A Special Jerusalem Day: 50 Years of a Liberated and Reunified Capital

May 24, 2017, marked Yom Yerushalayim, or Jerusalem Day in English. The annual Israeli holiday marks the historic reunification of Israel's eternal capital in 1967. The 2017 edition of the holiday was special in that it marked the fiftieth anniversary of Jerusalem's reunification.

In 1967, when the then Defense Minister of Israel, Moishe Dayan, visited the Western Wall for the first time, he stated:

“We have returned to all that is holy in our land. We have returned never to be parted from it again.”

Each Jerusalem Day, we remember Dayan's poignant remarks in 1967. For us citizens of Israel, the Jewish people, and supporters of Israel all across the world, each Jerusalem Day marks a special occasion. Once again, Jerusalem was unified under Israel. Once again, the people of Israel could pray at the Western Wall. Once again, the people who turned Jerusalem into a cradle of Western Civilization would run Jerusalem in its entirety as a free and vibrant city. We remember Dayan's jubilance at returning home, and remember his pledge that the Jewish people shall “never … be parted from it again.”

For the special occasion, I would like to share some videos and remarks with readers.

First, courtesy of Israel's Foreign Affairs Ministry, Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely [see here].

“My generation was fortunate to be born to the reality of Jerusalem reunited. I think that this is our duty to promise the next generations that we will always keep it united.”

Next, also courtesy of Israel's Foreign Affairs Ministry, the Mayor of the unified capital, Nir Barkat [see here].

“For me, walking the streets of Jerusalem, right behind me where kings and prophets walked 3,000 years ago, is a connection to my past, connection to the bible, connection to the stones of the city that speak to you.”

Mayor Barkat continued:

“For me, Jerusalem is a symbol of togetherness, of unity, for Jerusalem, for the people of Jerusalem, for the State of Israel, and the world as a whole.”

For Hebrew-speaking readers, the following are remarks delivered by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at a special Knesset session in honor of the fiftieth anniversary of the liberation and reunification of Jerusalem [see here].

Jerusalem Day was not only observed in Israel, but also acknowledged in the United States Senate. The following are remarks delivered by Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, one of America's leading supporters of Israel, on the Senate floor in commemoration of Yom Yerushalayim [see here].

You may also read Senator Cruz's remarks in their entirety here [PDF version].

Senator Cruz offered a detailed explanation of the state of Jordan-occupied East Jerusalem before it was liberated by Israel in 1967:

“The Arab armies failed to destroy the newly established Jewish State, but Jerusalem, the ancient and holy city central to the identity of the Jewish people, was left divided and occupied by Jordan. Residents of the Old City were murdered or expelled. Jews were prohibited from visiting and praying at the Temple Mount and Western Wall, their synagogues were destroyed and their cemeteries — such as the Mount of Olives — were desecrated. Access for Christians to their holy sites [was] also severely restricted.”

Senator Cruz detailed the liberation and reunification of Jerusalem:

“Outnumbered, outgunned, and against all odds, in the face of external pressure not to act first to ensure its survival, the Jewish State launched a successful, preemptive strike against its hostile neighbors and prevailed in a defensive war. When it was over, Jerusalem was liberated — reuniting the city and Judaism's holiest sites with the Jewish people, and putting an end to almost two decades of exclusion from the Old City.”

Senator Cruz continued:

“Today is a day where we must also reassert historical truth: The historic connection of the Jewish people to Jerusalem and the land of Israel did not begin in 1967. The profound ties to Jerusalem have existed for thousands of years. They can be traced back and have been reaffirmed through numerous archaeological excavations such as those in the City of David.”

Although this may seem self-evident, this obvious assertion by Senator Cruz has not always been reflected in United States policy. For this point, please see my post on the decision of the previous administration to betray Israel at the United Nations last December [see blog].

To be sure, Jerusalem will remain Israel's undivided capital regardless of the opinions of other countries. However, the ability of Israel to defend itself and its capital is not an invitation for other countries to deny the truth. It is indeed perplexing that free and Western countries continue to deny the fact that Jerusalem is the undividable capital of Israel. During his campaign, President Donald Trump strongly suggested that he would move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. This move would not only be the right thing to do, but it is also long overdue. Thus far, the Trump Administration appears to remain open to the move, but it has taken no action to make it happen. Fortunately, there are voices in the Trump Administration pushing for him to reverse decades of mistaken U.S. policy and fulfill his promise.

The following are remarks by our Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, in a discussion with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network:

“Obviously I believe that the capital should be in Jerusalem and the embassy should be moved to Jerusalem … So much of what goes on is in Jerusalem and I think we have to see that for what it is.”[1]

In the same interview, Ambassador Haley asserted boldly, and in contrast to equivocating statements from other officials in the Trump Administration, the obvious truth that the Western Wall is part of Israel:

“I don't know what the policy of the administration is[,] but I believe the Western Wall is part of Israel[,] and I think that is how we've always seen it and that's how we should pursue it.”[2]

You may see an excerpt of Ambassador Halely's remarks here. 

Senator Cruz concluded his Jerusalem Day remarks by calling for the long overdue move of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem:

“It is long past time that America do something it should have done two decades ago: move the American embassy to Jerusalem and formally recognize Jerusalem as Israel's eternal and undivided capital. Every nation on Earth, our embassy is in its capital city except for Israel. There is no reason Israel should be treated any worse when they are such a reliable and unshakeable ally. We should honor the promise that Democratic presidents and Republican presidents have made for decades and move our embassy to Jerusalem.”

In early May, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu left no doubt as to Israel's position:

“Israel's stance is that all embassies belong in Israel's capital of Jerusalem, and the [U.S.] Embassy should be the first one to move.”[3]

Jerusalem was liberated and reunified 50 years ago. As Dayan promised, it shall forever remain so. Let us hope that the 51st Yom Yerushalayim will not only be celebrated by millions around the world, but will also be marked by the formal recognition of the United States and others that Jerusalem is in fact Israel's indivisible capital.

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. Brody, David. “Brody File Exclusive: Ambassador Nikki Haley Says U.S. Embassy Should Be Moved to Jerusalem.” CBN News. (May 16, 2017.) www1.cbn.com
2. Brody, David. “Brody File Exclusive: Ambassador Nikki Haley Says Western Wall Is Part of Israel.” CBN News. (May 16, 2017.) www1.cbn.com
3. Keidar, Nitsan. “Netanyahu: Every country should move their Embassy to Jerusalem.” Arutz Sheva 7. (May 10, 2017.) israelnationalnews.com

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

USCIS Discusses Large Scale Immigration Fraud Case

On May 8, 2017, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) published a news alert titled “USCIS Efforts in Investigation of Large-Scale Immigration Fraud Leads to Sentencing” [PDF version].

The USCIS assisted in an investigation that led to two individuals being convicted for conspiracy, making false statements in immigration applications and petitions, and mail fraud. The two individuals, Rosa Cingari and Domenico Cingari, were sentenced to 12 years and 7 months in federal prison and 8 years and 1 month in federal prison, respectively.

The USCIS details the evidence presented at trial:

• Rosa and Domenico Cingari owned and operated R.E.P.C. Accounting and Translations out of their home in Florida;
• They assisted illegal aliens in obtaining Florida drivers licenses by filing fraudulent immigration documents;
• They filed Forms I-589 (Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal); I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative); and I-765 (Application for Employment Authorization): Most of these applications contained materially false information;
• Rosa and Domenico Cingari filed these fraudulent immigration document in order to procure Forms I-797C, Notices of Action;
• The Cingaris used their own mailing address on the fraudulent forms so that the receipt notices would be mailed to their home;
• They then sold the Notices of Actions to alien clients, charging between $500 and $1,300 for each one;
• They collected at least $740,880 from their clients during the fraud scheme.

Unfortunately, there are many individuals who endeavor to take advantage of the immigration laws through such immigration fraud schemes. In this case, the Cingaris took advantage of the fact that many aliens in the United States illegally seek benefits, such as drivers licenses. Unsurprisingly, they found many clients willing to subvert the immigration laws for a small fee.

An alien in the United States who wants to pursue immigration benefits should consult with an experienced immigration attorney. Engaging in immigration fraud is not only illegal but may subject the individual to severe, and in many cases permanent, immigration and/or criminal consequences. It is always better to discuss the situation with an experienced and reputable attorney who understands the law and can provide a professional assessment of an individual's 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.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

DOJ to Appeal 4th Cir Decision on Executive Order 13780 to SCOTUS

On May 25, 2017, the full United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a district court-issued injunction against section 2(c) President Donald Trump's Executive Order 13780. Notably, the decision blocks enforcement of the provision of the Executive Order that imposed a 90-day suspension of entry on the nationals of six countries. Please see our full article to learn about the provisions affected by the Fourth Circuit decision [see article].

Furthermore, there is a pending appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit regarding a separate district court injunction against Executive Order 13780. That injunction is broader than the one upheld by the Fourth Circuit, also affecting provisions of the Executive Order touching upon refugees.

On May 25, 2017, United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Department of Justice would appeal the adverse Fourth Circuit decision to the Supreme Court of the United States [link]. Given the broad implications of the Executive Order and differing district court decisions, it seems likely that the Supreme Court will agree to hear the case.

I previously addressed issues with regard to the first and second versions of President Trump's Travel Executive Order, and I generally support its aims [see blog] and legality [see blog]. I look forward to writing more about the litigation on Executive Order 13780 — including the Fourth Circuit decision and potential Ninth Circuit decision — as the litigation moves 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.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Attorney General Jeff Sessions Issues Memorandum on "Sanctuary Jurisdictions"

SESSIONS MEMORANDUM ON GRANTS FOR “SANCTUARY JURISDICTIONS”

On May 22, 2017, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a Memorandum [PDF version] regarding the implantation of Executive Order 13768, President Donald Trump's Executive Order on interior enforcement. Specifically, Attorney General Sessions' Memorandum addresses scenarios in which federal grants may be withheld from “sanctuary jurisdictions,” that is, jurisdictions that do not comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 [PDF version].

The Sessions Memorandum quotes the pertinent provision — section 9(a) — of Executive Order 13768:

“[T]he Attorney General and the Secretary [of Homeland Security], in their discretion and to the extent consistent with the law, shall ensure that jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 (sanctuary jurisdictions) are not eligible to receive federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes by the Attorney General and the Secretary. The Secretary has the authority to designate, in his discretion and to the extent consistent with law, a jurisdiction as a sanctuary jurisdiction.”

Then, the Sessions Memorandum quotes from the pertinent portion of 8 U.S.C. 1373:

“Section 1373 provides in part that state and local jurisdictions 'may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, [federal immigration officers] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”

Attorney General Sessions determined that section 9(a) of Executive Order 13768 will only apply to federal grants administered by the Department of Justice or the Department of Homeland Security.

Attorney General made clear that section 9(a) will not apply to any other sources of federal funding. In so doing, he noted that the Executive Order provides that it may only be enforced “to the extent consistent with law.” Accordingly, it neither calls for nor permits grant conditions “that would violate any applicable constitutional or statutory limitation.” Furthermore, Attorney General Sessions noted that section 9(a) does not expand the authority of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security, rather, it directs them to use their existing authority.

Going forward, the Department of Justice will require jurisdictions applying for certain Department of Justice grants to certify that they are in compliance with federal law as a condition for receiving an award. In some cases, this will include certification of compliance with 8 U.S.C. 1373. Attorney General Sessions determined that the certification requirement with respect to 8 U.S.C. 1373 “will apply to any existing grant administered by the Office of Justice Programs and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services that expressly contains this certification condition and to future grants for which the Department [of Justice] is statutorily authorized to impose such a condition” (emphasis added). The Memorandum states that the certification requirement will be imposed consistent with the law and with any applicable court orders.

Attorney General Sessions determined, after consultation with Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly, that for the purposes of section 9(a) of Executive Order 13768, the term “sanctuary jurisdiction” will apply only to jurisdictions that “willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 13768.” Any jurisdiction that does not willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 13768 will not be considered a “sanctuary jurisdiction” for purposes of section 9(a). However, Attorney General Sessions was careful to explain that this provision of the Memorandum applies only to the adjudication of grants under section 9(a). He noted that nothing in this Memorandum “limits the [Department of Justice's] ability to point out ways that state and local jurisdictions are undermining our lawful system of immigration or to take enforcement action where state or local practices violate federal laws, regulations, or grant conditions.”

In the final passage of the Sessions Memorandum, the Attorney General stated that, in the future, the Department of Justice “may seek to tailor grants to promote a lawful system of immigration” where it is authorized to do so.

CONSISTENCY WITH PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

On April 25, 2017, Judge William Orrick of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction against section 9(a) of Executive Order 13768 in County of Santa Clara v. Trump, Case Nos. 17-cv-00575-WHO (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2017) [PDF version].

The Sessions Memorandum was drafted in a manner consistent with the decision in Santa Clara v. Trump. Essentially, the injunction prevents the Department of Justice from enforcing section 9(a) against federal grant recipients if the grant did not stipulate compliance with 8 U.S.C. 1373. It does not prevent the Department of Justice from revoking grants that do stipulate compliance with 8 U.S.C. 1373, which it had the authority to do before President Trump's Executive Order. To this effect, Judge Orrick's decision stated that “[t]his injunction does not impact the Government's ability to use lawful means to enforce existing conditions of federal grants or 8 U.S.C. 1373, nor does it restrict the Secretary from developing regulations or preparing guidance on designating a jurisdiction as a “sanctuary jurisdiction.” Although the Department of Justice did not at any point indicate that it would enforce section 9(a) in a manner inconsistent with existing law and precedent, Judge Orrick's stated reason for the injunction was the broad drafting of section 9(a), which appears to reach grants that do not stipulate compliance with section 9(a).

On April 21, 2017, the Department of Justice issued letters to several jurisdictions regarding noncompliance with 8 U.S.C. 1373 jeopardizing their receipt of federal grants that require such compliance [PDF version].

ANALYSIS

Attorney General Sessions' Memorandum is narrowly tailored. It will only seek to revoke Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security grants that stipulated compliance with 8 U.S.C. 1373 at the time they were issued. This narrow interpretation of the otherwise broadly-worded section 9(a) of Executive Order 13768 is consistent with existing law. In short, it interprets President Trump's Executive Order as directing the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to revoke grants of jurisdictions found to be in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1373 to the extent allowable under federal law and consistent with any judicial decisions.

The limited scope of the Sessions Memorandum means that it will not apply to very many grants or jurisdictions. Going forward, the most interesting thing to watch — aside from the potential for continuing litigation — is whether Congress will work with the Department of Justice to stipulate compliance with 8 U.S.C. 1373 in new law enforcement grants going forward, as the Attorney General suggested he would seek more often in the conclusion of the Memorandum.

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

September 2017 Visa Bulletin

INTRODUCTION

On August 9, 2017, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) issued the September Visa Bulletin [PDF version]. On August 10, 2017, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) determined that those seeking adjustment of status in the family-sponsored and employment-based immigrant visa preference categories must use the final action dates instead of the more generous filing dates [PDF version].

The September Visa Bulletin represents the last Visa Bulletin of FY-2017. It is the first of the 12 visa bulletins from the fiscal year to see priority date regression in several categories, which we will detail in the article. The next Visa Bulletin, for October 2017, will be the first Visa Bulletin of FY-2018.

In this article, we will examine the final action dates for both the family-sponsored and employment-based preference cases. We will also examine the DOS's news and notes included with the September Visa Bulletin. Please see our full articles on using the Visa Bulletin [see article] and the difference between final action dates and filing dates [see article] in order to learn more about the issues discussed in this article.

Finally, please see our comprehensive list of all articles on FY-2017 Visa Bulletins [see article].

FAMILY-SPONSORED CASES

The USCIS has determined that beneficiaries of approved family-sponsored immigrant visa petitions must use the final action dates from the September 2017 Visa Bulletin for filing for adjustment of status. The beneficiary of an approved family-sponsored petition may file for adjustment of status if the final action date for his or her preference category and chargeability area is earlier than his or her priority date. If the applicable final action date is after the priority date, the applicant will be ineligible to file for adjustment of status in September. The priority date is generally when the immigrant visa petition was properly filed [see blog].

The F1 final action dates for Worldwide, China, El Salvador, Guatemala, India, and Honduras retrogressed to May 1, 2010. The F4 final action dates in these categories retrogessed to January 1, 2002 (see also Interpreter Releases Daily 4 08-10-17). Note that El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras are not included on the family-sponsored chart, but are noted in the DOS's comments on the Visa Bulletin.

The DOS appended the following note for the F2A category: “NOTE: For September, F2A numbers EXEMPT from per-country limit are authorized for issuance to applicants from all countries with priority dates earlier than 22SEP15. F2A numbers SUBJECT to per-country limit are authorized for issuance to applicants chargeable to all countries EXCEPT MEXICO with priority dates beginning 22SEP15 and earlier than 01OCT15. All F2A numbers provided for MEXICO are exempt from the per-country limit.”

EMPLOYMENT-BASED CASES

The USCIS has determined that beneficiaries of approved employment-based immigrant visa petitions must use the final action dates from the September 2017 Visa Bulletin for filing for adjustment of status. The beneficiary of an approved family-sponsored petition may file for adjustment of status if the final action date for his or her preference category and chargeability area is earlier than his or her priority date. If the applicable final action date is after the priority date, the applicant will be ineligible to file for adjustment of status in September. The priority date depends on the type of employment-based petition. If labor certification was required, the priority date will generally be the date on which the labor certification application was approved by the U.S. Department of Labor. If labor certification was not required, the priority date will generally be when the petition was properly filed [see blog].

NEWS AND NOTES FROM THE SEPTEMBER 2017 VISA BULLETIN

The DOS noted that retrogression of final action dates for Family First Preference (F1) and Family Fourth Preference (F4) occurred for Worldwide, China, El Salvador, Guatemala, India, and Honduras. The retrogression of the final action dates was necessary to keep visa numbers within the annual per-country limits for FY-2017. The DOS explained that the final action dates will return to what they were for the October 2017 Visa Bulletin.

The DOS determined the family-sponsored and employment-based preference numerical limits for FY-2017, as required by section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The limitations are as follows:

• Worldwide Family-Sponsored: 226,000
• Worldwide Employment-Based: 140,000

Based on these numbers and the per-country limitation in section 202(a) of the INA, the FY-2017 per-country limit is 25,620. The dependent area annual limit is 7,320.

CONCLUSION

As we noted, the September 2017 Visa Bulletin is the final Visa Bulletin for FY-2017. The next edition in October will be the first of FY-2018, and it may permit applicants to use the filing dates instead of the final action dates. We will update the site once the October 2017 Visa Bulletin is released.

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

DHS Visa Overstay Statistics for FY 2016

INTRODUCTION

On May 22, 2017, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released its Fiscal Year 2016 Entry/Exit Overstay Report. The report contains information regarding the number of individuals who overstayed their nonimmigrant visas in fiscal year 2016, with detailed breakdowns by category and by country of nationality. In this article, we will examine the statistics and what they mean for future immigration policy debates.

We have uploaded the Fiscal Year 2016 Report [PDF version] and the Fiscal Year 2015 Report [PDF version].

OVERVIEW OF STATISTICS

The DHS posted a summary of the overstay rates on page 13 of its 2016 Report. We have reproduced the chart [see here].

In fiscal year 2016, there were 50,437,278 “expected departures.” This number corresponds to the number of nonimmigrants who were scheduled to depart the United States at some point in fiscal year 2016. Of these nonimmigrants, 98.53% departed the United States in a timely manner.

Next, we must examine the overstay rates. The chart includes three categories: “total overstays,” “suspected in-country overstays,” and “out-of-country overstays.” Total overstays simply represents the number of nonimmigrants who overstayed in fiscal year 2016. The chart indicates that 739,478 nonimmigrants overstayed, or 1.47% of the total number of nonimmigrants expected to depart. Those are the “total overstays.” However, not all of these aliens remained in perpetuity. 110,679 did eventually depart the United States. These are the “out-of-country overstays.” Minus those 110,679, 628,799 aliens overstayed and did not subsequently depart the United States. The total number of suspected-in-country overstays represented 1.25% of all aliens expected to depart at some point in fiscal year 2016.

The statistics further break down by nonimmigrant type. The bulk of nonimmigrants — and likewise the bulk of total overstays — were nonimmigrant visitors. The most common visitor type was those coming to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP). Fortunately, the total overstay rate for VWP visitors was only 0.68%. However, due to the sheer number of individuals using the VWP program, this miniscule percentage nevertheless represented 147,282 overstays. The largest number of total overstays were individuals visiting the United States using B1 and B2 visas (excluding Canadian and Mexican non-immigrant visitors). B1/B2 visitors had a total overstay rate of 2.07%, resulting in 287,107 total overstays. Of Canadian and Mexican nonimmigrant visitors, there were 182,269 total overstays and a resulting overstay rate of 1.51%.

Both student and exchange visitors (excluding Canada and Mexico) and all other in-scope nonimmigrants (excluding Canada and Mexico) had higher overstay rates than nonimmigrant visitors. However, due to there having been far fewer nonimmigrants from the non-visitor categories, these overstays represented a relatively small amount of the total. Students and exchange visitors had a stark 5.48% total overstay rate, but interestingly the suspected in-country overstay rate was only 2.81%. This indicates that almost half of the students and exchange visitors who overstayed did subsequently depart the United States.

If one were to just look at the percentage of nonimmigrants who overstayed, the statistics would look encouraging. For example, without seeing the raw numbers, that 98.53% of nonimmigrants departed as scheduled represents, in fact, a very high percentage of compliance with our immigration laws. However, due to the sheer number of individuals who enter the United States as nonimmigrants, the immigration system faces a daunting challenge from even this low overstay rate of 1.25%, which produced 628,799 suspected in-country overstays.

For those who are interested in exploring these statistics in greater depth, the 2016 Overstay Report contains detailed charts by country of nationality for each of the five fields in the overstay rate summary.

CONCLUSION TO THE REPORT

In the conclusion to the report (page 31), the DHS stated that it “has made significant progress in terms of the ability to accurately report data on overstays…” Specifically, the DHS explained that during fiscal year 2016, it was able to use new biometric exit tests and the BE-Mobile law enforcement tool to verify the biographic departure data for a limited number of departures from the United States. Although this applied to only a limited number of cases, the DHS explained that “it is an important first step towards implementing a comprehensive biometric entry and exit system.” The DHS detailed that it will continue working on the biometric-entry exist system during fiscal year 2017.

In welcome news, the DHS stated that it will also continue to release data on overstays annually.

ANALYSIS

Tracking nonimmigrant overstays is a key component of augmenting immigration enforcement. For good reasons, proponents of improving the enforcement of the immigration laws often focus on border security. To that effect, there have been promising signs of improvements in border security in the early months of the Trump Administration [see blog]. Furthermore, there have been promising signs that the Trump Administration's new enforcement priorities are paying dividends [see blog].

However, with all of the discussion taking place on border security, people often overlook that a significant percentage of persons present in the United States without legal authorization initially entered the country in a lawful manner but then subsequently overstayed. The 9/11 Commission recognized that this is, in and of itself, a national security problem, and it recommended the creation of a comprehensive biometric entry-exit system to track those visitors who overstay. It is worth noting that a biometric entry-exit system has supporters who are not thought of as hardliners on immigration enforcement. For example, we noted on site that Senator Lindsey Graham — a supporter of the failed “Gang of Eight” immigration reform effort from a few years ago — expressed his support for a biometric entry-exit system during his short-lived presidential campaign [see blog].

