Tag Archive for: proposed rule

David Isaacson

Elephants, Mouseholes, and Sickness: My Comment on the Latest Anti-Asylum Proposed Rule. Do You Have One Too?

/0 Comments/in /by

On the heels of the prior proposed rule restricting asylum and withholding of removal that I commented on and blogged about, the Department of Homeland Security and Executive Office for Immigration Review have put out yet another proposed rule to drastically restrict asylum and withholding of removal. This one would allow the expedited removal of asylum claimants who have come from countries where a “contagious or infectious disease” is “prevalent or epidemic” (which is to say, virtually everywhere), on the basis that they are a “danger to the security of the United States” and thus barred from asylum and withholding of removal. Those claimants who can establish that they would be tortured in their home countries may instead be removed to a different country.

Comments for this rule must be submitted by the end of the day (11:59 pm) on Monday, August 10. The preferred way to submit comments is through the “Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.”, and “identified by Docket Number USCIS 2020-0013.” In particular, you can comment at https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=USCIS-2020-0013-0001 .

As with the previous rule, whether or not you have more than 5,000 characters (the limit for the fillable form box, though you can exceed it by attaching a document) 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.

Below is the current draft of my comment, a final version of which I will be submitting on Monday. This version does not comply with the fillable-field 5,000-character limit, so I intend to submit my comment as an attachment, which I ended up doing with a longer version of my comment last time, although while perhaps including a shorter summary in the character-restricted box.
__________________________

As a lawyer whose practice has included asylum work for more than 14 years, I write to comment on Docket Number USCIS 2020-0013, a proposed rule of both USCIS/DHS and EOIR/DOJ.

This proposed rule follows on DHS/EOIR RIN 1125-AA94 (which I will refer to as the “previous proposed rule”) as yet another effort to dramatically limit asylum in the United States, inconsistently with the structure and spirit of the Immigration and Nationality Act. It simply takes a different approach. If the previous proposed rule to limit asylum was baroque in its complexity, a sort of “kitchen-sink” approach, this proposed rule is a more precisely targeted dagger to the heart of the asylum system. The rule essentially proposes to equip the asylum system with an on/off switch—and there is little mystery about how this Administration believes the switch should be flipped. But such a major alteration of the statutory scheme requires Congressional authorization, and Congress has not authorized the installation of this particular switch.

The effect of proposed 8 CFR 208.13(c)(10)(ii) and proposed 8 CFR 208.16(d)(2)(ii) is to give the Secretary of Homeland Security, Attorney General, and Secretary of Health and Human Services the power to effectively end asylum from any country or region they wish, simply by designating one or more countries or regions as countries or regions where a dangerous disease is “prevalent or epidemic”, and asserting that the entry of asylum claimants from those countries or regions would pose a “danger to the security of the United States”. Most applicants from that country or region can then be summarily denied any protection at all. The few applicants who satisfy the impossibly high burden of affirmatively claiming a fear of torture, and then meeting the entire standard for deferral of removal during the course of an abbreviated credible fear interview, can simply be faced with removal to a third country (or, if they establish a likelihood of torture in that third country, presumably a fourth country). Some may then withdraw their claims, rather than be sent to a country about which they may know nothing and where they might die of starvation even if they were not tortured. Others, who do not withdraw their claims, can then be sent to the third country.

The bottom line will be that, as long as the relevant cabinet officials concur, no one fleeing persecution, no matter how badly persecuted they may have been and how strong their claim for asylum may be under the law enacted by Congress, need ever be allowed into the United States. Until dangerous diseases disappear from the countries of the world – which will probably never happen – asylum and withholding of removal will be a thing of the past.

This sort of leveraging of one ancillary, vaguely-worded provision within the law to defeat the operation of the entire asylum process is not consistent with the statute as properly interpreted. As the Supreme Court has told us: “Congress, we have held, does not alter the fundamental details of a regulatory scheme in vague terms or ancillary provisions-it does not, one might say, hide elephants in mouseholes.” Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U.S. 457, 468 (2001). The “danger to the security of the United States” bars are ancillary in the sense that they were clearly never intended to screen out vast quantities of people.

In essence, the position of DHS and EOIR as reflected by the proposed rule is that, at least in a world where dangerous diseases are “prevalent” in many countries, the asylum process itself is a “danger to the security of the United States”. This is the proverbial tail wagging the dog, but worse—one might better describe it as the tail strangling the dog. DHS and EOIR may not in this way abolish the asylum process created by Congress.

The proposed rule cites the Attorney General’s opinion in Matter of A-H-, 23 I&N Dec. 774, 788 (AG 2005), for the broad proposition that “phrase “danger to the security of the United States” is best understood to mean a risk to the Nation’s defense, foreign relations, or economic interests.” Proposed Rule at 41209. But Matter of A-H- concerned a very different kind of danger than the danger purportedly at issue here. The applicant there was “a leader-in-exile of the Islamic Salvation Front of Algeria who was associated with armed groups that committed widespread acts of persecution and terrorism in Algeria,” Matter of A-H-, 23 I&N Dec. at 774 hn.1. It is quite a leap from a leader associated with terroristic armed groups, to ordinary citizens of countries where a dangerous disease is “prevalent”. That the proposed rule is forced to make such a leap, in order to find support for its position, is evidence of the weakness of the position.

The proposed rule also contains another major logical flaw. The premise of the proposed rule is that COVID-19 and other dangerous diseases would pose a threat to the United States if asylum applicants from countries suffering from those diseases were not expeditiously removed. However, the proposed rule takes no account of whether a disease is more prevalent in the United States or in the country from which the asylum seeker is coming. Given current statistics regarding COVID-19, in particular, many countries of the world would have a more logical basis to exclude travelers from the United States as a danger to public health than the other way around. Statistics from the World Health Organization (see (see https://covid19.who.int/table) indicate that the United States has more COVID-19 cases than any other country in the world, and more than double as many as any country other than Brazil. Another analysis of the data (at https://www.statista.com/chart/21170/coronavirus-death-rate-worldwide/) found that of the 10 worst-affected countries in the world, the United States has suffered more deaths per 100,000 inhabitants than any nation other than the United Kingdom and Chile. It is fundamentally arbitrary and capricious to exclude from the protection of asylum in the United States an applicant who comes from a country where a dangerous disease is prevalent, but less prevalent than in the United States, on the basis that this asylum-seeker is a danger to the United States. The logic seems to be that the asylum-seeker can be presumed to carry the dangerous disease, but how can that be so if they are less likely to have the disease than people already in the United States? Indeed, the arbitrariness is so great as to indicate that the (lesser) prevalence of infectious disease in other countries is simply being used as a pretext to shut down the asylum process

Admittedly, at least at the nation’s land borders, the impact of the proposed rule would be limited in the short run by the fact that CBP is already summarily expelling most asylum applicants under a legally dubious use of what it describes as “Title 42” authority, that is, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 265 (as enforced by “customs officers” under 42 U.S.C. § 268(b)). Presumably, however, one reason why DHS is attempting to create similar summary-expulsion authority by way of enhanced expedited removal under Title 8 of the U.S. Code is that it is aware the Title 42 expulsions are legally dubious, and may ultimately be halted by the federal courts—as one particular Title 42 expulsion indeed was halted following a lawsuit, spearheaded by the ACLU, in the case of J-B-B-C- v. Wolf. That the immediate impact of the proposed rule may be lessened by an existing legally dubious measure does not make the proposed rule itself any less legally problematic.

There is yet another major problem with the proposed rule, and that is who has proposed it. The proposed rule states at page 41214:

“The Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Chad F. Wolf, having reviewed and approved this document, is delegating the authority to electronically sign this document to Chad R. Mizelle, who is the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the General Counsel for DHS, for purposes of publication in the Federal Register.”

The power to sign the document, that is, ultimately comes from Chad F. Wolf, even if it may not be his electronic signature on the document itself.

Others have pointed out why Chad F. Wolf was never properly delegated the powers of the Secretary of Homeland Security in the first place, and I will not rehash those arguments in their entirety, but will instead incorporate by reference, in my comment, paragraphs 157-210 of the complaint in Casa de Maryland v. Wolf, 8:20-cv-02118-PX (D.Md. filed 7/21/20), available at https://asylumadvocacy.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Casa-de-Maryland-v.-Wolf-Complaint.pdf and provided as an attachment hereto for ease of reference. I also provide, as an attachment to this comment, an informative blog post from Lawfare along similar lines, see https://www.lawfareblog.com/senate-should-ask-chad-wolf-about-his-illegal-appointment. My point is a simpler one. Even assuming for the sake of argument that he had come to his position entirely appropriately (a point I do not concede), Chad F. Wolf has been purporting to occupy his position on an acting basis for longer than permitted by statute.

The Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA), codified in relevant part at 5 § U.S.C. 3346, provides:

(a)Except in the case of a vacancy caused by sickness, the person serving as an acting officer as described under section 3345 may serve in the office—
(1)
for no longer than 210 days beginning on the date the vacancy occurs; or
(2)
subject to subsection (b), once a first or second nomination for the office is submitted to the Senate, from the date of such nomination for the period that the nomination is pending in the Senate.
(b)
(1)
If the first nomination for the office is rejected by the Senate, withdrawn, or returned to the President by the Senate, the person may continue to serve as the acting officer for no more than 210 days after the date of such rejection, withdrawal, or return.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if a second nomination for the office is submitted to the Senate after the rejection, withdrawal, or return of the first nomination, the person serving as the acting officer may continue to serve—
(A)
until the second nomination is confirmed; or
(B)
for no more than 210 days after the second nomination is rejected, withdrawn, or returned.
(c)
If a vacancy occurs during an adjournment of the Congress sine die, the 210-day period under subsection (a) shall begin on the date that the Senate first reconvenes.

Chad F. Wolf has purportedly been serving as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security since November 13, 2019 (which was not during an adjournment of the Congress sine die). See Chad F. Wolf, https://www.dhs.gov/person/chad-f-wolf. The proposed rule was filed on July 8, 2020, 239 days later. The better view is that the 210-day FVRA clock began to run substantially before Mr. Wolf’s appointment, upon the resignation of Kirstjen Nielsen as the last Senate-confirmed Secretary of Homeland Security; the purpose of the FVRA would not be served by allowing the President to install an endless line of different acting Secretaries for as long as desired so long as a new one came in every 209 days. But even on the most generous conceivable calculation, beginning only with the acting service of Mr. Wolf himself, the 210 days for Mr. Wolf would have run before the proposed rule was filed. No nomination has been filed with the Senate for the position of Secretary of Homeland Security, so there is no second 210-day clock.

Chad F. Wolf was, purportedly, appointed as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security after the resignations of Kristjen Nielsen and then Kevin McAleenan. This is not, in the sense of the statute, a “vacancy caused by sickness”, 5 U.S.C. 3346(a). Thus, he was no longer capable of serving in an acting capacity, in accordance with the law, as of the time this proposed rule was promulgated, more than 210 days after not only the vacancy but also the beginning of his purported appointment.

Presumably, DHS does not intend to defend the prolonged service of Mr. Wolf on the basis that the failure to submit a nomination for his position was “caused by sickness,” 5 U.S.C. 3346(a), in the form of a sickness on the part of the current President. Nor is a more general form of metaphorical sickness on the part of the Executive Branch likely to be the sort of thing contemplated by § 3346(a), even if reasonable people might believe it to exist. In some colloquial sense, one could perhaps describe this proposed rule itself as “caused by sickness”, but the FVRA addresses whether sickness was a cause of a vacancy in an office, not whether it was the cause of a vacancy in a putative acting official’s conscience. There is no circumstance here that would excuse a violation of the 210-day limit.

Because Mr. Wolf was purporting to serve as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security in violation of the FVRA at the time he authorized Chad Mizelle to sign the proposed rule in the Federal Register, his action in doing so “shall have no force or effect.” 5 U.S.C. § 3348(d)(1). The proposed rule was never validly promulgated, and for that reason alone no final rule should be issued, even leaving aside the substantive defects discussed above.

This is not a mere technicality. The FVRA is intended to protect the Constitutional principle that appointed officers must be confirmed by the Senate, by preventing the President from ignoring the Senate indefinitely and leaving “acting” officers in place indefinitely. That is precisely what has happened with Mr. Wolf, and it is precisely what the statute forbids. The Constitution demands that this rule not move forward from such a fundamentally illegitimate beginning.

But for the reasons discussed above, it is not merely the identity of the putative acting official promulgating this rule that is illegitimate. It is the entire cynical attempt to destroy the asylum system in the United States using purported infectious disease concerns as a pretext. This is simply not something that the Executive Branch has the legal authority to do.

Cyrus Mehta

Work Authorization for Some H-4 Spouses Liberates Them From the Tyranny of Priority Dates

/0 Comments/in /by

By Gary Endelman and Cyrus D. Mehta

All the forces in the world are not so powerful as an idea whose time has come.

Victor Hugo

Sometimes it takes a while for a sound idea to gain acceptance. Granting employment authorization to H-4 spouses of H-1B visa holders is a good example. It is in line with the policies of other countries, and if the United States wishes to attract the brightest and the best, such an individual may be dissuaded from coming to the United States if the spouse is not allowed to work.  This is especially true if the H-1B workers have to wait for several years before they and their families can apply for permanent residency.

Almost 4 years ago, then USCIS General Counsel Roxanna Bacon, Service Center Operations Head Donald Neufeld and Field Operations Chief Debra Rogers recommended that H-4 spouses  be granted employment authorization to USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas, but only for those “H-4 dependent spouses of H-1B principals where the principals are also applicants for lawful permanent residence under AC 21.” Memorandum, Administrative Alternatives to Comprehensive Immigration Reform. The memo was leaked by those who wanted to defeat any administrative initiatives and they did so. There matters stood until January 31, 2012 when the Department of Homeland Security brought this idea back to life.

On May 6, 2014, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)   announced that it would allow certain H-4 spouses to obtain employment authorization. The proposed rule provides that an H-4 spouse may apply for employment authorization if  the principal H-1B spouse is the beneficiary of an approved I-140 immigrant petition; or, if the H-1B spouse  been granted an extension of beyond the 6-year limitation pursuant to section 106(a) of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 (AC21). Under section 106(a) of AC 21, the filing of a labor certification or employment-based immigrant visa petitions 365 days prior to the sixth year allows the H-1B worker to apply for an additional year be yond the sixth year.

In Tyranny of Priority Dates and subsequent articles, we pointed out the long delays befalling skilled immigrants due to the backlogs in the priority dates, and proposed remedial measures, including the ability of an H-4 spouse to work. Our prior analysis of H-4 spousal employment and earlier indications that the USCIS recognized the problem and intended to do something about it provide a helpful context against which the importance of this latest development can be measured. .

The proposed rule to grant work authorization to H-4 spouses is much welcomed recognition of this problem. It acknowledges the contributions of foreign born immigrants, especially in the tech industry, and cites the findings of Vivek Wadhwa that in 25% of tech companies founded between 1995-2005, the chief executive or lead technologist was foreign born.  Indeed, the preamble to the proposed rule acknowledges that certain beneficiaries of I-140 petitions under the India EB-3 preference may have to wait over 10 years to obtain permanent residence. In the meantime, the H-4 spouse cannot seek employment, and is also prohibited from other work related activities such as engaging in self-employment through a home based business. While only Congress could create new visa categories, we argued that the Executive under section 103(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act was charged with the administration and enforcement of the INA. Also, the Executive had authority to grant work authorization to any aliens under INA section 274A(h)(3). Under these provisions, we had proposed that the Executive could provide relief for beneficiaries, including spouses, of approved I-130 and I-140 petitions through the grant of employment authorization who were caught in the crushing backlogs. After all, these people were in the pipeline for the green card, but for the backlogs in the priority dates.  The H-1B visa also allows for “dual intent,” as it permits one to apply for permanent residency even though it is technically a nonimmigrant visa.

The proposed rule now recognizes, as we did in The Tyranny of Priority Dates, the ability of the Executive to pass ameliorative measures in the face of crushing delays for those in the green card queue.  While Congress has still not been able to pass a reform of the broken immigration system, the proposed rule  further acknowledges that the Executive has the legal authority to authorize spousal employment pursuant to INA sections 103(1) and 274A (h)(3) Resting on this foundation, the proposed rule further relies on INA sections 214(a)(1), which authorizes the Executive to prescribe regulations setting forth terms and conditions with respect to the admission of nonimmigrants into the United States.  Recognizing that H-1B workers and their spouses would be green card holders but for the backlogs in the priority dates, Commerce Secretary appropriately stated, “These individuals are American families in waiting.”

The granting of work authorization to H-4 spouses if the principal spouse has applied for an AC 21 extension also resolves the conundrum when both spouses are on H-1B visas and are reaching the sixth year on their H-1B visas. Under this situation, the spouse who was not the subject of a labor certification was generally forced to switch to H-4 status, and was then prohibited from continuing employment.  In Two H-1B Spouses: One Labor or Certification we advocated how both spouses could take advantage of the labor certification filed on behalf of one of the spouses in order to get a seventh year extension. While there is a sound basis to argue that AC 21 would benefit the spouse who was relying on the labor certification filed on behalf of the labor certification, since this is the basis for their adjustment of status,  the USCIS did not always interpret AC 21 section 106(a) broadly to benefit both spouses. Now, thankfully, this uncertainty will no longer exist. The spouse who is not the subject of the labor certification can switch to H-4 status and can still apply for work authorization. At the same time, we still advocate that a spouse on an H-1B visa be able to rely on the other spouse’s labor certification or I-140 to seek an H-1B extension beyond the sixth year limitation. There will be occasions when it is more expeditious for the spouse to file an H-1B extension and continue working, rather than file for a change of status to H-4 and then apply for an employment authorization document before re-starting work again. This is an excellent illustration of how doctrinal clarity by the USCIS can promote robust operational flexibility by aliens and their advocates.

The proposed rule also resolves another uncertainty. H-4 spouses who were able to file an I-485 adjustment of status application for permanent residency could always apply for work authorization by virtue of filing the I-485 pursuant to 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(9). What was not clear is whether such H-4 spouses forfeited their right to remain in H-4 status if they engaged in work pursuant to an employment authorization under 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(9) while their I-485 applications remained pending. The proposed rule in footnote 13 appears to suggest that they did not violate their status. The rule will create  8 CFR 274a.12(c)(26) as a basis for H-4 spouses to apply for work authorization, and suggests that H-4 spouses who previously availed of work authorization under 274a.12(c)(9) can also avail of work authorization under 274a.12(c)(26). If the spouse lost H-4 status by engaging in employment pursuant to 274a.12(c)(9), it would not be possible for the H-4 spouse to now take advantage of new 274a.12(c)(26).  As with the H-1B  itself, the proposed H-4 rule recognizes and diffuses the tension between the constraints of nonimmigrant visa categories, such as the H-1B which is employer-specific or the H-4 that  hitherto was not allowed to sustain employment, and the adjustment of status provision in INA Section 245 that grants open market employment.

Many advocates feel that the rule did not go far enough and could have granted work authorization for all H-4 spouses without condition.  After all, the L-1 and E visas, allow dependent spouses to apply for  work authorization immediately upon being admitted under those statuses. On the other hand, the authorization to grant spouses of L and E nonimmigrants work authorization stems from Congress, although J-2 spouses who do not support the principal J-1 exchange visitor work solely through regulation Congress has not specifically authorized work authorization for H-4 spouses, although there is authority in the INS, as discussed, which still provides such authority to the DHS. While this is fair criticism, the Administration also faces withering opposition from anti-immigration advocates, including the likes of Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA), who question whether there is any authority at all to grant work authorization. Hence, the middle ground to grant work authorization benefits to H-4 spouses who are already on the pathway to permanent residence but are caught up in the backlogs. The proposed rule also acknowledges that this ameliorative measure is consistent with AC 21, which was enacted so that the principal H-1B spouses could continue to remain in the United States beyond the sixth year, and thus avoid disruption to US employers. Limiting work authorization to H-4 spouses who are on the pathway to green cards can also more easily insulate such a rule from challenges in federal court.

