Friday, July 30, 2010

U.S. Consulate in Ciudad Juarez Temporarily Closed

The United States Consulate in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, has announced that it is closed on July 30, 2010 to review its security situation.

All appointments for Friday have been cancelled and applicants for visas will have to reschedule their interviews.

For more information, click here.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

ICE announces launch of Online Detainee Locator System

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced July 23, 2010, the launch of ICE's Online Detainee Locator System (ODLS), a public, Internet-based tool. It is designed to assist family members, attorneys and other interested parties in locating detained aliens in ICE custody. ODLS is located on ICE's public website www.ice.gov and provides information on the locations of the detention facility for the ICE Enforcement and Removal Office in the region where the facility is located. A brochure, in English, Spanish, French, Mandarin, Vietnamese, Portuguese, Russian, Arabic, and Somali, explaining ODLS is also available on the website.

ODLS users will be able to locate detained aliens by either entering the individuals alien registration number (also know as "A" number) and their country of birth, or by entering the individuals first and last names, county of births and date of birth. The agency is committed to detainee privacy, therefore, responses to ODLS queries are only generated if the information entered is an exact match to the data in the system. ICE limits the availability of data within the ODLS to ensure users cannot phish the system for information. For example, ODLS will not provide additional biographical information about an individual detainee other than what the user has already entered (i.e. if a user searches by first and last name and country of birth, the system will not provide the detainee's "A" number, vice versa). The creation of ODLS is said to be a concrete example of ICE's commitment to detention reform.

The Blue Campaign Aims to Fight Human Trafficking

U.S. Immigration and Citizenship Services (USCIS) announced last Friday, July 23, 2010, that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary, Janet Napolitano, launched the Blue Campaign, a DHS-wide program to fight human trafficking “through enhanced public awareness, victim assistance programs, and law enforcement training and initiatives.”

With the Blue Campaign, DHS hopes to prevent human trafficking, assist victims, and hold traffickers accountable, all by utilizing the diverse resources and expertise of the Department. The Blue Campaign will feature new training initiatives for law enforcement and DHS personnel, in addition to enhanced victim assistance efforts, including additional victim assistance specialists and specialized training for law enforcement personnel.

In an effort to educate citizens on how to identify and report indicators of human trafficking, DHS is launching public outreach tools, such as social media, multilingual public awareness campaigns, and a new website dedicated to the fight against human trafficking. To view this new website and access these tools, please visit www.dhs.gov/humantrafficking

To view this news release from USCIS, please visit http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=156a17716700a210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD

Federal Register Update

This week, the Government Printing Office (GPO) and the National Archives have launched a new on-line Federal Register, Federal Register 2.0, a “user-friendly” on-line version of the Federal Register.

For seventy-five years the Federal Register has served as a daily journal of government and provides the public at large access to government information and regulations. The site is well organized for individuals searching for specific information, and proves to be easy to use. This will serve as an invaluable benefit to those researching new proposed laws, forms, regulations and amendments to regulations in immigration law.

The site is www.FederalRegister.gov

USCIS Agency-Wide Policy Review

The United States Citizenship & Immigration Service (USCIS) has announced the results of a public survey conducted in April of 2010; results which led to an agency-wide review of agency adjudication and customer service policies.

Initially, USCIS has announced ten areas of review; The National Customer Service Center, H-1B Visa’s, Naturalization and Citizenship, Employment based adjustment of status, family based adjustment of status, employment based categories 1, 2, and 3, refugee and asylum adjustment of status, Form I-601, general humanitarian issues and employment authorization and travel documentation.

USCIS is now establishing working groups to focus on the ten issue areas in an effort to “achieve consistency in the policies that guide us and in how we implement them for public benefit.”

This is a welcome step, as many individuals, attorneys and other parties of interest are consistently faced with inconsistent adjudications on similar petitions depending on the service center where the case is pending, the Director of that service center, various district office policies and even individual adjudicator’s interpretation of policy.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

"Admitted" to the United Staets requires only "procedural regularity"

The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) made a powerful decision today, in Matter of Quilantan. Essentially, the BIA reaffirmed a 1980 case, Matter of Areguillin. Areguillin held that the term “admitted,” as it is used in one of the laws relating to adjustment of status, means that the entry of the alien proceeded with “procedural regularity.” The BIA explained that a person is “admitted” “when the inspecting officer communicates to the applicant that he has determined that the applicant is not inadmissible.”