Section 8(a) of President Donald Trump's Executive Order 13780 (Mar. 6, 2017) directed the DHS to expedite completion of a biometric entry-exit system [see article]. To this effect, President Trump directed the DHS to provide regular updates on its progress. This provision of President Trump's Executive Order was overshadowed by its more controversial provisions regarding nationals of six countries designated in section 217(a)(12) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and refugee travel. However, the creation and comprehensive implementation of a broad and functional biometric entry-exit system could stand to be the most important immigration policy consequence of Executive Order 13780.

As part of a broad immigration reform effort, it will be important for the DHS to continue improving its ability to account for overstays. Furthermore, the Trump Administration must work with Congress to ensure that the DHS receives the funding it needs to continue making progress in this area.

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

Senators Feinstein and Durbin Criticize ICE for Changing Private Bill Procedures

On May 8, 2017, Democratic Senators Dianne Feinstein of California and Dick Durbin of Illinois issued a harshly critical response to the decision of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to restrict the circumstances in which it will grant stays of removal to alien beneficiaries of private bills submitted by Congress.

Senators Feinstein and Durbin described private bills as a “critical safety net,” and they took the position such bills have been “carefully used for a small number of the most critical cases.” This characterization of the use of private bills contrasts with that of Thomas Homan, the Acting Director of ICE, who took the position that they have been abused by Congress.

Senators Feinstein and Durbin expressed frustration that the ICE “has now unilaterally changed [the private bill] process without consulting Congress.” They described the actions taken by Homan as “mean-spirited” and contrary to “longstanding practice between two co-equal branches of government.” Furthermore, they charged that the Trump Administration “has already demonstrated a willful disregard for the Constitution's separation of powers in the name of the President's deportation agenda.”

You may read the entire Press Release here [PDF version]. Please also see our article on the policy change regarding private bills instituted by the ICE [see article].

It is perhaps unsurprising that Senator Feinstein, a ranking member of the judiciary committee, is taking the lead on opposing changes to how the ICE handles private bills. From March 20, 1997, to September 15, 2015, Senator Feinstein proposed 119 private bills, 106 of which were referred to committee and 8 of which passed the Senate.[1] On September 25, 2009, Rob Hotakainen of McClatchy Newspapers reported that of the 35 private bills that were pending in the Senate at the time, 14 had been proposed by Senator Feinstein.[2] While private bills are uncommon in general, Senator Feinstein has been one of their most prominent proponents in Congress.

Regardless of the policy merits of the arguments advanced by Senators Feinstein and Durbin, it is important to note that the ICE's change in policy does not “demonstrate[] a willful disregard for the Constitution's separation of powers…” There is no provision of the constitution, or of any statute or regulation, that requires the ICE to grant stays of removal in response to private legislation. Claiming constitutional violations in such a spurious manner only serves to minimize actual violations of the constitution or of the rights of individuals in immigration proceedings in the United States. Furthermore, Senators Feinstein and Durbin neglect to note that the ICE has not completely abandoned granting stays of removal in response to private bills, but rather has required Congress to go through a modified process in issuing the private bills and has narrowed the scope of stays of removal during that process. The policy debate on many immigration issues — including private bills — will be far more productive and informative if people on both sides of the issue stick to the facts in lieu of engaging in hyperbole.

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. Gov Track US, https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?sponsor=300043&subject=6278, (retrieved May 23, 2017)
2. Hotakainen, Rob. “Feinstein's 'private bills' help constituents avoid deportation.” McClatchey Newspapers. Mcclatcheydc.com. (Sep. 25, 2009)

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

U.S. Immigration and Refugees

What is “Refugee” in U.S. Immigration Law? How is it Different From Asylum?

Both refugees and asylees must meet the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) definition of “refugee.”  However, there is a key difference between refugees and asylees in how one seeks the statuses.  Refugee applicants seek status abroad through a referral to the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP). Conversely, asylees may only apply for status when physically present in the United States.  This difference is the key distinction between refugees and asylees in U.S. immigration law.

Statutory Definition of Refugee

It is important to understand that refugee status is not a catch-all remedy for an individual who faces any set of undesirable conditions in his or her home country.  It is only available to people who can establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on specified grounds by a specified actor.

The definition of “refugee” is found in section 101(a)(42) of the INA.  A refugee must be unable or unwilling to avail him or herself to the protection of his or her country of nationality, or lacking nationality, country of last habitual residence.  This inability or unwillingness must be based on past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on one of the five grounds specified in statute.  The five grounds are as follows:  (1) Race; (2) Religion; (3) Nationality; (4) Membership in a particular social group; and (5) Political opinion.  It is worth noting that the statute specifies that individuals who were forced to abort a pregnancy or undergo involuntary sterilization or who have been persecuted for failure to undergo such a procedure or for opposing a population control program “shall be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion” (this extends to having a “well-founded fear of future persecution as well).

Furthermore, the persecutor must be either the government of the individual’s home country or non-government forces who the government is either unable or unwilling to control.

The statute makes clear that the term “refugee” does not apply to any individual who “ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution” of any individual on one of the specified grounds.  This means that an individual who would otherwise meet the definition of refugee would be ineligible for status as a refugee if he or she persecuted others on one of the five grounds found in section 101(a)(42).

Ineligibility Grounds

In order to be admitted as a refugee, the applicant may not be “firmly resettled” in any foreign country. In the Matter of B-R-, 26 I&N 119 (BIA 2013), the Board of Immigration Appeals held that an individual who has the nationality or citizenship of more than one country does not meet the definition of “refugee” if he or she does not fear persecution in one of those countries.

In general, refugees are processed outside of the country in which they were persecuted or have a well-founded fear of persecution.  However, under limited circumstances authorized by the President, the USRAP processes refugees in their home countries.

An individual seeking refugee status must be admissible to the United States.  However, sections 212(a)(4), (5), and (7)(A) of the INA do not apply to refugees.  Notably, this includes inadmissibility on public charge grounds.

Refugees may also have applicable grounds of inadmissibility waived for humanitarian purposes. The only grounds of inadmissibility that may not be waived are those found in section 212(a)(2)(C) of the INA or 212(a)(3)(A), (B), or (C).  The non-waivable provisions include inadmissibility for trafficking in controlled substance and inadmissibility on several terrorism and security related grounds.

As provided by 8 C.F.R. 207.1(c), those who qualify for immediate relative status or as a special immigrant are usually not processed as refugees.  Such individuals will generally be advised to seek an immigrant visa as an immediate relative or special immigrant.  The only exception in this case is if it is determined to be in the public interest that the individual be processed as a refugee.  This provision exists in light of the annual refugee cap.

Spouse and Children

The spouse and unmarried child(ren) of a refugee who meets the admissibility requirements are eligible for refugee status.  This applies even if the spouse or child would not otherwise qualify for refugee status.  “Child” includes adopted children and step-children who meet the respective requirements to qualify as a “child” under the INA.  A derivative refugee may accompany the principal or follow to join.  In order to qualify as a child, the child must be under the age of 21. Provided that the application was filed before the child turned 21, he or she will continue to qualify while the application is pending even if he or she reaches age 21 during the process.  A spouse is ineligible if the marriage does not qualify under the immigration laws, including if it is determined that the marriage was entered into for the purpose of circumventing the immigration laws.  No other relatives except for spouses and children are eligible for derivative refugee status.

It is important to note that a derivative refugee may be approved for status from within the United States, in accord with 8 C.F.R. 207.7(f)(1).

Applying for Refugee Status

In order to apply for refugee status, an applicant must receive a referral to the USRAP.  The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) may issue such referrals.  Persons from groups identified by the United States Department of State (DOS) may also be referred to the USRAP.  The refugee applicant must be from an area from which it was determined that refugees may be admitted in the fiscal year of the application.

In order to qualify for refugee status, the applicant must fall under one of the refugee processing priorities.  The priorities, as detailed on the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) website at “The United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) Consultation & Worldwide Processing Priorities,” are as follows:

1. Cases that are identified and referred to USRAP by UNHCR, a U.S. Embassy, or a designated non-governmental organization (NGO).
2. Groups of special concern identified by USRAP.
3. Family reunification cases.

A prospective refugee must meet one of the three processing priorities in order to be considered for an interview.  However, meeting one of the priorities does not guarantee that the candidate will ultimately be granted refugee status.

The application for refugee status, after a referral, is filed on the Form I-590.  If the applicant is 14 years of age or older, he or she must also file the Form G-325A (biographic information and fingerprints).  Refugee applicants must undergo a medical examination.  Refugee applicants must also secure a sponsor, either a person or a refugee resettlement organization.  See 8 C.F.R. 207.1 and 207.2.

In the event that a refugee application is approved, the refugee applicant will have four months to present him or herself for admission to the United States under 8 C.F.R. 207.4.  If the individual fails to seek admission, the application may be considered invalid.

Refugee Status and Adjustment of Status

A refugee is provided with an employment authorization document.  Refugees are authorized for employment incident to status.  Refugees must procure travel documentation before traveling from the United States.  Accordingly, an individual on refugee status should consult with an experienced immigration attorney before travel.  Travel to the refugee’s country of nationality may, depending on circumstances, call the refugee’s status into question.

A refugee is required to apply for adjustment of status one year after entry as a refugee under section 209(a)(1) of the INA.  This applies to derivative refugees as well.  If adjustment of status is granted, the refugee will become an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.  If adjustment is denied, the refugee will be returned to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) custody where he or she will be treated as an applicant for admission to the United States under section 209(a)(1)(C).  There are no grounds for appeal from a denial of the adjustment application, but the individual may seek relief from removal in accord with 8 C.F.R. 209.1(e).

A refugee may lose status and be subject to removal if the USCIS determines that he or she did not in fact meet the definition of “refugee” when he or she was admitted, under section 207(c)(4) of the INA.

Refugee Cap

Under sections 207(a) and (e) of the INA, the President, after consultation with Congress, sets refugee admissions targets at the beginning of each fiscal year.  This generally constitutes a cap on refugee admissions for the fiscal year.

Under section 207(b) of the INA, in the event of an “unforeseen emergency” arising during the fiscal year, the President, after consulting with Congress, may determine that certain individuals should be admitted as refugees in response to the emergency refugee situation.  Under this procedure, the President may determine that certain refugees should be processed within their countries of nationality.

Current Situation With Respect to President Trump’s Executive Order 13780

On March 6, 2017, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13780.  On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld in part its provisions suspending USRAP for a period of 120 days.  The provision also lowered the cap for refugee admissions for fiscal year 2017 to 50,000 (this has already been exceeded).

The details of the scope of the suspension are still being litigated.  As of August 2, 2017, refugee applicants who have a bona fide relationship to a U.S. person or entity are still eligible for processing and admission, notwithstanding the provisions of Executive Order 13780.  The situation remains fluid, and those who may be affected should consult with an experienced immigration attorney for case-specific guidance.  It is yet to be known how the Supreme Court will ultimately resolve the case, and whether President Trump will choose to extend some of the restrictions or implement new restrictions after the suspension set forth in Executive Order 13780 expires.

Conclusion

Seeking refugee status is a complicated process.  Those interested in seeking refugee status or who want to inquire about family members abroad may consult with an experienced immigration attorney and/or an organization specializing in assisting refugees for guidance.  Individuals in the United States on refugee status should consult with an attorney regarding adjustment, travel, and/or derivatives.

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 - "Overview of Refugee Status", "Temporary Suspension of Travel of Certain Refugees Under President Trumps March 6 Travel Order"

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer Informs Congress of Intent to Re-negotiate NAFTA

On May 18, 2017, the United States Trade Representative, Robert Lighthizer [see blog], notified Congress that President Donald Trump intends to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The Office of the United States Trade Representative states that negotiations will begin no earlier than August 16, 2017. The Office will post a notice to the Federal Register “requesting public input on the direction, focus, and content of the North American Free Trade Agreement negotiations” [link].

The Office of the United States Trade Representative published the letter sent by Ambassador Lighthizer to congressional leaders [PDF version]. The letter sets forth the stated objective of the NAFTA re-negotiation:

“The United States seeks to support higher-paying jobs in the United States and to grow the U.S. economy by improving U.S. opportunities under NAFTA.”

Although NAFTA is a broad agreement, many of its provisions affect immigration categories. For example, please see our article on the TN nonimmigrant category for NAFTA professionals [see article]. We will update the website with information regarding the NAFTA re-negotiation as it relates to immigration as it becomes available.

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

ICE Reports Immigration Arrests Up in Early 2017

The United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reported that in the 100 days subsequent to the signing of President Donald Trump's Executive Orders regarding immigration enforcement priorities, the ICE “has arrested more than 41,000 individuals who are known or suspected of being in the country illegally” [PDF version].

Between January 22, 2017, and April 29, 2017, the ICE reported that it administratively arrested 41,318 individuals on civil immigration charges. This represents a 37.6 percent increase from January 24, 2016 to April 30, 2016, when the ICE arrested 30,028 individuals on civil immigration charges.

The ICE explained that “[n]early 75 percent of those arrested during this period in 2017 are convicted criminals.” The ICE arrested 30,473 aliens convicted of criminal offenses in the 2017 period compared to 25,786 in the 2016 period. The ICE increased arrests of aliens at-large in the community from 8,381 in 2016 to 12,766 in the corresponding period in 2017, an increase of more than 50 percent.

Although the ICE reiterated that the data shows that it has focused on arresting convicted criminals, it noted that the Secretary of Homeland Security, John Kelly, “has made it clear that ICE will no longer exempt any class of individuals from removal proceedings if they are found to be in the country illegally” [see article]. To this effect, the ICE arrested in excess of 10,800 non-criminal aliens in the 2017 period compared to approximately 4,200 in the 2016 period.

Please see the following chart created by the ICE for a detailed comparison of immigration arrests in corresponding periods in 2017 and 2016 [see here].

The ICE includes the following statement form the Acting Director of ICE, Thomas Homan [see blog]:

“These statistics reflect President Trump's commitment to enforce our immigration laws fairly and across the board. ICE agents and officers have been given clear direction to focus on threats to public safety and national security, which has resulted in a substantial increase in the arrest of convicted criminal aliens. However, when we encounter others who are in the country unlawfully, we will execute our sworn duty to enforce the law. As the data demonstrates, ICE continues to execute our mission professionally and in accordance with the law, and our communities will be much safer for it.”

The policy changes spurred by President Trump's Executive Orders and implemented through Secretary Kelly's Memoranda [see article] are showing dividends in improving immigration enforcement both in the interior, as discussed in this post, and in the area of border security [see blog]. As I have argued on site, improving internal enforcement is a key component of any effort to reform our system of immigration laws [see blog]. While ICE's statistics appear promising, it will be important for ICE agents and the entire DHS to ensure that all those arrested, in Acting Director Homan's words, “receive the due process afforded to them under the law.”

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

Robert Lighthizer Sworn in as United States Trade Representative

On May 11, 2017, the United States Senate confirmed Robert Lighthizer as the new United States Trade Representative by a vote of 82-14. He was sworn into office as United States Trade Representative on May 15, 2017. Ambassador Lighthizer will take a leading role in re-negotiating trade agreements — notably the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Ambassador Lighthizer's profile notes that he practiced international trade law for over 30 years. He also served as Deputy United States Trade Representative in the Reagan Administration.

Certain trade agreements, such as NAFTA, have a direct effect on the immigration laws. Furthermore, trade agreements have a general effect on the labor market, which is highly relevant in the employment immigration context. In the immigration context, Ambassador Lighthizer's course in re-negotiating NAFTA will be important to watch going 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.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

CBP Reports Decline in Apprehensions/Inadmissibles at Southwest Border in April 2017

INTRODUCTION

On May 9, 2017, the United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published new border apprehension statistics along the Southwest border for April of 2017 [link]. The CBP statistics indicate that there were fewer illegal border crossings in April 2017 than there have been in a single month for several decades. In this post, we will review the new statistics. Please see my post on the March 2017 statistics to learn about those in detail [see blog].

OVERVIEW

April 2017 saw the lowest number of apprehensions along the Southwest Border in decades. The CBP reported that 11,129 individuals were apprehended between ports of entry on the Southwest Border in April. This startlingly low number is a slight decrease from the 12,193 individuals similarly apprehended in March. In April, 4,651 individuals presented themselves at ports of entry along the Southwest Border and were deemed inadmissible. Of these, only 998 were unaccompanied alien children. This is actually a slight increase from 4,404 in March. The total number of apprehensions and inadmissibles in April was 15,780. This was not only a decrease from the 16,600 in March, but the lowest number in decades.

The overall decrease in apprehensions along the Southwest Border in early 2017 is stark. After seeing 42,473 apprehensions/inadmissibles in January, the subsequent three months saw 23,563, 16,600, and 15,780, respectively. In most years, the number of apprehensions/inadmissibles increases during the spring; however, 2017 is showing the opposite trend thus far. For reference, please see the following chart from the CBP website [see here].

The chart shows that February, March, and April of 2017 have individually and cumulatively had the lowest number of apprehensions/inadmissibles at the Southwest Border of any months since fiscal year 2012. The 15,780 apprehensions in April 2017 were down from 48,502 in April 2016, a decrease of approximately 77-percent. The second best previous year on the chart, April 2015, still saw 38,296 apprehensions/inadmissibles, well over double the number in April 2017.

