Category Archives: immigrant petition

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immigrants who qualified for the Obama Administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which he rescinded on September 5, 2017, his support does not come without conditions.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

 

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

 

Trump Administration ends DACA: no new applications accepted as of September 5, 2017; renewal applications accepted up to October 5, 2017

On September 5, 2017, the Trump Administration announced the ending of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program – a temporary immigration relief that was introduced by the Obama Administration on June 15, 2012. In the Memorandum on Rescission of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) from DHS Acting Secretary Elaine Duke, and related FAQs, the Administration set forth the following steps to end the program:

Initial DACA (Form I-821D) applications and related applications for Employment Authorization Document (Form I-765): U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) will adjudicate, on a case-by-case basis, properly filed initial DACA requests and associated applications for work authorization that were received by September 5, 2017. All initial DACA requests received after September 5 will be rejected.

DACA Renewal (Form I-821D) applications and related applications for Employment Authorization Document (Form I-765): USCIS will adjudicate, on a case-by-case basis, properly filed renewal DACA requests and associated applications for work authorization, from current DACA holders, that were received by September 5, 2017.

USCIS will also accept and adjudicate DACA renewal requests from current DACA holders whose benefits will expire on or before March 5, 2018, as long as they are received by October 5, 2017.

USCIS will reject all DACA renewal requests that do not fit this criteria, including all applications received after October 5, 2017.

Applications for Advance Parole (Travel Document) Based on DACA Grants: As of September 5, USCIS will not approve any new DACA-based applications for Advance Parole/travel document (Forms I-131). USCIS will administratively close all pending applications for advance parole and refund the filing fees.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will generally honor the validity period for previously approved applications for Advance Parole, but the U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) retains the authority to determine whether to admit persons who present themselves at a U.S. port of entry, as a matter of discretion. USCIS also retains authority to revoke or terminate an advance parole document at any time.

Why is the DACA program ending?

The DACA program was implemented by 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.

The Obama Administration planned to expand the DACA program in February 2015 and introduce the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program in May 2015. These plans, however, were halted after a Texas-led coalition of 26 states filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas to stop the rollout.

On February 16, 2015, U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen in Texas issued a temporary injunction blocking the implementation of the expanded DACA and the new DAPA.  On June 23, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 4-4 opinion in United States v. Texas that allowed the  temporary injunction to stand.

In a June 29, 2017 letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Texas and nine other states requested that DACA be phased out and DHS rescind the June 15, 2012 memorandum and not renew or issue any new DACA permits. They stated that if the Trump Administration agrees to rescind the June 15, 2012 DACA memorandum, they will voluntarily dismiss their lawsuit pending in the Southern District of Texas; otherwise, the complaint will be amended to challenge the existing DACA program.

During his election campaign, President Trump promised to end DACA. After Trump took office on January 20, then-Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly rescinded the DAPA policy in June 2017. USCIS, however, continued to approve both initial and renewal DACA applications.

In its decision to end the DACA program, the Trump Administration considered the federal court rulings in ongoing litigation and the September 4, 2017 letter from the Attorney General to the DHS Acting Secretary, noting that DACA was an “unconstitutional exercise of authority by the Executive Branch” and calling for a wind-down process.

Who is affected?

Almost 800,000 persons have received DACA since the program began in June 2012. DACA holders include 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.

How does the ending of the DACA program affect DACA holders? 

Employment Authorization 

DACA holders with a currently valid Employment Authorization Document (EAD) may continue to work lawfully in the United States. DHS does not plan to terminate or revoke any previous grants of DACA or work permits solely due to the ending of the program.

Advance Parole/Travel Authorization

DACA holders with a valid Advance Parole document, who are outside the United States, should be able to reenter the country. But Advance Parole has never guaranteed admission to the United States by the CBP, which maintains authority to decide whether to grant entry or deny it. The DHS may also revoke or terminate a grant of Advance Parole at any time, including when the DACA holder is outside the United States, which would prevent reentry to the country.

