Category Archives: green card

Trump’s Four Pillars for Immigration Reform

In his State of the Union address on January 30, 2018, after completing his first year in office, President Trump officially introduced his Administration’s four pillars for immigration reform.

The first pillar “offers a path to citizenship for 1.8 million illegal immigrants who were brought [to the United States] by their parents at a young age…”  Commonly known as Dreamers, individuals within this group who meet education and work requirements, and show good moral character, will be eligible for naturalization (U.S. citizenship), according to Trump.

The second pillar aims to enhance border security. It involves building a big wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and hiring more border patrol officers. “Crucially, our plan closes the terrible loopholes exploited by criminals and terrorists to enter our country — and it finally ends the dangerous practice of ‘catch and release’,” Trump said.

The third pillar ends the Diversity Visa Lottery, which Trump criticized as “a program that randomly hands out green cards without any regard for skill, merit, or the safety of our people.” He further called for a “merit-based immigration system.”

The fourth pillar “protects the nuclear family by ending chain migration” and restricting family-based immigration to only spouses and minor children. Trump claimed that under the current system, “a single immigrant can bring in virtually unlimited numbers of distant relatives.”

Trump deems the Diversity Visa Lottery program and “chain migration” as sources of terrorist attacks and threats to the national security of the United States.

While Trump has said Congress should pass a “bill of love” for young, undocumented immigrants who qualified for the Obama Administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which he rescinded on September 5, 2017, his support does not come without conditions.

Conditioning protections for Dreamers and DACA holders on federal funding for a Southern border wall and  reductions in legal immigration, in particular, makes it harder for a gridlocked Congress to reach a mutually agreeable, workable solution. Congress’ failure on February 15 to secure enough votes to advance any of the four immigration bills up for a vote is a prime example. To learn more, read White House-Backed Bill Proposing Protections for Dreamers/DACA Holders, Restrictions on Family-Based Immigration, and End to Diversity Visa Lottery Fails to Pass in the Senate; Worries Prevail.

In the meantime, the Trump Administration has relied on presidential proclamations and executive policies to bypass Congress and impose travel restrictions and broaden immigration enforcement priorities. While the termination of prior, executive orders and the introduction of new ones are subject to checks and balances, including review by U.S. federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court, they still have ripple effects.

Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) gives the President broad authority to suspend entry of a class of foreign nationals temporarily if he or determines the entry of such aliens would be detrimental to the U.S. interest.

Trump’s Presidential Proclamation Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats (Proclamation 9645) – dubbed “Travel Ban 3.0” – indefinitely suspends entry to the United States for nationals of eight countries (Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, Somalia).

There are a few exceptions, such as lawful permanent residents, asylees, and diplomatic visa holders from these countries. Consular officers and immigration officials may also grant case-by-case waivers to those who would otherwise be subject to the entry ban, if denial of their admission would cause them undue hardship and their admission would not pose a threat to the national security of public safety of the United States and would be in the national interest.

Federal courts in Hawaii and Maryland issued preliminary injunctions partially blocking Travel Ban 3.0, but they were lifted by the U.S. Supreme Court on December 4, 2017, allowing Trump’s proclamation to go into effect. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hear oral argument on April 25 regarding whether the ban violates U.S. immigration law or the U.S. Constitution.

Trump’s termination of the DACA program has spurred federal lawsuits, which resulted in February 13th New York and January 9th San Francisco court orders, issuing temporary injunctions to block the Administration’s rescission. As a result, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) — which recently changed its mission statement to remove the term “nation of immigrants” and emphasize “protecting Americans” — continues to accept DACA renewal requests for now.

The Administration’s expansion of immigration enforcement priorities has also made certain, undocumented immigrants increasingly vulnerable at their USCIS interviews. Spouses of U.S. citizens are now more likely to be apprehended by U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) at in-person interviews with USCIS, when they seek an approval of a marriage-based petition to legalize their status, but have already been issued a removal order, been previously caught unlawfully entering the United States, have criminal convictions, etc.

In light of the Administration’s immigration policies, it has become more critical to have experienced, attentive immigration counsel evaluate your eligibility for immigration benefits (preferably before you file for them) and accompany you to in-person interviews with USCIS. For more information, read 5 Benefits of Having Immigration Counsel at Your In-Person Interview with USCIS.

Contact Dyan Williams Law to help you evaluate your qualifications for permanent residence or naturalization, overcome visa refusals, apply for waivers of inadmissibility, and represent you at green card or citizenship-related interviews with USCIS.

Cheers,

Dyan Williams

Founder & Principal Attorney
Dyan Williams Law PLLC
(612) 225-9900
dw@dyanwilliamslaw.com

###

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

White House-Backed Bill Proposing Protections for Dreamers/DACA Holders, Restrictions on Family-Based Immigration, and End to Diversity Visa Lottery Fails to Pass in the Senate; Worries Prevail

Of the four immigration bills that were recently considered by the Senate, three offered a path to citizenship for 1.8 million undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. when they were children. But the White House’s calls to end “chain migration” by limiting family-based immigration to only spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens (and possibly permanent residents), as well as scrap the Diversity Visa Lottery program, have made it harder for a divided Congress to address the nation’s immigration problems with a legislative fix.

Comprehensive immigration reform remains a divisive issue in Congress, as reflected in the Senate’s failure to advance any of the four immigration bills up for a vote on Thursday, February 15. On immigration, a supermajority of 60 out of 100 senators must agree to end debate and force an up or down vote on a bill. The Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) immigration bill, which was backed by President Trump and mirrored the White House “four pillars” immigration framework, received the least number of votes to move forward.

Dreamers and DACA Holders in Limbo

There seems to be bipartisan support for protecting “Dreamers” or young undocumented immigrants who qualify for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which was introduced by the Obama Administration on June 15, 2007, and rescinded by the Trump Administration on September 5, 2017.

DACA is a temporary immigration relief for undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as minors before age 16, lived in the U.S. since June 15, 2007, are currently in school or have graduated from high school, have no serious criminal history, and meet other eligibility requirements.

Although DACA provides authorized stay and work authorization on a temporary basis, it does not provide a path to permanent residence or citizenship in the U.S.

When the Trump Administration announced the ending of DACA, and left it up to gridlocked Congress to address the ramifications, it set an expiration date of March 5, 2018. But with federal courts in New York and San Francisco issuing temporary injunctions on February 13 and January 9, respectively, which block the Administration’s September order rescinding the DACA program, USCIS issued a statement noting it will, for now, continue accepting requests for DACA renewals under pre-existing terms.

The end of DACA does not mean there will be mass deportations of young, undocumented immigrants. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has to issue a Notice to Appear and file it with the Immigration Court to initiate removal proceedings against an applicant, who may seek available relief  (e.g. asylum, cancellation of removal) from the Immigration Judge. The DHS may also set enforcement priorities so that Dreamers or DACA holders are low priorities for removal.

White House Calls for Limits on Family-Based Immigration and an End to Diversity Visa Lottery Program

In his first State of the Union address before a joint session of Congress on January 30, Trump expressed concerns with family-based immigration, which he referred to as “chain migration.”  He claimed, “under the current broken system, a single immigrant can bring in virtually unlimited numbers of distant relatives.”

He stated his immigration plan “protects the nuclear family by ending chain migration” and would “focus on the immediate family by limiting sponsorships to spouses and minor children.”

Trump also called for an end to the Diversity Visa Lottery, which he said is “a program that randomly hands out green cards without any regard for skill, merit or the safety of our people.” He previously noted in a December 15, 2017 speech, “they give us their worst people, they put them in a bin,” and “the worst of the worst” are selected in the Diversity Lottery.

Using anecdotal cases, the President has linked family-based immigration and the Diversity Visa Lottery program to terrorist attacks and threats to the national security of the United States.

In a December 11, 2017 statement, Attorney General Jeff Sessions wrote, “The President is exactly correct about the changes we need to our immigration system. We have now seen two terrorist attacks in New York City in less than two months that were carried out by people who came here as the result of our failed immigration policies that do not serve the national interest —the diversity lottery and chain migration.”

Of the two examples, the first is Sayfullo Saipov, from Uzbekistan, who entered the United States in 2010 on a diversity immigrant visa. Saipov is accused of killing eight people and injuring a dozen others when he drove a rented truck through a Manhattan, New York City bike lane in October 2017.

The second example is Akayed Ullah, a permanent resident from Bangladesh, who is suspected of carrying out a terrorist attack in New York City in December 2017. Ullah is accused of attempting to bomb a subway station with a low-tech explosive device, but only he was injured when the device failed. He came to the United States in 2011 as the minor child of a parent who was petitioned by an adult U.S. citizen sibling (in fourth preference, family sponsored category).

Family-Based Immigration, As It Stands

U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents/green card holders may sponsor only certain relatives for immigrant visas. Except for the immediate relative category (spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens, and parents of adult U.S. citizens), there is a limited number of visas available and lengthy waiting lists (some lasting more than a decade) in family-based, preference categories.

The preference categories include unmarried sons and daughter of U.S. citizens and their minor children (if any);  spouses, minor children, and unmarried sons and daughters 21 or older of permanent residents; married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens and their spouses and minor children (if any); and siblings of adult U.S. citizens and their spouses and minor children (if any).

The beneficiary (immigrant visa/green card applicant) also must not be inadmissible to the United States based on likelihood of becoming a public charge, certain criminal offenses, immigration violations, or other grounds defined by statutory law.

For more information on the existing family-based immigration system, read Immigrant Visa Process: Delays and Setbacks; Changes to the Visa Bulletin: Understanding the Two Filing Charts; and Priority Date Recapture and Retention in Family-Based Immigration.

Current Diversity Visa Lottery Program

Contrary to Trump’s claims, countries do not choose which of their citizens to put in the Diversity Visa Lottery.  Rather, the program issues up to 50,000 diversity visas each year to qualified applicants from U.S.-designated countries with low rates of immigration to enter the U.S. as permanent residents – if they win the DV lottery and successfully complete the immigrant visa or green card process.

To be eligible, applicants must be born in an eligible country. Natives of countries with relatively high rates of immigration – such as Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, China (mainland-born), Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, South Korea, United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and Vietnam – do not qualify.

Applicants must also have at least a high school education or its equivalent (successful completion of a 12-year course of formal elementary and secondary education); or two years of work experience within the past five years in an occupation requiring at least two years of training or experience to perform the job.

After being selected in the lottery, applicants must clear a background check and demonstrate they have no health problems, criminal records, national security concerns, or other inadmissibility grounds barring them from the United States.

For more information on the current Diversity Lottery program, read Diversity Immigrant Visa – November Entry Deadline (Plus Other Things to Consider.

White House “Four Pillars” Immigration Framework and Its Influence on Congress

In some respects, the White House’s immigration framework takes a harder line on legal immigration than on young, undocumented immigrants – many of whom came to the United States as children without proper travel authorization or lawful admission.

Immigration Bills in the Senate

On Wednesday, February 14,  before the Senate voted on the four immigration bills, Trump issued a statement calling on Congress to support the Grassley proposal. He wrote, “The Grassley bill accomplishes the four pillars of the White House Framework: a lasting solution on DACA, ending chain migration, cancelling the visa lottery, and securing the border through building the wall and closing legal loopholes.”  He also asked all senators to oppose any legislation that fails to fulfill these four pillars.

Each bill needed at least 60 votes to advance in the Senate. The four proposals included:

Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) and John McCain (R-AZ) Bill: provided path to citizenship for 1.8 million undocumented immigrants who came to the country as children; included no funding for Trump’s border wall, but did include measures to improve border security.

Failed 52 to 47. Democrats were almost united in favor and Republicans mostly voted against it.

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) Bill: withheld federal funding for municipalities (dubbed “sanctuary cities”) that refuse to enforce federal immigration policy through their local police officers and other state law enforcement agencies.

Failed 54 to 45. Republicans and a few Democrats backed it, but most Democrats voted against it.

Sen. Susan Collins  (R-ME), endorsed by Minority Leader Chuck Shumer (D-NY), Bill: provided path to citizenship for 1.8 million undocumented immigrants who came to the country as children; included $25 billion in funding for border security; prevented DACA recipients from sponsoring parents for legal status.

Failed 54 to 45. Democrats almost unanimously supported it, along with eight Republicans.

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), based on proposal backed by White House, Bill: provided path for 1.8 million undocumented immigrants who came to the country as children; included $25 billion in funding for border wall; severely restricted legal immigration by limiting family-based immigration to spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens and ending diversity visa lottery program.

Failed 39 to 60. Democrats opposed the bill en masse, joined by a notable number of Republicans, while most of the GOP conference and a couple Democrats supported it.

Immigration Bill in the House

Immigration reform will be even harder for the more conservative House to tackle. Republican leaders are scrambling for sufficient votes on an immigration proposal in the House that is more restrictive than the Trump-backed Grassley bill in the Senate.

The immigration bill by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) offers a temporary, renewable legal status — rather than a path citizenship — to DACA holders in exchange for funding Trump’s border wall, cracking down on so-called sanctuary cities, requiring U.S. employers to use the E-Verify system to check the immigration status of job applicants, restricting family-based immigration, and scrapping the diversity visa lottery program.

Although Trump has expressed support for this bill, it is expected to meet its demise in the divided Senate, even if it passes through the House.

Worries Prevail With No Clear Path to Immigration Reform

If limiting family-based immigration and ending the Diversity Visa Lottery program are non-negotiable components of a White House-backed immigration plan, Congress faces steep obstacles in creating a legislative solution for Dreamers or DACA holders.

Worries prevail as the immigration fate of Dreamers and DACA holders hang in the balance, and some family-based immigration and the diversity visa lottery program are potentially on the chopping block.

In the meantime, eligible DACA holders may file renewal applications according to the latest USCIS policy, while federal court litigation ensues. U.S. citizens and permanent residents may also continue to file family-based petitions for certain relatives, and applicants from eligible countries may seek diversity immigrant visas under existing programs. Any change to U.S. immigration law is expected to apply prospectively and have no retroactive effect.

###

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: PIRO4D

 

5 Benefits of Having Immigration Counsel at Your In-Person Interview with USCIS

When you receive notice of your in-person interview with U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS), you might be tempted to attend it without counsel to save on legal fees.  Many applicants, however, end up spending more money down the line because they did not have a qualified attorney helping them deal with unexpected problems at the interview.

If you filed the application or petition on your own, you could tell yourself the wait is over and the interview is just a formality before USCIS grants the immigration benefit. If you had counsel helping you with the filing, you might decide her presence at the interview is excessive because your important questions have already been addressed.

But the advantages of having reputable, experienced counsel appear with you at the interview far outweigh the disadvantage of incurring legal fees for representation.

In-person interviews with USCIS are necessary to obtain most immigration benefits, including asylum, permanent residence (green card) and naturalization (U.S. citizenship). The interview usually occurs at the USCIS Field Office with jurisdiction over the applicant’s place of residence.

As of October 2, 2017, under the Trump Administration, USCIS began to phase-in interviews for the following:

• Employment-based adjustment of status/green card applications  (Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status) filed on or after March 6, 2017, in the EB-1, employment based first preference, EB-2, employment based second preference, and EB-3, employment based third preference.

• Refugee/asylee relative petitions (Form I-730, Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition) for beneficiaries who are in the United States and are petitioning to join a principal asylee/refugee applicant.

Previously, except in certain situations such as when a criminal record or unlawful presence existed, applicants in these categories were not scheduled to attend an in-person interview with USCIS for their applications to be adjudicated.

USCIS plans to gradually expand interviews to other immigration benefits. It notes the change is in line with Trump’s Executive Order 13780, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” and is part of the agency’s  efforts to improve the detection and prevention of fraud and enhance the integrity of the immigration system.

Here are 5 main benefits of having immigration counsel at your in-person interview with USCIS:

1. Provide protection against excessive screening or vetting

The in-person interview is a screening and vetting procedure for persons seeking immigration benefits to reside or stay long-term in the United States. While USCIS officers are trained to be professional, courteous, and respectful of your legal rights, some may turn (or may seem) hostile when there is reason to believe the applicant is committing immigration fraud, is a danger to the community, or is ineligible for or undeserving of the benefit sought.

Interviews with USCIS are not supposed to be adversarial in nature. They are meant to gather complete and accurate information (both favorable and unfavorable) to properly adjudicate the case, not to find a reason to deny the requested benefit.

Nevertheless, due to expansions in immigration enforcement priorities under the Trump Administration, there are now more reports of applicants being arrested and detained by U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) at their interviews  with USCIS. These cases normally involve beneficiaries attending I-130 interviews who have prior or outstanding removal orders and have remained unlawfully in the country.

Prior to the interview, the attorney can review your criminal record and immigration history to evaluate the risks of interview attendance. While attorneys have no authority to stop ICE from lawfully apprehending or detaining an applicant at the USCIS interview, they may ask critical questions to verify where the applicant will be held and the next steps in the detention and removal process. Unless there is an express agreement, however, the attorney is not obligated to represent you beyond the interview with USCIS.

In less complicated cases — such as where ICE apprehension or detention is unlikely because the only violation is a visa overstay — your having counsel at the interview is still crucial. Attorney appearance encourages the USCIS officer to remain professional and courteous and stick to relevant issues.

2. Clarify unclear questions and complex issues

At the in-person interview, the USCIS officer may ask for any information related to questions on the application forms, your eligibility for the benefit sought, your marital history, your manner of entry into the U.S., your admissibility to the U.S. (such as any arrests, charges or convictions, or misrepresentations made to an immigration official), your educational background, and your past and present employment (including the documents you used to obtain a job in the United States).

When a USCIS officer asks a vague or unclear question, the attorney may request clarification to ensure the applicant understands what is being asked. If the attorney knows the answer is factually or legally incorrect, she may also ask the officer to rephrase the question or point to objective records in the file to show the applicant is mistaken.

3. Help prevent unnecessary delays and complications

USCIS stated the new interview requirement, which became effective on October 2, 2017,  will amount to approximately 17% of the agency’s total workload. Thus, longer processing times and increased delays in all adjudications , especially interview-based applications, are expected.  These days, USCIS is taking one year or more to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, as opposed to six to nine months in the past.

At the interview, you should strive to present all the necessary information and requested documents to facilitate approval. Otherwise, it may take several weeks or months for USCIS to issue a Request for Evidence or Notice of Intent to Deny, to which you must respond within a specified time frame (e.g. 87 days and 30 days, respectively.)

Your attorney can help you figure out what you need to bring to the interview, based on the instructions in the interview notice and the unique facts of your case. The attorney is also better equipped to evaluate whether a favorable decision or adverse notice is expected, depending on what occurred at the interview, and prepare you for next steps following the interview.

4. Serve as an advocate

Unlike in court hearings before a judge, interviews with USCIS do not involve your attorney asking you direct questions to solicit testimony. The USCIS officer asks the questions and  you provide the answers.

Questions on issues that may seem inappropriate or unimportant to you might be relevant to your eligibility for the immigration benefit and be in line with USCIS policy. Having counsel at the interview helps you determine when it’s better to answer, ask for clarification, or object (for good cause).

Your attorney cannot respond to questions the USCIS officer directs to you. She also may not coach you on how to lie about facts or hide information that is requested. But she may advise you on legal issues or raise objections to inappropriate questions or, as a last resort, ask to speak with a supervisor (particularly if the interview becomes argumentative or antagonistic).

Having an attorney present at the interview helps to protect and advocate your legal rights. If USCIS instructs you to provide a sworn, written statement on controversial points, the attorney can verify that you understand what you are providing and signing.

Counsel can further help you avoid misrepresenting material facts to the USCIS officer and explain unfavorable information to defuse a difficult situation. They advise you on pitfalls and weaknesses in your case that will likely be at issue in the interview. They determine when and how to best present testimony and documentary evidence to highlight positive factors and offset negative factors in your case.

It is rare for interviews to be  video-recorded. Without counsel, it will just be the USCIS officer and you (and possibly your interpreter) in the interview room. The officer will takes notes for the file, but you typically will not have access to them unless you submit a Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Request, which normally takes several months to process. Moreover, in the FOIA response, the agency may redact, or black out, any information protected by one of the nine FOIA exemptions to prevent certain harms, such as an invasion of privacy, or harm to law enforcement investigations.