There have been some changes to immigration law since 1980; thus, the BIA once again had to revisit the interpretation of “admitted” within the same adjustment of status statute.

In Quilantan, the alien initially entered the United States from Mexico in 1993, using a valid border crossing card. At some point between 1993 and 2000, she lost the card. In December of 2000, she returned to Mexico. After being denied a visitor’s visa at the American consulate, Quilantan approached the border as a passenger in the vehicle of an American citizen friend. The border officer asked the driver whether he was a citizen, and, without asking Quilantan any questions, waved the car through the border.

In 2006, Quilantan married a U.S. citizen, and applied for adjustment of status. The statute at issue, section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, requires that the person applying for adjustment of status must have been “inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States.” Thus, the question for the BIA today was whether “admitted” in this context still required nothing more than “procedural regularity,” or if the applicant must prove compliance with some additional, substantive legal requirements.

After thoroughly analyzing the changes in the law that have occurred since Areguillin, the BIA handed Quilantan a victory. In reaffirming Areguillin, the BIA held that the term “admitted,” for purposes of adjustment of status, denotes “procedural regularity,” not compliance with “substantive legal requirements.” Therefore, the BIA decided that Areguillin was the controlling law in Quilantan, holding that “an alien who physically presents herself for questioning and makes no knowing false claim to citizenship is ‘inspected,’ even though she volunteers no information and is asked no questions by the immigration authorities, and that such an alien has satisfied the ‘inspected and admitted’ requirement of [the adjustment of status statute].” Since Quilantan “made a lawful entry into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer,” the BIA ultimately held that she was not removable and is eligible to adjust her status to that of lawful permanent resident.

The Quilantan holding today is a powerful ruling that will assist immigrants and advocates alike in proving that those immigrants who were not asked questions are just as eligible to adjust status as others who were more thoroughly questioned at the border. It puts the burden on the immigration authorities to ensure compliance with admission requirements, rather than on the immigrant to volunteer information or prompt questioning.

Arizona: The Debate Goes On

In a highly anticipated ruling today, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton blocked four of the harshest sections of SB 1071, Arizona's controversial immigration law, from going into effect on July 29, 2010 as scheduled. These include: Requiring local law enforcement to check the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest, making it a crime for an undocumented immigrant to seek or perform work, and making it a crime for individuals to not carry immigration papers. Provisions that have been allowed to stand are: Arizona's ability to block the establishment of "sanctuary cities" by state officials, the requirement that state officials work with federal officials on illegal immigration, the allowing of civil suits over sanctuary cities, and making it a crime to pick up day laborers. More information, as well as a link to SB 1071 can be found at:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/28/federal-judge-rules-arizona-immigration-law-dispute/

Friday, July 23, 2010

New York City Schools Requesting Proof of Immigration Status Prior to Enrollment

Nearly three decades ago, in Plyler v. Doe, the United States Supreme Court ruled that immigration violations cannot be used as a basis to deny children equal access to a public school education. Despite this commendable holding, nearly one in five school districts in New York is requiring proof of immigration status as a a prerequisite to enrollment.

Fortunately, New York children have not yet been turned away for a lack of immigration paperwork, but the New York Civil Liberties Union warns that this policy will "inevitably discourage families from enrolling in school for fear that they would be reported to federal immigration authorities."

In response to investigatory calls from New York Times reporters, many of the school districts dropped the requirement for a visa or green card, and changed questions about citizenship to questions seeking verification of a child's birth date. However, many fear that the Education Department is not taking sufficiently forceful action against the newly imposed requirements.

Read the New York Times article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/23/nyregion/23immig.html

Thursday, July 22, 2010

First-Ever Proposed Fee Waiver Form Published by USCIS

On July 16, 2010, U.S. Immigration and Citizenship Services (USCIS) announced that for the first time it has proposed a standardized fee waiver form for individuals applying for certain immigration benefits that accept fee waivers. The purpose of the fee waiver is to waive the filing fee associated with certain immigration applications for applicants who can not afford to pay the filing fee. Currently, there is no standardized form for requesting a fee waiver. Instead, applicants must submit his or her own fee waiver request per the guidelines of USCIS. The proposed form, I-912, Request for Individual Fee Waiver, along with additional information related to the I-912 can be viewed here: http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=2e15ac6b49cd9210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

2010 U-Visa cap reached

Immigrants who have been victims of crimes are sometimes eligible for U-Visas, a special visa for crime victims willing to help authorities investigate and prosecute criminal perpetrators. The U-Visa was created as part of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000. The recipients include victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, human smuggling, and other serious crimes. This special class of victims has suffered substantial mental or physical injury as a result of the crimes perpetrated against it.

