Cyrus Mehta & Sophia Genovese

Making The Law Up As He Goes: Sessions Refers Another Case to Himself, This Time On Motions For Continuance

/0 Comments/in /by

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has yet again referred an immigration case to himself for review in Matter of L-A-B-R- et al, 27 I&N Dec. 245 (AG 2018). This time, AG Sessions asks:

An Immigration Judge is authorized to “grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (2017); see also id. § 1240.6 (2017) (authorizing an Immigration Judge to “grant a reasonable adjournment either at his or her own instance or, for good cause shown, upon application”). In these cases, Immigration Judges granted continuances to provide time for respondents to seek adjudications of collateral matters from other authorities. Under what circumstances does “good cause” exist for an Immigration Judge to grant a continuance for a collateral matter to be adjudicated?

As noted, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 empowers Immigration Judges (IJs) to grant motions for continuance “for good caution shown.” 8 C.F.R. § 1240.6, by contrast, allows IJs to grant reasonable adjournments either at their discretion, or “for good cause” upon request by one of the parties. Typically, these motions are filed by either the Respondent or the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for a number of reasons. For example, the Respondent may motion for a continuance when they are awaiting adjudication of a case outside of Immigration Court, such as a pending I-130 or I-140 petition with USCIS or even an outside criminal or family law case that has bearing on the removal proceedings. Similarly, the government attorney for DHS may motion for a continuance when the attorney has an unexpected emergency, time conflict with the hearing date, or simply needs more time to prepare.

The BIA has sensibly addressed motions for continuance in several cases authorizing IJs to grant them when there is when there was a pending immigrant petition with the USCIS. In Matter of Hashimi, 24 I&N Dec. 785 (BIA 2009), for example, the IJ granted the respondent four continuances on his removal proceedings to allow for USCIS to adjudicate his family-based immigrant visa petition. The IJ denied the respondent’s fifth motion to continue because he was expected to meet the Department of Justice’s “case completion goals,” which required completing cases within a reasonable period of time. The Third Circuit determined that the IJ’s denial based on case-completion goals was arbitrary and an abuse of discretion. On remand, the BIA discussed relevant factors when “determining whether respondent should be allowed to continue ongoing removal proceedings pending the final adjudication of an I-130” filed concurrently with an adjustment of status application, given the conflicting needs of finality of removal proceedings and allowing the opportunity for respondent to apply for relief. Citing to Matter of Garcia, 16 I&N Dec. 653 (BIA 1978), the BIA stated that although the IJ should exercise favorable discretion when there is prima facie eligibility for a visa petition, this does not require that a continuance be granted in every case. The BIA held that in determining whether to continue proceedings where there is a pending visa petition, the IJ should consider a variety of factors, including, but not limited to: (1) the DHS response to the motion; (2) whether the underlying visa petition is prima facie approvable; (3) the respondent’s statutory eligibility for adjustment of status; (4) whether the respondent’s application for adjustment merits a favorable exercise of discretion; and (5) the reason for the continuance and other procedural factors. The focus is the apparent ultimate likelihood of success on the adjustment application. The IJ needs some basis to examine the viability of the underlying visa petition, the respondent’s statutory eligibility for adjustment, and the merits of the adjustment application. This may require the respondent to submit evidence, such as the visa petition, the adjustment application, any prior visa petitions denials, and any other supporting documentation. The BIA sustained the respondent’s appeal and remanded the record to the Immigration Judge to consider the factors and determine whether a continuance was warranted.

In Matter of Rajah, 25 I&N Dec. 127 (BIA 2009), the respondent was placed in removal proceedings after his employer filed for labor certification on his behalf. Over the period of 18 months, the respondent was granted 10 continuances for a variety of reasons, including to obtain counsel and prepare the case and to determine the status of the labor certification. The IJ denied the final motion to continue based on the pending labor certification because he “concluded that the respondent had had ‘sufficient time’ to obtain an approved labor certification.” While the matter was pending before the Second Circuit, the labor certification was approved but then later expired due to the respondent’s employer not filing a visa petition. On remand, the issue before the BIA was to provide a “reasoned set of standards explicating when continuances for labor certification are within the ‘range of permissible decisions’ available to an [IJ], and when they are not.” Id. at 129. The BIA held that as a general rule in the employment context, discretion in granting a motion to continue ongoing removal proceedings should be favorably exercised where there is a prima facie approvable visa petition and adjustment application. Furthermore, in determining whether good cause exists for a continuance in removal proceedings to await the adjudication of a pending employment-based visa petition or labor certification, an “Immigration Judge should first determine the alien’s place in the adjustment of status process and then consider and balance” the factors identified in Matter of Hashmi and any other relevant considerations. For example, a labor certification no longer being valid, and other similar types of evidence, might affect the case on remand or in the context of a motion to reopen. Furthermore, the BIA held that the pendency of a labor certification generally is not sufficient to grant a continuance in the absence of additional persuasive factors. Here, the BIA determined that remand was not warranted based on the new evidence that the labor certification, which was approved, had expired and there was no pending visa petition. While the respondent was a grandfathered alien who could have potentially been eligible for INA § 245(i) treatment, because there was no pending labor certification, the respondent could not establish prima facie eligibility for adjustment of status under INA § 245(i)(2)(A)-(B). The appeal was dismissed.

In Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2012), an IJ repeatedly continued a removal hearing pending the filing and adjudication of a family-based immigrant visa petition. During the final hearing, despite DHS’s opposition, the IJ granted the respondent’s motion to administrative closure, and the DHS filed an interlocutory appeal. The issue here was whether an IJ or the BIA has the authority to administratively close a case when one of the parties to the proceeding opposes. The BIA determined that there was fault in the general rule stated in Matter of Gutierrez, 21 I&N Dec. 479 (BIA 1996) that “a case may not be administratively closed if opposed by either party.” The BIA, in overruling Matter of Gutierrez, held that affording absolute deference to a party’s objection is improper and that the IJ or the BIA, in the exercise of independent judgement and discretion, has the authority to administratively close a case, regardless of party opposition, if it is otherwise appropriate under the circumstances. The BIA further held that when evaluating a request for administrative closure, the IJ should weigh all relevant factors presented in the case, including, but not limited to: (1) the reason administrative closure is sought; (2) the basis for any opposition to administrative closure; (3) the likelihood the respondent will succeed on any petition, application, or other action he or she is pursuing outside of removal proceedings; (4) the anticipated duration of the closure; (5) the responsibility of either party, if any, in contributing to any current or anticipated delay; and (6) the ultimate outcome of removal proceedings (for example, termination of the proceedings or entry of a removal order) when the case is recalendared before the IJ or the appeal is reinstated before the Board. In Avetisyan’s case, the visa petition had been pending for a long time through no apparent fault of the respondent or her husband, and there was no obvious impediment to the approval of the visa petition or ability of the respondent to successfully apply for adjustment of status. The BIA determined that the circumstances supported the exercise of the IJ’s authority to administratively close the case.

In Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I&N Dec. 187 (A.G. 2018), AG Sessions referred Avetisyan to himself questioning whether there was any authority for IJs or the BIA to administratively close cases. Even if AG Sessions was able to overrule Ayetisyan and deny IJs the ability to administratively close cases, it was hoped that their ability to grant continuances would not be undermined. After all, there is explicit authority pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 for an IJ to grant a continuance for good cause. Depriving an IJ that ability, especially when there is an application pending that would allow the respondent to obtain permanent residency and moot the removal proceeding, would lead to a complete and total evisceration of Ayetisyan. Sessions can only achieve this if the basis to continue proceedings under Hashmi and Rajah are also overturned.

It is clear AG Session seeks to discourage motions for continuance as a way to maximize the deportations of noncitizens even if they have a meritorious pending applications for permanent residency that would otherwise thwart their deportations. In the Department of Justice’s Backgrounder on EOIR Strategic Caseload Reduction Plan, for example, Sessions blames IJs’ low productivity levels and rising backlogs on “representatives of illegal aliens have purposely used tactics designed to delay the adjudication of their clients’ cases” such as motions for continuance. Moreover, in the July 2017 EOIR Operating Policies and Procedures Memorandum 17-01: Continuances, IJs were urged to limit the grant of continuances, stating that “the delays caused by granting multiple and lengthy continuances, when multiplied across the entire immigration court system, exacerbate already crowded immigration dockets.”

But limiting continuances in the name of efficiency is a smokescreen. Discouraging motions for continuances will not make delays go away in the immigration court system. Respondents will appeal the denial of continuances into the courts of appeal of each circuit, which will result in remands back to the immigration courts in addition to clogging the circuits. This used to be the case prior to Hashmi and Rajah, where remands from the circuit court resulted in the further clogging up of immigration dockets. Moreover, if the USCIS processes cases in a tardy manner, and respondents in removal are unable to legitimately seek a continuance, there will be an increasing number of mandamus lawsuits against the agency to compel USCIS to process the case more expeditiously. The BIA’s reasoning in Hashmi, Rajah and Avetisyan was based on common sense and fairness. If there was a reasonable basis for a respondents in removal proceeding to demonstrate that they would ultimately get permanent residency but for a delay in processing of the visa petition or the priority date not being current, why deprive respondents of permanent residency by deporting them?  The federal courts understood this too, and will continue to do so if we do so if respondents cannot get continuances for good cause in removal proceedings.

Thus, in Subhan v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 591 (2004), the Seventh Circuit found that an IJ had abused his discretion when the ground for the continuance was a pending labor certification.  The Court noted that the IJ’s denial was based simply on the fact that the labor authorities had not yet acted rather than issues particularized to the petitioner’s circumstances such as the lack of bona fides of the labor certification or other grounds pertaining to national security or criminal issues. In another Seventh Circuit decision, Ahmed v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 669 (2006), the court went even further than Subhan in holding that the IJ’s denial of a continuance ignored the fact that the petitioner was the “grandfathered” beneficiary under INA 245(i) of an I-130 petition even though the petitioner had yet to have a labor certification filed on his behalf. Of course, some courts upheld an IJ’s decision to deny continuance if the respondent’s underlying applications were not meritorious, see e.g. Morgan v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 549 (2006), but the frameworks established in Hashmi and Rajah for providing for a continuance based on the merits of the underlying applications for permanent residence are sound and should not be upset. They provide IJs with discretion to grant continuances, and at the same time, authorize IJs to deny continuances when the pending request for permanent residency lacks merit.

There is no need for Sessions to undermine a framework that is working, and also less need to further erode the independence of IJs to judiciously exercise discretion based on their own sense of fairness and efficiency. Decisions to not grant continuances of IJs have been upheld by federal courts post-Hashmi and Rajah when the priority date was a long way away or when an I-601 waiver supporting an adjustment was denied and its appeal was pending. See e.g. Luevano v. Holder, 660 F.3d 1207 (2011); Kwak v. Holder, 607 F.3d 1140 (2010). On the other hand, IJs’ decisions that did not follow the Hashmi and Rajah factors have been overturned. See e.g., Ferrera v. AG, No. 11-14074 (11th Cir. 2013); Simon v. Holder, 654 F.3d 440 (2011). This is clear evidence that the system is working and does not need Sessions’ interference.  Avetisyan along with Hashmi and Rajah also view the immigration system as a whole with all its warts and imperfections. These decisions take into account the inefficiencies resulting in delays of approving I-130s and I-140s, along with retrogression in priority dates. If the immigration system worked more efficiently, there would be less need to place people in removal proceedings. But if people are placed in removal proceedings as a result of these inefficiencies, why not continue their proceedings, or even temporarily close their proceedings, until such time that they can obtain the benefit and terminate proceedings – which should not have been started in the first place? If Sessions is unable to see it this way when he reconsiders BIA decisions to undermine Avetisyan, Hashmi and Rajah, he is not doing so to create efficiency but to further his animus and hostility against immigrants.

(The authors thank Eleyteria Diakopoulous for her assistance in providing research for this article. Ms. Diakopoulous is a student at Brooklyn Law School and is presently an Extern at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC)

Sophia Genovese

Sessions Likely to End Asylum Eligibility for Victims of Domestic Violence: How Courts Can Resist

/0 Comments/in /by

Violence against women is the most pervasive and underreported human rights violation in the world. Whether you live on the Upper East Side or in Gugulethu, South Africa, you likely know a woman or girl who has been the victim of sexual or gender-based violence. Maybe you are that woman or girl.[i]

International asylum frameworks have long grappled with how to address this gender-based persecution. After years of debating whether victims of domestic violence have a legitimate claim to asylum, the US Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) finally recognized in 2014 that married women who are unable to leave their relationships may constitute a cognizable particular social group for the purposes of seeking asylum. Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2014); see also Matter of D-M-R- (BIA June 9, 2015) (clarifying that a victim of domestic violence need not be married to her abuser). Although some advocates argue the decision does not go far enough, the protections and opportunities that Matter of A-R-C-G– have provided to thousands of women cannot be understated. Despite these advancements, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has questioned whether such claims to asylum are legitimate by referring to himself a BIA case, Matter of A-B- (BIA Dec. 8, 2016), where the Board found that a victim of domestic violence was indeed eligible for asylum. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h)(1)(i) (2017), Sessions may refer a case to himself for review, and has asked each party to submit briefs on “[w]hether, and under what circumstances, being a victim of private criminal activity constitutes a cognizable ‘particular social group’ for purposes of an application for asylum or withholding of removal.” Matter of A-B-, I&N Dec. 227 (A.G. 2018).

As brief background, in order to be granted asylum, the applicant must show that they have suffered past persecution or have a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and that he or she is unable or unwilling to return to, or avail himself or herself of the protection of, their country of origin owing to such persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1) & (2). To be granted asylum based on one’s membership in a particular social group, the applicant must show that the group is “(1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question.” Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I. & N. at 392. As set forth in Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211, 212 (BIA 1985), a “common immutable characteristic” is defined as “a characteristic that either is beyond the power of the individual members of the group to change or is so fundamental to their identities or consciences that it ought not be required to be changed.” Under  Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I&N Dec. 208 (BIA 2014) and clarified in Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 227 (BIA 2014), the social group must be defined with “particularity,” or be defined by boundaries of who is actually a member of the group. Finally, as explained in Matter of W-G-R-, “social distinction” is defined as the ‘recognition’ or ‘perception’ of the particular social group in society. 26 I&N Dec. at 216. The applicant must also show that her persecution was on account of her membership in the social group, and that the government in her country of origin is unable or unwilling to afford her protection from such persecution.

In Matter of A-R-C-G-, the Board found that the lead respondent had met her burden in establishing eligibility for asylum, and held that “[d]epending on the facts and evidence in an individual case, ‘married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship’ can constitute a cognizable particular social group that forms the basis of a claim for asylum or withholding of removal.” 36 I&N Dec. at 388. In this case, the lead respondent was married to a man who regularly beat her, raped her, and on one occasion, burned her. She had contacted local authorities several times to escape her abuser, but was told that the police would not interfere with domestic matters. The respondent had even moved out, but her husband found her and threatened to kill her if she did return. Fearing for her life, and knowing that she could not be safe if she stayed in Guatemala, the respondent fled to the United States.

The Immigration Judge in Matter of A-R-C-G- found that the respondent’s abuse was the result of “criminal acts, not persecution,” and further found that the respondent was not eligible for asylum. On appeal, the BIA found that “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” is indeed a cognizable social group. First, the BIA asserted that the immutable characteristic in this matter was “gender,” and also found the marital status would satisfy the requirement where the woman is unable to leave the relationship. Second, the BIA found that the particular social group had been defined with particularity, where “married,” “women,” “who are unable to leave their relationship” have commonly accepted definitions in Guatemala, stating that it was particularly significant that the respondent had sought protection from the police but was denied protection due to her social group. Finally, the BIA found that the group was socially distinct in society, where Guatemala has a culture of “machismo and family violence,” where the respondent’s social group is easily perceived and recognized in Guatemalan society, and where Guatemala has created laws to protect the respondent’s social group, but has failed to successfully implement them. The BIA cautioned in their decision that particular social group analyses in cases that involve victims of domestic violence will depend heavily on the facts, including country conditions.

DHS conceded the nexus requirement by agreeing that the respondent had indeed suffered past persecution on account of her membership in a particular social group. The BIA noted that “the issue of nexus will depend on the facts and circumstances of an individual claim.” Id. at 395. The BIA then remanded to the Immigration Judge for determination of whether the Guatemalan government was “unable or unwilling” to stop the respondent’s abuser. On remand, the Immigration Judge granted asylum upon the stipulation of the parties (and thus did not provide a reasoned analysis as to the Guatemalan government’s inability or unwillingness to protect the respondent from her abuser).

Relying on the precedent in Matter of A-R-C-G-, the respondent in Matter of A-B- similarly contended that she was eligible for asylum based on her membership in a particular social group, namely “El Salvadoran women who are unable to leave their domestic relationships where they have children in common.” Matter of A-B-, at 2. The Immigration Judge below found that the respondent had not met her burden in establishing eligibility for asylum, finding that her proposed particular social group was not cognizable, that even if the social group was cognizable, that she did not establish a nexus between the harm suffered and her membership in the social group, and finding that the respondent had not demonstrated that the El Salvadoran government was unable or unwilling to protect her from harm. Id. at 3. On appeal, the BIA found that the proposed social group was cognizable, where it was “substantially similar” to the proposed group in Matter of A-R-C-G- and further found that the respondent had met her burden in establishing particularly and social distinctness by way of a submitted country conditions report. Id. at 2. Moreover, the BIA found that the respondent had indeed shown a nexus between her abuse and her membership in the particular social group where the “record indicates that the ex-husband abused her from his position of perceived authority, as her ex-husband and the father of her children…” Id. at 3. The BIA also found that the respondent had sufficiently demonstrated that the El Salvadoran government was unable and unwilling to protect her from harm where although the respondent had previously obtained two orders of protection against her abuser, there were several occasions where local police authorities refused to intervene and afford the respondent protection. Moreover, the respondent’s brother-in-law, who also frequently threatened violence against her, was a police officer, and thus strengthened respondent’s claim that the government would not provide her with protection. The BIA held that the respondent had demonstrated past persecution on account of her membership in a cognizable particular social group, and sustained the respondent’s appeal, remanding for completion of background checks.

Despite the BIA’s findings, and decades of tireless efforts by advocates, Attorney General Sessions now refers the case to himself and has asked parties to submit briefs on “whether, and under what circumstances, being a victim of private criminal activity constitutes a cognizable ‘particular social group’ for purposes of an application for asylum or withholding of removal.” Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 227 (A.G. 2018). There may have been bad faith on the part of the Immigration Judge below who held up A-B-’s case on remand, then sent it back to the BIA eight months later by raising a “facially bogus legal issue,” only to have AG Sessions refer the case to himself and stripping the BIA of jurisdiction.

Sessions has made clear his animus against immigrants, especially those fleeing persecution and seeking asylum in the United States, along with their ‘dirty’ immigration lawyers. The referral of the A-B- case to himself is yet another instance of such xenophobia on full display, where he seeks to deny protection to some of the most vulnerable populations in the world. While we hope this is not the case, Sessions will likely reverse the BIA’s findings on the Matter of A-B- case and declare that victims of domestic violence are no longer eligible for asylum in the United States, thus uprooting Matter of A-R-C-G- and particular social group claims based on domestic violence. Indeed, attempting to reverse the ability of a victim of domestic violence to seek asylum goes beyond being anti-immigrant. It is a full-frontal attack on human rights and undermines international obligations to provide protection to people fleeing persecution.  The respondent in Matter of A-B- will thus need to appeal to a federal appellate court to overrule Sessions.

One can hope that if successful on appeal, Matter of A-B- has the potential to broaden asylum eligibility for victims of domestic violence by returning to the Acosta definition of particular social group, and clarify what Matter of A-R-C-G- left untouched, such as the nexus requirement and the inability or unwillingness of governments to provide victims protection from their abuses.

Returning to the Acosta definition of Particular Social Group

Before Matter of M-E-V-G- and Matter of W-G-R-’s additional particularity and social distinction requirements, Matter of Acosta dictated the proper particular social group analysis. The BIA in Matter of Acosta held,

“Persecution on account of membership in a particular social group” refers to persecution that is directed toward an individual who is a member of a group of persons, all of whom share a common, immutable characteristic. i.e., a characteristic that either is beyond the power of the individual members of the group to change or is so fundamental to their identities or consciences that it ought not be required to be changed…

The shared characteristic might be an innate one such as sex, color, or kinship ties, or in some circumstances it might be a shared past experience such as former military leadership or land ownership.

19 I&N Dec. at 212, 233.

Applying the doctrine of ejusdem generis, the BIA reasoned that the particular social group category, like the other four enumerated grounds (race, religion, nationality, and political opinion), should be defined by immutable characters that cannot, or ought not to, be changed. Id. at 233.

While nothing is perfect, the Acosta particular social group analysis worked well for the next two decades. However, after the 2003 BIA purge of liberal-leaning judges, the asylum system experienced a dramatic shift in particular social group analysis. The BIA in Matter of C-A-, 23 I&N Dec. 951 (BIA 2006), for example, added that in addition to demonstrating the shared immutable characteristic that defines the particular social group, an asylum applicant would also need to show that the group was “socially visible” in society. Matter of C-A-, 23 I&N Dec. at 951. Social visibility was later refined in Matter of M-E-V-G- and W-G-R-, which clarified that the group needs to be “socially distinct” as to be perceived by society, and not necessarily “ocularly” visible. Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I&N Dec. at 216.

On appeal, Matter of A-B- ought to advocate for the return of the pure Acosta particular social group analysis and rejection of the Matter of C-A- social visibility requirement. Indeed, some circuits have rejected this requirement. In Gatimi v. Holder, 578 F.3d 611 (7th Cir. 2009), the Seventh Circuit declined Chevron deference to the BIA’s denial of an asylum case and rejected the social visibility requirement, finding that it “makes no sense.” Similarly in Valdiviezo-Galdamez v. Holder, 663 F.3d 582 (3d Cir. 2011), the Third Circuit found that the social visibility requirement had no place in particular social group analysis, reasoning that

[i]n the wake of Acosta, the BIA recognized a number of groups as “particular social groups” where there was no indication that the group’s members possessed “characteristics that were highly visible and recognizable by others in the country in question” or possessed characteristics that were otherwise “socially visible” or recognizable. Indeed, we are hard-pressed to understand how the “social visibility” requirement was satisfied in prior cases using the Acosta standard. By way of examples noted above, the BIA has found each of the following groups to constitute a “particular social group” for purposes of refugee status: women who are opposed to female genital mutilation (Matter of Kasinga), homosexuals required to register in Cuba, (Matter of Toboso-Alfonso), and former members of the El Salvador national police (Matter of Fuentes). Yet, neither anything in the Board’s opinions in those cases nor a general understanding of any of those groups, suggests that the members of the groups are “socially visible.” The members of each of these groups have characteristics which are completely internal to the individual and cannot be observed or known by other members of the society in question (or even other members of the group) unless and until the individual member chooses to make that characteristic known.

Although the BIA has since clarified in M-E-V-G- and W-G-R- that social distinction does not require ocular visibility, advocates have found this clarification disingenuous and that it often contradicts the particularity requirement.

Clarifying the Nexus Requirement

As explained above, DHS conceded the nexus requirement in Matter of A-R-C-G- by agreeing that the respondent had indeed suffered past persecution on account of her membership in a particular social group. 26 I&N Dec. at 395. The BIA noted that “the issue of nexus will depend on the facts and circumstances of an individual claim.” Id.

In the recent case, Matter of L-E-A–, 27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2017), the BIA denied asylum to a respondent for failing to meet the nexus requirement. As we have previously blogged, the respondent here was a native and citizen of Mexico whose father owned a general store in Mexico City. Members of a drug cartel approached the respondent’s father to ask if they could sell drugs in the store as they viewed it as a favorable distribution location. The respondent’s father refused. The members of the drug cartel approached respondent to see whether he would sell drugs for them at his father’s store. Upon respondent also refusing, the members of the cartel tried to grab him and put him in their car, but he was able to get away. The respondent left for the border and successfully crossed into the United States. The BIA reasoned that the respondent was not entitled to relief because even if the persecutor had harmed the respondent, it was done so as a means to an end, i.e. to sell drugs. In other words, the persecution would not have been due to the respondent’s membership in a particular social group and animus towards the family, but rather because he was interfering in their drug trade.

The respondent in Matter of A-B- ought to distinguish the finding in Matter of L-E-A- preemptively on appeal, and seek to definitively establish what the nexus requirement ought to be in domestic violence cases. In particular, they will want to avoid an L-E-A-type finding which would reason that the persecution was not due to the woman’s membership in a particular social group, but rather because the persecutor was violent. This was the conclusion of the BIA in Matter of R-A-, 22 I&N 906 (BIA 1999), a decision pre-dating A-R-C-G-, which denied asylum to a victim of domestic violence. This erroneous finding continues to be encountered today, where Immigration Judges continue to find that it is an abuser’s jealousy or own violent behaviors that motivated the harm, not the victim’s membership in a particular social group. As pointed out by Blaine Bookey, “this rationale defies logic: an abuser’s ‘jealousy’ [or violence] is inherently linked to a woman’s gender and status in a relationship as the property of her partner.”

Clarification on this issue is imperative for uniform adjudication of domestic violence asylum cases. The Court handling the Matter of A-B- appeal may look at how other countries have interpreted the nexus requirement under international law. In New Zealand, for example, the Refugee Status Appeals Authority found,

[T]he words “for reasons of” require a causal nexus between actual or perceived membership of the particular social group and the well-founded fear of persecution.  It is not sufficient that a person be a member of a particular social group and also have a well-founded fear of persecution.  The persecution must be feared for reason of the person’s membership or perceived membership of the particular social group…

[T]he nexus between the Convention reason and the persecution can be provided either by the serious harm limb or by the failure of the state protection limb.  This means that if a refugee claimant is at real risk of serious harm at the hands of a non-state agent (e.g. husband, partner or other non-state agent) for reasons unrelated to any of the Convention grounds, but the failure of state protection is for reason of a Convention ground, the nexus requirement is satisfied.  Conversely, if the risk of harm by the non-state agent is Convention related, but the failure of state protection is not, the nexus requirement is still satisfied. In either case the persecution is for reason of the admitted Convention reason. This is because “persecution” is a construct of two separate but essential elements, namely risk of serious harm and failure of protection.

(emphasis added).

The United Kingdom came to a similar understanding of the nexus requirement in the seminal case, Islam and Shah v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [1999] 2 A.C. 629 (H.L.), finding that the requirement is satisfied where the applicant can show that the harm was motivated by her membership in a particular social group, or by showing that the state failed to provide her with protection from that harm due to her membership in that particular social group. The US Courts have an opportunity to expand asylum eligibility for victims of domestic violence by adopting a similar understanding of the nexus requirement, where an applicant can satisfy the nexus requirement via the abuser’s conduct or by the state’s failure to provide protection from this conduct due to her membership in a particular social group.

Clarifying the State Protection Analysis

State protection, or the lack thereof, is critical in successfully arguing particular social group cases when the persecution is committed by private actors. However, Matter of A-R-C-G- did not provide definitive guidance for assessing the adequacy of state protection. As explained, the BIA remanded the case back to the Immigration Judge for determination of whether the Guatemalan government was “unable or unwilling” to stop the respondent’s abuser. On remand, the Immigration Judge granted asylum at stipulation of the parties and thus did not provide a reasoned analysis as to the Guatemalan government’s inability or unwillingness to protect the respondent from her abuser.

On appeal, Matter of A-B- can seek to clarify how adjudicators ought to analyze the lack of state protection for victims of domestic violence. Advocates have reported inconsistent adjudication in state protection analyses, where some Immigration Judges fail to take country conditions into consideration or fail to understand that although a woman obtained orders of protection against her abuser that the state nevertheless failed to protect her from future abuse when the partner violated the order. Accordingly, uniform guidance is warranted to allow for seamless and consistent adjudication, such as the consideration of country conditions evidence, testimony from the applicant about whether she reasonably could have sought protection in her home country, and evidence of lackluster implementation of domestic violence laws at the state and local levels.

AG Sessions will undoubtedly deny the applicant’s asylum in Matter of A-B- and seek to radically change the adjudication of asylum cases based on domestic violence, and perhaps all particular social group cases based on private criminal activity. However, Matter of A-B-, on appeal, can not only overcome Sessions’ erroneous reading of the law, but can help to expand the eligibility of asylum for victims of domestic violence and clarify those issues which were left untouched by Matter of A-R-C-G-. Critically, the respondent in Matter of A-B- can raise the question of where the Courts wish to fall morally. Do we want to be a country that denies asylum to victims of domestic violence whose countries do little to nothing to protect them? Do we want to stand in stark contrast to nations such as Canada, which has long recognized eligibility for victims of domestic violence, or the United Kingdom, which has similarly recognized such eligibility and does not impose stringent cohesive requirements in their particular social group analyses?  The eventual appeal of Matter of A-B- will grant the Courts another opportunity to resist the anti-immigrant policies of this administration that have undermined the notion of America as being the beacon of hope for the persecuted.

 

 

[i] It must be noted that men and boys are also severely affected by sexual violence. Women and girls, however, constitute the vast majority of victims worldwide and are the population of concern contemplated in Matter of A-R-C-G-, and are thus the population discussed in this article.

Cyrus Mehta

California’s New Laws Protecting the Rights of Immigrants Are Civil Rights and Should Never Be Found to Be Unconstitutional

/0 Comments/in /by

The Trump administration has ramped up its ire against California by filing a lawsuit against three different California laws that aims to protect immigrants from the harsh effects of federal enforcement. The three laws are the Immigrant Worker Protection Act, which regulates the way private employers can respond to federal efforts to investigate workplace immigration law compliance; the California Values Act, which  limits communication from state and local law enforcement with federal immigration officials and prevents them from investigating people for immigration enforcement purposes; and  A.B. 103, which subjects local detention facilities to twice-yearly inspections by the Attorney General’s office.

The lawsuit, United States of America v. California, claims that the California laws render it impossible for the federal government to deport people not born in the United States who live in California. It alleges that California has obstructed the United States’ ability to enforce laws that Congress has created, and that the California protections violate the constitutional principle that federal immigration law is the supreme law of the land. All three laws were signed during the Trump administration. Governor Brown signed the Immigration Worker Protection Act and the California Values Act in October 2017, and A.B. 103 in June 2017.The lawsuit, which also names Governor Brown and AG Becerra as defendant, calls for a declaration that the provisions are invalid, as well as preliminary and permanent injunctions. Under the preemption doctrine, when a state law obstructs or conflicts with federal law, the state law is invalidated.

Remarkably the Trump administration has relied on Arizona v. United States, a 2012 Supreme Court decision that held that Arizona had overstepped its limits by enacting immigration laws that penalized non-citizens that undermined federal immigration law. When the Obama administration  launched this lawsuit against Arizona, it was criticized by Republicans as undermining state rights,  and it is thus ironic that the Trump administration is relying on Arizona v. United States to attack the laws of California that are the opposite of Arizona’s, which are friendly towards immigrants.

While advocates in favor of more friendly immigration laws, including yours truly, cheered when the Supreme Court found most of Arizona’s laws preempted by federal immigration law, this is not a case of double standards when the same advocates are critical of the Trump administration’s latest lawsuit against California. Arizona’s SB 1070 truly conflicted with federal immigration law, according to the Supreme Court, and were contrary to the federal immigration scheme that was enacted by Congress. Those laws literally usurped federal immigration law. For instance, Section 3 of SB 1070 penalized non-citizens for failure to carry registration documents even though there was a similar comprehensive federal requirement to carry registration documents. Section 5(c) criminalized unauthorized immigrants who applied for work. The federal scheme criminalized only employers, but not the individual for unauthorized work, and thus 5(c) stood as an obstacle to the objectives of Congress. Section 6 allowed Arizona police officers to make warrantless arrests based on probable cause that a non-citizen was removable from the United States. This too was preempted because under the federal scheme being removable is not a criminal offense. Still, Arizona was a mixed decision. Section 2(B), the most controversial provision of SB 1070 known as the “show me your papers” law, was upheld. The Supreme Court held that 2(B) was not creating a new state immigration law unlike the other provisions that were found unconstitutional; it only allowed Arizona police officers to determine if someone was unlawfully present by inquiring about person’s status with DHS, and such communication and exchange of information had not been foreclosed by Congress.

Would California’s laws, even if friendly towards immigrants, be preempted under Arizona v. US? The fact that a state may pass an immigrant friendly law rather than a punitive law is not determinative in analyzing whether the law has been preempted if those laws still pose an obstacle to the enforcement of federal law or are in conflict with it.

Under the doctrine of preemption, which is based on the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution, federal law preempts state law, even when the laws conflict. Thus, a federal court may require a state to stop certain behavior it believes interferes with, or is in conflict with, federal law. Notwithstanding the sweeping Constitutional mandate in favor federal laws being the supreme law of the country, states too possess sovereignty concurrent with the federal government. Therefore, the Intent of Congress is the key. When there is an express preemption provision in a federal statute, courts will identify the domain expressly preempted by that language.

When there is no express provision in a federal statute, a state law can also be impliedly preempted under field preemption or conflict preemption. Under field preemption, it must be demonstrated that the federal government has fully occupied the field it has chosen to regulate. In the case of conflict preemption, if there is a conflict between the state law and the federal law, it must be demonstrated that compliance with both federal and state law is a physical impossibility or that the state law stands as an obstacle to the purposes of Congress.

Relying on Arizona v. United States, the complaint in United States v. California claims that the United States has broad authority to establish immigration laws, the execution of which states cannot obstruct or discriminate against. The complaint further asserts that Congress has created laws that provide broad authority to the federal government to investigate, arrest, detain and remove non-citizens suspected to being or found to be unlawfully in the US. The complaint also states that consultation between the federal and state governments is an important feature of the immigration system, and thus a state may not prohibit its official from providing information to the DHS regarding the citizenship or immigration status of an individual. Finally, the complaint notes that Congress has enacted a comprehensive framework for combatting the employment of illegal aliens, and can penalize employers for not verifying the employment status of employees or for knowingly hiring unauthorized workers.

Although California will make extensive arguments in defending its laws, some preliminary observations can be made. The California laws have been enacted to protect the constitutional and civil rights of all people living in the state of California. While the federal government is authorized to enforce the immigration laws, there have been many instances of egregious abuses by ICE agents that violate the rights of California residents. California is not interfering in the enforcement federal immigration laws or usurping them like Arizona did, but is providing a constitutional baseline for federal agents when enforcing federal law. A state can pass laws with the objective of protecting its residents. Thus, in De Canas v. Bica, the Supreme Court held that a state law regulating non-citizens is not per se preempted as a regulation of federal immigration law, which is essentially a determination of who should or not be admitted in the country. States possess broad police powers to regulate the employment relationship and to protect workers within the state. Even if the California laws mildly frustrate federal authority, they only ensure that the civil rights of California residents subjected to heavy handed enforcement are protected. According to its website, the Civil Rights Enforcement Section in the California Attorney General’s office is committed to the strong and vigorous enforcement of federal and state civil rights laws.  Thus, the California laws have been enacted to protect a legitimate state interest – the constitutional and civil rights of its residents – rather than to oust the federal government from enforcing immigration laws. Federal ICE agents are still free to enter California to enforce the immigration law in order to apprehend, detain and deport non-citizens who are not lawfully in the US.

The California Values Act prohibits state and local officials from providing information regarding a person’s release, unless there is a judicial warrant or a judicial probable cause determination or the individual has been convicted of certain felonies or other serious crimes. It is well within the constitutional rights of a state to refuse to provide such information.   Pursuant to Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), the federal government cannot commandeer states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program under the Tenth Amendment.  In that case, sheriffs challenged the federal Brady Act, which required local sheriffs to conduct background checks for gun purchasers. Some sheriffs resisted because they objected to the federal regulation of firearms. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, held that the sheriffs, as well as states, cannot be commandeered under federal law enforcement schemes with which they disagreed. Moreover, the underpinning behind the California Values Act is to keep communities safe by ensuring that local police can function effectively within the community by not betraying the trust of immigrants who may cooperate as crime victims. If local police were required to provide information regarding non-citizens, they would not be able combat crimes effectively.

