USCIS Response to Coronavirus Outbreak in China

Introduction

On February 5, 2020, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) released a news update detailing its response to the ongoing novel coronavirus outbreak in China [PDF version]. In this post, we will examine the contents of the update.

In a separate article, we discuss President Donald Trump's Presidential Proclamation limiting travel to persons who were present in China in the 14 days preceding entry or attempted entry into the United States [see article].

USCIS Beijing and Guangzhou Field Office Closures

In response to the ongoing coronavirus outbreak in China, the USCIS has temporarily closed its field offices in Beijing and Guangzhou. The USCIS will reschedule all appointments affected by the temporary closures when the Beijing and Guangzhou field offices are reopened. It will send new appointment notices to affected applicants.

Rescheduling Appointments in the United States

Individuals in the United States with scheduled USCIS appointments may reschedule if they are either sick or feeling symptoms of being sick. The individual's appointment notice includes instructions for rescheduling. Provided that the individual reschedules his or her appointment in accordance with the instructions on the appointment notice, there is no penalty for rescheduling. If an individual appears to be ill during his or her appointment, the USCIS officer may take it upon him or herself to reschedule.

Special Cases for Individuals In the United States

The USCIS may, upon request, provide special support for individuals who are negatively affected by natural or extreme circumstances. For example, “[w]hen applying for an extension or change of status due to a special situation that prevented your timely departure, we may take into consideration how the special situation prevented your departure.”

Conclusion

Individuals whose cases or immigration situations are affected by the ongoing coronavirus outbreak in China should consult with an experienced immigration attorney for case-specific guidance.

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

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

DHS Publishes New Forms Due to Public Charge Rule

On January 27, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States stayed a universal injunction against the Department of Homeland Security's public charge final rule [see article]. The stay allows the public charge final rule, which was published in August [see article] and originally slated to take effect in October 2019, to come into force everywhere in the United States except for Illinois.

Following the Supreme Court's decision, the USCIS has announced that the final rule will be implemented nationwide — except in Illinois — beginning on February 24, 2020 [PDF version]. Accordingly, the USCIS has published new editions of forms affected by the new final rule. Applicants and petitioners filing on or after February 24, 2020, except for those in Illinois, will be required to use the new editions of the forms. The following are the affected forms:

• Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker
• Form I-129CW, Petition for a CNMI-Only Nonimmigrant Worker
• Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status
• Form I-485 Supplement A, Supplement A to Form I-485, Adjustment of Status Under Section 245(i)
• Form I-485J, Confirmation of Bona Fide Job Offer or Request for Job Portability Under INA Section 204(j)
• Form I-539, Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status
• Form I-539A, Supplemental Information for Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status (PDF)
• Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility
• Form I-864, Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA
• Form I-864A, Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member
• Form I-864EZ, Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA
• Form I-912, Request for Fee Waiver

The USCIS will not accept prior versions of the forms if they are postmarked on or after February 24, 2020, except in Illinois. Please see our companion blog for guidance for residents of Illinois [see blog]. For applicants in the rest of the country, the USCIS will accept the prior versions of these forms only if they were postmarked (or submitted electronically, if applicable), before February 24, 2020.

Furthermore, applicants for adjustment of status who are subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility will be required to submit the new Form I-944, Declaration of Self-Sufficiency, except for adjustment applicants in Illinois. Applicants whom the USCIS invites to post a public charge bond under the new final rule will use the new Form I-945, Public Charge Bond, for that purpose. Those applicants seeking to cancel a public charge bond will use the Form I-356, Request for Cancellation of Public Charge Bond.

The Final Rule itself was set to take effect on October 15, 2019. Accordingly, the text of the rule makes reference to a requirement to disclose whether the applicant applied for, was certified or approved to receive, or received certain non-cash benefits on or after October 15, 2019. Since the rule is taking effect nationwide outside of Illinois on February 24, 2020, rather than October 15, 2019, the USCIS has provided that it is applying all references to “October 15, 2019” in the final rule as though they refer to “February 24, 2020.”

The USCIS has also updated its Policy Manual with guidance on the implementation of the new public charge final rule. We will discuss that in a future 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

DOS Updates Website to Increase Understanding of Family-Based Immigrant Visa Processing

On February 7, 2020, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) updated its website to provide information on its implementation of a fully digitized visa application process for family-based immigrant visa cases [PDF version]. The DOS explains that the worldwide implementation of the new processes for family-based applications, implemented in December 2019, will increase efficiency and reduce processing times.

The DOS states that the updates to its website are to help petitioners and their family members understand the new fully digitized visa application process. The updates, in and of themselves, do not represent any policy change to family-based immigrant visa processing.

