Analysis of the Ninth Circuit's Decision on President Trump's Executive Order

INTRODUCTION

On February 9, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rendered a decision in State of Washington v. Trump, No. 17-35105 [PDF version]. The case regarded the U.S. government's appeal of the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington [PDF version] against portions of President Donald Trump's Executive Order titled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States” [PDF version]. The Ninth Circuit denied the Government's emergency motion for a stay of the TRO pending appeal.

Before reading this article, please see my full article on the Ninth Circuit decision to learn about the court's reasoning [see article]. Please also see my discussion of the legal underpinning of the Executive Order [see blog]. In this post, I will offer my analysis and opinion of the decision, as well as how I believe that the Trump Administration should proceed.

ANALYSIS

In a previous blog post, I defended the legality of the contested provisions of the Executive Order except for its application to lawful permanent residents (LPRs) [see blog]. Accordingly, I disagree with most aspects of the Ninth Circuit's decision to deny the Government's stay motion against the temporary restraining order (TRO) against those aspects of the Executive Order. Furthermore, I would be troubled to see certain aspects of the Ninth Circuit's reasoning on the merits make it into a precedent decision by either the Ninth Circuit or ultimately, the Supreme Court of the United States. I will offer a non-comprehensive overview of some of the aspects of the decision that I find most troubling.

1. OMISSION OF DISCUSSION OF SECTION 212(F)

The decision by the Ninth Circuit omitted any discussion of section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). We recently posted a detailed examination of the statute [see article] and how it applies to the Executive Order [see blog]. Section 212(f) is the statute under which President Trump issued his Executive Order. The provision gives the President broad authority to suspend the entry of any alien or of any class of aliens if the President determines that the entry of such alien or class of aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. As a result of the failure of the Ninth Circuit to analyze the statute, which empowers the President to suspend the entry of individual aliens and classes of aliens, it is difficult to ascertain why the Ninth Circuit offered so little deference to the President's determination.

This problem was discussed in detail by Josh Blackman, a noted law professor at South Texas College of Law Houston (note that Blackman states in the article that he disagrees with the Executive Order as a matter of policy, highlighting that one can disagree with aspects of the Ninth Circuit decision while also disagreeing with President Trump's Executive Order). Blackman noted that in a concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) [PDF version], Justice Robert Jackson explained that the President's authority is “at its maximum” when acting “pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress.”[1] Yet, in its decision, the Ninth Circuit applied very high scrutiny to aspects of President Trump's Executive Order, without explaining the rationale behind its application of that standard of review. Furthermore, as one will find upon reading our section 212(f) article, courts have consistently found that section 212(f) recognizes statutorily the President's broad authority to suspend entry by proclamation.

2. BREADTH OF STANDING

One of the most concerning aspects to me about the decision is the Ninth Circuit's discussion of standing. The Ninth Circuit found that the states of Washington and Minnesota had standing to file suit challenging the Executive Order primarily based on the States' claims that “the Executive Order causes a concrete and particularized injury to their public universities.” Specifically, the Executive Order would make it impossible for visa-holding faculty members and students who are in the United States to depart and then return and for those outside of the United States to return (under most circumstances). It is certainly debatable as to whether the resulting alleged “injury” incurred by public universities is sufficient to establish standing to contest the Executive Order.

Whether a State can have standing to sue over an immigration policy was a major issue in the DAPA litigation. In that case, I agreed with the Fifth Circuit's determination that Texas had standing to sue the Obama Administration over the DAPA policy [see blog]. However, in Washington v. Trump, I disagree with the Ninth Circuit's reasoning arguing that Washington State has standing. In particular, one aspect of its decision would make for very troubling precedent were it to be adopted in a for-precedent decision, or worse yet, by the Supreme Court:

“The schools cannot consider attractive student candidates and cannot hire faculty from the seven affected countries, which they have done in the past.”

It is one thing — debatable as it may be — to argue that Washington has standing based on an injury to its public universities insofar as the Executive Order affects its already-admitted students and current faculty who already have visas. It is another thing entirely to state that universities can have standing based on not being able to consider for admission or employment certain potential alien student or potential faculty members who theoretically would apply but for the Executive Order. “Attractive student candidates” and potential faculty members from the seven named countries covers aliens without any current ties to the United States. Potentially, millions of aliens all across the world could be considered potential students or faculty members of American colleges and universities. It is unclear what limitations the Ninth Circuit recognizes to its standing determination, which seemingly could be extended to allow any number of parties to challenge any restrictive immigration policy on the basis that it could prevent unnamed potential students, professors, or other employees from coming to the United States. Regardless of the ultimate decision of the courts on this issue, I hope that they greatly narrow this rather sweeping conception of standing to challenge immigration restrictions.

