Cyrus Mehta

New Mutant H-1B Gene – Undifferentiated Engineering Degrees

/0 Comments/in /by

It has become harder to obtain an approval of an H-1B visa petition under the Trump administration. The USCIS insists that an occupation must require a degree in a specific specialty. It constantly moves the goalposts to deny H-1B petitions, even if the occupation was previously readily approvable. A position that requires an engineering degree may now not be so readily approvable for H-1B classification.

Take for example the position of Operations Research Analyst. The Occupational Outlook Handbook, which the USCIS slavishly relies upon, describes the training and educational requirements for an Operations Research Analyst as follows:

“Many entry-level positions are available for those with a bachelor’s degree. However, some employers may prefer to hire applicants with a master’s degree.

Because operations research is based on quantitative analysis, students need extensive coursework in mathematics. Courses include statistics, calculus, and linear algebra. Coursework in computer science is important because analysts rely on advanced statistical and database software to analyze and model data. Courses in other areas, such as engineering, economics, and political science, are useful because operations research is a multidisciplinary field with a wide variety of applications. “

Winning an H-1B for an Operations Research Analyst should be a no brainer. It is clear that a specialized degree is required to enter the field. As the operations research is based on quantitative analysis, an engineering degree can provide the knowledge base for a qualified candidate to enter the field. The USCIS then plays “gotcha” when an operations research position requires an engineering degrees or because of the reference to an engineering degree in the OOH. This is the verbiage that the USCIS includes in its decisions to deny an occupation that may require an engineering degree:

“According to publicly available Internet resources, there are approximately forty (40) different types of engineering degrees ranging in specialties to include but not limited to Mechanical, Ceramics, Civil, Electrical, Environmental, Agricultural, Marine, to Electronics Engineering. As such, it can be determines that the OOH does not indicate that a baccalaureate degree in a specific field of study is the minimum educational requirement for Operations Research Analysts as needed in order to qualify the proffered position as a specialty occupation.”

Till now, it was presumed that an occupation that requires an engineering degree should qualify for H-1B classification. Although there are many types of engineering disciplines, the basic quantitative skills gained in an engineering degree program should equip the worker to perform the technical duties of a specialty occupation whether it is for the position of Operations Research Analyst, Software Developer or Computer Systems Analyst.

Even if the OOH does not refer to an engineering degree, the USCIS tends to object if the employer requires an engineering degree to qualify for the position. Thus, the OOH, with respect to Software Developers, states that “[s]oftware developers usually have a bachelor’s degree in computer science and strong computer programming skills.” But if the prospective H-1B beneficiary qualifies with an engineering degree rather than a degree in computer science, the USCIS will use that to either issue a request for evidence or deny the petition.

It seems that the engineering degree is suffering the same fate as the business degree. Requiring a general purpose business degree without more has never fared too well. The H-1B petition filed by an upscale Thai restaurant that required its manager to have a general purpose business degree was shot down. See e.g. Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139 (1st Cir 2007). Still, the Appeals Administrative Office in a recent non-precedential decision, Matter of C-B-S- Inc., ID# 1308199 (AAO Sept. 6, 2018), has stated that “a bachelor’s or higher degree in business administration combined with relevant education, training, and/or experience may, in certain instances, qualify the proffered position as a specialty occupation.”  The same logic should apply more so for an engineering degree. In fact, it can more be easily shown that the technical knowledge gained from an engineering degree, whether it is electrical or mechanical, ought to qualify the H-1B worker to be a software developer or an operations research analyst.

Both petitioners and beneficiaries should not take these denials lying down. As explained in a prior blog, such denials are in contravention to how a specialty occupation is defined under the INA. Under INA § 214(i)(1) a “specialty occupation” is  defined as an occupation that requires

  • Theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and
  • Attainment of a bachelor’s or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States

It is not so obvious from a reading of INA 214(i)(1) that only occupations such as law or medicine would qualify for an H-1B visa on the assumption that only degrees  in law or medicine would allow entry into the occupation. Even in law, a law degree may not always be required. One can qualify to take the bar exam in some states through an apprenticeship in a law office. A physician may also qualify through either a Doctor of Medicine (MD) degree or through a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO). If the USCIS reads INA 214(i)(1) as applying to an occupation that requires a degree in one single specialty, as it is tending to with engineering degrees, then no occupation will qualify for the H-1B visa.  This is clearly not what Congress intended.   INA § 214(i)(1) ought to be read more broadly.

The USCIS should revert to a more commonsensical reading of the H-1B visa provision. In Tapis International v INS, 94 F. Supp. 2d 172, the court held that a “position may qualify as a specialty occupation if the employer requires a bachelor’s degree or its equivalent. For the “equivalent” language to have any reasonable meaning, it must encompass …….various combinations of academic and experience based training. It defies logic to read the bachelor’s requirement of “specialty occupation” to include only those positions where a specific bachelor’s degree is offered.” The USCIS should be forced to adhere to holding in Tapis International.

Even if an employer requires a degree in engineering, in conjunction with a degree in computer science, it is atrocious for the USCIS to deny the H-1B petition because the engineering degree cannot qualify the worker for H-1B classification. The USCIS cannot categorically deny H-1B petitions because there exist 40 disciplines within engineering without considering the employer’s justification for such disciplines and how the prospective H-1B worker qualifies for the position. The USCIS must review this requirement in the context of the employer’s business. If a small mom and pop general retail store requires an engineering degree, the USICIS would be justified in looking at such an H-1B petition with skepticism.   On the other hand, a company that requires an analyst to design and develop a sophisticated artificial intelligence marketing tool should be able to justify degrees in computer science, engineering, math, business analysis or marketing. Each of these fields, and the specific coursework that was taken, would potentially equip an H-1B beneficiary to perform different aspects of the duties of the position.  An employer should also not be expected to specify the engineering field or limit the degree requirement to one specialty. The employer can have a general engineering degree requirement, and then assert in each petition, why the H-1B worker through the knowledge gained in his or her engineering degree program, whether it is electronics, civil or ceramic, equips the worker to perform the duties of the specialty occupation.

If the mutant H-1B gene afflicting engineering degrees is not excised, what is there to stop the USCIS from asserting the same logic to degrees in law or medicine? Could the USCIS assert that a JD degree or equivalent foreign law degree requirement is so general purpose that the employer must demonstrate the specialization within the law degree that would equip the H-1B worker to perform the duties of the position of a corporate attorney? Of course, that would make no sense. The knowledge developed from a law degree allows the prospective attorney to perform his or her duties in any legal specialization, be it corporate, tax or immigration law. This should be the case even if the attorney never took a course in corporate or immigration law in law school.     The same logic should apply to the knowledge developed in an engineering degree that would equip the H-1B worker to perform the specialized duties of a software developer position or an operations research position. If both positions rely on quantitative skills, those skills could be gained through an engineering degree program whether it was in civil or aeronautical engineering.   If the USCIS wholesale turns down H-1B petitions for positions that require an engineering degree, an employer should seek to challenge the denials in federal court, which like aggressive chemo therapy could potentially place the cancer in remission.

 

Cora-Ann Pestaina

USCIS Denying Change Of Status For F-1 Students With Over 12 Months Of Curricular Practical Training

/0 Comments/in /by

An F-1 student who has received more than 12 months of Curricular Practical Training (CPT) may be found by United States Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS), to have violated F-1 status and thus ineligible to be granted a change of status in the US. This is yet another disturbing trend that we first mentioned in an earlier blog where we indicated that USCIS had started challenging F-1 maintenance of status through CPT by issuing Requests for Evidence on pending H-1B petitions requesting a change of status in the US.

Essentially, 8 CFR § 214.2(f)(10) provides that a student may be authorized a total of 12 months of practical training, and becomes eligible for another 12 months when the student changes to a higher educational level. Under 8 CFR § 214.2(f)(10)(i), however,  “students who have received one year or more of full time curricular practical training are ineligible for post-completion academic training.” Note that the inclusion of “academic training” appears to be an obvious typographical error, and it ought to have been “practical training” when the rule was last promulgated on 12/11/2002. [revised 10/25/2018] This could clearly be interpreted to mean that a student can receive more than one year of CPT and, if so granted, this student would simply become ineligible to receive any practical training after graduation. This appears to have been the prevailing interpretation by all government agencies and CPT has continued to be routinely granted by Designated Student Officers (DSO) through the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) that is administered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Enter the new USCIS in the era of Trump. Suddenly, USCIS has begun to interpret the regulations to mean that a student may only be granted a total of 12 months of any type of practical training. This, despite the fact that ICE, its sister agency, authorized more than 12 months of CPT. USCIS is choosing to completely disregard the unmistakable indication in 8 CFR § 214.2(f)(10)(i) that students may legitimately receive “one year or more” of CPT.

It is painfully obvious that the intent behind the regulation was only to prohibit students who had received more than 12 months of CPT from then also receiving Optional Practical Training (OPT) after graduation. The intent was not to penalize a student for receiving more than 12 months of CPT. First, the student could not receive more than 12 months of CPT if the CPT weren’t actually granted by a school DSO and entered into SEVIS. Accordingly, if there were any violation, it should be on the part of the school and not the student. The student should not be punished for failure to maintain status when that student followed all the appropriate steps to maintain status. Second, why is USCIS making a determination that such a student failed to maintain status when ICE is the agency that administers the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP)? If ICE has not determined that a student failed to maintain status and if SEVIS indicates that the student is currently in status, then USCIS ought to acknowledge that. If there had truly been a violation of status then SEVIS would have so indicated.  And third, the regulations at 8 CFR § 214.2(f)(10) are simply outdated. In March 2016, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) amended its F-1 student visa regulations on OPT for certain students with degrees in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) from SEVP-certified and accredited U.S. colleges and universities. Specifically, the final rule allows such F-1 STEM students who have elected to pursue 12 months of OPT in the U.S. to extend the OPT period by 24 months (STEM OPT extension). See 8 CFR § 214.2(f)(10)(ii)(C). Perhaps DHS could have also amended the regulations and removed all outdated sentences. Unfortunately, USCIS is now seizing upon such a sentence and using it to launch another attack on F-1 students.

In the case of the H-1B petition, USCIS can approve the underlying H-1B but deny the request for a change of status. In order to obtain H-1B status, the student would need to leave the US and apply for an H-1B visa at a US Consulate or Embassy abroad. At this point in time, upon receipt of a USCIS denial of a request for a change of status on an H-1B petition, the F-1 student would only have accrued unlawful presence from August 9, 2018 under USCIS’ unlawful presence policy for F, J and M nonimmigrants. Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence during a single stay, and then depart, may be subject to 3-year or 10-year bars to admission, depending on how much unlawful presence they accrued before they departed the United States. See INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) & (II).  Individuals who have accrued a total period of more than one year of unlawful presence, whether in a single stay or during multiple stays in the United States, and who then reenter or attempt to reenter the United States without being admitted or paroled, are permanently inadmissible. See INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(1). Very few students will trigger the permanent bar as they generally do not try to reenter the US without being admitted or paroled.   Students in receipt of a denial of a change of status can take advantage of the current grace period until February 5, 2019. However, if the student departs the US later than February 5, 2019, he or she will be barred from re-entering for 3 or 10 years.

So what can be done? More so than ever before, F-1 students really need to be proactive about their maintenance of status and need to seek legal advice in the event that any rules are unclear or even just to ensure that they are on the right track. It will not be enough to rely on the DSO’s advice as the student will be the one punished in the end. But the bottom line is that this USCIS policy must be challenged in federal court! It is simply unconscionable to inflict the 3 and 10 year bars on a student who has diligently sought to maintain status in the US.

Cyrus Mehta

The Vulnerable Returning Green Card Holder Under the Proposed Public Charge Rule

/0 Comments/in /by

The notion of public charge has existed in our immigration laws since more than a century.  The Trump administration’s new proposed public charge rule, however, interprets   “is likely at any time to become a public charge” under INA 212(a)(4) in a way that would make it more difficult for people with lower incomes or less education, or who have received public benefits, to become permanent residents, obtain visas, or extend or change/adjust their nonimmigrant visa status. Consistent with other policy changes to restrict legal immigration by the Trump administration, the proposed public charge rule will reorder our immigration system without going through Congress in favor of affluent and younger immigrants.

The rule essentially applies to applicants for admission to the United States. These include people seeking admission at ports of entry, seeking an extension or change of status as well as those applying for adjustment of status. As a general matter, lawful permanent residents, or green card holders, are not considered applicants for admission and are not subject to the rule. However, certain returning lawful permanent residents may be considered applicants for admission and thus subject to the proposed rule.

Take the example of an elderly parent of a US citizen who got her green card a little over five years ago. She has the usual chronic health problems that a person of her age usually has such as a heart condition and diabetes. She does not speak English too well and has a basic high school education. She has been a homemaker all her life.  She spent a little over six months in China to dispose valuable ancestral property, and then returned to the United States where she stays with her US citizen daughter, spouse and their minor children. She devotes her time in taking loving care of her grandchildren, and attending to all their needs, while their parents pursue high powered productive careers in the US.  As a returning resident whose trip abroad was over 180 days, she could potentially be deemed likely to become a public charge when she travels back to the US.

Currently, those who are likely to become a burden on the government can already be excluded if they accept certain cash benefits. The proposed rule would greatly expand the definition of public benefits to include in kind benefits. The public benefits proposed to be designated in this rule include federal, state, local, or tribal cash assistance for income maintenance, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid (with limited exceptions for Medicaid benefits paid for an “emergency medical condition,” and for certain disability services related to education), Medicare Part D Low Income Subsidy, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or food stamps), institutionalization for long-term care at government expense, Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance, and public housing. The first three benefits listed above are cash benefits that are already covered under current policy.

The returning resident who receives any of the above public benefits could potentially be found to likely become a public charge at the airport. She would be deemed inadmissible and placed in removal proceedings by a Customs and Border Protection officer, and would have to contest the public charge determination before an Immigration Judge. Although the rule was initiated by the USCIS, it is still a DHS rule and the CBP is bound by it. The EOIR has not yet proposed a companion rule, but an IJ could potentially find the rule persuasive after CBP places the returning resident in removal proceedings.

Even if the elderly returning resident in our example is not receiving these benefits, she would still be at risk. The proposed rule would also require an immigrant to earn at least 125 percent of the federal poverty guidelines, and states that a household income of 250 percent of that level would be deemed “heavily positive.” Heavily weighted positive factors would include “significant income, assets, and resources.” Income and financial status would be considered as part of the “totality of the circumstances.” Heavily weighed negative factors include inability to demonstrate current or prospect of future employment, receipt of one or more public benefits, as described above, being diagnosed with a medical condition that is likely to require extensive medical treatment or institutionalization, or that the person is uninsured and does not have the ability to obtain private health insurance.

The proposed rule indicates that an applicant’s education and skills “are mandatory statutory factors that must be considered when determining whether an alien is likely to become a public charge in the future.” Our grandmother may not make it.  In general, someone with educational credentials and skills “is more employable and less likely to become a public charge.” DHS, therefore, proposes that when considering this factor, the agency would consider “whether the alien has adequate education and skills to either obtain or maintain employment sufficient to avoid becoming a public charge, if authorized for employment,” to include consideration of the applicant’s history of employment, English proficiency, licenses, certifications, and academic degrees. Age would also be considered, with an age of less than 18 or greater than 61 requiring a demonstration of employment or sufficient household assets and resources. Negative considerations would include limited English proficiency and adverse physical or mental health. Some deemed inadmissible on public charge grounds might be allowed to pay for a public charge bond at the risk of losing it if they use any of the listed benefits.

The preamble to the proposed rule at footnote 176, and elsewhere at footnotes 66 and 72, ominously points out that lawful permanent residents would be considered applicants for admission under INA 101(a)(13)(C). Proposed 8 CFR 212.20 states that the provisions of the rule are applicable to “an applicant for admission or adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident.” Reproduced, below, is the text of INA 101(a)(13)(C):

“ An alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States shall not be regarded as seeking an admission into the United States for purposes of the immigration laws unless the alien –

  • has abandoned or relinquished that status,
  • has been absent from the United States for a continuous period in excess of 180 days,
  • has engaged in illegal activity after having departed the United States,
  • has departed from the United States while under legal process seeking removal of the alien from the United States, including removal proceedings under this Act and extradition proceedings,
  • has committed an offense identified in section 212(a)(2), unless since such offense the alien has been granted relief under section 212(h) or 240A(a), or
  • is attempting to enter at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers or has not been admitted to the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.”

The returning permanent resident in our example who returns from a trip abroad that was more than 180 days would be treated as an applicant for admission under INA 101(a)(13)(C)(ii), and thus vulnerable to being considered inadmissible pursuant to INA 212(a)(4). INA 240(c)(2) requires an applicant for admission to demonstrate by “clear and convincing evidence” that he or she is “lawfully present in the US pursuant to a prior admission.”  Indeed, INA 240(c)(2) places the burden on an applicant for admission to prove “clearly and beyond doubt” that he or she is not inadmissible.  On the other hand, with respect to non-citizens being placed in removal proceedings, INA 240(c)(3), also enacted by IIRIRA, keeps the burden on the government to establish deportability by “clear and convincing” evidence.

If a returning resident is placed in removal proceedings, she should not accept that the burden of proof is on her to demonstrate that she is not inadmissible notwithstanding INA 240(c)(2). Rather, she must advocate that the burden is on the government to establish through clear and convincing evidence that she is inadmissible. If she is asked to fill out the humongous Form I-944, or a similar form that the CBP may issue, the government is placing the burden on the permanent resident, which would be in violation of her rights as a permanent resident.

It has historically been the case that when an applicant for admission has a colorable claim to lawful permanent resident status, the burden is on the government to show that he or she is not entitled to that status by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence. This standard was established by the Supreme Court in Woodby v. INS, which held that the burden was on the government to prove by “clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence” that the permanent should be deported from the United States. Subsequent to Woodby, in Landon v. Plasencia, the Supreme Court held that a returning resident be accorded due process in exclusion proceedings and that the Woodby standard be applied equally to a permanent resident in exclusion proceedings.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”) introduced the notion of “admission” in INA §101(a)(13)(C).  “Admission” replaced the pre-IIRIRA “entry” doctrine as enunciated in Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449 (1963), which held that a permanent resident was not considered making an entry into the US if his or her departure was “brief, innocent or casual.” Under §101(a)(13)(C), an LPR shall not be regarded as seeking admission “unless” he or she meets six specific criteria, which include the permanent abandoning or relinquishing that status or having been absent for a continuous period in excess of 180 days. Fleuti has been partially restored in Vartelas v. Holder with respect to grounds of inadmissibility that got triggered prior to the enactment of IIRIRA.  If Fleuti is someday completely restored, as has been argued in a prior blog, then the permanent resident will no longer be considered an applicant for admission.

Notwithstanding the introduction of INA 101(a)(13)(C), the Woodby standard still prevails and nothing in 101(a)(13(C) overrules it, and the burden of proof is still on the government. This was established in 2011 by the Board of Immigration Appeals in Matter of Rivens, which held:

“Given this historical practice and the absence of any evidence that Congress intended a different allocation of standard of proof to apply in removal cases arising under current section 101(a)(13)(C) of the Act, we hold that the respondent – whose lawful permanent resident status is uncontested – cannot be found removable under the section 212(a) grounds of inadmissibility unless the DHS first proves by clear and convincing evidence [footnote omitted] that he is to be regarded as an applicant for admission in this case by having “committed an offense identified in section 212(a)(2).”

What Rivens left open is that once the government has met its burden of establishing that the returning resident is an applicant for admission, whether the burden shifts to the applicant that she is not inadmissible or whether the burden still rests on the government. In Rivens, INA 101(a)(13)(C)(v) coincided with the ground of inadmissibility under INA 212(a)(2), a criminal ground,  and therefore the BIA did not have to decide the question. With respect to a returning resident in our example, who has been deemed to be an applicant for admission under INA 101(a)(13)(C)(ii), the ground of inadmissibility will not coincide as it will be the public charge ground under INA 212(a)(4).   Although INA §240(c)(2) places the burden on an applicant for admission to prove “clearly and beyond doubt” that he or she is not inadmissible, it ought to be argued that with respect to returning permanent residents, under Woodby, which has survived I01(a)(13)(C), the clear and convincing standard pursuant to INA 240(c)(3) ought to apply.

A returning resident who travels back to the US after a trip of more than 180 days, and is charged with inadmissibility under 212(a)(4) must assert, in removal proceedings, that the burden of proof is still on the government under Woodby. The government ought to be able to establish this through clear and convincing evidence.  The permanent resident should thus be able to remain silent, not complete any form or questionnaire, and it would be on the government to prove that the person sought disqualifying benefits to establish that she is likely to become a public charge. The proposed rule appears to presume that the burden is on the returning resident that she is not inadmissible as a public charge, which clearly violates the Woodby standard and thus the due process right of the permanent resident.

It is strongly recommended that all those who are concerned about the proposed rule should send in comments by December 10, 2018. Although this blog focuses on the vulnerability of returning permanent residents, a good summary of the rule and how it will adversely impact applicants for visa benefits and permanent residency is available here, https://immigrationforum.org/article/public-charge-proposed-regulations-summary/.  The proposed rule is going to be challenged on a number of grounds in federal court. The rule should also be challenged on the ground that it violates the due process rights of lawful permanent residents by shifting the burden of proof onto them contrary to what the Supreme Court held in Woodby v. INS and Landon v. Plasencia, and as affirmed more recently by the BIA in Matter of Rivens.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cora-Ann Pestaina

F-1 Cap Gap Students In Limbo From October 1, 2018 Onward If Their H-1B Cases Have Not Been Approved

/0 Comments/in /by

It is October 1, 2018 and this morning, in what is an extremely unfortunate yet totally preventable situation, businesses across the U.S. were forced to temporarily terminate the employment of F-1 students who were previously employed pursuant to their cap-gap extension period.

Briefly, the cap-gap extension regulation temporarily extends the OPT (Optional Practical Training) period for F-1 students with pending H-1B petitions and requests for change of status. The cap-gap period starts when an F-1 student’s status and work authorization expire, and they are extended through September 30th, the end of fiscal year. The ongoing suspension of USCIS’ premium processing service, previously discussed in one of our earlier blogs, has critically impacted H-1B cap subject petitions for F-1 students in the cap-gap extension period. USCIS has found a way to basically suffocate the H-1B visa program.

USCIS extended the suspension of premium processing for fiscal year 2019 cap-subject H-1B petitions which was originally slated to last until September 10, 2018, through to an estimated date of February, 19, 2019. USCIS’ premium processing service has always been a heavily utilized option for U.S. businesses providing them with a significantly faster adjudication timeline of a few weeks instead of the regular processing time of 6-9 months! The premium processing option also allowed businesses to ensure that their professional staff would be available to meet critical project timelines and thus allowed them to plan accordingly. Employers had to offer the jobs prior to April 1, and then file H-1B petitions on behalf of the foreign national within the first five days of April 2018 to be considered in the H-1B visa lottery.  Under the H-1B regulations, an H-1B petition may not be filed or approved earlier than six months before the date of actual need for the beneficiary’s services or training. Therefore, U.S. employers are unable to file an H-1B petition on behalf of a prospective employee more than six months from the intended start date but the processing of that H-1B petition may take well beyond six months.  Without premium processing, many employers are left unable to hire the H-1B worker on October 1, 2018 even though the job offer was made more than six months ago and the petition is potentially approvable. In addition, premium processing was also a great tool for the F-1 student. Imagine having a petition filed on your behalf in the first week of April and for the next 6-9 months, or likely longer, being unable to make any concrete plans for your future, including not knowing whether you would be allowed to remain in the US or have to immediately pack your bags and leave.

USCIS stated that the suspension of premium processing is necessary in order to allow the agency to “[b]e responsive to petitions with time-sensitive start dates” but it is not clear why F-1 students who are in a cap-gap extension period failed to qualify as having time-sensitive start dates. U.S. employers forced to suspend the employment of these F-1 students have no recourse. USCIS has indicated that these petitioners may submit a request for expedited processing but the expedite process is grossly unreliable and it is not clear how these requests are being processed. It is by no means a viable alternative to premium processing.

As of October 1, F-1 students previously employed pursuant to a cap-gap extension are no longer authorized to work and will start accruing unlawful presence in the U.S. if they continue to work under the new unlawful presence policy applicable to students. However, the F-1 student generally may remain in the United States while the change of status petition is pending without accruing unlawful presence, provided they do not work without authorization. This student also cannot travel during the limbo period, unless he or she is prepared to return to the US after the H-1B petition is approved on a new H-1B visa. But one should not assume that the H-1B petition will get approved in a climate where the Trump administration is routinely challenging H-1B petitions for occupations that were previously easily approved.  Although the USCIS has at this time delayed its removal policy with respect to employment-based petitions that ultimately get denied, the delay will not be indefinite and these F-1 cap students will find themselves not just  accruing unlawful presence, but will also find themselves facing removal proceedings if the H-1B petition and the request for change of status is denied.

Of course, if an F-1 student with a pending change of status H-1B petition has work authorization (such as a valid Employment Authorization Document (EAD)) that extends past September 30th they may continue to work as authorized.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) has called on USCIS to immediately lift the premium processing suspension on FY 2019 H-1B cap-subject petitions for beneficiaries who are in a cap-gap extension period, or alternatively, to publish a notice in the Federal Register extending the cap-gap work authorization period to at least 90 days beyond September 30, 2018, or until all FY 2019 H-1B cap cases can be adjudicated. To date USCIS has issued no response to this request.

In choosing to so suffocate the H-1B visa program, USCIS is restricting legal immigration and fulfilling the Trump administration’s objective under its “Buy American and Hire American” Executive Order No. 13788. But a negative chain reaction easily ensues with an immigration policy influenced by BAHA:  U.S. businesses cannot remain competitive if they are unable to hire the best students graduating from US universities, including foreign students in F-1 status.  U.S. universities will get hurt if they cannot attract the best students in the world who also pay full tuition fees. The U.S. loses out as a nation if it cannot compete with other countries for the best and brightest. The only way out of this downward spiral is for this administration to come to its senses and provide much needed oxygen to the H-1B program it has cruelly strangulated by restoring premium processing and adjudicating bona fide H-1B petitions more sensibly so that they get approved rather than denied.

 

 

 

 

Cyrus Mehta

Recipe for Confusion: USCIS Says Only the Final Action Date in Visa Bulletin Protects a Child’s Age Under the Child Status Protection Act

/1 Comment/in /by

The Child Status Protection Act is one of the most complex pieces of immigration legislation. Passed in 2002, the CSPA protects the age of children who would otherwise not qualify as children if they turned 21. The lack of any regulation has made the legislation even more confusing especially in light of more recent developments such as the introduction of the  dual chart State Department Visa Bulletin in October 2015.