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

Guidance for Residents of Illinois on New Public Charge Rule

Introduction

On February 24, 2020, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will begin implementing its new public charge rule nationwide, except in Illinois. The new public charge rule remains enjoined in Illinois by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois [see article]. The USCIS provided guidance for public charge determinations in Illinois under the current legal situation [PDF version].

Illinois Residents Must Use Prior Form I-485

The injunction against the public charge rule in Illinois means that applicants for adjustment of status who live in Illinois and who are subject to the previous public charge ground of inadmissibility are not subject to the new public charge rule. These applicants will instead continue to be subject to the previous public charge rule, which was promulgated in 1999. We discuss the prior public charge rule in a separate article on site [see article].

In order to determine whether an adjustment applicant actually lives in Illinois, the USCIS will use the applicant's current physical address, as provided in section 14 on the prior edition of the Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (ed. dates July 15, 2019, or December 13, 2017).

Although the USCIS has published a new version of the Form I-485, adjustment applicants in Illinois must continue to file their applicants on the July 15, 2019, or December 13, 2017, editions of the Form I-485. Illinois applicants do not need to submit the new Form I-944, Declaration of Self Sufficiency, with their Forms I-485. The USCIS will reject any adjustment application filed by a resident of Illinois on the new Form I-485 or any such application that is accompanied by the Form I-944.

Applicants from Illinois are otherwise required to submit all initial evidence and the correct application fees.

The following are the mailing addresses for applications filed by or on behalf of aliens in Illinois who are subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility:

[USPS]

USCIS Nebraska Service Center

ATTN: Illinois Team

P.O. Box 82521

Lincoln, NE 68501

Courier Service

USCIS Nebraska Service Center

ATTN: Illinois Team

850 'S' Street

Lincoln, NE 68508

Extension of Stay and Change of Status Applications for Petitioners in Illinois

Due to the district court injunction, applicants and petitioners in Illinois seeking to extend an alien's nonimmigrant stay or change an alien's nonimmigrant status are not subject to the public charge final rule.

Form I-539, Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status: The USCIS will use the applicant's physical address to determine whether he or she is subject to the final rule. If the physical address is in Illinois, the final rule will not apply.

Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker: The USCIS will use the petitioner's/employer's physical address and the beneficiary's physical address, as listed on the Form I-129, to determine whether the beneficiary of the petition is subject to the final rule. If the physical address is determined to be in Illinois, the final rule will not apply. This guidance applies in full to the Form I-129CW, Petition for a CNMI-Only Nonimmigrant Transitional Worker.

Petitioners filing the Form I-129 who are covered by the injunction in Illinois must use the prior version of the Form I-129 that has an edition date of January 8, 2020 (or January 31, 2019, while that edition remains acceptable. Petitioners covered by the Illinois injunction who file the Form I-129CW must use the prior version of the Form I-129CW that has an edition date of December 2, 2019. The edition date for all USCIS forms is found on the page of the form and in the form instructions.

Petitioners who are covered by the injunction should continue to send their Form I-129 or Form I-129CW to the direct filing address for those forms provided at uscis.gov, along with any accompanying Form I-539.

The USCIS will reject any petition filed on the incorrect version of the Form I-129, as well as any accompanying Form I-539.

The USCIS added that any applicant who is covered by the Illinois injunction who submits the Form I-539 alone and not concurrently with a Form I-129 or Form I-129CW, should use the December 2, 2019 edition date and send their application to the following address:

[USPS]

USCIS Nebraska Service Center

ATTN: I-539 Team

P.O. Box 82521

Lincoln, NE 68501

[Courier Service]

USCIS Nebraska Service Center

ATTN: I-539 Team

850 'S' Street

Lincoln, NE 68508

Electronic filing will no longer be available to Form I-539 applicants in Illinois starting on or after February 24, 2020.

Effect of Moving In or Out of Illinois

The USCIS will not apply the public charge final rule to an applicant, petitioner, or beneficiary for adjustment of status, extension of stay, or change of status whose physical address is in Illinois at any point during the adjudication of the application or petition, so long as the USCIS is notified of a bona fide change in the applicant's, beneficiary's, or petitioner's physical address to a location in Illinois before the USCIS concludes its adjudication of the relevant application or petition.

In the case of the Form I-129, this guidance applies to cases where either the beneficiary or the petitioner/employer changes its physical address to a location in Illinois at any point during the adjudication process, so long as the USCIS is notified before completing adjudication of the relevant application or petition and the change is bona fide.

To be clear, the final rule will not apply if the applicant, beneficiary, or petitioner/employer physically resided in Illinois, but notified the USCIS of a bona fide change in physical address to a different state while the application or petition is pending.

By signing an application or petition, the applicant or petitioner is certifying, under penalty of perjury, that the physical address provided on the form is true and correct. Thus, the applicant, petitioner, or beneficiary may face serious adverse consequences for listing a false physical address or location on any USCIS form.

Conclusion

For the time being, the public charge rule will apply nationwide except to applicants, petitioners, and beneficiaries having a physical address in Illinois. This benefits those living in Illinois who would otherwise be affected by the new public charge rule to the extent that the previous public charge rule is more favorable to petitioners and beneficiaries than the new public charge rule. However, because the USCIS has published new forms for the rest of the country as part of implementing the public charge final rule, applicants, petitioners, and beneficiaries who reside in Illinois must use the prior versions of all affected forms. Failure to do so will result in the outright denial of the application or petition.

At some point in the future, the situation regarding the public charge final rule will be resolved with finality for the entire country, including Illinois. However, so long as the current situation remains, certain applicants, petitioners, and beneficiaries in Illinois must ensure that they follow the correct procedures. An experienced immigration attorney may provide guidance on completing and properly filing USCIS forms, as well as any and all issues related to the relevant application or petition.

We will continue to update the website with more guidance on the legal situation involving the public charge final rule as it becomes available.

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

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Justice Gorsuch Weighs In Against Universal Injunctions in Public Charge Case

Introduction

On January 27, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States stayed a universal injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) against the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS's) new public charge rule. The Supreme Court's decision will allow the Government to implement its new public charge rule in every state except Illinois, where the rule is enjoined statewide.

We discuss the practical effect of the order for those who may be subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility in a separate post [see blog]. In this post, we will briefly examine an interesting concurring opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, and joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, inveighing against the increasing tendency of district court judges to enter universal injunctions, preventing the Government from implementing a policy nationwide.

You may read the Court's order and Justice Gorsuch's concurring opinion here [PDF version].

The Concurring Opinion

Five of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court — John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh — voted to grant the Government's motion to stay the injunction against the implementation of the public charge rule. We will be discussing a concurring opinion authored by Justice Gorsuch and joined by Justice Thomas explaining their reasoning for voting to grant the Government's motion.

Justice Gorsuch began by noting that plaintiffs bringing suit against the public charge rule “urged courts to enjoin the rule's enforcement not only as it applies to them, or even to some definable group having something to do with their claimed injury, but as it applies to anyone.” That is, they sought not only relief for themselves, but also to prevent the Government from imposing the rule anywhere. Justice Gorsuch traced the history of the various court challenges. District courts in California, Washington, and Maryland imposed universal injunctions, only to have the injunctions stayed by appellate courts. Meanwhile, the Second Circuit ruled against the Government's motion to stay the SDNY injunction, which was the instant issue before the Supreme Court. The United States District Court for the Northern Illinois enjoined the rule only in Illinois. Regarding the various injunctions and subsequent litigation, Justice Gorsuch wrote: “If all of this is confusing, don't worry, because none of it matters much at this point.”

Justice Gorsuch proceeded to criticize the universal injunctions that had been entered against the public charge rule, describing the SDNY injunction as “a single judge in New York enjoin[ing] the government from applying the new [public charge] definition to anyone, without regard to geography or participation in this or any other lawsuit.” Speaking more broadly, Justice Gorsuch wrote: “The real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them. Whether framed as injunctions of 'nationwide,' 'universal,' or 'cosmic' scope, these orders share the same basic flaw-they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case.” He further explained why he views universal injunctions as being flawed: “Equitable remedies, like remedies in general, are meant to redress the injuries sustained by a particular plaintiff in a particular lawsuit.” He went further, stating that when a district court goes beyond granting relief to the parties before it to granting relief “to those who are strangers to the suit,” it becomes “hard to see how the court could still be acting in the judicial role of resolving cases and controversies.” Justice Gorsuch suggested that universal injunctions may be suspect under the scope of the judiciary's powers under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

Justice Gorsuch opined that “[i]t has become increasingly apparent that this Court must, at some point, confront these important objections to this increasingly widespread practice” of district courts granting universal injunctions — noting with citation to Justice Thomas's concurrence in Trump v. Hawaii [see next section] that universal injunctions have become increasingly common in recent years. He stated that the current situation “is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions.” Justice Gorsuch explained that the current situation leads to litigants “leaping from one emergency stay application to the next” rather than taking the time to develop arguments regarding a particular case. This allows “little opportunity for the adversarial testing of evidence.” While limiting the geographic scope of relief leads to uncertainty as well, Justice Gorsuch found this preferable because it “encourages multiple judges and multiple circuits to weigh in only after careful deliberation, a process that aids this Court's own decision -making process.”

Justice Gorsuch next addressed what is commonly called “forum shopping: “There are currently more than 1,000 active and senior district court judges, sitting across 94 judicial districts, and subject to review in 12 regional courts of appeal. Because plaintiffs generally are not bound by adverse decisions in cases to which they were not a party, there is a nearly boundless opportunity to shop for a friendly forum to secure a win nationwide.” In short, Justice Gorsuch is noting that in the event plaintiffs lose in one district court, there is no adverse consequence for other individuals nationwide who challenge the same government policy in other district courts. But, when universal injunctions are in play, a single set of plaintiffs before one of the 94 Federal district courts may secure a win that blocks the policy in question nationwide, including in districts where other plaintiffs may have already lost in advancing the same claim. The effect, Justice Gorsuch explained, is that “the government's hope of implementing any new policy could face the long odds of a straight sweep, parlaying a 94-to-0 win in the district courts into a 12-to-0 win in the courts of appeal.”

For these reasons, Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas, expressed his hope that the Court would review the issue in an appropriate case.

A Broader View

Justice Thomas, who joined Justice Gorsuch's concurrence, wrote similarly critically about universal injunctions in his concurring opinion in Trump v. Hawaii, the case in which the Supreme Court upheld President Donald Trump's restrictions on entry for nationals of certain countries, colloquially known as the “travel ban.” We discuss Justice Thomas's concurring opinion in Trump v. Hawaii on site [see blog]. Although Justice Gorsuch, like Justice Thomas, voted with the majority in Trump v. Hawaii, he did not join Justice Thomas's concurring opinion. In the instant concurrence, Justice Gorsuch not only articulated similar views to Justice Thomas in Trump v. Hawaii, he cited to Justice Thomas's concurrence several times. At a minimum, the opinion indicates that at least two Justices on the Supreme Court are highly concerned about the increasing use of district court universal injunctions.

The use of universal injunctions has increased dramatically during the Trump Administration — including against several high-profile immigration-related policies such as the “travel ban” [see article] and the Administration's ongoing efforts to end DACA [see article]. Universal injunctions did not begin during the Trump Administration, however — President Barack Obama's DAPA policy was enjoined universally by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied the Government's motion to lift the injunction, and the Fifth Circuit's decision was later affirmed by an equally divided Supreme Court [see article]. DAPA never took effect and was ultimately rescinded by the Trump Administration [see article].

The universal injunction issue is significant in the immigration context because litigants against administration immigration policies often seek them in certain district courts to block policies from being implemented anywhere in the United States. Thus, any move to curtail the use of universal injunctions by the Supreme Court could have a profound effect on litigation against federal immigration policies, and federal policies more broadly.

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

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Supreme Court Stays Universal Injunction Against Public Charge Rule

On January 27, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States stayed a universal injunction against the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS's) public charge rule that had been entered by the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had denied the Government's motion to stay. The Supreme Court's stay will remain in effect pending the Government's appeal of the Southern District decision on the merits of the public charge rule to the Second Circuit.

You may read the Supreme Court's decision here [PDF version]. Four of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court — Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan — would have denied the Government's stay application. Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote an opinion concurring with the stay and expressing concern over the proliferation of universal injunctions by district courts — which is also included in the PDF. We cover the concurring opinion in a separate post [see blog].

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) released a statement on the Court's decision [PDF version]. Ken Cuccinelli, the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the DHS Deputy Secretary, stated that the USCIS would move to implement the public charge rule nationwide, except in Illinois where the Government is still enjoined from enforcing it. However, the USCIS has not yet provided further guidance on how it will apply the public charge rule.

The USCIS published its new public charge rule on August 14, 2019 [PDF version]. It was scheduled to take effect on October 15, 2019, but was enjoined before the effective date. As written, the rule applied to applications postmarked on or after the effective date of October 15, 2019.

The litigation over the public charge rule will continue to wind through the courts, and may yet reach the Supreme Court again. Although the Government's victory on its motion to stay the last remaining universal injunction bodes well for its chances of prevailing in the litigation, the ultimate fate of the public charge rule remains uncertain. For now, it appears that the USCIS will begin implementing the public charge rule everywhere except Illinois. Petitioners and beneficiaries with questions about how the new public charge rule may affect their applications should consult with an experienced immigration attorney immediately. This includes any questions regarding which public benefits may raise public charge concerns under the new rules.

We provide details about the new public charge rule and how it differs from preexisting public charge guidance in a post we wrote about it at the time it was published [see article]. We will update our website with a more comprehensive discussion of the new public charge rule in the near future.

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