of reform in a separate bill, or bills? Is there also a cap on the number of laws that Congress can pass affecting immigration or any other issue in one year? 
    The same can be said for other reform issues, such as, for example, guest workers (see the March 18 ID editorial comment). Why should action on granting relief from deportation to 11 million unauthorized immigrants depend on the entirely separate issue of how many guest workers America needs?
    As the March 18 ID editorial points out, business and labor are so far apart on guest workers that there might  be no chance of resolving that issue any time soon. Should other urgent reforms fail for that reason? Does "all or nothing" immigration reform really make sense?
    The main argument against "incrementalism" in immigration reform is that some of the most important issues, such as legalization, might never get resolved. The can might be kicked down the road indefinitely. But would not some reform be better than none at all? 
    The American public has been taught to believe that a Grand Bargain is the best solution to any issue. But what happens when a Grand Bargain turns out to be No Bargain At All? Up to now, I have supported CIR as much as anyone else.
    But the possibility that yet another tragicomedy may play out with the H-1B visa limits this year should be a wake up call that instead of looking for Grand Bargains in the sky, it might be better to proceed with piecemeal immigration reform here on earth. The perfect can often be the enemy of the good.
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: