Study Shows Disparities in Asylum Approval Rates Among Immigration Judges

On November 20, 2017, TRAC Immigration published a very interesting report on the outcomes of asylum cases in immigration courts [link].[1] In this post, we will assess some of the report's findings. The TRAC website is a valuable resources on asylum adjudication statistics in the immigration courts and by immigration judge.

The report first assessed the range in asylum approval/denial rates among immigration judges at each immigration court who have rendered at least 100 decisions from 2010 through 2016. This means that the report measured the difference between the immigration judge with the highest asylum approval rate and the immigration judge with the lowest asylum approval rate at each immigration court over this six-year period. The study found that many of the immigration courts experienced dramatic differences between immigration judges, suggesting that the likelihood of being granted asylum can in some cases depend on which immigration judge is assigned to hear it. Before examining the statistics though, it is important to remember that each asylum case presents its own unique facts. While we can draw useful information in asylum approval rates, especially at the extreme high or extreme low ends, the results of past asylum cases do not guarantee any outcomes in future asylum cases.

The two immigration courts with the largest disparity between judges were the Newark and San Francisco Immigration Courts. For the Newark Immigration Court, Immigration Judge Frederick G. Leeds approved 89.1% of 137 asylum cases, while Margaret R. Reichenberg approved only 1.3% of 149 asylum cases, making for a disparity of 87.8%. In the San Francisco Immigration Court Immigration Judge Rebecca Jamil granted approvals in 90.6% of 171 cases, whereas Immigration Judge Anthony S. Murray granted approvals in 2.9% of of 514 cases, making for a difference of 87.7%.

Large disparities were also seen at the two immigration courts with the largest asylum caseloads, the New York Immigration Court and the Los Angeles Immigration Court (note that the San Francisco Immigration Court had the third largest caseload). At the New York Immigration Court, Immigration Judge Frederic G. Leeds (who moved from the Newark Court to the New York Court in 2014, where he still sits) granted approvals in 97.0% of 846 cases, while Immigration Judge Sandy K. Hom granted approvals in only 41.5% of 1033 asylum cases, making for a 55.5% difference between the two judges at the New York Immigration Court. In the second busiest court for asylum cases, Immigration Judge David Neumeister granted approvals in only 70.6% of 412 cases, while Immigration Judge Lorraine J. Munoz of the Los Angeles Immigration Court granted approval in just 2.5% of 715 cases, making for a disparity of 68.1% at the Los Angeles Immigration Court.

In its analysis of the results, TRAC Immigration found that the dramatic disparities seen among immigration judges at many immigration courts “are unlikely to be the result of differences in the nature of incoming cases” due to the manner in which asylum cases are assigned. Instead, TRAC took the position that the more dramatic disparities are, in most cases, indicative of “the personal perspective that each judge brings to the bench.” TRAC added that it first published a report on the issue in 2006 and, despite efforts in the latter part of the last decade to narrow the disparities, TRAC found in its 2016 report that those improvements “did not persist.”

The statistics are interesting, and it will be worth watching to see if the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) undertakes further efforts to promote more consistency in asylum adjudications within each immigration court. However, it is important to remember as we noted at the top that each asylum case presents its own set of circumstances, and the results of a statistical analysis of asylum cases cannot be assessed in a vacuum.

TRAC also noted significant differences among asylum approval rates based on nationality, which makes sense insofar as an application for asylum is based in large part on circumstances in the applicant's home country. Critically, however, TRAC noted that, regardless of nationality, 91% of cases in which the asylum applicant was not represented by an attorney were denied. That latter statistic highlights the importance of working closely with an experienced immigration attorney. An individual who believes that he or she may have a claim for asylum protection and/or withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture should consult with an experienced immigration attorney immediately. An experienced attorney may assess the situation and, if he or she determines that the applicant has grounds to seek relief, then assist the applicant in presenting the best possible case based on the applicant's specific circumstances, in order to enhance the likelihood of approval regardless of the court, judge, or any other circumstances external to the evidence supporting the application.

To learn more about asylum, please see the full selection of articles and blogs that we have on the subject on our website [see category].

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. TRAC Immigration. “Asylum Outcome Continues to Depend on the Judge Assigned.” TRAC Immigration. Nov. 20, 2017. trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/490

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Report on DOD Memo on Security Risks in MAVNI Program

We have been posting periodic updates on the status of the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest (MAVNI) Program, which was suspended for new applications in late 2016 [see article]. MAVNI is a Department of Defense (DOD) program that provided certain aliens with a path to legal status and citizenship in return for military service.

It was known that MAVNI had been suspended to assess apparent security vulnerabilities in the program. On August 1, 2017, James Rosen of Fox News reported with greater detail on the specific issues that led to the suspension of MAVNI [link].[1]

Rosen reports that the Inspector General of the DOD recently released a report identifying “serious problems” with the MAVNI program. Although the report remains classified, Rosen was able to glean details from various sources.

According to Congressman Steve Russell (R, OK-5), MAVNI was suspended due to the Pentagon's concerns that it has been subject to “foreign infiltration.” According to another unnamed member of Congress, the DOD has not provided answers regarding the status of the “missing enrollees” in question. Rosen's sources disclosed that the Pentagon identified additional problems regarding MAVNI in addition to the threat of foreign infiltration, such as:

• A vetting backlog that led to the enrollment of soldiers prior to the completion of background checks; and
• A “drift” in MAVNI criteria wherein the program was used to hire workers lacking specialized skills (e.g., cooks, drivers, and mechanics).

