More than a DREAM: Immigration Reform For All

Contributed by Bryon Large, Senior Attorney

It’s a very exciting time in immigration law, watching the debate over immigration reform heat up again.  Voices from many sides are chiming in to get their ideas on the wish list for immigration reform.

 There appears to be enough support and desire to have a more expansive and comprehensive reform package.  Rather than piecemeal fixes of the current framework of the law, such as the DREAM Act or AgJOBS, both critical pieces of legislation, many immigration scholars are anticipating a much larger reform package that would include many or most non-criminal undocumented immigrants currently in the United States.  Also expected are more expansive enforcement tools against criminal aliens, repeat immigration violators and those committing immigration fraud.

 Most scholars agree that the enforcement tools for unlawful presence that were found in major overhauls like IIRAIRA in 1996 have done a lot to contribute to the lack of documents to certain individuals.  Most people who have spent more than a year in the United States and departed find themselves with a ten-year bar from returning to the United States, such as when they return to their home countries for their immigrant visas.  Those that seek to reenter unlawfully find themselves permanently barred from returning to the United States, as well as ineligible to solicit a hardship waiver for at least ten years.  When family unity is an immigrant’s highest priority, as is typical, such harsh and unforgiving bars only contribute to the growing number of undocumented people.

 There are a number of quick and easy solutions that can be passed in immigration reform.  Obvious tools like the DREAM Act will help a number of America’s youth that find themselves trapped in a country that has little to offer them without basic documentation.  But the DREAM Act will do little to stabilize their parents’ lives, or assist in providing for their younger siblings.

 A comprehensive immigration reform should include some basic tools for the documentation and normalization of people who have come to America and grown roots in this country.  From an enforcement perspective, we should be preoccupied with the fingerprinting of applicants and doing our best to remove violent and dangerous criminals, as well as those that destabilize America’s security situation, such as terrorists, drug traffickers, violent gang members, and arms traffickers.

 Easy fixes to add to the immigration wish list might be:

 

·         Elimination of the ten-year bar.  This is one of the greatest obstacles of our current immigration system.  Although the new provisional waiver or stateside waiver process will alleviate the extended periods of processing outside of the United States, as well as the costly waiver process and requirement to demonstrate that an immigrant’s citizen or resident spouse or children would suffer an “extreme hardship” if the waiver were not granted.  Note that the waiver does not look to the immigrant’s children born in the United States.

 

·         Elimination or reform of the Permanent Bar.  It’s been called the death penalty for jaywalking.  Perhaps it’s more complex than that, but typically the second unlawful entry to the United States since the implementation of IIRAIRA would create a permanent bar to admissibility in the United States.  Otherwise stated, a person who makes a second unlawful entry to the U.S. following one year of unlawful presence is no longer eligible for an immigrant visa (green card).  Even harsher, that immigrant must spend at least ten years outside of the United States before even requesting a hardship waiver.  There is no doubt that repeat immigration violators are held to a higher standard.  Many would argue that this is rightfully so.  But regardless of the views on this, we must also look to how difficult laws such as IIRAIRA have contributed to the undocumented problem we now have.  Long gone are the days where someone could get a green card by simply marrying a United States citizen.

 

·         Assistance for Same-Sex Couples.  Many immigration scholars are sitting on the edge of their seats waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  Section 3 states that the federal government will only recognize a marriage between one man and one woman.  For immigration purposes, those couples married in jurisdictions that permit same-sex marriage cannot apply for the same immigrant benefits that their opposite-sex counterparts more easily qualify for.  Passage of a law similar to the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) would eliminate the discrimination of our marriage-based family immigration system and open the channels of immigration to couples in long-term permanent relationships.  An interesting side note:  Our non-immigrant visa system already gives recognition to permanent partners traveling to the United States on valid employment visas in many cases.

 

·         Moving the Registry Date.  Registry is a benefit that has appeared extensively throughout the history of immigration and nationality law in the United States since 1929.  It is based on the idea that someone who has lived in the United States for a specific period of time should have the opportunity to apply for a green card.  Historically, the registry date was updated with immigration and naturalization reforms, and tended to be ten to twenty years behind the current date.  For example, when IRCA passed in 1986, Congress saw fit to update the registry date to January 1, 1972, some 14 years prior to IRCA.  Essentially, anyone that could demonstrate they have been present since that date can apply for permanent residency in the United States.   Unfortunately, Congress has not saw fit to update this date since the passage of IRCA in 1986.  It is highly unusual for our registry date to be 41 years behind the current date.  Updating the registry date to a more reasonable timeframe would do wonders to further the stability of those present in the United States for and extended period of time.

 

·         Waiving “Deal-breakers.”  There are a number of deal-breakers in immigration law today, particularly attributable to IIRAIRA.  While they seemed like an excellent idea to curb illegal immigration at the time, they have only served to trap people in the United States without immigration documents, leading to restrictions on driving and other identity-type issues.  Nobody would argue that making a false claim to United States citizenship for the purposes of gaining an immigration benefit should be considered a “no-no.”  However, IIRAIRA assures that anyone who falsely says they are a United States citizen is no longer eligible for any immigration benefit.  There is no waiver for this false statement.  Making a false claim to citizenship, for example, when filling out paperwork on the first day of a new job, would render an immigrant forever ineligible for a green card, without exception and without a manner to seek forgiveness.  Placing a statute of limitations on the false claim, or providing a waiver for hardship or family unity purposes would alleviate this unforgiving restriction.

 And, naturally, many scholars expect to see some serious tightening of immigration laws, expanding deportable offenses, and making it more difficult for some people to immigrate to the United States.  Many of us expect to see some of the following:

 

·         Stricter Standards for Waivers. While waivers can oftentimes seem difficult enough to achieve at their already high standards, many immigration practitioners expect the hardship requirements for many waivers to increase.  Many practitioners also expect to see waivers required more often and for more issues than we currently see.

 

·         Less Judicial Review.  The United States Constitution permits the Congress to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction to review nearly any type of review of an agency’s actions.  In the immigration context, IIRAIRA and various other laws have limited the federal judiciary’s ability to review immigration decisions made by the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Justice.  Many practitioners wholeheartedly expect to see more limits on federal judges’ authority to review immigration decisions.  Ironically, such action is a surprising limitation on a free and independent judiciary that upholds and guarantees the similar types of freedoms many immigrants arriving on our shores seek.

 

·         Tighter Enforcement for Criminal Aliens.  Most practitioners agree that expanded definitions for deportable criminal acts will be a part of any immigration reform.  Currently, aggravated felons are deportable without exception and without waiver, regardless of how much time they have spent in the United States and without consideration of family ties and the hardships that family might suffer should they be deported.  We expect the list of aggravated felonies to be expanded to include more types of crimes.  For example, in the last reauthorization attempt of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), there was a provision making three DUI’s equal an aggravated felony, and that provision was set to be retroactive.  We expect to see very similar language in any immigration reform.

 Clearly, it’s not only the undocumented youth that are DREAMing.  There are millions of people that need a path to stability and, eventually, residency.  And those advocating for stronger immigration enforcement also have their wish lists, as well.  It’s an exciting time to be watching immigration law.  As this all unfolds in the coming months, it will be exciting to watch what fate holds for the millions of undocumented immigrants in the United States.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

BREAKING NEWS: USCIS PUBLISHES NEW WAIVER FILING RULES

On January 3, 2013, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) published a final rule changing the way people who are inadmissible to the United States for accruing unlawful presence file for a pardon or “waiver” of that inadmissibility.  The final rule, published January 4, 2013, allows immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who are physically present in the United States to file provisional unlawful presence waivers prior to traveling abroad for consular processing. The only relatives eligible to file at this time are spouses, children, and parents of United States Citizens. 

USCIS hopes that the new waiver process will decrease the amount of time that families are separated and will encourage more noncitizens to apply for their immigrant visas.  Currently, individuals are required to wait until the consular officer adjudicates their case at interview before they can file for a waiver.  Then, once the waiver application is filed, the individual must wait outside the United States until a final decision is made on their application, almost two years in some instances.  This new process will allow individuals to file the waiver application when the I-130 petition has been approved and the applicant has paid their immigrant visa processing fees at the National Visa Center; allowing the foreign national to hold off on their interview at the consulate until they have (hopefully) an approval of the waiver application.

It is important to note that this process is only available to individuals who are inadmissible for unlawful presence and not any other section of the Immigration & Nationality Act; only for immediate relatives of United States Citizens and therefore not relatives of lawful permanent residents; and it is not available to individuals who are currently in removal proceedings. 

Please contact your attorney or schedule a consultation if you want to know more.

-Melanie Corrin, Senior Attorney

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Time to Cross the Line

Once again states are spearheading the path to comprehensive immigration reform.  However, instead of expanding federal law, this time states are offering up bipartisan solutions.  On December 9, 2012, a bipartisan group of Colorado leaders signed The Colorado Compact which presents a “common sense” approach to immigration reform.  Supporters of the Compact included not only democrats, such as Senator Michael Bennet and Governor John Hickenlooper, but republicans, including former Governor Richard Lamm and Senator Bennet’s campaign opponent, Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck. 

Colorado was not the first state to sign such a compact.  Three other states, including Utah, Indiana, and Maine, have also published compacts on immigration reform.  A fifth state, Iowa, has drafted an immigration compact, but has yet to sign it.  The Utah Compact was signed in November 2010, under the direction of Attorney General Mark Shurtleff.  Upon the signing of The Colorado Compact, Attorney General Shurtleff remarked, “As more states and regions adhere to the principles . . . ultimately that will support brave members in Congress on each side by doing the right thing.”

This is also not the first time that Colorado leaders have come together to develop and publish suggestions on immigration reform.  In 2009, the University of Denver formed the Strategic Issues Panel on Immigration which collected information and opinions from leaders in government, business, labor, law enforcement, and education among many industries to develop a list of 25 recommendations for reform “grounded in creating economic and social benefits to the nation as a whole while maintaining national security.”  The six principles presented in The Colorado Compact is a “bipartisan and rational solution” to fix our “broken” immigration system.

The message is clear that citizens, regardless of political standings, want Congress to act now and pass comprehensive immigration reform.  Action will require that both sides cross the proverbial line in the sand.  Utah’s Attorney General Mark Shurtleff observed that the Republicans who “had to stick their neck out” and “stood up and fought for comprehensive reform were all reelected” despite the backlash they received at the time.  The “Gang of Eight” in the senate is a manifestation of the lessons learned in the last election regarding immigration reform.  Consisting of both democrats and republicans, including Senator Bennet and Republic Senator Mike Lee of Utah, the Gang of Eight began meeting to discuss immigration reform in 2013 in December 2012.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Immigrants Should Not “Break Out the Cheetos and Goldfish”

By Kim Tremblay, Associate Attorney

On November 6, 2012, Colorado voters approved amendment 64, a ballot measure that decriminalizes marijuana possession of one ounce or less for adults over 21 and regulates the cultivation and sale of marijuana.  However, it remains unclear how the amendment will work out in practice; the state must still issue regulations.  Currently, some jurisdictions in the state are continuing to criminally prosecute individuals for marijuana possession while others are not.  Federal law still considers marijuana a controlled substance and makes it a crime to possess it or to engage in its production or distribution.  Federal officials have yet to indicate what actions they will take to enforce federal controlled substance laws related to marijuana in Colorado. 

Of specific concern to immigrants is that immigration matters are regulated by federal law, which has not changed.   Under immigration law, there are many areas related to controlled substances that could be problematic for marijuana users, producers, and distributors.  

For immigrants applying for status, these areas can render a person inadmissible to the United States, which in turn makes obtaining immigration benefits either impossible or more difficult.  Merely admitting to marijuana possession could make a person inadmissible; a conviction is not strictly necessary.   A conviction for marijuana possession makes a person inadmissible.  In addition, a person who is a suspected drug trafficker or participant in drug trafficking is inadmissible.  Finally, drug abusers and addicts are inadmissible to the United States.  Again, discovery of any of these grounds of inadmissibility during the immigration process could be extremely problematic.

Moreover, immigration law contains consequences for immigrants with permanent residency status if they are involved with marijuana.  Permanent residents could have their status revoked and be deported from the United States for a marijuana possession conviction of over 30 grams, for any other conviction related to marijuana, or if they are considered drug abusers or addicts.  

Presumably, immigrants in Colorado possessing less than one ounce of marijuana for their personal consumption and legally involved with the production and distribution of marijuana will not be charged with a crime by Colorado law enforcement once amendment 64 is implemented.  Thus, the lack of marijuana related convictions makes it less likely that they will face immigration problems in the future.  However, the lack of a conviction is not necessarily determinative; immigrants involved in some form of immigration processing determined to be drug addicts or abusers or otherwise involved with marijuana could face difficulties.   Moreover, immigrants could still be prosecuted by federal law enforcement officials for marijuana related crimes and then face immigration problems.  As marijuana consumption, possession, production, and distribution are still federal crimes and related to grounds of inadmissibility and deportation, it is best to heed Governor Hickenlooper’s advice not to “break out the Cheetos and Goldfish.”

 

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Same-Sex Family Units Recognized

Contributed by Bryon Large

By now, most practitioners and immigration advocates are aware of the June 15, 2011 Morton Memoranda regarding the exercise of prosecutorial discretion to persons in removal proceedings in accordance with ICE’s removal priorities.  While there were was vague language regarding family relationships in ICE’s guidance, and while assurances were made that same-sex couples would be recognized in the guidance, no official word came from the Department or ICE in writing.  Advocates for LGBT immigration issues received assurances that the vague language did not require a couple to be married, nor even of opposite sex, when ICE was evaluating a case for prosecutorial discretion.  However, in practice application of the Morton Prosecutorial Discretion Memos was inconsistent throughout the country.  While leadership in Washington seemed to envision inclusion of all couples, regardless of marital status or sexual orientation, the boots on the ground seemed to be looking more for a marriage certificate.

 

On Thursday, September 27, 2012, Secretary Napolitano answered a letter from some Members of Congress requesting clarification on the issue.  Specifically, in her response, Secretary Napolitano clarified that the term “familial relationships” specifically would include long-term, same-sex partners.  She also specified that she has directed ICE to disseminate written guidance to the field clarifying the issue.  Advocates expect ICE guidance in the very near future on this issue.

 

Given the DOMA litigation, the pending Uniting American Families Act which would recognize same-sex relationships for immigration purposes, and the wave of marriage recognition across the country, this forthcoming guidance from ICE at the Secretary’s direction is a large advance for the LGBT community in immigration issues.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

States Seek to Deny Driver’s Licences to New Category of Deferred Action Cases

Contributed by Aaron Hall, Attorney

On August 15, 2012, the Department of Homeland Secretary (DHS) began accepting applications for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).  The procedures for DACA are now in place and the first applicants have already received their receipt notices and biometrics notices from USCIS.

The new DACA program is designed to allow qualifying applicants who entered the U.S. as children to be temporarily safe from being deported and would allow them to seek employment authorization while they are here.  Such employment authorization would ordinarily allow them to apply for a driver’s license from their state DMVs.  But Governors Jan Brewer of Arizona and Dave Heineman of Nebraska have declared that despite the REAL ID Act of 2005 listing deferred action grantees as eligible for driver’s licenses, their states will refuse to issue such licenses to those who are granted deferred action through DACA.

 

Their decision to deny driver’s license to those with DACA is certain to lead to litigation on the matter but at this point it is unclear how many other states may join Arizona and Nebraska in keeping work-authorized DACA grantees from getting their licenses.

 

Further Reading:

-Christian Science Monitor article on states refusing to issue driver’s licenses for deferred action

-USCIS Frequently Asked Questions on DACA

-JLF DACA Site at http://www.dreamtoimmigrate.com

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

The Changing State of LGBT Immigration Issues

Contributed by Bryon Large, Senior Attorney

 

 

On August 28, 2012, Senior Attorney Bryon M. Large presented a Continuing Legal Education program to immigration practitioners regarding the current status of immigration law for LGBT persons and the current impact of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on immigration cases.  The course was offered by the Colorado Bar Association’s Immigration Law Section, of which Bryon is the Chair.  He spent time discussing the many challenges LGBT people face in the absence of protections for same-sex partners under the Immigration and Nationality Act.  Bryon also spent time discussing how the current DOMA litigation awaiting a hearing decision by the Supreme Court would impact people.  Bryon is frequently involved in issues related to the intersection of Immigration Law and LGBT issues and recently attended the National LGBT Bar Association’s Lavender Law annual conference in Washington, D.C.  He is an active member of the Colorado GLBT Bar Association, the National LGBT Bar Association, and is a member of AILA National’s LGBT Working Group.

 

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Back to School

By Kim Tremblay, Associate Attorney

 

As summer comes to a close, millions of students across the United States are returning to school. In the current popular and political discourse, foreign students lawfully present in the United States to pursue their studies are rarely mentioned. Last year, the Department of State issued about half a million F-1 student visas to students coming to the United States from abroad. This number does not include scholars and students coming to the United States on J-1 exchange visitor visas. Students migrate from every corner of the globe to study in our schools; the majority, over 150,000 students, are Chinese nationals.

 

These students gain many benefits from studying in the United States, such as a good education or a different cultural or educational perspective. However, Americans are the true beneficiaries of these foreign students’ presence in our schools. Foreign students bring a global perspective to the classroom and expose local students to new ideas. They pay out-of-state tuition, helping maintain programs at Universities, many of which face increasing financial struggles.

 

Surely surprising to many people, these students inject billions of dollars annually into the U.S. economy. According to NAFSA, an association of international educators, they spend over 20 billion dollars every year. They pay tuition and fees to Universities, but they and their families also contribute to local economies through their living expenses. For example, during the 2010-2011 school year, there were 7,688 foreign students living in Colorado. They spent over $235,000,000 in Colorado that year alone in contributions to both their schools and adopted communities.

 

The above-mentioned facts, along with the issue of retaining foreign talent after graduation, represent yet another topic that should be considered in our national dialogue regarding immigration reform.

 

See http://www.nafsa.org/_/File/_/eis2011/Colorado.pdf

See http://travel.state.gov/visa/statistics/graphs/graphs_4399.html

See http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY11AnnualReport-Table%20XVII.pdf

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

DREAM Economics

By Amber L. Blasingame, Associate Attorney

Immigration reform, such as the DREAM Act, may not be the ultimate solution to our economic woes, but it could be a starting point.  Whether it increases our national revenue or we break even, the economic benefit of the DREAM Act and similar legislation far outweigh the alternatives.

 

In January 2012, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Deputy Director, Kumar Kibble, informed the House Judiciary Subcommittee that deportation costs the government $12,500 per person.  This includes the arrest, detention, litigation, and removal of an immigrant.  A majority of these costs are paid from tax revenue.  The Department of Homeland Security memo published on June 15, 2012, granting deferred action to individuals who entered without status as children, estimated that 800,000 undocumented aliens could be eligible for the new benefit.  Since June 15, 2012, the government has revised the number of potentially eligible beneficiaries to 1.4 million.  Removing all 1.4 million individuals could, therefore, cost the government as much as $175 million according to Deputy Director Kibble’s report.

 

Legislation such as the DREAM Act requires that the immigrant “pay into the system.”  Even the memo offering deferred action to potential DREAMers would require that the undocumented immigrant pay processing fees at every stage and provide evidence of eligibility for the benefit.  Instead of the US taxpayer supporting an undocumented immigrant through the process, the undocumented immigrant supports herself through the process and contributes to the greater economy.  A recent White House blog cited a report from the Congressional Budget Office that the 2010 version of the DREAM Act could reduce the deficit “by $2.2 billion over ten years because of increased tax revenues.” 

 

DREAMers epitomize our hope for the future of this country.  The DREAM Act as previously written required that the undocumented immigrant enroll in post-secondary school at her expense or enlist in the military.  The new memo requires that the beneficiary be enrolled in school, have graduated at least from high school, or be a veteran of the armed forces.  At present the Census Bureau reports that “only 16 percent of the resident population holding a bachelor’s degree or higher” are immigrants, but immigrants account for “33 percent of engineers, 27 percent of mathematicians, statisticians, and computer scientist, and 24 percent of physical scientists,” in the United States, as cited by the White House.  Given the chance, potential DREAMers could increase those numbers substantially, which would increase revenue for both private and public schools nationwide.  At present many undocumented individuals who entered as children and earned their education through US schools are unable to enroll in postsecondary institutions because they lack proof of lawful status or are unable to pay non-resident tuition rates.  Immigrants benefiting from the DREAM Act would not only “pay into the system,” but would be required to positively contribute to the future of our communities and our nation’s welfare.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Procedures for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

Contributed by Melanie Corrin

The United States Citizenship & Immigration Service (CIS) announced a portion of its procedures for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program; commonly known as deferred action for DREAMers.  Through this procedure, as of August 15, 2012 eligible applicants who meet the following criteria can apply for Deferred Action:

1.       Under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012

2.       Came to the US before reaching 16^th birthday

3.       Continuous physical presence June 14, 2007 – June 15, 2012

4.       Present in the US on June 15, 2012

5.       Entered without a visa or their visa expired as of June 15, 2012

6.       Currently enrolled in school/GED program or have obtained high school diploma/GED or be United States Military veteran with honorable discharge

7.       No felony convictions, No significant misdemeanor conviction, Cannot have 3 or more misdemeanor convictions

Portion of this program have very specific definitions and requirements, including what defines a felony, a serious misdemeanor and a misdemeanor.  It is important to speak with an attorney prior to determining eligibility, potential relief and potential pitfalls to ensure you are not putting yourself at risk. 

DACA is temporary, and if granted, is approved in two year increments.  USCIS has not published the form, and will not do so until August 15, 2012; the first day individuals are eligible to apply.  The filing fee will be a total of $465.00 and will include biometrics collection, background checks and the application for employment authorization.   

If you are interested in DACA or think you may be eligible, contact us to discuss your case.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

30 year-olds Don’t Despair, Deferred Action Still Within Reach

Contributed by Aaron Hall

When Department of Homeland Secretary (DHS) Napolitano announced the new deferred action program on June 15, 2012, it was announced that one of the requirements for eligibility would be that applicants “are not above the age of thirty” as of June 15, 2012.

 

The initial assumption was that this requirement would disqualify a potential applicant who was 30 years and two months old at the time of the announcement.  Fortunately, DHS has now clarified that potential applicants will meet the age requirement so long as they were under 31 years old on June 15, 2012.  Therefore, many people who were 30 at the time of the announcement will qualify for the new deferred action program.

 

For further information on the eligibility requirements, go to our website dedicated to deferred action at http://www.dreamtoimmigrate.com/. 

 

Further Reading:

6/15/12 DHS Announcement

USCIS on Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Process

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Department of Homeland Security Announces Deferred Action for Eligible DREAMers

By Kim Tremblay & Amber L. Blasingame, Associate Attorneys

On June 15, 2012, Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), announced that the government will offer indefinite relief from deportation for young immigrants brought to the United States as minors.  Young immigrants, between the ages of 15 and 30 years old as of June 15, 2012, not in deportation proceedings will also be eligible to apply for deferred action. 

Although this is not the DREAM legislation (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act) that many have been pushing Congress to enact for years, it is a step in the right direction.  It will allow many young immigrants to come out of the shadows, support themselves, and use the skills they acquired in American schools in the workplace.  The DHS initiative will also provide more opportunities for young immigrants to apply and attend college or university, since many US post-secondary institutes require evidence of legal status for admission.  The department estimates that the new policy may benefit as many as 800,000 potential DREAMers.  However, many questions remain unanswered as both USCIS and ICE have 60 days to implement policies and procedures for filing deferred action requests.

Based on the results of DHS’s prior prosecutorial discretion initiative, it also remains to be seen whether this new policy will be any more successful for young immigrants in deportation proceedings.  The August 2011 DHS memo initiated a policy based on priorities to reduce the immigration court’s overbooked docket.  Under the prosecutorial discretion policy , DHS reviewed all 350,000 pending deportation cases nationwide and offered to administratively close about two percent of cases that were not priorities for DHS to pursue.  This was a much lower number than anticipated.  Thus, for young immigrants already in removal proceedings, it remains unclear whether this new policy will bring about much change. 

More positive outcomes are expected for young immigrants who are not in deportation proceedings.  Applications for individuals who are not in deportation proceedings cannot be filed until USCIS implements a filing procedure.  In the meantime, however, potential DREAMers should consult attorneys to determine their eligibility for the program and start gathering documents to show that they meet the requirements. They should beware of individuals or agencies who claim they can help but who are not licensed to represent and assist individuals in this legal process. 

Potential DREAMers physically present in the United States should also get documentation to show they are here from today and until deferred action is granted.  They should also hold on to anything to show they were present on June 15, 2012.   

Individuals must meet the following requirements to be considered for deferred action:

• Entered the United States before age 16 and not be above 30 years of age;
• Have continuously resided in the U.S. for 5 years as of June 15, 2012;
• Were physically present in the U.S. on June 15, 2012;
• Are currently in school, have graduated from high school or earned a GED, or be an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and
• Have not been convicted of a serious crime or multiple minor crimes that pose a threat to the national security or public safety.

Those who meet the criteria will be qualified to obtain deferred action for two years, subject to renewal for an indefinite period of time, and will be eligible to apply for work authorization if they can show financial need.



Related Articles:
http://immigrationimpact.com/2012/06/15/president-obama-to-halt-removal-of-dreamers/
http://aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=40173
http://aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=40171
http://aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=40168
http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/20120612-napolitano-announces-deferred-action-process-for-young-people.shtm

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•