Category Archives: citizenship

Saying Thanks on Thanksgiving Day

In the United States, we celebrate Thanksgiving today (November 26). In the spirit of this holiday, I’d like to express my gratitude for your connecting with me as a current client, a prospective client, a past client, a referral source, or a friend of Dyan Williams Law PLLC, or a reader of our blog, The Legal Immigrant.

No one wants to talk to a lawyer about their problems. But eventually, most people end up needing to consult with a lawyer.

Foreign nationals who seek to immigrate to the U.S., study or work temporarily in the U.S., or become naturalized U.S. citizens usually need a trusted immigration lawyer to help them figure out the process. A full-on Do-It-Yourself (DIY) approach often gets you into trouble when it comes to navigating the U.S. immigration system. The immigration process is governed by complex laws, changes constantly, and is riddled with confusion and uncertainty.

When prospects call me on the telephone, send me an email, or submit an online inquiry to discuss their case, I strive to make our communication not only comfortable, but also surprisingly pleasant. I speak in layman’s terms they can understand, instead of use legal jargon that is meaningless to them. I ask clarifying questions to understand where they want to go with their case. I provide insightful information to steer them in the right direction.

To give prospects a sense of what it’s like to work with me, I offer a complimentary case evaluation by telephone (and sometimes by email). This involves addressing general concerns and questions about their case. I also write articles and post them on my blog, The Legal Immigrant; participate in a legal Q&A forum that deals with tough immigration issues; and speak to small and large groups on hot immigration topics.

When offering specific and detailed guidance to potential clients, I charge a consultation fee. Why? Two reasons: First, I want to avoid tire kickers who have no intention of working with me, but simply want free advice. Second, I offer tremendous value in the consultation that is worth much more than the fee. When a person is willing to pay the consultation fee, this shows there is some understanding of the value I bring. The consultation is typically the first step to creating a trust-based relationship that makes a huge difference to my clients and their families.

Your contacting me about your case, hiring me as your attorney, or referring others to me is key to having a successful law firm that serves the community well. I appreciate your support and our connection, not just on Thanksgiving Day, but every day.

May you and your family and friends experience joy and gratitude on Thanksgiving Day and beyond.

Cheers,

Dyan Williams

Founder & Principal Attorney
(612) 225-9900
dw@dyanwilliamslaw.com

# # #

Photo by: woodleywonderworks, universal thank you note

Immigration Consequences of Criminal Offenses: Myths & Facts

When a person is charged with a crime, he and his criminal defense attorney are often most concerned with minimizing the penalties. The defendant might give up his right to a trial and enter a guilty plea or no-contest plea to a less serious charge, in exchange for the dismissal of other charges or a reduced sentence. But the U.S. immigration consequences can be far more serious than the jail time, fine, probation or other more direct consequences of the conviction.

Criminal convictions can lead to a non-citizen being deported from the United States, denied entry (or re-entry) into the United States, and stripped of immigration benefits, including eligibility to become a permanent resident or a naturalized citizen. The immigration consequences continue long after the person has already served his sentence.

If you are a foreign national who wishes to visit, immigrate to, or stay in the United States, you need to know the myths surrounding criminal offenses and their immigration consequences. The most common include:

Myth #1:  The “dismissal” of my criminal case, after I have met certain conditions, means I have no “conviction” under U.S. immigration law. 

Fact:  A conviction could still exist under federal immigration law even when a dismissal of the case means there is no conviction under state law.

You may qualify for a pre-trial intervention, first offender, or diversion program, in which counseling rather than punishment is emphasized. Some states and programs do not require defendants to enter a guilty plea or no-contest plea to qualify for the program. Prior to entering a plea, the person agrees to complete probation, anger management, group therapy, substance abuse treatment or other type of program. If the person successfully completes the program, the charges are dropped or the case is dismissed.

But when you must admit guilt or you are found guilty before the pre-trial intervention, first offender, or diversion program is imposed, this amounts to a conviction under federal immigration law. In this situation, a dismissal of the case — after you complete the program — does not wipe the slate clean for immigration purposes.

Immigration law defines “conviction” as a formal judgment of guilt or, if adjudication of guilt has been withheld, where (i) a judge or jury has found the person guilty or the person has entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or has admitted sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt, and (ii) the judge has ordered some form of punishment, penalty, or restraint on the person’s liberty to be imposed.

“Restraint on liberty” includes imprisonment, a fine or restitution, and probation. It also includes minimal community-based sanctions such as work-release programs, rehabilitation programs, house arrest, revocation or suspension of a driver’s license, and community service. Whether a jail sentence is actually served or suspended is irrelevant.