The yearly cap on U-Visas is set at 10,000. In 2007, the government didn’t issue any U-Visas, which resulted in crime victims’ attorneys suing the federal government. Then, in 2008, the government issued a mere 52 U-Visas. But in 2009, the government issued approximately 6,000 U-Visas. Now, in July of 2010, the government has already issued all 10,000 U-Visas available for the fiscal year. This exceptional turn-around is celebrated by crime victim immigrants and advocates alike.

Ali Mayorkas, USCIS director, attributes this significant increase to greater outreach and resources to crime victims and law enforcement officials.

Another 10,000 U-Visas will be available in October, when the 2011 fiscal year begins. Until then, U-Visa applicants are eligible for interim legal status, which will enable them to obtain employment authorization.

For more information on the U-Visa and the U-Visa cap, please visit:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iSMtGw6vbulOJDgNO5qktpdZNWMQD9GVHUHG0

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=5d5d58a734cd9210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=a2dd6d26d17df110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=829c3e4d77d73210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=829c3e4d77d73210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD

Friday, July 16, 2010

Making the Economic Case for Reform

Those making the economic case for reform include a partnership of mayors and business leaders. Among the members are mayors of New York City, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, San Antonio, Phoenix, and top executives of companies like Walt Disney, Hewlett-Packard, Boeing and the New York Mets.

Rupert Murdoch — chairman of the News Corporation, naturalized citizen and member of the coalition — stated its views succinctly: “This country can and must enact new immigration policies that fulfill our employment needs, provide a careful pathway to legal status for undocumented residents, and end illegal immigration.”

New York City mayor Mr. Bloomberg was even blunter in making the case for reforming immigration policy, in which restrictive laws, stifling bureaucracy and aggressive enforcement have closed the path to green cards or citizenship for millions of hopeful entrepreneurs, workers and other would-be Americans. He called it “national suicide.”

Those among the partnership recognize that people who are dynamic, hard-working, entrepreneurial, innovative and creative are the kinds of people any city, or country, should want. More green cards mean more start-up companies and jobs.

For more information on the partnership led by Mayor Bloomberg, click here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/opinion/25fri4.html

Thursday, July 15, 2010

Investigation and Possible Prosecution for Those Who Released List of 1,300

The list of 1,300 people who are allegedly in this country illegally was apparently compiled using data stolen and illegally distributed from Utah state databases. A shadowy group calling itself “Concerned Citizens of the United States” sent the documents to the media and to law enforcement agencies with a demand that the people on the list be immediately deported.

The list included personal information such as birth dates, phone numbers, places of employment, social security numbers, and most shockingly, due dates for pregnant women. The list's accuracy has been called into question as some of the people listed with the demand that they be "immediately deported" have already come forward to explain that they are in the country legally and must be on the list by mistake.

The Salt Lake Tribue reports that it is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in prison to release protected information. The investigation into those responsible for stealing and releasing this information is ongoing. For more information, see the article in the Salt Lake Tribune:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/49936537-76/list-information-utah-herbert.html.csp

Critics Question Lack of Crackdown on Sanctuary Cities

More than fifty cities in the United States, believing that enforcement of immigration laws is the responsibily of the federal government, are offering sanctuary to illegal immigrants. Given the administration's lawsuit against Arizona, critics are asking why these cities are "getting a pass" for ignoring the law. According to Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-IL, the statement they are making is that it is not up to them "to preemt the federal government." Others, like Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Liberty Commission and a supporter of comprehensive immigration reform, oppose sanctuary cities. "We can't have government officials deciding which laws they are going to enforce or not enforce. That undermines the rule of law." To read more on this issue, click here.

GOP Senators and 9 States Back Arizona Law

Yesterday nine states, led by Michigan’s attorney general, Mike Cox, filed a legal brief in support of Arizona’s immigration enforcement law. Arizona’s law, which makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally, has been challenged in court by the U.S. Department of Justice as overtaking federal authority to enforce immigration laws. Michigan was joined by Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Virginia in filing the brief.