On August 24, 2018, however, the USCIS Policy Manual consolidated the guidance on the CSPA that the USCIS has developed over the years, and definitively confirmed that the Final Action Date in the State Department Visa Bulletin  protects the age of the child rather than the Filing Date. There are other significant interpretative changes too, but this blog will focus on the change relating to the  interplay between the dual chart Visa Bulletin and the CSPA.

On October 1, 2015, DOS introduced two charts in the monthly visa bulletin – Chart A – Final Action Dates and Chart B – Filing Dates.  The Filing Date in the Visa Bulletin potentially allows for the early filing of I-485 adjustment of status applications if eligible applicants are in the United States and the filing of visa applications if they are outside the country. The Final Action Date is the date when permanent residency (the green card) can be granted.  The Filing Date, if the USCIS so determines, allows for the early submission of an I-485 application prior to the date when the green card actually become available. Similarly for those who are outside the United States and processing for an immigrant visa overseas, the Filing Date allows applicants to submit the DS-260 immigrant visa application and become documentarily qualified prior to the issuance of the immigrant visa when the Final Date becomes available. The DOS has historically issued a qualifying date prior to the visa becoming available so that applicants could begin processing their visas. This informal qualifying dates system morphed into a more formal Filing Date in the Visa Bulletin from October 1, 2015 onwards. As a result, the USCIS also got involved in the administering of the Visa Bulletin with respect to the filing of I-485 adjustment applications. Even if the Filing Date becomes available, it is the USCIS that determines whether applicants can file an I-485 application or not each month.

The Filing Date has become practically useless for employment-based I-485 applicants since USCIS only allowed I-485 applications to be filed pursuant to the Filing Date in October 2015 and November 2015. Since December 2015, USCIS has never allowed employment-based adjustment applicants to file their I-485s under the Filing Date. On the other hand, the USCIS allows family-based beneficiaries of I-130 petitions to file I-485 applications under the Filing Date, and has continued to so in the September 2018 and the forthcoming October 2018 Visa Bulletins.

Using the Filing Date to protect the age of the child who is nearing the age of 21 is clearly more advantageous – the Filing Date becomes available sooner than the Final Action Date. As of August 24, 2018, the USCIS has made clear through the Policy Manual that only the Final Action Date can be used to determine and freeze the age of a child. Thus, if an I-485 application is filed pursuant to a Filing Date and the child ages out before the Final Action Date becomes available, the child will no longer be protected despite being permitted to file an I-485 application. The I-485 application will get denied, and if the child no longer has an underlying nonimmigrant status, can be put in great jeopardy through the commencement of removal proceedings, and even if removal proceedings are not commenced, can start accruing unlawful presence, which can trigger the 3 and 10 year bars to reentry. If the child filed the I-485 as a derivative with the parent, the parent can get approved for permanent residence when the Final Action Date becomes available while the child’s application gets denied.

In order to avoid such an absurd and cruel outcome, I have consistently advocated that there is a clear legal basis to use the Filing Date to protect the age of a child under the CSPA. While the USCIS has not agreed, I continue to advocate that affected children can challenge USCIS’ interpretation in federal court. There may also be a basis to challenge this interpretation before an Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals, and further before a Court of Appeals, if the applicant is placed in removal proceedings upon the denial of the I-485 application. Immigration Judges are not bound by the USCIS Policy Manual.  The USCIS Policy Manual is not law, although applicants should follow the Final Action Date for making the CSPA age calculation unless they have no choice but to challenge this interpretation.

Here is how one can argue the case for CSPA protection under the Filing Date: INA 245(a)(3) only allows for the filing of an I-485 adjustment of status application when “an immigrant visa is immediately available.” Yet, I-485 applications, at least family-based under the current Visa Bulletin, can be filed under the Filing Date rather than the Final Action Date. This suggests that the term “immigrant visa is immediately available” has been interpreted more broadly to encompass dates ahead of when a green card becomes available. Indeed, the Visa Bulletin describes the Filing Date as  “dates for filing visa applications within a timeframe justifying immediate action in the application process.” Under this permissible interpretation, I-485 applications can be filed pursuant to  INA 245(a)(3) under the  Filing Date. There is a difference, for example, in the F2A worldwide Final Action Date in the September 2018 Visa Bulletin, which is July 22, 2016, and the F2A worldwide Filing Date, which is December 1, 2017. Thus, under the Filing Date, those with later priority dates, December 1, 2017,  can file I-485 applications even though those with an earlier priority date, July 22, 2016,  are actually eligible to receive the green card. Still, applicants who file I-485s under both the Filing Date and the Final Action Date must satisfy INA 245(a)(3), which only permits the filing of an I-485 application when “an immigrant visa is immediately available.”

Under INA 203(h)(1)(A), which codified Section 3 of the CSPA,  the age of the child under 21 is locked on the “date on which an immigrant visa number becomes available…but only if the [child] has sought to acquire the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residency within one year of such availability.” If the child’s age is over 21 years, it can be subtracted by the amount of time the applicable petition was pending. See INA 203(h)(1)(B).

Under INA 245(a)(3), an I-485 application can only be filed when an  “immigrant visa is immediately available.”

Therefore, there is no meaningful difference in the verbiage relating to visas availability – “immigrant visa becomes available” and “immigrant visa is immediately available” under INA 203(h)(1)(A) and INA 245(a)(3) respectively. If an adjustment application can be filed based on a Filing Date pursuant to 245(a)(3), then the interpretation regarding visa availability under 203(h)(1)(A) should be consistent, and so the Filing Date ought to freeze the age of the child, and the child may seek to acquire permanent residency within 1 year of visa availability, which can be either the Filing Date or the Final Action Date.

Unfortunately, USCIS disagrees. It justifies its position through the following convoluted explanation that makes no sense: “If an applicant files based on the Dates for Filing chart prior to the date of visa availability according to the Final Action Dates chart, USCIS considers the applicant to have met the sought to acquire requirement. However, the applicant’s CSPA age calculation is dependent on visa availability according to the Final Action Dates chart. Applicants who file based on the Dates for Filing chart may not ultimately be eligible for CSPA if their calculated CSPA age based on the Final Action Dates chart is 21 or older.” The USCIS recognizes that the sought to acquire requirement is met when an I-485 is filed under the Filing Date, but only the Final Action Date can freeze the age! This reasoning is inconsistent. If an applicant is allowed to meet the sought to acquire requirement from the Filing Date, the age should also similarly freeze on the Filing Date and not the Final Action Date. Now, based  on USCIS’s inconsistent logic, the I-485s of many children will get denied if they aged out before the Final Action Date became available. These children must not hesitate to challenge USCIS’s interpretation. Government policy manuals are not the law, and when there is an erroneous interpretation, they ought to be challenged so that USCIS is forced to make the appropriate correction.

Cyrus Mehta

Suspension of Premium Processing: Another Attack On the H-1B Program

/2 Comments/in /by

The Trump administration has restricted the H-1B program by making it harder for employers to obtain an approval. It has done this without changing the law through Congress or amending any rule.  Routine H-1B visa petitions that were previously approvable are now subject to difficult to overcome Requests for Evidence. Even after valiantly submitting evidence to overcome an RFE, the H-B petition is more susceptible to being denied.  The USCIS has also announced that it will initiate removal proceedings in case an extension request is denied and the underlying H-1B status previously expired, further harassing H-1B workers who have remained lawfully in the United States until the point their H-1B request is denied under needless heightened scrutiny.  It is thus no surprise that businesses are loudly complaining on Labor Day that they are hurting because they are struggling to fill the jobs they need with foreign workers.

To rub further salt in the wound, USICS announced on August 28, 2018, that it was  extending the previously announced temporary suspension of premium processing for cap-subject H-1B petitions and, beginning Sept. 11, 2018, will be expanding this temporary suspension to include certain additional H-1B petitions. These suspensions are expected to last until Feb. 19, 2019. Premium processing service provides expedited processing for a specific list of employment-based immigrant and nonimmigrant petitions upon paying an additional fee. This list has always included the H-1B petition.

The expanded temporary suspension applies to all H-1B petitions filed at the Vermont and California Service Centers (except for filings by certain cap exempt employers).

The previously announced suspension of premium processing for fiscal year 2019 cap-subject H-1B petitions was originally slated to last until Sept. 10, 2018, but that suspension is being extended through an estimated date of Feb. 19, 2019.

The USCIS has specifically indicated that the suspension does not apply to:

  1. Cap-exempt petitions that are filed exclusively at the California Service Center because the employer is cap exempt or because the beneficiary will be employed at a qualifying cap exempt institution, entity, or organization; or
  2. Those petitions filed exclusively at the Nebraska Service Center by an employer requesting a “Continuation of previously approved employment without change with the same employer” (Box b. on Part 2, Question 2, Page 2 of the current Form I-129) with a concurrent request to:
    1. Notify the office in Part 4 so each beneficiary can obtain a visa or be admitted. (Box on Part 2, Question 4, Page 2 of the current Form I-129); or
    2. Extend the stay of each beneficiary because the beneficiary now holds this status. (Box c. on Part 2, Question 4, Page 2 of the current Form I-129).

The reasoning behind the extension and expansion of the suspension of premium processing, according to the USCIS, is to help it to reduce overall H-1B processing times by allowing it to:

  • Process long-pending petitions, which we have been unable to process due to the high volume of incoming petitions and premium processing requests over the past few months;
  • Be responsive to petitions with time-sensitive start dates; and
  • Prioritize adjudication of H-1B extension of status cases that are nearing the 240-day mark.

This may be the official position of USCIS, but it is no coincidence that  continuing the suspension as well as expanding it nicely fits into the administration’s objective to further restrict the H-1B visa program pursuant to “Buy American and Hire American” Executive Order No. 13788. BAHA has been deployed as a justification to restrict legal immigration for the purpose of protecting American workers. However, this rationale makes no sense in a full employment economy when businesses are hurting because they cannot hire foreign workers. Therefore, the only other possible rationale to restrict legal immigration is to advance white nationalism, which is what Trump promised and continues to promise to his base of supporters.

The extension of the previously suspended premium processing for H-1B cap cases means that employers who were expecting foreign nationals to start their jobs on October 1, 2018 may no longer be able to do so if the H-1B petition is not approved. This renders the H-1B visa program virtually useless. Employers had to offer the jobs prior to April 1, and then file H-1B petitions on behalf of the foreign national within the first five days of April 2018 to be considered in the H-1B visa lottery. Since USCIS received 190,098 H-1B cases earlier this year, which exceeded the maximum 85,000 H-1B visas that can be issued, more applications got rejected rather than accepted under the H-1B lottery this year. Those H-1B petitions that got selected are susceptible to receiving an RFE and a possible denial under the new heightened scrutiny policy.  Moreover,  there are many cases that have not been adjudicated since they were filed in early April 2018, and without premium processing, employers will likely not be able to hire the H-1B worker on October 1, 2018 even though the job offer was made more than six months ago and the petition is potentially approvable. Students who are working for the employer under F-1 Cap Gap Optional Practical Training will have to stop on October 1, 2018 unless the change of status request from F-1 to H-1B is approved on or before that date.

The expansion of the suspension of premium processing means that those H-1B visa holders who are changing employers will not be able to get the assurance of an approval when they make the switch. Although an H-1B worker can port to a new job without waiting for the approval, so long as the employment starts after the new employer has filed the H-1B petition and request for extension of status, both employers and H-1B workers would like the security of an approval before they start their new jobs. The expansion of the suspension of premium processing will hinder mobility of H-1B workers. This in turn will hinder competitiveness and will also inhibit skilled H-1B workers from improving career prospects and getting better compensation, resulting in an adverse impact on US competitiveness in the long run. The suspension of premium processing further feeds into the USCIS’s new removal policy. If an H-1B worker takes a chance to port to a new employer, and if that petition, along with the extension of status request, is subsequently denied after several months of delay due to lack of premium processing, this person could be at risk of receiving a Notice to Appear and will be placed in removal proceedings.

Furthermore, an employer is required to request an amendment of the H-1B petition if the worker is being sent to a new worksite that was not contemplated in the original H-1B petition. The suspension of premium processing for amending an H-1B petition also creates further uncertainty as to the fate of the amendment request that may be challenged and denied under the heightened scrutiny being given to such petitions under the Trump administration.

The only saving grace is that premium processing has not been suspended for extension requests with the same employer. Still, caution is advised since premium processing is only allowed if  box 2.b in Part 2 relating to “Continuation of previously approved employment without change with the same employer ” is checked. If box 2.c is checked – “Change in previously approved employment” – then premium processing will not be allowed. The instructions to Form I-129 state that box 2.c should be checked when there is a non-material change in the employment such as a change in job title but without a material change in duties. There are bound to be non-material changes to the job duties, including salary increases, at the time of filing any H-1B extension request.  Till now, USCIS has not paid close attention to whether box 2.b or 2.c is checked, since a non-material change in the job could still be considered  a “[c]ontinuation of previously approved employment.” Otherwise, if the change was material, then an amendment must have been filed prior to the expiration of the H-1B validity period.  However, as a commentator to this blog has astutely suggested,  one can now expect the Nebraska Service Center to pay closer attention to these meaningless distinctions in order to play “gotcha” and deny premium processing if 2.b rather than 2.c was checked. It is hoped that the NSC will consider non-material changes as a continuation of previously approved employment, but one should not bank on reason these days when the mindset of the Trump administration is to restrict immigration!    Cap exempt employers can also avail of premium processing, but they are few in comparison to the overall population of employers who file H-1B petitions. Premium processing for other visa categories has not been suspended. While premium processing is suspended, petitioners may submit a request to expedite an H-1B petition if they meet the criteria on the Expedite Criteria webpage. However, USCIS very grudgingly accepts expedited requests.

The USCIS has been suspending premium processing with greater frequency in recent times. It did so last on April 3, 2017 and resumed it again on September 18, 2017. USCIS again suspended premium processing for H-1B cap cases on April 2, 2018, and has now extended the suspension to February 11,  2019, in addition to expanding the suspension to other types of H-1B filings. Premium processing generates fees, which can result in more transformation through efficiency, and so by suspending premium processing USCIS is killing the goose that lays the golden egg. The USCIS wants to process other cases more quickly, but it would make more sense to accept premium processing so that it can add more staff to process all cases as efficiently as possible. Ironically, USICS has also announced an increase in the premium processing fee from $1225 to $1410. The justification for this increase is that it “represents the percentage change in inflation since the fee was last increased in 2010 based on the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers.” Thus, this increase is to keep up with inflation rather than generate revenues, and USCIS will still lose revenues as a result of the suspension of premium processing for many types of H-1B filings.

If the USCIS excessively delays the adjudication of H-1B visa petitions due to lack of premium processing, one possible solution is to file mandamus actions to compel the USCIS to make a decision. If the administration is faced with thousands of such actions, it will realize that it is less costly to process cases quickly, and even restore premium processing completely, rather than get bogged down in a deluge of mandamus actions against it.

 

David Isaacson

Jaen v. Sessions: The Second Circuit Reminds Us That Government Manuals Aren’t Always Right

/0 Comments/in /by

For many years, the policy guidance of the Department of State (DOS) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has required that a child show a biological relationship with a U.S. citizen parent in order to acquire U.S. citizenship from that parent.  Initially, this meant a genetic relationship; recently, an exception was made for gestational mothers who were recognized as the legal mothers of the children to whom they gave birth even if they had used a donor egg to do so, but the government continued to insist that some biological relationship was required in order for a child to acquire citizenship at birth from a parent recognized as such by applicable local law.  The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in its decision issued last week in Jaen v. Sessions, has now become the second Court of Appeals to point out that this policy has no basis in the Immigration and Nationality Act.  Rather, under the law, a U.S. citizen who is a parent of a child as a result of marriage can also pass along U.S. citizenship to that child.

Levy Alberto Jaen was born in Panama in 1972 to a non-U.S.-citizen mother, Leticia Rogers Boreland, who was then married to a naturalized U.S. citizen named Jorge Boreland.  According to Levy Jaen’s Panamanian birth certificate, however, his father was another man named Liberato Jaen.  Levy Jaen was initially raised by his grandparents in Panama, but then came to the United States on a nonimmigrant visa at age 15, in 1988, and lived here with the Boreland family.

After Levy Jaen was convicted of controlled substance violations in 2008 and 2014, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sought to remove him from the United States.  He moved to terminate the proceedings in 2016 on the basis that he was a U.S. citizen, but the Immigration Judge (IJ) in his case denied the motion and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed.  He remained detained as a purported non-citizen until April 13, 2018, when the Second Circuit granted his petition, ordered his release, and indicated that an opinion would follow.

In its opinion, the Second Circuit held that Jaen had acquired U.S. citizenship at birth from Jorge Boreland, his U.S. citizen parent, under former INA § 301(a)(7), 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)(7).  That provision is similar to current INA § 301(g), except that it required a different period of physical presence in the United States prior to the birth by the U.S. citizen parent (then ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of fourteen, as opposed to the current requirement of five years, at least two of which have to be after the age of fourteen).  Like current INA § 301(g), former 301(a)(7) referred to one “born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States”.

The government had sought to interpret this language as referring only to biological “parents”.  As the Second Circuit pointed out, however, the historic common-law definition of the term “parent” included a common-law presumption of legitimacy that held a married man to be the father of a child to whom his wife gave birth.  As it was put in Blackstone’s Commentaries, “Pater est quem nuptiae demonstrant”—the nuptials show who is the father.  Jaen, slip op. at 13 & n. 5.  This common-law definition of parent, the Second Circuit held, would be sufficient to render Jorge Boreland the parent of Levy Jaen for citizenship purposes even if it were not also the case, as it was, that he would have been recognized as Levy Jaen’s father under New York law.

The government urged the Court of Appeals to follow the guidance in the DOS Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) and USCIS Policy Manual, which required biological parenthood to qualify as a “parent”.  But as the Second Circuit noted in a footnote, those internal guidance manuals are not entitled to Chevron deference.  Jaen, slip op. at 11-12 n.4.  Nor did the Second Circuit evidently find them persuasive.

