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

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

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

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

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

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

DHS OIG Finds Troubling Conditions At Several ICE Detention Facilities

INTRODUCTION

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

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

ORIGINS AND METHOD OF INVESTIGATION (PAGES 1-3)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DHS OIG FINDINGS

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

INTAKE ISSUES (PAGES 2-3)

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

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

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

LANGUAGE BARRIERS (PAGES 3-5)

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

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

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

GRIEVANCE SYSTEM (PAGE 5)

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

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

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

IMPROPER TREATMENT OF DETAINEES (PAGE 6)

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

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

POTENTIAL MISUSE OF SEGREGATION (PAGE 6-7)

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

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

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

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

MEDICAL CARE ISSUES (PAGE 7)

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

LACK OF CLEANLINESS AND LIMITED HYGIENIC SUPPLIES (PAGE 7)

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

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

POTENTIALLY UNSAFE FOOD HANDLING (PAGE 8)

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

RECOMMENDATIONS AND ICE RESPONSE (PAGE 8-14)

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Immigration And Border Security In The Trump National Security Strategy Document

INTRODUCTION

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

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

PREFACE: STATEMENTS FROM PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY ON IMMIGRATION

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

NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY SECTION ON BORDER CONTROL AND IMMIGRATION POLICY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PLACING BORDER SECURITY IN THE CONTEXT OF NATIONAL SECURITY

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

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

COMPARING TO THE 2015 NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Encouraging Point on Israel in the Trump National Security Strategy Document

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com