Additionally, GOP Senators Jim DeMint and David Vitter have voiced resistance to the Obama administration’s challenge of the Arizona law. The senators have announced that they will be introducing an amendment into a small business bill that would prohibit the Obama administration from participating in lawsuits against the Arizona law. For the full article click here.

AZ Immigration Law First Court Hearing

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton will hear arguments on Thursday, July 15, 2010, over whether Arizona’s new immigration law should take affect later this month. This will be the first major hearing in one of seven challenges to the strict law. Arguments will include Governor Jan Brewers’ request to dismiss the challenge filed by Arizona’s police Officer David Salgado and the statewide nonprofit group Chicanos Por La Causa. Brewer’s attorneys ask to have the officer’s lawsuit thrown out because his arguments are based on speculation rather than a real threat of harm from enforcing the new law. Similar hearings for the lawsuits filed by the federal government and civil groups will be heard on July 22, 2010. Other challenges to the law were filed by the U.S. Department of Justice, civil rights organizations, clergy groups, a researcher from Washington and a Tucson police officer.

To read the entire article, please visit:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100715/ap_on_re_us/us_immigration_arizona_lawsuit_6

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Utah investigates mailing list of alleged illegal immigrants

As reported on MSNBC.com, an anonymous group in Utah released a list containing personal information of more than 1,300 people who are supposed illegal immigrants. Information contained on the list includes social security numbers, birth dates, work places, addresses, and phone numbers. It is reported that several media outlets, law enforcement agencies and other organizations began receiving the list in the mail this week. The anonymous group demands that those on the list be immediately deported.

A spokeswoman for the governor of Utah, Gary Herbert, indicates that it will be several days before it is known whether the list was leaked by state workers. Many state agencies are being reviewed; however, the investigation is focusing on just three. This is yet another incident to spread panic through the Hispanic community since the recent passing of Arizona’s controversial immigration law. It is also reported that some Utah lawmakers are considering implementing a similar law in the state of Utah.

To read the full article, please visit http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38245822/ns/us_news-life/

New Hope for Guatemalan Women Seeking Asylum

On July 12, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals directed immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals to give new consideration to the cases of Guatemalan women seeking asylum in the United States.

The Petitioner, Lesly Yajayra Perdomo, lost her asylum case before the immigration judge and also before the Board of Immigration Appeals. In her petition for review to the Court of Appeals, Perdomo argued that she should be granted political asylum because, as a woman, she would face almost-certain death if forced to return to Guatemala.

Successful asylum applicants must show they were persecuted because of religion, political beliefs, race, nationality, or membership in a particular social group. At issue in Perdomo's case is the definition of a "particular social group." A "particular social group" has been defined by the Board of Immigration Appeals as a group with members who share a common, immutable characteristic that members of the group either cannot change, or should not be required to change because it is fundamental to their individual identities or consciences. The group must also possess "social visibility" and "particularity".

The two lower courts ruled against Perdomo, arguing that all Guatemalan women is too broad a category to constitute a particular social group. However, the Court of Appeals cited to previous cases in which it concluded that females, or young girls of a particular clan, satisfied the definition of a particular social group. The Court stated that it has only rejected certain social groups as too broad where there is no unifying relationship or characteristic to narrow the diverse and disconnected group. The Court recognized that women share innate characteristics and can therefore be appropriately categorized as a particular social group.

The statistics for asylum claims from Guatemala remain dismal - 3,250 applications were received in 2009, with only 155 granted - however, the 9th Circuit holding opens the door for immigration attorneys to begin making the argument that women can constitute a social group.

Read Perdomo v. Holder here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/07/12/06-71652.pdf

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

The DREAM Act and Senator Dick Durbin

Senator Dick Durbin is the lead sponsor of the DREAM Act.  The DREAM Act is a bipartisan bill that would give a select group of immigrant students a chance to earn legal status.  Senator Durbin is gathering stories of young people who would be eligible for the DREAM Act.
An individual may be eligible for the DREAM Act if he/she: 

·         Came to the United States as a child (15 or under);

·          Is a long-term U.S. resident (five years or more); and

·          Has graduated (or will graduate) from high school or has obtained (or will obtain) a GED;

Senator Durbin is asking for your help as he works to pass the DREAM Act.  Telling the stories of DREAM Act students is the best way to build support for the bill.  If you are a DREAM Act student, send your story to Dreamers@durbin. senate.gov.  Tell Senator Durbin:

·         When did you come to the United States?

·         Where did you come from?

·         Where do you live?

·         Where are you going to school?

·         What are you studying?

·         What are your hobbies?

·         What would you like to do when you graduate?

·         What are your dreams for the future?

·         Have you ever been in deportation proceedings? 




Designation of El Salvador for Temporary Protected Status

The Secretary of Homeland Security has extended the designation of El Salvador for temporary protected status (TPS) for 18 months.  Now rather than expiring on September 9, 2010, TPS for El Salvador will expire on March 9, 2012. The Department of Homeland Security has set forth procedures necessary for nationals of El Salvador (or aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in El Salvador) with TPS to re-register and to apply for an extension of their employment authorization documents (EADs) with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).  Re-registration is limited to persons who previously registered for TPS under the designation of El Salvador and whose applications have been granted or remain pending. Certain nationals of El Salvador (or aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in El Salvador) who have not previously applied for TPS may be eligible to apply under the late initial registration provisions.  For more information click here.

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Department of Justice sues Arizona over new immigration law

Yesterday, July 6, 2010, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona, seeking to block Arizona’s new immigration law, SB 1070, from taking effect. The law is scheduled to go into effect on July 29th.

The DOJ suit challenges the law as unconstitutional. It states, “The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country.”

Not surprisingly, many people were upset to see the U.S. Government suing one of the states. But the DOJ made clear that the suit was not politically-motivated. A senior DOJ official explained, “We’re charged not with doing what’s popular or partisan or political, but doing what we think is right.”

The lawsuit proceeds on the legal theory of “preemption,” which is based on the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. It argues that because the Federal government has “preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters,” SB 1070 should be struck down. It also argues that SB 1070 would unduly burden the Federal agencies that regulate immigration, since Arizona would be referring certain immigrants to those agencies. The concern is that unduly burdened agencies would be distracted from its higher priorities, such as immigrants involved in terrorism. The suit also claims SB 1070 would make local law enforcement more difficult, as it would create a divisive line between immigrant communities and local police forces. Victims and witnesses will likely be too afraid to come forward with information about crimes occurring in their communities. Several local law enforcement officials provided declarations in support of the lawsuit.

The nation will anxiously await the court’s decision. It is likely that this challenge will reach the Supreme Court. According to Professor Peter Spiro of Temple University, the DOJ makes a “strong argument,” but that the case “could go either way,” since “there is precedent on both sides of the question.”

For more information, please visit:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/06/AR2010070601928.html

http://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/newsroom/release/united-states-v-arizona-drawing-clear-line-between-federal-and-state-immigration-au

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

America’s 234th Birthday Celebrated by Welcoming New Citizens

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will commemorate America’s 234th birthday by naturalizing more than 3,800 citizenship candidates in approximately 55 special ceremonies held across the United States and abroad. Nine of these ceremonies are specifically for members of the U.S. armed forces and military spouses. This year’s ceremonies will celebrate the theme, “A Spirit of Independence.”
“Independence Day reminds us all what it means to be an American,” said USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas. “Today let us celebrate our newest Americans who, in taking the Oath of Allegiance and becoming United States citizens, will truly cherish this right, and will renew our highest aspirations to be the best that we can be as a nation of immigrants.”
This year, USCIS’s weeklong celebration of citizenship is highlighted by various special events, including a ceremony on July 1 at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Pa., where 25 candidates will take the Oath of Allegiance only steps from the location where the Declaration of Independence was adopted in 1776. On July 2, a special ceremony will be held aboard the USS Midway in San Diego, Calif. for approximately 300 military candidates who pledged to protect our nation’s independence even before becoming American citizens.
Special ceremonies will also be held at Ellis Island, N.Y., for approximately 150 candidates; the Seattle Center, Wash., where approximately 500 candidates will participate in Seattle’s 26th Annual Independence Day Naturalization Ceremony; and the John F. Kennedy Space Center near Orlando, Fla. where approximately 100 candidates will become U.S. citizens.
Also during this week’s Independence Day celebrations, more than 500 service members will take the Oath of Allegiance at nine all-military ceremonies, including in Baghdad, Iraq; Seoul, Korea; Frankfurt, Germany; Tegucigalpa, Honduras; Camp Lejeune, N.C.; and Fort Sill, Oklahoma

To view a complete list of 2010 Independence Day naturalization ceremonies, please visit www.uscis.gov/news

USCIS Proposed Fee Changes

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is currently seeking public comment on proposed fee changes for certain immigration benefit applications and petitions. By law, USCIS is required to reevaluate its fee structure every two years. The goal of the proposed fee changes is to better reflect the actual cost of USCIS operations. In accordance with Federal administrative law, USCIS will accept public comments on the proposed changes until July 26, 2010 at http://www.regulations.gov/.

USCIS Director, Alejandro Mayorkas, states that USCIS is “mindful of the effect of a fee increase on the communities we serve and have worked hard to minimize the size of the proposed increase through budget cuts and other measures.” Fortunately, a few fees, such as the I-129F Petition for Alien Fiance(e), would be decreased under the proposed changes, and the N-400 Application for Naturalization fee will remain at $595, in recognition of the “unique importance of naturalization.” According to Director Mayorkas, “Requesting and obtaining U.S. citizenship deserves special consideration given the unique nature of this benefit to the individual applicant, the significant public benefit to the Nation, and the [N]ation’s proud tradition of welcoming new citizens.”

Dream Act

 Recent poll indicates that 70% of Americans are in favor of DREAM Act.  The DREAM (Development Relief and Education for Alien Minors) Act would allow certain qualifying undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States when they were young children to become lawful permanent residents. Under the DREAM Act, students who have lived in the United States for at least five years could become lawful permanent residents, so long as they stay out of trouble, earn a high school diploma or G.E.D., and complete at least two years of college or military service. First Focus, a family-advocacy organization, recently conducted a poll that indicates that 70% of Americans are in favor of the DREAM Act, despite strong anti-immigrant rhetoric and a strong push for comprehensive immigration reform. First Focus’ president, Bruce Lesley, believes that the poll shows that most Americans are concerned that not allowing undocumented immigrant students to continue their educations beyond high school could spell harmful economic consequences for American society.  For more information on the DREAM Act, please visit: http://dreamact.info/
For more information on the First Focus poll, please visit: http://firstfocus.net/library/polling-and-opinion-research/public-support-for-the-dream-act

Asylum Laws Offer Little Protection to Those Escaping Gang Violence

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/29asylum.html?pagewanted=1&adxnnl=1&src=me&adxnnlx=1277841750-rJzdQEmnSPisQK1%20JK30nQ
This article highlights, yet another issue, the federal government faces with immigration reform. Immigration courts have seen thousands of gang-related claims from Central Americans seeking asylum in the United States. Asylum is rarely granted. The article tells the story of two Salvadorans who have added new credibility to these types of asylum claims. Their stories have also “increased the pressure on the courts and the Obama administration to clarify the terms of asylum laws so that foreigners facing life-threatening dangers from gangs would have a chance at refuge in this country.”

Mr. Zaldivar failed to show that the gang he feared was specifically coming after him. The judge wrote that even though he had been threatened that if he didn’t join his family would be hurt, neither the respondent nor anyone is his family had ACTUALLY been harmed. He was deported to El Salvador after is asylum petition failed. He was murdered two months later proof that his fears were not exaggerated.

Mr. Benitez waits in El Salvador, after being deported last year, to come back to the United States. He was recruited by a gang when he was 14 but quit after 9 years, after becoming an Evangelical Christian, fleeing to the U.S. to join his Christian relatives. The Seventh Circuit Court rejected the immigration court’s finding that Mr. Benitez’s fears did not meet the asylum test and granted his request. He has a tattoo on his forehead showing his prior membership of the gang, he is literally a marked man.

Immigration judges have continued to reject asylum for people running from Central American gangs because the threats are “vague and that petitioners’ lives [do] not appear to be truly at risk.” Central America is the most violent region of the world. However, immigration judges are always careful not to open the asylum door to any flood, making it more difficult for Central Americans running from gangs.

Legal standards for asylum in the U.S. are not easy to meet. Asylum seekers must show that they have a “well founded fear of persecution” because of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or “membership in a particular social group”.

In a land mark decision the BIA stated that “Gang violence and crime in El Salvador appear to be widespread and the risk of harm is not limited to young males who have resisted recruitment.” The judges created several legal hurdles for individuals seeking asylum by requiring them to prove they are a part of a “particular social group” that is recognized in their home society.

Deborah Anker, a law professor at Harvard, stated “the law has been kind of ripped apart. Requirements have been imposed that make no sense in terms of prior jurisprudences and are impossible to interpret.”

Immigrants Have Many Faces

In a recent interview with the news media Arizona Governor Jan Brewer stated that individuals entering the United States illegally are “accosted by drug cartels” and in essence forced into servitude as carriers of illegal drugs. Unfortunately, instead of envisioning the wholly inhumane treatment of a people constantly under siege and terrorized by the cartels, Governor Brewer continued to label individuals trying desperately to flee as “illegal trespassers” and “drug mules.”


The truth is that the United States has a severe problem with controlled substances. As law enforcement works diligently to keep illegal drugs out, cartels in Mexico and South America find new ways to supply the demand. Human beings are, in fact, daily “accosted” by the increasingly violent and cruel cartels that have a stranglehold on Mexico, its citizens and government.

However, it is important to remember that immigrants have many faces, many stories, many backgrounds, and a world of complications and issues that cannot possibly be encompassed in one broad, sweeping statement that all individuals entering the country are “drug mules.” Our only border is not the Southern Border, and our population of undocumented immigrants does not only come from Mexico. Not all individuals who immigrate to the United States do so illegally, not all individuals who are immigrants entered through our Southern Border, not all individuals who are presently in the United States without documents entered illegally.

The overwhelming majority of individuals who desire nothing more than a life in the United States want to be here legally, and with documents, whether they are escaping a life that many of us cannot even begin to imagine or not. If we as a country are ever going to solve the current problem we have of “illegal immigration” it is going to take a comprehensive overhaul of a system that is wholly archaic. There are many people who are unaware that individuals who are present in the United States without documents cannot simply “become legal” or even apply for themselves. Until we as a nation choose to fix the current law, our undocumented populations will grow.

In all fairness, no matter what side of the immigration debate one is on, no one believes in illegal immigration. Both sides want there to be a day when illegal immigration does not exist. The question is how, do we as a country, choose to address the issue.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2010/06/27/jan.brewer.drug.mules.ktvk?hpt=T2

Requirements of Employers for Determining the Employment Eiligibility of Foreign Workers

As individual States continue to pass laws in an effort to “protect” their citizens from what they perceive to be harm from undocumented immigrants, the constitutionality of the laws continues to be challenged in our federal courts and courts of appeal. Last week, the Legal Arizona Workers Act, an Arizona state law prohibiting employers from knowingly or intentionally employing an unauthorized immigrant was granted a writ of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court.


The petitioners allege that the Arizona statute is unlawful because it is preempted by federal immigration laws that regulate the employment of non-citizens. The lower courts upheld the statute, finding that it was not preempted by federal law. The Supreme Court will address three questions; 1) Whether an Arizona statute that imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized aliens is invalid under a federal statute that expressly "preempt[s] any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens." 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(2); 2) Whether the Arizona statute, which requires all employers to participate in a federal electronic employment verification system, is preempted by a federal law that specifically makes that system voluntary. 8 U.S.C. § 1324a note, and 3) Whether the Arizona statute is impliedly preempted because it undermines the "comprehensive scheme" that Congress created to regulate the employment of aliens. Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137, 147 (2002).

This proves to be a fundamental decision for many states, as once determined it will serve as precedent and a number of states have similar laws governing requirements of employers for determining the employment eligibility of foreign workers.

http://www.legalactioncenter.org/supreme-court/court-consider-legality-arizona-law-sanctioning-employers-who-hire-unauthorized-worker

Monday, July 5, 2010

American Civil Liberties Union Files Lawsuit Challenging "No Fly List"

On June 30, 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit on behalf of ten United States citizens and lawful permanent residents who are prohibited from flying to or from the United States, because they are on the government's "No Fly List." The plaintiffs include a disabled U.S. Marine Corps veteran stranded in Egypt and a U.S. Army veteran waiting in Colombia. None of the ten has been told why he is on the list, nor has the government provided any of the plaintiffs with an opportunity to refute the allegations against them. Ben Wizner, staff attorney with the ACLU states, "a secret list that deprives people of the right to fly and places them into effective exile without any opportunity to object is both un-American and unconstitutional." Read more about the law suit and the plaintiffs involved by following the link below.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-files-lawsuit-challenging-unconstitutional-no-fly-list