As the Second Circuit observed, it was not the first Court of Appeals to hold that the father by marriage of a child need not have a biological link to that child in order to transmit U.S. citizenship to that child.  The Ninth Circuit had held to the same effect in Scales v. INS, 232 F.3d 1159, 1161 (9th Cir. 2000).  Indeed, the Ninth Circuit in Solis-Espinoza v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2005), extended this holding to cover a man whose U.S. citizen mother was not his biological mother but had been married to his biological father at the time of his birth.  (It remains to be seen whether the Second Circuit’s holding in Jaen will be extended in the same way, as the Second Circuit did not have occasion to address this fact pattern.)

Although the Second Circuit’s decision did not “break . . . new ground” in finding Jaen to be a citizen through his U.S. citizen parent Jorge Boreland, Jaen, slip op. at 19, the government had nonetheless detained Jaen for nearly two years while the proceedings were ongoing.  Judge Pooler filed a separate concurring opinion in which she noted that she was troubled by this, as well as by the government’s decision to seek summary affirmance of the IJ’s erroneous decision that Jaen was not a U.S. citizen.  It appears that the government may have been blind to the possibility that its internal manuals were legally incorrect.

In a world where USCIS and DOS decisions often cite to the USCIS Policy Manual, the USCIS Adjudicator’s Field Manual (now gradually being replaced by the Policy Manual), or the  DOS Foreign Affairs Manual, it can be easy to forget that those guidance manuals are not the law.  While it can be appropriate to hold the agencies to the terms of their published manuals when those terms are advantageous, it is not appropriate to assume that an adverse statement of the law in an agency manual is necessarily accurate.  When USCIS or DOS get the law wrong in their manuals, federal courts can and will step in to correct them.  But this will only happen if attorneys, and their clients, ask the federal courts to do so.

 

Cyrus Mehta

USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J And M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy

/1 Comment/in /by

The USCIS finalized its unlawful presence policy for F, J and M nonimmigrants on August 9, 2018. The final policy makes no significant changes from the draft policy of May 10, 2018. My earlier blog noted the flaws in the draft policy, which persist in the final policy. The final policy incorrectly breaks down the distinction between violating status and being unlawfully present in the US. As of August 9, 2018, F, J and M nonimmigrants who have failed to maintain nonimmigrant status will start accruing unlawful presence.

Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence during a single stay, and then depart, may be subject to 3-year or 10-year bars to admission, depending on how much unlawful presence they accrued before they departed the United States. See INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) & (II).  Individuals who have accrued a total period of more than one year of unlawful presence, whether in a single stay or during multiple stays in the United States, and who then reenter or attempt to reenter the United States without being admitted or paroled, are permanently inadmissible. See INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(1).

Prior to August 9, 2018,  foreign students (F nonimmigrants) and exchange visitors (J nonimmigrants) who were admitted for, or present in the United States in, Duration of Status started accruing unlawful presence on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigrant benefit or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. F and J nonimmigrants, and foreign vocational students (M nonimmigrants), who were admitted until a specific date certain accrued unlawful presence on the day after their Form I-94 expired, on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigration benefit, or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first.

This will no longer be the case. Under the new policy effective August 9, 2018, any status violation will start the accrual of unlawful presence. The nonimmigrant will not be provided with any formal notice of a status violation, and any violation from the past that has been discovered would have already started the accrual of unlawful presence. According to the policy memo, the USCIS officer should consider information relating to the alien’s immigration history, including but not limited to:

  • Information contained in the systems available to USCIS;
  • Information contained in the alien’s record; and
  • Information obtained through a Request for Evidence (RFE) or Notice of Intent to Deny, if any.

The final policy purports to make one concession from the draft policy, which is that if a nonimmigrant in F, J or M nonimmigrant classification makes a timely filing for reinstatement of status, then unlawful presence will not accrue during the pendency of this request. In the case of students in F-1 status, a reinstatement application will be considered timely filed if the applicant has not been out of status for more than 5 months at the time of filing for a request for reinstatement under 8 CFR § 214.2(f)(16).  If the reinstatement request is approved, then the period of time an F-1 nonimmigrant was out of status prior to filing the application, along with the period of time during the pendency of the request, will not be counted as unlawful presence. If the reinstatement application is denied, the accrual of unlawful presence resumes on the day after the denial. Whether or not the application for reinstatement is timely filed, USCIS said, an F, J, or M nonimmigrant “whose application for reinstatement is ultimately approved will generally not accrue unlawful presence while out of status.”

USCIS also noted that the Department of State (DOS) administers the J-1 exchange visitor program, to include reinstatement requests. If DOS approves the reinstatement application of a J nonimmigrant, “the individual will generally not accrue unlawful presence from the time the J nonimmigrant fell out of status from the time he or she was reinstated,” USCIS said.

Unfortunately, most students may never know that they fell out of status until it is too late and they may never have an opportunity to file for reinstatement. Students will also likely be found to have violated status if they pursued practical training that is perceived as not being consistent with the regulations.

Esteemed colleague and immigration law expert Stephen Yale-Loehr has compiled a list of 50 examples how an international student might inadvertently or unknowingly fall out of status and start to accrue unlawful presence under the new guidance. Many of these examples arise from mistakes by the school.  For instance, a designated school officer (DSO) may mistakenly complete a record, which will indicate to a USCIS officer that the student has remained in the United States beyond the end date of the program, and may have also worked on campus in violation of F-1 status. Status violations can also result from inadvertent miscommunications between school officials. An undergraduate student receives permission from an academic advisor (but not the DSO) to drop a course. The student is now registered for 11 rather than 12 semester credit hours. Later, the USCIS deems her to be in violation of status and accruing unlawful presence.

The USCIS has already begun to lay traps in order to nab students who may have unwittingly violated status. Recent RFEs issued after the filing of a change of status request from F-1 to H-1B require a student to meticulously demonstrate that he or she maintained status during post-completion practical training, including proving that the student was not unemployed for more than the requisite amount of time. The student must also prove that the employment, including an unpaid internship, was related to the major field of study.  Here is one example inquiring whether a student maintained status during a routine period of optional practical training:

F-1 OPT: Students engaging in initial F-1 post-completion Optional Practical Training (OPT) may not accrue an aggregate of more than 90 days off unemployment during the initial post-completion OPT period. Students granted the 17-month OPT extension may not accrue an aggregate of more than 120 days of unemployment during the total OPT period including any initial OPT and the 17-month OPT extension. Students granted the 24-month OPT extension may not accrue an aggregate of more than 150 days of unemployment during the total OPT period including any initial OPT and the 24-month OPT extension. Further, students engaging in F-1 post-completion must engage in at least 20 hours or more per week of employment that is directly related to the student’s U.S. major of study. Lastly, unpaid internships may meet the OPT employment requirements if the internship is directly related to the student’s U.S. major of study and the internship complies with all labor laws. Please provide evidence that the beneficiary maintained the beneficiary’s F-1 status during post-completion OPT. Evidence may include but is not limited to the following:

-A list of all employers the beneficiary has worked for under post-completion OPT and the periods the beneficiary worked for those employers;

-Copies of all pay records/stubs for the beneficiary from the starting date of post-completion OPT to the present time; and

-Evidence that the beneficiary worked at least 20 hours or more per week in a position is directly related to the beneficiary’s U.S. major of study.

Similarly, maintaining status through Curricular Practical Training (CPT) is frequently challenged in RFEs by asking for evidence that the CPT was an integral part of the beneficiary’s degree program. The regulation at 8 CFR § 214.2(f)(1)(i) leaves undefined “curricular practical training program that is an integral part of an established curriculum” thus leaving it open for a subjective interpretation.  Also, where the CPT commenced immediately upon the student’s enrolment in the program, the USCIS questions whether immediate participation in CPT was required for the beneficiary’s studies.

A student can also be found to have violated status due to an ambiguity in the rules providing for the maximum amount of time in practical training. 8 CFR § 214.2(f)(10) provides that a student may be authorized a total of 12 months of practical training, and becomes eligible for another 12 months when the student changes to a higher educational level. 8 CFR § 214.2(f)(10)(i) further provides that “students who have received one year or more of full time curricular practical training are ineligible for post-completion academic training.” This could be interpreted to mean that a student can receive more than one year of CPT, and such CPT is routinely granted by DSOs through the SEVIS system that is administered by ICE. But USCIS is now interpreting this to mean that the total time that a student is entitled in any sort of practical training is 12 months even though ICE, its sister agency, authorized more than 12 months of CPT. USCIS is disregarding the suggestion in 8 CFR § 214.2(f)(10)(i) that a student may be entitled to more than 12 months of CPT.

Upon receiving such an RFE, it is important to submit evidence to overcome USCIS’s doubts. Still, it may be difficult to challenge USCIS’s interpretation that the regulation at 8 CFR § 214.2(f)(10) only authorizes a total of 12 months of practical training, even though 8 CFR § 214.2(f)(10)(i) appears to suggest that CPT can be granted in excess of 1 year. It may also be difficult to demonstrate to the USCIS’s satisfaction that the CPT was an integral part of an established curriculum. If the request for a change of status is not granted, the F-1 nonimmigrant would have started accruing unlawful presence as of August 9, 2018. In the event of the student departing later than February 5, 2020, he or she will be barred from entering the US for 3 years. After February 5, 2020, there will be no such grace period, and prior status violations that were in excess of 180 days will result in 3 year or 10 year bars to reentry upon the student departing the United States. The student may not be able to change or adjust status in the United States, and thus will be caught in a federally imposed Catch-22 situation.

The unlawful presence policy compounds the plight of the nonimmigrant who may also receive a Notice to Appear and be placed in removal proceedings under yet another USCIS policy designed to make life more difficult for law abiding nonimmigrants. Some are deciding to withdraw the request for change of status, upon receiving difficult to overcome RFEs, and leave the United States, prior to February 5, 2020, so that they can process their H-1B visas at a US consulate abroad. While such a strategy may allow the applicant to escape being issued a Notice to Appear, it could cause issues at the US consulate where a consul may still want the applicant to justify whether the CPT program was bona fide. On the other hand, if the applicant is placed in removal proceedings, and if voluntary departure is issued by an Immigration Judge prior to the accrual of unlawful presence of one year or more, then there is an escape hatch pursuant to INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I). The 3 year bar does not apply to those who departed after the commencement of proceedings and before the accrual of 1 year of unlawful presence (as there is explicit language to this effect in the provision). If the voluntary departure order is issued after 1 year of unlawful presence,  then the ten-year bar would trigger under INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) would apply. There is no escape hatch to the 10 year bar as there is to the 3 year bar whilst in removal proceedings. Further ethical and strategic considerations regarding representing beneficiaries of denied requests in removal proceedings can be found in my blog here.

The final policy will not just cause havoc to nonimmigrants snared with technical or perceived violations of status, but schools will also face liability for errors by DSOs. Challenging the policy in federal court is indeed the need of the hour, and there is an urgent need for universities, hospitals and research institutions to come forward as plaintiffs! The 3 and 10 year bars, or the permanent bar under INA § 212(a)(9)C), are extremely draconian and should only be triggered when the nonimmigrant goes beyond a date certain expiration date. This is consistent with the statutory definition of unlawful presence under INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(ii), which provides:

“…an alien is deemed to be unlawfully present in the United States if the alien is present in the United States if the alien is present in the United States after the expiration of the period of stay authorized by the Attorney General or is present in the United States without being admitted or paroled.”

The new policy blurs the difference between being out of status and unlawfully present, and thus violates INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(ii). If the USCIS wanted to so radically change its prior interpretation of unlawful presence for F, J and M nonimmigrants, it ought to have promulgated a rule through a more formal notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act. Finally, the policy violates the due process rights of these nonimmigrants as it imposes draconian penalties, 3 and 10 year bars, for status violations for which they never received formal warning and notice. All these are ripe grounds, among many others, for a successful challenge to this flawed policy in federal court!

 

Cyrus Mehta & Sophia Genovese

Administrative Review Versus Judicial Review When an Employment-Based Petition Is Denied

/0 Comments/in /by

Under the Trump administration, there have been an increasing number of denials of employment-based petitions, especially of H-1B visas. To reverse what Trump sees as American carnage, his administration has unleashed carnage on the H-1B visa program, and indeed, all legal immigration. It does not matter that employment-based visas help facilitate American competitiveness globally by attracting worldwide talent, or that foreign workers complement the US workforce rather than replace them, resulting in greater overall efficiency, productivity and jobs. Rather, the administration continues to attack all pathways to legal immigration under its misguided America First philosophy.

The stakes for an approval have become even higher, as USCIS recently announced that it will “issue an NTA [Notice to Appear] where, upon issuance of an unfavorable decision on an application, petition, or benefit request, the alien is not lawfully present in the United States.” In yet another recent policy, USCIS instructs adjudicating officials to deny applications based on the lack of “sufficient initial evidence” without the issuance of an RFE or notice of intent to deny. This could be subjectively viewed as resulting in more denials followed by NTAs.

Upon the USCIS Service Center denying an employment-based petition, the petitioner may file Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion in order to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) within 30 days (plus 3 days if received in the mail) of the decision. Alternatively, the petitioner may request a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider or both with 33 days of the decision. The petitioner may also opt to seek judicial review in federal court without going to the AAO. In addition, a petitioner may also wish to re-file the petition, which may at times be the best strategy. However, the re-filing option may not always be available, such as when the H-1B cap for the fiscal year has already been reached or the beneficiary’s nonimmigrant status has ended and consular processing would be problematic for whatever reason.

This blog will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of administrative review over judicial review.

Advantages of Seeking Administrative Review

Filing Form I-290B is more administratively convenient, efficient and less costly for the client. If the USCIS has made an obvious error, requesting that the USCIS either reopen or reconsider or do both may be an effective and simple strategy. For example, if an H-1B is erroneously denied without an RFE or NOID, and it was clearly an error, the filing a motion to reopen may make more sense over judicial review.

In the event that the petition has been denied on substantive grounds, filing an appeal to the AAO allows one to supplement the record by providing additional evidence such as a more detailed expert evaluation. The process is less formal than going to federal court. Writing the brief in support of the appeal or motion is an extension of what was already said in the response to the Request for Evidence prior to denial, although the new brief must make new and creative arguments to overcome the denial.

Even when the intention is to file an appeal on Form I-1290B, the official who made the initial decision, according to agency regulation, will first review the appeal and determine whether to take favorable action and grant the benefit request. This process is called “initial field review.” Thus, every appeal is first treated as a motion to reopen or reconsider. There are many occasions where a case based on an egregious denial can be reopened and reversed without going through the AAO.

There is nothing to lose and a chance of a favorable result – the AAO could either outright reverse a denial or remand back to the USCIS Service Center, which in turn, could issue another RFE. If the AAO dismisses the appeal, one can still seek review in federal court.

Disadvantages of Seeking Administrative Review

The success rate at the AAO is very low. In FY2017, with respect to H-1B petitions, the AAO dismissed 598 appeals, sustained only 22 and remanded 44. With respect to L-1 petitions, the AAO dismissed 181 appeals, sustained only 15 and remanded 6.

The process is also not expeditious. If the beneficiary is already in the US and does not have another underlying nonimmigrant status, he/she will start accruing unlawful presence for purposes of triggering the 3/10 year bar upon the denial of the request for change or extension of status. If the individual’s appeal is not successful after 180 days of unlawful presence have accrued, the beneficiary will be subject to the bars upon departing the US.  (If the individual’s appeal is successful, any related application for change of status or extension of stay is likely to be reopened on Service motion following the granting of the petition, but one cannot know for sure in advance whether this will happen.)

The AAO may not just affirm the USCIS denial, but may also improve upon it by providing better reasoning or even affirming for different or additional reasons. This would render it more difficult to seek judicial review.

Advantages of Seeking Judicial Review

The case is reviewed by a judge who is not part of the USCIS and is not influenced by its prevailing policy as an adjudicator within the AAO is.

There may also be an opportunity to have the case resolved with an Assistant US Attorney who may advise his/her client, the USCIS, to reverse the decision rather than fight it out in court.

If the plaintiff prevails, the attorney may seek fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

One can ask for extraordinary remedies through a preliminary injunction (or temporary restraining order followed by a preliminary injunction) to maintain the nonimmigrant status of the beneficiary during the pendency of the matter, or at least prevent the beneficiary from accruing unlawful presence during the pendency of the matter.

Moreover, if an NTA is issued upon the denial of petition, then one potential advantage in federal court litigation is to ask the court in the preliminary injunction to restore the status of the beneficiary, which could then be grounds for termination of the removal proceedings. It should be noted that business immigration attorneys will also need to either hone in or develop their litigation skills for beneficiaries who are placed in removal proceedings, which was discussed in our previous blog, “Heightened Ethical and Strategic Considerations for Business Immigration Attorneys Under USCIS’s New Removal Policy.” Attorneys will need to simultaneously navigate the removal process while challenging the denial of the underlying petition.

In a few cases, the beneficiary has been able to establish standing as a plaintiff in litigation involving nonimmigrant visas. See e.g., Tenrec, Inc. v. USCIS, No. 3:16‐cv‐995‐SI, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129638 **21‐22 (D. Or. Sept. 22, 2016). In the administrative review context, the USICS has recognized that the beneficiary of an I-140 may administratively challenge the revocation of an I-140 petition who has exercised job portability pursuant to INA 204(j). See Matter of V-S-G- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-06 (AAO Nov. 11, 2017).

Disadvantages of Seeking Judicial Review

Seeking judicial review can be far more expensive and time consuming. In addition, a federal court may exercise a more deferential standard, where under the Administrative Appeal Act (APA) a denial may be set aside only if  it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); United States v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71, 77 (2002). Factual findings may be set aside by a federal court only if “unsupported by substantial evidence”—which is not quite the same thing as review for “clear error” as in appellate review of a lower court’s fact-finding, but is still far from de novo review. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(E); Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150 (1999).  The AAO, on the other hand, can undertake a de novo review of all issues of fact, law, policy, and discretion, and can also address new issues that were not addressed in the prior decision. See AAO Practice Manual, Chapter 3 Appeals.

New evidence cannot be introduced into the record.

Some employers also fear government retaliation, although this may be anecdotal and not necessarily official policy. Employers also are shy about unwanted publicity when they become plaintiffs.

The stakes have never been higher for employment-based immigration. With the very real threat of deportation looming, practitioners and employers alike must weigh the benefits and risks with any of these options when seeking review of a denial. For some, a motion to reopen and reconsider may be sufficient for a more obvious error. Others may wish to resolve a recurring, systemic issue by seeking judicial review in a district court. Regardless, it is clear that the role of the immigration practitioner, especially those practicing business immigration, must be prepared to increasingly litigate these petitions in order to prevent further carnage of the existing immigration system.

Sophia Genovese

“Vague Laws Invite Arbitrary Power”: Making the Case for Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude Being Void for Vagueness

/0 Comments/in /by

The Supreme Court in Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018) dramatically held that one aspect of the crime of violence definition contained within the aggravated felony provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) was unconstitutionally vague. An aggravated felony conviction can result in a non-citizen’s swift removal from the United States, and thus the Supreme Court’s decision in Dimaya provided much needed respite to non-citizens who have been charged with removability under the vague clause of the residual clause in the crime of violence provision. This led one to question whether a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) could similarly be challenged for being impermissibly vague under the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Dimaya.

Unfortunately, on July 17, 2018, the Ninth Circuit in Martinez-de Ryan v. Sessions denied a petition for review of a foreign national’s denied application for cancellation of removal based on a finding that she had committed a CIMT. No. 15-70759 (9th Cir. 2018). The Ninth Circuit rejected the Petitioner’s arguments that the phrase ‘crime involving moral turpitude’ is unconstitutionally vague, and distinguished the Supreme Court’s decisions in Dimaya and its predecessor, Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). The relevant aggravated felony provision in Dimaya was the residual clause of the crime of violence definition at 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), which provides that “any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense”. The relevant provision in Johnson was the residual clause of “violent felony,” as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B), in the Armed Career Criminal Act, which similarly provides that a violent felony is one that “involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” The Supreme Court found in each respective case that the residual clauses created “grave uncertainty about how to estimate the risk posed by a crime” because it “tie[d] the judicial assessment of risk” to a speculative hypothesis about the crime’s “ordinary case,” but provided no guidance on how to figure out what that ordinary case was. Dimaya at 1213; Johnson at 2557. The residual clauses had resulted in reliance upon judge’s “guesswork and intuition,” and “fail[ed] to give ordinary people fair notice of the conduct it punishes,” which invited “arbitrary enforcement” by judges. Johnson at 2557. Such arbitrary enforcement, the Court held, was determinative of impermissible vagueness.

Instead of following Dimaya and Johnson, the Ninth Circuit in Martinez-de Ryan found that it should follow precedent in Jordan v. DeGeorge, 71 S. Ct. 703 (1951) (finding that “whatever else the phrase … may mean,” crimes involving fraud “have always been regarded as involving moral turpitude”) and its Ninth Circuit corollary decision, Tseung Chu v. Cornell, 247 F.2d 929 (1957), which came after the enactment of the 1952 Act (which slightly changed the wording of the CIMT provision from the 1917 Act which controlled in DeGeorge). Though acknowledging that Johnson and Dimaya “cast some doubt on [DeGeorge’s] general reasoning,” the Ninth Circuit nevertheless reasoned that Johnson and Dimaya dealt with residual clauses, whereas the definition of CIMTs are “tethered to common law principles.” Martinez-de Ryan, at *2.

It is unclear what the Ninth Circuit means when it states that CIMTs are tethered to common law principles. The impermissible vagueness of CIMTs are evident in courts’ ongoing failure to establish a consistent framework to evaluate whether a crime involves ‘moral turpitude,’ and inconsistent outcomes when dealing with the same crimes. In Johnson, the court acknowledged that the failure of persistent efforts to establish a legal standard can provide evidence of vagueness. 135 S. Ct. at 2558 (citing United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81, 91 (1921)). As applied to CIMTs, the persistent failure to delineate a clear analytical framework that apprises people of common intelligence, and indeed learned judges, of its meaning is a clear indication of unconstitutional vagueness.

Courts have attempted to define moral turpitude in varying degrees, typically with reliance on Black’s Law Dictionary, which currently defines the phrase as:

…shameful wickedness — so extreme a departure from ordinary standards of honest, good morals, justice, or ethics as to be shocking to the moral sense of the community. It has also been defined as an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which one person owes to another, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between people.

MORAL TURPITUDE, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014); see also, e.g., United States v. Smith, 420 F.2d 428, 431 (5th Cir. 1970). The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has added that a CIMT is “per se morally reprehensible and intrinsically wrong, or malum in se so it is the nature of the act itself and not the statutory prohibition of it which renders a crime one of moral turpitude.” Matter of Franklin, 20 I&N Dec. 867, 868 (BIA 1994). The varying definitions of moral turpitude in case law are as vague as the phrase itself.

These open-ended definitions have led to inconsistent application by judges, where they must rely upon their own biases, or on precedent decisions where other judges have relied upon their own biases, to determine what is morally reprehensible. In his powerful dissent in DeGeorge, Justice Jackson declared that “uniformity and equal protection of the law can come only from a statutory definition of fairly stable and confined bounds,” not on the whims of judges. DeGeorge, at 242.  He similarly rejected the malum in se versus malum prohibitum distinction, stating that “this classification comes to us from common law, which in its early history freely blended religious conceptions of sin with legal conceptions of crimes.” Id. at 237. Even accepting the government’s contention in DeGeorge that these crimes ought to be “measured against the moral standards in contemporary society,” we would see uneven application throughout the country and overtime. Id. Justice Jackson concluded that “irrationality is inherent” when creating case law based on fluid morality, as opposed to finite statutory meaning. Id. at 239.

In future challenges to the CIMT provision, practitioners can point to various inconsistencies as evidence of arbitrary enforcement, and hence, vagueness. For example, some courts have treated 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false statements) as a CIMT (see, e.g., Ghani v. Holder, 557 F.3d 836 (7th Cir. 2009)), and others have not (see, e.g., Hirsch v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 308 F.2d 562 (9th Cir. 1962)). Similarly, some courts have treated certain money laundering crimes as a CIMT (Matter of Tejwani, 24 I&N Dec. 97 (BIA 2007), holding that the intentional use of monetary instruments to conceal or disguise proceeds of any crime was a CIMT), and others have not (Goldeshtein v. I.N.S., 8 F.3d 645 (9th Cir. 1993), holding that structuring financial transactions to avoid currency reporting was not a CIMT). Admittedly, the arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement argument is difficult to make when it comes to crimes involving fraud (see, e.g., Matter of Kochlani, 24 I&N Dec. 128 (BIA 2007), holding that trafficking of counterfeit good, even absence of an intent to defraud, is a CIMT; see also, Planes v. Holder, 652 F.3d 991, 997-98 (9th Cir. 2011), stating “the longstanding rule that crimes that have fraud as an element” are CIMTs), and in the case of Ms. Martinez-de Ryan, bribery of an official under 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(2) (see also, Matter of V-, 4 I&N Dec. 100 (BIA 1950), holding that attempted bribery was a CIMT).

Practitioners can also point out that the INA includes specific criminal grounds for deportability and inadmissibility, including the failure to register as a sex offender, domestic violence, stalking, and child abuse, and defines what each of those crimes mean. Congress has failed to similarly define what is meant by moral turpitude, allowing courts to unevenly apply CIMT analyses, rendering some folks removable/inadmissible and others not, despite being found guilty of committing the same crimes. In Dimaya, Justice Gorsuch in his concurring opinion wrote that “[v]ague laws invite arbitrary power.… Today’s vague laws… can invite the exercise of arbitrary power… by leaving the people in the dark about what the law demands and allowing prosecutors and courts to make it up.” 138 S. Ct. at 1223 (2018) (concurring in judgment). Without a precise definition of a CIMT, one can argue that such vagueness invites judges to make the law up according to their own biases, resulting in the erroneous removal of non-citizens.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Martinez-de Ryan v. Sessions is not the end of the road for finding a CIMT unconstitutionally vague. Although the Ninth Circuit followed a Supreme Court precedent in DeGeorge, Dimaya and Johnson have cast some doubt on its general reasoning. Specifically, in light of Dimaya and Johnson, one can argue that the vagueness of the CIMT definition has resulted in reliance upon judge’s “guesswork and intuition,” and has failed “to give ordinary people fair notice of the conduct it punishes,” resulting in arbitrary enforcement by judges. Dimaya at 1223 (citing to Johnson at 2557). Those who are unable to apply for relief because they have been found to have either been convicted of or have admitted to a CIMT must continue to litigate in other circuits until a CIMT is also rightfully found to be unconstitutionally vague.

 

(The author thanks Cyrus Mehta for his considerable assistance in writing this blog)