Immigration Enforcement

In the FAQs related to the September 5, 2017 memorandum ending DACA, the Trump Administration stated ,“[i]nformation provided to USCIS in DACA
requests will not be proactively provided to ICE and CBP for the purpose of immigration enforcement proceedings, unless the requestor meets the criteria for the issuance of a Notice To Appear or a referral to ICE under the criteria set forth in USCIS’ Notice to Appear guidance.

Explore Other Options

The DACA program provides authorized stay, work authorization, and temporary protection from removal (deportation), but no lawful nonimmigrant status or path to permanent residence. DACA recipients ought to be exploring other options to legalize their status, preferably before the program ends.

For example, if you are a DACA holder who is married to a U.S. citizen, your spouse may file an I-130 immigrant petition for you, and you may seek to obtain an immigrant visa at the U.S. Consulate or adjustment to permanent resident status within the United States in the immediate relatives category.

Adjusting to permanent resident status requires lawful admission to the United States. If you entered the country unlawfully, without presenting yourself for inspection, you normally must depart the country to apply for the immigrant visa overseas. Departure from the United States (without Advance Parole) triggers the 3/10 year unlawful presence bar.

Section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) of the Immigration & Nationality Act (INA) states the 3 year bar to re-entry applies if you were unlawfully present in the U.S. for more than 180 days, but less than one year, and then depart the U.S. prior to commencement of removal proceedings. The U.S. government adds up all the days you were unlawfully present in the U.S. in a single ongoing period or stay (i.e. continuous period of unlawful presence).

The 3-year bar does not apply if you depart the U.S. after the Notice to Appear in removal proceedings is filed with the immigration court, following service of the NTA on you. But leaving the U.S. while you are in removal proceedings or being issued a removal order carries other immigration consequences.

Section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) of the INA states the 10 year bar to re-entry applies if you were unlawfully present in the U.S. for one year or more, and then depart the U.S. The U.S. government adds up all the days you were unlawfully present in the U.S., even if they were from different periods or stays (i.e. the aggregate period of unlawful presence).

You begin to accrue unlawful presence only after April 1, 1997 and once you turn age 18.

The 3/10 year bar to re-entry is triggered only if you leave the U.S. This does not mean you should never leave the U.S. to legalize your immigration status, but you should know there are risks to your departure. (Illegally re-entering or attempting to illegally re-enter the U.S. further complicates your case and triggers a permanent bar under certain circumstances.)

A person who is inadmissible due to the 3 year/10 year bar may not receive an immigrant visa before the 3 year/10 year bar expires without first obtaining an I-601 waiver or I-601A waiver under section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) of the Immigration & Nationality Act.  To be eligible for the waiver, you must have a qualifying relative (U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse or parent) who will suffer “extreme hardship” if you are not granted the immigrant visa and admitted to the United States.

Consult an Immigration Attorney

The American Immigration Council issued a September 5, 2017 Practice Advisory describing other possible forms of relief, such as adjustment of status, U and T visas, asylum, and special immigrant juvenile status.

DACA holders must consult an experienced immigration attorney to discuss whether they are eligible for other immigration options that are more lasting than DACA and could lead to permanent resident status.

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: Antony Theobald

Birth Tourism, Frequent/Extended Trips, Immigration Status Change: 3 Things That Often Prevent Entry to the U.S. (even though they are not strictly prohibited)

If you had a baby in the United States, made frequent/extended trips to the country, or applied for a change in immigration status during a prior stay as a visitor, you may be stopped from entering the U.S., even though these activities are not strictly prohibited.

This problem arises especially when the U.S. Consulate or U.S. Customs & Border Protection determines you misrepresented the purpose of your visit when you applied for the B-1/B-2 visitor visa and used it or the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) to enter the United States.

Section 214(b) of the Immigration & Nationality Act presumes that most nonimmigrant visa applicants intend to immigrate permanently to the United States. Only certain categories, such as the H-1B  (professional worker) and L-1A/L-1B (intracompany transferee), allow dual intent (i.e. intent to immigrate in the future while maintaining temporary status in the present). Otherwise, nonimmigrant visa applicants must show they have no intent to immigrate and simply seek a temporary stay in the U.S.

When you engage in any of the following 3 activities, you could have problems getting a new visa or gaining re-entry to the U.S. for a temporary stay, although each one, by itself, does not violate U.S. immigration law or make you inadmissible to the United States:

1. Traveling to the United States to have a baby (“Birth Tourism”)

Traveling to the United States on a visitor visa for the purpose of giving birth to a child is commonly known as Birth Tourism.  Under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, birth in the United States gives the child automatic citizenship with all its rights and privileges.

Furthermore, birth citizenship provides the  foreign national parent with potential immigration relief. For example, upon turning age 21, a U.S. citizen son or daughter may file an immigrant petition for a parent in the immediate relatives category, which has no numerical limits on immigrant visas available.  A parent who overstays in the United States and is placed in removal proceedings may qualify for Cancellation of Removal and Adjustment of Status (to permanent residence) if she has been continuously present in the United States for at least 10 years, has not been convicted of certain offenses, has good moral character, and her removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her U.S. citizen child.

There is no specific criminal law or immigration law prohibiting birth tourism per se or preventing a pregnant woman from entering the United States. Nonetheless, U.S. consular officers and customs officers often view it as a misuse of the visitor visa status and a gaming of the immigration system to give the child automatic citizenship.

If the officer sees you are pregnant at the time of applying for a tourist visa or requesting admission as a visitor, he may refuse the visa or deny your entry. This is why birth tourists who hail from various countries such as China, Taiwan, South Korea, Russia, Brazil and Mexico, typically come to the United States when their pregnancy is not so obvious.

Even if you succeed in gaining a visitor visa or entering the United States as a visitor to give birth, you might still encounter problems in the future when you apply for a new visa or admission as a nonimmigrant.

A consular officer may deny your request for a B-1/B-2 visitor visa or other non-dual intent visa under INA 214(b) by finding you intend to immigrate due to your having a U.S. citizen son or daughter, or based on mere suspicion that you will use a new visa to give birth in the U.S. again. The U.S. Consulate has sole discretion to make a factual determination on whether you have strong ties to your country to overcome the presumption of immigrant intent.

A non-resident parent who travels with a U.S. citizen child may face tougher scrutiny at the U.S. port of entry. A customs officer who discovers you had a child during a prior visit in the U.S.  may deny your request for admission on a temporary visa and further issue an expedited removal order under INA 212(a)(7)(lack of proper visa or other travel documents), which carries a five-year bar. To be excused from this five-year bar to being admitted to the United States, you need an approved Form I-212, Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the United States After Deportation or Removal.

In some cases, a consular officer or customs officer may issue a more serious charge under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i)(fraud or willful misrepresentation of material fact to gain a visa or entry to the United States), which is a lifetime bar. When such an inadmissibility finding is made by the U.S. Consulate or CBP, there is little or no recourse other than to appeal directly to the agency to reconsider and rescind the decision. As long as the section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) bar holds, you will need a 212(d)(3) nonimmigrant waiver or a Form I-601/212(i) immigrant waiver to be admitted to the United States.

Because a visitor visa may be used for medical treatment, your showing that giving birth in the United States served or serves a health purpose can be a positive factor. An example is if the pregnancy comes with high risks or serious complications. When you are upfront and declare you are coming to the U.S. to give birth, the officer decides, on a case-by-case basis, whether to grant the visa or admission based on proof of strong ties to your country, nonimmigrant intent, and sufficient funds to cover all medical costs.

Paying all medical bills or having your own medical insurance to cover the expenses related to childbirth can help prevent a visa refusal or denial of admission. Ultimately, however, the consular officer or customs officer has discretion to determine whether having a baby in the U.S. is consistent with the purpose of a visitor visa, regardless of whether you cover the medical expenses and do not become a public charge by receiving Medicaid (government assistance) to pay the medical bills.

2. Making frequent, extended visits to the United States

U.S. immigration law allows visitor visa holders to conduct legitimate B-1/B-2 activities for a temporary period, up to six months. Using ESTA (Electronic System for Travel Authorization) if you are an eligible applicant from a Visa Waiver Program-eligible country allows you visit the United States for 90 days or less.