An attentive attorney at the interview will carefully observe the discussion and take informative notes on questions asked and answers given. If USCIS issues a Notice of Intent to Deny or other adverse notice based on purported discrepancies and inconsistencies at the interview, an attorney may provide a credible explanation on what was said in the interview and how it was conducted. It won’t just be your word against the allegations of the interviewing officer.

5. Add credibility to your claim

Having an attorney present does not mean you have something to hide. On the contrary, many USCIS officers prefer applicants to bring counsel to the interview for it to run more smoothly and effectively.

In addition, because attorneys have a duty of candor to the tribunal, their presence generally adds credibility to your claims.  An attorney cannot knowingly present false information or false documents or perpetuate fraudulent claims without running afoul of the professional responsibility rules.

The attorney can help prepare you for interview by describing what questions to expect and which issues are likely to arise, and how to best address them. They can further prepare and submit a legal memorandum to stave off concerns and persuade the officer to approve your case.

Conclusion: Bring Counsel to the Interview

There are many applicants who attend their interviews without counsel and get their applications or petitions approved. But these cases are usually very well-documented with positive information and no adverse factors to consider. The applicant also has to be very fortunate having a relatively short interview where no problems arose. It is hard to know how exactly your interview will go.

Many things can go wrong at the interview with USCIS, which may lead to severe consequences including denial decisions and even a Notice to Appear in removal proceedings before an Immigration Court.

For example, the USCIS officer may conduct separate interviews of the U.S. citizen (I-130 petitioner) and his foreign national spouse (I-485 applicant) and determine they entered into a sham marriage for immigration purposes. The officer may review the entire immigration history and/or criminal record of a naturalization applicant and find that he is not only ineligible for citizenship, but is subject to removal from the United States.

Even if you prepared and filed the application or petition with USCIS on your own, or with the help of an immigration consultant or online immigration service, you may have counsel enter her appearance at the interview by submitting a Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney, to the USCIS officer.  Once the G-28 is accepted, the appearance will be recognized until the matter is concluded (absent a withdrawal of representation).

It’s best to secure counsel for the interview at least two weeks in advance to avoid scheduling conflicts and lack of preparation.

In some cases, the interview goes so well that having counsel seems to be an added expense with no benefit. But more than likely, counsel’s presence at the interview contributes to the successful outcome, even though you might not be able to measure the effects. And when the stakes are high, it’s better to be over-prepared than under-prepared and to err on the side of caution by having counsel at the interview.

###

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: johnhain

Priority Date Recapture and Retention in Family-Based Immigration

Family-based immigration can take many years to complete due to slow processing times, huge backlogs, and the limited number of visas available in the family-sponsored, preference categories.

The priority date marks the immigrant visa/green card applicant’s place in the visa queue.  Being able to recapture and retain an old priority date from a previously filed petition in a new petition makes a big difference.

The priority date is when USCIS received the Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, from the U.S. citizen or permanent resident petitioner on behalf of the beneficiary.

During the process, certain changes in family circumstances may lead to complications, delays, and even termination of the case. An example is when an unmarried son of a U.S. citizen petitioner marries or when a minor child beneficiary turns age 21 before he immigrates.

Some situations involve automatic conversion from one preference category to another, where the old priority date is kept.  Others require the filing of a new, I-130 immigrant petition, which might not allow priority date recapture and retention.

Family-Sponsored, Preference Categories

There is no limit on the number of immigrant visas/green cards available to immediate relatives.  An immediate relative is the spouse or unmarried, minor child (under age 21) of a U.S. citizen, as well as the parent of an adult U.S. citizen (age 21 or older).

Family-sponsored, preference categories, however, have a maximum number of visas available each fiscal year.  Congress allocates visas to each preference category as follows:

First: (F1) Unmarried Sons and Daughters, age 21 or older, of U.S. Citizens:  23,400 plus any numbers not required for fourth preference.

Second: Spouses and Children, and Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Permanent Residents:  114,200, plus the number (if any) by which the worldwide family preference level exceeds 226,000, plus any unused first preference numbers:

A. (F2A) Spouses and Unmarried Children, under age 21, of Permanent Residents:  77% of the overall second preference limitation, of which 75% are exempt from the per-country limit;

B. (F2B) Unmarried Sons and Daughters (21 years of age or older) of Permanent Residents:  23% of the overall second preference limitation.

Third: (F3) Married Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens:  23,400, plus any numbers not required by first and second preferences.

Fourth: (F4) Brothers and Sisters of Adult U.S. Citizens:  65,000, plus any numbers not required by first three preferences.

Priority Date

Immigrant visas or green cards may be issued in family-sponsored, preference categories only when the priority date is current.

A priority date is current if the I-130 petition was filed before the cut-off date listed in the U.S. Department of State’s monthly Visa Bulletin for that category. The Visa Bulletin lists two different dates to track: the Application Final Action Dates (AFAD) and the Dates for Filing Applications (DFA).

AFADs are the cut-off dates that determine when an immigrant visa becomes available to Form DS-260, Immigrant Visa applicants or Form I-485, Adjustment of Status (green card) applicants, depending on their priority date, preference category, and country of chargeability.

The DFA chart was first introduced in the October 2015 Visa Bulletin. DFAs are the cut-off dates that determine when Immigrant Visa applicants – depending on their priority date, preference and category – should receive notice from the DOS’ National Visa Center (NVC) instructing them to submit their documents for consular processing. Each month, USCIS also determines whether eligible applicants in the U.S. may use the DFA chart, instead of the AFAD chart, for filing I-485 applications.

Automatic Conversion of Preference Categories 

While a family-based immigration case is pending, beneficiaries may move from one category to another, or lose immigrant visa eligibility altogether, due to changes in circumstances.

Federal regulations at 8 CFR 204.2(i) provide for automatic conversion from one family-sponsored, preference category to another, and allow for recapturing and retention of the old priority date in the following situations:

Preference Category Situation in which petition is automatically converted and old priority date is recaptured and retained

 

Immediate Relative/IR

Unmarried, minor child (under age 21) of U.S. citizen

 

Child marries: convert from Immediate Relative/IR to Third Preference/F3

 

Child turns age 21 and is not protected by the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA): convert from Immediate Relative/IR to First Preference/F1

 

First Preference/F1

Unmarried adult son or daughter (age 21 or older) of U.S. citizen

Son or daughter marries: convert  from First Preference/F1 to Third Preference/F3
Second Preference A/F2A

Minor child (under age 21) of permanent resident

Petitioner becomes a naturalized U.S. citizen while child is under age 21: convert from Second Preference A/F2A to Immediate Relative/IR. NOTE: A new I-130 petition must be filed in the Immediate Relatives category if the child was listed only as a derivative beneficiary in an I-130 petition for the petitioner’s spouse, and is not already a principal beneficiary of an-130 filed by petitioner.

 

Petitioner becomes a naturalized U.S. citizen after child, who is protected by CSPA, turns 21: convert from Second Preference A/F2A to First Preference/F1.  NOTE: If there is more backlog in the F1 category, the beneficiary may NOT opt out of the automatic conversion.  The petitioner may refrain from applying for naturalization to prevent adverse effects on the child.

 

Child turns 21 and is not protected by CSPA: convert from Second Preference A/F2A to Second Preference B/F2B

Second Preference B/F2B

Unmarried adult son or daughter ( age 21 or older), of permanent resident

Petitioner becomes a naturalized U.S. citizen: convert from Second Preference B/F2B to First Preference/F1. NOTE: If there is more backlog in the F1 category, the beneficiary may opt out of the automatic conversion and stay in the F2B category by sending a request letter to USCIS, NVC or U.S. Consulate.

 

Third Preference/F3

Married son or daughter of U.S. citizen

Son or daughter divorces: convert from Third Preference/F3 to Immediate Relative/IR (if under age 21) or to First Preference/F1( if 21 or older)

 

In most cases, no new I-130 petition has to be filed when automatic conversion applies. The petitioner just has to notify USCIS, the National Visa Center or the U.S. Consulate of the conversion.

Priority Date Recapturing or Retention

Generally, an earlier priority date may be recaptured and retained if it is the same petitioner filing for the same beneficiary (including derivative beneficiaries) and the prior I-130 was not terminated or revoked.

Beneficiary Gets Married

Marriage of the beneficiary leads to automatic conversion in certain situations. For example, if an unmarried, minor child (under age 21) of a U.S. citizen marries, the petition is automatically converted from the Immediate Relatives to F3 category, but the original priority date is kept.

If an unmarried adult son or daughter (age 21 or older) of a U.S. citizen marries, the petition is automatically converted from the F1 to to F3 category, but the original priority date is kept.

In contrast, if an unmarried child (under age 21) of a permanent resident (F2A category) or  unmarried adult son or daughter (age 21 or older) of a permanent resident (F2B category) marries, the petition is automatically revoked or terminated as a matter of law because there is no category for permanent residents to file for married children. Even if the child/son/daughter divorces, he or she cannot regain the status of a F2A or F2B preference because the I-130 was revoked.  An annulment, however, might serve to reinstate the second preference status.

If the permanent resident parent becomes a U.S. citizen and then files a new petition for the child/son/ daughter in the F3 category, a new priority date will apply and the old priority date cannot be recaptured.

Beneficiary “Ages Out” (Turns Age 21) and Is Not Protected by CSPA

INA § 203(h)(3) states that if a child “ages out” (turns age 21) and is not covered by age-out protections under the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), the petition for him or her will be automatically converted to the appropriate preference category.

Eligibility criteria for CSPA include:

  • Beneficiary must have a pending or approved visa petition on or after August 6, 2002
  • Beneficiary must not have had a final decision on an application for adjustment of status or an immigrant visa before August 6, 2002.
  • Beneficiary must “seek to acquire” permanent residence within 1 year of a visa becoming available. USCIS interprets “seek to acquire” as having a Form I-824, Application for Action on an Approved Application or Petition, filed on the child’s behalf or the filing of an adjustment/green card application or immigrant visa application. The date of visa availability means the first day of the first month a visa in the appropriate category was listed as available in the Department of State’s visa bulletin or the date the I-130 petition was approved, whichever is later.

