Search

The Immigration & Education Hub

Your Immigration & Education Resource

Category

Immigration

Servicios de Inmigración Promulga Regla Extendiendo el Proceso de Exención Provisional

En Julio 29, 2016 los servicios de inmigración estadounidense (USCIS por sus siglas en inglés) anuncio una regla final que extiende el proceso de exención provisional (I-601A) a personas que son elegibles para una visa.

¿Qué es el Proceso de Exención Provisional? El Proceso de Exención Provisional (I-601) es un proceso que permite a personas que son parientes inmediatos de un ciudadano estadounidense procesar una exención de la presencia no autorizada en los Estados Unidos. Esta exención provisional se procesa en los Estados Unidos, manteniendo a las familias unidas, antes de la cita en consulado extranjero.

Esta exención provisional es únicamente para personas cuales nos son admisible por su presencia sin autorización legal en los Estados Unidos y cuales tienen parientes inmediatos que sufrirán penuria extrema si la exención no es aprobada.

Previo a la nueva expansión, el proceso de exención provisional de inadmisibilidad era reservada para los hijos y/o esposos de ciudadanos estadounidenses. Ahora, gracias a la expansión, los parientes inmediatos de Residentes Permanentes (LPRs por sus siglas en inglés) también serán elegibles.

La expansión del proceso de exención provisional trae buenas noticias para los parientes inmediatos de Residentes.

Recuerde: ¡La expansión de la regla no entra en vigor hasta Agosto 29, 2016! Si se archiva una exención provisional antes de esta fecha, la solicitud puede ser rechazada.

Para más información, por favor visite a los servicios de inmigración estadounidense (USCIS).

Provisional Waiver Process Now Extended to All Statutorily Eligible!

On July 29, 2016 the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced a final rule expanding the provisional waiver of unlawful presence (I-601A) to all individuals statutorily eligible for visas.

What is the provisional waiver process?

Previously, the provisional waiver process was only available to spouses and children of United States citizens. This is great news for spouses and children of United States legal permanent residents (LPRs) that have a visa available and whose immediate relatives would suffer extreme hardship if the waivers were denied.

If you are part of the expanded group, do not file before the rule goes into effect. New rule goes into effect on August 29, 2016. If you file earlier, the waiver may be denied.

For more information: Please visit the United States and Citizenship Services (USCIS).

DACA Still Available

Dear Immigration & Education Hub Readers, DACA status is still available.  Those that have current DACA status can continue to submit renewal of DACA and employment authorizations.

Please see the following USCIS Announcement on DACA Status:

“The Supreme Court’s 4-4 decision in United States v. Texas on June 23, 2016, does not affect the existing 2012 policy regarding Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Individuals who meet the 2012 DACA guidelines may continue to come forward and file an initial or renewal request for DACA under those guidelines. For more information, see uscis.gov/daca.”

“The Supreme Court decision does, however, mean that the court injunction prohibiting implementation of DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents) and expanded DACA remains in effect.”

“USCIS reminds the public about the risk of immigration scams, in case scammers try to exploit the situation. Get tips for protecting yourself and your loved ones at uscis.gov/avoidscams or in Spanish at uscis.gov/es/eviteestafas.”

Please visit the http://www.uscis.gov for more DACA related information.

Options for Residence with DACA

Question:
Jonathan was brought to the U.S. undocumented in 1996 when he was five years old and has not left the country since then. He finished high school and has been working as a server at a restaurant for a number of years. Jonathan got married in 2013, and his spouse is a lawful permanent resident. Is there any way for Jonathan to get legal status?

Answer:
Yes. Jonathan’s first step is to apply for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which provides protection from deportation and a work permit for some of those brought to the US undocumented before age 16. Among other requirements, DACA-eligible young people must be at least age 15 at the time of application; prove continuous presence in the US since June 15, 2007; be under 31 years of age as of June 15, 2012; and be high school graduates, in school, or have a G.E.D.
Once Jonathan has DACA, and if he has a humanitarian, work-related, or educational reason to travel overseas, he may request Advance Parole for permission to leave and re-enter the US. With his lawful entry, and once his spouse is a US citizen, Jonathan may submit his application for permanent residence in the US. Jonathan’s spouse should apply for citizenship as soon as possible; usually, this is five years after gaining permanent residence.
You should consult with an immigration attorney to see if you are eligible for DACA, or any other immigration benefit. You can schedule a consultation with attorney Margaret O’Donnell by calling (206) 774-8758 or emailing jvargas@globallawadvocates.com.

Article Contributed by:

The Law Offices of Margaret O’Donnell, IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY
655 S. Orcas St. Suite 210
Seattle, WA 98108
206-774-8758

“The Undocumented Black Convening of 2015”

Dear Black Undocumented Family,

It goes without saying that our communities are in a state of emergency in a variety of ways. Black people across the country are facing unprecedented police brutality, increased criminalization and immigrant families are being torn apart, due to our broken immigration system. As a result, we are bearing the compounded struggles, fear and trauma of our unique identities.Have you ever felt that Black immigrant stories have been missing from the immigration discussion? Do you feel the urgency of the Black Lives Matter movement as a global citizen’s struggle? Do you often feel you’re in constant fear of losing your life to state violence and being deported? Do you wish you knew of ways to obtain higher education despite being undocumented? Then this convening of Black Undocumented folk is for YOU.

The purpose of this Convening is for us to heal, learn and be empowered by each other. We want this Convening to be a safe space, a learning environment and the beginning of a new chapter for our people.

The Undocumented Black Convening of 2015 will be held in New York City on October 24-25. We are grateful to be supported by the Black Alliance for Just Immigration (BAJI) and United We Dream (UWD).

If you are interested in participating, please fill out this pre-registration and we will follow up with more details: Pre-Registration

Please note: This convening is specifically designed as a safe space for Black Undocumented people to heal, learn and be empowered by each other. Our kickoff event, the 2015 Undocumented Black Convening, will be our first formal opportunity to have such a space. For that reason, we respectfully request our allies to support the convening by encouraging Black Undocumented people to attend. Attendance is limited.

Undocumented and Black,
#UBC15 Planning Committee.

“Federal Court Offers Ray Of Hope To Obama’s Immigration Programs”

by Ian Millhiser Posted on June 7, 2015 at 12:14 pm

A string of bad luck for immigrants — and for the Obama Administration — might be coming to an end. On Thursday, a federal appeals court indicated that it is not bound by a previous decision that would make it very difficult for the administration to prevail in litigation challenging its immigration policies were this decision actually binding upon the court.

Last November, President Obama announced several changes to federal immigration policy that could enable approximately 4.9 million undocumented immigrants to temporarily remain in the country. These changes were relegated to limbo in February, however, when Judge Andrew Hanen, a federal judge with a history of statements hostile towards a more welcoming immigration policy, ordered them halted.

In April, Obama, and the millions of immigrants who hope to seek relief under his new policies, were handed another piece of bad luck when a federal appeals court announced that two of the three judges hearing a request to stay Judge Hanen’s decision are among the most conservative judges on that court. Though the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is one of the most conservative in the country, its Republican members have divided in the past on high-profile immigration cases. In 2013, for example, the full Fifth Circuit voted 9-6 to strike down a local ordinance that effectively made it a crime for undocumented immigrants to rent a home.

Judges Jerry Smith and Jennifer Elrod, both of whom were assigned to the three-judge panel hearing the request to stay Hanen’s decision, were among the six dissenters in that 2013 decision. They also formed the majority in a 2-1 decision refusing to stay Hanen’s order blocking the new immigration policies.

Smith and Elrod’s decision, however, focused on a narrow issue — whether to stay Hanen’s order pending further review by the Fifth Circuit. This July, the Fifth Circuit will decide whether to reverse Hanen’s order entirely, and it is likely that this matter will be heard by an entirely different panel of three judges. Nevertheless, the ordinary practice in a federal appeals court is that when a panel of judges publish a decision declaring a rule of law, that decision is binding upon future panels. So, under this ordinary rule, Judge Smith’s majority opinion denying a stay to the Obama administration would typically tie the hands of the new panel deciding whether to reverse Hanen’s order.

Except that, on Thursday, the Fifth Circuit sent a letter to attorneys in this case asking for briefing “addressing pertinent portions of the majority and dissenting opinions issued by” the panel that included Smith and Elrod. Significantly, however, the letter also advised the attorneys to be “mindful of the relationship between motions panels and merits panels as stated in” the court’s 1997 decision in Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Co.. That decision held that “a panel hearing the merits of an appeal may review a motions panel ruling, and overturn it where necessary,” and that “the merits panel must be especially vigilant where, as here, the issue is one of jurisdiction.”

So, to translate this somewhat arcane mix of legalize, the panel that will consider Hanen’s order in July is not bound by Smith and Elrod’s decision refusing to stay Hanen’s order. Indeed, this new panel even has the power to “overturn” Smith and Elrod’s decision.

That’s very good news for the the families hoping to benefit from Obama’s new policies, because Judge Smith’s opinion on behalf of himself and Judge Elrod could be simply devastating to the Obama administration’s legal arguments if it were binding on future panels, largely because it calls upon the appeals court to give an extraordinary degree of deference to Judge Hanen’s conclusions.

Hanen, as mentioned above, has not hidden his hostility towards the administration’s immigration policies. In December, he accused the federal government of engaging in a “dangerous course of action” because it allowed an undocumented mother to be united with her child without having criminal charges brought against her. Hanen’s engaged in atypical tactics which may have been an effort to intentionally prevent a higher court from reviewing his decisions. He’s also threatened to sanction Justice Department attorneys because they did not immediately disclose information that, most likely, was not even relevant to any matter that Hanen had jurisdiction over at that stage in the litigation.

Additionally, Hanen’s also made assertions about the administration’s immigration policies that contradict the conclusions of a recent Fifth Circuit decision. Among other things, Hanen claims that many of the administration’s official documents laying out how its immigration policies are supposed to function are essentially lying about how the programs actually function. Several months after Hanen reached this conclusion, the Fifth Circuit handed down a decision that does not embrace Hanen’s assertion that the administration is engaged in some kind of grand act of deception.

Judges Smith and Elrod, however, did not follow the guidance of this recent Fifth Circuit decision. Instead, they held that the Justice Department must overcome an extraordinarily high burden if they wish to displace any of Hanen’s conclusions about how the administration’s immigration programs actually operate. That’s a toxic decision for the administration, because it gives a trial judge who has already revealed himself to be hostile to the administration’s entire enterprise the power to reach dubious conclusions, and it instructs appellate judges to be highly deferential to these conclusions.

Now that the Fifth Circuit has indicated that it does not view Smith and Elrod’s decision as binding, however, the Justice Department has another opportunity to challenge Hanen’s most damaging findings. That doesn’t meant that they will ultimately win this lawsuit — we will not know which three judges will sit on the July panel until a week before oral arguments in that case — but it does mean that the administration has a shot at victory that they likely would not have if Smith and Elrod’s conclusions were binding.

Article available at: ThinkProgess.Org

Executive Action Guide

Executive Action Guide.

I just spoke to the most motivated and tenacious undergraduate student seeking to go to law school. This student is not only incredibly intelligent, well rounded, and community-oriented, but also brave. This student is a DACA student. I was contacted because, having gone to law school myself, I am have insights into many of the do’s and dont’s about the admissions’ process and what types of funding are available once you are admitted.

But more importantly, the conversation reminded me of why I do the pro-bono work that I do, why I decided to go back to school, and why I want to focus on immigration law and policies. The conversation inevitably turned to the difficulty in finding affordable legal representation for the undocumented and the importance of attorneys in doing their part to protect the rights of the most vulnerable. I realized in this conversation that although I may not single-handedly be able to solve every immigration problem, I can still contribute to possible solutions through legal representation and scholarly work. Although this student called seeking my help, they actually inspired me and motivated to keep working and fighting those battles, even when they get difficult, and that even a little help goes a long way.

With that in mind. I want to share The Immigration and Policy Center’s Executive Action Guide published March 13, 2015. It features an overview of the Executive Action, citizenship, and immigration enforcement, among other important issues to know about.

 

Executive Action Guide

I just spoke to the most motivated and tenacious undergraduate student seeking to go to law school. This student is not only incredibly intelligent, well rounded, and community-oriented, but also brave. This student is a DACA student. I was contacted because, having gone to law school myself, I am have insights into many of the do’s and dont’s about the admissions’ process and what types of funding are available once you are admitted.

But more importantly, the conversation reminded me of why I do the pro-bono work that I do, why I decided to go back to school, and why I want to focus on immigration law and policies. The conversation inevitably turned to the difficulty in finding affordable legal representation for the undocumented and the importance of attorneys in doing their part to protect the rights of the most vulnerable. I realized in this conversation that although I may not single-handedly be able to solve every immigration problem, I can still contribute to possible solutions through legal representation and scholarly work. Although this student called seeking my help, they actually inspired me and motivated to keep working and fighting those battles, even when they get difficult, and that even a little help goes a long way.

With that in mind. I want to share The Immigration and Policy Center’s Executive Action Guide published March 13, 2015. It features an overview of the Executive Action, citizenship, and immigration enforcement, among other important issues to know about.

Statement by Secretary Jeh C. Johnson Concerning the District Court’s Ruling Concerning DAPA and DACA

I strongly disagree with Judge Hanen’s decision to temporarily enjoin implementation of Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The Department of Justice will appeal that temporary injunction; in the meantime, we recognize we must comply with it.

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

The Department of Justice, legal scholars, immigration experts and even other courts have said that our actions are well within our legal authority. Our actions will also benefit the economy and promote law enforcement. We fully expect to ultimately prevail in the courts, and we will be prepared to implement DAPA and expanded DACA once we do.

It is important to emphasize what the District Court’s order does not affect.

The Court’s order does not affect the existing DACA. Individuals may continue to come forward and request initial grant of DACA or renewal of DACA pursuant to the guidelines established in 2012.

Nor does the Court’s order affect this Department’s ability to set and implement enforcement priorities. The priorities established in my November 20, 2014 memorandum entitled “Policies for the Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants” remain in full force and effect. Pursuant to those enforcement priorities, we continue to prioritize public safety, national security, and border security. I am pleased that an increasing percentage of removals each year are of those convicted of crimes. I am also pleased that, due in large part to our investments in and prioritization of border security, apprehensions at the southern border – a large indicator of total attempts to cross the border illegally — are now at the lowest levels in years.

For more info visit: uscis.gov

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: