Cyrus Mehta

Extending Visitor Visa Status During Covid-19 and after the Birth Tourism Rule

/0 Comments/in /by

Visitors who have been admitted in B-2 visa status may extend their status while in the United States. Even if a visitor has a multiple entry visa in the passport for a duration of ten years, the visitor is admitted into the US for a more limited time at a port of entry, which is generally a period of six months in B-2 status.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, many visitors have sought to extend their status as flights are not yet plying to their home country or they may wish to avoid flying out of fear of contracting the infection. Some countries have put restrictions on travelers from the US. A request to extend B-2 status may be made by filing Form I-539 pursuant to 8 CFR 214.1(c)(1) either electronically or through a paper-based application. Although this blog’s focus is on filing an extension for B-2 status, it is also possible to change from another nonimmigrant status to B-2 status pursuant to 8 CFR 248.1. Many nonimmigrants in H-1B or L status who have lost their jobs due to the economic downturn caused by Covid-19 have had to resort to changing to B-2 status due to non-availability of flights to their home country. Note that one who was admitted under the Visa Waiver as a visitor for 90 days is not eligible for filing for an extension of status, although a Visa Waiver entrant may apply for a 30 day extension directly wither with USCIS or CBP called Satisfactory Departure.

In order to be eligible to request an extension of B-2 status or a change to B-2 status, it is important for the applicant to have maintained her current nonimmigrant status. If the visitor has engaged in unauthorized employment, he will be ineligible to request an extension of status. Although the extension or change of status request must be filed timely, the USCIS has authority to exercise its discretion in excusing an untimely filing based on extraordinary circumstances beyond the control of the applicant. The applicant must also demonstrate that she has not otherwise violated nonimmigrant status, continues to remain a bona fide nonimmigrant and is not the subject of removal proceedings. The USCIS has indicated that it will consider late filings caused as a result of Covid-19. See 8 CFR 214.1(c)(4) for authority for excusing untimely filings for extensions of status and 8 CFR 248(b) for excusing untimely filings for change of status.

There are very harsh consequences if the applicant overstays the terms of his stay in the US. Overstaying one’s visa results in the automatic voidance of the multiple entry visa on the passport under INA 222(g). Overstaying beyond the expiration of the nonimmigrant status, governed by the I-94, for more than 180 days results in a 3-year bar against re-entry under INA 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I). Furthermore, overstaying the visa for more than one-year results in a 10-year bar against re-entry under INA 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II). Therefore, ensuring that the I-539 is timely submitted (of if not timely submitted, it is at least excused by USCIS) will toll the accrual of unlawful presence, and thus avoid the triggering of automatic voidance of the visa stamp or the accrual of unlawful presence that will result in the 3- or 10-year bars to reentry into the United States.

At the time of submission, Form I-539 must be accompanied by evidence that the reason for the extension is consistent with the purpose of the visitor visa, and the visitor continues to maintain a residence in the home country as well as ties with that country. It is also strongly recommended that a sworn statement is included that clearly indicates the need for the extension and the change of intention since the initial admission to stay longer, along with an I-94 printout and other evidence of financial sufficiency and support. A Form I-134, Affidavit of Support, may also be submitted to bolster the evidence of financial support. The new public charge rule took effect on February 24, 2020 and applies to extension and change of status requests. The USCIS will consider whether an applicant seeking an extension of stay or change of status has received, since obtaining the nonimmigrant status she seeks to extend or from which he or she seeks to change, public benefits for more than 12 months, in total, within any 36-month period, such that, for instance, the receipt of two benefits in one month counts as two months.  Among the prohibited benefits is federally funded Medicaid, although Medicaid funding for an emergency medical condition will not be considered, which includes emergency labor and delivery. Noncitizens regardless of status are eligible to receive Medicaid for an emergency medical condition. See 42 CFR 440.255A. Form I-539 has new sections that require applicants to check off whether they have accepted prohibited benefits.

