BIA Amicus Invitation No. 18-02-14: “Removability & Aggravated Felony Definitions”

On February 14, 2018, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued Amicus Invitation No. 18-02-14, titled “Removability & Aggravated Felony Definitions” [PDF version]. The purpose of the BIA Amicus Invitation is to invite interested members of the public to file amicus briefs with the BIA on the issues presented in the invitation. Responses to the BIA Amicus Invitation are due by March 16, 2018. We will review the issues presented in this post.

BIA Amicus Invitation No. 18-02-14 presents two issues. We will address each issue in turn.

The first issue reads as follows:

Whether DHS can establish removability by charging an alien as an aggravated felon under two separate aggravated felony definitions, neither of which would independently be a categorical match to the statute of conviction, if all means of violating the statute fall within at least one of the charged aggravated felony definitions.

The first issue presents an interesting, albeit highly technical, question. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) contains several aggravated felony provisions in section 101(a)(43)(A)-(U) [see article]. If an alien is found to have been convicted of an aggravated felony, he or she faces removal from the United States. Aggravated felonies are based on criminal convictions.

The question supposes that an alien is convicted of a criminal violation, but that the language of his or her statute of conviction is not a “categorical match” with the language of any individual aggravated felony provision. In order for a criminal statute to categorically define an aggravated felony, any possible conviction under the statute must fall under the umbrella of an aggravated felony provision. The elements of the statute of conviction — i.e., the things that must be proven in order to secure a conviction — must categorically match the elements of the specific aggravated felony. If it is possible to be convicted in violation of the statute of conviction for conduct that is outside the scope of the aggravated felony provision in question, then the statute of conviction is “categorically overbroad,” and the conviction is not for an aggravated felony.

The issue supposes that an alien is convicted in violation of a criminal statute that is not a categorical match with respect to any individual aggravated felony provision. In this instance, it suggests that the statute of conviction falls partially within the scope of two separate aggravated felony provisions, but is categorically overbroad with respect to both.

The BIA is soliciting briefing on whether an individual in the above scenario may be charged as an aggravated felon under two separate aggravated felony provisions where neither provision is a categorical match with the statute of conviction, “if all means of violating the statute fall within at least one of the charged aggravated felony definitions.” (Emphasis added.)

Here, it is important to discuss the distinction between “elements” and “means.” An element, as we discussed, is something that must be proven in order to sustain a conviction. “Means” represent how a defendant satisfied an element, or more simply put, how he or she actually committed an offense. The Supreme Court has held in multiple cases that under the categorical approach, courts may only inquire into the elements, not the means.

With this in mind, let us examine the scenario suggested by the issue and the questions it presents in a clear, step-by-step format:

• An alien is convicted of violating a criminal statute.
• The criminal statute is not a categorical match with any individual aggravated felony provision, or in other words, the elements of the statute of conviction do not fall entirely within the elements of any single aggravated felony provision under the categorical approach.
• Can the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) charge the individual under two separate and distinct aggravated felony provisions — neither of which is a categorical match with the statute of conviction individually — if all of the means (ways of committing the criminal violation) fall within the scope of at least one of the charged aggravated felony provisions.

Given the technical nature of this question, it is little surprise that the Board opted to seek amicus briefs on the matter. Please see our index article on cases discussing the categorical approach to learn more about some of the issues we have discussed [see article]. Please also see our article on the 2016 Supreme Court of the United States decision in Mathis v. United States, which delved into the distinction between “elements” and “means” with specific examples [see article].

The second issue reads as follows:

Whether all means of violating New York Penal Law [section] 155.05 would meet the definition of an aggravated felony defined in either section 101(a)(43)(G) OR section 101(a)(43)(M) of the Immigration and Nationality Act [], and if so, under which definition of aggravated felony would each subsection of NYPL [section] 155.05(02) fall.

The second question is more straightforward. NYPL 155.05 defines the crime of “larceny” under New York law. The Board is requesting briefs on whether all of the means of violating NYPL 155.05 fall under the aggravated felony provision in either section 101(a)(43)(G) or section 101(a)(43)(M) of the INA. Furthermore, the Board asked in the event that one answers in the affirmative, would the means of violating NYPL 155.05(02) fall under section 101(a)(43)(G) or (M).

We discuss several BIA decisions on the subject of section 101(a)(43)(G) in our BIA Index [see section]. To learn about section 101(a)(43)(M) in detail, please see our full article on the Supreme Court decision in Nijhawan v. Holder. [see article].

Conclusion

The issues presented will be worth following as we go forward. The Board answering the question presented in issue one in the affirmative would potentially expand the scope of the INA's aggravated felony provisions and invite further adjudication in Federal appellate courts. We will update the site if and when the Board issues a published decision addressing the issues presented in this Amicus Invitation.

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

DOS Proposes Social Media Vetting and Other New Information Collections for Visa Applicants

Introduction

On March 30, 2018, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) published two notices in the Federal Register (FR) regarding information collections for the Form DS-160 (and DS-156) and the DS-260. Individuals seeking nonimmigrant visas abroad must file the Form DS-160, while individuals seeking immigrant visas must fill out the Form DS-260. In both cases, the DOS proposes changes to the Forms DS-160 and DS-260. Interested members of the public have 60 days from the publication of the respective FR notices to submit comments on the proposed changes, which the DOS will subsequently take into consideration. The proposals have garnered interest because they both include questions regarding the social media histories of nonimmigrant and immigrant visa applicants. The DOS introduced social media vetting for a more limited class of visa applicants on June 5, 2017, which we discuss in a separate article [see article].

In this post, we will briefly examine the new proposed questions for the Forms DS-160 and DS-260 as well as other proposed changes relating to the limited use of the paper Form DS-156.

FR Notices

At 83 FR 13806 (Mar. 30, 2018) [PDF version], the DOS provided a notice of proposed changes to the the Form DS-260. At 83 FR 13807 (Mar. 30, 2018) [PDF version], the DOS provided notice of proposed changes to the Form DS-160 and DS-156. Interested members of the public have 60 days to submit comments on the proposed rule, which the DOS will take into consideration in crafting final revisions.

Proposed Social Media Vetting for Nonimmigrant and Immigrant Applicants

Regarding social media platforms, the DOS is proposing to ask applicants for immigrant and nonimmigrant visas for any identifiers associated with certain social media platforms they have used in the five years preceding the date of the application. The DOS would reserve the authority to add or remove social media platforms on the Form DS-260 in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Applicants will also be provided with the option of including information about any additional social media identifiers associated with platforms not specifically listed on the Form DS-260 that applicants have used in the five years preceding the application. The FR notice states that the DOS “will collect this information for identity resolution and vetting purposes based on statutory visa eligibility standards.”

Regarding the Form DS-160, the notice states that the DOS “intends not to routinely ask the question of applicants for specific [nonimmigrant] visa classifications, such as most diplomatic and official visa applicants.” In short, certain diplomatic and official nonimmigrant visa classifications will not generally be subject to social media vetting.

Additional Questions for Nonimmigrant and Immigrant Applicants

The DOS is also proposing to add questions seeking the following information from applicants for immigrant or nonimmigrant visas:

• Five years of previously used telephone numbers;
• Five years of previously used email addresses;
• Five years of international travel;
• All prior immigration violations; and
• Whether specified family members have been involved in terrorist activities.

Certain applicants for E nonimmigrant visas will be asked whether the principal treaty trader was issued a visa.

Additional Information Involving Medical Examinations

Both immigrant and nonimmigrant visa applicants would be provided with additional information regarding the visa medical examination that some applicants will be required to undergo.

Immigrant Applicants from Countries Where Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting is Prevalent

The following change applies only to immigrant visa applicants (Form DS-260) seeking visas from countries where female genital mutilation/cutting is prevalent. Such applicants will be provided with a link in the Form DS-260 to an electronic pamphlet that explains that such practices are illegal in the United States. These applicants will be required to check a box verifying that the link to the pamphlet was provided to them in order to file the Form DS-260.

Information about Forms DS-160 and DS-156

The Form DS-160 is an electronic form that is filed online. It has generally replaced the Form DS-156, which is a paper form serving the same purpose.

The new FR notice limits the circumstances in which applicants will be able to use the paper version Form DS-156. These circumstances would be limited to the following cases when the applicant is unable to access the Form DS-260:

• The applicant has an urgent medical or humanitarian travel need and the consular officer has received explicit permission from the Visa Office to accept the Form DS-156;
• The applicant is a student exchange visitor who must leave immediately in order to arrive on time for his or her classes and the consular office has received explicit information from the Visa Office to accept the Form DS-156;
• The applicant is a diplomatic or official traveler with urgent government business and the Form DS-160 has been unavailable for more than four hours; or
• The Form DS-160 has been unavailable for more than three days and the officer receives explicit permission from the Visa Office.

Applicants must contact the Embassy or consulate at which they are applying for a nonimmigrant visa in order to request the Form DS-156.

Additionally, the DOS proposes combining the Forms DS-160 and DS-156 into a single information collection. Under current policy, the Forms DS-160 and DS-156 are distinct information collections.

It is important to note that all of the proposed changes to the Form DS-160 would apply to the Form DS-156.

Conclusion

The proposed changes to the Forms DS-260, DS-160, and DS-156 will seek more information from applicants in a variety of areas, including social media history. Furthermore, the proposal would create clear guidelines for the limited continuing use of the Form DS-156. We will update the site when the DOS implements any final changes to these forms at some time after the 60-day comment period is complete.

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

Texas Files New Motion for Preliminary Nationwide Injunction Against DACA

On May 1, 2018, Texas filed a motion in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking a preliminary nationwide injunction against the U.S. Government's implementation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Texas was joined in its motion by the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, and West Virginia. You may read the motion here: [PDF version]. The motion will be considered by Judge Andrew Hanen.

In the motion, Texas seeks to enjoin the Government from renewing DACA permits or granting new DACA permits in winding down the program. Texas is not seeking a court order invalidating existing DACA permits.

In order to understand the current litigation and its possible implications, we must start from the beginning of what has been a long legal story. In 2014, Texas led a lawsuit seeking to enjoin implementation of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program. Texas won a preliminary nationwide injunction from the same Judge Andrew Hanen of the District Court for the Southern District of Texas. A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the injunction [see opinion blog], and the Fifth Circuit decision was subsequently affirmed by an equally divided Supreme Court of the United States [see article].

In June of 2017, then-Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly rescinded the DAPA memorandum, but he left DACA in place [see article]. Texas sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) stating that it would seek to amend its DAPA lawsuit — still pending before Judge Hanen — were DHS to not rescind the DACA memo by September 5, 2017. On September 5, 2017, then-Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine Duke rescinded the DACA memo based on her own judgment and on a legal determination made by Attorney General Jeff Sessions [see article]. The DACA program was to be rescinded on March 5, 2018, after having allowed for certain individuals to renew their DACA in the intervening six-month period.

However, two United States District Courts issued nationwide preliminary injunctions against the DACA rescission memo. First was the District of Northern California [see blog] and second was the Eastern District of New York [see blog]. The Supreme Court denied a petition by the Government for certiorari before judgment on February 26, 2018. Despite a ruling in favor of the Government on March 5, 2018, from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, the injunctions setting the status of DACA to what it was prior to September 5, 2017, remain in effect. On April 24, 2018, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order reinstating DACA in full and vacating the DACA recession memorandum — a step further than the previous two injunctions — but it stayed the order for 60 days to give the Government the opportunity to provide a sounder legal justification for its decision.

Now, in its motion, Texas makes the case that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims that DACA is contrary to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), that DACA was issued in contravention of the statutory requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), and that DACA violates the Take Care Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Texas thereby implicates the same three points in its ultimately successful motion to enjoin DAPA, and Texas seeks a nationwide injunction on the same bases on which it won an injunction from Judge Hanen against DAPA. In its motion, Texas takes the position that the injunctions and orders issued against implementation of the DACA rescission memo by the United States District Courts for the District of Northern California, the Eastern District of New York, and the District of Columbia have no bearing on the authority of Judge Hanen to issue a nationwide preliminary injunction against DACA.

If Texas prevails before Judge Hanen, there is a distinct possibility that we will be left with dueling nationwide injunctions against the DACA rescission in three cases and against DACA in another. Such an event would likely draw the Supreme Court into the issue after it declined to take the case before the issues were fully adjudicated in the lower courts. In addition to implicating DACA, the case has the potential to pique the Supreme Court's interest in addressing the scope of the authority of district courts to issue nationwide injunctions, an issue that seemed to be of interest to Justice Neil Gorsuch at least in oral arguments over President Trump's entry restrictions against nationals of certain countries.

Although Judge Hanen ruled favorably on Texas' similar arguments against DAPA over three years ago, we cannot say for certain how he will ultimately rule on Texas' new motion, when he might enter his decision, and what the scope of such decision would be if it is in Texas' favor. Furthermore, it is likely that the Trump Administration will not seek to defend itself in the case in light of the fact that it has already taken the position that DACA is illegal, meaning that an outside group may take the position of arguing in favor of the legality of DACA.

As we have noted in previous posts, it is likely that, regardless of the outcome of the motion before Judge Hanen, the Trump Administration will quite possibly, if not most likely, prevail in terminating DACA once the issues are fully litigated. Regardless of the fate of DACA, the only way a permanent solution granting legal status to DACA beneficiaries and similarly-situated individuals will be reached is through Congress.

Current DACA beneficiaries should consult with an experienced immigration attorney for a full understanding of the current situation regarding DACA and how the current events may affect their specific immigration situation.

For those interested, you may see remarks from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on the lawsuit 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

Vietnam EB5 to Become Oversubscribed in April 2018

In the Visa Bulletin for April 2018, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) explained that the Vietnam Employment Fifth preference (EB5) category will become oversubscribed in May 2018 [PDF version]. This will result in the establishment of a final action date for Vietnam EB5.

Interestingly, in the March 2018 Visa Bulletin, the DOS projected that Vietnam would reach the per-country EB5 limit during March and necessitate a final action date for April [PDF version]. However, in the April 2018 Visa Bulletin, the DOS explained that the return of unused February EB5 numbers had been much higher than the DOS expected. The DOS attributed this to uncertainty over the extension of the EB5 program created by temporary extensions of the program connected to broader budget negotiations. It added that “many applicants did not have sufficient advance notice to enable them to appear for their February interview, which could have been expected to result in the use of visa numbers.” Notwithstanding the one month reprieve, the DOS stated unequivocally that “[t]he oversubscription of this category will definitely occur in May.”

The news of the impending oversubscription for Vietnam EB5 is noteworthy on two levels. For one, approved EB5 petitions for nationals of Vietnam will be subject to a final action date starting in May 2018 and for the duration of the fiscal year. Second, because this was caused by high demand in the Vietnam EB5 category, this trend may continue going into the future, causing Vietnam EB5 petitions to face sometimes long wait times before visa interviews abroad or being able to apply for adjustment of status within the United States.

Filing an EB5 petition and applying for an EB5 visa is a complex and evidence-intensive process. EB5 petitioners are well-advised to consult with an experienced immigration attorney for case-specific guidance.

To learn more about the visa bulletins discussed in this article, please see our posts on the March 2018 Visa Bulletin [see blog] and the April 2018 Visa Bulletin [see blog].

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

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

U.S. Embassy in Havana to Operate with Reduced Staffing on Permanent Basis

Beginning on September 29, 2017, the U.S. Embassy in Havana began operating under ordered departure status. Under this policy, non-essential staff at the U.S. Embassy in Havana was removed, leaving only critical personnel necessary to continue the essential functions of the Embassy. We discussed this decision and what it meant for immigration services provided in Cuba in a separate post [see blog].

On March 4, 2018, the U.S. Embassy in Havana reached the maximum allowable days in ordered departure status, thus requiring the DOS to make a decision on how to proceed. The DOS announced that beginning on March 5, its new permanent staffing plan for the U.S. Embassy in Havana would take effect [PDF version]. The DOS stated that under the new permanent staffing plan, the U.S. Embassy in Havana will “continue to operate with the minimum personnel necessary to perform core diplomatic and consular functions, similar to the level of emergency staffing maintained during ordered departure.”

Although the DOS has not released an update regarding immigration services provided at the U.S. Embassy in Havana under the permanent staffing plan, they will presumably continue to be limited due to the lack of staffing. Furthermore, it appears to be unlikely that there will be any change in the situation for the foreseeable future. We will update the site with more information as it becomes available.

Please see our original article on the draw-down for information about what this means for Cubans seeking visas or other benefits through consular processing [see blog].

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

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Visa Bulletin for September 2018

Introduction: September 2018 Visa Bulletin

On August 7, 2018, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) released the September 2018 Visa Bulletin [PDF version]. The September Visa Bulletin is the final edition of the visa bulletin issued in fiscal year 2018. On August 9, 2018, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) determined that family-sponsored adjustment of status applicants in the family-based preference categories must use the filing dates in the September Visa Bulletin, whereas employment-based adjustment of status applicants must use the less favorable final action dates [PDF version]. In this article, we will examine the relevant charts and other news and notes from the final visa bulletin of fiscal year 2018.

On site, we have several general resources about the visa bulletin. First, please see our guide to using the visa bulletin as an adjustment of status applicant [see article]. Second, please see our post where we discuss the differences between filing dates and final action dates [see article]. Finally, to see our previous posts on visa bulletins, please see our archive [see index].

Family-Sponsored Cases in the September 2018 Visa Bulletin

The USCIS determined that the beneficiaries of approved family-sponsored preference petitions who intend to apply for adjustment of status must use the filing date charts on the September Visa Bulletin. This decision is favorable for family-sponsored applicants since the filing date cutoffs are generally later than the final action date cutoffs.

In order for the beneficiary of an approved family-sponsored immigrant visa preference petition to apply for adjustment of status in September 2018, his or her priority date must be earlier than the applicable filing date cutoff for the applicant's family-sponsored preference category and chargeability area. The filing date for a family-sponsored applicant is generally the date on which the immigrant visa petition was properly filed on his or her behalf with the USCIS. Please note that the applicant must be otherwise eligible to apply for adjustment of status under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and its implementing regulations.

The following chart [see here], courtesy of the USCIS, contains the filing dates for family-sponsored cases in the September 2018 Visa Bulletin.

For your reference, we will also post the final action dates for family-sponsored cases. However, please note that those seeking adjustment of status must consult the filing date chart for September 2018. Below are the family-sponsored final action dates, courtesy of the DOS [see here].

Employment-Based Cases in the September 2018 Immigrant Visa Bulletin

The USCIS determined that beneficiaries of approved employment-based immigrant visa preference petitions must use the final action dates on the September 2018 Bulletin for determining adjustment of status eligibility.

In order for the beneficiary of an approved employment-based preference petition to apply for adjustment of status in 2018, his or her priority date must be earlier than the applicable final action cutoff date for his or her preference category and chargeability area. If labor certification was required for the underlying petition, the applicant's priority date will generally be the date on which the labor certification application was approved by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). In cases where no labor certification was required, the priority date will generally be the date on which the immigrant visa petition was properly filed with the USCIS. Please note that the applicant must be otherwise eligible to apply for adjustment of status under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and its implementing regulations.

The following chart [see here], courtesy of the USCIS, contains the final action dates for family-sponsored cases in the September 2018 Visa Bulletin.

News and Notes in the September 2018 Visa Bulletin

Because the September 2018 Visa Bulletin is the final visa bulletin of fiscal year 2018, the DOS had to make several moves to constrain immigrant visa issuance within worldwide and country-by-country numerical limits. In the following subsections, we will examine the notable changes in the September Visa Bulletin from August and what we can expect looking forward to the beginning of fiscal year 2019 in October.

Worldwide Limits on Immigrants for Fiscal Year 2018

The DOS determined that the worldwide numerical limits on visas for fiscal year 2018 are as follows:

• Family-Sponsored Preference: 226,000
• Employment-Based Preference: 140,292

Section 202(a) of the INA limits the number of immigrant visas issued per country to 7-percent of the family and employment annual limits. Thus, the annual limit per country for fiscal year 2018 is 25,640., The dependent area annual limit, limited to 2-percent of the total, is 7,326.

Retrogression in Certain Family-Sponsored Dates

In the August 2018 Visa Bulletin, the DOS noted that the demand for visa numbers in several family-sponsored preference categories has been increasing. As a result, the dates for several family first and third preference category chargeability areas retrogressed in September. This retrogression of dates was necessary to hold visa issuance within the worldwide annual limits. The DOS stated that for the October Visa Bulletin the final action dates will return to at least where they were in August 2018 .

Oversubscription of Employment-Based Second and Third Preference Categories

In the August 2018 Visa Bulletin, the DOS noted that there was heavy demand for visa numbers in the employment-based second and third preference for the following chargeability areas: Worldwide, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, and Philippines. The DOS explained that some of this demand is attributable to “USCIS adjustment of status applicants as a result of the successful implementation of [USCIS's] new interview process.” Due to this demand, the DOS found it necessary to impose E2, E3, and EW final action dates for September. The imposition of these final action dates is temporary, and in October, the categories will return to the same status which they had in August.

Additionally, the DOS had to retrogress the September final action dates for the China E2 and India E2 and E3 categories. The DOS explained that in October, the final action dates will return to what they were in August.

Projecting Visa Availability in the Coming Months

In October, there will be significant movement in some of the final action and filing dates with the beginning of a new fiscal year. The DOS provided projections for movement in various categories over the coming months. However, it is important to bear in mind that “[t]he determination of the actual monthly final action dates is subject to fluctuations in applicant demand and a number of other variables.”

Family-Sponsored (Worldwide):

• F1: Up to three weeks (after dates recover in October)
• F2A: Three to five weeks
• F2B: Up to six weeks
• F3: Three to five weeks (after dates recover in October)
• F4: Up to five weeks

Employment First Preference:

• The DOS will impose final action dates in October for all countries. The DOS expects that there may me limited forward movement prior to December.

Employment Second Preference:

• The worldwide dates are expected to remain stable for the foreseeable future.
• The dates for China are expected to move forward slowly, “pending receipt of demand from recent advances.”
• The dates for India are expected to move forward “[u]p to two weeks.”

Employment Third:

• The worldwide dates are expected to be current.
• The dates for China are expected to move forward up to three weeks.
• India can expect slow movement “pending receipt of demand from recent advances.”
• The dates for Mexico are expected to remain current.
• Philippines can expect “minimal” forward movement.

Employment Fourth:

• The DOS stated that the dates for the employment fourth preference category will be current for most countries.
• El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras are expected to see little, if any, forward movement.
• The dates for Mexico are expected to move forward up to three months.

Employment Fifth:

• The final action dates for most countries will remain current.
• For China-mainland born, the dates will move forward up to one week.
• Vietnam is expected to retain a final action date. This is noteworthy because the Vietnam employment fifth final action date was established in the middle of fiscal year 2018. However, Vietnam can expect “steady forward movement” in its final action date.

Conclusion

The September 2018 Visa Bulletin concludes the visa bulletins for fiscal year 2018. As always, it is important for those seeking immigrant visas — especially those intending to apply for adjustment of status — to stay abreast of developments in the immigrant visa bulletin. An individual with questions about the immigrant visa or adjustment of status process should consult with an experienced immigration attorney for case-specific guidance, including on movement in the immigrant visa bulletin.

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

19 Foreign Nationals Charged With Illegally Voting

On August 27, 2018, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) published a news release titled “19 foreign nationals indicted for illegally voting in 2016 elections” [PDF version].

Nineteen foreign nationals in North Carolina were criminally charged with illegally voting in the 2016 election. The indictments stem from an investigation by Homeland Security Investigations (HSI).

Nine foreign nationals in North Carolina were charged with falsely claiming U.S. citizenship to register to vote in North Carolina and also with unlawfully voting. These nine individuals face a maximum penalty of six years in federal prison, a fine of $350,000, and a term of supervised release.

An additional nine individuals were charged with voting by an alien. These individuals face up to twelve months in federal prison, a fine of $100,000, and a term of supervised release.

The most serious charges were levied against Diana Patricia Franco-Rodriguez, a 26 year old national of Mexico. She was charged with fraud and misuse of visas in addition to unlawfully voting. She faces up to 26 years in federal prison, a fine of $350,000, and a term of supervised release.

In addition to the charges against 19 aliens, one U.S. citizen, Denslo Allen Page, was charged with aiding and abetting one of the aliens in falsely claiming citizenship to register to vote. For this charge, he faces a maximum sentence of five years' federal imprisonment, a fine of $350,000, and a term of supervised release.

ICE reminded readers that “[t]he charges and allegations contained in the indictments are merely accusations. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.” The cases are being prosecuted by the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

Unlawful Voting and Immigration Generally

Although unlawful voting may not seem to some to be as serious as other criminal offenses that have adverse immigration consequences, a conviction for unlawful voting in an election can be fatal to one's immigration prospects. Section 212(a)(10)(D) provides for inadmissibility for unlawful voting and section 237(a)(6)(i) is a parallel deportability provision. There is a very limited exception to unlawful voting inadmissibility and deportability for individuals who were brought to the United States as children and reasonably believed at the time of the unlawful voting that they were citizens. Finally, depending on the sentence, a conviction for unlawful voting may constitute a bar to good moral character for purposes of naturalization or eligibility for certain types of relief from removal. To learn about the immigration consequences of unlawful voting in detail, please see our full article on the subject [see article].

In some cases, an alien who is convicted of unlawful voting may also be inadmissible or deportable for having made a false claim to U.S. citizenship. A false claim to U.S. citizenship is often fatal to one's immigration prospects, and it also constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude. To learn more about the immigration consequences of false claims to U.S. citizenship, please see our article index [see index].

It is important to remember that noncitizens are never allowed to vote in federal elections and are, in the vast majority of cases, not allowed to vote in local elections (limited jurisdictions allow noncitizen voting in local elections, but even in these cases, a noncitizen should exercise extreme caution and consult with an experienced attorney before proceeding, if at all). This applies even if someone offers to register the noncitizen to vote. If an individual is unsure whether he or she is a U.S. citizen, the individual should consult with an experienced immigration attorney immediately for a resolution of that issue before making any claims to citizenship.

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

UAE Judo Event Reinstated After Federation Pledges to Treat Israeli Athletes Equally

In a previous post, I discussed the suspension by the International Judo Federation of one judo competition in the United Arab Emirates and one in Tunisia over anti-Israel discrimination [see blog]. I discussed discrimination in the Abu Dhabi Grand Slam, the UAE event, in a post from 2017 [see blog].

On September 4, 2018, Arutz Shiva reported that the International Judo Federation has decided to reinstate the Abu Dhabi Grand Slam after the United Arab Emirates Judo federation confirmed that it would allow all participating nations to compete “in equal conditions.”[1] The International Judo Federation made clear that this would include Israel, stating that the “historic decision will thus allow all nations to display their national insignia and national anthem, including Israel.” (Emphasis added.) The suspension of events in Tunisia remains in effect.

The International Judo Federation deserves immense credit for standing on principle and taking action when host countries discriminated against Israeli athletes. Their actions should stand as an example to other organizations that are too easily intimidated by Israeli boycotts or other forms of discrimination. Wherever one may stand on geopolitical issues, Israeli judoka should be able to compete under the same terms and conditions as all of their fellow athletes.

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. Benari, Elad. “UAE judo competition to treat Israelis equally.” Arutz Sheva 7. Sep. 4, 2018. https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/251558

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

President Trump Hosts Illegal Immigration Roundtable in Long Island, Focusing on MS-13

On May 23, 2018, President Donald Trump hosted a roundtable on immigration in Bethpage, New York. The roundtable focused extensively on the threat of the MS-13 gang and how its activities intersect with illegal immigration and alien smuggling. The event featured Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ) officials, three U.S. congressman, local law enforcement officials, and parents of MS-13 crime victims. In this post, we will review some of the more interesting remarks relating to immigration policy delivered in the roundtable with reference to specific times in a video of the event posted by the White House on YouTube. Those who are interested in the issue may want to watch the entire event for themselves, especially to see the remarks by local law enforcement and victims.

President Trump's Roundtable on Immigration in Bethpage, New York [see here].

President Trump, Starting at 3:20 - In what would be a theme of the roundtable, President Trump criticized Congress for not addressing “loopholes” in the immigration laws. He argued that these loopholes are exploited by MS-13, and he criticized the immigration laws of the United States as “the worst of any country in the world.” He stated that, in many case, MS-13 members sneak across the border under the guise of being Unaccompanied Alien Children (UACs), and then take advantage of the special provisions in the immigration laws to pursue gang activities in the United States. Furthermore, he criticized the policy of “catch and release,” which he recently sought to eliminate via a Presidential Memorandum which we discussed on site [see article].

He further noted that the motto of MS-13 is “kill, rape, control.” He detailed some of its heinous activities, including recently murdering a police officer on Long Islandto make a statement, brutally killing multiple teenagers, decapitating a man in Maryland, and engaging in the sex trafficking of underage girls. He reaffirmed his characterization of MS-13 members as “animals,” and he criticized House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi for her criticism of the remark, which he described as defending MS-13.

John Cronan, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Starting at 9:35 - Cronan spent most of his remarks providing an extensive list of brutal crimes carried out by the MS-13 gang in the United States. At about 13:25, he discussed in broad terms some of the efforts being undertaken by DOJ to combat MS-13, including targeted prosecutions, surging prosecutors to the border to prosecute immigration offenses, and working with partners in Central America to incapacitate MS-13 members before they can infiltrate the United States.

We discussed DOJ's new zero-tolerance policy for certain immigration-related criminal offenses along the border in a separate article [see article].

Thomas Homan, Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Starting at 14:20 — Homan explained that ICE has doubled the number of arrests of MS-13 members during the administration of President Trump. He added that in FY-2017 DHS “arrested 896 MS-13 leaders, members, and associates.” Furthermore, he added that DHS had arrested more than 4,800 gang members in total, including MS-13 members. We discuss the statistics referenced by Homan in a separate blog on site [see blog].

Homan noted that ICE made over 300 MS-13 related arrests on Long Island alone in FY-2017. Furthermore, more than 40 percent of these arrests were of verified UACs.

Homan added that ICE is working closely with federal police in El Salvador to attack MS-13 command centers and manage the problem before it reaches U.S. borders. He credited the work and intelligence-sharing of the DOJ and DHS as being responsible for most of the MS-13 arrests in El Salvador.

Later in the roundtable, President Trump joked about Homan's upcoming retirement and stated, in jest, that he hoped he would stay at ICE for a long time. We addressed Homan's upcoming retirement in a blog on site [see blog].

Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General, Starting at 18:50 - Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein's presence at the event was perhaps noteworthy given the broad dissatisfaction that President Trump has expressed with his handling of matters involving the Russia counter-intelligence probe and the Mueller Special Counsel investigation. However, the two were cordial at the roundtable, where the subject was strictly about the DOJ's efforts in combating illegal immigration and, specifically, the MS-13 threat.

Rosenstein explained that when he was the United States Attorney for the District of Maryland, his office and others began using Federal racketeering statutes to endeavor to dismantle MS-13. While they had initial success, MS-13 became resurgent in recent years.

He attributed the resurgence to the increase in illegal border crossings over the last several years and, specifically, to the increase in UACs. Regarding UACs, he cited to the fact that they are not subject to expedited removal and that there are limits on how long they can be held in immigration custody. Furthermore, Rosenstein added that, for UACs from countries other than Canada or Mexico, DHS is not permitted to effectuate their removal even if they request to return home. Instead, DHS is required to turn them over to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and place them in immigration proceedings. He stated that about 6,000 UACs fail to appear for such immigration proceedings annually. Rosenstein noted that 90% of removal orders issued against UACs each year are the result of the UAC's failure to appear for proceedings. Yet, less than 4-percent are ultimately removed. Rosenstein agreed with President Trump that MS-13 often exploits U.S. laws regarding UACs, but he also explained that many UACs who initially enter with no gang ties are vulnerable to MS-13 recruitment once in the U.S.

Rosenstein expressed the hope that Congress would address current laws on UACs and on illegal border crossings generally.

President Trump, Starting at 28:25 - President Trump noted that many countries from which MS-13 members and other aliens illegally cross the U.S. border are recipients of significant amounts of U.S. aid money. He suggested that some of these countries are not actually serious about addressing the problems being discussed in the roundtable. In response, the President stated that he was considering reducing aid, or cutting off aid entirely, to Central American countries that were not doing enough to address the problems. To this effect, he added that his Administration is already making changes to the aid structure.

Kirstjen Nielsen, Secretary of Homeland Security, Starting at 29:25 - Secretary Nielsen explained that DHS was aware that, in many cases, smugglers of UACs force the UACs to join MS-13 or other gangs in order to pay off their debt for the smuggling. She agreed with the assessments of President Trump and the DOJ speakers on the existence of loopholes that MS-13 exploits. She pledged to continue pressing Congress to close these loopholes. Furthermore, Secretary Nielsen called for a law to allow the DHS to bar known gang members from entering the United States. Specifically, she hoped for legislation that would make known gang members inadmissible to the United States by virtue of their gang affiliation.

Secretary Nielsen noted a large number of asylum applications that are not based on one of the five protected grounds upon which asylum can be granted. She stated that DHS was expeditiously denying these applications as well as applications involving fraud. Secretary Nielsen emphasized that seeking to come to the United States for something such as better employment opportunities is not an authorized ground for asylum.

Finally, Secretary Nielsen noted that DHS had begun work on a southern border wall and on deploying National Guard troops to the border. To learn about the National Guard deployment, please see our full article [see article].

Lee Zeldin, U.S. Representative from NY-1 (R), Starting at 33:00 - Congressman Zeldin concurred with Homan that President Trump's characterization of MS-13 as “animals” was a “nice way of putting it.” He highlighted the importance of identifying the MS-13 threat in order to deal with it.

Congressman Zeldin criticized Congressional Democrats for not working with President Trump to address the danger of gang violence resulting from the current immigration system, especially in light of what he considered to be a generous offer from President Trump regarding the disposition of DACA recipients and other similarly-situated individuals.

Congressman Zeldin echoed calls from Secretary Nielsen for new legislation to address both MS-13 and other threats from resulting from illegal immigration and known gang members. He noted that he had sponsored legislation to create inadmissibility grounds for gang membership. He argued for the enactment of specific laws to allow for the denaturalization of individuals who either engage in gang activity prior to naturalization or within a certain period after naturalization.

Evelyn Rodriguez, Mother of MS-13 Victim, Starting at 53:20 - The roundtable featured the parents of several MS-13 victims starting at about 48 minutes. These testimonials are worth watching. Rodriguez stated that she appreciated the efforts of the Federal Government to deal with the gang violence problem in the immigration context. However, she criticized local school officials on Long Island for not having services in place to counsel UACs and other young illegal immigrants and protect them from gang recruitment. She highlighted the importance of reaching these individuals and the need for schools to ensure that there are severe consequences for gang activities and violence.

President Trump, Starting at 1:01:10 - President Trump gave the concluding remarks to the roundtable. After praising everyone gathered as “incredible professionals” and thanking the parents of MS-13 victims for telling their stories, he stated that the Government is reaching the limits of what it can do without changes to the law. He noted that in the case that gang members are incarcerated, their home countries are often recalcitrant to accept their return, although he stated that his Administration had made progress on this issue [see blog]. Furthermore, he noted that these individuals are often not incarcerated upon their removals to their home countries, and they consequently are able to illegally cross back into the United States. He acknowledged that many of the individuals seeking to cross the border illegally are doing so for good or otherwise benign reasons, but that others, such as MS-13 and smugglers, are seeking to cross to engage in violence and other illegal activities.

President Trump noted that he grew up close to Long Island, and that it troubles him to see what has happened in some of these towns as a result of gang violence, which he compared to a war zone in certain cases. He stated that it was terrible that the Government even has to undertake this effort to destroy MS-13. He praised law enforcement for doing a great job handling the situation despite all of the constraints placed on them, before expressing his gratitude for what they do.

Conclusion

The roundtable at Bethpage provided an interesting collection of views from Government officials and interested parties on the connection between illegal immigration and gang violence. We focused primarily on the immigration policy discussion and proposals, but the roundtable is well worth watching in full. Moving forward, it will be important for Congress and the President to work together to strengthen border security and immigration enforcement while ensuring that aliens in the United States illegally, or otherwise suspected of being removable, are receive all hearings and protections that they are entitled to under law.

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

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

DHS to Terminate TPS for Nepal

On April 26, 2018, Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen announced the termination of the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation for Nepal [PDF version]. This decision was based on the conclusion that “the disruption of living conditions in Nepal from the April 2015 earthquake and subsequent aftershocks that served as the basis for the TPS designation for Nepal have decreased to a degree that they should no longer be regarded as substantial, and Nepal can now adequately manage the return of its nationals.” Nepal's current TPS designation began on June 24, 2015.

Nepal's current TPS extension runs through June 24, 2018. In order to ensure an orderly transition for Nepal TPS beneficiaries, Secretary Nielsen determined that the termination of Nepal TPS would be delayed for 12 months. Accordingly, the TPS designation for Nepal will terminate on June 24, 2019.

Beneficiaries of Nepal TPS who have a separate legal basis to remain in the United States when the designation of TPS for Nepal expires will be allowed to do so. Those who lack a separate basis for remaining in the United States besides TPS will have to depart. Beneficiaries of Nepal TPS who already have a separate immigration status or basis to remain in the United States should seek guidance on maintaining such status. Those who do not have a separate status other than Nepal TPS should consult with an experienced immigration attorney for case-specific guidance on whether they have any immigration options available before the expiration of Nepal TPS. Those who intend to return to Nepal should ensure that they have their affairs in order prior to the June 24, 2019, expiration of Nepal TPS.

Current beneficiaries of Nepal TPS will have to re-register for TPS and seek employment authorization in advance of June 24, 2019, in order to maintain TPS benefits and employment eligibility. The DHS will publish additional information in the Federal Register. We will update the site as more information becomes available.

There are reportedly about 9,000 current Nepal TPS beneficiaries.[1]

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. Gamboa, Suzanne. “Trump administration ends protected status for 60,000 Hondurans.” NBC News. May 4, 2018. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna871496

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

DHS to Terminate TPS for Honduras

On May 4, 2018, Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen announced her determination to terminate the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation for Honduras [PDF version]. Honduras initial TPS designation date was January 5, 1999. It was designated for TPS due to the effects of Hurricane Mitch. Secretary Nielsen reached her decision due to her determination “that the disruption of living conditions in Honduras from Hurricane Mitch that served as the basis for its TPS designation has decreased to a degree that it should no longer be regarded as substantial.”

The current TPS designation for Honduras runs through July 5, 2018. However, instead of immediately terminating Honduras TPS on July 5, 2018, Secretary Nielsen opted to delay the termination for 18 months to ensure an orderly transition, meaning the termination of TPS for Honduras will occur on January 5, 2020.

The termination of TPS for Honduras is significant in that there is an estimated 57,000 current Honduras TPS beneficiaries.[1] The large number of current Hondura TPS beneficiaries is likely why Secretary Nielsen opted for an 18-month delay in the termination of TPS for Hondurans instead of a 12 month delay.

Beneficiaries of Honduras TPS who have a separate legal basis to remain in the United States will be able to do so beyond January 5, 2020. Those who already have such a status or are pursuing such status should consult with an experienced immigration attorney for case-specific guidance. Those who lack a separate legal basis for remaining in the United States but who wish to explore their options should consult with an experienced immigration attorney immediately. Beneficiaries of Honduras TPS who intend to return to Honduras upon the expiration of Honduras TPS or who otherwise lack the ability to gain a separate legal status in the United States should use the 18-month period to set their affairs in order.

Beneficiaries of Honduras TPS will be required to re-register for TPS in advance of July 5, 2020, in order to retain benefits for the subsequent 18 months. The same applies for seeking employment authorization for that period. The Department of Homeland Security will post details on re-registering for Honduras TPS in the Federal Register. We will update the site with more information 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.

1. Rosenberg, Mica and Gustavo Palencia. “Trump administration moves to expel some 57,000 Hondurans.” Reuters. May 4, 2018. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-honduras/trump-administration-moves-to-expel-some-57000-hondurans-reports-idUSKBN1I52DW

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

EOIR Swears in 23 New Immigration Judges

On August 16, 2018, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) announced that it had sworn in 23 new immigration judges [PDF version]. With the 23 new immigration judges, the immigration judge corps numbers 351. Furthermore, the EOIR stated that it plans to add at least 75 more immigration judges in fall 2018.

The EOIR attributed the large number of new immigration judges to Attorney General Jeff Sessions' decision to streamline the hiring process [see blog]. The EOIR states that as a result of the new hiring processes, the 23 immigration judges recently sworn in were hired in a process taking approximately 266 days, significantly lower than the average of 742 days for new immigration judge hires in 2017.

The 23 new immigration judges will serve on 15 immigration courts across the United States. Of note, the New York City Immigration Court will welcome four new immigration judges [see section]. The following is the list of immigration courts welcoming new judges:

• Baltimore (Maryland)
• Chicago (Illinois)
• Cleveland (Ohio)
• El Paso (Texas)
• Falls Church (Virginia)
• Harlingen (Texas)
• LaSalle (Louisiana)
• Los Angeles (California)
• Miami (Florida)
• New York City (New York)
• Oakdale (Louisiana)
• Pearsall (Texas)
• San Antonio (Texas)
• Ulster (New York)

Below, we will list the new immigration judges and provide brief biographical summaries for each. We have sorted the immigration judges by the immigration courts on which they serve, with the courts listed in alphabetical order. The EOIR released the list of new immigration judges along with biographical details in a separate document [PDF version].

To read about other recent immigration judge investitures, please see our index article [see index].

Baltimore Immigration Court: Immigration Judge David C. Koelsch

IJ David C. Koelsch began hearing cases at the Baltimore Immigration Court in August 2018. Prior to beginning his service on the immigration bench, IJ Koelsch had experience in government and academia, with both relating to immigration. From 2017 to 2018, Koelsch was a supervisory asylum officer with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in Arlington, Virgina. From 2015 to 2017, he was an appeals officer with the USCIS's Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). Before entering government service, Koelsch was a law professor at Detroit Mercy School of Law and served as director of its Immigration Law Clinic. He had previously been an attorney in private practice. Immigration Judge Koelsch has a law degree from Catholic University.

Baltimore Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Zakia Mahasa

IJ Zakia Mahasa began hearing cases at the Baltimore Immigration Court in August 2018. She served as a magistrate judge in the Maryland Circuit Court for Baltimore from 1997 to 2018. Prior to her service as a magistrate, Mahasa was an attorney for the House of Ruth domestic violence legal clinic and an attorney with the Legal Aid Bureau of Maryland. She has a law degree from the University of Maryland, Carey School of Law.

Chicago Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Patrick M. McKenna

IJ Patrick M. McKenna began hearing cases at the Chicago Immigration Court in August 2018. Prior to being hired as an IJ, McKenna served as an attorney for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from 2006 to 2018 in Chicago and Washington D.C.. McKenna had previously been a state prosecutor from 2002 to 2006 after working in private practice. He has a law degree from the University of Notre Dame Law School.

Chicago Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Kaarina Salovaara

IJ Kaarina Salovaara began hearing cases at the Chicago Immigration Court in August 2018. Prior to beginning service on the immigration bench, Salovaara had a long career as a prosecutor, serving as an assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois for 27 years, from 1991 to 2018. From 1981 to 1991, Salovaara worked in private practice. She had previously been a law clerk for Judge Barbara B. Crabb of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Immigration Judge Salovaara has a law degree from the University of Virginia Law School.

Cleveland Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Jonathan W. Owens

Immigration Judge Jonathan W. Owens began hearing cases at the Cleveland Immigration Court in August 2018. Prior to beginning service on the immigration bench, Owen was an administrative law judge (ALJ) manager from 2014 to 2018. He was an ALJ for the State of Michigan Licensing and Regulatory Affairs in Detroit from 2007 to 2014. He had previously worked in the Office of Child Support for the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. Immigration Judge Owens has a law degree from Michigan State University, Detroit College of Law.

El Paso Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Nathan L. Herbert

Immigration Judge Nathan L. Herbert began hearing cases at the El Paso Immigration Court in August 2018. Prior to beginning his service on the immigration bench, Herbert worked in several important immigration-related positions at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). From 2015 to 2018, Herbert was an attorney with ICE in San Antonio, Texas. From 2009 to 2015, he served in a similar capacity with ICE in Denver. From 2008 to 2009, he was an attorney advisor with EOIR in Denver. Immigration Judge Herbert has a law degree from Michigan State University College of Law.

Falls Church Immigration Adjudication Center: Immigration Judge George J. Ward Jr.

Immigration Judge George J. Ward Jr. began hearing cases at the Falls Church Immigration Adjudication Center in August 2018. IJ Ward has extensive experience in as a government attorney for various immigration components of the DHS and the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). From 1999 to 2018, he served in various capacities as an ICE attorney in both Virginia and Washington D.C. His most recent position was as deputy chief in the Office of Chief Counsel, ICE, DHS, from 2012 to 2018. Prior to his work in the federal government, Ward was an assistant district attorney for the Nassau County District Attorney's Office in Mineola, New York. He has a law degree from St. John's University School of Law.

Harlingen Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Daniel B. Gilbert

Immigration Judge Daniel B. Gilbert began hearing cases at the Harlingen Immigration Court in August 2018. Prior to beginning his service on the immigration bench, IJ Gilbert served for six years as an assistant chief counsel for ICE, both in Harlingen, Texas, and Baltimore, Maryland. He had previously been a staff attorney with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from 2009 to 2011. Immigration Judge Gilbert has a law degree from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

LaSalle Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Angela Munson

Immigration Judge Angela Munson began hearing cases at the LaSalle Immigration Court in August 2018. Before becoming an immigration judge, Munson complied extensive experience as a prosecutor. From 1998 to 2018, Munson worked as an assistant U.S. Attorney in various capacities in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia. From 1994 to 1998, she was a local prosecutor as an assistant district attorney with the Office of the Fulton County District Attorney. From 2011 to 2012, she served as a legal advisor to the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq. Immigration Judge Munson has a law degree from Tulane Law School.

Los Angeles Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Robert A. Fellrath

Immigration Judge Robert A. Fellrath began hearing cases at the Los Angeles Immigration Court in August 2018. Prior to beginning service on the immigration bench, IJ Fellrath was an assistant U.S. Attorney for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Tucson, Arizona, from 2008 to 2018. From 2007 to 2008, he was an assistant federal public defender. From 2000 to 2018, Fellrath served with the Judge Advocate General's Corps in the U.S. Army. He has a law degree from the University of Notre Dame.

Los Angeles Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Natalie B. Huddleston

Immigration Judge Natalie B. Huddleston began hearing cases at the Los Angeles Immigration Court in August 2018. Prior to becoming an immigration judge, Huddleston's experience came primarily as a prosecutor. She was a federal prosecutor in Phoenix from 2014 to 2018, and a state prosecutor in various offices in Arizona from 2004 to 2014. She has a law degree from the University of Notre Dame.

Los Angeles Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Nancy E. Miller

Immigration Judge Nancy E. Miller began hearing cases at the Los Angeles Immigration Court in August 2018. Prior to becoming an immigration judge, Miller had 33 years of experience in private law practice from 1985 to 2018. She has a law degree from Southwestern University School of Law.

Los Angeles Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Jason R. Waterloo

Immigration Judge Jason R. Waterloo began hearing cases at the Los Angeles Immigration Court in August 2018. From 2014 to 2018, now-IJ Waterloo worked as an assistant chief counsel for ICE in Los Angeles. From 2008 to 2014, he was an assistant district attorney with the Berks County District Attorney's Office in Reading, Pennsylvania. He has a law degree from the West Virginia University College of Law.

Miami Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Michael G. Walleisa

Immigration Judge Michael G. Walleisa began hearing cases at the Miami Immigration Court in August 2018. Prior to becoming an immigration judge, Walleisa worked as an assistant U.S. attorney in various capacities with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida in Miami. Notably, he was an assistant U.S. attorney with the National Security Section from 2002 to 2018. From 1985 to 1989, he was a state prosecutor in Dade County, Florida. He has a law degree from Temple University School of Law.

New York City Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Lena Golovnin

Immigration Judge Lena Golovnin began hearing cases at the New York City Immigration Court in August 2018. She has extensive experience as a federal lawyer in the immigration context. From 2010 to 2018, now-IJ Golovnin was assistant chief counsel for the Office of Chief Counsel, ICE, DHS, in Manhattan. She was an attorney advisor for EOIR in New York from 2009 to 2010, and in San Antonio from 2008 to 2009. She has a law degree from Thomas M. Cooley Law School.

In a special note, we at The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC, have had nothing but good experiences dealing with Immigration Judge Golovnin when she was an ICE attorney. We wish her the best of luck in her difficult new job, and fully expect that she will prove to be an excellent immigration judge.

New York City Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Cynthia Gordon

Immigration Judge Cynthia Gordon began hearing cases at the New York City Immigration Court in August 2018. Prior to becoming an immigration judge, IJ Gordon served as assistant chief counsel for the Office of Chief Counsel, ICE, DHS, in Manhattan. Before her work for ICE, she was a state and local prosecutor, working for the New York Attorney General's Office from 2001 to 2007, and as an assistant district attorney in Manhattan from 1994 to 2001. She has a law degree from Cornell Law School.

New York City Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Howard C. Hom

Immigration Judge Howard C. Hom began hearing cases at the New York City Immigration Court in August 2018. IJ Hom has one of the more varied resumes of the 23 new immigration judges. From 2016 to 2018, he worked as an immigration attorney in private practice. From 2009 to 2016, he served as an ALJ for the California Unemployment Insurance Review Board. IJ Hom worked in private practice from 1981 to 2009. From 1976 to 1981, Hom was a general and trial attorney with the former Immigration and Naturalization Service. He has a law degree from Loyola Law School.

New York City Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Michael G. McFarland

Immigration Judge Michael G. McFarland began hearing cases at the New York City Immigration Court in August 2018. Prior to becoming an immigration judge, McFarland served as assistant chief counsel and then deputy chief counsel for ICE in Manhattan from 2011 to 2018. Previously, he was a staff attorney for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from 2007 to 2011. He has a law degree from New York University School of Law.

Oakdale Immigration Court: Immigration Judge W. Scott Laragy

Immigration Judge W. Scott Laragy began hearing cases at the Oakdale Immigration Court in August 2018. IJ Laragly was counsel to the direct of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), which is a component of the Department of Justice (DOJ), from 2017 to 2018. He had been legislative counsel for the EOUSA from 2012 to 2017. From 2007 to 2017, IJ Laragy was an assistant U.S. attorney for the U.S. Attorney's Office in New Orleans. Laragy is also a military lawyer in the Judge Advocate General's (JAG) Corps with the U.S. Navy. He was on active duty from 1995 to 2007 and is currently serving in the naval reserves. Immigration Judge Laragy has a law degree from Loyola University New Orleans.

Otero Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Kathleen French

Immigration Judge Kathleen French began hearing cases at the Otero Immigration Court in August 2018. IJ French has extensive experience in the federal immigration context. From 2000 to 2018, she was an assistant chief counsel and deputy chief counsel for ICE in several locations. She worked as a judicial law clerk with EOIR from 1999 to 2000, and with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from 1997 to 1999. IJ French has also been a military lawyer. From 1998 to 2013, she served in several reserve-duty roles in the U.S. Army JAG corps. Prior to earning her law degree, from 1982 to 1994, she served on active duty in the United States Coast Guard as a shipboard law enforcement officer. Immigration Judge French has a law degree from George Mason University.

Pearsall Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Stuart D. Alcorn

Immigration Judge Stuart D. Alcorn began hearing cases at the Pearsall Immigration Court in August 2018. IJ Alcorn has experience as a federal immigration lawyer and as a military lawyer. From 2008 to 2018, he served as an assistant chief counsel for ICE in San Antonio. From 2008 to 2017, he served as a military defense attorney in the JAG corps, U.S. Army Reserve. From 2005 to 2008, he was a military prosecutor and command judge advocate in the U.S. Army. Immigration Judge Alcorn has a law degree from the Thurgood Marshall School of Law at Texas Southern University.

San Antonio Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Eric J. Tijerina

Immigration Judge Eric J. Tijerina began hearing cases at the San Antonio Immigration Court in August 2018. Prior to becoming an immigration judge, Tijerina was a policy analyst with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) from 2015 to 2018. He worked in various immigration-related capacities prior to serving as a policy analyst at USCIS. From 2014 to 2015, Tijerina was the associate director of the Immigrant Children's Legal Program of the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants in Arlington, Virginia. From 2010 to 2014, he was the director of legal programs at the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services in San Antonio, Texas. From 2008 to 2010, he was supervising attorney for the St. Mary's University School of Law Immigration Clinic in San Antonio. From 2006 to 2008, Tijerina was the lead attorney at the Legal Orientation Program of the Political Asylum Project of Austin, Texas. He has a law degree from St. Mary's School of Law.

Ulster Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Nelson A. Vargas-Padilla

Immigration Judge Nelson A. Vargas-Padilla began hearing cases at the Ulster Immigration Court in August 2018. IJ Vargas-Padilla worked extensively as an attorney for both DHS and the former INS before becoming an immigration judge. From 2016 to 2018, Vargas-Padilla was litigation and national security counsel for USCIS in Washington D.C. From 2015 to 2016, he worked for the USCIS Refugee Affairs Division in Kenya and Malaysia. From 2013 to 2016, he was transformation counsel for the USCIS's Transformation Law Division in Washington D.C. From 2009 to 2013, he was deputy chief counsel for ICE in Baltimore, after having served as senior attorney from 2007 to 2009 and assistant chief counsel from 2001 to 2007. From 1996 to 2001, Vargas-Padilla was an attorney advisor for the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). He has a law degree from the University of Buffalo School of Law.

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

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com