A CSPA formula is used to determine the child’s “CSPA age.” USCIS will take the child’s age at the time an immigrant visa number became available and deduct the time the I-130 petition was pending from the child’s age. If the result is less than 21 years of age, he keeps the same preference category provided he seeks to acquire permanent residence within one year of  when an immigrant visa or green card becomes available.

When the minor child of a U.S. citizen turns 21 and is not protected by CSPA, he or she is converted from the Immediate Relative to F1 category.

When the minor child of a permanent resident turns 21 and is not protected by CSPA, he or she is converted from the F2A to F2B category.

Derivative Beneficiary “Ages Out” (Turns Age 21) and Is Not Protected by CSPA

A derivative beneficiary includes a minor child (under age 21) of a principal beneficiary of an I-130 petition. When the derivative child turns 21 and “ages out,” the child is no longer eligible to immigrate as a derivative beneficiary of the I-130 petition for her parents. Therefore, a new petition must be filed for the former derivative child as the principal beneficiary.

INA § 203(h)(3), regarding the retention of priority dates, states, “If the age of an alien is determined [by the CSPA calculator] to be 21 years of age or older for the purposes of [retaining status as a derivative beneficiary in the preference categories], the alien’s petition shall automatically be converted to the appropriate category and the alien shall retain the original priority date issued upon receipt of the original petition.”

In a 2009 case, Matter of Wang, the BIA found that while the language in section 203(h)(3) is ambiguous, Congress intended for priority dates to be retained only when the same petitioner filed a second petition for the same beneficiary. The BIA held that retention of the old priority date was “limited to a lawful permanent resident’s son or daughter who was previously eligible as a derivative beneficiary under a second-preference spousal petition filed by that same lawful permanent resident.” The BIA found § 203(h)(3) did not apply to derivative beneficiaries in other categories.

Matter of Wang interpreted INA § 203(h)(3) narrowly, holding that the priority date may only be retained if the second preference petition is filed by the same petitioner. The case involved a beneficiary from China whose LPR parent filed a petition for him in the F2B category. He had a petition previously filed on his behalf by his brother under the F4 category. He sought to recapture the old priority date under the F4 category. But the BIA held he could not recapture the original priority date because the petition under the F2B category required a different petitioner and sponsor than the original petition under the F4 category.

In its June 2014 decision in Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the BIA’s holding. The Supreme Court read section 203(h)(3) to allow only derivative children of beneficiaries of F2A petitions (for spouses and children of permanent residents) to retain the priority date of their parent’s original petition.

The Supreme Court’s decision supersedes earlier appellate court holdings, such as Khalid v. Holder, in which the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Matter of Wang and held that the CSPA priority date retention applies to all petitions where derivative beneficiaries may “age out,” not just to second-preference petitions.

To recapture the priority date, the new petition must be filed by the same, original petitioner. The priority date cannot be recaptured in a situation like in Matter of Wang, where the original petitioner was a U.S. citizen brother and the second petitioner was a permanent resident father. The rule set forth in Matter of Wang, and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Scialabba, limits situations in which a priority date may be recaptured in a new I-130 filing.

Derivative beneficiaries under any other preference category besides F2A may not retain the priority date of the petition where their parents were principal beneficiaries. These other derivative beneficiaries include the children of unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens (First Preference/F1); the children of unmarried sons and daughters of permanent residents (Second Preference B/F2B); the children of married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens (Third Preference/F3); and the children of siblings of U.S. citizens (Fourth Preference category, F4).

Scenario 1Maria is the principal beneficiary of an I-130 petition filed by her permanent resident spouse, Thomas, in the F2A (spouse of permanent resident) category. Maria’s daughter, Ana, is included in the petition as a derivative beneficiary. But Ana ages out (turns age 21) and may no longer follow to join the principal beneficiary.

The original petitioner, Thomas, then files an I-130 petition for Ana in the F2B (adult, unmarried daughter of permanent resident) category. Ana may recapture the old priority date because she was the derivative of an F2A beneficiary.

Scenario 2: Maria is the principal beneficiary of an I-130 petition field by her U.S. citizen brother, Joaquin, in the F4 (sister of adult U.S. citizen) category. Maria’s daughter, Ana, is included in the petition as  a derivative beneficiary. But Ana ages out (turns age 21) and can no longer follow to join the principal beneficiary.

The original petitioner, Joaquin, may not file an I-130 petition for Ana because there is no category for nieces of a U.S. citizen. Ana’s now permanent resident mother, Maria, then files an I-130 petition for her in the F2B (adult, unmarried daughter of permanent resident) category. Ana may not recapture the old priority date because she was the derivative of an F4 beneficiary.

Ana’s immigration process will be delayed more in Scenario 2 because, unlike in Scenario 1, she cannot retain the priority date of the parent’s original I-130 petition. Because she has aged out, she needs to have a new I-130 petition with a new priority date filed for her.

Petitioner Naturalizes

When a permanent resident petitioner becomes a naturalized U.S. citizen, he may request an upgrade of his I-130 petition for his spouse from the F2A to Immediate Relatives category. But if he did not file an I-130 petition for his minor child (under age 21), and simply listed him as an F2A derivative beneficiary on the I-130 petition for his spouse, he will need to file a new I-130 petition for the child in the Immediate Relatives category. The old priority date may be recaptured to help the child immigrate earlier with the spouse.

When a permanent resident petitioner becomes a naturalized U.S. citizen, his I-130 petition for a minor child who turns 21, but is protected by CSPA, will convert from the F2A to F1 category. If there is more backlog in the F1 category, the beneficiary may NOT opt out of the automatic conversion.

When a permanent resident petitioner becomes a naturalized U.S. citizen, his I-130 petition for a an unmarried son or daughter (age 21 or older) will convert from F2B to F1 category. If there is more backlog in the F1 category, the beneficiary may opt out of the automatic conversion and stay in the F2B category by sending a request letter to USCIS, NVC or U.S. Consulate.

Conclusion

The priority date (i.e. the date the I-130 petition was filed with USCIS) determines when you may immigrate to the United States or adjust to permanent resident status.

Determining whether a beneficiary or derivative beneficiary is protected by CSPA after aging out (turning 21) is complicated. Seeking to recapture and retain an earlier priority date to reduce immigration delays can be tricky.

Consult an experienced immigration attorney to fully evaluate your situation, including whether CSPA applies or whether an old priority date may be recaptured and retained.

# # #

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: Kevin Haggerty

 

DREAMers Face Uncertainty as Trump Administration Ends DACA and Leaves the Fight Up to a Divided Congress

On his campaign trail,  President Trump said he would “immediately terminate” DACA – the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program introduced by the Obama Administration in June 2012.  Although it took several months to make a decision, the Trump Administration issued a memorandum on September 5, 2017, to end the program.

As of this date, no new, initial DACA applications will be accepted. Current DACA holders whose benefits expire on or before March 5, 2018, may file for a renewal, valid for 2 years, by October 5, 2017.

Almost 800,000 eligible, undocumented immigrants have received DACA as a temporary relief from removal, which includes work authorization valid for two years. Commonly known as “DREAMERs,” DACA holders include undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as minors before age 16, have lived in the U.S. since June 15, 2007, are currently in school or have graduated from high school, have no serious criminal history, and meet other eligibility requirements.

DACA, however, has always been a temporary relief subject to rescission by a new Administration and which provided no path to lawful nonimmigrant status, permanent residence, or citizenship.

The DACA program was introduced by the Obama Administration in a  June 15, 2012 memorandum from then DHS-Secretary Janet Napolitano, titled Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion With Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children. Critics viewed it as an unconstitutional use of power by the Executive Branch. Supporters saw it as an extension of prosecutorial discretion related to immigration enforcement priorities and necessary protection for undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children and grew up in the country.

Federal court litigation ensued, in which a Texas-led coalition of 26 states  — including 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 — filed a lawsuit to stop the expansion of DACA and the introduction of a similar relief, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program.

In January 2017, after taking office, President Trump stated in an interview with ABC’s David Muir that a new policy would be issued within weeks, but that DACA recipients “shouldn’t be very worried.” He further commented: “I do have a big heart. We’re going to take care of everybody…But I will tell you, we’re looking at this, the whole immigration situation, we’re looking at it with great heart.”

Meanwhile, Attorney General Jeff Sessions continued to hold a hardline, calling DACA an “unconstitutional” act by Obama that has “denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same illegal aliens to take those jobs.” Sessions made the announcement in a September 5th news conference that the Trump Administration will phase out the DACA program.

On Twitter, following Sessions’ remarks, President Trump wrote, “Congress now has 6 months to legalize DACA (something the Obama administration was unable to do.) If they can’t, I will revisit this issue!”

In a written statement issued after Sessions’ announcement, Trump said, “I am not going to just cut DACA off, but rather provide a window of opportunity for Congress to finally act.”

“We will resolve the DACA issue with heart and compassion — but through the lawful democratic process — while at the same time ensuring that any immigration reform we adopt provides enduring benefits for the American citizens we were elected to serve,” Trump added.

There are at least four bills being discussed in Congress that provides protection to DREAMErs. They include the Dream Act, sponsored by Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C; Recognizing America’s Children (RAC) Act, sponsored by Rep. Carlos Curbelo, R-Fla.; American Hope Act, sponsored by Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill.; and BRIDGE Act, sponsored by Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Colo. The first three creates a path for citizenship or permanent resident status if applicants meet certain requirements. The fourth seeks to codify the current DACA program into law and extend it for three years (but offers no path to permanent residence or citizenship), giving Congress more time to enact comprehensive immigration reform.

Trump gave Congress six months to fix the broken immigration system, but there are diametrically opposed viewpoints within the Senate and House: some call for tougher border security and immigration enforcement, while others seek protection from removal and a pathway to permanent residence and citizenship for certain undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as minors.

Congress has struggled for several years to resolve big legislative issues like immigration. As such, six months make a very short period to tackle the monumental problem of DACA holders losing protection from removal and authorization to work in the United States.

With a divided Congress, the fate of DREAMers is uncertain. In addition to filing for DACA renewal, if eligible, and tracking legislative action in Congress, DACA holders should consult an immigration attorney to discuss other more concrete, existing immigration options.

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: Lian Xiaoxiao