The U.S. consular officers and customs officers expect you to use the visitor visa or ESTA/Visa Waiver program to engage in tourism and recreational activities, visit family and friends, and conduct other temporary visit activities. Remaining in the U.S. for the maximum or close to the maximum time allowed and then quickly returning to the U.S. (e.g. within a month) for another extended stay do not reflect the travel patterns of a real visitor.

Frequent, extended trips to the United States will likely cause the customs officer to suspect you are really living, studying or working in the country without authorization. You may end up with a shorter authorized stay or a warning from the officer. You could also be placed in secondary inspection and questioned extensively so the officer can find legitimate grounds to deny your entry.

You may be asked to withdraw your application for admission or be issued an expedited removal order due to lack of proper travel documents and even due to willful misrepresentation to enter the U.S.  A visa revocation will likely affect your eligibility for a new visa. An inadmissibility finding will stop you from using the ESTA/Visa Waiver program.

There is no minimum time you must stay in your country before returning to the U.S. for another visit. But if you are constantly traveling to the U.S. and staying for long periods, you can expect to run into problems later, even if you were previously lawfully admitted as a visitor without any complications.

3. Applying for a change of status after entering the United States in another status

U.S. immigration law allows nonimmigrants to change from one status to another (such as B-1/B-2 visitor to F-1 student, H-1B professional worker, or H-2B nonagricultural seasonal worker) or file for asylum within the U.S. if they meet the eligibility criteria.

A request for change of status through the filing of a Form I-539, Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status, or Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, with U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services is often met with several obstacles. One is that USCIS will not approve the status change request unless you are maintaining lawful B-1/B-2 status or other nonimmigrant status.

Questions regarding whether a willful misrepresentation of material fact to gain an immigration benefit might arise when you file for a change of status within the U.S., instead of apply for the appropriate visa at the U.S. Consulate.

B-1/B-2 visitor visa holders, for instance, may be found to have misrepresented the purpose of their stay if they applied to schools or sought employment after arriving in the United States. Even if you did not attend school or work without authorization in the U.S., your taking steps toward a change in status that permits school attendance or employment in the U.S. could signal to the consular officer that you were not a genuine visitor.

Immigration problems can also occur when you apply for adjustment to permanent resident status instead of file for an immigrant visa at the U.S. Consulate. One of the most common ways for a B-1/B-2 visa holder to adjust to permanent resident (green card) status is to enter into a bona fide marriage to a U.S. citizen and have the citizen file an immigrant petition on his or her behalf. While an overstay, by itself, does not prevent adjustment of status based on marriage to a U.S. citizen, providing false information to a consular officer or customs officer about the purpose of the visit creates immigration problems.

In general, the U.S. Consulate applies a 30/60 day rule in determining whether a misrepresentation was made if you conduct yourself in a manner inconsistent with representations made to the consular officers concerning your intentions at the time of visa application or to customs officers when you requested admission.

If a B-1/B-2 visitor, for example, marries a U.S. citizen and applies for a green card within 30 days of arrival, the consular officer may presume the applicant misrepresented his intentions in seeking a visa or admission to the U.S. There is no presumption of misrepresentation if the request for change of status is made more than 30 days but less than 60 days after arrival. But depending on the facts of the case, the officer may still have a reasonable belief that misrepresentation occurred, in which case the applicant receives an opportunity to present countervailing evidence. While USCIS is not required to follow the Consulate’s 30/60 day policy, it sometimes uses it as guidance. 

Seeking asylum in the United States, through a credible fear interview process at the U.S port of entry or through the filing of a Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, after being admitted to the U.S., also signals immigrant intent. If asylum is not granted, it will be very difficult (if not impossible) for you to be re-admitted as a visitor or in another status that requires nonimmigrant intent, at least in the near future.

Conclusion

Having a baby in the U.S., making frequent, extended trips to the country, and applying for a change in status following arrival in another status are not prohibited by U.S. immigration law. Still, if you engage in any of these three things, a U.S. consular officer or customs officer may find that you gamed the immigration system or took unfair advantage of immigration loopholes.

Use proper caution and be aware of the immigration risks and consequences associated with these activities. If you are refused a visa, denied admission or issued an expedited removal order for any of these reasons, consult an experienced immigration attorney to discuss possible remedies.

# # #

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: Meagan