The Immigrant Worker Protection Act prevents employers from voluntarily consenting to an immigration enforcement agent form entering the workplace or providing access to the employer’s records, unless the agent has a judicial warrant or consent is otherwise required by federal law. The law also requires employers to notify employees within 72 hours off receiving a notice of inspection. While the Trump administration argues that preventing an employer from voluntarily consenting to an agent from entering the workplace or providing records undermines the ability of enforcement agents from enforcing the employer sanctions provisions under the Immigration and Nationality Act, what the California law does is to again set a baseline that would protect the constitutional and civil rights of California workers. The law does not prevent the federal government from enforcing federal law, it only insists that agents obtain a judicial warrant and workers be provided notice. It is well settled that ICE needs a judicial warrant under the Fourth Amendment in order to enter a private place without consent. Although the Immigrant Worker Protection Act precludes an employer from providing voluntary consent, which may be viewed as interfering with the federal scheme, a judicial warrant could still be justified as the workers may not have consented to a federal agent entering the work place even if the employer may have.

Similarly, California’s AB 103 requiring state officials to review county, local or private locked detention facilities in which noncitizens are being detained is to ensure that the detention facilities meet the constitutional standards. There have been far too many cases of non-citizens being detained for purposes of civil proceedings being abused and mistreated. Again, AB 103’s motivation is not to prevent the detention of non-citizens but to ensure that their detention meets minimum constitutional standards.

Although Attorney General Sessions on behalf of the Trump administration believes that California’s laws ought to be preempted based on Arizona v. United States, they are essentially civil rights laws. A state may enact laws ensuring the civil rights of its residents, including non-citizens, whether legal or not. Civil rights flow from the US Constitution, as well as California’s Constitution, and they ought not to be preempted, especially in light of egregious abuses by ICE agents in enforcing federal immigration law.  Ensuring civil rights to all is a bedrock American principle. Some believe that California may have gone too far, but it can be legitimately argued that a state law upholding civil rights should never be in conflict with a federal law or be an obstacle to federal immigration law enforcement. Civil rights must be adhered to by all government officials, including federal immigration authorities. The preemption doctrine cannot be invoked by federal authorities as an excuse for violating civil rights.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

David Isaacson

Rodriguez Tovar v. Sessions: The Ninth Circuit Holds That a Child Sponsored By a Lawful Permanent Resident Should Not Be Penalized For The LPR Parent’s Naturalization

/0 Comments/in /by

Becoming a U.S. citizen is often thought of as an admirable act, something that our immigration and naturalization laws encourage qualified applicants to do.  According to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), however, in at least one relatively common fact situation, our immigration laws actually discourage naturalization, by penalizing children of the naturalized parent.  The BIA held in Matter of Zamora-Molina, 25 I&N Dec. 606 (BIA 2011), that an applicant for adjustment of status was ineligible for that relief essentially because of his mother’s naturalization, which the BIA believed led to less favorable treatment of his case under the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) than would have occurred if his mother had remained a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR). In Rodriguez Tovar v. Sessions, however, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently rejected Matter of Zamora-Molina and held that an otherwise CSPA-protected child did not lose that protection due to his LPR parent’s naturalization.

This author and Cyrus D. Mehta have frequently blogged in the past about the CSPA (see also here, here, and the tagged lists here and here), and I will not seek to describe here the entire statute and all of the provisions that it introduced into the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). However, some brief background regarding the portions of the CSPA involved in Zamora-Molina and Rodriguez Tovar is necessary in order to appreciate the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

Certain categories of visa petition apply to a “child” as defined in INA §101(b)(1), that is, “an unmarried person under twenty-one years of age” who meets one of several other criteria with respect to the petitioning parent. Under INA §203(h)(1) as added by the CSPA, the age of a beneficiary of a Family 2A preference petition filed for a child of an LPR under INA §203(a)(2)(A), or the age of the derivative beneficiary child under INA §203(d) of other types of petitions, is determined by taking the child’s age on the date when a visa number became available (as long as the child seeks to acquire LPR status within one year of that date), and subtracting the number of days during which the petition was pending with USCIS. Another way to look at it is that it is as though the child stops getting older when the petition is filed, and only starts again after the petition is approved, and then stops getting older once again when a visa number becomes available.  If this adjusted age is under 21, then the child, as long as he or she is unmarried, can continue to be processed in the Family 2A preference (or as a derivative beneficiary), because he or she is still a “child” under the definition at INA §101(b)(1). The waiting time for an available visa number under the Family 2A preference for under-21-year-old children of LPRs is generally shorter than the waiting time for an available visa number under the Family 2B preference for over-21-year-old sons and daughters of LPRs, as shown in the State Department’s Visa Bulletin, so there is a significant advantage in that context to remaining a “child”.

The question is what happens to such a beneficiary of a Family 2A preference petition when the sponsoring parent becomes naturalized as a U.S. citizen. According to INA §201(f)(1) of the INA, also added by the CSPA, the age of a child who is the beneficiary of a petition as the immediate relative of a U.S. citizen (a category for which there are an unlimited number of visas available and thus no Visa Bulletin waiting line) is generally determined on the date the petition is filed. However, the next paragraph of the statute provides that

In the case of a petition . . . initially filed for an alien child’s classification as a family-sponsored immigrant under section 203(a)(2)(A), based on the child’s parent being lawfully admitted for permanent residence, if the petition is later converted, due to the naturalization of the parent, to a petition to classify the alien as an immediate relative . . . the determination described in paragraph (1) shall be made using the age of the alien on the date of the parent’s naturalization.

INA §201(f)(2). That is, when an LPR parent who has filed a petition for their child later naturalizes, the child’s age is frozen as of the date of the parent’s naturalization.  But the question then arises, is the statute’s reference to “the age of the alien on the date of the parent’s naturalization” a reference to the child’s biological age, or to the child’s adjusted age under INA §203(h)(1)?

In Matter of Zamora-Molina, the BIA opted for the former answer, holding that the child’s biological age was the relevant age under INA §201(f)(2). Daniel Edgar Zamora-Molina had been biologically 22 when his mother naturalized, but it had previously taken more than two and a half years for the petition filed on his behalf to be approved.  Thus, his CSPA-adjusted age at the time of naturalization was less than 20, under INA §203(h)(1), but his biological age at that time was over 21. The BIA held that Mr. Zamora-Molina could not adjust status as an immediate relative of his mother, but would need to proceed under the Family 1st Preference category for sons and daughters, over age 21, of U.S. citizens.  The BIA also refused Mr. Zamora-Molina’s request to opt out of the conversion of his case to the Family 1st Preference under INA §204(k), which allows certain family preference beneficiaries to opt out of the effect of their parent’s naturalization, because the BIA held that §204(k) only allowed opting-out that resulted in becoming a beneficiary under the Family 2B category for sons and daughters over age 21 of LPRs. Since no visa numbers were available for Mr. Zamora-Molina’s priority date in either the Family 1st Preference category or the Family 2B preference category, given the length of the waiting lines under those categories, the BIA upheld the Immigration Judge’s decision that denied Mr. Zamora-Molina’s application for adjustment of status and instead granted him only permission to depart voluntarily rather than being removed.

Mr. Zamora-Molina argued to the BIA that it was “fundamentally unfair” to apply this law to him, because he would have been eligible for adjustment of status under the Family 2A preference category if his mother had not naturalized. In effect, he was being penalized for his mother’s naturalization.  The BIA, however, interpreted this as a constitutional argument, which it held that it lacked authority to address.

In the case that came before the Ninth Circuit in Rodriguez Tovar v. Sessions, Margarito Rodriguez Tovar faced a similar fact pattern to Daniel Edgar Zamora-Molina. Mr. Rodriguez Tovar’s father had filed a petition for Margarito in April 2001 when Margarito was 17 or 18 years old, which was not approved until more than four years later in 2005, and had then naturalized in July 2006.  At the time his father naturalized, Mr. Rodriguez Tovar’s biological age was 23, but his adjusted age was under 21 for purposes of his Family 2A petition according to the CSPA-adjusted age calculated under INA §203(h)(1), since subtracting more than four years from a biological age of 23 left him with an adjusted age of only 19. Moreover, had his father not become a citizen, Mr. Rodriguez Tovar would have become eligible for a visa number in the Family 2A category less than a year later, in July 2007, when his CSPA-adjusted age was still only 20.

The BIA, however, held in reliance on Matter of Zamora-Molina that because Mr. Rodriguez Tovar was biologically over 21 when his father naturalized, and his father had indeed naturalized, he was only eligible for a visa number in the Family 1st preference or the Family 2B preference, neither of which were available. As the Ninth Circuit summarized the resulting conundrum:

Everyone agrees that if Rodriguez Tovar’s father had remained an LPR instead of becoming a citizen, Rodriguez Tovar would have been eligible for a visa in the F2A category on June 1, 2007, at which point his age under the statute would have been 20. Similarly, had he been afforded his statutory age when his father became a citizen, he would have been eligible for a visa immediately. However, the government’s position is that because his father decided to become a citizen when he did, Rodriguez Tovar was not eligible for either visa and may now be deported forthwith and must wait in the F1 line abroad.

Rodriguez Tovar, slip op. at 9.

The Ninth Circuit rejected the BIA’s interpretation of the statute which had led to this “irrational” result.  Rodriguez Tovar, slip op. at 12. Looking at the statute as a whole, the Ninth Circuit held that the reference to “the age of the alien on the date of the parent’s naturalization” in INA §201(f)(2) was unambiguously a reference to the age as calculated under INA §203(h)(1), that is, the CSPA-adjusted age. Although §203(h)(1) and §201(f)(2) do not explicitly cross-reference one another, the Ninth Circuit held, those two provisions are tied together by INA §203(a)(2)(A), which each of them does reference, and the three provisions together “form a cohesive whole.” Rodriguez Tovar, slip op. at 14-15. Moreover, the conversion provisions of the statute and regulations, and the absence of an opt-out under INA §204(k) for CSPA-protected F2A beneficiaries to remain in the F2A category, both make more sense if read with the background understanding that Congress expected CSPA-protected F2A petitions to convert to immediate relative cases upon the petitioner’s naturalization.

The Ninth Circuit also justified its interpretation of the interlocking CSPA provisions by reference to the canon of interpretation that statutes should be interpreted to avoid absurd results.  As it explained:

Our interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1151(f)(2) [INA §201(f)(2)] makes sense within the context of the whole CSPA. Anyone who is treated as a minor child of a lawful permanent resident for purposes of an F2A petition is treated as a minor child of a citizen when the parent naturalizes, and no one is penalized just because his parent became a citizen. The government’s interpretation leads to the absurd result that Rodriguez Tovar’s father’s naturalization causes the deportation of his son, who is then compelled to wait for decades in a foreign land before he can return—despite the fact that had his father simply remained an LPR, Rodriguez Tovar would have been eligible for a visa within a year. That can hardly have been Congress’s intent.

“[I]nterpretations of a statute which would produce absurd results are to be avoided if alternative interpretations consistent with the legislative purpose are available.” Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564, 575 (1982). Accordingly, we conclude “that Congress had a clear intent on the question at issue,” The Wilderness Soc’y, 353 F.3d at 1059: children of LPRs may take advantage of the age calculation formula in 8 U.S.C. § 1153(h)(1) [INA §203(h)(1)] for purposes of converting to immediate relative status under § 1151(f)(2) [INA §201(f)(2)] when their parents naturalize.

Rodriguez Tovar, slip op. at 21.

Hopefully, the Ninth Circuit’s compelling arguments may convince other Courts of Appeals, and ultimately perhaps even the BIA or, if the issue is brought there, the Supreme Court.  In the meantime, only those who reside within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit (that is, California, Nevada, Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands), and perhaps others whose cases are being processed there such as at the California Service Center, are likely to be able to take advantage of Rodriguez Tovar without going to federal court themselves, and even in those cases there will be some uncertainty regarding the precise conditions under which USCIS will be willing to apply Rodriguez Tovar until we see how they behave in practice.  In cases in which the Zamora-Molina / Rodriguez Tovar issue arises, however, applicants for adjustment of status and their attorneys should consider whether litigation in federal court is an appropriate option.  Other Article III judges, like the Ninth Circuit panel in Rodriguez Tovar, may be less willing than the BIA to read the CSPA to produce the absurd result of penalizing children for the naturalization of their LPR parents.

 

Cora-Ann Pestaina

BALCA Holds That Foreign Language Requirement Did Not Need To Be Listed In The Advertisements

/0 Comments/in /by

Despite the fact that the PERM regulations took effect on March 28, 2005, almost 13 years ago, PERM practitioners continue to struggle with the Department of Labor (DOL) regarding what must be listed in PERM advertisements. Issues surrounding this ongoing battle were discussed in my blogs here, here, here and here. As they say, the struggle is real!

An employer has to conduct a good faith recruitment of the labor market in order to obtain labor certification for a foreign national employee. When a DOL Certifying Officer (CO) chooses to deny a PERM application due to lack of information in the advertisements, there are a few typical sources of authority that could be cited to justify that denial. Under 20 C.F.R. §656.17(f)(7), advertisements must “not contain wages or terms and conditions of employment that are less favorable than those offered the alien.” Based on this authority, a CO could find that an employer failed to inform US workers of conditions of employment that might have made the position more attractive to them, such as a work from home benefit. Under 20 C.F.R. §656.24(b)(2), the CO must make a determination as to whether there “is in the United States a worker who is able, willing, qualified and available for and at the place of the job opportunity.” Based on this authority, the CO can hold that this decision is impossible to make since the employer failed to provide US workers with a sufficient understanding of the job opportunity thus rendering them incapable of making an informed decision as to whether they would qualify for the offered position. Accordingly, the CO cannot make a determination as to whether or not qualified US workers exist. Another favorite source of authority is 20 C.F.R. §656.10(c)(8), which requires an employer to attest that “the job opportunity has been and is clearly open to any US worker.” The CO will cite this regulation to make the point that, since the employer neglected to sufficiently inform US workers about the job opportunity, then it was clearly not open to all US workers.

Most recently, in Matter of Unicolor, Inc. 2013-PER-00065 (Jan. 26, 2018) the Employer advertised for a permanent position classified under the occupational title of “Sales Representative, Wholesale and Manufacture.” The PERM was audited. The CO then denied the PERM under 20 C.F.R. §§656.24(b)(2)(ii) and 656.10(c)(8) and (9), finding that because the Employer failed to include “must be able to read, write, and speak the Korean language” in its Sunday print advertisements and in its job order, the Employer had not provided U.S. applicants with a sufficient understanding of the job opportunity to make an informed decision as to whether they would qualify for the position. The Employer’s newspaper advertisements had simply stated, “Sales Representative. Apply by mail only to Unicolors, Inc.” In its request for reconsideration the Employer argued that the Preamble to the Final Rule of 20 C.F.R. Parts 655 and 656 gives the Employer the flexibility to draft appropriate advertisements that comply and that lengthy, detailed advertisements are not required by the regulation. The Employer argued that its advertisements sufficiently apprised the potentially qualified applicants of the job. The case was appealed to the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA).

In describing its responsibility in adjudicating the appeal, BALCA cited a prior case which states, “When the CO relies on §656.10(c)(8) as a basis for denying an application due to deficiencies in an employer’s recruitment advertising, the Board must determine whether any discrepancies between the job requirements listed in the Form 9089 and the Employer’s recruitment advertisements ‘so misinformed potential job applicants about the [position] that this aspect of recruitment undermines the attestation that the job opportunity is clearly open to any U.S. worker.’” Enterprise Software Solutions, Inc., 2012-PER-02118 (Nov. 16, 2016) (citing Cosmos Foundation, Inc., 2012-PER-01637, slip op. at 7 (Aug. 4, 2016)).

BALCA found that its recent panels, in applying this §656.10(c)(8) analysis, reversed PERM denials when the Employer’s advertisements merely omitted information. BALCA referred to Cosmos Foundation, Inc., where the Employer advertised for the position of Social Studies Department Chair asking simply for 24 months of experience. On the PERM application, the Employer indicated that it would accept 24 months experience in the offered position or as a “Teacher in Social Studies [or any subfield of social sciences] at the middle or high school levels.” The CO reasoned that the Employer had not provided U.S. workers with a sufficient understanding of the job opportunity to make an informed decision as to whether they would qualify for the position. However, BALCA pointed out that the Employer’s advertisements did not actually misinform US workers about the job opportunity or deter qualified candidates from applying. A US worker with relevant teaching experience would still apply for the position whether or not that worker had experience as a Social Studies Department Chair or as a “Teacher in Social Studies [or any subfield of social sciences] at the middle or high school levels.” BALCA found that the Employer’s omission of the acceptable alternate job experience in its advertisements did not “chill” potentially qualified candidates’ interest in the job opportunity.

BALCA also referred to DNG Technologies, Inc. 2012-PER-01647 (Feb. 25, 2016) where the CO denied the PERM application finding that the Employer’s advertisement on its website failed to apprise interested applicants of the geographic area of employment. The CO argued that §656.10(c)(8) requires website advertisements to comply with the criteria set forth in §656.17(f), including §656.17(f)(4), which mandates that advertisements must “[i]indicate the geographic area of employment with enough specificity to apprise applicants of any travel requirements and where applicants will likely have to reside to perform the job opportunity.” But BALCA pointed out that the Board has ruled §656.17(f) applies only to advertisements placed in newspapers of general circulation or professional journals. Symantec Corp., 2011-PER-1856 (July 30, 2014) (en banc) (which I previously blogged about here). Because §656.17(f)(4) does not govern the additional forms of professional recruitment, it does not necessarily follow that omitting the area of geographic employment from an employer’s website advertisement establishes that the job was not clearly open to US workers. BALCA stated that the relevant inquiry under §656.10(c)(8) is whether the Employer’s website advertisement so misinformed, or so failed to inform, potential applicants about the job opportunity that the recruitment did not support the Employer’s attestation that the job opportunity was clearly open to any US worker. BALCA found that interested applicants were not misinformed about the location of the offered position, they simply were not informed about the geographic area of employment and although a statement of the location of the employment might have been useful information for job seekers, its omission did not support a determination that the job opportunity was not clearly open to US workers.

Based on these two cases, BALCA found that the Employer in Unicolors merely omitted the information that the qualified candidate must be able to read, write, and speak the Korean language. The Employer, while it could have been more specific in its advertisements, did not overstate or mischaracterize the job requirements and the regulations do not require that the Employer enumerate every job requirement in its advertisements.  Killing any potential argument that Korean speakers who were out there just dying for a job where they could utilize their Korean were deterred from applying for the offered position simply because the Employer failed to inform them that applicants for the Sales Representative position needed to be fluent in Korean, BALCA pointed out that the regulations do not require that employers craft their advertisements to foreclose all possible reasons why a qualified applicant may not apply for a certain job. A US worker with the ability to read, write and speak Korean would still apply for the job if they were interested in a position as a Sales Representative!

It can become truly exhausting to always prepare PERM applications defensively; to always try to stay one step ahead of the DOL and to imagine new reasons for denial. It is therefore quite encouraging to read these types of BALCA decisions which reward employers for their good faith recruitment and where the US worker is not painted as so easily “deterred’, “confused” and “adversely affected.” Having said that, PERM practitioners know well that in trying to ensure a smooth PERM process, the best course of action is to include as much relevant information in the advertisements as possible and to endeavor to keep advertisements identical across the board. But for the times when that is not the case, these decisions provide some hope.

Cyrus Mehta

The Evolving Rights Of Deportable Immigrants As Seen In The Case Of Ravi Ragbir

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Sophia Genovese

Foreign nationals with removal orders are in an extremely vulnerable situation. Even if they are asked to report on a regular basis under an order of supervision, there is no guarantee that a whimsical ICE officer the next they show up to an interview may decide to apprehend this person with handcuffs and expel them from the country.  ICE may also decide to make a pre-dawn arrest of an undocumented person at home in front of family members including children, arrest  those who are attempting to regularize this status, or even victims of domestic violence seeking to escape their abusers.

Or if this person is an activist protesting against ICE’s tactics and fighting for the rights of immigrants, ICE could retaliate by arresting him or her with the goal of removing this so called “irritant” from the United States.  Indeed, no one appears to be beyond the reach of ICE’s heavy handedness in the Trump era.

At issue is whether a removable person has been allowed to stay in the US, and regularly report to ICE, can this person one day be suddenly apprehended without the chance to say goodbye to his family?

This was the very issue raised in Ragbir v. Sessions before Judge Katherine B. Forrest in a petition for habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Ravi Ragbir has lived in the US for over 25 years, but in the last ten years was subject to a final order of removal based on a deportable criminal conviction. Because of his special contributions to the community as the Executive Director of New Sanctuary Coalition of New York City, ICE until recently allowed him to remain in the US with his citizen wife and daughter, granting him an order of supervision and four administrative stays of removal. On January 11, 2018, however, while the administrative stay was still in place, ICE suddenly and inexplicably detained him during a routine check in.

Mr. Ragbir’s petition for habeas corpus was granted. The decision in Ragbir v. Sessions is astounding as it acknowledged the right of a removable person to say goodbye to loved ones and leave in an orderly and dignified fashion, especially one who did not pose a flight risk, was not a danger to the community and who was routinely checking in with ICE. The Court wrote that “[i]t ought not to be – and it has never before been – that those who have lived without incident in this country for years are subjected to treatment we associate with regimes we revile as unjust.”

Although the Court’s decision granting the habeas corpus petition was thin on legal authority, it broadly relied on the Fifth Amendment’s liberty and due process guarantees. “In such circumstances, the Fifth Amendment’s liberty and due process guarantees are North Stars that must guide our actions,” the Court eloquently stated. Although Mr. Ragbir had a final order of removal, “his interest in due process, required that we not pluck him out of his life without a moment’s notice, remove him form his family and community without a moment’s notice.” He should have at the very minimum been given to understand that he must organize his affairs and leave by a due date.

As this victory was being celebrated, Mr. Ragbir was still required to report to ICE for removal on February 10, 2018. This would have possibly been in compliance with Judge Forrest’s order that he be asked to leave by a due date in an orderly fashion rather than suddenly arrested and separated from his family. However, Mr. Ragbir, together with New Sanctuary Coalition of New York City, CASA de Maryland, Detention Watch Network, the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, and the New York Immigration Coalition filed suit on February 9, 2018, Ragbir v. Homan,  in the Southern District of New York to challenge the recent targeting of immigrant rights activists by federal immigration officials. The government has agreed to stay Mr. Ragbir’s deportation temporarily pending further briefing in this action. The lawsuit seeks, among other forms of relief, a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining the government from taking further action to effectuate a deportation order against Mr. Ragbir, while also seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining the government from selectively enforcing immigration laws against individuals based on protected political speech.

It is hoped that Mr. Ragbir’s case will shine the torch on the draconian impact of deportation on the individual and the family that is left behind in the US. There have been far too many instances where removable persons have been suddenly and abruptly plucked from their families without giving them a chance to leave in an orderly and dignified fashion, or to consider allowing them to remain while they collaterally challenge their deportation orders or seek to reopen them. And as was done under the President Obama administration, allow such people to remain in the US if they have family members and have lived a life without incident apart from the ground that caused their deportation order. It is important for all of us to examine our collective morality when the government preys upon the most vulnerable populations among us.

As early as 1945, the Supreme Court in Bridges v. Wixon held:

Though deportation is not technically a criminal proceeding, it visits a great hardship on the individual, and deprives him of the right to stay and live and work in this land of freedom. That deportation is a penalty — at times, a most serious one — cannot be doubted. Meticulous care must be exercised lest the procedure by which he is deprived of that liberty not meet the essential standards of fairness.

Under our immigration system, people may be removed for a number of reasons. In Mr. Ragbir’s case, although he was a lawful permanent resident, his order of deportation was based upon a felony conviction for wire fraud in 2001. Mr. Ragbir paid his dues for that conviction under the criminal justice system. If Mr. Ragbir had been a citizen, he would not have been in this predicament. But because of his non-citizen status, he was also put in removal proceedings and thus was punished further for his criminal conviction even though as a citizen he would not be. A deportation proceeding is a civil proceeding, and the purpose is to remove the non-citizen rather than to punish, and yet it ironically results in a far greater punishment than the criminal proceeding.

Others are removed simply for not being in lawful status. It is a myth that undocumented immigration can be controlled or eliminated. Indeed, undocumented immigration is an inexorable outcome of restrictive immigration policy, a situation bound to worsen under the Trump Administration’s proposals to severely limit legal pathways. No matter how many more ICE agents that the Trump administration may add to enforce immigration law, there will always be undocumented immigrants who will desperately try to stay in the US to be with loved ones.

If ICE enforces the law harshly and egregiously, they will be even less effective as law suits like Mr. Ragbir has filed will push them back, as we have already begun to see in courts in Southern California and New Jersey. Judge André Birotte in Los Angeles, ruling on the unconstitutionality of ICE detainers (requests to local law enforcement to detain an individual for an additional 48 hours so ICE may decide whether or not to place the individual into removal proceedings), wrote “The LASD [Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department] officers have no authority to arrest individuals for civil immigration offenses, and thus, detaining individuals beyond their date for release violated the individuals’ Fourth Amendment rights.”  Judge Esther Salas in New Jersey temporarily halted the deportation of Indonesian Christians with “administratively final orders of removal predating 2009 and were subject to an order of supervision,” pending further adjudication of their claims. As the ACLU has argued, “This case involves life-and-death stakes and we are simply asking that these longtime residents be given opportunity to show that they are entitled to remain here.”

No amount of cruel and egregious enforcement measures can eliminate undocumented immigration. Rather, having sensible immigration laws that allow foreign nationals to more easily legalize their status will be more effective in solving the undocumented immigration problem in America, and would be more consistent with its values. This would be a better way to deal with the issue rather than to cruelly pluck people away from their families in violation of their rights and liberties enshrined in the Constitution.

Cyrus Mehta

The AAO Finds That Entry Level Wages Do Not Automatically Preclude H-1B Visa Classification

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Sophia Genovese

As we have previously blogged, many of the Requests for Evidence (RFEs) issued to petitions filed under the FY 2018 H-1B visa lottery objected to the H-1B worker being paid an entry level wage.

The AAO recently took up the issue of Level I wages in two decisions, Matter of B-C-, Inc., ID #1139516 (AAO Jan 25, 2018); and Matter of G-J-S-USA, Inc., ID# 1182139 (AAO Jan. 25, 2018), concluding in both cases that Level I wages are not determinative of whether a position is indeed a specialty occupation.

In Matter of B-C-, the Petitioner sought to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a geotechnical engineer-in-training (EIT) under the H-1B classification. The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that the submitted LCA corresponded with the H-1B petition. The Director determined that the Level 1 wage was incorrect by comparing the proffered duties directly with DOL’s generic definition of a Level I wage. Id. at 3. According to the DOL’s Prevailing Wage Policy Guidance, referenced in the Matter of B-C- decision, Level I (entry) wage rates

…are assigned to job offers for beginning level employees who have only a basic understanding of the occupation. These employees perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment. The tasks provide experience and familiarization with the employer’s methods, practices, and programs. The employees may perform higher level work for training and developmental purposes. These employees work under close supervision and receive specific instructions on required tasks and results expected. Their work is closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy.

U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Emp’t & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009).

The AAO, however, found that this was not the correct analysis for assessing whether or not an LCA properly corresponds with the petition. The Director, instead, should have compared the proffered job duties to those associated with the appropriate Occupational Information Network (O*NET) occupation.  On appeal, Petitioner asserted that an EIT is entry level by its very definition. The AAO acknowledged that by its plain terms, an EIT appeared to be entry-level, but a hasty review would be insufficient. In order to determine whether Petitioner properly selected a Level I wage, the AAO analyzed whether Petitioner selected the most relevant standard occupational classification (SOC) code, and then compared the experience, education, special skills required, and any other requirements provided in the petition and O*Net classification. Here, the description and tasks in O*NET for civil engineer generally coincided with the proffered job duties, concluding that the Petitioner selected the appropriate SOC code.  Next, the AAO analyzed whether the proffered position required experience, education, special skills, or supervisory duties beyond those listed in the related O*NET occupation. Here, the AAO found that the proffered position did not require more education, experience, special skills or supervisory duties beyond what was listed on O*Net, and, thus, was properly classified as a Level I wage.  The appeal was sustained.

In Matter of G-J-S-USA, Inc., the Petitioner sought to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an investment banking analyst under the H-1B classification. Matter of G-J-S-USA, Inc.  The Director denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that the submitted LCA corresponded with the H-1B petition where (s)he believed that the designated Level I wage was incorrect.  On appeal, the Petitioner asserted that an incorrect methodology was used. Id. Although the AAO found that USCIS erred in its methodology by comparing the job duties of the proffered position to the definition of a Level I wage given in the DOL’s guidance, the AAO ultimately held that the Level I wage assignment was indeed improper.

The AAO explained that the Director should have applied the five-step process outlined in the DOL’s prevailing wage guidance which required comparing the experience, education, special skills, and supervisory duties described in the O*NET description to those required by the employer for the proffered position. After employing the proper analysis, the AAO found that the assignment of a Level I wage was improper, and that the petition was thus not approvable. The Petitioner had specifically failed on step three, which involved a comparison of the education requirements. The Petitioner’s stated minimum education requirement was a master’s degree in finance or a related field. Appendix D of the DOL guidance, however, indicates that the usual education level for a financial analyst was a bachelor’s degree. According to the AAO, the master’s degree requirement warranted a one level increase in the wage and the appeal was dismissed. Id.

Critically, the AAO highlighted in both cases that there is no inherent inconsistency between an entry-level position and a specialty occupation. Most professionals begin their careers in entry-level positions; however, this does not preclude USCIS from classifying the entry-level position as a specialty occupation. Conversely, a Level IV wage does not inherently mean that an occupation qualifies as a specialty occupation if the position has not satisfied the requirements of a specialty occupation. As the AAO stated, while wage levels are indeed relevant, wages do not by themselves define or change the character of the occupation. On the other hand, according to the AAO, the key issue is whether the LCA corresponds to the H-1B petition. If the wage on the LCA does not correspond to duties and requirements described in the H-1B petition, then the H-1B petition can be denied.

It is indeed salutary that the AAO confirms that H-1B eligibility cannot be denied solely on the ground that a proffered position is classified as a Level I wage. There is nothing in the INA or in the implementing regulations that suggest that a position that commands an entry level wage is ineligible for H-1B visa classification. Still, the AAO substituting its purported expertise for the DOL’s expertise in determining wage levels on the LCA is of great concern. The AAO stated, “When assessing the wage level indicated on the LCA, USCIS does not purport to supplant DOL’s responsibility with respect to wage determinations.” But the AAO did precisely just that in Matter of G-S-J-USA, Inc. by usurping what DOL knows how to do best, which is making a wage determination.

The AAO relied on Appendix D in the prevailing wage guidance that provides a list of professional occupations with their corresponding usual education. If an occupation requires only a bachelor’s degree in Appendix D, and the employer requires a Master’s degree, which was the case in Matter of G-S-J-USA, Inc., then according to the DOL guidance, the employer is required to increase the wage level by one notch even if there is no experience requirement. It is not clear from the AAO decision whether it selected the appropriate occupation under Appendix D, which again is in the realm of DOL’s expertise. Even assuming the AAO arrived at the correct comparable occupation under Appendix D and the employer did not bump up the wage level, this ought to be considered as an LCA violation, which the DOL to deal with in the event of an LCA audit, and should not undermine the employer’s ability to employer the worker in a specialty occupation, resulting in USCIS outright denying the H-1B petition.

The two new AAO decisions teach that it may be a best practice for an employer to request and obtain a prevailing wage determination from the DOL’s National Prevailing Wage Center prior to filing an LCA. As a practical matter, though, obtaining such a prevailing wage determination can take several weeks, and employers must timely file H-1B petitions within the first five business days of April each year to be considered under the H-1B lottery, or in the case of an extension, before the current H-1B status expires, or before the H-1B worker wishes to port to a new employer. In the event the employer disagrees with the NPWC determination, an appeal to the Board of Alien Labor Certification can take several months.  It is thus important to check Appendix D before the employer decides to require a Master’s degree and still pay a Level 1 wage.  On occasion, a position may require, at a minimum, an advanced degree. For example, a law degree is required for minimum entry into legal profession. However, an employer seeking to employ a new graduate would still be allowed to pay an entry level wage to the prospective employee under the DOL guidance. For lawyers, the DOL acknowledges that prospective employees need a professional degree prior to entering the profession, and thus a Level I wage is appropriate for an entry-level attorney position. Similarly, Market Research Analysts, Economists, and Urban Planners, among others, typically require a Master’s degree, for entry into the field. Attention should also be paid to other factors that may cause a bump up in the wage level, such as special skills or language requirements that may not be consistent with the skills listed in O*Net for a specific occupation. Thus, if the employer requires a foreign language skill, it may or may not need to bump up the wage level depending on whether a foreign language is inherently required for the job but which does not increase the complexity or seniority of the position. All this further confirms the point we make that assessing whether there is an excessive educational requirement or a skill lies within DOL’s rather than USCIS’s expertise.

Still, until the AAO changes its position, employers must carefully review the DOL Wage Guidance and Appendix D when assigning a wage on the LCA in the brave new world of H-1B adjudications in order to stave off a needless denial!

(The authors acknowledge the assistance of Eleyteria Diakopoulous who is a student in the JD program at Brooklyn Law School and is presently an Extern at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC)

Cyrus Mehta

The American Dream Is For Everyone

/1 Comment/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta & Sophia Genovese

The Trump Administration has announced an immigration proposal that pits the lives of Dreamers against other immigrant populations. Dreamers are young people who came to the United States prior to the age of 16, and fell out of status of status through no fault of their own. They were granted authorization to remain in the United States under an Obama-era program known as Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The Trump White House has stated that they are willing to provide a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers in exchange for fewer family-based immigration categories, the elimination of the Diversity Visa Program, and $25 million in funding for the infamous wall. President Trump had previously cancelled DACA on September 5, 2017.

DACA recipients have strongly opposed the White House’s proposal, arguing that they refuse to benefit from a bill that will disrupt the lives of millions. A pathway to citizenship for Dreamers is desperately needed, but even Dreamers realize that they’re not the only ones whose lives remain in the balance. H-4 spouses are set to lose their ability to work, and H-4 dependents could age out if their parent continues to be stuck in the employment-based backlogs. TPS recipients are being forced to return to countries where poverty and violence remain the norm. Foreign nationals of banned countries anxiously await the ability to come to the US and join their families or begin working in their fields. Foreign students nearing graduation fear the H-1B lottery cap and USCIS’s increased scrutiny of level one wages and IT-related positions. Skilled workers from India and China stuck in the backlogs recently feared being sent back home while they await their green cards. Although this proposal has been pulled back, the fact that it was made heightens the fragility of an immigration system that keeps skilled workers waiting for decades on end because of the unavailability of immigrant visas. Undocumented populations are increasingly fearful of the lack of ICE enforcement priorities and the increased number of non-criminal immigrants being arrested on buses, at schools, or courthouses. Although Dreamers stand to gain from the White House proposal, they do not, in good conscience, accept the trade-offs. At the same time, it would be perfectly understandable if a DACA recipient wanted to accept the Trump Administration’s deal so long as it would benefit her. It is natural for each group of immigrants to want to get their own benefit without regards to whether the enactment of legislation would improve the immigration system as a whole. However tempting this might be, it would clearly be in the interest of all immigrants, including Dreamers, if they united and steadfastly demand an immigration deal that fixes the immigration system to help everyone, which in turn benefits the national interest. Otherwise, what may seem to benefit you but hurt others, will come back to also ultimately hurt you.

The Trump Administration’s proposal is cruel and nothing short of xenophobic. While fixing DACA is urgently needed, such a fix will not resolve all the other problems in the immigration system. It is not worth getting a fix for DACA, without other urgently needed fixes, in exchange for immigration restrictions that would fulfill the wish list of a nativist. America has nothing to gain, and much to lose, from such a limited immigration policy. We have repeatedly argued that immigration is a net positive for the economy and society. Immigrants keep America competitive in STEM fields and other industries. Closing the doors to talented immigrants will undoubtedly make the US less competitive globally.

In stark contrast to the Trump Administration’s xenophobic wish-list is the Immigration Innovation (“I-Squared”) Act of 2018, introduced by two Republican Senators, Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ). The bill would increase the H-1B visas from 65,000 to 85,000 a year and proposes lifting the existing cap of 20,000 additional H-1B visas reserved for those with master’s degrees if their employers agree to sponsor their green cards. The bill includes a “market-based escalator” so the supply can meet increased demand. That means granting up to 110,000 additional visas (a total of 195,000), and prioritizing visas for those with master’s degrees, foreign Ph.D.’s or U.S. STEM bachelor degrees. The bill would also eliminate per-country caps on employment-based green cards and allow H-4 visa holders the ability to work. It will also not count derivative family members, which if implemented upon enactment, will quickly drain the decades long backlogs in the employment-based preferences. The bill does not address Dreamers, but rather focuses on employment-based visas. Although imperfect, the bill serves as a proper starting point when discussing sensible immigration policy. Specifically, the bill acknowledges the utility and benefit of foreign skilled workers, especially in the IT field. Hatch and Flake have both realized that these workers not only benefit US industries, but also help create jobs for American workers. In a global economy, all forms of capital, including intellectual capital, flow to their optimum destinations according to the laws of supply and demand. The American economy does not operate in a vacuum and assumptions to the contrary, the very assumptions that have dominated the nativist response to date, only enrich our foreign competitors while we all lose. The people who run immigration policy in the Trump administration care about American workers but do not effectively express such concern. Instead, they have created policies that make US companies less competitive and the US itself less desirable as a place for the world’s creative elite to live and work. There is a better way where everyone benefits. We can, if we think and act anew, transform immigration policy from an endless source of controversy to a flexible weapon in our economic arsenal so that everyone profits. I-Squared does provide the opening salvo. This bill has all the right ingredients – elimination of per country limits, not counting derivative family members that have till now clogged up the employment-based preferences and increasing the H-1B visa cap. We need I-Squared as much as a fix for DACA recipients.

Congresswomen and men need to similarly create a comprehensive bill that provides a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers without throwing other immigrant populations under the bus. Even requiring Dreamers – who only know America as their country – to wait 10-12 years on a probationary basis before they can apply for permanent residence and citizenship is unnecessary and cruel. Although Dreamers are under no obligation to prove their worth, as their humanity alone entitles them to respect, we nevertheless see DACA recipients thriving in the respective fields and substantially benefiting the United States. The proposed legislation should also not undermine family immigration since family unification has been the cornerstone of US immigration policy since its inception. Family members of the principal immigrant support each other, and thus create more stability and bring about more prosperity. It is also not necessarily the case that a skilled immigrant in a STEM field will only benefit the United States. The nation’s immigration history is replete with examples of immigrants from all walks of life succeeding in the country through their hard work, grit and determination. Objecting to family-based migration, including cutting off the ability of a US citizen to sponsor a parent, means that you are advocating a total shut-down of immigration and the cruel separation of families. It is also immoral to do so.

With the exception of descendants of indigenous peoples, every American is a descendant of immigrants. Everyone’s mother, grandmother, great-grandmother, etc. came to the United States from a foreign land in the hopes of creating a better life. The American Dream is for everyone, whether your family has been here for generations or if your family just arrived yesterday. It is senseless to close the doors to immigrants seeking opportunity in a nation whose identity is intimately intertwined with migration.

Cyrus Mehta

Potential Adjustment of Status Options After the Termination of TPS

/0 Comments/in /by

As President Trump restricts immigration, it is incumbent upon immigration lawyers to assist their clients with creative solutions available under law. The most recent example of Trump’s attack on immigration is the cancellation of Temporary Protected Status for more than 200,000 Salvadorans. David Isaacson’s What Comes Next: Potential Relief Options After the Termination of TPS comprehensively provides tips on how to represent TPS recipients whose authorization will soon expire with respect to asylum, cancellation or removal and adjustment of status.

I focus specifically on how TPS recipients can potentially adjust their status within the United States through either a family-based I-130 petition or an I-140 employment-based petition for permanent residency. A September 2017 practice advisory from the American Immigration Council points to two decisions from the Ninth and Sixth Circuit, Ramirez v. Brown, 852 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2017) and Flores v. USCIS, 718 F.3d 548 (6th Cir. 2013), holding that TPS constitutes an admission for purpose of establishing eligibility for adjustment of status under INA 245(a).

In both these cases, the plaintiffs previously entered the United States without inspection, and then became recipients of TPS grants and subsequently married US citizens. At issue in both those cases was whether they were eligible for adjustment of status under INA 245(a) as beneficiaries of immediate relative I-130 petitions filed by their US citizen spouses. Both the decisions answered this question in the affirmative.

A foreign national who enters the United States without inspection does not qualify for adjustment of status even if married to a US citizen since s/he does not meet the key requirement of INA 245(a), which is to “have been inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States.” However, both Ramirez and Flores held that as a matter of statutory interpretation, Congress intended TPS recipients to be considered “admitted” for purposes of INA 245(a). Thus, even if the foreign national entered without inspection, the grant of TPS constituted an admission thus rendering the TPS recipient eligible for adjustment of status. Of course, the other conditions of INA 245(a) must also be met, which is to be eligible to receive a visa and not be inadmissible as well as have a visa that is immediately available. The disqualifications to adjustment of status in INA 245(c)(2) such as working without authorization, being in unlawful status or failing to maintain lawful status since entry are not applicable to immediate relatives of US citizens, who are spouses, minor children and parents.

The courts in Ramirez and Flores relied on INA 244 (f)(4), which provides:

(f) Benefits and Status During Period of Protected Status – During a period in which an alien is granted temporary protected status under this section-

(4) for purposes of adjustment of status under section 245 and change of status under section 248, the alien shall be considered as being in, and maintaining, lawful status as a nonimmigrant

Both courts read the above phrase, especially “for purposes of adjustment of status under section 245 and change of status under section 248” to be in harmony with being “admitted” for purposes of adjustment of status. As INA 244(f)(4) bestows nonimmigrant status on a TPS recipient, an alien who has obtained nonimmigrant status is deemed to be “admitted.” Thus, at least in places that fall under the jurisdiction of the Sixth and Ninth Circuits, TPS recipients who have been granted nonimmigrant status under INA 244(f)(4) could potentially adjust status to permanent residence as immediate relatives of US citizens.

The next question is whether a TPS recipient can also adjust status to permanent residence if s/he is the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition under the employment-based first, second, third and fourth preferences. The answer arguably is “yes” provided the applicant resides in a place that falls under the jurisdiction of the Sixth and Ninth Circuits. INA 245(k) will come to their rescue, which applies to the employment-based first to fourth preferences.

A TPS recipient from El Salvador who is concerned that her TPS designation will terminate on September 9, 2019 may wish to request her employ to file a labor certification on her behalf. If the labor certification is approved, after an unsuccessful test of the US labor market for her experience and skills, the employer may file an I-140 petition and potentially a concurrent I-485 adjustment of status application. The EB-2 and EB-3 priority dates for a person born in El Salvador are current in the February 2018 visa bulletin, and likely to remain current over the foreseeable future.

INA 245(k) exempts applicants for adjustment who are otherwise subject to the INA 245(c)(2) bar based on unauthorized employment or for not maintaining lawful status provided they are present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission and subsequent to such admission have not failed to maintain lawful status or engaged in unauthorized unemployment for more than 180 days. Thus, even if the TPS recipient may have not been in lawful status prior to the grant of TPS, the grant of TPS resulted in the individual being admitted into the US. If this person files within the TPS validity period, 245(k) should allow this person to adjust to permanent residence.

I would posit that this person would be eligible under 245(k) to apply for adjustment of status within 180 days from the expiration of the TPS status. This may well be the case if there is a delay in the processing of the labor certification or if there is a retrogression in the priority date.  Although INA 244(f)(4) bestows lawful nonimmigrant status to a current TPS recipient, that grant of nonimmigrant status also previously admitted her into the United States. The fact that she was once admitted through the TPS grant cannot vanish just because she is no longer a TPS recipient, and she ought to be eligible to adjust status under 245(k) so long as she has not stayed in the US greater than 180 days from the termination of TPS designation. Once a person has been admitted, the person is still considered to have been admitted for 245(a) purposes even if the period of stay under TPS expires. I would argue that this should apply to a INA 244(f)(4) implied admission as much as it does to any other kind of admission. If you are necessarily admitted because you have gone from having entered without inspection to being in nonimmigrant status, that does not cease to have been the case because your nonimmigrant status later goes away.

A person who was previously admitted in a nonimmigrant status, but who then fell out of status prior to the grant of TPS, may also arguably be considered admitted once again under 245(k) upon receiving a grant of TPS. One could argue that the TPS is the last admission for 245(k).  However, the argument is probably stronger for one who entered without inspection, since traditionally only the granting of status to someone previously not admitted is a new “admission”—going out of status and back in doesn’t have the same tradition of being characterized that way.

Note that 245(k) is only applicable to I-485 applications filed under the employment-based first, second, third and fourth preferences. With respect to family-based preference petitions, USCIS has taken the position that anyone who has ever failed to maintain continuously a lawful status will not be eligible for adjustment of status. Hence, the beneficiary of an I-130 filed by a permanent resident on behalf of his spouse will not be able to adjust status if he was not in status prior to the grant of TPS. The AIC practice advisory cites Figueroa v. Rodriguez, No. CV-16-8218 -PA, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128120 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2017), which held to the contrary that TPS cures the prior lack of status for a family preference beneficiary, but since this is a decision from a district court it has no precedential value and should not be relied upon.  Of course, if his spouse becomes a US citizen, then he qualifies as an immediate relative and also eligible to adjust status if admissible despite having not maintained status prior to the TPS grant, or even if the TPS terminates, as immediate relatives are exempt from the 245(c)(2) bar.

Those who do not reside in the Sixth and Ninth Circuit can also adjust by availing of Matter of Arrabelly and Yerrabelly, 25 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012). Under this decision, a departure under advance parole does not trigger the 3 and 10-year unlawful presence bars pursuant to INA 212(a)(9)(B). Thus, a TPS recipient may apply for advance parole, leave the United States and be paroled back into the United States (although beware that under the Trump administration, CBP could deny entry to one with advance parole). The departure would not trigger the unlawful presence bars and the parole would be recognized for purposes of adjusting under INA 245(a) as having been “inspected and admitted or paroled.” Note, though, that the entry into the United States under parole would only render one eligible for adjustment of status as an immediate relative, and not under an approved I-140 preference petition since INA 245(k) only applies to one who has been admitted rather than paroled into the United States. The parole entry would also not help a preference beneficiary under an approved I-130. Although parole could be considered a lawful status (as the INA 245(c)(7) bar only applies to employment-based I-140s that are not subject to the 245(k) exception) for purposes of adjustment of status based on a family preference I-130, the applicant must demonstrate that s/he never previously violated lawful status. Proceeding overseas for consular processing, where filing an adjustment of status application may not be possible, may trigger the 3 and 10-year bars if the TPS recipient previously accrued unlawful presence prior to the grant of TPS. Even if the TPS recipient departs the United States pursuant to a grant of advance parole, it is not clear whether the US Consulate will recognize Matter of Arrabelly and Yerrabelly in situations where the person departs under advance parole but intends to return on an immigrant visa. Thus, those who plan to proceed for consular processing who have accrued the requisite unlawful presence to trigger the 3 and 10-year bars should only proceed if they can obtain a provisional waiver of the bars based on extreme hardship to a qualifying relative.

What is quite certain presently is the ability to adjust status as an immediate relative if the TPS recipient resides within the jurisdiction of the Sixth Circuit (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee) or the Ninth Circuit (California, Arizona, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands). It is also important to note that the Eleventh Circuit in Serrano v. Unites States Attorney General, 655 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2011) held that TPS was not an admission for purposes of adjustment under INA 245(a).  As David pointed out in his blog, those who reside outside those two Circuits, except in the Eleventh Circuit,  might still be able to pursue adjustment of status on the same theory if they are willing to litigate in federal court following any denials. An applicant can litigate by bringing an action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.  701 in federal district court. Alternatively, if the applicant is placed in removal proceedings, s/he can argue these theories before an Immigration Judge, and if unsuccessful to the Board of Immigration Appeals and subsequently in a Court of Appeals. Further details on various litigation strategies may be provided in a subsequent blog.  Even if a TPS recipient resides within the jurisdiction of the Sixth or Ninth Circuit, it is not clear whether the USCIS will accept an argument for adjustment of status through an I-140 employment-based petition under INA 245(k). This uncertainty gets exacerbated where the TPS grant has already expired and the I-485 is being filed within 180 days of its final expiration date.  Hence, the TPS recipient planning to deploy an adjustment of status strategy under 245(k) must also be prepared to litigate even if residing within the jurisdiction of the Sixth or Ninth Circuit. Under the Trump administration, when immigration benefits have suddenly been curtailed for long time TPS recipients, it may be worth adopting creating adjustment of status strategies, and if USCIS does not accept them, to consider litigating until there is success as was the case in the Ramirez and Flores decisions.

(This blog is for informational purposes only and should not be considered as a substitute for independent legal advice supplied by a lawyer familiar with a client’s case.)

David Isaacson

What Comes Next: Potential Relief Options After the Termination of TPS

/1 Comment/in /by

With the recent announcement that the Trump Administration will terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for more than 200,000 citizens of El Salvador effective September 2019 after previously terminating TPS for Haiti, Nicaragua, and Sudan, it seems appropriate to examine alternate forms of immigration relief that may become available to those whose TPS is terminated. Of course, we may hope that Congress will provide some relief to TPS holders, but as things stand now, that appears to be an eventuality which should not be counted on at least in the short run.

One possibility for some TPS holders may be adjustment of status under INA §245.  As explained in a September 2017 practice advisory from the American Immigration Council, the Courts of Appeals for the Sixth and Ninth Circuits have held that TPS constitutes an admission for purposes of eligibility for adjustment under INA §245(a). TPS holders who are immediate relatives of U.S. citizens can take advantage of this holding most simply, if they reside within the jurisdiction of the Sixth Circuit (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee) or the Ninth Circuit (California, Arizona, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands). Those who reside outside those two Circuits might still be able to pursue adjustment of status on the same theory if they are willing to litigate in federal court following any denials.  The situation with respect to applicants for adjustment based on other family relationships or employment is more complex, as explained in the linked American Immigration Council practice advisory, but that sort of adjustment of status will be potentially available to TPS recipients under at least some limited circumstances.

Another possibility for many TPS-holders, if they are placed in removal proceedings, might be seeking cancellation of removal for non-permanent residents under INA §240A(b). It has been reported that many TPS recipients from El Salvador have U.S. citizen children, for example: there are reported to be “nearly 200,000 US citizen children of Salvadoran parents with TPS.” Many TPS holders may be able to show that one or more of their U.S. citizen children (or Lawful Permanent Resident children or U.S. citizen or Lawful Permanent Resident spouses or parents) will suffer “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” upon removal of the parent, although this is admittedly a very high bar.  If such TPS holders, with qualifying relatives who would suffer such hardship, have been continuously physically present in the United States for ten years before being placed in removal proceedings – which El Salvadoran TPS holders, for example, generally will have been, since TPS for El Salvador commenced in 2001 – then, if certain other criteria regarding good moral character and lack of disqualifying criminal convictions are met, they can seek cancellation of removal in Immigration Court under §240A(b), which would result in Lawful Permanent Resident status.

It is important to note, in this context, that time in TPS counts towards the ten-year minimum for cancellation under INA §240A(b). It is only in the distinct context of cancellation of removal for lawful permanent residents under INA §240A(a) that INA §244(e) excludes from continuous presence one’s time in TPS, and there only “unless the Attorney General determines that extreme hardship exists.” A footnote on the USCIS webpage reproduction of this INA section suggests that the restriction was actually meant to apply to §240A(b) cancellation, but besides being contrary to the text of the statute, this would have little practical impact even if it were true: any case in which “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” exists for purposes of §240A(b) cancellation would presumably be a case in which extreme hardship exists for the purposes of the exception.

Admittedly, some TPS holders will presumably be unable to establish a sufficiently high level of hardship to their children—although given the atrocious violence and other country conditions in El Salvador, where the State Department has notably advised U.S. citizens not to travel, it is not clear what proportion of U.S. citizen children could relocate there without suffering exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. Even so, however, one wonders how the Trump Administration thinks the already-overburdened immigration court system is going to deal with determining which of the nearly-200,000 U.S. citizen children involved will suffer such exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.  Perhaps the answer is that they do not intend to place former TPS beneficiaries into removal proceedings.  But that could give rise to the peculiar spectacle of a large population seeking to be placed into removal proceedings, where they can have the hardship to their children taken into account under the statutes enacted by Congress, while the Administration insists that the members of that population should leave, but refuses to commence the proceedings that under INA §240(a)(3) are the “sole and exclusive procedure” for compelling them to do so.

Some TPS holders may also be eligible for asylum under INA §208. Asylum is typically thought of as a form of relief available to those who fear persecution on a protected ground in their home countries, and some citizens of El Salvador and the other countries whose TPS is being terminated may indeed meet that description.  However, while a fear of future persecution is the archetypical case for asylum, it is not the only one, under the governing regulations.  As the BIA explained in Matter of L-S-, 25 I&N Dec. 705 (BIA 2012), pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(B), asylum can be granted to one who has suffered persecution in the past and “has established that there is a reasonable possibility that he or she may suffer other serious harm upon removal to that country.”

While “other serious harm” must equal the severity of persecution, it may be wholly unrelated to the past harm. Moreover, pursuant to the regulation, the asylum applicant need only establish a “reasonable possibility” of such “other serious harm”; a showing of “compelling reasons” is not required under this provision. We also emphasize that no nexus between the “other serious harm” and an asylum ground protected under the Act need be shown.

Matter of L-S-, 25 I&N Dec. at 714. The BIA further explained that “adjudicators considering “other serious harm” should be cognizant of conditions in the applicant’s country of return and should pay particular attention to major problems that large segments of the population face or conditions that might not significantly harm others but that could severely affect the applicant.” Id. This may be particularly relevant to TPS recipients from countries like El Salvador which do, as discussed above, have major problems faced by large segments of the population, such as widespread violence.

It is important to note that this other-serious-harm asylum requires that an applicant have previously suffered qualifying past persecution on a protected ground.  The full definition of such past persecution is beyond the scope of this blog, but it is a difficult threshold to meet. The Second Circuit has explained in Baba v. Holder that to constitute persecution “conduct must rise above mere harassment” and that persecution includes “threats to life or freedom” and also extends to “non-life-threatening violence and physical abuse.” The Second Circuit has also, as explained in Baba with a quotation of Guan Shan Liao v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, “found that persecution may also take the form of non-physical harm, such as ‘the deliberate imposition of a substantial economic disadvantage.’” As for the protected grounds, there are many subtleties, but the basic statutory requirement under INA 208(b)(1)(B)(i) (largely restating INA §101(a)(42)(A) with some added stringency per the REAL ID Act of 2005) is that “the applicant must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.”

However, such qualifying past persecution could have taken place many years ago, under very different political conditions than are now present. Moreover, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has recognized that under some circumstances, children may suffer qualifying past persecution from actions primarily directed at other family or community members.  In Jorge-Tzoc v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2006), the Second Circuit explained that massacres in a child’s persecuted ethnic Mayan community could constitute persecution of the child even if not directed at the child specifically:

Jorge-Tzoc was a child at the time of the massacres and thus necessarily dependent on both his family and his community.   He also offered substantial evidence of a pervasive campaign carried out by the army against Mayans in the area in which he lived.   The CEH documented two 1982 army killings of persons named Tzoc in Jorge-Tzoc’s village.   Further, while the family remained in their village, Jorge-Tzoc’s mother was afraid to go out of their home to obtain needed groceries, and Jorge-Tzoc viewed the bullet-ridden body of his cousin lying on the ground.   The army’s campaign, according to Jorge-Tzoc’s testimony, resulted in his relocation, along with many family members to one room in Quiche where they struggled to survive.   In addition, Jorge-Tzoc’s father lost his land and his animals as a result of the move.   This combination of circumstances could well constitute persecution to a small child totally dependent on his family and community.

The Court of Appeals for the First and Ninth Circuits have similarly concluded that persecution of a child’s family can constitute persecution of that child, in Ordonez-Quino v. Holder and Hernandez-Ortiz v. Gonzales. The Second Circuit narrowed Jorge-Tzoc somewhat in Jiang v. Gonzales, requiring that the persecuted child “share – or [be] imputed to share – the characteristic that motivated the persecution.” (There is also additional discussion in Jiang, arguably nonbinding dicta, regarding how such persecution would “presumably” require that the child, as in Jorge-Tzoc, “was also within the zone of risk when the family member was harmed, and suffered some continuing hardship after the incident.”) Nonetheless, there may be TPS recipients who would have a reasonable past-persecution claim based on events that occurred many years ago when they were children, which could then ground an application for asylum based on the reasonable possibility of other serious harm due to current country conditions.

Another issue in regard to a possible asylum application by a TPS recipient would be the one-year filing deadline of INA §208(a)(2)(B). Ordinarily, one who wishes to apply for asylum must do so within a year of their last arrival in the United States.  However, INA §208(a)(2)(D) exempts from the one-year deadline cases in which an applicant can establish “extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing the application within the period”, and the regulations at 8 C.F.R. §208.4(a)(5)(iv) clarify that such extraordinary circumstances may include maintenance of TPS or other lawful status “until a reasonable period before the filing of the asylum application”. As a recent AILA practice pointer has noted, this may not solve the one-year problem for those who were present in the United States for more than a year between the time the one-year deadline was created in 1997 and the onset of their TPS. However, the TPS exception it does mean that some TPS beneficiaries will not have a problem with the one-year deadline even if the events giving rise to an asylum claim occurred long ago.

Moreover, changed circumstances “materially affecting the applicant’s eligibility for asylum” can also excuse late filing under INA §208(a)(2)(D) and 8 C.F.R. §208.4(a)(4)(i) as long as the applicant files within a reasonable time given those changed circumstances. Where a claim is based on a combination of past persecution and a reasonable possibility of other serious harm in the future, there would be a strong argument that a change in circumstances materially affecting the other-serious-harm prong of eligibility would qualify under this exception even if the past persecution remained constant.  Thus, some TPS recipients who had suffered past persecution might be able to excuse an otherwise untimely asylum claim based on changed circumstances relating to the other serious harm they would suffer if returned to their home country.

In cases where a reasonable asylum claim could be made under one of these various theories, it could also have the incidental effect of solving the problem discussed above of TPS recipients being left in limbo by a refusal to place them in removal proceedings. By regulation, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §208.14(c)(1), where an affirmatively-filed asylum application is not granted and the applicant is considered to be inadmissible or deportable, the application will generally be referred into removal proceedings, where the applicant can renew the asylum application and also apply for other available relief (such as, if applicable, cancellation of removal for non-permanent residents). Such placement in removal proceedings is of course a dangerous outcome, but for some people it may be preferred to indefinite limbo.

Another defense against removal that might be available to TPS beneficiaries placed in removal proceedings would be to challenge, in federal court, the de-designation of their countries for TPS.  This is difficult outside the context of removal proceedings, because INA §244(b)(5)(A) states that “There is no judicial review of any determination of the Attorney General with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state under this subsection.” There may be some argument that this jurisdictional bar should be interpreted to exclude bona fide constitutional claims as discussed in Calcano-Martinez v. INS, 533 U.S. 348 (2001) in the context of a different jurisdictional bar, although this is not completely clear. Once TPS becomes at issue in a removal order, however, the scope for federal court review would be broader, because a petition for judicial review of that order would fall under the protection of INA §242(a)(2)(D), which states that

Nothing in . . . any other provision of this Act (other than this section) which limits or eliminates judicial review, shall be construed as precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals in accordance with this section.

INA §242(a)(2)(D), 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(D) (referring to “this chapter” rather than “this Act”). Under this provision, a former TPS holder who was ordered removed ought to be able to challenge the de-designation of their country of nationality as legally inappropriate—perhaps, for example, on the basis that the de-designation, albeit nominally accomplished by DHS, had been inappropriately influenced by the views of the Chief Executive regarding people from “shithole countries.”

All of these potential courses of action are complex and fraught with risk, and TPS holders would be well advised to consult a qualified immigration attorney before proceeding with any of them.  It is important to know, however, that the termination of TPS may not equate to the termination of all ability to remain lawfully in the United States.