3. DUE PROCESS

The Ninth Circuit's reasoning that led it to conclude that Washington was likely to prevail across-the-board on its due process claims is, in my opinion, flawed. However, I will start by noting that I agree that Washington was likely to prevail on its due process claims with regard to lawful permanent residents (LPRs) for reasons I discussed in my blog on the legality of the Executive Order [see blog]. There is ample precedent that an LPR is entitled to due process beyond that which is afforded to an alien who has not been admitted for permanent residency. While section 212(f) allows the President to suspend the “entry” of aliens, as I noted, LPRs are usually not considered to be making a new entry — or under current law, seeking admission — when returning to the United States from a temporary trip abroad. Indeed, that the White House counsel issued a legal opinion that the Executive Order does not apply to LPRs [see article]. However, the Ninth Circuit did not agree with the Government that opinion by White House counsel functioned to preempt further litigation on the LPR issue because it was not binding on the various agencies charged with implementing the Executive Order. On this point I see the Ninth Circuit's concerns, albeit while noting that the Ninth Circuit has the option of upholding an injunction against only that portion of the Executive Order may be applicable to LPRs, such as what multiple Federal district courts have already done.

Unfortunately, the Ninth Circuit did not stop while it was ahead, and instead found that non-LPRs — including potentially those in the United States unlawfully — are entitled to due process to a degree to which is not supported by the cases that the Ninth Circuit on. In his post, Blackman noted that the Ninth Circuit did not adequately summarize Justice Antony Kennedy's concurring opinion in citing to Kerry v. Din, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) [PDF version]. The Ninth Circuit cited to Justice Kennedy's stating that U.S. residents or institutions petitioning for an alien may have procedural due process rights of their own to assert. Of relevance to the issue of the due process rights of the aliens themselves, however, Ninth Circuit failed to acknowledge that Justice Kennedy held that it was not necessary to reach and did not reach the question of whether the citizen-petitioner could assert the existence of procedural due process rights of the alien seeking a visa, because the State Department did not in any event violate procedural due process in denying a visa based on national security concerns without disclosing reasons for the denial.[2] Interestingly, Justice Kennedy cited to the Supreme Court decision in Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972) [PDF version], as support of his position of deferring to the Executive Branch (specifically the Department of State's manner of denying a visa) on this issue, whereas the Ninth Circuit cited to Mandel as evidence that the Executive Order was in fact reviewable.

The Ninth Circuit also cited to cases that we have discussed previously. For example, the decision cites to Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 33-34 (1982) [PDF version], shortly after suggesting that aliens seeking initial admission may be entitled to due process in being denied entry under the Executive Order. The Ninth Circuit says of Landon that “[t]hese [due process] rights also apply to certain aliens attempting to reenter the United States after traveling abroad.” Indeed, Landon does apply to LPRs, however, as we noted, it explicitly does not apply to non-LPRs [see section].

Blackman notes an interesting precedent Ninth Circuit decision that was not addressed by the court in the instant case: Angov v. Lynch, 788 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2013) [PDF version]. Angov cited to another case we discussed in our analysis of section 212(f), Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212 73 S.Ct. 625 97 L.Ed. 956 (1953) [PDF version], in holding that aliens who had entered the United States were entitled to due process in proceedings. However, aliens who had not entered the United States, or in current parlance are applying for admission, are not entitled to such due process. Significantly, the Ninth Circuit in Angov quoted from its previous precedent decision in Kwai Fun Wong v. United States, 373 F.3d 952, 971 (9th Cir. 2004) [PDF version], in order to make a critical distinction of particular relevance to review of the Executive Order: “[A]n alien seeking admission has not 'entered' the United States, even if [he] is in fact physically present.” Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit in Angov also cited to Landon to support the assertion that aliens endeavoring to enter the United States are not entitled to due process in entering.

In a final note for this section, the Ninth Circuit attested that the district court that issuing the temporary restraining order (TRO) against the Executive Order had held that Washington was likely to prevail on its due process argument. A careful examination of the district court decision finds that the court did no such thing. In fact, the district court only offered arguments in favor of Washington having standing, and offered no explanation as to why Washington was likely to prevail on the merits. Even for a TRO issued expeditiously, this omission was glaring. It is unclear why the Ninth Circuit read something into the district court TRO that is simply not there.

4. RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION ARGUMENTS

The Ninth Circuit reserved the question of whether Washington is likely to prevail on its religious discrimination arguments — those being that the Executive Order, formulated with the intent to disfavor Muslims seeking entry, violates the Establishment and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution.

The Ninth Circuit does appear to concede — to some extent — that the Executive Order is facially neutral. In support of reserving the issue, however, the Ninth Circuit cites to a number of Supreme Court cases holding or acknowledging that courts may look to evidence beyond the face of the law under consideration determining its purpose. However, none of the cases that the Ninth Circuit addressed the use of campaign statements to establish the intent of a facially neutral Executive Order issued after the individual in question assumed office. Yet this is the “evidence” upon which the Ninth Circuit relied in concluding that there was a likelihood that the plaintiffs would prevail on the religious discrimination claims. In fact, as noted by Eugene Kontorovich on the Volokh Conspiracy legal blog hosted by the Washington Post, “[t]here is absolutely no precedent for courts looking to a politician's statements from before he or she took office, let alone campaign promises, to establish any kind of impermissible motive.”[3] Kontorovich explains — compellingly — why the Ninth Circuit's analysis on this point is both disingenuous and likely to have dangerous consequences were it to become precedent (I may explore the issue further in the future). He stated that the result of the Ninth Circuit's suggestion in the opinion “would mean that Trump is automatically disbarred, from the moment of his inauguration, of exercising certain presidential powers, not because of his actions as president, but because of who he is — that is, how he won the presidency.”

To be sure, President Trump made a number of egregious statements during the campaign which I have addressed in detail on this site [see e.g. post on vetting; post on his victory]. However, President Trump's Executive Order is, in my opinion, legal on the face (excluding its initial application to LPRs) and in no way orders the implementation of a “religious ban.” For an understanding of why it is not a religious ban, please see my detailed post examining the issue with regard to the now-defunct NSEERS program, which required certain individuals from 25 countries — mostly Muslim-majority countries — to follow certain registration requirements post-admission [see article]. So long as he is President, President Trump's campaign statements cannot preclude him from using the powers of the presidency in a lawful way. Were he to endeavor to use section 212(f) to suspend the entry of aliens by religious affiliation, the issue should be adjudicated at such time.

As a final note, I have discussed before, and in detail, how favoring certain classes of people eligible for refugee status is in accord with both the law and past precedent [see blog]. Religious persecution is a statutorily specified ground under which an individual can qualify as a “refugee” [see blog].

5. EVIDENTIARY STANDARD

The Ninth Circuit held that the Government must establish that an alien from one of the seven countries had previously “perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States” In order to justify the necessity for the immediate implementation of the Executive Order. This is a peculiar standard for a number of reasons. Firstly, it seems peculiar to demand that Americans be subjected to a terrorist attack before the President can act in the interest of national security to prevent such attacks from occurring. Secondly, as I noted in my previous post, a number of individuals from the seven specified countries have been arrested, and even convicted, on terrorism-related charges. That they did not manage to perpetrate any attacks does not seem to be a compelling argument against the President's exercise of his section 212(f) authority.

In a separate post, Blackman addressed how far afield the Ninth Circuit's level of scrutiny was in Washington v. Trump. He explained that he is co-counsel in a case titled Defense Distributed v. Department of State, 15-50759 (5th Cir. 2016) [PDF version], wherein the Fifth Circuit upheld a restraint on posting files to the internet containing 3D printing and CNC milling files for gun parts.[4] In this case, the Fifth Circuit applied rational basis scrutiny, which did not require the government to establish anything more than the potential harm that could result from posting of the internet files (note that Blackman is co-counsel for the respondents). In light of the Ninth Circuit decision, Blackman explained that he and his co-counsel sent a letter to the Fifth Circuit, suggesting that if Washington's assertion of harm to its public universities outweighed the President's national security concerns regarding noncitizens with no constitutional right to enter the United States, surely the Government should be required to muster more evidence in denying the First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens [see letter]. Of course, as Blackman noted, and I concur, the Ninth Circuit's decision “established an absolutely bonkers standard of review to consider the quasi-rights of non-citizens. If precedents matter, then the actual rights of citizens should be that much harder to violate.”

A NOTE ON THE GOVERNMENT'S POSITION

It must be noted that the Ninth Circuit is not the only one that has made questionable decisions of late. I have already harshly criticized the White House's bungled implementation of the Executive Order, and I have done so as someone who supports the underlying goals of the policy [see blog]. The new revelation that the White House has posted error-filled versions of Executive Orders on its website is hardly an encouraging sign as to its organization and process.[5] During the litigation, President Trump has shown remarkably poor impulse control, continuously railing against individual judges on Twitter and in press statements, and often foreshadowing contradictory legal strategies that the lawyers at the Department of Justice have not decided on. The bungled implementation of the Executive Order has already invited judicial scrutiny and threatened bad precedents. The last thing President Trump should be doing is further incentivizing judges to rule against the lawful aspects of his Executive Order due to his continued use of campaign-style rhetoric. Instead, if the President so desires, he can offer measured and reasonable defenses of his Executive Order, just as he did in a recent address [see blog].

Now that his Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, is in place, it is important for President Trump to take a step back and allow the experts he has appointed to key posts to defend the legality of his immigration action. If he fails to do so, his rash actions may cause further long-term damage to our system of immigration laws.

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. Blackman, Josh, “The Ninth Circuit's Contrived Comedy of Errors in Washington v. Trump: Part I,” lawfareblog.com, (Feb. 13, 2017)
2. Id.
3. Kontorovich, Eugene, “The 9th Circuit's dangerous and unprecedented use of campaign statements to block presidential policy,” washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy, (Feb. 9, 2017)
4. Blackman, Josh, “28(j) Letter Filed in 3D-Printed Gun Case, Citing Washington v. Trump, joshblackman.com, (Feb. 11, 2017)
5. Korte, Gregory, “White House posts wrong versions of Trump's orders on its website,” usatoday.com, (Feb. 14, 2017)

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

New Proposed Legislation to Break Up the Ninth Circuit

SENATORS FLAKE AND MCCAIN PROPOSE LEGISLATION TO SPLIT UP THE NINTH CIRCUIT

On February 2, 2017, Senators Jeff Flake and John McCain of Arizona introduced the Judicial Improvement Act of 2017 [PDF version]. The legislation is also strong backed by the Governor of Arizona, Doug Ducey [link] [PDF version]. On February 3, 2017, Senator Flake, in conjunction with United States Representative Matt Salmon of Arizona's Fifth Congressional District, proposed bicameral legislation to the same effect [PDF version].

The Judicial Administration and Improvement Act of 2017 would break up the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit into two. The current Ninth Circuit hears appeals the following states and territories:

• Alaska;
• Arizona;
• California;
• Hawaii;
• Idaho;
• Montana;
• Nevada;
• Oregon;
• Washington;
• Guam; and
• Northern Mariana Islands.

The Judicial Improvement Act of 2017 would move Arizona, Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Washington out of the Ninth Circuit and into a newly established Twelfth Circuit. Furthermore, the legislation would provide that this new Twelfth Circuit would not be bound by the precedent of the Ninth Circuit.

ALTERNATIVE LEGISLATION PROPOSED BY SENATORS SULLIVAN AND DAINES

On February 2, 2017, Senators Dan Sullivan of Alaska and Steve Daines of Montana introduced their own version of legislation to split up the Ninth Circuit. The Circuit Court of Appeals Restructuring and Modernization Act [PDF version] would also split the Ninth Circuit into two circuits. This version of the legislation would create a Twelfth Circuit out of Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington. The key difference between this proposal and the one offered by Senators Flake and McCain is that Oregon would be included in the new Twelfth Circuit, leaving the Ninth Circuit with only two states (California and Hawaii) and two territories (Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands).

Senators Sullivan and Daines also introduced the Federal Court of Appeals Modernization Act [PDF version]. This legislation would establish a commission to study the current Federal Court of Appeals system to study ways to make the current Ninth Circuit more effective and efficient.

