Analysis of President Trump's Decision to Replace Sally Yates as Acting Attorney General

A peculiar situation unfolded at the United States Department of Justice on the evening of January 30, 2017.

Sally Yates, a holdover from the Obama Administration, had been serving as Acting Attorney General until a final vote could be held on President Donald Trump's nominee for the position, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama. One of the jobs of the Attorney General is to defend the positions of the United States Government in Court.

However, the then-Acting Attorney General instead wrote a letter to lawyers at the DOJ directing them to not defend the President's Executive Order (EO) issued on January 27, 2017, titled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States” [link]. In her letter, Yates acknowledged that the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) had found the EO to be “lawful on its face and properly drafted.” However, Yates nevertheless found it proper to direct the DOJ to not defend the EO. She presented several arguments in defense of her position. First, she cited to “statements made by an administration or its surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may bear on the order's purpose.” Second, she stated that the OLC's review does “not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just.” Third, she stated that her responsibility was to “ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts.” Finally, she stated that her responsibility was to ensure that the DOJ “always seek[s] justice and stand[s] for what is right.”

To put it mildly, the acting Attorney General's letter was irresponsible. In her letter, Yates acknowledged that the EO had been found to be legal on the face and properly drafted by the OLC. Interestingly, at no point in her letter did she actually argue that the order was unconstitutional or otherwise illegal. Rather, she cited to principles such as determining whether the policy was “wise or just,” determining that the DOJ's position is “informed by [its] best view of the law is,” and ensuring that the DOJ “seek justice” and “stand for what is right.”

To do something as extraordinary as to order the DOJ to not defend an EO issued by the President that had been found to be legal on the fact and properly drafted by the OLC, one would expect a lawyer of Yates' considerable caliber and accomplishments to present coherent and salient legal arguments. Instead, she merely appeared to express disagreement with the policy. To be sure, there have been serious issues in the implementation of the EO and the process that went into drafting it. However, these issues do not bear upon the DOJ's responsibility or ability to defend it in court. The President is responsible for properly executing the laws, and the DOJ is responsible for defending the United States' position in court. Yates was well within her rights to disagree with the contents of the order and the policy. However, if she felt that she could not in good conscience defend the EO, the proper course of action would have been to tender her resignation and allow the President to appoint someone who could.

Left with little choice, President Trump removed Yates from her position and replaced her with Dana Boente, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. The President was able to pick a U.S. Attorney of his choosing to the position under 5 U.S.C. 3345(b)(2).[1] Acting Attorney General Boente immediately rescinded Yates' order and ordered the DOJ to defend the EO in court. Boente stated that his office had already been defending the EO in the afternoon, and that “[o]ur career department employees were defending that action in court, and I expect that's what they'll do tomorrow, appropriately and properly.”[2]

President Trump made the correct decision in expeditiously dismissing Yates. Agree or disagree with his EO, it is not the job of the Attorney General to decide whether to do his or her job based on political considerations. However, the statement released by the White House on Yates' dismissal was undeniably bizarre.

The statement began: “The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States.” Betrayed is an odd and unnecessarily inflammatory word choice. Yates did not betray the DOJ, she refused to do her job as her head, and for that she was rightfully terminated. The nature of the order — right as the White House believes it is — does not make Yates dereliction of her responsibility to defend it a betrayal. The statement continued with a passage that read as if it was drafted by the President himself, “Ms. Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration.”[3] It is gravely unbecoming of the White House to put out statements on important issues that sound like they were drafted for one of President Trump's campaign rallies. While President Trump in the right in replacing Yates with Acting Attorney General Boente, his administration did itself no favors with its statement on what transpired. This is exactly the type of behavior from the President that I hoped to see curbed once he assumed office [see blog].

In the aftermath of the news, the Senate expects to move expeditiously to confirm Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama as the next Attorney General. This incident highlights why it is important for President Trump to have his remaining cabinet nominees in place as soon as possible as to begin implementing his administration's agenda.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

1. Blackman, Josh, “Replacing Acting Attorney General Sally Yates under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998,” joshblackmanblog.com, (Jan. 30, 2017)
2. Stack, Liam, “Dana Boente: Who Is the New Acting Attorney General,” nytimes.com, (Jan. 31, 2017)
3. Boston Globe, “Read the full White House statement on Sally Yates,” bostonglobe.com, (Jan. 31, 2017)

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com   

Aggravated Felony

What is an Aggravated Felony in U.S. Immigration Law?

Section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) defines “aggravated felonies” in immigration law.  Each of the aggravated felony provisions describes a crime or crimes in broad terms.  The following is a list of the immigration aggravated felonies found in section 101(a)(43) (list courtesy of 12 USCIS-PM F.4(B):

• A. Murder, Rape, or Sexual Abuse of a Minor
• B. Illicit Trafficking in Controlled Substance
• C. Illicit Trafficking in Firearms or Destructive Devices
• D. Money Laundering Offenses (over $10,000)
• E. Explosive Materials and Firearms Offenses
• F. Crime of Violence (imprisonment term of at least one year)
• G. Theft Offense (imprisonment term of at least one year)
• H. Demand for or Receipt of Ransom
• I. Child Pornography Offense
• J. Racketeering, Gambling (imprisonment term of at least one year)
• K. Prostitution Offense (managing, transporting, trafficking)
• L. Gathering or Transmitting Classified Information
• M. Fraud or Deceit Offenses or Tax Evasion (over $10,000)
• N. Alien Smuggling
• O. Illegal Entry or Reentry by Removed Aggravated Felon
• P. Passport Document Fraud (imprisonment term of at least one year)
• Q. Failure to Appear Sentence (offense punishable by at least five years)
• R. Bribery, Counterfeiting, Forgery, or Trafficking in Vehicles
• S. Obstruction of Justice, Perjury, Bribery of Witness
• T. Failure to Appear to Court (offense punishable by at least two years)
• U. Attempt or Conspiracy to Commit an Aggravated Felony

This is a list of the titles of all immigration aggravated felony provisions.  The statute contains more details regarding what constitutes an aggravated felony offense in each of the above provisions.

When is a Conviction for an Immigration Aggravated Felony?

Each of the immigration aggravated felony provisions in section 101(a)(43) of the INA has specific set of criteria for what is required for an offense to constitute an aggravated felony.  Furthermore, many of the aggravated felony provisions have been litigated extensively in both administrative and judicial settings.  The language of the statutes, administrative guidance, and administrative and judicial precedent combine to set forth general rules for when a conviction or offense constitutes an immigration aggravated felony.

Many immigration aggravated felonies stem from state criminal convictions.  This adds a complicated element to determining whether a conviction is for an aggravated felony.  In many cases, whether a conviction is for an aggravated felony will depend exclusively on the language of the statute of conviction.  Courts and adjudicators may in some cases also be permitted to look at the specific conduct that led to the conviction.  The correct approach in a specific case will always depend on the language of the statute of conviction, the relevant aggravated felony provision, and pertinent case-law on the issue.

Consequences of an Aggravated Felony Conviction

The consequences for an alien who is found to have committed an aggravated felony are severe.

An alien who has at any time been convicted of an aggravated felony will be ineligible for a waiver of inadmissibility under section 212(h) of the INA.

An alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission will be deportable under section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the INA.  If a non-LPR is found to be removable for an aggravated felony, he or she will be subject to administrative removal under section 238(b) without a hearing before an immigration judge.  An aggravated felony conviction will render an alien ineligible for cancellation of removal.  Aliens convicted of aggravated felonies are also ineligible for voluntary departure.

With very limited exceptions, an alien who is removed after having committed an aggravated felony will be permanently inadmissible to the United States under section 212(a)(9) of the INA.  Under section 276(b)(2), an alien who was removed after having committed an aggravated felony and who enters, attempts to enter, or is found in the United States without legal authorization may face up to 20 years in prison, a fine, or both.

Under section 208(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the INA, an alien convicted of an aggravated felony will generally be ineligible for asylum.

Finally, an aggravated felony conviction after November 29, 1990, constitutes a permanent bar to good moral character.  The establishment of good moral character is a requirement for naturalization, as well as for cancellation of removal.

Guidance Relating to Aggravated Felonies

Being found to have committed an aggravated felony will subject an alien to removal, and it will often be fatal to his or her future immigration prospects.  

If an alien is charged with having committed an aggravated felony, it is essential for him or her to retain an experienced immigration attorney.  In certain cases, there may be grounds to contend that the conviction was not for an aggravated felony in proceedings.

Determining whether a conviction is for an aggravated felony is often a complicated process. If an alien is charged with any criminal offense, he or she should consult with an experienced immigration attorney to understand the potential immigration consequences of different case outcomes.  Having this understanding may help guide the alien’s criminal defense strategy.

An alien who was removed for an aggravated felony may consult with an experienced immigration attorney for guidance on the very limited exceptions available for that situation.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

Resources and materials:

Alexander J Segal - "Aggravated Felonies in the Immigration Context", "Aggravated Felony", "Criminal Aliens"

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Changes to Answers on Naturalization Test as a Result of the November Elections

On January 23, 2017, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) released a document titled “Civics Test Answer Updates” for those currently studying for the naturalization test [link]. The update addresses questions to which the answers have changed due to the results of the November elections.

Note: The information provided in this article is current as of January 27, 2017, and is intended only to give readers information on answers to the naturalization test as of this date. An individual studying for the naturalization test should always consult the appropriate websites for up-to-date information regarding his or her U.S. senators, representatives, and governor. It is not at all uncommon for changes to occur.

The following are the answers that may have changed:

20. WHO IS ONE OF YOUR STATE'S U.S. SENATORS NOW?

34 of the 100 United States Senate seats were contested in the last election. Each state has two U.S. senators. The USCIS advises naturalization applicants to check www.senate.gov to find one of their current senators.

For your convenience, the following is a list of U.S. senators that changed as a result of the November elections.

• California: Senator Kamala Harris replaced Barbara Boxer;
• Illinois: Senator Tammy Duckworth defeated Mark Kirk;
• Indiana: Senator Todd Young replaced Dan Coats;
• Louisiana: Senator John Kennedy replaced David Vitter;
• Maryland: Senator Chris Van Hollen replaced Barbara Mikulski;
• Nevada: Senator Catherine Cortez Masto replaced Harry Reid; and
• Senator Maggie Hassan defeated Kelly Ayotte.

The incumbent senator prevailed in the other 27 U.S. Senate elections last November.

Additionally, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions has been nominated by President Donald Trump to be the next Attorney General of the United States. Senator Sessions is very likely to be confirmed. Until he is confirmed, he remains in the United States Senate. Individuals seeking naturalization from Alabama are well advised to remember that the other Senator from Alabama is Richard Shelby. If Senator Sessions is confirmed, a replacement will be selected by Governor Robert Bentley of Alabama.

23. NAME YOUR U.S. REPRESENTATIVE

All 435 United States House seats were up for election in November. Each Congressional District has one U.S. representative. The USCIS recommends that naturalization applicants use www.house.gov to find their representative.

24. WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES NOW?

The following answers are acceptable:

• Donald J. Trump;
• Donald Trump; or
• Trump.

25. WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES NOW?

The following answers are acceptable:

• Michael R. Pence;
• Mike Pence; or
• Pence.

43. WHO IS THE GOVERNOR OF YOUR STATE NOW?

12 states and territories held gubernatorial elections in November of 2016. The USCIS advises that individuals taking the naturalization test visit http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/State_and_Territories.shtml for the name of their current governor.

For your convenience, the following is a list of states and territories with a different governor than before the November 2016 elections:

• Delaware: Governor John Carney replaced Jack Markell;
• Indiana: Governor Eric Holcomb replaced Mike Pence;
• Missouri: Governor Eric Greitens replaced Jay Nixon;
• New Hampshire: Governor Chris Sununu replaced Maggie Hassan;
• North Carolina: Governor Roy Cooper defeated Pat McCrory;
• North Dakota: Governor Doug Burgum replaced Jack Darlymple;
• Vermont: Governor Phil Scott replaced Peter Shumlin;
• West Virginia: Governor Jim Justice replaced Earl Ray Tomblin;
• Puerto Rico: Governor Ricky Rosselló replaced Alejandro Garcia Padilla.

Additionally, the following governorships changed due to the then-incumbent being confirmed as the Ambassador to the United Nations:

• South Carolina: Governor Henry McMaster replaced Nikki Haley.

Finally, the current Governor for Iowa, Terry Branstad, has been nominated by President Trump to be the next Ambassador to China. He is likely to be confirmed to this position when his nomination comes up for a vote. When he is confirmed, he will likely be succeeded by the Lieutenant Governor of Iowa, Kim Reynolds.

CONCLUSION

It is important for any naturalization applicants to study in advance of taking the civics test. Test-takers should know their current U.S. senators, representative, and governor. The USCIS provides resources for those looking to study for the civics test. Those seeking naturalization may consult with their immigration attorney for advice on finding a test preparation service or for guidance on whether they would be eligible to take the test in their native language.

We would like to remind readers that the information in this article is current as of January 27, 2017. Test-takers should find the most current information at the time they are taking the test.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

President Trump to Nominate Elaine C. Duke as Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security

On January 30, 2017, President Donald Trump announced his intent to nominate Elaine C. Duke as the deputy secretary of Homeland Security.

In a statement on the nomination, the Secretary of Homeland Security, John Kelly, noted that Duke served for nearly 30 years in the federal government [link]. Her most recent position was the undersecretary for management at the Department of Homeland Security. During her service with the federal government, Duke received several awards, including the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award, the DHS Secretary's Medal, and the Transportation Security Administration's Medal.

Interestingly, there were reports that the President had intended to pick the Secretary of State of Kansas, Kris Kobach, as the deputy secretary. According to The Hill, Secretary Kelly opposed the idea of Kobach as the deputy secretary of Homeland Security.[1] Assuming the reports are true, I agree with Secretary Kelly's reservations about Kobach. Kobach is a hawk on immigration enforcement, but tends to support restrictive policies on legal immigration that could benefit the United States as well. I am hopeful that Secretary Kelly's new team — with the addition of the new deputy secretary of Homeland Security — will promote strong immigration enforcement while being a voice for good pro-immigration policies in the Trump administration.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

1. Master, Cyra, “Report: Kelly clashed with WH over staffing decisions,” thehill.com, (Jan. 30, 2017)

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

President Trump Appoints Thomas D.Homan as New Acting Director of ICE

On January 30, 2017, President Donald Trump appointed Thomas D. Homan to be the new acting director of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Acting Director Holman replaces Daniel Ragsdale, who had been the acting director of the ICE since 2013.

A news release [link] issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security, John Kelly, explains that acting director Homan has 30 years of immigration enforcement experience. Prior to his new appointment, he served as the executive associate director of the ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO). In 2015, he received the Presidential Rank Award “for his exemplary leadership and extensive accomplishments in the area of immigration enforcement.”

On April 27, 2016, the now-acting director was profiled in the Washington Post in an article titled “Meet the man the White House has honored for deporting illegal immigrants” [PDF version].[1] In the article, Homan was quoted as saying that deportations are “not my favorite part of the job.” However, Homan argued that the ICE is not properly portrayed in the media, and that he is often “frustrated” with the common portrayal of the ICE.

In the article, the author, Lisa Rein, speculated that “[i]f Donald Trump or Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) gets to the White House,” Homan could be chosen to lead the ICE. With President Trump's appointment, Rein's speculation turned out to be well founded. Acting director Homan has extensive experience in immigration enforcement, and I hope he finds success in fairly and faithfully executing the ICE's mission in his new capacity.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

1. Rein, Lisa, “Meet the man the White House has honored for deporting illegal immigrants,” washingtonpost.com, (Apr. 27, 2016)

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Update on Enforcement of Trump Executive Order (Jan. 31, 2017)

INTRODUCTION

On January 27, 2017, President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” [PDF version]. The hasty implementation of the EO and the ensuing aftermath created much controversy and confusion regarding the status of affected individuals. Fortunately, both the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of State (DOS) have issued statements clarifying key aspects of the EO. In this article, we will examine the updates from the DHS and DOS and what these updates mean going forward.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE UPDATE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER

The DOS issued an update regarding the EO on the day it was issued, January 27, 2017 [PDF version]. The DOS stated that visa issuance for nationals of the following countries has been suspended immediately:

• Iraq;
• Iran;
• Libya;
• Somalia;
• Sudan;
• Syria; and
• Yemen.

The DOS instructs citizens of those countries abroad to not schedule visa appointments or pay any visa fees “at this time.” Furthermore, the DOS instructs affected individuals to not attend and already-scheduled appointment.

The DOS stated that dual nationals of the United Kingdom and one of the countries referenced in the EO are exempt from the EO when traveling on a valid United Kingdom passport and U.S. visa.

SITUATION INVOLVING DUAL NATIONALS UNDER THE EXECUTIVE ORDER

A United States citizen or national who is also the national of one of the countries is not subject to the EO. This is because U.S. citizens and nationals are not subject to the immigration laws.

The situation continues to be ambiguous with regard to dual nationals of one of the countries and an additional country. According to a CNN report, the International Air Transport Association told airlines that dual nationals traveling with a valid passport issued by a country other than one of the seven specified countries in the EO will not be barred from entry into the United States.[1] However, the International Air Transport Association is not a U.S. immigration agency, and its interpretation cannot be taken to be authoritative guidance. The DOS statement explicitly stated that dual nationals traveling on a United Kingdom passport and U.S. visa would be unaffected. There have been inconsistent reports as to the current policy. It appears unclear as to whether dual nationals may be issued new visas at this time if they are outside one of the seven countries. Affected individuals should consult with an experienced immigration attorney for the most up-to-date guidance.

SITUATION INVOLVING LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS UNDER THE EXECUTIVE ORDER

The EO was initially being interpreted as to bar entry to lawful permanent residents (LPRs) who were nationals of one of the affected countries. However, after several Federal Courts stayed the enforcement of the EO against LPRs, the Secretary of Homeland Security, John Kelly, deemed that the entry of LPRs was in the national interest [PDF version]. Secretary Kelly stated that absent “derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public in safety,” LPR status “will be a dispositive factor in our case-by-case determinations.” In a subsequent Fact Sheet [PDF version], the DHS stated the following with regard to LPRs:

“Importantly, however, Lawful Permanent Residents of the United States traveling on a valid I-551 will be allowed to board U.S. bound aircraft and will be assessed for exceptions at arrival ports of entry, as appropriate. The entry of these individuals, subject to national security checks, is in the national interest. Therefore, we expect swift entry for these individuals.”

It is important to note that the DHS guidance does not explicitly say that the EO does not apply to LPRs. Rather, the DHS position is that allowing LPRs from affected countries to enter is in the national interest. LPRs may still face scrutiny upon entry, but the DHS appears to be committed to moving toward “swift entry” for affected LPRs.

An individual who wants to maintain his or her LPR status should not sign the Form I-407, Abandonment of Lawful Permanent Resident Status, if offered the opportunity or asked to do so. In such a situation, the individual should consult with an experienced immigration attorney as soon as possible before taking any action. It is important to note for any individuals who did sign the Form I-407 that signing the Form I-407 does not necessarily result in the automatic loss of LPR status [see section]. If an individual signed the Form I-407 and did not intend to relinquish his or her LPR status, he or she should ask to consult with an immigration attorney immediately.

The DHS Fact Sheet explains that the DHS retains the ability to issues visas to or allow the entry of affected nationals on a case-by-case basis. The DHS is using this authority liberally for the swift entry of LPRs. Other individuals who may be affected should consult with an experienced immigration attorney for guidance.

CONCLUSION

The EO appears to have been issued without adequate foresight and planning, and has thus created much confusion among affected individuals, attorneys, and government officials alike. Furthermore, there is pending litigation regarding around the country regarding the EO and cases in which individuals were detained after being in transit when the order went into effect. Any individuals who may be affected by the EO should consult with an experienced immigration attorney regarding any questions. Nationals of those countries who are in the United States and in status should consult with an experienced immigration attorney before considering leaving the United States for any period of time.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

1. Merica, Dan, “How Trump's travel ban affects green card holders and dual citizens,” cnn.com, (Jan. 29, 2017)

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Potential Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch on Chevron Deference

INTRODUCTION

With President Donald Trump now ensconced in the White House, we can expect to find out who he will nominate for the open Supreme Court seat that was created with the death of Justice Antonin Scalia last year [see blog]. Many have suggested that the two leading candidates for the vacancy are Judge Bill Pryor of the Eleventh Circuit and Judge Diane Sykes of the Seventh Circuit, in part because President Trump himself mentioned both of these judges by name in a primary debate in early 2016.

However, on CBS This Morning, CBS Chief Legal Correspondent Jan Crawford stated that her sources have indicated that the current frontrunner for the vacancy is Judge Neil Gorsuch of the Tenth Circuit.[1] A summary look at Judge Gorsuch's record makes it easy to see why those of us who admired Justice Scalia would be excited to see him picked by President Trump. Eric Citron of SCOTUSblog notes the extensive similarities found in the judicial philosophies of Judge Gorsuch and Justice Scalia in a long profile on Judge Gorsuch.[2] Interestingly, however, Citron notes one “notable difference” that appears when studying the decisions authored by Judge Gorsuch:

“The notable exception is one prominent concurrence last August, in Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, in which Gorsuch criticized a doctrine of administrative law (called Chevron deference) that Scalia had long defended. Even here, however, there may be more in common than meets the eye.”

In this article, we will examine Judge Gorsuch's position on Chevron deference through his writings in Gutierrez-Brizuela and in other cases.

OVERVIEW OF GUTIERREZ-BRIZUELA AND DE NIZ ROBLES

Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 1142 (10th Cir. 2016) [PDF version] was a case concerning immigration law. Specifically, it addressed whether the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA's) decision in the Matter of Briones, 24 I&N Dec. 355 (BIA 2007) [PDF version] — which restricted eligibility for section 245(i) adjustment of status [see article] — could be applied retroactively. The Tenth Circuit had previously found that Briones did not apply retroactively in De Niz Robles v. Lynch, 803 F.3d 1165 (10th Cir. 2015) [PDF version]. De Niz Robles was also authored by Judge Gorsuch, and you can read about his decision — along with its extensive discussion of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 [PDF version] — in our full article on the case [see article]. In Gutierrez-Brizuela, Judge Gorsuch wrote both the opinion of the Court — finding that the Board's decision was inconsistent with De Niz Robles — and a concurring opinion discussing Chevron deference more broadly (which is the part of the case decision to by Citron in the SCOTUSblog profile).

JUDGE GORSUCH'S CONCURRING OPINION IN GUTIERREZ-BRIZUELA

In Judge Gorsuch's concurring opinion, he stated:

“But the fact is Chevron and Brand X permit executive bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power and concentrate federal power that seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers' design. Maybe the time has come to face the behemoth.”

Judge Gorsuch's qualm is that both Chevron and a subsequent case, National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005) [PDF version] , which held that a Court must defer to an executive agency where a rule would be owed Chevron deference even if the court has existing contrary precedent on the issue, give too much deference to federal agencies under the purview of the executive branch. In certain cases, the line between interpreting statutes and effectively writing statutes — the latter being a power reserved to the legislature — may be blurred, and Judge Gorsuch was specifically concerned with the executive branch taking upon itself powers that would otherwise be reserved to the judicial and legislative branches. Judge Gorsuch alludes to the concern that Chevron and Brand X prevent courts from being able to effectively review the conduct of executive bureaucracies to guard against this encroachment by the executive branch.

Gorsuch explains in subsequent passages that the separation of powers was considered by the founders to be “a vital guard against governmental encroachment on the people's liberties…” Put simply, Judge Gorsuch argued that by diffusing the powers of the government between three branches, the founders hoped to make it less likely that one or two branches would arbitrarily create new laws or change existing laws.

Judge Gorsuch highlighted what he thought were key concerns from the Chevron and Brand X framework. Regarding Brand X, Judge Gorsuch noted that in both De Niz Robles and in Gutierrez-Brizuela, the Tenth Circuit “sought to tame some of Brand X's more exuberant consequences.” By this, he meant that the BIA took the position that its new precedent should have applied in cases arising in the Tenth Circuit when the Tenth Circuit had contrary precedent. Although the Tenth Circuit was bound by Brand X and Chevron to acquiesce to the Board's interpretation of the statute in question, it held that the Board's interpretation could not apply retroactively, but would only be given “prospective effect.” Nevertheless, Judge Gorsuch remained concerned that Brand X, in conjunction with Chevron, “still [risked] trampling the constitutional design by affording executive agencies license to overrule a judicial declaration of the law's meaning prospectively, just as legislation might-and all without the inconveniences of having to engage the legislative processes the Constitution prescribes.” In short, Judge Gorsuch suggested that under the Constitution, the proper remedy to overturning a judicial reading of a statute would be by Congressional legislation, but that Chevron and Brand X allow an executive agency to proverbially circumvent this process by simply reinterpreting the statute in question.

Judge Gorsuch expressed more fundamental complaints with Chevron, which of course underpins Brand X. First, Judge Gorsuch was concerned about Chevron's requiring courts to determine whether Congress had spoken authoritatively to a question presented in a statute (in which case an agency was afforded no deference), or whether the statute was ambiguous. Judge Gorsuch took the position that it was unclear which materials should be consulted by Courts in making such a determination, and he was specifically concerned with the use of legislative history. Interestingly, former Justice Scalia and current Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas have also broadly opposed the use of legislative history in interpreting statutes.

Judge Gorsuch articulated his concerns that Chevron allows for Congressional power to essentially be delegated to executive agencies. First, he noted that the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) at 5 U.S.C. 706 expressly gives the judiciary the power to overturn agency decisions that are inconsistent with statutes. Judge Gorsuch took the position that Chevron is quite likely at tension with the APA in that — in his opinion — it requires the judiciary to “delegate its power to executive agencies” in a manner that is not in accord with the APA. Judge Gorsuch noted that the Supreme Court has instructed lower courts to not apply Chevron deference to criminal statutes. He agreed with this position, but took the position that arguments that this exception to Chevron should apply only to criminal matters were “shaky.” For example, he noted that the APA makes no distinction between “criminal” and “civil” statutes, and that Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) [PDF version] “affirmed the judiciary's duty to say what the law is in a case that involved the interpretation of, yes, a civil statute affecting individual rights.”

CONCLUSION

Chevron is extremely important in the immigration context because it controls how courts must review immigration regulations and administrative decisions. For this reason, the debate over Chevron will be well worth watching as we go forward, and especially so if President Trump ultimately selects Judge Gorsuch or Senator Lee to fill the vacancy created by the death of former Justice Scalia.

In his concurring opinion in Gutierrez-Brizuela, Judge Gorsuch expressed a variety of concerns with Chevron deference. These concerns ranged from balance of power — in that he fears it has allowed for legislative authority to be delegated to the executive — to concerns involving existing statutes and the practical applicability of the Chevron test itself. However, because the Tenth Circuit is bound by Supreme Court precedent; it does not have the power to issue a contrary ruling to such precedent, even if it is convinced that the precedent is wrong. For this reason, Judge Gorsuch's concurring opinion served to explain why the decision in Gutierrez-Brizuela was in accord with Brand X while expressing reservations with both Chevron and Brand X, but did not serve to create new law.

Senator Mike Lee of Utah — another individual on President Trump's list of twenty-one possibilities for a Supreme Court appointment — recently introduced legislation to overturn Chevron [link].[3]

The news that Judge Gorsuch is in the running for the next Supreme Court appointment gave us the opportunity to explore a very interesting issue in administrative law. However, we will have to wait to find out whether he or someone else will be the nominee. Once President Trump selects his nominee to be the next Supreme Court Justice, we will update the site with analysis of that individual's record and what his or her appointment may mean for the future of the Supreme Court.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

1. CBS This Morning, “A look at the coming Supreme Court battles,” cbsnews.com/videos, (Jan. 21, 2017)
2. Citron, Eric, “Potential nominee profile: Neil Gorsuch,” scotusblog.com, (Jan. 13, 2017)
3. Press Releases, “Senate, House Leaders Introduce Bill to Restore Regulatory Accountability Through Judicial Review,” lee.senate.gov, (Mar. 17, 2016)

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

No Moves to End DACA in the Early Days of the Trump Administration

During his Presidential campaign, now-President Donald Trump stated that he would end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Program [see article] and the currently enjoined Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) Program on his first day in office. However, President Trump's first day in office has come and gone, and his administration has yet to make any moves toward terminating DACA or rescinding the DAPA Memorandum [see article].

On January 23, 2017, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer provided the first official press briefing of the Trump Administration. In response to a question regarding DACA, Spicer indicated that taking action on DACA is not high on President Trump's list of priorities at the moment. Instead, Spicer stated that President Trump's top priority regarding those who are here illegally are those with criminal records or who can otherwise do harm. Spicer indicated that individuals who are here illegally who do not have records or who do not otherwise present a danger are lower priorities for action at the moment.

Over the weekend, Chief of State Reince Preibus declined to make any commitments on behalf of the White House regarding ending DACA, and instead stated that the Trump Administration planned to work with Congress “to get a long-term solution on that issue.”[1] When asked about Preibus's comments, Spicer echoed Preibus, saying that he had nothing further regarding executive action to end DACA, and did not make any commitments either way as to what the Trump Administration would do.

For the time being, DACA remains in effect. The Las Vegas Review Journal reported that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is continuing to process DACA applications.[2]

During the campaign, President Trump expressed an array of immigration positions, ranging from outlandish to reasonable. As the campaign wore on, he tempered his rhetoric on immigration, and seemed to approach a happy medium between attacking Mitt Romney from the left in 2013 and proposing deportation forces in 2015. We are less than a week into the Trump Administration, and it is far too soon to make any definitive declarations about his immigration policy. However, in the first few days, President Trump has certainly backed away from his pledges to immediately end DACA and rescind the DAPA memo [see blog]. During his campaign, the President was consistent that he would take these actions, and notably said so explicitly in his Phoenix immigration speech which I covered in this blog [see blog].

Statements from Preibus and Spicer seem to strongly leave open the possibility that President Trump will not terminate DACA at all, but will instead leave it in place as he works with Congress to come up with a permanent solution. Interestingly, signs indicate that the President may be content with the current civil enforcement priorities [see article] that were enacted by the Obama Administration in 2014.

However, as helpful as hints may be, the situation regarding DACA, DAPA, and the civil enforcement priorities will remain unclear until the Trump Administration issues definitive statements on the matter. Considering that we are still in the very early days of the new administration — and the new Secretary of Homeland Security has just taken office — we may have to wait a bit longer to get clear guidance on these issues.

An individual who is on DACA or who is considering applying DACA should first consult with an experienced immigration attorney for guidance based on the facts of his or her individual situation.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

1. Fox News, “Preibus hints Trump has no immediate plan to end Obama's DACA for young illegals, seeks long-term fix,” foxnews.com, (Jan. 22, 2017)
2. Saunders, Debra J., “Trump spokesman signals that ending DACA no longer a priority,” reviewjournal.com, (Jan. 23, 2017)

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

White House Issues Insufficient Statement for Holocaust Remembrance Day

On January 27, 2017, the White House released a statement on International Holocaust Remembrance Day [link].

The statement has drawn controversy and ire because of its failure to specifically mention the Jewish people, the primary victims and targets of the Holocaust. The statement includes “the victims, survivors, heroes of the Holocaust” and “those who died,” but proverbially tap dances around specifying the millions of Jews who were murdered by the Nazi regime.

In response to the ensuing controversy, White House spokeswoman Hope Hicks stated the reason for the omission was because “we are an incredibly inclusive group and we took into account all those who suffered.”[1] On Meet the Press, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus also defended the statement, expressing no regret for the phrasing. Priebus attempted to clarify, stating that “[e]veryone's suffering in the Holocaust, including obviously all of the Jewish people affected and the miserable genocide that occurred is something that we consider to be extraordinarily sad and something that can never be forgotten.”[2]

These explanations only raised the ire of Commentary editor John Podhoretz, who noted — accurately — that while the Holocaust targeted many groups, it “was about the Jews.” He continued, “[t]here is no 'proud' way to offer a remembrance of the Holocaust that does not reflect … this fact.” Podhoretz told a troubling story from his time as a speechwriter in the Reagan Administration, when he drafted President Reagan's remarks to be delivered at the laying of the cornerstone of the Holocaust Museum in Washington. According to Podhoretz, his speech was marked up by one official for “taking sides” but focusing primarily on the Jewish victims of the Holocaust.[3]

Podhoretz is quite right, and two facts make the White House statement even more puzzling. First, both Presidents Bush and Obama never failed to mention that the primary target of the Holocaust was the Jewish people.[4] In recent weeks, I have noted many of my issues regarding President Obama's treatment of Israel and Jewish victims of Islamist terror [see blog], but it should be noted his White House did not fail to acknowledge that Jews were the primary victims of the Holocaust on Holocaust Remembrance Day. Had the Obama Administration done so, he would have no doubt been attacked with verve on Meet the Press by the then-Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Reince Priebus.

Second, in January of 2016, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau generated controversy for — you guessed it — failing to specifically mention the primary victims of the Holocaust in his statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day.[5] One would think after this had been a story across the border twelve months ago that it would be an easy mistake to not repeat.

Had the White House wanted to note all of the victims of the Holocaust, it could have very easily released a statement that both acknowledged the Jewish people and noted many others — such as gypsies, homosexuals, and political prisoners — who were murdered as well. Instead, as Podhoretz described it, the statement served “to scrub the Holocaust of its meaning.”

I join those who find the President's remarks gravely insufficient at best, and the explanations of Hicks and Priebus more troubling than less. I supported President Trump in the election and I would not have done so if I thought he was an anti-Semite. I continue to support him when he is right and oppose him when he is wrong. Support is not a blank check [see blog]. Had former President Obama delivered the same statement, he would be attacked by me and others on the right for having done it, defended by many of those on the left who have attacked President Trump. President Trump would do himself well to acknowledge that the White House statement was — charitably — poorly drafted, and issue an addendum and explanation.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

1. Tapper, Jake, “WH: No mention of Jews on Holocaust Remembrance Day because others were killed too,” cnn.com, (Jan. 28, 2017)
2. Savaransky, Rebecca, “Priebus defends White House statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day,” thehill.com, (Jan. 29, 2017)
3. Podhoretz, John, “The White House Holocaust Horror,” commentarymagazine.com, (Jan. 28, 2017)
4. Tapper, Jake, “WH: No mention of Jews on Holocaust Remembrance Day because others were killed too,” cnn.com, (Jan. 28, 2017)
5. Marmure, Dow, “Justin Trudeau was wrong not to mention Jews in Holocaust remembrance,” thestar.com, (Feb. 15, 2016)

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Senators Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham Propose Important Legislation to Defund the UN

Over the past month, I have blogged extensively about President Obama's disgraceful betrayal of Israel at the United Nations. Please see my posts on the United Nations vote [see blog] and on the broader strategy of the Obama Administration in its hostility toward Israel [see blog].

Fortunately, it appears that the incoming Trump Administration is poised to begin the process of restoring and strengthening the U.S.-Israel relationship. One of the first steps of this process will be determining what actions to take against the United Nations for its unrelenting anti-Israel bias [see blog] and its tendency to give aid in international forums to terrorist groups. To this effect, there are many options available, and I look forward to writing more about them once President-Elect Trump takes office.

The U.S. Senate and House voted in a bipartisan fashion to condemn President Obama's anti-Israel actions at the United Nations by overwhelming margins. However, while better than nothing, mere symbolic gestures are only the start of a long process to reverse the damage of the Obama Administration's ill-fated policies in the Middle East.

In significant news, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate to cut off funding to the United Nations until it reverses the recent anti-Israel Security Council vote. You may read the text of the “Safeguard Israel Act” here [PDF version]. The text of the legislation includes several poignant critiques of the United Nations resolution along with an appropriately severe response.

It is no surprise to see Senators Cruz and Graham — two of Congress' strongest advocates for Israel — to take leading roles in working to undo the immeasurable damage caused by the Obama Administration. However, it is noteworthy that Senators Cruz and Graham are working together on this issue. The two Senators have a tumultuous history. In his short campaign for President, Senator Graham often cited his disagreements with Senator Cruz — then one of the front-runners — as a reason for his campaign [see blog on the end of the Graham campaign]. After his campaign concluded, he would joke in February that “[i]f you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you.” However, once it became clear that Senator Cruz was the last viable alternative to the now-President-Elect Trump, Senator Graham threw his support behind the Cruz campaign, going as far as to host a fundraiser for his long-time rival.

Now that Senators Cruz and Graham have worked together extensively for the better part of a year, it appears that they have decided to let bygones be bygones, even to the point of having a laugh about Senator Graham's comments from last February in a television appearance promoting their pro-Israel legislation.[1] Although these two Senators still disagree on a wide range of issues, to the extent that it is often a wonder that they are in the same party, they came together to take the lead in charting a new course for U.S.-Israel relations once President-Elect Trump takes office. Considering the heated nature of many of their disputes over the years, they are setting an important example for the rest of the Republican Party and pro-Israel Democrats to follow going forward. Defunding the United Nations should be just one of many steps that we consider going forward in response to the actions of the outgoing Obama Administration and the United Nations Security Council. Our success will depend on a unified Republican Party [see blog] in conjunction with the support of pro-Israel Democrats who are similarly disturbed by the conduct of President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

1. Sevransky, Rebecca, “Graham apologizes for calling for Cruz's murder,” thehill.com, (Jan. 12, 2017)

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Secretary Kerry's Unintentional Irony

On January 16, 2017, Secretary of State John Kerry criticized President-Elect Donald Trump's criticisms of German Prime Minister Angela Merkel's refugee and migrant policies. The President-Elect referred to Merkel's policy on this issue as a “catastrophic mistake.” Now, while the President-Elect did not provide specific complaints, I am inclined to agree with him that the migrant/refugee policies of Merkel have endangered the national security of European Union member states and have, ironically, endangered the European Union itself [see blog]. Interestingly, Secretary Kerry did not criticize the substance of President-Elect Trump's critique, but something quite different:

“I thought frankly it was inappropriate for a president elect of the United States to be stepping into the politics of other countries in a quite direct manner … and he will have to speak to that.”

- Secretary of State John Kerry[1]

On behalf of those of us with memories extending beyond the last couple of weeks, I must ask Secretary Kerry to clarify his comments. Was it not Secretary Kerry, who after perpetrating the backstabbing of our ally, Israel, at the United Nations Security Council [see blog], who delivered a scathing critique of the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, going as far as to draw false equivalence between Prime Minister Netanyahu's alleged intransigence and that of the terror organization, Hamas? Was it not Secretary Kerry's State Department that gave a significant grant to One Voice, an organization run by former Obama Campaign operatives that proceeded to aid the opposition to Prime Minister Netanyahu in Israel's most recent election?[2] Was it not President Obama who specifically criticized Likud when he was running for office in 2008, notwithstanding the fact that Likud was not even in the governing coalition at the time? Even if one takes Secretary Kerry's comments to be referring to the fact that President-Elect Trump made his comments as a President-Elect, and not as a President, he would still have to account for the statements of President Obama during his campaign and transition regarding Israel, as well as regarding Iran and Syria, both of which he sought better relationships with.

The word “irony” comes to the English language by way of Greek and Latin. According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, the first known use of the English word “irony” was in 1502.[3] Suffice it to say, irony had a long run. In his final act as Secretary of State, John Kerry laid irony to rest.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

1. Reuters, “Kerry criticizes Trump for remarks on German refugee policy,” news.trust.org, (Jan. 16, 2017)
2. Chapman, Michael W., “Obama State Dept: $350K For Campaign Infrastructures Used Against Netanyahu In Israel Election,” cnsnews.com, (Dec. 12, 2016)
3. Merriam-Webster, “Irony,” merriam-webster.com, n.d. (retrieved Jan. 16, 2017)

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Senator Jeff Flake Plans to Propose Legislation to Break Up the Ninth Circuit

On February 1, 2016, I posted a blog addressing concerns presented by Doug Ducey, the Governor of Arizona, about his state being in the appellate jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [see blog].

The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over appeals arising from Arizona, California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Alaska, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Because of its significant scope, the Ninth Circuit has the largest caseload of any of the federal circuit courts by a significant margin. The Ninth Circuit also has the largest immigration caseload, owed both to its size and to the fact that it encompasses California and Arizona.

Nearly one year after I posted my blog on Governor Ducey's proposal, Lydia Wheeler of The Hill reports that Republican Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona is planning to introduce legislation to split up the Ninth Circuit.[1] The article notes that Republicans have proposed similar measures dating “back to the 1980s,” but that such measures have hitherto been unsuccessful. The Republicans quoted in the article — which include Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California — are supportive of the measure. Interestingly, the one Democrat quoted in the article, Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, seems open to considering the proposal on the merits:

“The problem has always been that [the Ninth Circuit] has a very large and somewhat unwieldly geographic area and caseload, so the question is whether there's an effective way to deal with those appeals … I'd have to see those details.”

In my previous blog post on the subject, I expressed support for breaking up the Ninth Circuit, noting that:

“If the Ninth Circuit consisted only of California, it would be responsible for more people than any of the other circuits. If you turned the rest of the Ninth Circuit … into a circuit, it would cover about as many people as both the Second and Third Circuits.”

For that reason and a variety of other reasons that I detailed in my 2016 post on the subject, I continue to support breaking up the Ninth Circuit into two smaller circuits. It will be interesting to see the exact details of Senator Flake's proposal, and whether it manages to gain traction in Congress. Any change to the composition of the Ninth Circuit would be an extremely important development in immigration law and for federal appellate law in general.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

1. Wheeler, Lydia, “GOP eyes new push to break up California court,” thehill.com, (Jan. 22, 2017)

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Board of Immigration Appeals Requests Amicus Briefs on the Material Support Bar

On January 9, 2017, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued an Amicus Invitation No. 17-01-09 [PDF version]. This means that the Board is asking for amicus — “friend of the court” — briefs on a specific issue. Amicus Invitation No. 17-01-09 is about the “material support bar.” Briefs are due by February 8, 2017.

The Board is asking for members of the public who wish to appear as amicus curiae before the Board to file briefs on the following issues (quoted from the decision):

1. Does the word “material” in section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI) of the Immigration and Nationality Act have an independent meaning, or is the phrase a term of art in which “material” has no independent meaning?
2. Assuming there is a de minimis exception to the material support bar, does that exception apply to contributions of money?

The first question addresses the meaning of the word “material” in section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI). The provision renders inadmissible an alien who commits an act that he or she knows, or reasonably should know, “affords material support…” to terrorist activities or organizations (the statute lists the types of activities, individuals, and organizations). The question is whether the work “material,” in the section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI) context, has an “independent meaning,” or whether the term “material support” is a term of art wherein “material” has no independent meaning.

The second question begins by assuming that there is a de minimis exception to the material support bar. Such an exception would mean that is possible for an alien to have provided support to an activity, individual, or organization where the support is so trivial or minor that it would not trigger the material support bar. The question then asks if the de minimis exception to the material support bar could ever apply to contributions of money. In effect, the Board wants briefing on whether an individual could donate money to a proscribed activity, organization, or individual, but the amount of money could be so small that it would not trigger the material support bar.

The material support bar is most significant in the asylum/refugee [see category] and withholding of removal [see article] contexts. However, it may also arise in normal admissibility determinations. Any developments regarding the interpretation of the material support bar are well worth following, as the bar arises in a variety of adjudications. We will be sure to update the site if the Board publishes a precedent decision addressing the issues it requested briefing on in Amicus Invitation No. 17-01-09.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Series of Posts: President-Elect Trump's Cabinet Picks and Immigration

PRESIDENT-ELECT TRUMP'S CABINET PICKS AND IMMIGRATION

On January 20, 2017, Donald J. Trump will be sworn in as the 45th President of the United States, and Michael R. Pence will be sworn in as the 48th Vice President of the United States. In a recent blog post, I detailed several reasons why I am enthusiastic about the prospects for the Trump Administration [see blog].

The Trump Administration promises to make dramatic changes in the conduct of the Executive Branch from the previous eight years. One area where many expect to see some of the most significant changes is in immigration policy. For this reason, I will write a series of blog posts detailing the backgrounds and public policy statements of the cabinet nominees of President-Elect Trump who will have the most bearing on administering the immigration laws. The list of nominees is as follows, and this article will be updated each time we post a new article:

• Nominee for Secretary of State: Rex Tillerson;
• Nominee for U.S. Attorney General: Jeff Sessions;
• Nominee for Secretary of Homeland Security: John Kelly; and
• Nominee for Secretary of Labor: Andrew Puzder.

If confirmed, these four individuals will run the four most important departments for immigration purposes. The Secretary of State oversees the Department of State (DOS) and all of the U.S. Embassies and Consulates. As head of the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Attorney General administers the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The Secretary of Homeland Security runs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which includes the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Finally, the Secretary of Labor heads the Department of Labor (DOL), which is responsible for adjudicating labor certification and labor condition applications, and thereby plays a significant role in adjudicating many nonimmigrant and immigrant visa petitions. This is just a small sample of what these departments do in the realms of immigration law and policy.

Far more will go into the Trump Administration's posture on executing the immigration laws than President-Elect Trump's choices to head the DOS, DOJ, DHS, and DOL. However, understanding the backgrounds and views of these four individuals will go a long way toward understanding how the Trump Administration will view immigration law and policy. It is important to note that these individuals will not only run their departments, but will likely be key advisers to the President-Elect as he charts a new course in immigration law and policy for the next four years.

Please check back regularly for new articles in this series. From June to November, I wrote a series of blog posts on immigration issues through the prism of the 2016 political season. To read these posts, please see my directory for the series of posts on Immigration Issues and the Election [see blog]. My post on President-Elect Trump's most significant immigration policy address is worth reading again as he prepares to take the oath of office on January 20 [see blog].

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com