Notwithstanding the Medicaid exception for emergency medical conditions, including pregnancy and birth, applicants have to be very careful regarding applying for extensions based on health reasons, especially relating to pregnancy and birth. The Trump administration has amended the definition of visitor for pleasure at 22 CFR 41.31(b)(2) to prohibit so called birth tourism. The original version of this rule, before it was amended on January 24, 2020, defined “pleasure” as stated in INA 101(a)(15(B) “to legitimate activities of a recreational character, including tourism, amusement, visits with friends or relatives, rest, medical treatment, and activities of a fraternal, social, or service nature.” Now 22 CFR 41.31(b)(2)(i) includes the old definition for pleasure but adds that the term “pleasure” does not include obtaining a visa for the primary purpose of obtaining US citizenship for a child by giving birth in the United States. The new rule at 22 CFR 41.31(b)(2) is reproduced in verbatim below:

(i) The term pleasure, as used in INA 101(a)(15)(B) for the purpose of visa issuance, refers to legitimate activities of a recreational character, including tourism, amusement, visits with friends or relatives, rest, medical treatment, and activities of a fraternal, social, or service nature, and does not include obtaining a visa for the primary purpose of obtaining U.S. citizenship for a child by giving birth in the United States.

(ii) Any visa applicant who seeks medical treatment in the United States under this provision shall be denied a visa under INA section 214(b) if unable to establish, to the satisfaction of a consular officer, a legitimate reason why he or she wishes to travel to the United States for medical treatment, that a medical practitioner or facility in the United States has agreed to provide treatment, and that the applicant has reasonably estimated the duration of the visit and all associated costs. The applicant also shall be denied a visa under INA section 214(b) if unable to establish to the satisfaction of the consular officer that he or she has the means derived from lawful sources and intent to pay for the medical treatment and all incidental expenses, including transportation and living expenses, either independently or with the pre-arranged assistance of others.

iii) Any B nonimmigrant visa applicant who a consular officer has reason to believe will give birth during her stay in the United States is presumed to be traveling for the primary purpose of obtaining U.S. citizenship for the child.

President Trump has always intended to abolish birthright citizenship even though it is protected under the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. Knowing fully well that the abolition of birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment, the Trump administration quietly amended the State Department regulation as a step towards discouraging pregnant women from entering the US to give birth to children who then automatically become US citizens. While birthright citizenship has advantages, and abolishing it will be a bureaucratic nightmare as it may be applied retroactively (see Why Birthright Citizenship is so Wonderful for America), visa applicants now have to confront needless scrutiny while applying for a tourist visa. A pregnant person may be denied a visa even if the primary goal is not to give birth to a child in the US for the purpose of conferring US citizenship. The applicant may wish to seek the best medical care for a potentially complicated pregnancy, or may be more comfortable with a doctor and hospital facility in the US than in her own country. An applicant may be travelling purely for business or a holiday and intending to return to her home country to give birth, and could still be denied the visa. Even if the applicant wishes to seek a visa for pursuing medical treatment, even if it is not associated with pregnancy and birth, the rule now requires a demonstration that the applicant will be able to pay for the costs of the medical treatment, and has the ability to pay for them through lawful sources.

Although 22 CFR 41.31(b)(2) applies to a visa issuance at a US Consulate, the USCIS would also likely refer to it when applying for an extension of status even though an applicant previously was issued the B-2 visa at the US consulate. The USCIS routinely issues a Request for Evidence (RFE) asking for further evidence of ties with the home country and financial sufficiency after a request for an extension if filed. An extension request based on medical reasons will result in more scrutiny as a result of 22 CFR 41.31(b)(2). This author has seen RFEs asking for a detailed letter from the applicant’s physician regarding the medical condition, the prescribed treatment and its duration, the physician’s opinion on the applicant’s ability to travel, and the availability of similar treatment in the applicant’s home country. The RFE may also ask for the stated reason for the trip when applying for the B-2 visa at the US Consulate. If the applicant was already suffering from symptoms of the medical condition, the RFE may question whether this was disclosed to the Consular Officer, and if not, an explanation for why the applicant did not disclose the possibility of her seeking treatment in the US. The RFE may also demand extensive proof of financial ability of the applicant to pay the medical bills. Finally, the RFE will also ask for proof of foreign residence when the applicant departs the US.

