Bipartisan Legislation Proposed to Extend and Expand Conrad 30 Waiver Program

On April 10, 2017, the website of Democratic Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota released a press release titled: “Kloubachar, Collins, Heitkamp Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Increase Number of Doctors in Rural and Other Medically Underserved Areas” [PDF version].

The press release announces that Senators Amy Kloubachar (D-MN), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) introduced bipartisan legislation titled the “Conrad State 30 & Physician Access Act” [PDF version]. The proposed legislation would extend the Conrad 30 Waiver Program until 2021 and would provide for the expansion of the Conrad 30 Waiver program beyond 30 slots “if certain thresholds are met.” The proposed legislation would also provide for employment authorization for the spouses of Conrad 30 Waiver beneficiaries. Senator Heitkamp proposed a version of the legislation in 2013.

Without an extension, the Conrad 30 Waiver program is slated to expire on April 28, 2017. The most likely scenario appears to be that the Conrad 30 Waiver program will be extended as is through September.

However, the Senate would be wise to consider the legislation proposed by Senators Heitkamp, Collins, and Kloubachar to extend the Conrad 30 Waiver program long term and to provide for its expansion under certain conditions. Last December, I wrote a post about why the Conrad 30 Waiver program is a valuable immigration initiative [see blog]. First, the Conrad 30 Waiver program allows a limited number of highly educated professionals to ply their craft in the United States. Second, the Conrad 30 Waiver program places talented physicians in areas of need that struggle to attract qualified American doctors. An immigration program that both encourages merit-based immigration and fills a crucial void left by a dearth of interested American professionals is well worth maintaining and strengthening.

Please see our full article to learn about the rules of the Conrad 30 Waiver program as it exists today [see article].

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

June 2017 Visa Bulletin

INTRODUCTION

On May 9, 2017, the United States Department of State (DOS) released the June 2017 Visa Bulletin [PDF version]. The June 2017 Visa Bulletin contains dates for filing and application final action dates for the family-sponsored and employment-based immigrant visa preference categories. On May 15, 2017, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) determined that those seeking adjustment of status based upon an approved preference petition in the family-sponsored or employment-based preferences must rely on the application final action dates in June 2017.

In this article, we will reproduce the relevant charts for those waiting to adjust status in the family-sponsored and employment-based preference categories. We will also examine the DOS's news and notes from the June 2017 Visa Bulletin. For an overview of using the visa bulletin as the beneficiary of an approved immigrant visa preference petition waiting to adjust status, please see our full article on the subject [see article]. Please also see our article explaining the differences between final action dates and filing dates [see article].

To compare the June 2017 Visa Bulletin to recent editions, please see our posts on the May 2017 Visa Bulletin [see article] and the April 2017 Visa Bulletin [see article].

FAMILY-SPONSORED CASES

The USCIS determined that the beneficiaries of approved family-sponsored immigrant visa petitions must rely on the final action dates for June 2017 when seeking adjustment of status. June will be the third consecutive month that family-sponsored applicants have to use the final action dates. The beneficiary of an approved family-sponsored petition may file for adjustment of status in June 2017 if his or her priority date is earlier than the applicable final action date. The following are the final action dates for family-sponsored preference cases in June 2017 [see here].

EMPLOYMENT-BASED CASES

The USCIS determined that beneficiaries of approved employment-based immigrant visa petitions must rely on the final action dates for June 2017 when seeking adjustment of status. The beneficiary of an approved employment-based preference petition may file for adjustment of status in June 2017 if his or her priority date is earlier than the applicable final action cutoff date. Please note that a final action date of “C” means that the date is current. The beneficiary of an approved employment-based preference petition in a category and chargeability area with a current final action date will be eligible to file for adjustment of status in June 2017 regardless of his or her priority date. The following chart contains the final action dates for employment-based preference cases in June 2017 [see here].

NEWS AND NOTES FROM THE JUNE 2017 VISA BULLETIN

The DOS includes updates on visa trends and forecasts for future months with each edition of the Visa Bulletin. In this post, we will review the DOS's news in the June 2017 Visa Bulletin.

OVERSUBSCRIPTION IN FOR E1 CHINA (MAINLAND BORN) AND INDIA CATEGORIES

As we reported, the DOS noted in the May 2017 Visa Bulletin that it would soon be necessary to impose a final action cutoff date for employment-based first preference China and India categories. The DOS established final action cutoff dates for both China and India categories in the June 2017 Visa Bulletin. It explained that this was done in order to hold the number use within the worldwide E1 limit. The dates for both categories will become current again for the October 2017 Visa Bulletin, which will be the first month of fiscal-year 2018.

EXTENSION OF TWO EMPLOYMENT VISA CATEGORIES

The Employment Fourth Preference Certain Religious Workers (SR) and Employment Fifth Preference Pilot (I5 and R5) categories were slated to expire at the end of April 2017. We discussed the implications of the issue in the May 2017 Visa Bulletin. However, President Donald Trump signed the continuation of the categories into law in early May [see article]. These programs now have continued authorization through September 2017.

EMPLOYMENT-BASED FORECASTS FOR COMING MONTHS

The DOS explained that “[t]here has been an extremely large increase in Employment Third preference applicant demand during the past month” for Chinese applicants. The DOS attributed the increase to the “downgrading” of status of applicants who originally sought classification in the Employment Second preference category. Due to the increase in demand, the DOS held the Employment Third preference final action date in June 2017. The DOS explained that if the current level of demand persists, retrogression in the final action date will be required in either July or August.

The DOS stated that the high demand in the India Employment Fourth preference and Fourth Preference Certain Religious Workers categories “is likely to result in the India E4 per-country limit being reached during June.” For this reason, the DOS stated that we “should expect the implementation of July E4 and SR Final Action Dates for India.

SPECIAL IMMIGRANT VISA AVAILABILITY

The spending bill signed by President Trump on May 5, 2017, authorized an additional 2,500 Special Immigrant Visas under the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009, as amended. Accordingly, the final action date for the SQ category for certain Afghan nationals employed by or on behalf of the U.S. government in Afghanistan will remain current. Interviews for this category will resume.

The final action date for the SQ category for certain Iraqi nationals employed by or on behalf of the U.S. government in Iraq remains current. However, the application deadline for this category was September 30, 2014.

The fiscal year 2017 annual limit of 50 Special Immigrant Visas in the SI category was reached in December 2016. For this reason, the final action date in this category remains “Unavailable.” No further visa issuances in the SI category will be possible until October 2017, which is the first month for which the fiscal year 2018 limit will be in effect.

CONCLUSION

It is important for beneficiaries of approved preference petitions who intend to seek adjustment of status to follow the month-to-month progress of the Visa Bulletin. Those intending to apply for an immigrant visa through either the consular processing process or the adjustment of status process should consult with an experienced immigration attorney for guidance.

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

EOIR Announces Swearing in of 14 New Immigration Judges

On April 10, 2017, the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) announced that it had sworn in 14 new Immigration Judges [link]. Chief Immigration Judge MaryBeth Keller presided over the investiture, which took place on April 7, 2017. The 14 new Immigration Judges were appointed by former Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch.

The following is the list of new Immigration Judges and the Immigration Courts on which they will serve:

• Justin F. Adams — San Antonio Immigration Court
• Edward M. Barcus — Imperial Immigration Court
• Paula J. Donnolo — New York City Immigration Court
• Lauren T. Farber — Varick Street Immigration Court
• Paul M. Habich — Imperial Immigration Court
• Clara O. Knapp — Florence Immigration Court
• Maria Lurye — New York City Immigration Court
• Anthony E. Maingot — Miami Immigration Court
• Sarah B. Mazzie — Miami Krome Immigration Court
• Matthew E. Morrissey — Omaha Immigration Court
• An Mai Nguyen — Los Angelis Immigration Court
• Sean D. Santen — Boston Immigration Court
• Stuart A. Siegel — Miami Immigration Court
• Gwendylan E. Tregerman — Atlanta Immigration Court

The fourteen new Immigration Judges will sit on eleven Immigration Courts across the United States. The Imperial Immigration Court, New York City Immigration Court, and Miami Immigration Court each gained two new Immigration Judges from the April 7 investiture.

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

Russian Opposition Figure Vladimir Kara-Murza Gives Interview After Surviving Poisoning for the Second Time

Back in February, I wrote a post on the case of the Russian opposition politician, Vladimir Kara-Murza [see blog]. At the time I wrote that post, Kara-Murza had been placed in an artificial coma due to multiple organ failure. The symptoms shown by Kara-Murza were similar to those he had when he became gravely ill due to the mysterious presence of heavy metals in his body. In both cases, Kara-Murza suspected — quite reasonably — that he had been poisoned by persons connected to the government of Vladimir Putin.

Fortunately, Kara-Murza has again recovered from a near-death poisoning experience. In the April 2017 edition of the National Review, he gave an interesting interview to Jay Nordligner that I would like you share with you.[1]

In the piece, Kara-Murza was asked about his work with Boris Nemtsov, a fellow human rights activist and close friend of Kara-Murza who was murdered in February of 2015. Together, Kara-Murza and Nemtsov had worked to urge the United States Congress to pass the Magnitsky Act, a law imposing sanctions on certain Russian officials involved in human rights abuses (it is named after the murdered Russian human rights activist, Sergei Magnitsky). Nordlinger asked Kara-Murza if the Russian government had made a mistake in murdering Nemtsov, specifically, “[d]id Nemtsov's murder backfire on them?” Kara-Murza responded that the Russian government — for its own purposes — did not make a mistake. His reasoning was that Nemtsov was such an effective activist that his contributions could not be replaced.

Kara-Murza explained that when his symptoms began in February, he immediately understood what was happening because they were identical to those he experienced when he was poisoned in 2015. He stated, “I knew I only had a few minutes before I would become completely incapacitated. I used those minutes wisely.”

In the article, Nordlinger explains that Kara-Murza was only given a 5-percent chance of survival on each occasion when he was poisoned. Prior to having been poisoned the first time, Kara-Murza had deemed his situation so precarious that he had sent his wife and children to reside here in the United States. One might think that after coming close to death twice in two years, Kara-Murza would see fit to join his family in safety. However, he told Nordlinger that he would return to Russia to continue his work despite the fact that his doctors told him he would not survive a third poisoning.

Nordlinger quoted Congressman Ed Royce (R, CA-39), the current Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who described Kara-Murza as “one of the bravest people I know.” Without question, Kara-Murza has shown his courage and commitment to liberty time and time again, and we can only hope against hope, as unlikely as it may be, that he is allowed to persist in his great work without the Russian government making further attempts on his life or the lives of fellow human rights activists working closely with him.

Please see my original article on the Kara-Murza case to learn more about his background [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.

1. Nordlinger, Jay. A Defender Of His Country. National Review, April, 2017. (Page 22-24)

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Exchange of Letters Between California Chief Justice and DOJ/DHS Regarding Immigration Arrests in California Courts

INTRODUCTION

In this post, we will examine an exchange of letters between the Chief Justice of California (State courts), the Attorney General. and the Secretary of Homeland Security. The exchange regards reported immigration enforcement activities in California State courts. It highlights the myriad issues that are likely to arise as the administration of President Donald Trump pursues more aggressive immigration enforcement tactics, especially in local jurisdictions that decline to cooperate with Federal immigration enforcement.

LETTER FROM CHIEF JUSTICE OF CALIFORNIA TO ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS AND SECRETARY KELLY

On March 16, 2017, the Chief Justice of California, Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, published an open letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly [PDF version].

In the letter, Judge Cantil-Sakauye stated that she was “deeply concerned about reports from some of [California's] trial courts that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents appear to be stalking undocumented immigrants in our courthouses to make arrests.” She was referring to reports that agents from the DHS have been detaining in California State court buildings aliens deemed to be removable. She noted several concerns regarding the practice.

First, she explained that individuals in California turn to the courts to seek “justice and due process of the law.” To this effect, she took the position that immigration enforcement activities in California State courthouses undermined the confidence of individuals to seek justice in the California State court system.

Second, she suggested that federal immigration enforcement activities in California State courts implicated separation of power concerns.

Third and finally, she criticized the broader immigration policy of the Trump Administration, stating that “enforcement policies that include stalking courthouses and arresting undocumented immigrants, the vast majority of whom pose no risk to public safety, are neither safe nor fair” (emphasis added). Here, Judge Cantil-Sakauye offered a broader critique of immigration enforcement against those who she believes pose no threat to public safety.

In conclusion, she took the position that DHS enforcement activities in California State courts are unfair and impair the ability of California State courts to provide equal access to justice. She asked of both Attorney General Sessions and Secretary Kelly that they “refrain from this sort of enforcement in California's courthouses.”

RESPONSE FROM ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS AND SECRETARY KELLY

On March 29, 2017, Attorney General Sessions and Secretary Kelly responded to the letter from Judge Cantil-Sakauye [PDF version].[1] For reasons that we will see, they did not agree with her critiques of the current enforcement policies.

First, Sessions and Kelly described Judge Cantil-Sakauye's description of the enforcement activities as “stalking” to be “particularly troubling.” They wrote: “As you are aware, stalking has a specific legal meaning in American law, which describes criminal activity involving repetitive following or harassment of the victim with the intent to produce fear of harm.” After stating the definition, Sessions and Kelly asserted that the enforcement activities described by Judge Cantil-Sakauye in no way constitute “stalking,” citing to the Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976) [PDF version], and section 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

Next, Sessions and Kelly asserted that the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) only targets “specific persons who have been identified by ICE and other law enforcement agencies as subject to arrest for violations of federal law.” To this effect, they took the position that the ICE does not engage in so-called “'sweeps' or other indiscriminate arrest practices.”

Sessions and Kelly then noted that certain jurisdictions, including “the State of California and many of this largest counties and cities,” have adopted laws which are “designed to specifically prohibit or hinder ICE from enforcing immigration law by prohibiting communication with ICE, and denying requests by ICE officers and agents to enter prisons and jails to make arrests.” They argued that these policies “threaten public safety, rather than enhance it.”

Sessions and Kelly then drew a connection between the existence of laws intended to hinder cooperation with Federal immigration enforcement and the ICE's making arrests in California courthouses. They noted that, because of the lack of cooperation from many jurisdictions in California, ICE agents are required to “locate and arrest” certain removable aliens “in public places rather than in secure jail facilities.” They noted that, in light of this situation, it makes sense for the ICE to make arrests in courthouses, both because they can locate removable aliens and “[b]ecause courthouse visitors are typically screened upon entry to search for weapons and other contraband…”

In conclusion, Sessions and Kelly advised Judge Cantil-Sakauye to take her concerns to the Governor of California and to local officials “who have enacted policies that occasionally necessitate ICE officers and agents to make arrests at courthouses and other public places.” After defending the conduct of ICE officers and agents and again criticizing the policies of California and many of its jurisdictions, Sessions and Kelly stated that, while ICE agents “will remain mindful of concerns by the public and governmental stakeholders regarding enforcement activities, they will continue to take prudent and reasonable actions within their lawful authority to achieve their mission.”

ANALYSIS

The exchange of letters highlights the tension between many State and local jurisdictions and the Federal government regarding immigration enforcement. The tension is increasing because the Trump Administration is proving to be far less deferential to the preferences of local jurisdictions than was the Obama Administration, especially during then-President Obama's second term in office.

On one hand, local jurisdictions are not required to cooperate with Federal immigration enforcement. To that effect, California, and other states and localities, may choose to not cooperate with the DHS in matters pertaining to immigration enforcement.

However, the opposition of California or any other non-federal jurisdiction does not prohibit or preclude Federal immigration authorities from enforcing the immigration laws of the United States in those jurisdictions. Furthermore, the decision to not cooperate with or to outright hinder DHS enforcement activities does not necessarily come without consequences. Sessions and Kelly were honest in acknowledging that the ICE does make arrests in California statehouses and in connecting the locale of those arrests to the lack of cooperation they receive from California and its largest jurisdictions. Judge Cantil-Sakauye's disagreement with the ICE's policy has no more effect on the ICE's ability to enact that policy than the Department of Justice's (DOJ's) and DHS's disagreement with California policy has on California's ability to pass its own State and local laws. The same can be said of Judge Cantil-Sakauye's apparent opinion that the ICE should not enforce the immigration laws against those whom she deems to be not sufficiently dangerous.

