Source: http://www.abilblog.com/us-blog/archives/01-2018
Timestamp: 2018-10-20 23:14:58
Document Index: 148339444

Matched Legal Cases: ['§245', '§245', '§240', '§240', '§240', '§240', '§244', '§240', '§240', '§240', '§208', '§ 1208', '§101', '§208', '§208', '§208', '§208', '§208', '§208', '§244', '§242', '§242', '§1252']

LEVELING UP… HOW TO HANDLE THE H-1B LEVEL I WAGE ISSUE.
By: Richard Yemm, Partner of Bernard P. Wolfsdorf, ABIL Lawyer
A Timeline: The Status of DACA from its 2012 Inception to Present Date
​What is the DACA Program? The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivers program (commonly called by its acronym “DACA”) is an immigration program that grants temporary protection for qualified individuals who entered the U.S. illegally as children—it provides administrative relief from deportation, protecting the recipients from deportation from the U.S. for two years, subject to renewal. DACA also typically gives the approved individuals temporary work authorization. President Trump has rallied against DACA since the first day of his presidential campaign. The status of DACA recipients in this country has always been somewhat precarious, but now it is completely up in the air with DACA in possible queue for the chopping block.
​With twists and turns, firings and hirings, and rapid-fire reversals of Obama-era policies, the Trump Administration is worryingly resembling a “Lost Season” of a fictional, political television show such as The West Wing or House of Cards. With DACA’s status constantly teetering, it’s hard to get your bearings. To help you get oriented and make sense of the winding path of DACA since its 2012 inception, here’s a timeline with key dates:
August 15, 2012: President Obama directed the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) to exercise discretion to grant deferred action to qualified immigrant youth. Following this directive, on August 15, 2015 DHS announced that U.S. Immigration and Citizenship Service (“USICS”) has begun accepting applications for DACA.
June 16, 2015: Trump launches his presidential campaign. In his campaign speech on this day, Trump says “I will immediately terminate President Obama’s illegal executive order on immigration, immediately.”
August 31, 2016: Trump gives a campaign speech in Arizona, stating that part of his plan if elected president is to “immediately terminate President Obama’s two illegal executive amnesties, in which he defied federal law and the constitution to give amnesty to approximately 5 million illegal immigrants.”[1]
Sept 15, 2017: Trump administration rescinds DACA; the then-acting Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke announced on September 15, 2017 that DACA would be phased out for current recipients and that no new requests for temporary protection from deportation under DACA would be granted.
January 9, 2018: A federal judge in California issued a nationwide preliminary injunction on Trump’s rescission of the DACA program—“The preliminary injunction on Trump’s cancellation of DACA requires the Department of Homeland Security to maintain the DACA program on a nationwide basis on the same terms and conditions as were in effect before the rescission on September 5, 2017, including allowing those who already benefit from DACA to apply to renew their status.”[2]
January 13, 2018: Due to the January 9, 2018 federal court order for preliminary injunction, USICS announced on January 13, 2018 that the agency, “has resumed accepting requests to renew a grant of deferred action under DACA. Until further notice, and unless otherwise provided in this guidance, the DACA policy will be operated on the terms in place before it was rescinded on Sept. 5, 2017.”[3]
January 16, 2018: The U.S. Justice Department officially appeals to the Supreme Court, appealing the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling that allowed Dreamers[4]to extend their work permits. This appeal fulfills the promise Trump made earlier in January to challenge the ruling. This appeal adds fuel to the fire, further fracturing the government and causing increasing hostility and partisan tensions.
January 20, 2018: After much infighting, the government officially shuts down. DACA is a major point of contention in the arguments between Democrats and Republicans who are unable to reach an agreement on the issue.
January 23, 2018: After a contentious 69 hour U.S. government shutdown, the shutdown finally ends. The breakthrough in the impasse finally came after Defendants reluctantly voted to provide temporary pay for resumed government operations through February 8, 2018. Democrats relented on this issue in return for Republican leaders promises to soon address the issues of the currents struggle of Dreamers and other hot-button issues. Congress has until February 8, 2018 to find a solution to these issues or the government will shut down again.
Now What? Stay tuned to the blog. We will be closely monitoring the situation and after the February 8th deadline occurs, we will immediately recap any news about DACA and changes go any immigration laws, policies, or programs in a new blog post.
The recent, rapid fire immigration law changes and uncertainties will undoubtedly put many parties in life-changing, difficult positions. If you are an individual who was granted temporary protection from deportation under DACA and DACA is revoked without the government implementing a replacement immigration policy offering similar protections, you could be prime for serious repercussions such as deportation and losing your temporary work permit authorizations.
When you are dealing with complex, constantly changing issues whose outcome may have a significant effect on your life, it is prudent and strongly recommended that you don’t go at it alone but rather have an expert at your side. If you are facing an immigration law issue, we urge you to consult with an immigration attorney/DACA attorney about the potential impact of upcoming changes to immigration law and policies and to find out the best options for dealing with any present or anticipated immigration law issues. It is better to prepare now and get all your ducks in a row than be blind sighted by a change to an existing immigration law or policy, such as the repeal of DACA.
The Trump Administration has announced an immigration proposal that pits the lives of Dreamers against other immigrant populations. Dreamers are young people who came to the United States prior to the age of 16, and fell out of status of status through no fault of their own. They were granted authorization to remain in the United States under an Obama-era program known as Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The Trump White House has stated that they are willing to provide a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers in exchange for fewer family-based immigration categories, the elimination of the Diversity Visa Program, and $25 million in funding for the infamous wall. President Trump had previously cancelled DACA on September 5, 2017.
DACA recipients have strongly opposed the White House’s proposal, arguing that they refuse to benefit from a bill that will disrupt the lives of millions. A pathway to citizenship for Dreamers is desperately needed, but even Dreamers realize that they’re not the only ones whose lives remain in the balance. H-4 spouses are set to lose their ability to work, and H-4 dependents could age out if their parent continues to be stuck in the employment-based backlogs. TPS recipients are being forced to return to countries where poverty and violence remain the norm. Foreign nationals of banned countries anxiously await the ability to come to the US and join their families or begin working in their fields. Foreign students nearing graduation fear the H-1B lottery cap and USCIS’s increased scrutiny of level one wages and IT-related positions. Skilled workers from India and China stuck in the backlogs recently feared being sent back home while they await their green cards. Although this proposal has been pulled back, the fact that it was made heightens the fragility of an immigration system that keeps skilled workers waiting for decades on end because of the unavailability of immigrant visas. Undocumented populations are increasingly fearful of the lack of ICE enforcement priorities and the increased number of non-criminal immigrants being arrested on buses, at schools, or courthouses. Although Dreamers stand to gain from the White House proposal, they do not, in good conscience, accept the trade-offs. At the same time, it would be perfectly understandable if a DACA recipient wanted to accept the Trump Administration’s deal so long as it would benefit her. It is natural for each group of immigrants to want to get their own benefit without regards to whether the enactment of legislation would improve the immigration system as a whole. However tempting this might be, it would clearly be in the interest of all immigrants, including Dreamers, if they united and steadfastly demand an immigration deal that fixes the immigration system to help everyone, which in turn benefits the national interest. Otherwise, what may seem to benefit you but hurt others, will come back to also ultimately hurt you.
The Trump Administration’s proposal is cruel and nothing short of xenophobic. While fixing DACA is urgently needed, such a fix will not resolve all the other problems in the immigration system. It is not worth getting a fix for DACA, without other urgently needed fixes, in exchange for immigration restrictions that would fulfill the wish list of a nativist. America has nothing to gain, and much to lose, from such a limited immigration policy. We have repeatedly argued that immigration is a net positive for the economy and society. Immigrants keep America competitive in STEM fields and other industries. Closing the doors to talented immigrants will undoubtedly make the US less competitive globally.
In stark contrast to the Trump Administration’s xenophobic wish-list is the Immigration Innovation (“I-Squared”) Act of 2018, introduced by two Republican Senators, Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ). The bill would increase the H-1B visas from 65,000 to 85,000 a year and proposes lifting the existing cap of 20,000 additional H-1B visas reserved for those with master’s degrees if their employers agree to sponsor their green cards. The bill includes a “market-based escalator” so the supply can meet increased demand. That means granting up to 110,000 additional visas (a total of 195,000), and prioritizing visas for those with master’s degrees, foreign Ph.D.’s or U.S. STEM bachelor degrees. The bill would also eliminate per-country caps on employment-based green cards and allow H-4 visa holders the ability to work. It will also not count derivative family members, which if implemented upon enactment, will quickly drain the decades long backlogs in the employment-based preferences. The bill does not address Dreamers, but rather focuses on employment-based visas. Although imperfect, the bill serves as a proper starting point when discussing sensible immigration policy. Specifically, the bill acknowledges the utility and benefit of foreign skilled workers, especially in the IT field. Hatch and Flake have both realized that these workers not only benefit US industries, but also help create jobs for American workers. In a global economy, all forms of capital, including intellectual capital, flow to their optimum destinations according to the laws of supply and demand. The American economy does not operate in a vacuum and assumptions to the contrary, the very assumptions that have dominated the nativist response to date, only enrich our foreign competitors while we all lose. The people who run immigration policy in the Trump administration care about American workers but do not effectively express such concern. Instead, they have created policies that make US companies less competitive and the US itself less desirable as a place for the world’s creative elite to live and work. There is a better way where everyone benefits. We can, if we think and act anew, transform immigration policy from an endless source of controversy to a flexible weapon in our economic arsenal so that everyone profits. I-Squared does provide the opening salvo. This bill has all the right ingredients – elimination of per country limits, not counting derivative family members that have till now clogged up the employment-based preferences and increasing the H-1B visa cap. We need I-Squared as much as a fix for DACA recipients.
Congresswomen and men need to similarly create a comprehensive bill that provides a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers without throwing other immigrant populations under the bus. Even requiring Dreamers – who only know America as their country – to wait 10-12 years on a probationary basis before they can apply for permanent residence and citizenship is unnecessary and cruel. Although Dreamers are under no obligation to prove their worth, as their humanity alone entitles them to respect, we nevertheless see DACA recipients thriving in the respective fields and substantially benefiting the United States. The proposed legislation should also not undermine family immigration since family unification has been the cornerstone of US immigration policy since its inception. Family members of the principal immigrant support each other, and thus create more stability and bring about more prosperity. It is also not necessarily the case that a skilled immigrant in a STEM field will only benefit the United States. The nation’s immigration history is replete with examples of immigrants from all walks of life succeeding in the country through their hard work, grit and determination. Objecting to family-based migration, including cutting off the ability of a US citizen to sponsor a parent, means that you are advocating a total shut-down of immigration and the cruel separation of families. It is also immoral to do so.
With the exception of descendants of indigenous peoples, every American is a descendant of immigrants. Everyone’s mother, grandmother, great-grandmother, etc. came to the United States from a foreign land in the hopes of creating a better life. The American Dream is for everyone, whether your family has been here for generations or if your family just arrived yesterday. It is senseless to close the doors to immigrants seeking opportunity in a nation whose identity is intimately intertwined with migration.
By: Courtney Sommer, Associate of Kirby Joseph, ABIL Lawyer
Colorado is one twelve states that allows undocumented immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses. If an individual cannot show lawful permanent residence or U.S. citizenship, that person may still be able to obtain a Colorado driver’s license using his or her Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) issued by the IRS, or showing proof of temporary lawful presence.
According to a recent report, however, Colorado is also one of a few states with policies in place to share personal information regarding a person’s immigration status with ICE. The state does not require that ICE provide a warrant for this information, but it does determine what information to provide on a case-by-case basis. ICE claims the agency only requests this information during an ongoing criminal investigation or in attempting to locate individuals who pose a national security risk, and not simply to target individuals for deportation. But the risk is something to be aware of when applying for a new license or renewing an expiring one.
Providing licenses to individuals regardless of their immigration status helps keep roads safer, and in Colorado it is a class B traffic infraction to fail to update an address with the DMV within 30 days of moving.
USCIS Announces TPS Re-Registration Applications Now Being Accepted For Haiti And El Salvador
By: Jennifer Howard, Associate of Kirby Joseph, ABIL Lawyer
After announcing the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitians on November 20, 2017, and for Salvadorans on January 8, 2018, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced yesterday that it would begin accepting re-registration applications for Haitians and Salvadorans who already have TPS and want to maintain their status through the effective termination date of July 22, 2019, and September 9, 2019, respectively. Per USCIS guidelines, eligible applicants from both countries must re-register between January 18, 2018, and March 19, 2018.
USCIS will also issue new Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) with a July 22, 2019, expiration date to eligible Haitian TPS beneficiaries and a September 9, 2019, expiration date to eligible Salvadoran TPS beneficiaries who timely re-register and apply for EADs. In addition, USCIS has automatically extended for 180 days the validity of EADs issued and currently valid (non-expired) under the TPS designation of Haiti, through July 21, 2018, and under the TPS designation of El Salvador, through September 5, 2018.
Haitians and Salvadorans with TPS should consult with a qualified immigration attorney about their eligibility for TPS re-registration and about possible eligibility for another immigration status or benefit that would allow you to remain in the United States legally after the effective termination of TPS for these countries in 2019.
By: Bernard P. Wolfsdorf, ABIL Lawyer; Joseph Barnett, Partner; and Robert Blanco, Senior Associate Attorney
​We previously blogged about the growing demand for EB-5 visas from Vietnam in October 2017. Now, recent analysis from the U.S. Department of State (“DOS”) and from IIUSA, confirms this reality. IIUSA recently indicated:
​The EB-5 visa usage for Vietnamese applicants jumped 190% year-over-year from October to December 2017. Since almost half of the annual EB-5 visa allocations for Vietnam (approximately 700) has already been used in the first quarter of the current fiscal year, the Visa Office predicts that Vietnam will face oversubscription by April [2018], at which time a Final Action Date will be required. After this happens, Vietnamese EB-5 visa applicants will subject to the same FAD [Final Action Date] established for Chinese EB-5 visa applicants for the rest of FY2018.
​Since the mainland Chinese category is backlogged, presently to July 22, 2014, it appears Vietnam will initially be subject to a sudden EB-5 backlog.
In addition to Vietnam, India has also seen a dramatic surge in EB-5 visa usage. EB-5 visa demand rose almost 500% from the first fiscal quarter of 2017 (October 1, 2016 – December 31, 2016) to the first fiscal quarter of 2018 (October 1, 2017 – December 31, 2017), proof that demand from India is skyrocketing. However, this 500% trajectory is already two years old and estimation of current I-526 filings is speculative. So, while India is very unlikely to use its annual visa quota in fiscal year 2019 (from October 2018-September 2019) according to unofficial State Department sources, we speculate that may change for fiscal year 2020, when India may also hit its annual quota, like Vietnam has now. Of course, this may not occur if there is a substantial increase in the minimum investment amount that slows demand, or Congress increases the number of EB-5 visas available
With the recent announcement that the Trump Administration will terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for more than 200,000 citizens of El Salvador effective September 2019 after previously terminating TPS for Haiti, Nicaragua, and Sudan, it seems appropriate to examine alternate forms of immigration relief that may become available to those whose TPS is terminated. Of course, we may hope that Congress will provide some relief to TPS holders, but as things stand now, that appears to be an eventuality which should not be counted on at least in the short run.
One possibility for some TPS holders may be adjustment of status under INA §245. As explained in a September 2017 practice advisory from the American Immigration Council, the Courts of Appeals for the Sixth and Ninth Circuits have held that TPS constitutes an admission for purposes of eligibility for adjustment under INA §245(a). TPS holders who are immediate relatives of U.S. citizens can take advantage of this holding most simply, if they reside within the jurisdiction of the Sixth Circuit (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee) or the Ninth Circuit (California, Arizona, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands). Those who reside outside those two Circuits might still be able to pursue adjustment of status on the same theory if they are willing to litigate in federal court following any denials. The situation with respect to applicants for adjustment based on other family relationships or employment is more complex, as explained in the linked American Immigration Council practice advisory, but that sort of adjustment of status will be potentially available to TPS recipients under at least some limited circumstances.
Another possibility for many TPS-holders, if they are placed in removal proceedings, might be seeking cancellation of removal for non-permanent residents under INA §240A(b). It has been reported that many TPS recipients from El Salvador have U.S. citizen children, for example: there are reported to be “nearly 200,000 US citizen children of Salvadoran parents with TPS.” Many TPS holders may be able to show that one or more of their U.S. citizen children (or Lawful Permanent Resident children or U.S. citizen or Lawful Permanent Resident spouses or parents) will suffer “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” upon removal of the parent, although this is admittedly a very high bar. If such TPS holders, with qualifying relatives who would suffer such hardship, have been continuously physically present in the United States for ten years before being placed in removal proceedings – which El Salvadoran TPS holders, for example, generally will have been, since TPS for El Salvador commenced in 2001 – then, if certain other criteria regarding good moral character and lack of disqualifying criminal convictions are met, they can seek cancellation of removal in Immigration Court under §240A(b), which would result in Lawful Permanent Resident status.
It is important to note, in this context, that time in TPS counts towards the ten-year minimum for cancellation under INA §240A(b). It is only in the distinct context of cancellation of removal for lawful permanent residents under INA §240A(a) that INA §244(e) excludes from continuous presence one’s time in TPS, and there only “unless the Attorney General determines that extreme hardship exists.” A footnote on the USCIS webpage reproduction of this INA section suggests that the restriction was actually meant to apply to §240A(b) cancellation, but besides being contrary to the text of the statute, this would have little practical impact even if it were true: any case in which “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” exists for purposes of §240A(b) cancellation would presumably be a case in which extreme hardship exists for the purposes of the exception.
Admittedly, some TPS holders will presumably be unable to establish a sufficiently high level of hardship to their children—although given the atrocious violence and other country conditions in El Salvador, where the State Department has notably advised U.S. citizens not to travel, it is not clear what proportion of U.S. citizen children could relocate there without suffering exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. Even so, however, one wonders how the Trump Administration thinks the already-overburdened immigration court system is going to deal with determining which of the nearly-200,000 U.S. citizen children involved will suffer such exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. Perhaps the answer is that they do not intend to place former TPS beneficiaries into removal proceedings. But that could give rise to the peculiar spectacle of a large population seeking to be placed into removal proceedings, where they can have the hardship to their children taken into account under the statutes enacted by Congress, while the Administration insists that the members of that population should leave, but refuses to commence the proceedings that under INA §240(a)(3) are the “sole and exclusive procedure” for compelling them to do so.
Some TPS holders may also be eligible for asylum under INA §208. Asylum is typically thought of as a form of relief available to those who fear persecution on a protected ground in their home countries, and some citizens of El Salvador and the other countries whose TPS is being terminated may indeed meet that description. However, while a fear of future persecution is the archetypical case for asylum, it is not the only one, under the governing regulations. As the BIA explained in Matter of L-S-, 25 I&N Dec. 705 (BIA 2012), pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(B), asylum can be granted to one who has suffered persecution in the past and “has established that there is a reasonable possibility that he or she may suffer other serious harm upon removal to that country.”
​While “other serious harm” must equal the severity of persecution, it may be wholly unrelated to the past harm. Moreover, pursuant to the regulation, the asylum applicant need only establish a “reasonable possibility” of such “other serious harm”; a showing of “compelling reasons” is not required under this provision. We also emphasize that no nexus between the “other serious harm” and an asylum ground protected under the Act need be shown.
Matter of L-S-, 25 I&N Dec. at 714. The BIA further explained that “adjudicators considering “other serious harm” should be cognizant of conditions in the applicant’s country of return and should pay particular attention to major problems that large segments of the population face or conditions that might not significantly harm others but that could severely affect the applicant.” Id. This may be particularly relevant to TPS recipients from countries like El Salvador which do, as discussed above, have major problems faced by large segments of the population, such as widespread violence.
It is important to note that this other-serious-harm asylum requires that an applicant have previously suffered qualifying past persecution on a protected ground. The full definition of such past persecution is beyond the scope of this blog, but it is a difficult threshold to meet. The Second Circuit has explained in Baba v. Holder that to constitute persecution “conduct must rise above mere harassment” and that persecution includes “threats to life or freedom” and also extends to “non-life-threatening violence and physical abuse.” The Second Circuit has also, as explained in Baba with a quotation of Guan Shan Liao v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, “found that persecution may also take the form of non-physical harm, such as ‘the deliberate imposition of a substantial economic disadvantage.’” As for the protected grounds, there are many subtleties, but the basic statutory requirement under INA 208(b)(1)(B)(i) (largely restating INA §101(a)(42)(A) with some added stringency per the REAL ID Act of 2005) is that “the applicant must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.”
However, such qualifying past persecution could have taken place many years ago, under very different political conditions than are now present. Moreover, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has recognized that under some circumstances, children may suffer qualifying past persecution from actions primarily directed at other family or community members. In Jorge-Tzoc v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2006), the Second Circuit explained that massacres in a child’s persecuted ethnic Mayan community could constitute persecution of the child even if not directed at the child specifically:
Jorge-Tzoc was a child at the time of the massacres and thus necessarily dependent on both his family and his community. He also offered substantial evidence of a pervasive campaign carried out by the army against Mayans in the area in which he lived. The CEH documented two 1982 army killings of persons named Tzoc in Jorge-Tzoc’s village. Further, while the family remained in their village, Jorge-Tzoc’s mother was afraid to go out of their home to obtain needed groceries, and Jorge-Tzoc viewed the bullet-ridden body of his cousin lying on the ground. The army’s campaign, according to Jorge-Tzoc’s testimony, resulted in his relocation, along with many family members to one room in Quiche where they struggled to survive. In addition, Jorge-Tzoc’s father lost his land and his animals as a result of the move. This combination of circumstances could well constitute persecution to a small child totally dependent on his family and community.
​The Court of Appeals for the First and Ninth Circuits have similarly concluded that persecution of a child’s family can constitute persecution of that child, in Ordonez-Quino v. Holder and Hernandez-Ortiz v. Gonzales. The Second Circuit narrowed Jorge-Tzoc somewhat in Jiang v. Gonzales, requiring that the persecuted child “share – or [be] imputed to share – the characteristic that motivated the persecution.” (There is also additional discussion in Jiang, arguably nonbinding dicta, regarding how such persecution would “presumably” require that the child, as in Jorge-Tzoc, “was also within the zone of risk when the family member was harmed, and suffered some continuing hardship after the incident.”) Nonetheless, there may be TPS recipients who would have a reasonable past-persecution claim based on events that occurred many years ago when they were children, which could then ground an application for asylum based on the reasonable possibility of other serious harm due to current country conditions.
​Another issue in regard to a possible asylum application by a TPS recipient would be the one-year filing deadline of INA §208(a)(2)(B). Ordinarily, one who wishes to apply for asylum must do so within a year of their last arrival in the United States. However, INA §208(a)(2)(D) exempts from the one-year deadline cases in which an applicant can establish “extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing the application within the period”, and the regulations at 8 C.F.R. §208.4(a)(5)(iv) clarify that such extraordinary circumstances may include maintenance of TPS or other lawful status “until a reasonable period before the filing of the asylum application”. As a recent AILA practice pointer has noted, this may not solve the one-year problem for those who were present in the United States for more than a year between the time the one-year deadline was created in 1997 and the onset of their TPS. However, the TPS exception it does mean that some TPS beneficiaries will not have a problem with the one-year deadline even if the events giving rise to an asylum claim occurred long ago.
​Moreover, changed circumstances “materially affecting the applicant’s eligibility for asylum” can also excuse late filing under INA §208(a)(2)(D) and 8 C.F.R. §208.4(a)(4)(i) as long as the applicant files within a reasonable time given those changed circumstances. Where a claim is based on a combination of past persecution and a reasonable possibility of other serious harm in the future, there would be a strong argument that a change in circumstances materially affecting the other-serious-harm prong of eligibility would qualify under this exception even if the past persecution remained constant. Thus, some TPS recipients who had suffered past persecution might be able to excuse an otherwise untimely asylum claim based on changed circumstances relating to the other serious harm they would suffer if returned to their home country.
In cases where a reasonable asylum claim could be made under one of these various theories, it could also have the incidental effect of solving the problem discussed above of TPS recipients being left in limbo by a refusal to place them in removal proceedings. By regulation, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §208.14(c)(1), where an affirmatively-filed asylum application is not granted and the applicant is considered to be inadmissible or deportable, the application will generally be referred into removal proceedings, where the applicant can renew the asylum application and also apply for other available relief (such as, if applicable, cancellation of removal for non-permanent residents). Such placement in removal proceedings is of course a dangerous outcome, but for some people it may be preferred to indefinite limbo.
Another defense against removal that might be available to TPS beneficiaries placed in removal proceedings would be to challenge, in federal court, the de-designation of their countries for TPS. This is difficult outside the context of removal proceedings, because INA §244(b)(5)(A) states that “There is no judicial review of any determination of the Attorney General with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state under this subsection.” There may be some argument that this jurisdictional bar should be interpreted to exclude bona fide constitutional claims as discussed in Calcano-Martinez v. INS, 533 U.S. 348 (2001) in the context of a different jurisdictional bar, although this is not completely clear. Once TPS becomes at issue in a removal order, however, the scope for federal court review would be broader, because a petition for judicial review of that order would fall under the protection of INA §242(a)(2)(D), which states that
INA §242(a)(2)(D), 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(D) (referring to “this chapter” rather than “this Act”). Under this provision, a former TPS holder who was ordered removed ought to be able to challenge the de-designation of their country of nationality as legally inappropriate—perhaps, for example, on the basis that the de-designation, albeit nominally accomplished by DHS, had been inappropriately influenced by the views of the Chief Executive regarding people from “shithole countries.”
All of these potential courses of action are complex and fraught with risk, and TPS holders would be well advised to consult a qualified immigration attorney before proceeding with any of them. It is important to know, however, that the termination of TPS may not equate to the termination of all ability to remain lawfully in the United States.
By: David Fullmer, Partner of Bernard P. Wolfsdorf, ABIL Lawyer
​Joining the ranks of parents who fail to pay child support and lose their passports, US Citizens with serious tax delinquencies will now risk losing their passports and the inability to renew them. In December of 2015 congress passed the FAST Act that among other things mandated that delinquent taxpayers would lose their passports. After a delay in implementation, the rule became effective on January 1, 2018. The following are some important aspects of the new program:
The IRS will certify that a taxpayer has a “seriously delinquent” tax debt, defined as an unpaid, legally enforceable and assessed federal tax liability of an individual greater than $50,000.
The IRS will notify the State Department of the delinquent status of the tax payer.
When the delinquent taxpayer applies for a passport, the applicant will be notified of the issue and will be given 90 days to resolve it with the IRS. In addition, the State Department may revoke or limit a passport that was previously issued.
Tax debt is not deemed to be seriously delinquent in some situations such as: if the debt is being paid through an installment agreement, an offer in compromise, a settlement agreement.
If a taxpayer feels that the certification of serious tax delinquency is incorrect, they have a right to judicial review in either US District Court or US Tax Court.
These new rules may come as a rude awakening to some US Citizens living overseas who marry and live abroad for long periods of time and do not stay current with their US tax obligations. These US Citizens may petition for an immigrant visa for their spouse only to be barred themselves from coming to the US.
The USCIS has long used a similar test to bar Green Card holders from becoming naturalized US Citizens if they are delinquent on their taxes. The lesson is pay your taxes or you may land-locked.
By: Aaron C. Hall, Partner of Kirby Joseph, ABIL Lawyer