However, Rosen noted that there is no evidence in the public domain that “ISIS, Al Qaeda, or any other terrorist groups have penetrated the MAVNI program,” while noting that this does remain an ongoing concern for the DOD.

Given the limited information available as to the extent of the problems in the MAVNI program and the DOD's internal deliberations, it is impossible to predict whether the MAVNI program will remain in place or ultimately be terminated. It can be concluded, however, that if the security vulnerabilities have been determined to be as severe as Rosen's reporting indicates, especially with regard to foreign infiltration, the future of MAVNI is in a state of severe doubt. Rosen's sources also suggested that Defense Secretary James Mattis “had developed his own concerns about MAVNI.”

Rosen also noted that there is currently pending litigation by seven MAVNI enrollees, who claim that the DOD's decision to add additional restrictions on access to security clearances in September 2016 ended up “crippling their military careers.”

We will continue to update the site with information about the status of the MAVNI program as it becomes available. While we cannot attest to the severity of the security concerns inherent in the MAVNI program, the government should eventually look to compensate those it made promises to and who were left in limbo in the event that the suspension is not lifted. Those affected should consult with an experienced immigration attorney about their overall immigration situation.

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

1. Rosen, James. “Pentagon investigators find 'security risks' in government's immigrant recruitment program, 'infiltration' feared.” Fox News. Aug. 1, 2017. Foxnews.com

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Dmitri Hvorostovsky (1962-2017)

Today, I would like to take a short aside from blogging about immigration law and politics to address the tragic death of the great Siberian baritone, Dmitri Hvorostovsky. He passed away at the young age of 55 after a two-year battle with brain cancer, leaving behind his wife and four children.

Hvorostovsky was beloved by audiences worldwide throughout his remarkable career. A poignant obituary by Anthony Tommasini noted that Hvorostovsky's peers in the opera had great admiration for his talents as well [link].[1] For example, the obituary quotes American soprano Renée Fleming as stating that while there “have been many beautiful voices” in opera, there have been “none more beautiful than Dmitri's.”

The Associated Press (AP) quoted tenor Placido Domingo on Hvorostovsky's passing: “Dmitri's incomparably beautiful voice and peerless artistry touched the souls of millions of music lovers. His passing will be mourned by countless admirers around the world and by those of us who were fortunate to know him” [link].[2]

Hvorostovsky was not only admired for his transcendent talent on the stage, but also for the courage with which he lived during his illness. The AP quoted the Vienna State Opera Director, Dominique Meyer: “I especially admire the wonder way in which he carried himself during his terrible illness.”

Hvorostovsky is my favorite performer, and like millions of his admirers worldwide, I will miss him dearly. For those who are not familiar with his work, I encourage you to take this opportunity to watch his performances and see why he was loved and admired by so many. You may begin by watching just a tiny sample of his work [see here].

Hvorostovsky making a surprise appearance at the Metropolitan Opera Gala in May 2017, performing “Cortigiani, vil razza dannata” from Verdi's “Rigoletto.” [see here]

A tribute to Hvorostovsky posted by the Metropolitan Opera [see here].

Hvorostovsky singing Valentin's aria from act II of Gonud's opera Faust, courtesy of the Royal Opera House [see here].

Hvorostovsky performing the final scene from Tchaikovsky's “Eugene Onegin” at the Metropolitan Opera.

Finally, the following is a two part interview in English with Hvorostovsky from 2012 on Classic Talk with Bing & Dennis, posted by the show's YouTube page [see here and here].

Hvorostovsky will be sorely missed by his friends and family, the operatic community, and the millions of us worldwide who admired his performances. His work will live on for a long time to come.

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. Tommasini, Anthony. “Dmitri Hvorostovsky, Silver-Mained Baritone From Siberia, Dies at 55.” New York Times. Nov. 22, 2017. nytimes.com
2. Blum, Ronald. “Russian Baritone Dmitri Hvorostovsky Dies at 55.” Associated Press. Nov. 22, 2017. apnewsarchive.com

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

President Trump Makes Progress on Judicial Vacancies

On August 1, 2017, Alex Swayer of the Washington Times reported that while President Donald Trump has had difficulty filling many posts in the Executive Branch, he is moving at a brisk pace on judicial nominations.[1]

Five of the judges nominated thus far by President Trump have already been confirmed by the Senate, including one to the Supreme Court of the United States, three to Federal circuit courts, and one to a Federal district court. At the same point in his first term, President Barack Obama had no judges confirmed and President George W. Bush had only three (one circuit and two district court judges).

The article notes that President Trump had a total of 137 judicial vacancies to fill. He has already nominated 28 individuals, which is more than did President Obama but slightly fewer than President Bush at comparable times in their first terms in office. With five nominees already confirmed, there are 23 outstanding nominees. Six are nominees for critical Federal circuit court openings and sixteen are nominees for Federal district court openings.

The following are the names and profiles of the five judges who have been confirmed thus far:

• 1. Justice Neil Gorsuch

Court: United States Supreme Court

Confirmed on April 7, 2017 by a vote of 54-45

We wrote a comprehensive profile on Justice Gorsuch during the confirmation process [see blog]. Please see our short post on Justice Gorsuch's confirmation to see a list of articles we wrote on the subject [see blog].

• 2. Judge Amul Thapar

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Confirmed on May 8, 2017 by a vote of 52-44

Judge Thapar had previously been a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Judge Thapar features on President Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees, and he was reportedly one of the finalists interviewed for the vacancy that eventually went to now-Justice Gorsuch [see blog]. Judge Thapar will be a name to watch in the event that another vacancy opens on the Supreme Court during President Trump's term. Judge Thapar also has experience as an assistant U.S. attorney and in private practice. He graduated from California, Berkeley School of Law.[2]

• 3. Judge David Nye

Court: United States District Court for the District of Idaho

Confirmed on May 8, 2017 by a vote of 100-0

Judge Nye had been a state court judge in Idaho. He had been nominated to the same seat by President Barack Obama in 2015 but was not confirmed before President Obama left office. President Trump re-nominated Nye on the advice of Idaho Senators Mike Crapo and Jim Risch, who had previously recommended him to then-President Obama.[3]

• 4. Judge John Bush

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Confirmed on July 20, 2017 by a vote of 51-47

John Bush was a nationally-recognized corporate attorney prior to being confirmed to the Sixth Circuit. He graduated from Harvard Law School.[4] Judge Bush joins Judge Thapar as a second new judge on the Sixth Circuit.

• 5. Judge Kevin Newsom

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Confirmed on August 1, 2017 by a vote of 66-31

Kevin Newsom worked in private practice prior to being confirmed to the Eleventh Circuit. Prior to that, he served for four years as Solicitor General of Alabama. In 2011, Newsom was appointed by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to serve on the 10-member Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules. Judge Newsom graduated from Harvard Law School and clerked for then-Supreme Court Justice David Souter. It is worth noting that Judge Newsom is the youngest of the new judges at only 44 years of age.[5]

The following is the list of President Trump's pending circuit court nominees:

• Stephanos Bibas (Third Circuit);
• Joan Larsen (Sixth Circuit);
• Amy Coney Barrett (Seventh Circuit);
• Ralph R. Erickson (Eighth Circuit);
• David Stras (Eighth Circuit); and
• Allison H. Eid (Tenth Circuit).

It is worth noting that Judges Larsen, Stras, and Eid are all on President Trump's Supreme Court list. Judge Eid is President Trump's pick to fill the Tenth Circuit seat vacated after Justice Gorsuch was confirmed to the Supreme Court.

We will update the site periodically with information about news on judicial nominees and confirmations.

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. Swayer, Alex. “With fifth judge confirmed, Trump outpaces Obama and Bush.” The Washington Times. Aug. 1, 2017. Washingtontimes.com
2. Wood, Mary. “Lecturer, Judge Amul Thapar Nominated to 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.” University of Virginia School of Law. May 25, 2017. Law.virginia.edu
3. Russell, Betsy Z. “New Judge Nye sworn in today, going right to work.” The Spokesman Review. Aug. 1, 2017. Spokesman.com
4. Severino, Carrie. “Who is John Bush?” National Review Online. May 7, 2017. Nationalreview.com
5. Severino, Carrie. “Who is Kevin Newsom?” National Review Online. May 7, 2017. Nationalreview.com

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

USCIS to Allow Certain Individuals to Re-File DACA Renewal Requests Whose Requests Were Not Received on Time Due to USPS Delays

On November 15, 2017, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) released a news alert titled “USCIS Guidance on DACA Renewal Requests Affected by Mail Service Issues” [PDF version].

For background, on September 5, 2017, acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine C. Duke rescinded the implementing memorandum for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program [see article]. However, certain current DACA beneficiaries were permitted to renew their DACA provided that their applications were received by the USCIS on October 5, 2017.

In the post, the USCIS explains that it has received reports that the United States Postal Service (USPS) “has identified USPS mail service delays that affected a number of DACA renewal requests.” These delays were significant because individuals who did not meet the October 5, 2017 filing deadline have no recourse for renewing DACA. Accordingly, and in light of the mail service delays, acting Secretary Duke “has directed USCIS to accept DACA renewal requests from individuals who resubmit their DACA renewal request with individualized proof that the request was originally mailed in a timely manner and that the cause for receipt after the Oct. 5, 2017 deadline was a result of USCIS mail service error.” Individuals who mailed their DACA applications in a timely manner and do not have “individualized proof” may contact the USPS, which will review each request and issue a letter that can be submitted as evidence to the USCIS on a case-by-case basis.

It is important to note that this new policy only applies to individuals who:

1. Mailed their DACA renewal requests with the USPS in a timely manner (before October 5, 2017); and
2. Whose renewal requests were not received by USCIS by October 5, 2017.

Individuals who failed to mail their renewal requests by the deadline are not eligible to file (or re-file) their DACA requests. Furthermore, the USCIS will require proof that the original renewal request was mailed in a timely manner. Individuals who lack proof may contact the USPS and request a letter, which the USPS may issue in its discretion.

Furthermore, the USCIS news release explains that it has “discovered certain cases in which DACA requests were received at the designated filing location (e.g., at the applicable P.O. Box) by the filing deadline, but were rejected.” The USCIS explains that it will contact these individual requestors in order to inform them that they may resubmit their DACA renewal requests. If a DACA requestor is not contacted by the USCIS but believes that his or her DACA request was received at the proper designated filing location by the deadline, “he or she may resubmit his or her DACA request with proof that the request was previously received at the designated filing location before the deadline.”

The news release states that the USCIS will provide more information in the near future.

Because of the unique situation involving DACA, it is crucial for individuals whose DACA renewal requests were not accepted for one of the reasons described in the notice to properly re-file their requests as soon as possible. Those with questions are well-advised to consult with an experienced immigration attorney for guidance and for assistance in ensuring that their requests are properly re-filed. The long-term outlook for DACA beneficiaries remains uncertain, and those affected by the recent developments may consult with an experienced immigration attorney for case-specific guidance.

We will continue to update the website with more information on the situation for DACA beneficiaries 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

Ninth Circuit Narrows Injunction Against Travel Restrictions in Pres Trump's Sep 24 Presidential Proclamation ("Travel Ban")

On November 13, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit narrowed a preliminary injunction against the portions of President Donald Trump's September 24, 2017 proclamation that restricted entry for individuals from eight countries. Please see our full article on the travel restrictions to learn more about the details [see article].

On October 17, 2017, the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii and the United States District Court for the District of Maryland each issued temporary restraining orders against portions of President Trump's proclamation. The Hawaii District Court issued a broader injunction that categorically blocked the travel restrictions against seven of the nine countries from taking effect. In reaching his decision, Judge Derick Watson of the Hawaii District Court relied extensively on the decision of the Ninth Circuit in Hawaii v. Trump, 859 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2017), which dealt with President Trump's similar Executive Order 13780. The Department of Justice appealed from the Hawaii and Maryland decisions to the Ninth and Fourth Circuits respectively.

On October 24, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States voted 8-1 to vacate the judgment in Hawaii v. Trump, 859 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2017) [see blog]. This vacature meant that the Ninth Circuit decision relied upon by Judge Watson no longer had value as precedent. Interestingly, this move by the Supreme Court was predicted in light of it similar action with regard to a Fourth Circuit decision blocking portions of President Trump's Executive Order 13780.

Although the Ninth Circuit will hear arguments on the Trump Administration's appeal in early December, it first considered a motion from the Government for an emergency stay of the injunction issued by Judge Watson. In Hawaii v. Trump, No. 17-17168 (9th Cir. 2017) [PDF version], the Ninth Circuit granted the government's motion in part and denied the motion in part.

The Ninth Circuit stayed the Hawaii injunction except with respect to “foreign nationals who have a credible bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” To this effect, the Ninth Circuit cited to the Supreme Court decision in Trump v. IRAP, 137 S.Ct. 2080, 2088 (2017). In Trump v. IRAP, the Supreme Court had narrowed the scope of similar injunctions against the travel restrictions in President Trump's previous Executive Order 13780, allowing it to mostly take effect. In accord with Trump v. IRAP, the Ninth Circuit left the injunction in place with regard to foreign nationals who would otherwise be subject to entry and visa restrictions but who have a “close familial relationship” with a person in the United States. Citing to its own decision interpreting the scope of the phrase “close familial relationship” in Hawaii v. Trump, 871 F.3d 646, 658 (9th Cir. 2017), with regard to Executive Order 13780, the Ninth Circuit made clear that it includes “grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins.” Citing again to IRAP v. Trump, 137 S.Ct. at 2088, the Ninth Circuit explained that a qualifying relationship to a qualifying entity “must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading [Proclamation 9645].”

With the Ninth Circuit decision, both the Hawaii and Maryland injunctions are now equal in scope. This means that the September 24 proclamation may now take effect with regard to seven of the nine countries except with regard to individuals who have a bona fide relationship to a person or entity in the United States, as described above. Reuters reported that the Department of Justice has stated that it will begin enforcing the proclamation in a manner consistent with the Ninth Circuit stay [PDF version].[1]

In our article on the Supreme Court's decision to vacate Hawaii v. Trump, 859 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2017), we noted that the vacatur would likely be significant due to the reliance by Judge Watson on that Ninth Circuit decision. Notably, the narrower Maryland District Court injunction came after the Supreme Court had vacated IRAP v. Trump, 857 F.3d 554 (4th Cir. 2017), which had reached a similar injunction with regard to the travel restrictions in Executive Order 13780 to the Ninth Circuit in Hawaii v. Trump.

We will continue to monitor the litigations as both appeals receive a full hearing before the Ninth and Fourth Circuits on December 6 and 8, respectively. Based on the significant questions raised and the scope of the issues, it appears more likely than not that the issue will once again find its way before the Supreme Court in the first half of 2018. We will continue to update the website with more information on the litigation as it becomes available.

Those who are affected or who may be affected by the September 24 proclamation should consult with an experienced immigration attorney for case specific guidance. Please see our full article on the entry and visa restrictions to learn more about its provisions [see article]. In a separate matter, please see our complementary article on the provisions of the proclamation that have to do with other changes to our immigration policies [see article]. For those looking for information on the new refugee policies, please see our full article on President Trump's October 24, 2017 executive order on refugees [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. Hurley, Lawrence. “Appeals court lets Trump travel ban go partially into effect.” Reuters. Nov. 13, 2017. reuters.com

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Lee Francis Cissna Confirmed as New Director of USCIS

On October 5, 2017, the United States Senate confirmed Lee Francis Cissna as the new Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) by a vote of 54-43. Cissna was supported by 50 Republican senators and 4 Democrats.

We previously discussed Cissna's resume when he was nominated [see blog]. Furthermore, we posted a more recent update on his difficult confirmation process [see blog]. Now that Cissna has been confirmed, we hope that he will prove to be an effective head of the USCIS 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

Update on Nomination of Lee Francis Cissna for Director of USCIS

On September 13, 2017, Fred Lucas of The Daily Signal posted an interesting article titled “Meet the Trump Nominee Key to Implementing Immigration Agenda” [link].[1]

The article provides updates on President Trump's nominee to be the next director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Lee Francis Cissna. We discussed the Cissna nomination in brief in our blog [see blog].

Lucas noted that Cissna has thus far faced little opposition in the Senate as the nominee for Director of USCIS. In June, he passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 17-2, setting his nomination up for an eventual vote before the full Senate. You may read Cissna's opening statement before the Judiciary Committee hearing here [PDF version].

However, despite the ease with which Cissna passed through the Judiciary Committee, he has faced opposition from certain outside groups. For example, ProPublica, a left-leaning website involved in investigative journalism, ran an article reporting that Cissna had drafted memos critical of the USCIS under the Obama Administration while he was working for Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who now chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee.[2] Lucas reports that other similarly left-leaning outlets have opposed Cissna on the basis of the ProPublica report, including UnidosUS.

Lucas noted that Senator Grassley himself speaks highly of Cissna. Notably, Senator Grassley was puzzled that outside groups have questioned Cissna's management experience, noting that he has over eight years of experience at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in immigration-related management roles.

However, despite the opposition to Cissna coming from certain left-wing groups, his path toward confirmation was ironically delayed by a Republican Senator, Thom Tillis of North Carolina. As Lucas explains, Senator Tillis placed a hold on Cissna's nomination in order to compel the Trump Administration to expedite its granting of additional H2B visas. Senator Tillis's spokesman informed The Daily Signal that the hold has been lifted, presumably again clearing Cissna's path toward confirmation.

The ProPublica report relied on by groups opposing Cissna expressed deep concern that Cissna had drafted memos for Senator Chuck Grassley that opposed certain initiatives of the Obama-era USCIS. However, it should come as no surprise that President Trump is nominating individuals who will work to implement the policies of his own administration rather than those of the previous administration. For reasons we discussed in our profile of Cissna when he was nominated, he certainly has extensive experience recommending him for the position of Director of USCIS [see blog]. That experience was likely behind the decision of seven of the nine Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to vote in favor of sending Cissna to the full Senate for a vote on his nomination. Although it is unclear when, it seems likely that Cissna will soon be the new Director of USCIS.

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. Lucas, Fred. “Meet the Trump Nominee Key to Implementing Immigration Agenda.” The Daily Signal. Sep. 13, 2017. Dailysignal.com
2. Rochabrun, Marcelo. “Trump's Immigration Pick Attacked Obama Programs in Ghost-Written Senate Letters.” ProPublica. May 23, 2017. Propublica.org.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

More Than 3/4 of Those Eligible Apply for DACA Renewal Before Oct 5 Deadline

On October 5, 2017, Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reported that more than 75-percent of those eligible to renew their Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) benefits by the deadline on the same day had done so [link].[1]

On September 5, 2017, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) terminated DACA and announced how the program would be wound down [see article]. As part of the wind down, the DHS permitted certain beneficiaries with expiring DACA benefits to apply for renewal by October 5, 2017.

Dinan reported that there were approximately 154,000 DACA beneficiaries eligible for the October 5 renewal. Of these, 58,000 had already submitted their applications by September 5, 2017. As of the writing of the article, about 60,000 of the remaining eligible DACA beneficiaries had applied for renewal between September 5 and October 5. The article was published a few hours in advance of the deadline, meaning that it may not have accounted for all of the renewal applications. Still, although the majority of those eligible applied for renewal, about a quarter of the eligible DACA beneficiaries appear to have failed to do so.

Current DACA beneficiaries should consult with an experienced immigration attorney for case-specific guidance. An experienced attorney will also monitor new developments in the laws surrounding DACA beneficiaries that may affect specific cases.

The situation for DACA beneficiaries remains in flux, and it is at this time unclear whether Congress will pass a legislative solution that President Donald Trump will sign. Furthermore, there are multiple pending lawsuits against the rescission of the DACA memo that may bear watching. We will continue to update the website with new information on this and related 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. Dinan, Stephen. “Illegal immigrant 'Dreamers' scramble to remain in U.S. as Trump-imposed deadline looms.” The Washington Times. Oct. 5, 2017. washingtontimes.com

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

La Brea USCIS Application Support Center Closed Nov 13 - Nov 17

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that its Application Support Center La Brea will be closed from Monday, November 13, 2017, through Friday, November 17, 2017. We have reproduced the news release for your reference [see here].

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

DoD Releases Two Policy Changes Affecting Non-Citizens and MAVNI

On October 13, 2017, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a press release titled “DoD Announces Policy Changes to Lawful Permanent Residents and the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest (MAVNI) Pilot Program” [PDF version]. Before reading, please see our recent articles on security risks that led to the suspension of the MAVNI program [see blog] and the recommendations within the DoD to terminate the program altogether [see blog].

The press release explains that the DoD has released two policies regarding the MAVNI program “that will affect foreign nationals entering the military or who are already in the military…”

The first change involves initial security and suitability screening for green card holders. Under the new policy, “all green card holders must complete a background investigation and receive a favorable military determination prior to entering any component of the armed forces.” Under the previous rules, “green card holders could ship to basic military training as long as background investigations were initiated.” The DoD noted that the background checks for green card holders under that policy were not distinguishable from those for U.S. citizens. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) stated that the new policy may lead to delays for green card holders entering the military.

The second change announced in the press release specifically affects individuals in the MAVNI program and green card holders. The DoD is creating a “qualifying service standard for the purposes of rendering honorable service designation for foreign nationals so they can pursue expedited [naturalization].” The DoD explained that all members of the armed services receive a characterization of service after 180 days of service. This honorable service recommendation is a prerequisite to pursuing expedited naturalization for military service. The press release states that the previous policy of the DoD allowed for the granting of the honorable service determination “after 'as little a[s] a few days in boot camp…”

Part of the purpose of the second change is to align the honorable service policies for non-citizens with those for citizens. The DoD stated that “[i]t doesn't make a whole lot of sense for us to wait to give a characterization of service for [U.S. citizens] at 180 days, but for non-U.S. citizens … well short of 180 days.” Accordingly, under the new rule, non-citizens will always be required to complete basic military training and 180 days of service for a characterization of service determination.

For those serving in reserve components, the requirements for a characterization of service determination will be to finish basic military training and have served for “one satisfactory federal year.” The DoD explained that this would include the requirements that “[t]he individual drilled successfully, he achieved all of his points, he did two weeks of annual training and achieved one good federal year.” Provided that these requirements are met, the DoD would provide the form indicating honorable service that the individual could include in his or her application packet to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

In conclusion, the DoD explained that it is changing its policies “because some individuals received citizenship before background investigations were completed.” For those who received screenings that would now be considered inadequate — citizens and non-citizens alike — the DoD will nullify any resulting certifications and re-certify after the new screenings are completed.

The DoD statement does not provide an update on the continuing status of MAVNI besides introducing new general screening requirements. We hope that the changes represent the beginning of a process that will address those enrolled in MAVNI who have carefully followed the program requirements and who represent no security risk. We will update the website with more information on MAVNI 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

Christopher Wray Confirmed as 8th FBI Director

On August 1, 2017, by a vote of 92-5, the United States Senate confirmed Christopher Wray as the eighth Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Wray will take over from Andrew McCabe, who served for three months in an acting capacity subsequent to the termination of former Director James Comey.

Wray, aged 50, has extensive experience in both the Department of Justice (DOJ) and in private practice. Wray joined the DOJ in 1997 as an Assistant U.S. Attorney. In 2001, he moved to the DOJ in Washington DC. From 2003-2005, Wray served as Assistant Attorney General in Charge of the Criminal Division, a position also requiring Senate confirmation [PDF version].

Since leaving the DOJ in 2005, Wray has worked in private practice, spending more than a decade focusing on corporate litigation at the law firm King & Spaulding.[1] Wray also worked recently as counsel for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.[2]

Wray graduated from Yale Law School in 1992. He clerked for one year for former Judge J. Michael Luttig of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

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. Noble, Andrea. “Senate confirms Christopher Wray as FBI director in 92-5 vote.” The Washington Times. Aug. 1, 2017. Washingtontimes.com
2. Livio, Susan. “Trump picks Christopher Wray, Christie's Bridgegate lawyer, to run FBI.” Nj.com. Jun. 7, 2017. Nj.com

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

ICE Enters Into 287(g) Agreements With 18 Texas Counties

On July 31, 2017, the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced that it had signed 18 new agreements throughout Texas under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) [PDF version].

Section 287(g) of the INA allows the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to enter into a written agreement with a State or a political subdivision of a State to permit local authorities to perform the functions of Federal immigration officers in cooperation with the DHS. The use of section 287(g) agreements was curtailed in the latter half of the Obama Administration. However, President Donald Trump issued two executive orders on immigration enforcement on January 25, 2017, which called for the expansion of the use of section 287(g), and former Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly issued implementing memoranda on February 20, 2017 [see article].

The DHS news release explains that the 18 new section 287(g) agreements brings the total number to 60. It explains that between 2012 and 2016, it only entered into six new 287(g) agreements. The 60 agreements in place now “is nearly double the number of active programs in 2016.”

The DHS listed the 18 Texas counties that entered into 287(g) agreements on July 31:

• Aransas County;
• Calhoun County;
• Chambers County;
• DeWitt County;
• Galveston County;
• Goliad County;
• Jackson County;
• Lavaca County;
• Lubbock County;
• Matagorda County;
• Montgomery County;
• Refugio County;
• Smith County;
• Victoria County;
• Walker County;
• Waller County; and
• Wharton County.

It is worth noting that these 18 counties in Texas join Carrollton County, where the police department already had a section 287(g) agreement with the DHS.

Previously, Harris County, which contains Houston, had a 287(g) agreement with the DHS. However, the Sheriff of Harris County opted out of the 287(g) program on February 22, 2017 [see blog].

The DHS explained in the news release that each of its current 287(g) agreements “operate under a jail enforcement model, which operates solely within the confines of a jail.” This means that it only affects aliens who were arrested by local law enforcement on criminal charges and brought to the jail facility.

Please see our full article for a list of current section 287(g) agreements [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

USCIS Introduces New Mobile Filing Option for Form I-90, Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card

On July 25, 2017, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that it created a new option for lawful permanent residents (LPRs) seeking to file an online Form I-90, Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card [PDF version].

The USCIS will now allow LPRs who file an online Form I-90 to do so and upload evidence entirely on a mobile device. It also redesigned the online Form I-90 to make site navigation easier.

This new option is for those filing the Form I-90 online without assistance. The USCIS explains that customers who are filing the Form I-90 with the assistance of an attorney or accredited representative should use the previous version of the online Form I-90.

It is important to remember that the Form I-90 online or offline comes with a $455 application fee (as of July 26, 2017). For this reason and others, LPRs are well advised to take every precaution practicable to avoid loss of their Green Cards. If an LPR has any questions about replacing a lost Green Card or other immigration issues, he or she may opt to 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

Senators Lindsey Graham and Dick Durbin Introduce Dream Act of 2017

INTRODUCTION

Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) are co-sponsoring a new version of the “Dream Act.” On July 20, 2017, they released a section-by-section breakdown of their proposed legislation [PDF version]. In this post, we will briefly examine the proposed legislation and its long-term prospects for becoming law.

UNDERSTANDING THE PROPOSAL

The Dream Act of 2017 would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to cancel removal and grant conditional lawful permanent resident status to select individuals in the United States who are either inadmissible or deportable or who are in Temporary Protected Status (TPS).

In order to qualify for benefits under the Dream Act of 2017, the individual would have to have been continuously physically present in the United States for four years preceding the date of its enactment. The individual would have to have been 17 years old or younger upon the date of his or her initial entry into the United States. The individual would have to be admitted into college, or have graduated high school, or have obtained a GED or high school equivalency diploma, or be enrolled in secondary school, or be enrolled in a program for obtaining a high school diploma or passing a GED or equivalent exam.

Certain criminal convictions or inadmissibility grounds would bar benefits under the Dream Act of 2017. However, the Secretary of Homeland Security would have the authority to waive the inadmissibility bars on a case-by-case basis.

Individuals maintaining DACA status would be eligible for conditional permanent resident status provided that they did not engage in conduct that would make them ineligible for DACA.

The Dream Act of 2017 would also stay the removal of children who are at least five years of age but still too young to apply for benefits until they children become old enough to apply for benefits.

Conditional permanent residence granted under the Dream Act of 2017 would be valid for a period of eight years. Such status could be revoked if the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that the individual no longer qualifies.

Conditions on permanent residency would be removed provided that the beneficiary met certain requirements. First, the beneficiary would have to not run afoul of the criminal or inadmissibility bars to Dream Act relief. Secondly, the beneficiary would have to meet certain educational, military service, or employment benchmarks. Thirdly, the beneficiary would have to demonstrate proficiency in English and civics unless he or she cannot due to a disability. The legislation would provide for a limited hardship exception for individuals unable to meet the education, military service, or employment benchmark. Having the conditions removed from permanent residency would be a prerequisite to seeking naturalization.

Finally, the legislation would repeal a provision of law which penalizes states that grant in-state reduced tuition status to aliens who lack legal status in the United States.

PROSPECTS FOR PASSAGE

The Dream Act of 2017 is the latest in several versions of proposed legislation to legalize individuals who were brought to the United States as children.

In September of 2010, the Senate voted on whether to end debate and proceed to a vote on a prior version of the Dream Act in conjunction with other significant and controversial pieces of legislation. On that occasion, although there were 56 senators in favor and 43 opposed, 60 votes were needed to advance the legislation.[1] The failure of the previous iteration of the Dream Act played a role in President Barack Obama's decision to implement a limited version of the same concept in the form of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which was implemented by means of a presidential memorandum and which remains a contested issue to this day [see article].

There are a variety of reasons why the 2010 vote on DACA may not be instructive for today's purposes. Firstly, the composition of the Senate has changed dramatically. At the time of the September vote, the Senate consisted of 59 Democrats and 41 Republicans. Today, the Senate consists of 52 Republicans and 48 Democrats. Furthermore, as we noted, the previous DACA vote was bundled with other legislative proposals that had nothing to do with the immigration laws.

Although Republican Senator Lindsey Graham is a co-sponsor of the legislation, it would still likely face opposition from a large segment of the Republican caucus in the Senate. Furthermore, even if the legislation made it through procedural hurdles in the Senate and ultimately passed, it is unclear whether President Donald Trump would sign it into law. Citing to an unnamed “White House official,” Franco Ordonez of McClatchy reported that President Trump would not support the current version of the legislation, instead favoring an enforcement first approach before addressing legalization.[2] However, considering President Trump's shifting views on dreamers and the absence of official statements from the White House at this time, it would be premature to speculate whether President Trump would sign or kill some version of the Dream Act of 2017.

The more pertinent issue for the time being is the ultimate fate of DACA. Texas, joined by ten other states, has threatened to sue the Trump Administration if it does not put a halt to issuing new DACA permits by September 5, 2017 [see article]. The Trump Administration is weighing how to proceed, but it is worth noting that Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly has reportedly come to the opinion that DACA may not be defendable in court [see blog]. If DACA is either rescinded going forward or struck down by the judiciary, it would likely add momentum to the movement to pass some version of the Dream Act. It is worth noting that Senator Lindsey Graham is of the opinion that DACA may well be illegal, even though he supports its aims.

In either case, the Dream Act of 2017 as proposed by Senators Graham and Durbin is unlikely to become law in its current form. However, with the fate of DACA uncertain and Congressional elections coming in 2018, the issue is well-worth monitoring closely. Senators Graham and Durbin have rekindled the debate with their comprehensive proposal.

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. Allahpundit. “Crash and Burn: Senate Filibusters Reid's DADT/DREAM Act Defense Package, 56/43.” Hotair. (Sep. 21, 2010). Hotair.com
2. Ordonez, Franco. “Trump won't support new plan to save 'Dreamers' from deportation.” McClatchy DC Bureau. (Jul. 19, 2017). Mcclatchydc.com

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

John Kelly Becomes WH Chief of Staff, Elaine C. Duke Becomes Acting Secretary of Homeland Security

On July 28, 2017, President Donald Trump announced via Twitter that the former Secretary of Homeland Security, John F. Kelly, will succeed Reince Preibus as the 25th White House Chief of Staff.

John Kelly was sworn in as Secretary of Homeland Security on January 20, 2017 [see blog]. Although his tenure at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was brief, Secretary Kelly implemented many important polices on border security and interior enforcement [see article]. Kelly's tenure also saw record reductions in illegal crossings of the Southwest Border [see blog].

Effective July 31, 2017, the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, Elaine C. Duke, will assume leadership of the Department in an Acting capacity [link]. Acting Secretary Duke is a career government official with extensive experience at the Department of Homeland Security [see blog]. It remains to be seen whether President Trump will choose a new nominee for Secretary of Homeland Security from outside the DHS or whether he will elevate Secretary Duke or another official who is already in the DHS.

The Secretary of Homeland Security oversees the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Accordingly, the Secretary has significant responsibility for setting immigration policy and immigration enforcement. We will update the site with information regarding the leadership situation at DHS 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

USCIS Returns All FY 2018 Cap-Subject H1B Petitions Not Selected in H1B Lottery

On July 19, 2017, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that it has returned all fiscal year 2018 H1B cap-subject petitions that were not selected in the H1B lottery [PDF version]. The USCIS announced its completion of data entry of all H1B cap-subject petitions selected in the H1B lottery on May 3, 2017 [see blog].

If a petitioner submitted an H1B cap-subject petition between April 3 and April 7, 2017, and has not received a receipt notice or returned petition by July 31, 2017, he or she may contact the USCIS for assistance regarding the situation.

This announcement puts a cap on the H1B lottery process for fiscal year 2017. H1B petitioners should remember that premium processing for H1B petitions remains suspended indefinitely [see article] with very limited exceptions [see article]. To learn more about the H1B nonimmigrant category, please see our full selection of articles and blogs on the subject [see category].

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

Supreme Court Schedules Three Important Immigration Cases for Argument in Early October

On July 19, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States scheduled oral arguments for the beginning of October Term 2017. The first week of the new term will see oral arguments in three important immigration cases [PDF version].

On October 2, 2017, the Supreme Court will hear reargument in Sessons v. Dimaya, No. 15-1498. The Court first heard oral arguments in Dimaya last term, which we covered here on site [see article]. However, instead of deciding the case, the Court rescheduled it for reargument [see article]. Although the Court did not provide a reason, it is possible that the eight justices on the Court at the time could not reach a decision that commanded a majority. With Justice Neil Gorsuch having joined the bench, the Court will have nine justices to consider Dimaya for the second time.

One day later on October 3, 2017, the Court will hear another case for the second time, Jennings v. Rodriguez, No. 15-1204. In Jennings, the Court is considering whether aliens subject to mandatory detention under section 235(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) are entitled to bond hearings with the possibility of release after six months in detention. The Court is also considering the issue for criminal or terrorist aliens who are subject to mandatory detention under section 236(c). Furthermore, the Court is considering what the standard would be for detaining aliens beyond six months. This case was also argued for the first time prior to Justice Gorsuch joining the Court. Accordingly, it is possible that it was rescheduled for argument because the Court being unable to reach an opinion with which five justices agreed. We have not written about this case yet, but we will post more about it as we approach reargument in October.

Finally, on October 10, 2017, the Court will hear oral argument regarding President Donald Trump's Executive Order 13780, and specifically on the portions relating to the suspension of entry of nationals of six countries and the suspension of refugee travel [see article]. The Court consolidated two appeals for oral argument, Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, No. 16-1436 and Trump v. Hawaii, 16-1540. To learn more about the litigation, please see our article on the Court's per curium opinion on the issue from June 26, 2017, wherein it granted certiorari and narrowed the scope of the Fourth and Ninth Circuit injunctions against provisions of the Executive Order.

We will discuss all of these cases going forward, so please continue to check the site for further updates.

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