Still, even under this logic, it would be preferable if H-4 spouses are able to apply for work authorization as soon as a labor certification is filed on behalf of the principal spouse. There is no need to pre-condition the grant of employment authorization upon the approval of the I-140 petition, given the delays in the PERM labor certification process, which can take two years if the application is subject to an audit or to supervised recruitment. The rule also recognizes that an H-4 can apply for employment when a labor certification is filed, but only when it is used to obtain an H-1B extension beyond the six years under AC 21. It is illogical to only allow the H-4 to apply for a work permit when the principal spouse relies on the labor certification to seek an extension beyond six years, and not otherwise. Furthermore, while the majority of H-1B visa holders may be sponsored by employers through I-140 petitions, some H-4 spouses may also be sponsored by prospective employers in their own right. H-4 spouses who are directly sponsored by employers under an I-140 petition should also be allowed to apply for employment authorization. And why limit this to only I-140s? Some H-1Bs or H-4s are also sponsored by qualifying family members through an I-130 petition. They too are Americans in waiting.

Finally, children in H-4 status have been left out and do not have the ability to apply for work authorization. Children of L-1 and E-1 visa holders are also not allowed to work, although children of J-1 visa holders can work. On the other hand, H-4 children can obtain work authorization benefits if they switch to F-1 student visa status.

We continue to call upon Congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform, including the expansion of H-1B visa numbers.  Any administrative initiative, however meaningful or positive, and this one is both, is, by its very nature, both tentative and subject to reversal. Only an INA worthy of the many difficult but exciting challenges that America must confront and master in the 21st century can provide the nation with the vision that it needs and deserves. Yet, until that happy day comes, the USCIS can and must do justice with the law that we all have. That is what has finally happened with H-4 spousal employment. Not a full and complete step certainly, but a stride forward towards a better day.

Something else needs to be said before we go. What we in the United States are dealing with is a global battle for talent. More than any other single immigration issue, the H-1B visa debate highlights the growing and inexorable importance of a skilled entrepreneurial class with superb expertise and a commitment not to company or country, but to their own careers and the technologies on which they are based. They have true international mobility and, like superstar professional athletes, will go to those places where they are paid most handsomely and given a full and rich opportunity to create. We are no longer the only game in town. The debate over the H-1B is, at its core, an argument over whether the United States will continue to embrace this culture, thus reinforcing its competitive dominance in it, or turn away and shrink from the competition and the benefits that await. No decision on H quotas can or should be made separate and apart from an answer to a far more fundamental question: How can we, as a nation, attract and retain that on which our prosperity most directly depends, namely a productive, diverse, stable and highly educated work force irrespective of nationality and do so without sacrificing the dreams and aspirations of our own people whose protection is the first duty and only sure justification for the continuance of that democracy on which all else rests? This is the very heart of the H-1B maze.

An immigration system that restricts the importation of human capital hurts American competitiveness every bit as much as high tariffs or artificial subsidies. In each case, the controlled but predictable flow of capital across national boundaries is the lubricant of economic activity. Preserving the H-1B as an instrument of job creation for Americans while enhancing the ability of foreign professionals to make our cause their own is an essential and irresistible component of comprehensive immigration reform. Allowing some, though not all, H-4 spouses to work is a key step in this direction. The DHS estimates that 100,600 H-4 spouses will apply for work authorization in the first year and 35,900 will initially apply in subsequent years. For those concerned about the impact on the US labor market, these H-4 spouses would in any event be able to work once the principal H-1B spouse applied for adjustment of status. They will also be able to contribute to the US economy, and the incentive provided to them will also encourage the H-1B spouse to stay on in the United States. We have every good hope that is will lead to ever more confident strides in the days to come. It is in the very nature of reform in the liberal tradition for progress to be incremental.  If the Chinese maxim that “the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step,” retains its power to teach,  as we believe it surely does, we who legitimately want much more than the H-4 spousal regulation offers should not, even for a single moment, divert our eyes from the very real progress that has now been taken.

(Guest writer Gary Endelman is the Senior Counsel of FosterQuan)