The timely filing of the I-539 application tolls the accrual of unlawful presence for purposes of the 3- and 10-year bars to reentry into the US if the applicant stays beyond the expiration of the validity date on the I-94. If the I-539 remains pending beyond the requested date, as the request can be made for up to 6 months, another I-539 application must be filed before the date the first extension if granted would have expired even if there has been no decision on the first I-539. The applicant may, however, depart the US during the pendency of the I-539 application. If the application is denied, there is no right of appeal, although the applicant may request a motion to reopen or reconsider. Requesting a reopening or reconsideration will not toll unlawful presence for purposes of the 3- and 10-year bars. If the extension is granted, it is imperative that the applicant depart the US timely prior to the expiration of the extended date. While there is no limit in seeking additional extensions, the USCIS will take issue with immigrant intent.

Finally, even if all goes well and the applicant timely departs the US, the Consular Officer could still question why the applicant sought an extension at the time of next applying for a renewal of the B-2 visa at the US Consulate. Given all the risks and pitfalls, one should avoid seeking an extension or change of status to B-2 unless it is truly necessary and made in good faith.

(This is blog is for informational purposes only, and should not be viewed as a substitute for legal advice)

 

 

 

 

 

 

David Isaacson

My Comment on Proposed Draconian Changes to Asylum Regulations – Do You Have One Too?

/0 Comments/in /by

The Department of Homeland Security and the Executive Office of Immigration Review (the agency within the Department of Justice that runs the immigration courts) have jointly proposed a new rule entitled “Procedures for Asylum and Withholding of Removal; Credible Fear and Reasonable Fear Review” that would drastically change the law in the United States governing applications for asylum and other protection from persecution and torture. The proposed rule is very lengthy, but its common theme is the creation of many different reasons to deny protection to asylum-seekers, sometimes even without a hearing.

If the new rule were finalized as proposed and were to take effect, applications for asylum could be denied for reasons such as being based on gender or domestic violence, being based on a political opinion that doesn’t match the new narrow definition of what a political opinion should be, or because the applicant had traveled through too many countries on the way to the United States, or had not been able, as an undocumented immigrant, to pay all of their taxes exactly correctly. People could be deported without a full hearing because the court of appeals for the area where they happened to be detained had issued a decision disfavoring their kind of claim, even if other courts of appeals had ruled differently and the Supreme Court might resolve the conflict in their favor. People could also be deported without a hearing because the immigration judge reading their paper application thought they had no claim for asylum without hearing from them directly at all.

These changes have been strongly criticized by the American Immigration Lawyers Association and the National Immigrant Justice Center, among other groups. They can be criticized in a meaningful way by anyone with an interest in this area, as well, because the government has, as required under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), invited public comment regarding the proposed rule.

Public comments on the proposed rulemaking “must be submitted on or before July 15, 2020”, and can be submitted online “prior to midnight eastern time at the end of that day.” The link to submit a comment online is https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=EOIR-2020-0003-0001 . Comments can also be submitted by mail, if postmarked by July 15, for those who may prefer that method of communication, in which case they should be directed to Lauren Alder Reid, Assistant Director, Office of Policy, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 1800, Falls Church, VA 22041. Comments must be “identified by the agency name and reference RIN 1125-AA94 or EOIR Docket No. 18-0002”.

The main online comment field is restricted to 5,000 characters. I have drafted a comment that currently uses 4,996 of those characters. There is much to criticize about the rule beyond what I could fit under that limit, and I am considering whether to attach a longer criticism to my final online comment as a PDF document. There may be no guarantee that DHS and EOIR would read my attachment, but then again there is no guarantee, other than the prospect of litigation under the APA, that they will truly consider any of the comments, and I do not think there would be any legal merit to a refusal to consider a comment just because part of it was submitted as an attached PDF. Anyone else who has more to say than the 5,000 character limit may want to consider providing an attachment as well.

But whether or not you have more than 5,000 characters to say about this outrageous attack on asylum, I would strongly recommend that you say something. The more substantively different comments that are received (duplicates will be given little weight), the more objections DHS and EOIR will need to consider and address before promulgating a final rule.

The current version of my comment, which I may revise before the Wednesday deadline but am posting now in the hope that it may inspire other comments, is as follows:

As a lawyer whose practice has included asylum work for nearly 15 years, I write to comment on DHS/EOIR RIN 1125-AA94. The common thread of this proposal is disregard for the law in an effort to limit access to asylum and related relief however possible.

It is inappropriate for credible fear reviews, per proposed 8 CFR 1003.42(f), to consider only “decisions of the federal courts of appeals binding in the jurisdiction where the immigration judge conducting the review sits” and not those of other courts of appeals. The credible fear process is meant to ascertain if “there is a significant possibility, taking into account the credibility of the statements made by the alien in support of the alien’s claim and such other facts as are known to the officer, that the alien could establish eligibility for asylum”. INA §235(b)(1)(B)(v). There may be a “significant possibility” that venue will be changed to the jurisdiction of a different court of appeals before a decision on the asylum application: credible fear reviews will often be conducted near the border or an international airport, while aliens released on bond or parole may not remain nearby. Or, if there is a conflict between courts of appeals, there may be a “significant possibility” that the Supreme Court could resolve the conflict, see Supreme Court R. 10(a), in favor of a different circuit. As formerly set out in guidance for asylum officers, aliens should be given the benefit of favorable case law from a different circuit than the one where a determination is made. When a claim has a significant chance of success under the law of any circuit, there is a significant possibility that the alien could ultimately establish eligibility for asylum.

Requiring applicants in credible fear proceedings to establish “a reasonable possibility” of persecution or torture is inappropriate. Credible fear review is meant as a brief screening process. High standards increase the risk that people may be sent to their deaths or torture. It is bad enough to run this risk in INA §238 proceedings for people with aggravated felony convictions, who might themselves pose risk, or in reinstatement of removal, for people who have theoretically had a prior opportunity to seek protection. It is worse to do so for non-criminals who face a policy-based bar to asylum during their first opportunity to request U.S. protection.

The regulation should not exclude, from the definition of particular social group, claims involving “interpersonal disputes” or “private criminal acts” “of which governmental authorities were unaware or uninvolved.” Private harm based on membership in an otherwise qualified particular social group, which the government is unable or unwilling to prevent, is persecution, see, e.g., Rosales-Justo v. Sessions, 895 F.3d 154 (1st Cir. 2018); Pan v. Holder, 777 F.3d 540, 543 (2d Cir. 2015), even if governmental authorities were unaware or uninvolved.

Nor is it appropriate to preclude claims based on domestic violence or gender. This is inconsistent with, for example, Canadian refugee law. See, e.g., Kauhonina v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1300; Jeanty v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 453.

Proposing to “define political opinion as one . . . in which the applicant possesses an ideal or conviction in support of the furtherance of a discrete cause related to political control of a state or a unit thereof” is also indefensible. An opinion about what policy should be, as opposed to who should control the state, is still political. As a matter of English usage, we would not say that everyone who supports the same candidates for President, governor, Congress, state legislature, etc., must have all the same political opinions. People may differ on such matters as whether abortion should be legal, but vote for the same party—there are pro-choice Republicans like Senator Lisa Murkowski, or pro-life Democrats like Senator Bob Casey. If Senator Murkowski would vote for the same Republican candidates as someone who believes abortion should be illegal, this does not mean the two have no differing political opinions. Persecution of Senator Murkowski for her view on abortion would be based on political opinion even if the persecutor agreed with her votes for Republican candidates.

The list of 9 adverse factors supporting denial of asylum as a matter of discretion is inappropriate. The better, well-established rule is that “the danger of future persecution can overcome all but the strongest adverse factors.” Huang v. INS, 436 F.3d 89, 100 (2d Cir. 2006). Basing denial on how many countries an alien traveled through (perhaps to change planes) is absurdly arbitrary; the other 8 are little better.

The reduction in confidentiality, besides being inappropriate, should not apply retroactively. Those subject to the prior regulatory promise of secrecy should retain its benefits.

5,000 characters is not enough to rebut this 43-page monstrosity.

Cyrus Mehta

Trump’s Work Visa Ban Causing Havoc to Families including Children

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box*

On June 29th, 2020, issued a Proclamation to amend Proclamation 10052 of June 22, 2020 (Suspension of Entry of Immigrants and Nonimmigrants Who Present a Risk to the United States Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak).

The amended Proclamation modifies Section 3(a)(ii) of the June 22 Proclamation to read as follows:

“(ii)   does not have a nonimmigrant visa, of any of the classifications specified in section 2 of this proclamation and pursuant to which the alien is seeking entry, that is valid on the effective date of this proclamation; and”

In the June 22 Proclamation, Section 3(a)(ii) had read as:

“(ii)   does not have a nonimmigrant visa that is valid on the effective date of this proclamation; and”

Under the language of the original provision (see The Real Threat to the US Economy is Trump’s Proclamation, Not the Nonimmigrant Workers it Bans), having a valid visa of any category was sufficient to exempt an individual from the Proclamation. The amendment renders the Proclamation even more restrictive, specifying that the visa must be a valid H-1B, H-2B, L, or certain J visas, and that the individual must be entering the United States pursuant to that visa to qualify for an exemption.

This amendment will cause irreparable harm to countless individuals who relied on the language of the original Proclamation to their detriment. Interpreting the original provision, an individual with a valid B-2 visa, for example, may have assumed that they were exempt from the Proclamation, and chosen not to return to the United States by June 24th. Now, trapped by the administration’s sudden narrowing of the exemption, that individual is stuck outside the United States. Further, individuals who had a valid H-1B, H-2B, L or J visa on the effective date of the original Proclamation (June 24, 2020), may not, based on a literal reading of the amended section, be able to get a new visa when their old one expires if they were outside the United States on June 24th, 2020.

Already, the Proclamation is resulting in irreparable harm and separated families. The Washington Post told the poignant story of Vihaan, a young boy who traveled to India with his mother in February to visit a seriously ill relative. First unable to return to the United States due to the pandemic, and now ensnared by the amended Proclamation, Vihaan and his mother are separated from Vihaan’s father and their home in Dallas, Texas, for the foreseeable future. Many other families, some of whom have lived in the United States for years, find themselves in the same situation.

The Proclamation has been the source of other points of confusion, as well. Some immigration lawyers have questioned whether individuals who were in the United States on the effective date of the Proclamation and, thus, exempt, could be impacted by the Proclamation if they travel internationally. On Twitter, the State Department seemed to confirm that an individual in this situation could become subject to the ban, stating: “If you depart the US, you need a valid visa to return and we will not be issuing H-1B, H-2B, L, or certain J visas, and derivatives through Dec 31 unless there’s an exception”. Aside from the devastating impact that the amended Proclamation will have on individuals who are stranded overseas or unable to travel, it will also cause irreparable harm to U.S. businesses who have employees stuck outside the United States and unable to perform the jobs they were hired to do, or are unable to travel for business.

This Proclamation, along with the harsher amendment, do very little to achieve their stated goal of protecting jobs for American workers. As our colleague Jeffrey Gorsky noted, the Proclamations ban some individuals who are not even able to work in the United States and pose no threat to the labor market, including spouses of H-1B workers, many of whom are not eligible for employment authorization, and spouses of H-2B workers and children, who are never eligible for employment authorization. They have the perverse effect of banning a new born child too. Gorsky notes that a mother could have a valid L-1 visa  on June 24 and is thus not banned, but if she gives birth to a child after June 24, 2020, this hapless child  will be banned for not having a valid visa on June 24, 2020. We argued in our prior blog that family members, such as this child, who are accompanying or following to join a nonimmigrant whose entry has not been suspended should be permitted to obtain a dependent visa. Unfortunately, those in charge of implementing the Proclamations in the Trump administration, such as arch xenophobe Stephen Miller, are more concerned about keeping out nonimmigrants (including babies) to the maximum extent possible under the guise of protecting American jobs.  Unless a court intervenes, the Proclamations will cause irreparable harm to individuals who may have been living and working in the United States for years,  the U.S. businesses that employ them as well as cause further damage America’s reputation in the eyes of the world.

 

*Kaitlyn Box graduated with a JD from Penn State Law in 2020, and works as a law clerk at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC.