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

Recent Blogs Posts

  1. Trump Doubles Down on Demand to Abolish 50 Year Old Policy of Non-Discriminatory Family Immigration as the Price for Saving Dreamers. Roger Algase

    The Hill reports on February 23, that, once again, Donald Trump has repeated his implied threats to take action against almost 800,000 Dreamers (and we all know what kind of action that means) unless immigration supporters agree to abolish the non-discriminatory family immigration system which America has had for the past half century, since 1965.

    According to many news reports, Trump's own mother, grandfather, and much more recently, parents-in-law, came to America through the same kind of "chain migration" which Trump now calls so "horrible" (in a December 29, 2017 tweet) and dangerous for America's security (in his recent SOTU speech) when people from non-European countries whose color is not as white as Trump's own family members use this method of legal immigration to come to America.

    The United States rightly and justly welcomed Trump's forebears and is now welcoming his wife's European parents the same way. Why is Trump so eager to pull up the welcome mat for millions of non-European parents, siblings and adult children of US citizens who wish to continue to be able to come to America legally using the same method?

    Why is making drastic cutbacks in non-white legal immigration so important to Trump that he is continuing to hold the Dreamers hostage to this racially motivated agenda - and, cynically, blame the opposition party when he begins to deport the Dreamers, as he undoubtedly will if the Democrats and other immigration advocates do not bow down to his imperial demand?

    The Hill's
    latest report is at:

    http://thehill.com/latino/375279-tru...abandoned-daca

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    algaselex@gmail.com

    Updated 02-23-2018 at 02:27 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  2. Class Action Suit Challenges Practice of Denying TPS Holders Green Cards

    by , 02-22-2018 at 01:52 PM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    For Immediate Release:
    Class Action Suit Challenges Government’s Denial of TPS Holders’ Green Cards

    Feb. 22, 2018
    Washington, D.C.– Today, the American Immigration Council, the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, and several Temporary Protected Status holders filed a class action lawsuit against officials at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and U.S. Department of Homeland Security in a federal district court in New York. They are challenging the government’s unlawful practice of denying TPS holders lawful permanent resident status (green cards) based on a misinterpretation of the law.

    The plaintiffs allege that Congress intended a grant of TPS to be an “inspection and admission”—one of the requirements for gaining lawful permanent resident status. In violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, USCIS denies the green card applications of TPS holders who first entered the United States without going through an inspection process at a port of entry, ignoring the fact that they subsequently were inspected and admitted when they were granted TPS.

    “The Trump administration’s recent decisions to end TPS for citizens of several countries leaves tens of thousands of longstanding members of their communities at risk of deportation when their status expires in the coming months,” said Mary Kenney, senior staff attorney at the American Immigration Council. “Many individuals about to lose their TPS would be able to become lawful permanent residents in the United States were it not for DHS’s ongoing misinterpretation of the law. If this lawsuit is successful, it would provide a way for some of those individuals to continue their lives in the United States.”

    The lawsuit documents the cases of individuals who have maintained TPS for years—many for close to two decades—who now seek to become lawful permanent residents through their U.S. citizen spouses, adult children, parents, or employers, but whose adjustment applications for permanent residence have been denied because USCIS does not recognize that they have been “inspected and admitted.”

    “Two federal courts—the Sixth and the Ninth Circuits—have ordered USCIS to correctly apply the law. TPS holders living within the dozen states under the jurisdiction of these two courts are able to gain permanent status. TPS holders living anywhere else in the country are victims of USCIS’s unlawful policy and suffer great hardships. It is especially egregious that Secretary Nielson has ordered the termination of TPS status for hundreds of thousands of longtime lawful residents, while at the same time refusing to follow the law in allowing them to apply for permanent residence,” said Matt Adams, legal director of NWIRP.

    Today’s lawsuit seeks to expand the decisions of the Ninth and Sixth Circuits—which found that TPS holders are “inspected and admitted” for purposes of applying for permanent residence while remaining in the United States—to TPS holders nationwide. The lawsuit seeks to represent, “[a]ll individuals with TPS who reside within the geographic boundaries of the Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits; whose initial entries into the United States were without inspection; who have applied or will apply for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence with USCIS; and whose adjustment applications have been or will be denied on the basis of USCIS’s policy that TPS does not constitute an admission for purposes of adjusting status.”

    The lawsuit is asking that the court declare USCIS’s policy unlawful and order it to stop applying the policy; to find that TPS holders have been “inspected and admitted” for the purposes of their permanent residence applications; and to order USCIS to reopen class members’ applications that were denied and allow those TPS holders the opportunity to have their applications reconsidered with the law properly applied.

    ###

    For more information, contact:
    Maria Frausto at the American Immigration Council, at mfrausto@immcouncil.org or 202-507-7526.

    The American Immigration Council is a powerful voice in promoting laws, policies, and attitudes that honor America’s proud history as a nation of immigrants. Through research and policy analysis, litigation and international exchange, the Council seeks to shape a twenty-first century vision of the American immigrant experience. Follow the latest Council news and information on ImmigrationImpact.com and Twitter @immcouncil.
  3. CBP is Creating Facial Recognition Technology to Turn Your face into Your Papers

    by , 02-22-2018 at 10:31 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    Welcome to the Constitution Free Zone... I miss America.



    Via The Week Magazine:


    "Meanwhile, CBP is in the process of creating facial recognition technology that will essentially turn people's faces into their papers. This will mean enhanced tracking of foreigners and citizens any time they go in and out of the country. But border patrol also has near carte blanche to set up interior checkpoints and stop buses and vehicles within 100 miles of the border. This is a huge swathe of land: Two-thirds of Americans live there. So every time anyone—American or not—passes through these checkpoints, their movements will be potentially scanned and recorded.

    If ICE and CBP gain access to the NSA's surveillance and combine it with their own spying capacities, they will literally obtain Big Brother-style powers to track and monitor almost anyone on U.S. soil. And they will be able to use this information to detain, arrest, and go after people in other ways. This should be terrifying to all of us."

    Click here for the full article.
  4. CSPA: Rodriguez Tovar Decision Could Help Keep Families Together

    On February 14, 2018, the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in Margarito Rodriguez Tovar v. Jefferson Sessions reinterpreted a section of the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) in a way which could help keep many immigrant families intact.



    The Court overturned a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that the son of a US citizen father who had waited in line for a green card for many years be forced to leave the US for a decade or more.

    Margarito Rodriguez Tovar was born in Mexico in 1983.

    In 2000, at the age of 17, he entered the US. On April 30, 2001, his father, who was a lawful permanent resident, sponsored him for a green card. In 2005, the USCIS approved the family-based 2A visa petition.


    In 2006, his father became a naturalized US citizen. The child’s 2A priority date (minor, unmarried sons/daughters of lawful permanent residents) became current and, in 2008, he filed for adjustment of status under section 245i.


    The USCIS denied his application on the ground that he had aged-out and that since the family-based 1st preference (adult unmarried sons/daughters of US citizens) priority dates were backlogged to 1992, his priority date would not become current for more than a decade.


    He was placed under removal proceedings where he renewed his application for adjustment of status.

    However, both the Immigration Judge and the BIA denied his application and ordered him to leave the US.


    The IJ and the Board cited the BIA’s published opinion in Matter of Zamora-Molina, 25 I. & N. Dec. 606 (BIA 2011). Zamora-Molina involved a similar fact pattern. The respondent’s LPR mother had originally sponsored her child under the family 2A category, and became naturalized after the child’s 21st birthday. The respondent argued that had the mother not naturalized, he could have utilized CSPA’s “opt-out” provision and used the CSPA age formula to adjust his status under the 2A category. The BIA disagreed and held that since the mother had naturalized, the issue was whether the CSPA age formula applies to “immediate relatives” of US citizens. The section of law in question states that only if the parent naturalizes prior to the child’s turning 21 can the child be considered an immediate relative of a US citizen. The BIA ruled that this referred to the child’s biological age.