UNDERSTANDING THE ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST

The Wall Street Journal reports that as of September 2016, the Ninth Circuit had 13,334 pending cases, more than double the next circuit.[1] Furthermore, despite having 29 judge seats, the Ninth Circuit “takes a median of around 14 months to reach a decision in a case, five and a half months slower than the national median.”[2] To be sure, the Journal notes that political considerations are likely at play as well. Deservedly or not, the Ninth Circuit has a reputation for being reaching liberal outcomes, and because of the sheer number of appeals it adjudicates, its decisions have a significant effect on law in the United States. It is likely no coincidence that Arizona, a largely conservative state, has been leading the charge as of late to split up the Ninth Circuit.

The perceived politics of the push to split up the Ninth Circuit has scuttled previous efforts, with Democrats generally being opposed. Furthermore, many of the judges on the Ninth Circuit itself have expressed opposition. Judge Alex Kozinski, the former Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit, argues that the reason for the Ninth Circuit's backlog is not the amount of appeals it has jurisdiction over, but rather the result of having vacant seats open for months.[3] Judge Kozinski further argues that the Flake-McCain proposal, which would pair California with Oregon, Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands in a smaller Ninth Circuit, would leave the Ninth Circuit as more liberal than it is now.[4]

POTENTIAL EFFECT ON IMMIGRATION

Any move to split up the Ninth Circuit would have a significant effect on immigration law. Due to California's large size and that it is on the U.S.-Mexico border, a significant number of immigration cases arise from California and the Ninth Circuit. Some of the other states in the current Ninth Circuit also host a significant number of immigration cases, most notably Arizona. Furthermore, interesting cases sometimes arise out of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, which both present unique immigration cases. On the whole, the Ninth Circuit adjudicates vastly more immigration cases than any other circuit. Were the Ninth Circuit to be split up, it would necessarily represent a seminal moment in U.S. immigration law. The effect would be especially dramatic if the hypothetical Twelfth Circuit was not bound by the existing precedent of the Ninth.

MY ANALYSIS

I wrote about Governor Ducey's efforts to move Arizona out of the Ninth Circuit last year [see blog] and Senator Flake's promise to introduce legislation to that end earlier this year [see blog]. I share many of their concerns, and for reasons that I explained in those articles, I support the effort to break up the Ninth Circuit. Due in large part to the size of California, the Ninth Circuit is drastically larger than any of other Federal circuit courts, and carries an accordingly sizable case-load. Concerns about the Ninth Circuit's size and case-load are sufficient to warrant splitting it up absent any political considerations.

Some will dismiss the proposed legislation to break up the Ninth Circuit as mere petty politics. However, it is not at all invalid for individuals in states such as Alaska, Arizona, and Montana to be frustrated with the fact that appeals arising from their states are adjudicated in what they perceive to be a California-centric Federal circuit court. Many who dismiss the concerns of the two Senators and Governor of Arizona would likely have a different view if the appeals arising from state always came before a circuit based in Texas. That there are political considerations at play in the effort to break up the Ninth Circuit does not mean that the effort is without merit.

Between the two proposals discussed in this article, I prefer the proposal of Senators Flake and McCain. The Sullivan-Daines proposal would leave the Ninth Circuit with only two states and two territories. While California by itself has the population to be a circuit of its own, it must be noted that the smallest circuits in terms of number of states have three, with the exceptions of the D.C. Circuit and the Federal Circuit. Any circuit court with California in it will be — to some extent — California-centric. However, I think that a circuit with only California, Hawaii, and two very small territories is would be far too California-centric, and would stand out as being the only circuit covering two states. The Flake-McCain proposal would leave the Ninth Circuit with three states, which is the number of states in the Second, Third, Fifth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits. Leaving Oregon in the Ninth Circuit would provide some amount of geographical balance as well.

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. Randazzo, Sara, “Under New Bill, Federal Appellate Court Based in California Could Be Split Up,” wsj.com, (Feb. 2, 2017)
2. Id.
3. Id.
4. Id.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

March 2017 Immigrant Visa Bulletin

INTRODUCTION

On February 8, 2017, the Department of State (DOS) released the Visa Bulletin for March 2017 [PDF version]. The March 2017 Visa Bulletin contains application final action dates and dates for filing for immigrant visas in both the family-sponsored and employment-based preference categories. The dates in the bulletin will be effective for March of 2017.

On February 15, 2017, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) released its adjustment of status filing charts based on the Visa Bulletin [link]. The USCIS determined that family-sponsored immigrant visa applicants may use the dates for filing, whereas employment-based immigrant visa applicants must use the application final action dates in March of 2017.

In this article, we will include the important charts from the March 2017 Visa Bulletin for those seeking immigrant visas in the family-sponsored and employment-based preference categories. To learn more about using the immigrant visa bulletin for filing for adjustment of status, please see our comprehensive guide on the subject [see article]. Please see our blog to understand the difference between dates for filing and application final action dates [see blog].

Please see our article on the January 2017 Visa Bulletin to compare to one of the previous editions [see blog].

FAMILY-SPONSORED CASES

The beneficiary of an approved immigrant visa petition in one of the family-sponsored preference categories may file for adjustment of status in March of 2017 if his or her priority date is before the appropriate filing date on the following chart [see article]. In order to determine the applicable filing date, the individual must match his or her preference category with his or her country of nationality.

The following chart contains the application final action dates for family-sponsored immigrant visas in March of 2017. These dates are the dates on which final action may be taken on an immigrant visa application. However, those seeking adjustment of status in a family-sponsored preference category should refer to the more favorable dates for filing listed in the previous chart.

EMPLOYMENT-BASED CASES

For the third consecutive month, the USCIS determined that employment-based adjustment of status applicants must use the application final action dates instead of the dates for filing. The following chart [see article] contains the application final action dates from the March 2017 Visa Bulletin. Please note that a date of “C” stands for current, meaning that the beneficiary of an approved employment-based petition in the category that is current will be able to file for adjustment of status in March 2017 regardless of his or her priority date.

NEWS FROM THE DOS: VISA ABILITY IN THE COMING MONTHS

The March 2017 Visa Bulletin contains projections for movement in subsequent editions of the Visa Bulletin.

The following are the DOS projections for the family-sponsored categories (worldwide):

• F1: Up to several months;
• F2A: Up to one month;
• F2B: Up to five weeks;
• F3: Three or four weeks; and
• F4: Two or three weeks.

The following are the DOS projections for the employment-based categories:

• EB1 (Worldwide): Current;
• EB1 (China and India): Current until August;
• EB2 (Worldwide): Current;
• EB2 (China): Up to five weeks;
• EB2 (India): Up to one month;
• EB3 (Worldwide): Up to three weeks;
• EB3 (China): Up to six months;
• EB3 (India): Extremely limited forward movement;
• EB3 (Mexico): Will remain at worldwide date;
• EB3 (Philippines): Up to six months;
• EB4 (Most countries): Current;
• EB4 (El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico): Some movement may be possible during summer months;
• EB5 (Most countries): Current;
• EB5 (China): Up to two weeks.

The DOS notes that the projections “indicate what is likely to happen on a monthly basis through May or June based on current applicant demand patterns.” Accordingly, the DOS notes that the “determination of the final action dates is subject to fluctuations in applicant demand and a number of other variables.” The projections provide valuable information, but do not constitute any guarantees for future Visa Bulletins.

CONCLUSION

It is crucial for the beneficiaries of approved immigrant visa petitions to monitor the Immigrant Visa Bulletin to have an idea of when an immigrant visa may become available. This is especially important for those planning to apply for adjustment of status. Immigrant visa hopefuls should consult with an experienced immigration attorney for guidance throughout the entire process.

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

Vladimir Kara-Murza and the Lack of Equivalence Between the United States and Russia

THE VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA CASE

On February 4, 2017, Roman Goncharenko of Deutsche Welle reported that Russian opposition politician Vladimir Kara-Murza is in critical condition.[1] The report states that he has been placed in an artificial coma due to multiple organ failure.

There are many disturbing aspects to the Kara-Murza case. In May of 2015, Kara-Murza fell seriously ill, and spent several weeks in intensive care after being placed into a coma. Kara-Murza's attorney and confidant reported that the symptoms he is showing now are similar to those he showed in May of 2015. After recovering from his first bout with a mysterious illness, doctors outside of Russia discovered that Kara-Murza had high levels of heavy metals in his body. Quite reasonably, Kara-Murza suspected that he had been poisoned on political grounds — like many other Russian opposition politicians — and requested that the Russian government investigate. Unsurprisingly, no investigation was forthcoming.

Given the Russian government's often-brutal treatment of opposition political figures, it is no surprise that Kara-Murza would be a target. The 35 year-old was a member of the opposition Parnas party, and even after leaving continued his vocal opposition to the current Russian government. For example, the report in Deutsche Welle notes that Kara-Murza is currently the chairman of the Nemtsov Foundation for Freedom, named after Boris Nemtsov, a Russian opposition figure who was murdered under similarly dubious circumstances in 2015.

The report notes that in April 2015 — just a month before he fell mysteriously ill for the first time — Kara-Murza traveled to Washington to deliver a list of “high-ranking Russian journalists and politicians who are allegedly responsible for the public rabble-rousing against Nemtsov.” Kara-Murza publicly called for the United States to sanction the persons on his list. This was not the first time Kara-Murza had called for sanctions against Russian officials. Kara-Murza called for sanctions against Russian politicians for the annexation of Crimea in 2014. Furthermore, Kara-Murza was outspoken after the mysterious death of another Russian opposition figure — Sergei Magintsky — in prison in 2009.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S STATEMENT

In a pre-Super Bowl interview with Bill O'Reilly, President Donald Trump stated that he respects Vladimir Putin, although that entails no guarantee that he will get along with him. O'Reilly proceeded to press President Trump on the issue, asserting — correctly — that Putin is a “killer.” At this juncture, President Trump could have said, as the noted conservative blogger Allahpundit suggested on Hotair, that President Trump could have acknowledged that Putin is a bad actor, but that sometimes the United States must work with bad actors — as Nixon did with Mao — to achieve positive ends.[2] Instead, President Trump took the path of — intentionally or not — painting a false moral equivalence between the United States and the regime of Vladimir Putin, stating: “There are a lot of killers. We've got a lot of killers. What? Do you think our country's so innocent?”[3] Then, rather than dig himself out of his hole, President Trump proceeded to reference American failures in Iraq as support for his assertion that the United States is in no position to judge Putin.

It should be impossible to read the story about Kara-Murza, and many similar stories to that one under Putin's Russia, and draw any sort of equivalence between the United States and Russia. Even regarding the Iraq War, there is a difference between errors in strategy and intelligence and Russia's actions in places such as the Ukraine and Syria. To suggest that the United States is a “killer” in the same sense that Putin is, or to suggest any other sort of equivalence, is gravely erroneous.

On CBS's Face the Nation, Vice President Mike Pence endeavored to explain President Trump's remarks. Vice President Pence stated that President Trump's goal was to find common ground between the United States and Russia, but that he had explicitly said he may not “get along” with Putin. Vice President Pence added that he did not see any “moral equivalency” in President Trump's remarks.

Although I supported President Trump in the general election, I am committed to “calling balls and strikes,” criticizing him when he says or does something incorrect [see blog] and praising him when he does well [see blog]. The President's statements regarding Russia to Bill O'Reilly were deeply problematic. As the conservative radio host Mark Levin noted on February 6, 2017, President Ronald Reagan would have never made a comparable remark, even in the name of achieving a mutually beneficial end with the then-Soviet Union.[4] Furthermore, Levin noted that had President Barack Obama made the same comment, “we'd [conservatives] all be jumping out of our chairs.”

In his criticism, Levin called President Trump's remark a “flip remark.” I agree with that assessment. I certainly hope that Vice President Pence was correct in assessing that President Trump was endeavoring to express that he hoped to find common ground with Russia, but that it would depend on negotiations. To seek a better relationship with Russia is defensible, but to draw a moral equivalence between Russia and the United States is not. He could draw on many examples from American history under all of our Presidents to support working closely with nefarious actors to achieve beneficial ends. President Trump has the opportunity to clarify beyond any semblance of a doubt that there is no moral equivalence between the United States and Russia, and that the United States is in a strong position to criticize outrageous actions by Russia such as the use of force against courageous politicians such as Vladimir Kara-Murza. He would be wise to take the opportunity to provide such clarity.

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. Goncharenko, Roman, “Kremlin critic Kara-Murza still in intensive care unit,” dw.com/en, (Feb. 4, 2017)
2. Allahpundit, “Trump on O'Reilly calling Putin a killer: 'Do you think our country's so innocent?'” hotair.com, (Feb. 5, 2017)
3. Richter, Greg, “O'Reilly to Putin: Don't Hold Breath for Apology,” newsmax.com, (Feb. 6, 2017)
4. Levin, Mark, “America is Nothing Like Russia. Join Us for a Brand New Levin TV Tonight,” facebook.com/marklevinshow, (Feb. 6, 2017)

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com