Unless a criminal case is outright dismissed, is stricken, or is not prosecuted — without any admission of guilt or penalty imposed — a criminal conviction exists under immigration law.

Myth #2:  An expungement (or sealing) of my criminal record means it is erased as if it never existed. 

Fact:  Generally, an expungement seals or deletes the criminal record in the local court and (perhaps) the state police’s databases.  Each state uses its own approach and procedures.  In most cases, a full expungement treats the offense as if it never occurred. For immigration purposes, however, an expungement does not erase the conviction.

Fingerprints taken when you were arrested remain in the FBI or federal databases. Immigration officials may still see or request expunged records for certain purposes.

When you file for a nonimmigrant visa, a visa waiver (under ESTA), permanent residence or U.S. citizenship, you are asked about arrests, charges and convictions. An expunged or sealed record does not make the arrest, charge or conviction go away for immigration purposes.

As part of a Form I-485 application for adjustment to permanent residence, Form I-90 application for replacement of green card, or Form N-400 application for naturalization, you must provide your fingerprints at a biometrics appointment.  A background check, including review of criminal records in the FBI database, will be conducted before you receive a decision on your application.

Your criminal record will normally turn up in the background check. If an immigration officer sees that you have a record, and you stated that you had no arrests, charges or convictions, he may deny your application based on fraud or willful misrepresentation of material fact to gain immigration benefits.

Immigration officials can sometimes obtain expunged records from the court. But you have the burden to produce court-certified records when you apply for certain immigration benefits, such as permanent residence, a new green card, or naturalization. Therefore, it’s best that you obtain the court-certified records before you seek an expungement. Otherwise, you might need to get the record unsealed to allow continued processing of your application.

Myth #3:  A relatively minor offense, such as a misdemeanor or a conviction resulting in a sentence under 1 year, will not cause any immigration problems.

Fact: A conviction does not necessarily disqualify a person from obtaining a visa, permanent residence, naturalization, or other immigration benefits. The  only situation in which a single conviction is an automatic and permanent bar to entering the U.S. is when the conviction is for an aggravated felony, and you have been previously removed due to the conviction.

In general, misdemeanor offenses carry less serious consequences than felony offenses. A sentence of less than one year can save the person from being deported without a viable defense. But the nature of the offense, type of conviction, and the maximum potential penalty are additional factors to consider.

Even non-violent, relatively minor misdemeanor offenses under state law can be classified as a felony or even an aggravated felony under federal immigration law. The Immigration and Nationality Act does not distinguish between felony and misdemeanor crimes. Rather, crimes are categorized by the type of conduct involved.

Aggravated Felony

A person convicted of an aggravated felony is ineligible for asylum, cancellation of removal, certain waivers of inadmissibility, and voluntary departure. Section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides a list of offenses that are deemed aggravated felonies. They include:

  • murder
  • rape
  • sexual abuse of a minor (including statutory rape)
  • controlled substance trafficking
  • illicit trafficking in firearms or destructive devices
  • money laundering of more than $10,000
  • fraud or tax evasion involving a loss that exceeds $10,000
  • a crime of violence with a sentence of at least one year
  • a theft offense or burglary offense with a sentence of at least one year
  • perjury with a sentence of at least one year
  • kidnapping
  • commercial bribery, counterfeiting, forgery, or trafficking in vehicles
  • failure to appear in court on a felony charge for which a sentence of two years in prison may be imposed
  • obstruction of justice, perjury, or bribery of a witness, if the term of imprisonment was at least one year

While a reduced sentence under 1 year might help you avoid an aggravated felony charge, this only applies to a narrow group of convictions (e.g. theft and violent crimes).  There are various types of convictions that present immigration problems, no matter the sentence.

An aggravated felony is not the only crime that carries serious immigration consequences. Controlled substance violations, firearms offenses,  domestic violence, stalking, violation of protective orders, child endangerment, and child abuse are especially problematic.

Crime Involving Moral Turpitude

A Crime Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT) often causes major immigration problems as well. A CIMT involves engaging in morally reprehensible and intrinsically wrong conduct with willful, reckless, or malicious intent.

Examples are crimes against a person (aggravated battery, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, statutory rape); crimes against property (shoplifting, theft, fraud, forgery, robbery); sexual and family crimes (e.g. child abuse, aggravated domestic assault); and crimes against the government (e.g. bribery, counterfeiting, willful tax evasion).

A noncitizen is inadmissible to the U.S. if he is convicted of – or admits to committing – one CIMT (other than a political offense), unless he qualifies for:

(1) the petty offense exception, where the person committed only one CIMT ever, the CIMT has a potential sentence of a year or less, and a sentence of six months or less was imposed ; OR

(2) the youthful offender exception, where the person committed a single CIMT while under age 18, and at least five years have passed since the conviction and release from jail.

A noncitizen is deportable if convicted of a CIMT (other than a political offense) committed within five years after the date of his admission to the U.S., and for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed. The maximum sentence possible is the determining factor. For example, if the CIMT occurred within five years of the person becoming a lawful permanent resident, he is still removable from the U.S. if he could have been sentenced for 365 days or more. It doesn’t matter whether the actual sentence was less than 365 days or was suspended upon completion of probation.

A noncitizen is deportable for two or more convictions of crimes involving moral turpitude that occur anytime after admission to the U.S. on any visa, or after adjustment of status. The only two exceptions are if the offenses are “purely political” or arose in a “single scheme of criminal misconduct” (i.e. the very same incident).

To be admitted to the U.S. as a permanent resident or to prevent removal from the U.S. as a result of a CIMT, the person must qualify for certain relief, such as a 212(h) waiver in conjunction with adjustment to lawful permanent resident status.

Controlled Substance Violations

Section 212(a)(2)(A) (i)(II) of the INA states a person is inadmissible if he violated (or conspired or attempted to violate) any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance, as defined in section 802 of Title 21 (Controlled Substances Act). To be subject to this permanent bar, the person must be convicted of or admit to the essential elements of a controlled substance violation. This includes simple possession or use of marijuana or any other drug listed in Title 21, section 802.

The 212(h) waiver is available only when the intended immigrant has one controlled substance violation involving simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana (or an equivalent amount of hashish).

Multiple Convictions

A noncitizen is inadmissible if convicted of two or more crimes (other than purely political offenses) – regardless of whether the conviction arose from a single trial or whether the offenses arose from a single scheme of misconduct, and regardless of whether the crimes involved moral turpitude –  for an aggregate confinement totaling five years or more.

Criminal Records in general

In addition, any criminal record can make it much harder for you receive certain immigration benefits. For example, a disorderly conduct conviction or multiple DUI offenses are not automatic or conditional bars to naturalization. But they can make it harder for you to establish good moral character and easier for USCIS to deny your naturalization application – especially if they occurred within the statutory period (generally 3 to 5 years before you file your Form N-400.)

Myth #4: My criminal record will not matter if I have been a permanent resident for many years. 

Unconditional permanent resident status does not expire even when your 10-year green card is no longer valid.  But it can be revoked due to certain criminal convictions. As a permanent resident, you may also be denied-re-entry to the U.S. or be placed in removal proceedings on criminal-related grounds.

Although lawful permanent residents have more rights and privileges than undocumented immigrants and foreign nationals in non-immigrant status, only U.S. citizens are fully protected from the immigration consequences of criminal convictions.

Myth #5: Foreign convictions do not count for U.S. immigration or travel purposes.

U.S. immigration authorities consider a foreign conviction to be a “conviction” in the immigration context if the conviction resulted from an offense deemed to be criminal by U.S. standards. Federal U.S. standards on sentencing are also used to determine whether the foreign conviction is a felony or a misdemeanor, regardless of the sentence imposed in the foreign jurisdiction.

The U.S. also does not recognize foreign pardons.  Only full and unconditional U.S. pardons for a U.S. conviction – granted by the highest executive authority – removes deportability and inadmissibility under INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) (crime involving moral turpitude).  Foreign pardons do not county for U.S. immigration or travel purposes.

The Form I-485 application specifically asks you to disclose whether you have been arrested, cited, charged, convicted or sentenced for crimes outside the U.S. In the naturalization context and in visa applications, you are also expected to list criminal offenses that occurred outside the U.S., regardless of whether they resulted in a conviction or guilty plea.

Learn about the immigration consequences of a criminal charge or conviction before you enter a plea, leave the U.S., or apply for immigration benefits

In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Padilla v. Kentucky that the 6th Amendment right to counsel requires criminal defense attorneys to provide advice about the immigration consequences of a conviction to their noncitizen clients.  This decision, however, does not apply retroactively to pre-Padilla cases.

The immigration consequences depend on the elements of the crime, the nature of the offense, the potential sentence, the actual sentence imposed, and whether the person has other convictions.

Deportation, denial of entry to the U.S., and separation from families often have far more lasting effects than the sentence imposed.  Certain criminal convictions lead you into removal proceedings after you complete your jail sentence, or when you apply for a green card or for U.S. citizenship. You can also be denied re-entry to the U.S. as a permanent resident or valid visa holder on crime-related grounds.

You need to know how a conviction or sentence affects your immigration status before you enter a guilty plea, leave the U.S., or apply for immigration benefits including naturalization. Make sure to seek advice from an attorney who is experienced in the intersection between the two complex areas of immigration law and criminal law.

This article provides general information only. It is based on law, regulations and policy that are subject to change. Do not consider it as legal advice for any individual case or situation. Each legal case is different and case examples do not constitute a prediction or guarantee of success or failure in any other case. The sharing or receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

Photo by: Jeffrey

Applying for DACA? Here are the pros and cons

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program doesn’t come close to the proposed DREAM Act, which offers undocumented immigrants, who came to the U.S. as children, a path to permanent residence or citizenship.

But DACA offers key benefits, including relief from removal and work permits for three years.

Qualified applicants must weigh the pros and cons before filing a DACA request.

 

Who Qualifies for DACA?

DACA was introduced in 2012 by then-DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano. You may apply for DACA by filing a Form I-821D along with your Form I-765 and documentation proving that you:

  • Were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012;
  • Came to the United States before the age of 16;
  • Have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007;
  • Are at least 15 years old (unless you are in removal proceedings or have a final removal or voluntary departure order, in which case you may apply even if you are under 15);
  • Were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of filing your DACA application with USCIS;
  • Had no lawful status on June 15, 2012;
  • Are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general education development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and
  • Have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor,or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.

The new DACA – which was expected to roll out on February 18 but was temporarily blocked by a federal court order – expands relief to those who:

  • Entered the United States before January 1, 2010, instead of before June 15, 2007;
  • Have lived in the United States continuously since at least January 1, 2010, rather than the prior requirement of June 15, 2007;
  • Are out of status as of November 20, 2014, rather than as of June 15, 2012
  • Are of any age (removes age limit requiring the person to be born since June 15, 1981, as long as the person entered the United States before age 16).

[UPDATE #1 : On June 23, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 4-4 opinion in United States v. Texas that allows the temporary injunction to stand. The new DACA is still unavailable as a result.]

[UPDATE #2: On September 5, 2017, the Trump Administration announced the rescission of the DACA program. No initial applications filed on or after this date will be considered. Renewal applications filed by DACA holders, whose benefits expire on or before March 5, 2018, will be considered up October 5, 2017.]

What Are the Pros and Cons of Applying for DACA? 

PROS

Here are a few reasons to apply for DACA:

You get relief from removal and work authorization for three years

Previously, the deferred action period and work permits under DACA were issued in two-year renewable periods. As of November 25, 2014, these benefits are extended to three years and may be renewed as long as DACA continues.

Those who are currently in removal proceedings, have a final removal order, or have a voluntary departure order can also file for DACA. If you are in immigration detention or in the custody of Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE), you must first obtain your release as a DACA-qualified applicant. If you are released from custody, you may then file your DACA request with USCIS.

You are in authorized stay and are not accumulating unlawful presence

DACA is a form of authorized stay in the U.S. This means you are not accumulating unlawful presence during the deferred action period.

Normally, you begin accumulating unlawful presence in the U.S. once you turn 18, which may bar you from reentry to the U.S. for three or ten years (even if you otherwise qualify for an immigrant visa or green card). If you are unlawfully present in the U.S. for more than 180 days but less than 1 year, you are barred from re-entering the U.S. for three years. If the unlawful presence is 1 year or more, you are barred from re-entering the U.S. for 10 years.

If you came to the U.S. illegally, you must usually depart the U.S. to consular process your immigrant visa based on marriage to a U.S. citizen or permanent resident.  The 3-year/10-year bar kicks in once you depart the U.S. to attend your immigrant visa interview at the U.S. Consulate abroad. You would then need to obtain a waiver by showing your absence from the U.S would cause “extreme hardship” to your  U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse. The waiver can be very difficult to get due to the strict requirements.

You will continue to accrue unlawful presence while your DACA request is pending, unless you are under 18 at the time of the request. If you are under 18 when you submit your request, you will not accrue unlawful presence while the request is pending, even if you turn 18 and the request is still pending. If you receive DACA, you will not accrue unlawful presence during the deferred action period.

Although deferred action does not give you lawful nonimmigrant status or immigrant status in the U.S, it helps protect you from accruing unlawful presence, which carries immigration penalties. Having authorized stay in the U.S. during the deferred action period can be especially beneficial if you were to later qualify for an immigrant visa.

You may travel outside the United States with advance parole

As a DACA recipient, you may apply for advance parole to leave the U.S. and return legally in DACA status. But you must first apply for advance parole by filing a Form I-131, Application for Travel Document.

USCIS will grant advance parole only if your travel abroad is for:

  • humanitarian purposes, including travel to obtain medical treatment, attending funeral services for a family member, or visiting an ailing relative;
  • educational purposes, such as semester-abroad programs and academic research, or;
  • employment purposes such as overseas assignments, interviews, conferences or, training, or meetings with clients overseas.

Advance parole allows you to leave the U.S. for these purposes, but is not to be used for vacation or for general travel.

You receive social benefits and economic opportunities

In general, DACA recipients have more economic opportunities and are more socially integrated than those who do not qualify for DACA. With authorized stay and work permits, they find it easier to get a new job, open their first bank account and receive their first credit card.

Getting a driver’s license is a key benefit, especially for young immigrants. Currently, otherwise-eligible DACA recipients can apply for a driver’s license in every state except Nebraska.

Some state laws and college systems also allow certain students to pay in-state tuition, regardless of their immigration status.

A Star Tribune article states “For many who did apply, DACA has paid off. A national survey of DACA recipients last year found that almost 60 percent obtained a new job, 45 percent increased their earnings, about half opened their first bank account and 57 percent got a driver’s license.”

Your information, for the most part, will not be shared with enforcement agencies and will not be used against you 

USCIS has stated that it will not share information provided in a DACA request with ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for the purpose of removal proceedings against you or your family members, unless your case involves fraud, a criminal offense, a threat to public safety or national security, or other exceptional circumstances.

CONS

Here are a few drawbacks to consider when applying for DACA:

You have no path to permanent residence or citizenship in the U.S.

Past DREAM Act proposals includes a path to permanent residence and citizenship in the U.S. The DREAM Act is a legislation that must be passed by Congress to become law.

Meanwhile, DACA offers only work permits and relief from removal for a temporary period, but no path to lawful immigrant status. It is not new law.

Basically, DACA is a program or policy directing DHS on how to enforce immigration laws. Deferred action existed long before DACA, but DACA provides a formal process for qualified applications to seek this temporary relief. Because it was made available by an Obama Administration policy, it could easily end under a new U.S. President.

You have no lawful immigration status in the U.S. 

As a DACA grantee, you are considered lawfully present in the U.S., but you still have no lawful nonimmigrant or immigrant status.

Lawful immigration status refers to an immigration benefit such as lawful permanent residency (green card) or temporary visa classification, such as H-1B worker, B-1/B-2 visitor, or F-1 student.

Employers and state officials sometimes believe your lack of immigration status means you are unlawfully present. You might be wrongly denied a job, driver’s license, etc. because you have DACA status, instead of lawful immigration status. Although deferred action gives you authorized stay, your lack of immigration status can make it tougher for you to get social benefits and economic opportunities.

You have no right to travel and return to the U.S. based on DACA grant alone

DACA gives you no lawful status that allows you to travel abroad and return to the U.S. Instead, you must first pay the  filing fee for advance parole (travel document) and file the Form I-131 with USCIS. If you depart the U.S. without first receiving advance parole, your departure automatically terminates your deferred action under DACA.

Being approved for advance parole does not guarantee that you will be able to return to the U.S. At the port of entry, the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer may deny your entry if he finds you are “inadmissible” due to health or security reasons or other factors.

If you leave the U.S. after being ordered deported or removed, and your removal proceeding has not been reopened and administratively closed or terminated, your departure (even with advance parole) could mean you followed through with the deportation or removal.

Your opportunities to integrate socially and economically are temporary

Congressional Republicans seek to defund DACA. House Republicans attached amendments affecting the 2012 deferred action program to the DHS 2015 fiscal year funding bill. While the bill passed the House, it has been blocked by Senate Democrats.

DHS has also halted the rolling out of the expanded DACA on February 18, due to a federal district court order temporarily blocking its implementation. The new Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), which would extend to certain parents of U.S. citizen and lawful permanent residents and was expected to kick off in May 2015, is also on hold.

On Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen in Texas sided with the Texas-led coalition of 26 states that filed a lawsuit to block the implementation of the expanded DACA and the new DAPA.

While applicants can continue to file and renew requests under the old DACA, the future of this program is uncertain. And the expanded DACA and new DAPA are being challenged even before kick off.

[UPDATE #1: On June 23, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 4-4 opinion in United States v. Texas that allows the temporary injunction to stand. The new DACA is still unavailable as a result.]

[UPDATE #2: On September 5, 2017, the Trump Administration announced the rescission of the DACA program. No initial applications filed on or after this date will be considered. Renewal applications filed by DACA holders, whose benefits expire on or before March 5, 2018, will be considered up October 5, 2017.]

Your information may be shared with enforcement agencies and may be used against you in certain situations

USCIS may share the information in your DACA request with national security and law enforcement agencies, including ICE and CBP, for purposes other than deportation, including to identify or prevent fraudulent claims, for national security purposes, or for the investigation or prosecution of a crime.

If USCIS denies your DACA request and your case involves a criminal offense, fraud, or a threat to national security or public safety (or exceptional circumstances), USCIS will refer your case to ICE. You may then face the risk of being removed from the U.S.

Persons who have been convicted of certain crimes or apprehended at the border or at ports of entry while trying to unlawfully enter the U.S. are considered to be enforcement priorities. Other enforcement priorities include persons suspected of terrorism, espionage, or abusing the visa or visa waiver programs. To a lesser extent, persons who have been issued a final removal order after January 1, 2014 are also enforcement priorities.

Consult an Experienced Immigration Attorney Before You Apply for DACA

Overall, the benefits and protections you get from applying for DACA outweigh the risks and limitations.

Before you request DACA, you should first consult a reputable attorney or get authorized legal assistance to help you weigh the pros and cons.

Beware of immigration services that are not authorized to offer legal advice. For help on how to avoid and report immigration scams, go to uscis.gov/avoid-scams or uscis.gov/es/eviteestafas

[UPDATE #1: On June 23, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 4-4 opinion in United States v. Texas that allows the temporary injunction to stand. The new DACA is still unavailable as a result.]

[UPDATE #2: On September 5, 2017, the Trump Administration announced the rescission of the DACA program. No initial applications filed on or after this date will be considered. Renewal applications filed by DACA holders, whose benefits expire on or before March 5, 2018, will be considered up October 5, 2017.]

This article provides general information only. It is based on law, regulations and policy that are subject to change. Do not consider it as legal advice for any individual case or situation. Each legal case is different and case examples do not constitute a prediction or guarantee of success or failure in any other case. The sharing or receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

# # #

 Photo by: Môsieur J. [version 9.1]

Federal Judge Issues Injunction; Expanded DACA and New DAPA on Hold for Now

In response to a federal judge’s order temporarily blocking President Obama’s executive action on immigration, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has halted plans to roll out the expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program today. Whether DHS will launch the new Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program in May 2015 is also uncertain.

On Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen in Texas sided with the Texas-led coalition of 26 states that filed a lawsuit to block the implementation of the expanded DACA and the new DAPA.

The White House said  Obama’s actions “are well within his legal authority.” The U.S. Department of Justice plans to appeal and will likely request an emergency stay of Judge Hanen’s decision at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

Money, Money, Money

In his 123-page decision, Judge Hanen ruled that the Obama administration failed to comply with the Administrative Procedures Act because it did not follow the notice-and-comment rulemaking process in implementing the new policies. The judge did not rule on the primary legal claim that the deferred action programs are unconstitutional.

The Texas-led coalition of states in the lawsuit are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

The judge found that Plaintiffs would suffer economic injuries as a result of the deferred action programs and therefore have standing to file the lawsuit.

Texas, in particular, stated that the DHS Directive would create a new class eligible to apply for driver’s licenses, the processing of which would add substantial costs to its budget. The judge noted, “Texas’ undocumented population is approximately 1.6 million, and Plaintiffs’ evidence suggests that at least 500,000 of these individuals will be eligible for deferred action through DAPA.” The judge added there would be increased costs associated with processing a wave of new driver’s licenses.

In 2013, an estimated 86.3% of the U.S. workforce commuted to work in private vehicles. This is especially true in the 26 states that filed the lawsuit, as none of them have extensive mass transit systems.  Because federal law requires the issuance of driver’s licenses to deferred action recipients, Judge Hanen found that the states would suffer economic injuries as a result of the new programs.

Plaintiffs also argued that the DHS Directive will create a discriminatory employment environment that encourages employers to hire DAPA beneficiaries instead of lawful residents.  They noted that DAPA beneficiaries are more affordable to hire because it is likely that employers will not be required to provide them with health care or suffer a penalty for not doing so.

“…no effective way of putting the toothpaste back in the tube…”

On page 120 of his order, the judge reasoned, “If the preliminary injunction is denied, Plaintiffs will bear the costs of issuing licenses and other benefits once DAPA beneficiaries  – armed with Social Security cards and employment authorization documents – seek their benefits. He added, “once these services are provided, there will be no effective way of putting the toothpaste back in the tube should Plaintiffs ultimately prevail on the merits.”

Although the deferred action programs will add to social and economic costs, they will also bring additional benefits and revenues. The net effect of socially and economically integrating deferred action recipients into the American community is positive.

DACA and DAPA recipients with work permits will be able to work lawfully as employees, and are likely to increase their tax payments. These programs are expected to generate federal and state income tax revenue.

The programs will also help prevent unscrupulous employers from taking advantage of undocumented workers by paying them low wages and subjecting them to unacceptable working conditions. This should lead to an overall improvement in wages and working conditions for U.S. workers.

In one report, the Immigration Policy Center, American Immigration Council describes the various ways in which executive action on immigration creates a positive impact. It states, “Immigrants – including the unauthorized – create jobs through their purchasing power and entrepreneurship, buying goods and services from U.S. businesses and creating their own businesses, both of which sustain U.S. jobs.” It further states, “The presence of new immigrant workers and consumers in an area spurs the expansion of businesses, which also creates new jobs.”

Judge Hanen’s Ruling Does Not Involve Old DACA

In his February 17 statement, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson announced:”The Department of Justice will appeal that temporary injunction; in the meantime, we recognize we must comply with it.”

Johnson added, “Accordingly, the Department of Homeland Security will not begin accepting requests for the expansion of DACA tomorrow, February 18, as originally planned. Until further notice, we will also suspend the plan to accept requests for DAPA.”

Under the expanded DACA, more undocumented immigrants or those who fell out of status and arrived in the U.S. as children would qualify for deferred action and receive employment authorization for three years. The new DAPA would extend to undocumented parents of Americans and lawful residents. The implementation of both programs are now on hold.

There is no set timeline for when the Fifth Circuit would issue a ruling on an appeal from the Justice Department. In the meantime, qualified applicants who are interested in applying for deferred action under expanded DACA or new DAPA should continue collecting required documents, in the event that the injunction is lifted.

Judge Hanen’s ruling does not involve the old DACA that was introduced in 2012 by then DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano. Those who qualify for deferred action and work authorization under the old DACA can still apply and re-apply for these benefits.

[UPDATE: On September 5, 2017, the Trump Administration announced the rescission of the DACA program. No initial applications filed on or after this date will be considered. Renewal applications filed by DACA holders, whose benefits expire on or before March 5, 2018, will be considered up October 5, 2017.]

This article provides general information only. It is based on law, regulations and policy that are subject to change. Do not consider it as legal advice for any individual case or situation. Each legal case is different and case examples do not constitute a prediction or guarantee of success or failure in any other case. The sharing or receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

# # #

Photo by: Michael Lynch

Defenses to INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) Inadmissibility (False Claim to U.S. Citizenship)

Several elements must be met for an applicant to be permanently inadmissible to the United States under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii), i.e. false claim to U.S. citizenship. A 212(d)(3) waiver may be requested if you are barred on this ground and seek to enter the U.S. as a nonimmigrant. There is no immigrant waiver for this inadmissibility bar.

What are the Potential Defenses to a False U.S. Citizenship Claim? 

A person who is charged with INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) may raise a defense as follows:

1) The false claim was made prior to September 30, 1996

False U.S. citizenship claims made before September 30, 1996, when the immigration laws changed, does not permanently disqualify you from obtaining a green card or immigrant visa.

If your false claim to U.S. citizenship was made to a private entity, such as an employer or a bank, prior to September 30, 1996, the lifetime bar does not normally apply.

False U.S. citizenship claims before this date must have been willfully made to a U.S. government official in connection with a visa application, a request for admission to the U.S,. or an attempt to obtain immigration benefits, for you to be deemed inadmissible or removable on this ground. (NOTE: You might still, however, need a waiver for the fraud or willful misrepresentation.)

2) The false claim was not for a “purpose or benefit”  under immigration law or any other federal or state law 

One could argue that the potential benefit is not directly linked to a false U.S. citizenship claim (i.e. the outcome would have been the same regardless of the person’s citizenship status).

One could also argue that the false U.S. citizenship claim was made to avoid a negative outcome, and not to obtain a benefit.

An example is lying about being a U.S. citizen to a police officer to avoid being reported to the immigration authorities (where the arrest would have been made despite citizenship status and where avoiding deportation is not a “benefit”).

3) The false claim was made by someone else 

False claims made by someone else on your behalf, when you were not aware of and did not participate in the claim, should not disqualify you from getting a green card or immigrant visa.

For example, you might have signed the I-9 form, but did not check the box indicating your immigration status or eligibility to work. Rather, the employer checked the box on your behalf without your knowledge (even though, by law, they are not supposed to do this).

USCS may initiate efforts to obtain the I-9 records, whether through a Request for Evidence to you or through a request (subpoena to produce records) to the employer. If your signature appears in the Employee Information and Attestation section of any I-9 form, USCIS could ultimately hold you responsible for the US citizenship box being checked. Typically, it will come down to the adjudicating officer’s discretion, including whether the officer believes your explanation based on your testimony and the underlying circumstances of your unauthorized employment.

4) The false claim was timely and voluntarily retracted

If you timely and voluntarily retract your false U.S. citizenship claim, you will probably not be found inadmissible or removable. For this defense to work, you would have to timely and voluntarily take back your false claim and correct the error before the lie is exposed or is about to be exposed. The retraction has to be in the same proceeding and not in a different proceeding, for example.

What would qualify as a timely retraction depends largely on the facts, but must be done at the first opportunity.

5) The false claim falls under a specific exception

There is a narrow exception to being deportable — due to a false claim to U.S. citizenship — if you were under age 18 when you made the false claim, you permanently resided in the U.S. (with a green card) before you turned 16, each of your natural or adopted parents were U.S. citizens or are U.S. citizens, and you reasonably believed you were a citizen when you made the claim.

6) The false claim referred to being a U.S. national, not a U.S. citizen

There is ambiguity in old versions of Form I-9 (prior to April 3, 2009), which combined a “citizen or national of the United States” into one box. In this situation, the person may argue that the I-9 doesn’t show clearly whether he claimed to be a citizen or national. Immigration law punishes false claims to U.S. citizenship, but not false claims to U.S. nationality.

In these cases, applicants must show they were claiming to be a non-U.S. citizen national as opposed to a U.S. citizen when they completed the I-9.  This inquiry is not necessary when an April 3, 2009, edition or later edition of the I-9 was used because these editions clearly distinguish between a “citizen of the United States” and “non-citizen national of the United States.”

[UPDATE, JUNE 2019] – Different Interpretations of the Law: Does It Matter if the False Claim was Not Intentionally or Knowingly Made? 

In prior guidance, immigration officers, immigration judges, and DHS counsels generally agreed the false U.S. citizenship claim must have been intentionally or knowingly made. Mental capacity and English language skills could be relevant to whether you intentionally or knowingly made a false claim.

But in Matter of Zhang, 27 I&N Dec. 569 (BIA 2019), the Board of Immigration Appeals found the plain language of the statute, INA 237(a)(3)(D)(i), does not require an intent to falsely claim citizenship to trigger this ground of removability. The BIA noted the statute does not contain a “knowing” or “willful” requirement for false claims to citizenship. Following this decision, USCIS began to interpret this to mean the applicant need not intend to falsely claim citizenship to be found inadmissible under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii).

The U.S. Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Manual (version 03-27-2018), however, still contains a limited exception based on a December 6, 2014 opinion from the DHS Office of the General Counsel. The FAM states:

(1)  Only a knowingly false claim can support a charge that an individual is ineligible under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii).  The individual claiming not to know that the claim to citizenship was false has the burden of establishing this affirmative defense by the appropriate standard of proof (“clearly and beyond doubt”).

(2)  A separate affirmative defense is that the individual was (a) under the age of 18 at the time of the false citizenship claim; and (b) at that time lacked the capacity (i.e., the maturity and the judgment) to understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of a false claim to citizenship.  The individual must establish this claim by the appropriate standard of proof (“clearly and beyond doubt”).

* * *

There is no immigrant visa waiver available under current law for an applicant who is ineligible under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii). If you seek to immigrate to the United States, it is especially important to verify whether the bar was properly made. You should raise any potential defenses to prevent adverse consequences due to a false claim to U.S. citizenship.

For more information, read:

Why Lying About Being a U.S. Citizen Can Stop You from Becoming a Permanent Resident (and what you can do to overcome this obstacle)

This article provides general information only. It is based on law, regulations and policy that are subject to change. Do not consider it as legal advice for any individual case or situation. Each legal case is different and case examples do not constitute a prediction or guarantee of success or failure in any other case. The sharing or receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT