Source: http://www.abilblog.com/us-blog/category/affordable%20care%20act
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 06:16:18+00:00

Document:
President Obama’s healthcare law, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), is here to stay especially after the law withstood a challenge in King v. Burwell that allows the federal government to provide subsidies to poor and middle class people to buy health insurance on a nationwide basis.
Even non-citizens who are lawfully present may access the health exchange to buy insurance under the ACA. Many non-citizens will also be subject to the individual mandate or “individual shared responsibility provision” if they do not maintain essential health coverage. It is thus important to keep track of a non-citizen’s eligibility as well as when such an individual may be penalized on his or her next tax return for not maintaining essential coverage, which has been explained in Who is Lawfully Present Under the Affordable Care Act?
The next open enrollment period for 2016 starts November 1, 2015 and ends January 31, 2016. The last open enrollment closed on February 15, 2015. What if a non-citizen becomes eligible for ACA coverage between February 15, 2015 and November 1, 2015?
Take the example of a US citizen who has sponsored her parents, John Smith and Jane Smith, under the immediate relative category through the filing of an I-130 petition while they were outside the United States. They came to the United States on June 25, 2015 as permanent residents upon the approval of the I-130 and the issuance of immigrant visas at the consular post overseas. A permanent resident is a qualified alien who is eligible for coverage on a health exchange and is also subject to the mandate. Although the open enrollment closed on February 15, 2015, John and Jane are eligible under the 60 day special enrollment period because they just became permanent residents after the prior enrollment period closed on February 15, 2015. Assuming that they do not have minimum essential coverage as yet, if John and Jane do not take advantage of the special enrollment period and get coverage in the first full month during which they are present for the entirety of the month, they will be subject to a penalty when they file their tax returns for 2015. Even if John and Jane choose to return to their original country for two years on a reentry permit to wrap up their business and sell their home, they must still enroll for health coverage or qualify for an exception, which includes qualifying under the foreign earned income exclusion pursuant to section 911(d)(1)(A) or 911(d)(1)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code. This is more fully explained in the blog entitled The Impact of Obamacare on Green Card Holders Who Reside Outside the United States.
Let’s discuss another example of a person who applies for permanent residence from within the United States. Maria Fernandez entered the United States on a B-2 visitor’s visa on January 1, 2009 and has remained ever since. She overstayed her authorized stay as a visitor after July 1, 2009. As a result of overstaying her B-2 visa status, she is not considered lawfully present under the ACA. On April 1, 2015, Maria married a US citizen, who filed an I-130 petition on her behalf and she concurrently filed an I-485 application for adjustment of status. Under the definition of “lawfully present” in 45 CFR 152.2(4)(vii), she is not yet lawfully present as the underlying I-130 visa petition has not been approved. For immigration purposes, Maria will be considered lawfully present as an adjustment application, but some of the definitions of “lawfully present” under the ACA are not in harmony under immigration law. However, if Maria obtains employment authorization as an adjustment applicant, she will be considered lawfully present pursuant to 45 CFR 152.2(4)(iii). Suppose Maria obtains employment authorization on July 1, 2015, although the next open enrollment starts on November 1, 2015 and assuming she does not have minimum essential coverage, Maria will be eligible for the special 60 day enrollment period under 45 CFR 155.420(d)(3).
If on the other hand, Maria does not apply for employment authorization as an adjustment applicant pursuant to 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(9), she will not be considered lawfully present until after her I-130 petition is approved or when she becomes a lawful permanent resident, whichever is earlier.
Special enrollment is available when “[t]he qualified individual, or his or her dependent, which was not previously a citizen, national, or lawfully present individual gains such status.” 45 CFR 155.420(d)(3). It is unclear whether special enrollment would be available to someone who was previously lawfully present, then fell out of status, and now regains another status. However, it would be bizarre if this rule precluded someone who had ever been lawfully present in their life previously. If the rule was applied so rigidly, someone like Maria in the above example would not qualify for special enrollment and would have to wait for the next open enrollment on November 1, 2015. Even visitors in B-2 status may be considered lawfully present under the ACA, but they may not be required to seek health coverage if they have not yet become tax residents. Special enrollment ought to cover anyone who goes from not being lawfully present to being lawfully present.
Lawful Permanent residents are excluded from Medicaid unless they have had this status for at least 5 years under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). The Children’s Health Insurance Program of 1997 (CHIP), however, allows pregnant women and children lawfully residing in the United States to access both Medicaid and CHIP even if they have not resided in the United States for five years. Not all states, though, have lifted the 5 year waiting period for CHIP coverage. Although newly minted LPRs with low incomes may not be able to access Medicaid within the first five years unless they qualify for CHIP, the ACA provides subsidies to eligible non-citizens, which are now protected even if offered through the federal health exchange after King v. Burwell. Lawfully present non-citizens with incomes up to 250% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) are eligible for cost sharing subsidies, and those up to 400% of the FPL are eligible for tax credits to offset the costs of purchasing private plans. Due to the 5 year Medicaid ban, lawfully present immigrants that have incomes under 100% of the FPL can also receive subsidies and tax credits that their US citizen counterparts are precluded from obtaining in states that have refused to expand Medicaid. Although the Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sibelius upheld the constitutionality of the ACA, it also gave states the choice of whether or not to expand Medicaid. At the time of writing, 30 states including the District of Columbia have opted for expanded Medicaid.
Low income non-citizens who avail of either Medicaid or other subsidies will not be rendered a public charge for immigration purposes. According to USCIS policy, “Non-cash or special purpose cash benefits that are generally supplemental in nature and do not make the person primarily dependent on the government for subsistence do not impact a public charge determination.” On the other hand institutionalization for long term care through Medicaid or other subsidies would be considered as a factor in making a public charge determination.
In King v. Burwell, Chief Justice Roberts who wrote the majority opinion stated that “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them.” Since the ACA is here to stay and will most likely be firmly entrenched in the nation’s DNA like Social Security and Medicare, many qualified and lawfully present non-citizens will also be able to access benefits the ACA and may also become subject to the mandate. At this point, undocumented immigrants or recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) cannot access the health exchanges or avail of the subsidies. Some states may have their own rules, so for example in New York, DACA recipients and other ‘permanent residents under color of law” (PRUCOL) can still avail of Medicaid since the New York Court of Appeals in Aliessa ex rel. Fayad v. Novello held that PRWORA violated New York’s Equal Protection Clause. The ACA is becoming more and more linked to immigration issues. While an immigration practitioner need not be an expert in other disciplines, he or she must be aware of eligible statuses for coverage under the ACA, the deadlines for enrollment and when the 60 day special enrollment may become available and the potential for someone to be subject to additional payment to the IRS for failing to obtain coverage, unless the client can qualify for an exemption.
Who is 'Lawfully Present' Under the Affordable Care Act?
Many non-citizens will be subject to additional payment to the Internal Revenue Service if they do not maintain “minimum essential healthcare coverage” under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act – ACA). This is known as the “individual mandate” or the “individual shared responsibility provision.” By the same token, eligible non-citizens can also access health plans on the health exchanges or Marketplace. The last day to enroll is February 15, 2015 for the current year. Our first blog discussed the impact of the ACA on lawful permanent residents or green card holders who reside outside the United States. This blog focuses on non-citizens who are lawfully present in the United States. Section 1411(a) (1) of the ACA renders non-citizens lawfully present in the United States subject to the individual mandate.
The ACA is linked to immigration issues, just as it is joined at the hip with tax law, and it behooves the careful practitioner to consider the commonality of all these issues and how each of them can inform our understanding of the others when advising non-citizen clients. While an immigration practitioner need not be an expert in other disciplines, he or she must be aware of the eligible statuses for coverage under the ACA, the deadlines for enrollment, and the potential for the client to being subject to an additional payment to the IRS for failing to obtain coverage, unless the client can qualify for an exemption.
Applicants for asylum are eligible for Marketplace coverage only if they’ve been granted employment authorization or are under the age of 14 and have had an application pending for at least 180 days.
Note that undocumented aliens are not included in the above definitions, including beneficiaries of the 2012 DACA program as well as future recipients of the November 20, 2014 Obama Executive Actions that expand DACA as well as the Deferred Action for Parents Accountability program (DAPA).
While the above list provides a comprehensive summary and quick reference, some analysis of the actual regulatory definitions is warranted under 45 CFR 152.2.
A nonimmigrant is only considered “lawfully present” if he or she “has not violated the terms of the status under which he or she was admitted or to which he or she has changed after admission.” See 45 CFR 152.2(2). This is unclear as a nonimmigrant may have technically violated his or her status unwittingly in many ways, but may have still have eventually cured it. For example, if a person on an H-1B visa was mistakenly admitted into the United States for a lesser period of time than the validity period in the H-1B approval notice, and does not realize this, he or she has potentially technically violated status. Still, this person can hope to correct it by filing a late extension of status in the US, or leaving the US and returning, or at times, asking the CBP to extend the date within the US. An individual who is presently in lawful status should be considered “lawfully present” in order to access a health plan on the exchange. The larger point is that maintenance of status may now have a wider significance beyond the more modest confines of the INA. In turn, this commends the value of an inter-disciplinary approach to the whole question of ACA jurisprudence. Interestingly, while 45 C.F.R. 152.2 gives a precise definition of “lawfully present” it does not contemplate nor define “unlawful presence” thus reflecting a refreshing preference for inclusion as opposed to exclusion, something the INA would do well to emulate.
Under 45 CFR 152.2(4) (vii), only an applicant for adjustment of status whose visa petition has been approved is subject to the ACA. However, it is possible to file an adjustment of status application concurrently with an I-130 or I-140 immigrant visa petition, without the need for such a petition to be approved. Thus, one who has filed an adjustment of status application concurrently with an I-130 or I-140 petition cannot have access to a plan under the health exchange until the petition is approved. Still, once the person is issued employment authorization after filing an adjustment application pursuant to 8 CFR 274a.12(c) (9) he or she can access the ACA even if the I-130 or I-140 petition has not been approved. 45 CFR 152.2(4) (iii) renders one who has been granted employment authorization under 8 CFR 274a.12(c) (9), (10), (16), (18), (20), (22), or (24) as lawfully present. This means that someone in a period of stay authorized by the Attorney General (POSABAG), such as a timely extension filed by the same employer, could take advantage of the ACA. Even if a noncitizen is lawfully present, he or she has to also be a tax resident. IRS regulations at 26 CFR 1.5000A-3(c) exempt noncitizens who are nonresident tax aliens from the individual mandate. So while a non-citizen may be lawfully present and can access the health exchange, he or she will not be subject to the individual mandate under the IRS rules. It is also worth noting that one who is lawfully present may not be eligible to access health insurance who is here in the United States briefly. 45 CFR 155.305, which establishes eligibility criteria for enrolling exchange, requires the applicant to be a “citizen or national of the United States, or is a non-citizen who is lawfully present in the United States, and is reasonably expected to be a citizen, national, or a non-citizen who is lawfully present for the entire period for which enrollment is sought.” See 45 CFR 155.305(a) (1).This durational requirement reinforces our understanding that the ACA is not a new form of government welfare nor can we view such a durational requirement as denying or abridging a fundamental constitutional right. Compare this to the lesson taught by the Supreme Court in Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) that struck down waiting periods for public assistance.
Being a “resident” for immigration purposes is not the same as being a “resident” for tax purposes. Tax law uses many of the same terms as immigration but the identical words or concepts can have dramatically different meaning. It is a measure of the ever-growing extent to which immigration has become inextricably interconnected to so many other areas of American life that we are increasingly prone to use immigration terms such as “lawfully present” when discussing non-immigration topics, sometimes with significantly different meanings. Definition therefore is inherently contextual and the relationship of the ACA to our immigration law is a fluid and dynamic one. INA § 101(a)(33) states: “The term ‘residence’ means the place of general abode; the place of general abode of a person means his principal, actual dwelling place in fact, without regard to intent.” Note that the concept of domicile, which considers the applicant’s intent rather than the place where he or she actually lives, is absent from this definition. Remember, in the naturalization context, if your client did not stay away one year, he or she must be considered a resident of the same state where they lived before leaving. 8 C.F.R. 316.5 (b) (5). See Accardi V. Shaughnessy, 347 US 260 (1954); Morton v. Ruiz, 415 US 199, 235 (1974) (“Where the rights of individuals are affected, it is incumbent upon agencies to follow their own procedures”).
Nonimmigrants are considered to be resident aliens for tax purposes if they meet the “substantial presence” test. Non-citizens are considered residents through the substantial presence test if they are physically present in the US for 31 days during the current year; and a total of 183 days during a 3-year period by counting all the days of the current calendar year, 1/3 days of the previous calendar year, and 1/6 days of the second previous calendar year. See IRC §7701(b) (1) and (3).
Even those who become tax residents under the substantial presence test may continue to remain non-residents if they meet a closer connection to a foreign country test. However, not all may be able to meet this test. A frequent tourist to the US in B-2 status can potentially become a tax resident under the substantial presence test, and thus subject to the ACA. If this tourist is the subject of an immigrant visa petition, such as an I-130 petition filed by a sibling, whose date has not become current, he or she can no longer meet the closer connection test. At the time of filing the 1040 return, this individual will be subject to the shared responsibility payment.
Most students lawfully present in the US in F, J, M or Q status, or their dependents, are exempt for 5 years from counting days of presence under the substantial presence test. Even after five years and having become subject to the substantial presence test, they can continue to be treated as nonresident aliens if they meet the closer connection to a foreign country test. Teachers or trainees present in the US in J or Q status (and their dependents) are exempt from counting days towards substantial presence only for the first two years in the United States. This includes all Js and Qs who are not students, such as research scholars, professors, short-term scholars, specialists, physicians, trainees, interns, au pairs, and camp counselors. Even if these students are not subject to the individual mandate, they can still qualify for coverage through the health exchanges in the event that the school does not provide equivalent coverage.
It is hard today to harken back to a time when immigration was less central to the rhythm of American life than it is now. Yet, before the enactment of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), most employers did not need to worry about immigration nor was immigration policy a matter of white-hot national debate. The lasting importance of IRCA was to bring immigration and immigrants in from the shadows, a process that continues to the present day. The ACA continues this process of inclusion and the extent to which the marriage of immigration with health care can be a lasting and meaningful one will go far towards assuring the success of both.
August 15, 2014 marks the two-year anniversary of the implementation of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The policy was announced through a memorandum by then Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano on June 15, 2012. The Memo directed the heads of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to implement DHS’s decision to grant deferred action, and employment authorization, to certain eligible individuals who entered the U.S. when they were younger than 16 years old. Now, nearly two years have passed since DHS began accepting applications for the program on August 15, 2012. DACA recipients who were among the first to apply and receive DACA and employment authorization must now undergo the process of renewing their DACA.
ICE and USCIS released their renewal processes in February and early June, respectively. ICE had begun issuing DACA to eligible immigrants in removal proceedings prior to August 15, 2012, when USCIS began accepting applications. To be eligible for DACA renewal, the recipient must (1) not have departed from the U.S. on or after August 15, 2012 without advance parole; (2) have continuously resided in the U.S. since the first DACA approval; and (3) not have been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more misdemeanors, and does not otherwise pose a threat to national safety or public safety.
USCIS has advised DACA recipients to renew approximately 120 days (4 months), but no more than 150 days (5 months), before their current DACA grant expires. USCIS also anticipates that in the event it cannot process the submitted applications before the initial DACA expires, it might issue extensions of the initial DACA to prevent any lapse in time before the renewal is approved.
Since its implementation, DACA has been granted to over 550,000 recipients, according to USCIS statistics released on March 2014. DACA has provided more than half a million young immigrants security from removal and a means to work lawfully in the U.S. The DACA recipients, sometimes also called Dreamers, can now live openly, work, and contribute to their own and their families’ wellbeing. The economic and social repercussions of this have not yet been fully studied or revealed, though the American Immigration Council recently published a study of the economic impact of DACA on the recipients. The study found that through DACA, many young immigrants have benefitted economically through such activities as obtaining new jobs, getting driver’s licenses, and opening bank accounts. We can also imagine what has been the psychological impact on these young immigrants of coming out of hiding and being able to be productive members of American society and the American workforce. They have experienced the excitement of receiving an approval notice and the much sought after work permit, then a valid Social Security Number and card, and then oftentimes a State Identification Document in the form of an ID or driver’s license.
Though it has undoubtedly bettered the lives of half a million recipients, DACA has been a double-edged sword. While it provides recipients protection from removal from the U.S. and allows them to work legally, DACA is still far less than what these young immigrants would have received from the government had the DREAM Act or Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) passed in Congress. The DREAM Act would have granted a way for eligible young immigrants to apply for permanent residence, and therefore, lawful status. S.744, the CIR bill passed by the U.S. Senate on June 27, 2013, and that has since stalled in the House of Representatives, included stipulations for the implementation of the DREAM Act’s provisions. In contrast, DACA is only granted for two years, and DACA recipients must renew before the expiration of their deferred action and work permits. Moreover, DACA recipients do not have lawful status in the U.S. (although they do not accrue unlawful presence upon the grant of DACA since they are still authorized to remain), and there is no direct pathway to permanent residency or U.S. citizenship.
One limitation that some DACA recipients face is getting a driver’s license. Until recently, two states, Arizona and Nebraska, refused to grant driver’s licenses to DACA recipients. The Ninth Circuit, on July 7, 2014, struck down Arizona’s law that denied driver’s licenses to DACA recipients. Arizona Dream Act Coalition v. Brewer, No. 13-16248, WL 3029759 (9th Cir. July 7, 2014). This much-maligned law (see Cyrus Mehta’s take down of it here) was put in place as soon as DACA was first announced in the summer of 2012. Governor Jan Brewer issued Executive Order 2012-06 “Re-Affirming Intent of Arizona Law In Response to the Federal Government’s Deferred Action Program,” August 15, 2012, directing Arizona state agencies to design rules to prevent DACA recipients from becoming eligible to obtain state identification such as driver’s licenses. Arizona’s Department of Transportation’s Motor Vehicle Decision changed its requirements for state identification eligibility such that Employment Authorization Documents (EADs or work permits) with the DACA category code of (c)(33) would not be accepted as proof that the license or ID applicant’s presence was authorized in the U.S. Five DACA recipients living in Arizona, along with the Arizona Dream Act Coalition, filed suit to stop Arizona from enforcing its policy. The Ninth Circuit found that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause and there was no rational basis for the Arizona government’s policy. The decision hinged on Arizona’s refusal to accept as proof of “authorized presence” in the U.S. an EAD based on DACA category (c)(33) work while they continued to accept EADs based on (c)(9) and (c)(10) categories, which respectively correspond to applicants for adjustment of status and applicants for cancellation of removal. The Ninth Circuit systematically rejected each of Arizona’s arguments that it had a legitimate state interest in upholding the policy. Initially the Court rejected Arizona’s argument that (c)(9) and (c)(10) noncitizens could demonstrate authorized presence in the U.S. while (c)(33) could not. Putting aside the nonsensical use of the term “authorized presence” which holds no actual meaning in immigration law, Arizona conflates the immigration concepts of unlawful presence and unlawful status – two very different things. Unlawful presence is used in determining admissibility under the 3- and 10-year bars, while a noncitizen not in lawful status may be authorized to stay in the U.S. The Court’s clearly did not make that mistake: “Employment Authorization Documents merely “tied” to the potential for relief [i.e. (c)(9) and (c)(10) categories] do not indicate that the document holder has current federally authorized presence, as Arizona law expressly requires.” Arizona Dream Act Coalition, at *9. Moreover, the Court found that Arizona’s other four arguments also could not hold up against a rational basis test. Arizona could not show it might have to issue licenses to 80,000 unauthorized immigrants (less than 15,000 Arizona residents have applied for DACA). DACA recipients cannot access state or federal benefits using a driver’s license alone. Though the DACA program might be canceled at any time and DACAs could lose their authorized stay, the same could occur to (c)(9) and (c)(10) noncitizens whose corresponding applications are denied. Therefore, these arguments also do not pass the rational basis test. The Court went on and mentioned that additionally, Arizona’s policy “appears intended to express animus toward DACA recipients themselves, in part because of the federal government’s policy toward them.” Id. at *25. The court pointedly stated: “Such animus, however, is not a legitimate state interest.” Id.
Interestingly, the Court struck down the law on equal protection grounds rather than conflict-preemption. Generally, courts use preemption analysis to strike down a conflicting state law acting to regulate immigration. In a concurrence, Circuit Court Judge Christen analyzed the case’s conflict-preemption argument and found that Arizona’s policy effectively created a new class of noncitizens who are not under “authorized presence” – a descriptor not recognized in immigration law. The act of creating a new immigration classification, in Judge Christen’s view, is preempted by federal law because states may not directly regulate immigration. Id. at *13, citing Valle del Sol Inc. v. Whiting, 732 F.3d 1006, 1023 (9th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1876 (2014). Moreover, in footnote 3, the Court notes that Judges Pregerson and Berzon agree with the concurring opinion, and specifically that the plaintiffs in the case could succeed on a conflict preemption argument.
Here, however, the Court’s majority analyzed Arizona’s law from an equal protection perspective, which gives it lasting and powerful impact. By going this route, the 9th Circuit recognized DACA recipients to be part of a protected class. This can have huge implications for any other state laws that purport to discriminate against this now recognized protected class of noncitizens. Moreover, the Court, in footnote 4, acknowledged that the Supreme Court in other cases applied strict scrutiny standard of review when state action discriminates against noncitizens authorized to be present in the U.S., see e.g. Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971). But here, the Court states it did not have to analyze under strict scrutiny review because Arizona could not even make its case under the lower rational basis test. In its analysis the Court found it could “identify no legitimate state interest that is rationally related to Defendant’s decision to treat DACA recipients disparately from noncitizens holding (c)(9) and (c)(10) Employment Authorization Documents” Arizona Dream Act Coalition at *8. (emphasis added). It is also worthwhile to note that, unlike the Arizona district court which also held that the Arizona government’s arguments failed a rational basis review, the 9th Circuit found that the protected class, here the DACA recipients, would likely suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction. The irreparable harm was the limiting of the DACA recipients’ professional opportunities, hurting their abilities to seek or maintain a job in a state where 87 percent of its workers commute by car.
The decision lays bare the type of backlash that occurred after the Obama administration introduced DACA. Conservative pundits and anti-immigration groups believe that these young people should receive no acknowledgement or benefits from a country to which they do not belong. This type of thinking is not only wrong, but it fuels hatred toward a group that, for all intents and purposes, took no part in the decision to enter the U.S. without inspection or to overstay visas. The point of the DACA policy is to respond to the cries from millions of young immigrants brought into the U.S. as children, who have grown up in the U.S., but who are forced to stay in hiding. They are punished for someone else’s sins.
I have personally processed over 100 DACA applications in the past two years. When talking to these young immigrants and their families, it is often impossible to tell apart the individuals who were born here and the ones who were brought here. DACA requestors speak like Americans, look like Americans, and dream the American dream like native-born Americans. It is hard to put into words the unfairness of their lives: to live in a country that is oftentimes the only one they have known, and yet to be denied full recognition and basic equal treatment. Worse, they are called “illegal” and are made to feel unwanted and unwelcome. This treatment is confusing and painful to many of these young people who had no choice about coming to the U.S. Yet they are undoubtedly the future of this country. They will help shape the U.S. cultural, economic, and political landscape. And we are not doing enough to acknowledge their presence, since they are here to stay, and provide them with the tools to be full active members of American society.
The Obama administration has implemented regulations and executive policies to alleviate some of the pain from long-standing immigration problems that Congress has time and again failed to address. DACA, for instance, was the Executive’s response to Congress’s failure to pass the DREAM Act in 2010. Recently President Obama spoke out angrily against Congress’s ability to compromise on immigration reform, calling it the reason behind his decision to direct more resources to address the ongoing crisis of unaccompanied children. As has been pointed out on this blog, Obama can expand the use of Executive action to confront problems in immigration law while we wait for Congress pass CIR. The Obama administration can do more than just grant deferred action to young immigrants. DHS could grant deferred action to DACA parents. The Department of Education could grant federal student loans to DACA recipients. Paradoxically, the Obama administration has specifically rendered DACA recipients ineligible for healthcare benefits under the Affordable Care Act even though prior to the August 2013 rule, DACA recipients would have been eligible. There are myriad ways Executive action, such as DACA, can provide relief to millions of immigrants who live and work beside us every day. Until such time that Congress takes action, the Executive will have to be the branch taking action, and immigrants must be content with its limitations.
Because the basis of a deferred action grant is DHS’s policy of prosecutorial discretion, it remains only in the form of executive action and it is not an actual law passed by Congress and signed by the President. DACA and any other executive action are thus vulnerable to attacks from groups and individuals who consider them an overreach by the Obama administration. These attacks, such as Arizona’s driver’s license law, are often informed by fear and a fundamental misunderstanding of immigration law. Litigation to strike down these anti-immigrant and anti-immigration state laws, which are arguably preempted by federal law, can sometimes take years. Moreover, executive action while necessary in the face of Congressional inaction is limited in scope: it cannot grant visas or permanent residence, which only Congress can do by expanding the eligibility categories for permanent residence. Meanwhile, immigrants languish in backlogged visa lines, wait months and years for hearings before an immigration judge, face harsh vitriol from anti-immigration groups, and DACA recipients still do not have a way to become fully integrated into American life.
Unlike many, if not most countries, the long reach of Uncle Sam’s tax laws extend far beyond geographic boundaries to affect citizens and lawful permanent residents (LPR) on an extraterritorial basis. Status not physical presence triggers the tax obligation. The need for LPRs living abroad to comply with US tax regimes is another example of how, since enactment of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, immigration has become increasingly and inextricably intertwined with all other aspects of American life and law. Beyond that, lawful permanent residence is not only a legal status but an economic one as well with tax implications that intimately affect the maintenance of such status and the fiscal consequences of its continued exercise. The impact of the individual health care mandate under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also popularly known as Obamacare, upon LPRs who reside overseas is the most recent example of a growing tension between a domestically focused immigration policy and the increasingly global nature of both individual and national economic conduct in the global economy of the 21st century.
A trip is a ‘temporary visit abroad’ if (a) it is for a relatively short period, fixed by some early event; or (b) the trip will terminate upon the occurrence of an event that has a reasonable possibility of occurring within a relatively short period of time.” If as in (b) “the length of the visit is contingent upon the occurrence of an event and is not fixed in time and if the event does not occur within a relatively short period of time, the visit will be considered a “temporary visit abroad” only if the alien has a continuous, uninterrupted intention to return to the United States during the visit.
For a more extensive review on this subject, we refer you to our article, Home Is Where TheCard Is: How To Preserve Lawful Permanent Resident Status In A Global Economy, 13 Bender’s Immigration Bulletin 849, July 1, 2008.
With the deadline period for enrollment on March 31, 2014, a number of non-citizens, including LPRs, are eligible for health care benefits under the ACA. The ACA requires all “applicable individuals” including LPRs to maintain “minimum essential health coverage,” and the failure to do so will result in a penalty when they file their federal income tax returns for year 2014 onwards. The “minimum essential coverage” is required on a monthly basis, but only during those months that qualify people as applicable individuals.” On March 26, HHS released guidance which clarifies that many consumers who were unable to enroll through the marketplace before the March 31 deadline are eligible for a special enrollment period (SEP). The SEP gives qualifying consumers additional time to get health coverage without being assessed a penalty. To be eligible for the SEP, the consumer must have experienced one of the barriers identified in the guidance. These barriers include experiencing errors related to immigration status and being transferred between the marketplace and state Medicaid/CHIP agency. The additional time available to apply depends on the specific barrier and when it is resolved.
An LPR residing outside will need to purchase health insurance under the ACA. There are circumstances under which LPRs can still be deemed to be maintaining minimum essential coverage even when they are outside the United States if they meet the Internal Revenue Service test for shielding their foreign income from US taxation.
(i) If the month occurs during any period described in section 911(d)(1)(A) or section 911(d)(1)(B) that is applicable to the individual".
Section 911 of the Internal Revenue Code allows certain US citizens and LPRs to shield their foreign income from US taxation by virtue of living outside the United States. The foreign earned income exclusion for 2013 is $97, 600.
Since the full consequences of decisions on Obamacare will not become plainly evident until April 2015, any interpretations advanced now must be necessarily both preliminary and tentative, subject to modification if and when the IRS provides future guidance. It is this continuing involvement of the IRS, as well as the byzantine complexity of the ACA itself, that commends a healthy dose of modesty to all commentators. LPRs who are eligible to take the section 911 exemption because they are not physically present in the United States for a full 330 days within a 12 month consecutive month period are treated as having minimum coverage for that 12- month period. It is still not clear whether LPRs would have to elect to claim the foreign earned income exclusion by filing Form 2555 with their tax returns so that they be deemed to have minimum essential coverage or whether the IRS will develop a special form for that purpose.
While it is true that only a US citizen can claim the bona fide resident of a foreign country exception, an LPR, if s/he is also tax resident in a county with which the US has an income tax treaty, can use the bona fide residence test pursuant to the treaty’s nondiscrimination provisions to also claim the foreign earned income exclusion. The bona fide residence test can be utilized even if the individual has not been physically present in the United States for 330 or more days. If that is the case, can a non US citizen of a treaty country also claim minimum coverage under the ACA?
Nationals of a Contracting State shall not be subjected in the other Contracting State to any taxation or any requirement connected therewith which is other or more burdensome than the taxation and connected requirements to which nationals of that other State in the same circumstances are or may be subjected. This provision shall apply to persons who are not residents of one or both of the Contracting States.
This language in the US-India tax treaty would seem to apply to the ACA health mandate exemption, since it is taxation or a requirement connected therewith. After all, the Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, especially Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion, upheld the constitutionality of the health mandate in the ACA by characterizing it as a tax. “The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax,” according to Chief Justice Roberts. “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness,” the Chief Justice further opined. While the commerce power apparently has its distinct limits for the Roberts Court, the power to tax does not. For this reason, Solicitor General Donald Verelli, who suggested the possible utility of such reasoning to the Court, may turn out to have singular, if unexpected importance.
Therefore, unless the IRS provides more specific guidance, it is not clear at this time whether an LPR who takes the bona fide residence exception for purposes of shielding foreign income can also be deemed to have the minimum essential coverage.
If you are a dual-resident taxpayer and a long-term resident (LTR) and you are filing this form to be treated as a resident of a foreign country for purposes of claiming benefits under an applicable U.S. income tax treaty, you will be deemed to have terminated your U.S. residency status for federal income tax purposes. Because you are terminating your U.S. residency status, you may be subject to tax under section 877A and you must file Form 8854, Initial and Annual Expatriation Statement. You are an LTR if you were a lawful permanent resident of the United States in at least 8 of the last 15 tax years ending with the year your status as an LTR ends.
Religious conscience. Membership of a religious sect that is recognized as conscientiously opposed to accepting any insurance benefits. The Social Security Administration administers the process for recognizing these sects according to the criteria in the law.
Health care sharing ministry. Membership of a recognized health care sharing ministry.
Indian tribes. (1) Membership of a federally recognized Indian tribe or (2) an individual eligible for services through an Indian care provider.
Income below the income tax return filing requirement. If the individual’s income is below the minimum threshold for filing a tax return. To find out if you are required to file a federal tax return, use the IRS Interactive Tax Assistant (ITA).
Short coverage gap. Going without coverage for less than three consecutive months during the year.
Hardship. Suffering a hardship that makes one unable to obtain coverage, as defined in final regulations issued by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Affordability. Unable to afford coverage because the minimum amount the individual must pay for the premiums is more than eight percent of household income.
Incarceration. Being in a jail, prison, or similar penal institution or correctional facility after the disposition of charges against the individual.
Not lawfully present. Not being a U.S. citizen, a U.S. national or an alien lawfully present in the United States.
LPRs can also avail of the short coverage gap exemption. In general, a gap in coverage that lasts less than three months qualifies as a short coverage gap. If an individual has more than one short coverage gap during a year, the short coverage gap exemption only applies to the first gap.
the family’s flat dollar amount, which is $95 per adult and $47.50 per child, limited to a maximum of $285.
The individual shared responsibility payment is capped at the cost of the national average premium for the bronze level health plan available through the Marketplace in 2014. The individual will make the payment when he or she files the 2014 federal income tax return in 2015.
For example, a single adult under age 65 with household income less than $19,650 (but more than $10,150) would pay the $95 flat rate. However, a single adult under age 65 with household income greater than $19,650 would pay an annual payment based on the 1 percent rate.
If an LPR chooses to pay the penalty instead of purchasing insurance, and fails to pay the penalty or delays in making the payment, this would need to be disclosed on an N-400 application relating to whether the applicant owes any taxes. This too could jeopardize the naturalization application, and would bring the penalty section of the ACA directly into the context of immigration issues. Furthermore, an LPR opting for the penalty over health insurance may create the impression, whether intentional or unintended, that he or she may not be maintaining ties with the US, further bolstering the government's charge of abandonment of LPR status.
The ACA is connected to immigration issues, and it behooves a careful practitioner to review the provisions of the ACA as they apply to non-citizens, and LPRs in particular. The interconnectedness of all these issues to the authors is the larger and more widely significant point, such as how seeking an exemption from the health insurance mandate can trigger potential loss of LPR status, invocation of the exit tax, or the ineligibility to become a US citizen in the future. No longer can any of these decisions be made in a vacuum without consideration of the broader consequences. The practice of immigration and tax law must invite the collaboration of experts from both disciplines.
It's been a momentous, startling and exasperating two weeks. The Supreme Court ended the term with three blockbuster decisions, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) held a less-noticed public engagement that knocked the socks off one important segment of the stakeholder community.
In Arizona v. United States, the Court -- notwithstanding the ludicrous claims of victory from AZ Gov. Jan Brewer -- voided most of SB1070 on federal preemption grounds, while all but inviting suits on the lone-surviving section, the vile "show-me-your-papers" provision that many fear will release a Pandora's opened box of racial and ethnic profiling.
In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, a SCOTUS majority in an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, calling balls and strikes, upheld most of the Affordable Care Act.
In American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, a five-Justice majority threw out a century-old Montana law banning corporate campaign contributions in light of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
In an Engagement with Director Alejandro Mayorkas and USCIS Economists, USCIS allowed practitioners of the dismal science to heap more mud into the already opaque pool of confusion that sits atop the EB-5 employment-creation immigrant-investor green card category.
Each of these events -- though some are quite positive -- carries seeds of concern that are likely to sprout noxious weeds within the immigration ecosphere for years to come. Here, then, are what pleases and what remains lodged in my craw.
The Court put a brake on most state laws that interfere with federal sovereignty over immigration. Now, perhaps, grandstanding politicians in state legislatures and cities will think twice before wasting precious resources defending laws that harm business and damage a state's brand, while victimizing U.S. citizens and mixed-status families.
The history of the United States is in part made of the stories, talents, and lasting contributions of those who crossed oceans and deserts to come here.
The National Government has significant power to regulate immigration. With power comes responsibility, and the sound exercise of national power over immigration depends on the Nation’s meeting its responsibility to base its laws on a political will informed by searching, thoughtful, rational civic discourse. Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.
[In] the State’s most populous county, [unauthorized] aliens are reported to be responsible for a disproportionate share of serious crime. See, e.g., Camarota & Vaughan, Center for Immigration Studies, Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Conflicted Situation 16 (2009) (Table 3) (estimating that unauthorized aliens comprise 8.9% of the population and are responsible for 21.8% of the felonies in Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix).
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, however, is likely to be far more important for what was left unsaid about immigration -- the scope of comparative rights to health care afforded to legal and undocumented immigrants.
Concerning health coverage for the latter group, the subject is rife with obvious controversy, typified famously by Rep. Joe Wilson's impudent "you-lie!" charge to President Obama during the 2009 State of the Union address to Congress. The President was right then when he explained that the Affordable Care Act excludes coverage for unauthorized immigrants.
At first glance, the Affordable Care Act's implications for immigrants seem obvious. The legislation benefits legal immigrants and leaves out the undocumented. As of 2014, it provides legal immigrants with subsidies to purchase insurance, requiring them, like other Americans, to maintain coverage and offering them access to state insurance exchanges. But the law denies undocumented immigrants any subsidies or even the use of the exchanges to buy insurance with their own money.
The full story, though, is more complicated. The act leaves in place a five-year waiting period for legal immigrants to qualify for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. As a result, though they will be able to use the exchanges to purchase subsidized coverage, many recently arrived legal immigrants with incomes below or near the poverty line are likely to remain uninsured for want of resources to pay their share of the costs. Yet because the act provides substantially increased aid to community health centers, it may help many immigrants -- both legal and undocumented -- receive medical care even without insurance.
This decision -- which says nothing directly about immigration -- is shocking not so much for its jurisprudence as its tone-deaf disregard of the damage caused by the tsunami of anonymously donated sums unfairly determining the outcome of countless federal and state elections in the wake of Citizens United. Immigration reform -- like every other policy decision facing post-Citizens United America -- will be derailed by the corrupting influence of secret money in politics and its foreseeable result: infinitely pliable legislators bending to the will of their unnamed masters.
Historians of the EB-5 visa know that this benighted category has witnessed persistent government ineptitude from its inception. In its early years, a series of former immigration officials teased informal guidance letters from naïve or inattentive occupants of the INS general counsel's office allowing all sorts of riskless forms of creative financing to serve, improperly, as qualifying $500,000 or $1 million investments. Not surprisingly, EB-5 fraud schemes flourished. That jig was up when a quartet of precedent decisions outlined a new set of EB-5 rules.
Now in its twenty-secondth year, the EB-5 program and its growing population of stakeholders still beg for publication of clear and reasonable regulations that maintain the integrity of the category yet are faithful to its legislative text, history and purpose, and are applied with consistent standards of interpretation.
Even the most jaundiced audience members at the June 22, 2012 engagement came away dumbfounded, however, by the breadth of the economists' pronouncements of new and extreme extralegal interpretations and requirements. As a partial transcription of the presentation and later Q & A reveals, the government's supposedly economics-based interpretation of how investments lead to job creation has taken on such a miserly cast that it will out-Scrooge Scrooge.
Despite my lack of training in the mathematics of job creation, I understand, as the Obama administration confirms, that counting newly created jobs is not an exact science but rests on a variety of arguable presumptions and inferences. I also accept the precept that investments in America will more readily be made if the laws regulating the investment are not ever-changing, impracticable, unclear or arbitrarily applied.
Sadly, however, as commenters on the EB-5 engagement have noted, the USCIS economists' rabbit-from-the-hat proclamations have been "startling," are affected by fear and nervousness, and made it "riskier for Regional Centers to do any development type of EB-5 projects. [and] . . . [harder] for potential EB-5 investors to ascertain whether an EB-5 project complies with the EB-5 requirements."
With all respect to the economists and to your fine team, there really needs to be an engagement that discusses fundamental legal principles that take into account the law, the legislative history and the purpose of the EB-5 program. The direction the economic analysis is going -- in my view -- will destroy the program and hurt its salutary goals of investment and job creation in the United States.
As you can see, it's been a long and exhausting two weeks. I need a vacation! Guest posts (well-written and edgy) are welcome.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 101
 V. 
 v. 
 §7701
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.