This disagreement between California and the Trump Administration is one of the many we are likely to see over the coming months and years as certain States and localities adopt more aggressive “sanctuary city” policies in response to the Trump Administration's broader emphasis on immigration apprehensions and removals. To learn more about the issues, please see my post on the potential implications of Attorney General Sessions' move to strip funding from certain “sanctuary” jurisdictions, as well as legal issues.

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. N.Y. Tmes. “Response From Sessions and Kelly to California's Chief Judge on Immigration.” nytimes.com. (Mar. 31, 2017) [Contributed by: News Documents, the New York Times].

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

DOS Withdraws Proposed Rule From September 2016 on Hague Convention Regulations

On September 8, 2016, the Department of State (DOS) published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding amendments to DOS regulations implementing the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intracountry Adoption and the Intracountry Adoption Act of 2000 [see 81 FR 62322].

The rule proposed several changes to the process for accrediting adoption service providers and for preparing prospective parents seeking to adopt a child from a Hague Convention signatory.

However, on April 4, 2017, the DOS published a notice in the Federal Register withdrawing the proposed rule previously published at 81 FR 62322 [see 82 FR 16322]. The DOS states in its withdrawal notice that it will take the public comments received with regard to 81 FR 62322 into account in drafting a new rule on the same issues. The DOS states that the new rule will likely be published in the Federal Register later this year.

We will update the site with further information once the DOS publishes a new rule to replace the now-withdrawn rule published at 81 FR 62322. Please see our full article to see a list of Hague Convention countries [see article].

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

Potomac Service Center to Begin Handling Corrections to EADs Issued with Inccorect Information Due to USCIS Error

In a post dated April 3, 2017, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that beginning on April 17, 2017, the Potomac Service Center will begin handling corrections to Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) that were issued by the Potomac Service Center and that may have incorrect information due to error on the part of the USCIS [link]. Previously, individuals who received EADs from the Potomac Processing Center with incorrect information due to USCIS error had to send their EADs to the Nebraska Service Center to procure corrections.

This USCIS notice applies only to individuals who:

• Had a Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, approved by the Potomac Processing Center;
• Were issued an EAD with incorrect information; and
• The incorrect information is due to USCIS error.

The USCIS explains that such individuals must return the original EAD card along with a detailed explanation of the error and supporting documentation to the Potomac Processing Center at the following address:

• Potomac Processing Center
• U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
• 2200 Potomac Center Drive, Stop 2425
• Arlington, VA 20598-2425

The USCIS explains that affected individuals are not required to submit a new Form I-765 with fee.

If the Potomac Processing Center determines that the EAD contains incorrect information and the incorrect information is due to USCIS error, the Potomac Processing Center will issue a corrected EAD within 30 days of receiving the EAD that contained incorrect information due to USCIS error.

However, if the Potomac Processing Center determines that the EAD contains incorrect information that is not due to error on the part of the USCIS, it will return the card to the individual who sent it. In that case, the individual will be required to follow the regular process for seeking a replacement EAD. This involves filing a new Form I-765 with fee, along with other steps.

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

Secretary Kelly Reports Sharp Decline in Apprehensions at the Southwest Border in March 2017

INTRODUCTION

On April 5, 2017, the Secretary of Homeland Security, John F. Kelly, issued written testimony for a Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental affairs hearing titled “Improving Border Security and Public Safety” [link]. In the testimony, Secretary Kelly discusses the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS's) border security mission, President Donald Trump's immigration Executive Orders [see article on border/interior enforcement orders; and see article on travel order], President Trump's budget proposal [see blog], and interagency and international cooperation. In this post, I will focus exclusively on an interesting section of Secretary Kelly's testimony regarding promising signs related to immigration enforcement at the border.

“EARLY INDICATIONS OF SUCCESS FROM THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRESIDENT'S EXECUTIVE ORDERS

In his written testimony, Secretary Kelly explains that the United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has seen a sharp decline in apprehensions along the Southwest Border since the beginning of the year. This is significant because the number of apprehensions at the border is generally seen as an indicator of how many aliens are seeking to cross the border illegally.

Secretary Kelly stated that March saw than 17,000 apprehensions at the border. That was the lowest total of 2017, and notably marked the fifth consecutive month of declines in arrests at the border. Specifically, Secretary Kelly estimated that the number of apprehensions in March would be approximately 71% lower than the December 2016 total. The decrease in apprehensions is notable because — as Secretary Kelly explained — the DHS typically sees an increase in the number of apprehensions early in the year.

Secretary Kelly attributed the decrease in apprehensions in part to the new policies being pursued by the Trump Administration.

ANALYSIS

On April 5, 2017, the White House Press Secretary released a statement echoing Secretary Kelly's testimony [link]. In March of 2017, only 16,600 individuals were apprehended or deemed inadmissible at the Southwest Border. This represented a 35% drop from the already low numbers in February of 2017, and a stunning 64% drop from March of 2016. The San Diego Tribune notes that the number of apprehensions (not counting those deemed inadmissible) is estimated to be fewer than 12,500 [link].[1] This not only represented a low number for March, but was in fact the lowest number of apprehensions in any month in the last 17 years.

To be sure, many factors go into how many apprehensions occur at the border. However, the dwindling number of apprehensions at the border in the first two full months of the Trump Administration must be taken as a promising sign. It will be important to follow the numbers as the DHS begins hiring new agents and fully implementing the directives in President Trump's Executive Orders on border security and interior enforcement.

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. Morrissey, Kate. “March border apprehensions reported to hit 17-year low.” Sandiegotribute.com. (Apr. 4, 2017)

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

CSPAN to Air Oral Arguments in Hawaii v. Trump on May 15 (Travel Order Case)

On April 24, 2017, Olivia Beavers of The Hill reported that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted C-SPAN permission to broadcast live coverage of arguments in Hawaii v. Trump, No. 17-15589.[1] This promises to make the oral arguments, which will take place on May 15, more accessible to the general public. In Hawaii v. Trump, the Ninth Circuit will hear the Trump Administration's appeal from a District Court decision to block enforcement of key portions of President Trump's Executive Order 13780 titled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States” [PDF version].

We have written about the blocked portions of President Trump's Executive Order 13780 on site [see entry restrictions; and refugees]. Furthermore, please see our articles about portions of the Travel Order pertaining to the Interview Waiver Program [see article] and changes to vetting and reporting going forward [see article] that have taken effect.

In an article discussing the first version of the Travel Order issued by President Trump in January, I explained why the Executive Order is both lawful and generally good policy [see blog]. I strongly disagree with the Hawaii District Court decision, and I hope that the Ninth Circuit takes the opportunity presented in Hawaii v. Trump to rectify the error of the District Court as well as to clarify some of the troubling points of its own decision regarding the first version of the Travel Order [see article]. I look forward to writing more on the issue as the litigation goes forward.

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. Beavers, Olivia. “C-SPAN to air Trump travel ban arguments live.” Thehill.com. (Apr. 24, 2017)

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Attorney General Sessions Announces Expansion and Modernization of the Institutional Hearing Program

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE NEWS RELEASE ON EXPANSION OF THE INSTITUTIONAL HEARING PROGRAM

On March 30, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Department of Justice (DOJ) would move to expand and modernize the Institutional Hearing Program (IHP) [link].

The DOJ explains in its news release that the IHP identifies removable aliens incarcerated in federal correctional facilities and provides for in-person and video teleconference (VTC) removal proceedings for such aliens. Under the IHP, if an alien is found to be removable after hearings in a federal correctional facility, he or she will be removed at the completion of his or her sentence rather than transferred to a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility for detention and immigration proceedings. The DOJ explains that the IHP “saves time and resources and speeds hearings.”

The IHP is administered by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), and the ICE.

The news release explains that the modernization of the IHP will include the following (paraphrased):

1. The ICE, BOP, and EOIR will expand the number of active facilities with the IHP to a total of 14 BOP and 6 BOP contract facilities;
2. The EOIR and BOP will increase each included facility's VTC capabilities and update existing infrastructure to aid in the ability to conduct removal proceedings; and
3. The EOIR and ICE will finalize a new uniform intake policy. An agreement between the EOIR and ICE is expected to be finalized by April 6, 2017.

The DOJ news release includes the following statement from Attorney General Sessions on the expansion:

“We owe it to the American people to ensure that illegal aliens who have been convicted of crimes and are serving time in our federal prisons are expeditiously removed from our country as the law requires. This expansion and modernization of the Institutional Hearing Program gives us the tools to continue making Americans safe again in their communities.”

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Section 238(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) allows for removal proceedings to be conducted in certain circumstances for aliens while they are incarcerated in federal, state, and local correctional facilities. In his January 25, 2017 Executive Order 13768 titled “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States” [83 FR 8799], President Donald Trump called for new measures to buttress interior enforcement against aliens in the United States without legal authorization. In a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Memorandum regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13768, Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly instructed the ICE to work with the EOIR to expand the use of the IHP. Thus, the new guidance from the DOJ on expanding and modernizing the IHP can be seen as a step in fully implementing President Trump's Executive Order 13768.

Please see the relevant section of our article on the Trump Administration's enforcement priorities to learn more about the initiative as discussed in the DHS Memorandum [see section].

CONCLUSION

It is important to note that Attorney General Sessions' announcement only affects certain federal prisons and contract prisons. The same immigration laws apply to an alien whose hearings occur under the IHP as an alien whose hearings occur when he or she is not incarcerated. Any alien who has been convicted of a criminal offense should consult with an experienced immigration attorney for guidance on how to proceed and ensure that his or her rights and interests are protected in potential immigration proceedings.

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

EOIR Announces That Immigration Judges Began Hearing Cases From Two New Locations on March 27, 2017

On March 24, 2017, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) announced two new hearing locations [PDF version]. Immigration judges began hearing cases from these two new locations on March 27, 2017. The new locations are as follows:

CIBOLA

​Cibola County Detention Center

2000 Cibola Loop

Milan, N.M.

Administrative Control Court — El Paso Service Processing Center Immigration Court

ALVARADO

Prairieland Detention Center

1209 Sunflower Lane

Alvarado, Texas

Administrative Control Court — Dallas Immigration Court

The EOIR explains that all pleadings and other correspondence for cases assigned to these new locations should be filed with the listed Administrative Control Court.

On March 17, 2017, the EOIR announced that immigration judges would begin to serve details to six locations in Texas, New Mexico, and Louisiana. Please see our blog for the complete list of those locations [see blog]. Both of these announcement stems from President Donald Trump's January 20, 2017, Executive Orders on border security and interior enforcement [see article].

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

Nebraska Service Center's Premium Processing Unit Confirms Delays in Acknowledging Receipt of H1B Petitions

On March 31, 2017, the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) reported that “AILA members have reported delays in receiving emails from the Nebraska Service Center's (NSC) premium processing unit (PPU) acknowledging receipt of I-129/H-1B petitions.”[1]

AILA reported that the NSC has confirmed the delays. The NSC explained that the delays step from “record high volumes of I-129 premium processing filings.” Despite the delays, the NSC assured AILA that those who have filed premium processing requests for H1B petitions will be receipted for the day the premium processing requests were received. The NSC “advised that AILA members should wait at least 10 days after NSC's receipt of the I-129 petition before inquiring with the NSC's PPU on the status of the case.”

Regarding premium processing, it is important to note that premium processing for new H1B petitions will be suspended indefinitely beginning on April 3, 2017. H1B petitioners should not make premium processing requests for H1B petitions filed on April 3, 2017 or later until the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) lifts its suspension of premium processing. Please see our full article to learn more [see article].

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. See AILA Doc. No. 17033160 (Mar. 31, 2017)

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

DHS Announces Aviation Security Enhancements for Flights from 10 Airports to the USA (Applies to Citizens and Aliens)

On March 21, 2017, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a document titled “Fact Sheet: Aviation Security Enhancements for Select Last Point of Departure Airports with Commercial Flights to the United States” [link]. In the document, the DHS announced that it will require that passengers traveling to the United States from the following 10 airports will be required to place all personal electronic devices larger than a cell phone or smart phone in checked baggage:

• Queen Alia International Airport (AMM);
• Cairo International Airport (CAI);
• Ataturk International Airport (IST);
• King Abdul-Aziz International Airport (JED);
• King Khalid International Airport (RUH);
• Kuwait International Airport (KWI);
• Mohammed V Airport (CMN);
• Hamad International Airport (DOH);
• Dubai International Airport (DXB); and
• Abu Dhabi International Airport (AUH).

The DHS explains that the enhanced aviation security enhancements will only affect the foregoing 10 airports when they serve as the last points of departure to the United States. Airliners will be notified in advance when they are affected.

The DHS notes that electronic devices larger than a cell phone or smart phone will not be allowed to be taken onto airliners as carry-on luggage or be otherwise accessible in flight. However, there will be an exception for necessary medical devices that are larger than a cell phone or smart phone after they are pre-screened. The DHS listed examples of large electronic devices that would be required to be checked:

• Laptops;
• Tablets;
• E-Readers;
• Cameras;
• Portable DVD players;
• Electronic game units larger than a smartphone;
• Travel printers/scanners.

The DHS makes clear that there will be no such restrictions on flights departing the United States.

The DHS issued an additional document to provide further clarification on the new screening rules, titled “Q&A: Aviation Security Enhancements for Select Last Point of Departure Airports with Commercial Flights to the United States” [link].

In Q/A13, the DHS makes clear that the restrictions on flying with large electronic devices are not dependent on one's immigration status. This means that the restrictions will apply equally to United States citizens, lawful permanent residents, and nonimmigrant aliens.

In Q/A1-3, the DHS explains that the new policy is being made in response to certain threats that the United States Government has become aware of. In Q/A6, the DHS leaves open the possibility that more airports could be affected. In Q/A7, the DHS states that the new procedures will remain in place until the threat status changes.

It is important to restate that these new rules do not implicate any immigration laws or entail any immigration restrictions. However, they are worth keeping in mind for individuals — U.S. citizens and non-citizens alike — who are planning to travel directly to the United States from one of the 10 affected airports.

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

C-Span Poll Shows Majority of Respondents Cannot Name a Single Supreme Court Justice

On March 20, 2017, the Senate commenced confirmation hearings considering the nomination of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of the United States. If confirmed, Judge Gorsuch will join the eight Justices currently sitting on the Supreme Court (listed in order of seniority):

• Chief Justice John Roberts;
• Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy;
• Associate Justice Clarence Thomas;
• Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg;
• Associate Justice Stephen Breyer;
• Associate Justice Samuel Alito;
• Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor; and
• Associate Justice Elena Kagan.

The nomination of Judge Gorsuch to replace Justice Antonin Scalia is extremely important to the future of immigration law and American law in general. To understand some of the reasons, please see my posts on the legacy of Justice Scalia [see blog] and the record of Judge Gorsuch [see blog].

POLL RESULTS

From March 7-9, C-Span polled Americans on several issues regarding the Supreme Court [PDF version]. I will explain why some of the results are troubling.

The polling showed that 82% of respondents stated that the issue of Supreme Court appointments was important to their decision on who to vote for in November's presidential election. 86% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans stated that this was an important consideration.

Presumably, one would think that if the issue of Supreme Court appointments was an important or decisive factor in one's decision on who to vote for in a presidential election, respondents would to some degree follow the workings of the Supreme Court. However, the C-Span poll indicates that the same set of respondents who apparently heavily weighed Supreme Court appointments in their voting decision may not in fact have known very much about the Supreme Court at all.

Only 43% of respondents were able to name even one of the eight currently sitting Supreme Court Justices. Only four Justices were named by more than 1% of respondents (Ginsburg 16%, Roberts 12%, Thomas 10%, and Sotomayor 3%). The distinguished Justice Stephen Breyer is impressively stealthy, having been recognized by 0% of survey respondents. To be sure, most Supreme Court Justices do not seek media attention. It is perhaps her tendency to give interviews that made Justice Ginsburg the most recognized in the survey. Furthermore, merely being able to name some or all of the Justices does not mean that an individual actually understands the function or work of the Supreme Court. However, it can be said that if an individual cannot name a single Supreme Court Justice, he or she likely does not really understand what the Supreme Court does or why it is important.

The numbers do not improve when we look at survey results addressing the nomination of Judge Gorsuch. 71% of respondents indicated that they are following the nomination. However, when asked if they could identify who President Trump had nominated, only 28% of respondents were able to name Judge Gorsuch. Being mostly unable to name Judge Gorsuch — or anyone actually on the Supreme Court — did little to dampen the survey respondents' enthusiasm for providing an opinion as to whether he should be confirmed. 43% of respondents indicated that they support Judge Gorsuch's nomination while 31% stated their opposition. Only 26% took the position that they did not know whether he should be confirmed or not. Logically, this means that many respondents to the survey have an opinion whether Judge Gorsuch should be confirmed to the Supreme Court without actually knowing who he is.

Some may be quick to blame the media or politicians for the apparent widespread public ignorance regarding the Supreme Court, but we should note that a majority of the survey respondents, 53%, took the position that they hear “[a]bout the right amount” about the workings of the Supreme Court. Perhaps this explains why 49% of respondents — note a higher percentage than the number who could name even one Justice or the name of the current nominee — either “strongly” agreed or disagreed (as opposed to “somewhat”) with the proposition that the Supreme Court should allow oral arguments to be televised.

ANALYSIS

The point of discussing this survey is not to mock voters for being ignorant of all things involving the Supreme Court. Readers of my blog will be well aware that I am a Republican, but it is worth noting that the problem of ignorance about the Supreme Court afflicts Republicans, Democrats, and those unaffiliated with either party. As an immigration lawyer, I am required to understand how the federal judiciary works for a living. Conversely, as Ilya Somin has argued extensively at The Volokh Conspiracy blog, most people do not have such a direct incentive to become informed about law and politics considering the lack of effect that a single vote will have on an election.[1]

However, one thing I do find troubling about the survey results is the number of people who have very strong opinions on the Supreme Court without seeming to actually know even very basic information about the Court. It is one thing if a person does not know much about an issue and recognizes this fact. It is another issue entirely when a person is ill-informed about an issue but nevertheless professes strong opinions about it. It is good that people recognize that the Supreme Court is important. It is not good that people are making decisions without understanding why the Supreme Court is important, or even recognizing that they do not understand why it is important.

This concern is one of the main reasons we work hard here at myattorneyusa.com to offer readers detailed articles about immigration law. Additionally, it is why I often post about issues that are not directly related to immigration here on the blog [see category]. We work from the premise that many people want to be informed about important issues. However, given the lack of emphasis on teaching civics in schools, misrepresentation of important issues by elected officials and in the media, and the overwhelming complexity of American law and the contemporary administrative state, it is often difficult, if not impossible, for someone who is interested to know where to start in looking into an important issue. For this reason, we strive to provide readers with readable and comprehensive articles about important legal issues relating to immigration law. Furthermore, we always provide information about and links to the legal resources underlying our articles so laymen and lawyers alike can study the original documents. We believe that websites such as this one empower citizens to begin to understand the complicated issues that affect their lives. Regarding the Supreme Court, we have published several articles on Supreme Court decisions and oral arguments (see end of article for examples).

If you are interested in learning about important issues relating to our government, we encourage you to develop an understanding of civics through the United States Constitution. From a foundational understanding of the basic structure of our system of government, it is possible to delve deeper into the big issues facing us today. For this reason, I encourage readers to follow sites like ours that are written by experts in an accessible way and that refer readers to applicable laws, regulations, and court cases for further reference.

SELECTION OF ARTICLES ON SUPREME COURT CASES AND ISSUES

• Article on jus soli (birthright citizenship) [see article; and see blog];
• Article on section 212(f) authority to suspend immigration by proclamation [see article];
• INS v. Rios-Pineda (authority to deny motions to reopen) [see article];
• Leocal v. Ashcroft (aggravated felony crime of violence determinations) [see article];
• Descamps v. United States (use of the categorical approach) [see article];
• United States v. Windsor (Supreme Court decision striking down Defense of Marriage Act) [see blog];
• Mellouli v. Lynch (limiting controlled substance deportability ground) [see article];
• Directory of important Supreme Court articles from 2016 [see blog]; and
• Beckles v. United States (void for vagueness doctrine and federal sentencing guidelines) [see blog]; and
• Oral argument recaps in Sessions v. Morales-Santana (derivation of citizenship) [see blog] and Sessions v. Dimaya (crime of violence residual clause) [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.

1. See e.g., Somin, Ilya. “Time to start taking political ignorance seriously.” Washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy. (Nov. 8, 2016)

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

May 2017 Visa Bulletin

INTRODUCTION

On April 11, 2017, the Department of State (DOS) released the May 2017 Visa Bulletin, containing dates for filing and application final action dates for the family-sponsored and employment-based immigrant visa preference categories [PDF version]. One day later, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) determined that both family-sponsored and employment-based adjustment of status applicants must use the Final Action dates for filing in May of 2017 [link].

In this article, we will examine the relevant charts from both the May 2017 Visa Bulletin for individuals waiting to adjust status on the basis of an approved family-sponsored or employment-based immigrant visa petition. Please see our comprehensive article for guidance on using the immigrant visa bulletin as an adjustment of status applicant as well as how it applies to those waiting to apply for visas through consular processing [see article]. Please also see our blog for an explanation of the difference between application final action dates and dates for filing [see article].

Please see our posts on the April 2017 [see article] and March 2017 [see article] to observe the movement in the immigrant visa bulletin over the past few months.

FAMILY-SPONSORED CASES

The USCIS determined that those seeking adjustment of status based on an approved family-sponsored immigrant visa petition must use the application final action dates from the May 2017 Visa Bulletin. Notably, May will be the second month in 2017 when family-sponsored adjustment of status applicants are required to use the application final action dates instead of the more favorable dates for filing. As a result, an adjustment of status applicant will be able to file in May 2017 only if his or her priority date is before the applicable application final action date for his or her preference category and chargeability area. The following are the application final action dates for family-sponsored preference categories from the May 2017 Visa Bulletin [see here].

EMPLOYMENT-BASED CASES

The USCIS determined that those seeking adjustment of status based on an approved employment-based immigrant visa petition must use the application final action dates from the May 2017 Visa Bulletin. The beneficiary of an approved employment-based preference petition may file for adjustment of status if his or her priority date is before the applicable application final action date. For the following chart, please note that “C” stands for “current” (meaning that immigrant visa numbers are available regardless of priority date) and “U” stands for “unavailable.” Please see our discussion under the chart for a discussion of the unavailability of immigrant visa numbers in certain categories and chargeability areas. The following chart contains the application final action dates for employment-based preference categories from the May 2017 Visa Bulletin [see here].

The Employment Fourth Preference Certain Religious Workers (SR) and Employment Fifth Preference Categories (I5 and R5) are scheduled to expire on April 28, 2017. The authorization for these categories was extended until April 28 on December 10, 2016. Until the President signs legislation passed by Congress extending the programs, the DOS will list the categories as “unavailable.” This is because the DOS will not be authorized to issue visas in the SR or EB5 categories unless the programs are extended. It is generally expected that the programs will be extended, either with a short stop-gap measure or as part of a longer-term spending bill funding the government through September. If the programs are extended, we will update the website and the chart in this article with information to that effect. The DOS explains that if the SR and EB5 (I5 and R5) programs are extended, the final action dates will be as follows:

• SR (“Current” for all countries except El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico, which would all be subject to a July 15, 2015 application final action date);
• I5 and R5 (“Current” for all countries except China-mainland born, which would be subject to a June 1, 2014 application final action date).

NEWS AND NOTES FROM THE VISA BULLETIN

Each edition of the DOS Visa Bulletin includes notes on immigrant visa trends and projections for the movement of application final action dates in future editions.

VISA AVAILABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCES

The DOS stated that demand in the employment-based first and second preference categories (EB1 and EB2) increased dramatically in the six weeks leading up to the publication of the May 2017 Visa Bulletin. Accordingly, the DOS explained that this “will require corrective action to hold number use within [] annual limits.”

The DOS stated that it will establish application final action dates for both China-mainland born and India in the EB1 preference category “in the near future.” There is “a chance” that once the date is established, it “might advance slowly through September.” The dates will go back to “Current” for the October 2017 Visa Bulletin, which will represent the first Visa Bulletin of fiscal year 2018.

For the EB2 category, the DOS stated that “Worldwide, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, and the Philippines can be expected to become oversubscribed no later than July.” The DOS noted that “it is possible that there could be some forward movement of the established Final Action Date by September.” The final action dates for all of these countries in the EB2 category will become “Current” on the October 2017 Visa Bulletin.

SPECIAL IMMIGRANT VISA AVAILABILITY

The DOS stated that it expects to exhaust the Special Immigrant Visas allotted under the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009, as amended, “not later than June 1, 2017.” Accordingly, effective June 2017, “the final action date for the SQ category for certain Afghan nationals employed by or on behalf of the U.S. government in Afghanistan will become 'Unavailable' effective June 2017.” The DOS stopped scheduling interviews for applicants in this category on March 1, 2017. It will not issue any visas for the category after May 30, 2017.

The SQ category for certain Iraqi nationals employed by or on behalf of the U.S. government in Iraq is unaffected. Accordingly, the date remains “Current.” However, the application deadline was September 30, 2014.

Finally, the DOS announced that the annual limit of 50 Special Immigrant Visas in the SI category for fiscal year 2017 was reached in December 2016. Accordingly, the final action date in this category will remain “Unavailable” until October 2017.

CONCLUSION

Beneficiaries of approved immigrant visa petitions should monitor the Immigrant Visa Bulletin, especially if intending to apply for a visa through adjustment of status. It is also wise to retain an experienced immigration attorney throughout the entire immigrant visa petitioning and application process.

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

USCIS Reaches H2B Cap for Fiscal Year 2017

On March 16, 2017, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that it has received a sufficient number of H2B petitions to reach the congressionally mandated H2B cap for fiscal year (FY) 2017 [link]. The final receipt date for new H2B petitions requesting an employment start date for H2B workers before October 1, 2017, was March 13, 2017.

Accordingly, with limited exceptions, the USCIS will reject new H2B petitions received after March 13, 2017, that request an employment start date before October 1, 2017.

There are limited types of H2B petitions that are cap-exempt. Accordingly, the USCIS will continue to accept H2B petitions on behalf of the following H2B workers that are filed after March 13, 2017, requesting an employment start date before October 1, 2017:

• Current H2B workers in the United States petitioning to extend their stay and, if applicable, that change the terms of their employment or change their employers;
• Fish roe processors, fish roe technicians and/or supervisors of fish roe processing; and
• Workers performing labor or services in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and/or Guam from November 28, 2009 until December 31, 2019

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