For a detailed breakdown of apprehensions in April 2017 by sector, please see the following chart [see here].

CONCLUSION

The Washington Times notes one peculiarity of the decrease in apprehensions along the Southwest Border in the early months of the administration of President Donald Trump:

“Even before a foot of Mr. Trump's planned border wall is built or any more agents are hired, the threat of being sent home has forced would-be migrants to rethink making the journey, officials said.”[1]

Although the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is working to implement President Trump's Executive Order on border security [see article], it is true that many of its initiatives — such as a border wall and the hiring thousands of new CBP agents — have not yet taken effect [see blog]. It is unclear how much of the decrease in apprehensions can be attributed to messaging and how much is attributable to actual policy changes. Because the number of apprehensions tends to increase during the summer months, we may soon see an indication of how sustainable the recent trends are. Furthermore, the Washington Times article reports that April saw an increase in the seizure of “hard drugs including heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine,” indicating that drug trafficking may be at rising even while the number of illegal border crossings decline.

In any case, the early border security news in 2017 is promising [see blog]. Reducing the number of illegal border crossings is essential if the DHS is to have the resources to improve interior immigration enforcement. It will be incumbent on the DHS and the entire Trump Administration to implement policies in the long term to ensure that the recent good news is not a fluke.

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. Dinan, Stephen. “Illegal border crossings down 76% under Trump.” The Washington Times. May 10, 2017.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

EOIR Swears in Seven New Immigration Judges on May 5, 2017

On May 8, 2017, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) announced that it swore in seven new immigration judges [link]. The ceremony was held on May 5, 2017. The seven new immigration judges were the first appointed by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The following is the list of immigration judges and the immigration courts on which they will sit:

• Nina M. Carbone — Aurora Immigration Court
• Jennifer I. Gaz — Eloy Immigration Court
• Charlotte S. Marquez — New Orleans Immigration Court
• José Luis Peñalosa Jr. — Adelanto Immigration Court
• Donald W. Thompson — New York City Immigration Court
• David C. Whipple — Cleveland Immigration Court
• Ryan R. Wood — Bloomington Immigration 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.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

New Orleans Immigration Court to Close From 8/16 - 8/22 to Prepare for Relocation

On August 1, 2017, the Executive Officer for Immigration Review (EOIR) announced that it will temporarily close the New Orleans Immigration Court at noon on August 16, 2017 [PDF version]. This closure is to prepare for relocation.

The New Orleans Immigration Court will reopen at its new location on August 22, 2017. The EOIR provided the contact information for the new location:

LOCATION:

New Orleans Immigration Court

365 Canal Street, Suite 500

New Orleans, LA 70130

HOURS OF OPERATION:

8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday

TELEPHONE:

504-589-3992

Those affected by the change should be aware of when the New Orleans Immigration Court will close, when it will reopen, and the details of its new location. The EOIR website provides updates of Immigration Court closures and relocations.

The EOIR recently moved its Las Vegas Immigration Court. Please see our full blog for details on the new location of that Court [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

Pew Research Center Conducts Interesting Study on U.S. Immigrants

INTRODUCTION

On May 3, 2017, the Pew Research Center released a highly interesting report titled “Key findings about U.S. immigrants” [link].[1] The study contains numerous statistics and charts, and is well worth reading in full. In this post, I will examine a small selection of the statistics that are generally not readily found in official government reports.

DISCUSSION

Pew reported that there were 43.5 million foreign-born persons in the United States in 2015. This includes those in the United States without authorization, temporary lawful residents, lawful permanent residents, and naturalized citizens. In 2014, foreign-born persons made up 13.4% of the U.S. population. This nears the all-time record of 14.8% in 1890. The percentage-share of foreign-born persons has been steadily increasing since it hit an all-time low of 4.7% in 1970. Pew projected that the foreign born population would reach 78.2 million by 2065.

Of the foreign-born persons in the United States in 2015, Pew estimated that 75.5% are in the United States legally and 24.5% are in the United States without legal authorization.

Unsurprisingly, Pew reported that nearly half of all of the foreign-born persons in the United States in 2015 lived in just three states in 2015: California, Texas, and New York. These three states accounted for 46% of all foreign born individuals in the United States in 2015. 65% of all foreign born individuals lived in 20 major metropolitan areas.

Pew found that foreign-born individuals in the United States were far more likely than U.S.-born citizens to have not completed high school (29% to 9%). Furthermore, foreign born individuals were also more likely to have ceased their education at the high school level. Interestingly however, 30% of foreign-born individuals had college degrees compared with 31% of U.S.-born citizens. Part of the reason for the discrepancy is that a much larger percentage of U.S. born citizens (31%) had completed some college without obtaining at least a baccalaureate degree than did foreign born individuals (19%). It should be noted that there were also significant differences in educational outcomes depending on where foreign born individuals are from. For example, only 6% of Mexican-born individuals in the United States had at least a baccalaureate degree compared to 51% of individuals from South and East Asia, 48% of those the Middle East, and 42% from Europe and Canada.

In the final statistic that we will examine, 51% of foreign-born individuals aged five and older were proficient English-language speakers. Only 45% of foreign-born individuals living in the United States for five years or less were proficient, whereas 55% of foreign-born individuals living in the United States for twenty years or more were.

CONCLUSION

Pew's survey provided some very interesting statistics about trends in the foreign-born population in the United States. Non-partisan studies on things such as outcomes for immigrants and nonimmigrants by region, educational attainment, and English-language proficiency should be an essential part of future immigration reform efforts. It is essential to understand the outcomes of preexisting immigration policies in order to have the best idea of the kinds of reforms that are needed. Please see my recent analysis of President Donald Trump's address to a joint-session of Congress for some of my thoughts on how to reform our immigration system and links to other posts on that subject [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. Lopez, Gustavo and Kristen Bialik. “Key findings about U.S. immigrants.” Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. (May 3. 2017). http://pewrsr.ch/2qz2zvx

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com