    In Rodriguez Tovar, the 3-judge panel disagreed with the holding in Zamora-Molina andunanimously held that it would make no sense for Congress to punish a child simply because his sponsoring parent became a US citizen. They determined that the section of CSPA that refers to immediate relatives should be read to refer to a person’s statutory (CSPA) age rather than to his/her biological age.


    Applying the CSPA formula, Rodriguez Tovar’s age would be under 21 (24 years when his priority date became current on June 1, 2007 minus the 4 years that the I-130 was pending before the USCIS), and he would be eligible to adjust his status to permanent resident as an immediate relative of a US citizen parent.


    The opinion in Rodriguez Tovar succinctly states the rationale for the decision as follows:

    "In sum, the government’s position is that because
    Rodriguez Tovar’s father became a citizen, Rodriguez Tovar
    must now wait decades longer for a visa than if his father had
    remained an LPR. In the meantime the government seeks to
    deport him to Mexico, with any future return subject to
    unforeseeable modifications to the current immigration laws.
    As we explain in the remainder of this opinion, the correct
    interpretation of the statute does not lead to this absurd result,
    but rather to his entitlement to an immediately available visa.

    It remains to be seen whether the government will ask the Supreme Court to review this decision.

    Updated 02-21-2018 at 02:49 PM by CShusterman

  5. SEVEN THINGS TO REMEMBER ABOUT THE H-1B CAP

    by , 02-21-2018 at 02:23 PM (Chris Musillo on Nurse and Allied Health Immigration)
    by Chris Musillo

    1.These types of cases are subject to the H-1B cap:


    • International students working on an EAD card under an OPT or CPT program after having attended a U.S. school;
    • International employees working on a TN may need an H-1B filed for them in order for them to pursue a permanent residency (green card) case;
    • Prospective international employees in another visa status e.g. H-4, L-2, J-1, F-1;- H-1B workers with a cap exempt organization; and
    • Prospective international employees currently living abroad.


    2.These types of cases that are not subject to H-1B cap:


    • H-1B amendments/extensions/transfers
    • When the employee has been in H-1B status for less than 6 years
    • Trade Visas (H-1B1, E-3, TN-1) Chile, Singapore, Australia, Canada, Mexico
    • MDs who have received a J-waiver of their 2 years foreign residency requirement.
    • H-1Bs filed by institution of higher education (or its affiliated or related nonprofit entities), a nonprofit research organization, or a government research organization.



    3. Employees with a U.S. master’s degree or higher get two chances at the H-1B cap. The USCIS first runs a Masters Cap H-1B lottery to determine 20,000 lottery winners. All H-1B applicants who lose this lottery are then placed in the general 65,000 H-1B lottery.

    4. Cap-Gap Rule: USCIS automatically extends the H-1B status of OPT F-1 students who win the H-1B lottery. The OPT F-1 status is extended through October 1, at which point the status converts to H-1B by operation of law.

    5. An Employee does not have to hold H-1B status for the employer to initiate green card process. This can be started while the employee is on F-1 or most other statuses.

    6. We do not recommend that F-1 students travel outside the US while their H-1B cap petition is pending at USCIS. USCIS may consider the petition to be abandoned. If the F-1 student does travel, the employee is required to apply for an H-1B visa abroad before re-entering the US.

    7. The employee’s proposed worksite may not change until the H-1B CAP petition is approved. If the worksite changes the USCIS is inclined to deny the case. If possible the H-1B cap petition should be upgraded via Premium Processing. Upon approval of the H-1B, the employer can file an H-1B amendment.

    __________
    Please read the Musillo Unkenholt Healthcare and Immigration Law Blog at www.musillo.com and www.ilw.com. You can also visit us on Facebook, Twitter,and LinknedIn.

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: