USCIS Publishes New Edition Of Form I-693 (10/19/17 Edition)

In general, applicants applying for adjustment of status must submit a Form I-693, Report of Medical Examination and Vaccination Record, completed by a designated civil surgeon. This is to ensure that the applicant is not inadmissible on health related grounds found in section 212(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

On November 3, 2017, the USCIS announced that it had released a new edition of the Form I-693 dated 10/19/17. Beginning on January 2, 2018, the USCIS will only accept the 10/19/17 edition of the Form I-693, and will no longer accept the 02/07/17 edition or any prior editions of the Form I-693. The Form I-693, and all other USCIS forms, should be retrieved from the USCIS website.

Please see our full article to learn more about the medical examination requirement for adjustment of Status [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

DHS OIG Finds Troubling Conditions At Several ICE Detention Facilities

INTRODUCTION

On December 11, 2017, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) released an interesting and troubling report titled “Concerns about ICE Detainee Treatment and Care at Detention Facilities.” The DHS OIG report “identified problems that undermine the protection of detainees' rights, their humane treatment, and the provision of a safe and healthy environment” at four detention facilities during unannounced inspections. In this post, we will detail the DHS OIG findings and examine the corrective action that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has begun to undertake.

Our article will be based on the DHS OIG report itself [PDF version]. You may also read the DHS OIG press release on the report which succinctly highlights its key points [PDF version].

ORIGINS AND METHOD OF INVESTIGATION (PAGES 1-3)

The DHS OIG was prompted to investigate conditions at detention facilities “[i]n response to concerns raised by immigrant rights groups and complaints to the [DHS OIG] Hotline about conditions for detainees held in [ICE] custody…” On page two of its report, DHS OIG explained that the ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) “oversees the confinement of detainees in nearly 250 detention facilities that it manages in conjunction with private contractors or state or local governments…” The DHS OIG chose six facilities for unannounced inspections based on its “professional judgment,” identifying those of particular concern “based on [OIG] complaints, reports from non-governmental organizations, and open-source reporting.” The DHS OIG made unannounced visits to the following six detention facilities:

• Hudson County Jail (mixed gender) [PDF version];
• Laredo Processing Center (female-only) [PDF version];
• Otero County Processing Center (male-only) [PDF version];
• Santa Ana City Jail (mixed gender);
• Stewart Detention Center (male-only) [PDF version]; and
• Theo Lacy Facility (male-only) [PDF version].

Of the six, only the Laredo Processing Center, Otero County Processing Center, and Stewart Detention Center are dedicated Intergovernmental Service Agreement (IGSA) facilities. IGSA facilities are state and local facilities operating under an agreement with ICE that hold only ICE detainees.

It is worth noting that DHS OIG released a management alert on the Theo Lacy Facility on March 6, 2017 [PDF version]. You may read that report to learn about serious problems unearthed at that facility. Because DHS OIG had already addressed its findings at the Theo Lacy Facility in detail, this new report focused only on its findings at the other five facilities. Accordingly, this is why we will refer to “five facilities” inspected instead of “six” for the rest of the article.

At each of the six facilities, DHS OIG examined the following:

• Medical units;
• Medical modular housing;
• Kitchen, including food preparation, food storage, and equipment cleaning areas;
• Intake and outtake processing areas;
• Special Management Units (segregation); and
• Modular housing units, including individual cells.

In addition, the DHS OIG “analyzed grievance procedures and evaluated staff-detainee communication practices.”

DHS OIG FINDINGS

On page 3 of the report, DHS OIG set forth its findings. Of the five facilities inspected, DHS OIG stated that only the Laredo Processing Center modeled quality operations. DHS OIG “identified significant issues at the four other facilities.” In the foregoing subsections, we will examine some of the problems found at these four facilities (note, some of the facilities exhibited some of the problems but not others).

INTAKE ISSUES (PAGES 2-3)

First, DHS OIG identified intake issues at several facilities. It explained that, under ICE policy, incoming detainees are supposed to be classified according to their crimes. Based on “verifiable and documented information,” a detainee may be classified as high- or low-risk. The purpose of this classification system is to separate high- and low-risk detainees in the facility. DHS OIG found that the Stewart Detention Center had misclassified incoming detainees with high-risk criminal convictions as low-risk, thus placing them with low-risk detainees. These errors were due to staff at the facility assigning some incoming detainees without having received their criminal history reports.

DHS OIG also found that Stewart Detention Center, a male-only facility, did not have enough male personnel to pat down detainees. The staff attempted to compensate by using alternative measures, “such as a magnetometer wand.” However, DHS OIG noted that these alternative measures would not suffice for identifying non-metallic items, drugs, or other contraband.

DHS OIG found that the Santa Ana City Jail had a policy of performing strip searches on all incoming detainees. Furthermore, the staff did not document the strip searches in detainee files. DHS OIG noted two concerns. First, a uniform strip search policy for all detainees contravenes ICE policy, which permits strip searches only in limited cases where there is “reasonable suspicion” based on “specific and articulable facts that would lead a reasonable officer to believe that a specific detainee is in possession of contraband.” Second, because the staff did not document the strip searches, there is no way to determine which searches were justified based on standing ICE policy.

LANGUAGE BARRIERS (PAGES 3-5)

DHS OIG encountered several failures in providing language assistance to non-English speaking detainees at facilities it visited.

First, under ICE policy, detainees are supposed to receive the ICE National Detainee Handbook and a local handbook for the facility. At three of the four problem facilities, DHS OIG found that detainees were not always provided with handbooks in a language they could understand. These handbooks contain important information, “such as the grievance system, services and programs, medical care, and access to legal counsel.” DHS OIG noted that this interpretation failure “could prevent detainees from fully comprehending basic facility rules and procedures.”

DHS OIG noted that language barriers at the procedures also prevented detainees from understanding medical staff. It found that medical staff did not always use language translation services when dealing with detainees who did not speak English. Furthermore, “[s]ome medical consent forms were not always available in Spanish, and staff did not always explain the English forms to non-English speaking detainees.”

GRIEVANCE SYSTEM (PAGE 5)

The ICE has procedures in place for detainees to file formal grievances. The DHS OIG explained that the resolution of grievances “depends on facility staff properly handling and addressing grievances without deterrents…” Unfortunately, DHS OIG identified deterrents at several of the facilities it inspected. Some detainees interviewed by DHS OIG “reported that staff obstructed or delayed their grievances or intimidated them, through fear of retaliation, into not complaining.”

DHS OIG provided a couple of specific examples of issues it identified. At the Stewart Detention Center, it “found an inconsistent and insufficiently documented grievance resolution process.” This made it difficult, if not impossible in some cases, to ascertain if grievances had actually been investigated and whether they had been properly resolved.

DHS OIG explained that detainees are supposed to have access to telephones to make free calls to the DHS OIG. However, the Otero County Processing Center had non-working telephones in the detainee processing areas. When investigators at the Stewart Detention Center tried to call the DHS OIG Hotline, they “received a message that the number was restricted.”

IMPROPER TREATMENT OF DETAINEES (PAGE 6)

In general, detainees at the Laredo Processing Center “were generally positive about staff treating them with respect.” However, detainees at the other four facilities “alleged poor treatment…”

DHS OIG was able to corroborate detainee complaints at the Santa Ana City Jail concerning an incident when a guard yelled at detainees for several minutes and threatened to lock the detainees down. Several detainees at the Stewart Detention Center “reported that staff sometimes interrupted or delayed Muslim prayer times.”

POTENTIAL MISUSE OF SEGREGATION (PAGE 6-7)

Staff at detention facilities may separate detainees from the general population and place them in either disciplinary segregation or administrative segregation. This may be done for a number of reasons, “including violations of facility rules, risk of violence, or to protect them from other detainees.” DHS OIG reported that most, but not all, of the cases it examined involved administrative segregation.

DHS OIG found that the Otero County Processing Center, Stewart Detention Center, and Santa Ana Jail had violated policies regarding segregation and lock-down of detainees. Among the issues, DHS OIG found that staff at these facilities “did not always tell detainees why they were being segregated, nor did they always communicate detainees' rights in writing or provide appeal forms for those put in punitive lock-down or segregation.” The DHS OIG found that these facilities, in some instances, put detainees in segregation or lock-down “without adequate documentation in the detainee's file to justify the disciplinary action.” In one troubling report, it found that a detainee was locked down in his cell for multiple days “for sharing coffee with another detainee.” Several detainees were held in administrative segregation without required periodic reviews.

Finally, DHS OIG found that documentation of daily medical visits and meal records for detainees held in segregation was often missing or incomplete.

While DHS OIG noted that some of these issues may be the result of mere inadequate documentation, it added that “they could also indicate more serious problems with potential misuse of segregation.”

MEDICAL CARE ISSUES (PAGE 7)

DHS OIG noted that all five facilities provided health care services, as required. However, “some detainees at the Santa Ana City Jail and the Stewart Detention Center reported long waits for the provision of medical care, including instances of detainees with painful conditions…” Furthermore, DHS OIG found that “not all medical requests detainees claimed they submitted or the outcomes were documented in detainee files or facility medical files.”

LACK OF CLEANLINESS AND LIMITED HYGIENIC SUPPLIES (PAGE 7)

DHS OIG found that detainee bathrooms at the Otero County Processing Center and Stewart Detention Center were in poor condition. Additionally, “detainees reported water leaks in some housing areas.”

Detainees at the Hudson County Jail and Stewart Detention Center complained about the lack of basic hygienic supplies, “such as toilet paper, shampoo, soap, lotion, and toothpaste…” One detainee stated that when they used up their internal supply of certain personal items, they were advised to purchase more at the facility commissary. Under ICE policy, personal hygiene items are required to be replenished as needed.

POTENTIALLY UNSAFE FOOD HANDLING (PAGE 8)

The DHS OIG identified several problems with food handling and food safety at four of the facilities. Among these problems, they “observed spoiled, wilted, and moldy produce and other food in kitchen refrigerators, as well as food past its expiration date.”

RECOMMENDATIONS AND ICE RESPONSE (PAGE 8-14)

DHS OIG recommended that ICE “ensure that [ERO] field offices that oversee the detention facilities covered in this report develop a process for ICE field offices to conduct specific reviews of these areas of operations: detainee classification, use of language services, use of segregation and disciplinary actions, compliance with grievance procedures, and detainee care including facility conditions.”

ICE concurred with the report recommendations. DHS OIG found that ICE's response “addresses the intent of the recommendation.” ICE has stated that it has begun taking corrective actions. DHS OIG will leave the recommendation open “until ICE provides evidence it has integrated special assessments of the operational areas identified as concerns.”

In an interesting note, ICE discontinued its contract with the Santa Ana Jail in early 2017. Accordingly, detainees are no longer housed at the Santa Ana Jail.

CONCLUSION

ICE has the responsibility of protecting the rights of detainees and ensuring that they are treated humanely when they are in immigration detention. The report described troubling examples of violations of detainee rights and inhumane treatment at four of five facilities examined. It is certainly encouraging to see that ICE responded favorably to the report's findings and recommendations. However, it will be important to monitor going forward whether ICE, and ERO specifically, take the necessary corrective action to ensure that the mistreatment of detainees found at several of their detention facilities is not repeated or on-going elsewhere.

An alien who is in detention or otherwise facing immigration charges should seek to consult with an experienced immigration attorney immediately. Please see our website's sections on Removal and Deportation Defense [see category] and Immigration Detention [see category] to learn more about relevant 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.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Immigration And Border Security In The Trump National Security Strategy Document

INTRODUCTION

On December 18, 2017, the Executive Branch released the National Security Strategy of the United States of America [PDF version]. In this document, the Trump Administration articulated its national security policy and objectives going forward. The new National Security Strategy document represents a departure from the points of emphasis in the previous 2015 National Security Strategy document issued by the Obama Administration.

In this article, we will examine the new National Security Strategy document's inclusion of immigration and border security. Although the discussion of these issues in the document are in line with the previously articulated positions of the Trump Administration, their inclusion in the National Security Strategy gives an indication of how the Trump Administration sees immigration issues in the context of national security. Additionally, we will compare the language in the 2017 National Security Strategy on these points with the language used in the 2015 National Security Strategy issued by the Obama Administration [PDF version].

PREFACE: STATEMENTS FROM PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP

Before examining the text of the new National Security Strategy itself, it is worth examining statements from the head of the Executive Branch, President Donald Trump.

The National Security Document begins with a letter from President Trump (see pages 3-4 of the PDF). In his letter, President Trump took the position that, prior to his taking office, “porous borders and unenforced immigration laws had created a host of vulnerabilities.” This mention of immigration policy contrasts with the letter issued by then-President Barack Obama along with the 2015 National Security Strategy, wherein President Obama stated that “[w]e continue to attract immigrants from every corner of the world who renew our country with their energy and entrepreneurial talents.” President Trump's statement highlighted dangers stemming from inadequate enforcement of immigration laws, whereas then-President Obama's statement highlighted benefits of immigration.

In the conclusion of his letter, President Trump stated that “[w]e are now enforcing our borders … and defending America's sovereignty without apology.” On site, we have highlighted some of the significant changes that the Trump Administration has made to immigration policy in its first year [see article].

President Trump also gave a speech to mark the completion of the National Security Strategy [PDF version]. You may also watch the President's remarks here.

The vast majority of President Trump's remarks focused on issues other than those involving immigration. However, he devoted a couple of sections of his remarks to immigration policy and, notably, border security.

In his speech, President Trump stated that, “over the profound objections of the American people, our politicians left our borders wide open.” He criticized lax enforcement that allowed illegal entries and the admission of millions without proper vetting. In a harsh critique of prior policy, President Trump stated that “[l]eaders in Washington imposed on the country an immigration policy that Americans never voted for, never asked for, and never approved — a policy where the wrong people are allowed into our country and the right people are rejected.” Interestingly, the final point could be read as a nod to a merit-based system for employment immigration, which President Trump had previously expressed support for, albeit along with support for overall cuts to legal immigration [see blog].

Later in his remarks, President Trump put border security in the context of his broader view of national security. He stated that “[t]his strategy recognizes that we cannot secure the nation if we do not secure our borders.” This, he explained, was why the National Security Strategy “includes a serious plan to defend our borders.” To this effect, President Trump explained that the National Security Strategy calls for:

• The construction of a wall on the southern border;
• Ending chain migration and the “horrible” visa lottery programs;
• Closing loopholes that undermine enforcement; and
• Strongly supporting our Border Patrol agents.

Finally, President Trump extolled his administration's establishment of “strict new vetting procedures to keep terrorists out of the United States,” adding that “our vetting is getting tougher each month.”

THE NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY ON IMMIGRATION

The National Security Strategy itself addresses various immigration related issues. We will examine each of its significant points about immigration and border security in the forthcoming sections.

NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY SECTION ON BORDER CONTROL AND IMMIGRATION POLICY

On page 9 of the National Security Strategy, the Trump Administration included a section titled “Strengthen Border Control and Immigration Policy.” Here, the National Security Strategy states that “[s]trengthening control over our borders and immigration system is central to the national security, economic prosperity, and the rule of law.” This statement is notable in that it frames border security explicitly as a matter of national security.

The section also distinguishes legal immigration (“[t]he United States understands the contributions immigrants have made to our Nation throughout its history”) from illegal immigration (“[illegal immigration] burdens the economy, hurts American works, presents public safety risks, and enriches smugglers and other criminals”).

The section states that “[t]he United States affirms our sovereign right to determine who should enter our country and under what circumstances.” The emphasis on sovereignty is notable in light of the recent litigation surrounding travel restrictions imposed on nationals of certain countries and refugees. The section affirms that “[t]he United States will continue to welcome lawful immigrants who do not pose a security threat and whose entry is consistent with the national interest…” However, the statement adds that the United States will “enhance[] the screening and vetting of travelers, close[] dangerous loopholes, revis[e] outdated laws[,] and eliminat[e] easily exploited vulnerabilities.”

The section concludes by stating the immigration reform objectives of the Executive Branch, including that randomized entry (the diversity visa lottery) and extended-family chain migration are “contrary to our national interest.” The National Security Strategy adds that “[r]esidency and citizenship determinations should be based on individuals' merits and their ability to positively contribute to U.S. society, rather than chance or extended family connections.” This statement thus alludes to the concept of “merit-based” immigration reforms.

The document then lists four “priority actions” for implementing the new national security strategy on border control and immigration policy.

The first priority action is to “enhance border security.” This section lists several measures, such as “the construction of a border wall, the use of multilayered defense and advanced technology, the employment of additional personnel, and other measures.” Additionally, it states that the United States will work with foreign partners to “deter, detect, and disrupt suspicious individuals well before they enter the United States.”

The second priority action is to “enhance vetting.” The National Security Strategy itself does not contain many specifics on enhancing vetting. However, we have discussed some of the work already done on this issue by the Trump Administration in previous posts, most pertinently in our article on President Trump's September 24, 2017 Presidential Proclamation [see article].

The third priority action is to “enforce immigration laws.” Here, the National Security Strategy takes the position that the enforcement of immigration laws at the border and in the interior “provide an effective deterrent to illegal immigration.” It adds that “[t]he apprehension and swift removal of illegal aliens at the border is critical to an effective border security strategy.” This provision also calls for an increase in efforts “to identify and counter fraud in the immigration process, which undermines the integrity of our immigration system, exploits vulnerable individuals, and creates national security risks.”

The fourth priority action is to “bolster transportation security.” Here, the Trump Administration states that it will improve information sharing across the government and with foreign partners “to enhance the security of the pathways through which people and goods enter the country.” This provision alludes to the construction of a biometric entry-exit system, which remains under development by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

PLACING BORDER SECURITY IN THE CONTEXT OF NATIONAL SECURITY

There are several other points at which the National Security Strategy places border security in the context of national security.

On page 7 of the National Security Strategy document, the proposition is advanced that “[r]eestablishing lawful control of our borders is a first step toward protecting the American homeland and strengthening American sovereignty.” Here, we find two points of import. First, border security is put in the context of protecting the United States from attacks. Second, it is placed in the context of strengthening American sovereignty. As we noted earlier, the National Security Strategy also sees affirming the right of the United States to determine who may enter and under what terms as a central national security issue.

COMPARING TO THE 2015 NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY

The 2015 National Security Strategy document of the Obama Administration placed far less emphasis on border security and the immigration laws in the context of national security.

On page 15 of the 2015 National Security Strategy, the Obama Executive Branch stated that “[i]mmigration reform that combines smart and effective enforcement of the law with a pathway to citizenship for those who earn it remains an imperative.” Regarding “smart and effective enforcement of the law,” it is important to note that the 2015 National Security Strategy also called for the legalization of certain aliens in the United States illegally, and it was published shortly after the issuance of the Obama Administration's civil enforcement priorities and its now-defunct DAPA program. This issue was not addressed in the 2017 National Security Strategy.

Border security was also addressed differently in the 2015 National Security Strategy. On page 8, border security was discussed solely in the context of guarding against terrorism, illicit networks, and other threats and hazards. On page 28, the 2015 National Security Strategy alluded to conditions in Central America as causing “[m]igration surges involving unaccompanied children across our southern border…” The 2015 National Security Strategy described it as “one major consequence of weak institutions in violence.” Although the 2017 National Security Strategy addresses border security in these contexts as well, it focuses heavily on illegal immigration and the effect that domestic policy has on illegal immigration and border security issues.

CONCLUSION

Although none of the statements on immigration in the National Security Strategy or from President Trump discussing the National Security Strategy breaks new ground, they are significant in that they show how the Trump Administration places immigration and border security in the context of the national security of the United States. Even absent other policy differences, the focus on immigration and border security as national security issues makes for a departure from the Obama Administration.

The policy pronouncements in the National Security Strategy document include matters that the Trump Administration may undertake on its own (e.g., setting enforcement priorities and posture) and those it would need Congress to authorize (e.g., construction of a border wall, ending the diversity lottery). As always, it remains to be seen how the Trump Administration's immigration policies, and overall national security posture, will develop as it closes its first year in power.

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

Encouraging Point on Israel in the Trump National Security Strategy Document

On December 18, 2017, the Trump Administration released its National Security Strategy document [PDF version]. In a separate post, I examined its points discussing border security and immigration in detail [see blog]. Here, I will step away from immigration policy for a moment to examine an interesting paragraph from the National Security Strategy that concerned U.S. policy toward Israel.

On page 49 of the National Security Strategy, the document stated as follows:

“For generations the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has been understood as the prime irritant preventing peace and prosperity in the region. Today, the threats from jihadist terrorist organizations and the threat from Iran are creating the realization that Israel is not the cause of the region's problems. States have increasingly found common interests with Israel in confronting common threats.”

The National Security Strategy document is indeed correct in noting that many nations have created and implemented policies predicated upon the assumption that tumult in the Middle East stems from the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. This view that the conflict between the Israel and the Palestinians is a, if not the, central source of instability in the Middle East has influenced American foreign policy for seven decades. It is for this reason that the simple statement of the fact, “Israel is not the cause of the region's problems,” represents a significant rethinking of U.S. policy in the Middle East by the Trump Administration.

The National Security Strategy document correctly observes that the true sources of instability in the Middle East are terrorist organizations and Iran. It also correctly recognizes that several states in the region — most notably the Gulf monarchies — have strengthened their clandestine ties with Israel in order to confront the serious mutual threat posed by Iran.

In addition to leading to poor policy with regard to Israel, the distorted notion about the import of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has necessarily also distorted U.S. policy throughout the region. The Middle East is riddled with Islamist groups, terrorism, sectarian conflict, and other forms civil discord and instability. Thus, while Israel's neighbors make little secret of their distaste for the Jewish people and Jewish state, a foreign policy based upon the premise that the problems in the Middle East stem from this issue has been demonstrably unsuccessful.

In his recent recognition that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, President Trump bucked the foreign policy consensus even before his National Security Strategy came out. I explained why his announcement was such a welcome move in a recent post [see blog]. In the aftermath, we have found, contrary to the dire warnings of American foreign policy “experts,” media outlets, and Obama Administration alums that the Middle East is no less unstable than it was before. The protests of the Arab states have been unsurprisingly meek and understated, and the reason is clear — Israel's neighbors have far more important concerns of their own than those involving Palestinians in Israel.

Both the new National Security Strategy and the recognition of Jerusalem represent the seeds of a new Middle East policy based on the truth. While there are still many concerns and issues regarding U.S. foreign policy in the region, December has been a month of hope for those of us hoping to see a new beginning in the U.S.-Israel relationship and the posture of the United States in the Middle East in general.

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

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen Announces New VWP Security Enhancements

On December 15, 2017, Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen announced that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will implement new security measures for the Visa Waiver Program [PDF version]. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) worked with the Department of State (DOS) and other relevant agencies to develop the new VWP enhancements. In this article, we will outline the new changes announced by Secretary Nielsen.

The DHS explains that it will implement the following security changes:

First, the DHS will require all VWP countries “to fully implement existing information sharing arrangements by systematically screening travelers crossing their respective borders against U.S. counterterrorism information.”

Second, the DHS will perform assessments of VWP countries “on the effectiveness of safeguards against insider threats in the aviation security environment.”

Third and finally, VWP countries with a two percent or greater overstay rates of business or tourism nonimmigrant visitors will be required “to initiate a public information campaign to reduce overstay violations by educating their nationals on the conditions for admission into the United States.” Anna Giartelli of the Washington Examiner reported that four VWP countries have overstay rates of two percent or more for business or tourism visitors: Portugal, Greece, Hungary, and San Marino [link].[1]

The DHS explained that it will develop “targeted engagement plans” to support the implementation of these new security measures. The DHS added that it has determined that these security enhancements “will not hinder lawful trade and travel.” Accordingly, the DHS does not expect that the changes will have a negative effect on those using the VWP.

The DHS also asked Congress to codify existing VWP requirements to enhance VWP security in the following areas (quoted):

• Reporting of foreign terrorist fighter information to multinational organizations, such as INTERPOL and EUROPOL;
• Systematically collecting and analyzing passenger travel data (Advance Passenger Information/Passenger Name Records); and
• Concluding arrangements to permit U.S. Federal Air Marshals to operate onboard U.S. air carriers for last point of departure flights to the United States.

We will update the website with new developments on the VWP and other related issues. To learn about travel visas and the VWP in general, please see the full category on our website [see category].

To learn about the new Secretary of Homeland Security, Kirstjen Nielsen, please see our blog on her confirmation [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. Giaritelli, Anna. “Trump administration rolls out global campaign to combat those who overstay their visas in the US.” Washington Examiner. Dec. 15, 2017. washingtonexaminer.com

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

USCIS Publishes New Edition of Form I-821, Application for Temporary Protected Status (10/19/17 Edition)

In important news for applicants for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and current beneficiaries, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that it has published a new edition of the Form I-821, Application for Temporary Protected Status.

The new edition of the Form I-821 is dated 10/19/17. Until December 30, 2017, applicants may use the new edition, the 12/23/16 edition, or the 02/20/14 edition. However, starting on December 30, USCIS will only accept the new 10/19/17 edition of the Form I-821. It is important for applicants and attorneys to ensure that the correct edition of the Form I-821 is being used.

The Form I-821, and all other USCIS forms, may be retrieved from the USCIS website. The USCIS website includes all current editions of forms and information and form updates.

Those who need more information or guidance about Temporary Protected Status should consult with an experienced immigration attorney for case-specific guidance. To learn more about Temporary Protected Status, please see our full selection of articles 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

Seven New Immigration Judges Begin Service

On November 6, 2017, the Department of Justice's (DOJ's) Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) announced the investiture of seven new immigration judges [PDF version]. Each of the seven new immigration judges was appointed by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The new immigration judges will sit on five different immigration courts across the country. The San Francisco Immigration Court and San Antonio Immigration Court each have two new judges.

Marcus Gemoets now serves on the Houston Immigration Court. Immigration Judge Gemoets' legal experience came in private practice. Notably, he served as director of immigration services for the Catholic Charities, Archdiocese of San Antonio from 2003-2006.

Bridget Virchis serves on the Los Angeles Immigration Court. Immigration Judge Virchis has extensive experience in government. She served in various capacities as an attorney for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from 2008-2017.

The San Francisco Immigration Court is welcoming two new judges. First, Jeremiah Johnson began hearing cases in October of 2017. Immigration Judge Johnson has experience in both private practice and in government. Notably, he served as an asylum officer at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from 2016-2017. Second, Illyce S. Shugall also began hearing cases at the San Francisco Immigration Court in October 2017. Immigration Judge Shugall has extensive experience in private practice. She served as directing attorney for the immigration program at Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto from 2012-2017.

The San Antonio Immigration Court also sat two new judges. Yvonne S. Gonzalez began hearing cases at the San Antonio Immigration Court in October 2017. Most of Immigration Judge Gonzalez's experience came as a prosecutor. Most recently, she served as a criminal assistant U.S. attorney in San Antonio from 2012-2016. Cynthia A. Lafuente-Gaona will begin hearing cases in November 2017. Immigration Judge Lafuente-Gaona had served as a congressional staffer in the office of Congressman Henry Cuellar since 2005. From 2011, she was chief of staff and counsel to Congressman Cuellar. She has also worked in private practice and, prior to joining the staff of Congressman Cuellar, she was a state prosecutor.

Finally, Dinesh C. Verma will begin hearing cases at the Philadelphia Immigration Court in November 2017. Immigration Judge Verma worked in private practice. From 1998-99, he served as a judicial law clerk at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

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

My Thoughts On President Trump's Recognition Of Jerusalem As The Capital Of Israel

On December 6, 2017, President Donald Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in a historic address. You may watch his speech here. 

At about the three minute mark, President Trump provided a clear statement on the sovereignty of the State of Israel:

“Israel is a sovereign nation with the right, like every other sovereign nation, to determine its own capital. Acknowledging this is as a fact is a necessary condition for achieving peace.”

After noting that previous presidents had declined to acknowledge that Israel had a capital at all, at about the 5:30 mark of the video President Trump provided the statement that many of us have been hoping to hear for years:

“But today, we finally acknowledge the obvious: that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. This is nothing more, or less, than a recognition of reality. It is also the right thing to do.”

However, President Trump did not only recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, he also announced the commencement of the process of moving the United States Embassy from Tel Aviv to the capital of Israel (see 5:50):

“[C]onsistent with the Jerusalem Embassy Act, I am also directing the State Department to begin preparation to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.”

Throughout his speech, President Trump took the position that the recognition of reality — that Jerusalem is, in fact, the legitimate and only capital of Israel — could further the peace process. Both the President and officials from his administration have explained that the peace process must be based on reality. President Trump is correct in understanding that allowing the Palestinian side to maintain the fiction that the status of all of Jerusalem is subject to negotiation hinders, rather than advances, the peace process.

At about the 6:45 mark, the President stated that the United States is not taking a position on any final status issues, “including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem.” While President Trump did not purport to recognize Jerusalem as the “undivided” capital of Israel, he made clear that any agreement regarding Jerusalem or other final status issues must be acceptable to both sides, which seems to suggest that he does not intend to endeavoring to impose terms on Israel, which is steadfast in its position that it will never accept a divided Israel. Nevertheless, at about 7:30, President Trump stated that the United States would support a two-state solution “if agreed to by both sides.”

Eugene Kontorovich, a noted scholar in international law at Northwestern, made an interesting point in noting that “[President] Trump's statement makes it clear the 'Jerusalem' he is recognizing is the one with the Western Wall [and] Temple Mount in it.”

On the same day as his speech, President Trump issued a proclamation titled “Presidential Proclamation Recognizing Jerusalem as the Capital of the State of Israel and Relocating the United States Embassy to Israel to Jerusalem” [PDF version]. The Proclamation constitutes President Trump's official statement recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and directing the State Department to begin the process of building a new U.S. Embassy building in Jerusalem. The Proclamation concluded:

In response to the news, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a statement hailing the decision. You may watch the statement below here.

The Prime Minister began (from the top of the video):

“Jerusalem has been the capital of the Jewish people for 3,000 years. It's been the capital of Israel for 70 years. It was here that our temples stood, our kings ruled, our prophets preached. Jerusalem has been the focus of our hopes, our dreams, our prayers for three millennia. From every corner of the earth, our people yearned to return to Jerusalem, to touch its golden stones, to walk its hallowed streets. So it's rare to be able to speak of new and genuine milestones in the glorious history of this city. Yet today's pronouncement by President Trump is such an occasion. We're profoundly grateful for the President and his courageous and just decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and prepare for the opening of the U.S. Embassy here.”

The Prime Minister concluded his remarks, speaking for many of us (at 2:05):

“President Trump, thank you for today's historic decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. The Jewish people and the Jewish state will be forever grateful.”

Predictably, the reaction to President Trump's recognition of a basic fact has been the hysterical response from many of his detractors both here and abroad, including those who are historically predisposed to oppose the concept of Israeli sovereignty. Fortunately, at the United Nations, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, delivered a forceful and articulate defense of President Trump's decision [see here].

Furthermore, there are signs that, despite the negative reaction from the Middle East and western Europe, President Trump's courageous decision may open the door for others to follow. After his announcement, the Czech Republic recognized “West Jerusalem” as the capital of Israel. Czech President Milos Zeman stated the following:

“[President] Trump's decision makes me happy because when I visited Israel four years ago, I said I would like to transfer the embassy, and if that happens, we will be the first to do so.”[1]

Credit must be given to President Trump for having the courage to do what his predecessors in office did not. Furthermore, we must note that he reportedly faced stiff opposition from some members of his own cabinet in making this historic and just decision. Nearly a year ago, I posted a blog sharply criticizing then-President Obama's decision to abandon Israel at the United Nations with less than a month to go in his presidency [see blog]. I expressed the hope that then-President Elect Trump would move quickly to undo the damage. While there is still much to do, President Trump and Ambassador Haley took a bold step not only to reverse the damage done to U.S.-Israeli relations by the previous administration, but also to right a historic wrong. In doing so, as they both explained, they have made the prospect of a lasting peace in Israel more tangible than it has ever been before.

What work is left to do? I will offer my thoughts on three points.

First, it was encouraging to see President Trump begin the process of moving the Embassy from Tel Aviv to Israel's capital. Statements from the administration have suggested that the process may take years due to their determination to build a new building to house the embassy. However, it is important that this process proceed expeditiously in order to turn words of progress into reality.

Second, despite President Trump's proclamation, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) subsequently announced that it will not change its policy of not listing “Israel” on passports as the birthplace for those born in Jerusalem. The implementation of this policy was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2015 in Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 135 S.Ct 2076 (2015) [PDF version]. Writing for himself and four colleagues, Justice Anthony Kennedy stated that “[r]ecognition is a topic on which the Nation must 'speak … with one voice.'” Id. at 2086. I hope that President Trump soon makes clear that the United States has officially recognized that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and that the Executive Branch implement this policy in full with one voice.

Finally, Prime Minister Netanyahu has expressed optimism that other countries will follow President Trump in recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital and moving their own embassies. This would be a remarkable testament to Prime Minister Netanyahu's leadership efforts to in improve Israel's standing in the international arena. With hope, other countries will be encouraged by President Trump's decision to do the right thing and recognize that Israel, as a sovereign nation, has the right to choose its own capital.

I recognize that many disagree with President Trump's policies, find his character disagreeable, and think that he has been a poor president. While I consider myself supportive of many of his policies, I too have disagreements, such as with some of his administration's decisions on immigration policy [see blog]. However, as conservative commentator Ben Shapiro — who notably did not vote for President Trump — has said, it is important to recognize when the President makes a good decision. In recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital, President Trump made one of the most important and just foreign policy decisions in recent memory. Those who have supported Israel sovereignty should not shy away from praising the move because it was made by President Trump, but should instead applaud the move because it was the right thing to do. I echo Prime Minister Netanyahu in expressing gratitude to President Trump for keeping his promise to the American and Israeli people.

For those who are interested, please see my blog post on Jerusalem Day from last May [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. Ariel, Ben. “Czech President hints: We could move embassy to Jerusalem.” Arutz Sheva 7. Dec. 8, 2017. israelnationalnews.com

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

President Trump Nominates Alex Azar to be Next Secretary of Health and Human Services

On November 13, 2017, President Donald Trump announced on Twitter that he is nominating Alex Azar to be the next Secretary of Health and Human Services.

If confirmed, Azar will succeed Tom Price, who resigned as Secretary of Health and Human Services in September. The Department of Health and Human Services includes the Office of Refugee Resettlement, giving it a role in the U.S. immigration system [PDF version].

Azar has extensive experience in the private and public sectors. From 2007 to January 2017, Azar served in various capacities with the pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly and Company. During the administration of President George W. Bush, Azar served as general counsel for Health and Human Services from 2001 to 2005 and as Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services from 2005 to 2007 [link].[1] Prior to his service in government, Azar was an attorney. He is a graduate of Yale Law School and clerked for former Judge J. Michael Luttig of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and then-Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court of the United States.[2]

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. Groppe, Maureen. “Who is Alex Azar? Former drugmaker CEO and HHS official nominated to head agency.” USA Today. Nov. 13, 2017. usatoday.com
2. Id.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

BIA Requests Amicus Briefs on Asylum Time Bar Exception Question

Update: The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) withdrew the amicus invitation discussed in this blog because the case was rendered moot by action of the parties [PDF version]. However, it is possible that the BIA may address some of the issues in a subsequent case on similar issues.

On October 17, 2017, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued Amicus Invitation No. 17-10-17 [PDF version]. Amicus (friend of the court) briefs on the issue specified in the invitation must be submitted by November 16, 2017.

The issue presented by the Board is as follows:

1. Whether respondents who file an asylum application based on religion and coercive population control grounds more than 1 year after their arrival in the United States and demonstrate that they filed within a reasonable period of the changed circumstances as to their religion claim would be eligible to seek asylum based on both grounds, or whether they must also demonstrate that they filed within a reasonable period of the changed circumstances relating to their coercive population control claim in order to be eligible to seek asylum on that ground.

UNDERSTANDING THE ISSUE

Under section 208(a)(2)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), an alien must file for asylum within one year of arrival in the United States in order to be eligible. However, there is a limited exception to the one-year time bar found in section 208(a)(2)(D). Under the exception, an alien may file for asylum after more than one year if he or she demonstrates “the existence of changed circumstances which materially affect the applicant's eligibility for asylum…”

Section 101(a)(42)(A) provides that an alien who was persecuted or has a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion may meet the definition of “refugee.” Meeting the statutory definition of “refugee” is a prerequisite to qualifying for asylum. The amicus invitation concerns cases where an applicant has claims based on “religion,” and, as we will see, “political opinion.”

Coercive population control is specifically addressed under section 101(a)(42)(B), which provides that an alien “who has been forced to abort a pregnancy or undergo involuntary sterilization, or who has been persecuted for failure to undergo such a procedure or for other resistance to a coercive population control program, shall be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion…” It also provides that an alien who establishes that he or she has a well-founded fear of being subject to one of the coercive population control points above shall be deemed to have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion. As we noted, “political opinion” is another of the five protected grounds listed in the definition of “refugee” in section 101(a)(42)(A).

The Board is requesting briefs on whether an applicant who establishes that he or she qualifies for an exception from the one-year time bar based on changed circumstances relating to a religious persecution claim may also bring a claim based on a coercive population control claim, which falls under “political opinion,” without establishing changed circumstances relating to the coercive population control claim as well. If the answer is no, the alien would be limited to advancing the religious persecution claim, because the political opinion would be barred by the one-year filing requirement of section 208(a)(2)(D). If the answer is yes, the applicant would be able to pursue both claims.

We will update the site with information on the disposition of the issue if and when the Board ultimately issues a new for-precedent decision on the subject.

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

Senate Confirms Kirstjen Nielsen as Sixth Secretary of Homeland Security

On December 5, 2017, the United States Senate confirmed Kirstjen Nielsen as the sixth Secretary of Homeland Security by a vote of 62-37. When she is sworn in, Nielsen will replace John Kelly, who left his post as Secretary of Homeland Security on July 31, 2017, to become the White House Chief of Staff [see blog]. Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine C. Duke had been serving in an acting capacity since Kelly's move to the White House [see blog].

Earlier this year, Kirstjen Nielsen served as Kelly's Chief of Staff at DHS and then as the Deputy Chief of Staff at the White House after Kelly left his post as Secretary of Homeland Security. Prior to that, Nielsen had served in various capacities during the administration of former President George W. Bush. We discussed her background in greater detail in our post on her nomination for the position [see blog].

The Secretary of Homeland Security is an extremely important position in the U.S. immigration system, overseeing the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the United States Customs and Border Protection. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the Department of Homeland Security has many non-immigration functions, including within it components such as the Coast Guard, Secret Service, and Federal Emergency Management Agency.

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

Overview Of Interior Enforcement Statistics For FY 2017

INTRODUCTION

On December 5, 2017, the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) released a report on its year-end statistics for FY 2017 [PDF version]. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) also discussed the ICE statistics in a broader report that also addressed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) statistics [PDF version]. In this article, we will examine the ICE statistics. To learn about the CBP statistics from FY 2017, please see our companion article [see article].

OVERVIEW

The ICE released a chart which contains general statistics from both its Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). We have embedded the chart as follows [see here].

In this article, we will focus primarily on the ERO statistics.

DETAILED STATISTICS FROM ICE

ICE reported that ERO made more than 143,000 administrative arrests in FY 2017 (October 1, 2016 — September 30, 2017). It stated that 110,568 of these arrests occurred after the inauguration of President Donald Trump on January 20, 2017. The 110,568 arrests from January 20, 2017 to September 30, 2017, marked a 42% increase from the same period in FY 2016. ICE stated that 92% of all aliens arrested by ERO in FY 2017 “had criminal convictions, pending criminal charges, were an immigration fugitive, or were an illegal re-entrant.”

ICE stated that interior removals increased significantly in FY 2017 from FY 2016. ICE removed 81,000 aliens from the interior. 61,000 of these removals occurred after January 20, 2017, marking an increase of 37% from the same period in FY 2016. Despite the increase in interior removals, ICE noted, overall removals declined slightly due to the “historic low in CBP border apprehensions…”

ICE attributed the increase in arrests and interior removals to the new immigration enforcement priorities issued by President Donald Trump [see article] and clarified by then-Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly [see article].

ICE added that there has been a decrease in the number of countries that do not cooperate in the return of their nationals. In April 2017, there were 12 such countries, but the number was reduced to nine by the end of FY 2017. We discussed this issue in brief in an article on sanctions imposed on four countries for recalcitrance in accepting the return of nationals [see article]. ICE added that the number of countries at risk of being labeled uncooperative also decreased from 47 to 36 during FY 2017.

Although HSI is not immigration enforcement, it is worth noting that ICE stated that there were nearly 800 MS-13 gang-related arrests in FY 2017. This marked at 83% increase over the previous year. However, it does not specify how many of the MS-13 members were aliens. The DHS noted that, in total, ERO administratively arrested 5,225 gang members and associates in FY 2017, while HSI made 4,818 criminal arrests related to gang activity.

CONCLUSION

ICE reported increases in administrative arrests and removals from the interior. This news is unsurprising in light of the new enforcement priorities affording ICE more discretion in enforcing the immigration laws than did the priorities of the Obama Administration [see article on old priorities]. Going forward, it will be important for ICE to effectively enforce the immigration laws, while ensuring that it does so in a manner consistent with the rights of aliens in the United States.

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

Hamas Remains Designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization Under the INA

On November 14, 2017, the U.S. Department of State published its determination in the Federal Register (FR) that the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas and other aliases) will continue to be designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization as defined in section 219(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). In the notice, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson stated that he concluded that the circumstances that formed the basis of Hamas's designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization “have not changed in such a manner as to warrant revocation of the designation and that the national security of the United States does not warrant a revocation of the designation.”

You may read the FR notice at 82 FR 52764 here: [PDF version].

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

U.S. Ends Participation in Global Compact on Migration

On December 2, 2017, the United States Mission to the United Nations announced that it has informed the United Nations Secretary-General that the United States is ending its participation in the Global Compact on Migration [PDF version].

The statement explains that the United States began participating in the Global Compact on Migration process in 2016. However, the United States has now concluded that the New York Declaration on migration, which began the process, “contains numerous provisions that are inconsistent with U.S. immigration and refugee policies and the Trump Administration's immigration principles.” Accordingly, President Donald Trump determined that the United States would withdraw from the Compact process, which aims to reach an international consensus in 2018.

The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, released the following announcement on the decision:

“America is proud of our immigrant heritage and our long-standing moral leadership in providing support to migrant and refugee populations across the globe. No country has done more than the United States, and our generosity will continue. But our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone. We will decide how best to control our borders and who will be allowed to enter our country. The global approach in the New York Declaration is simply not compatible with U.S. sovereignty.” — UN Ambassador Nikki Haley

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson made the following remarks about the decision [PDF version]:

“While we will continue to engage on a number of fronts at the United Nations, in this case, we simply cannot in good faith support a process that could undermine the sovereign right of the United States to enforce our immigration laws and secure our borders.” — Secretary of State Rex Tillerson

Both statements focus on the view that the New York Declaration on migration, which underpins the Global Compact on Migration process, contains provisions inconsistent with U.S. law, policy, and sovereignty. For practical purposes, the decision will mean that the Global Compact on Migration process will not result in any changes to U.S. refugee policy.

In Foreign Policy, Colum Lynch reported that there were differing views within the Trump Administration on whether to remain in the Global Compact on Migration process.[1] According to the report, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, and White House senior advisor Stephen Miller pushed for withdrawal from the compact. After initially supporting remaining in the compact, Secretary Tillerson ultimately supported withdrawal. Interestingly, the article states that Ambassador Nikki Haley supported staying in the Compact in order to influence the process, but President Trump ultimately supported withdrawal.

Although the United States will not remain in the Global Compact on Migration, President Trump recently issued a significant Executive Order on the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP). Please see our full article to learn about the Executive Order [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. Lynch, Colum. “Trump Boycotts U.N. Migration Talks.” Foreign Policy. Dec. 2, 2017. foreignpolicy.com/207/12/02/trump-boycotts-u-n-migration-talks

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com