David Isaacson

Matter of Douglas: The BIA Confirms That Brand X Can Sometimes be a Force For Good

/2 Comments/in , /by

On October 17, 2013, its first day back to normal operations after the end of the recent federal government shutdown, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued a precedential opinion, Matter of Douglas, 26 I&N Dec. 197 (BIA 2013).  At first glance, Matter of Douglas is about an interesting but obscure aspect of a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that was repealed more than a decade ago.  But perhaps more importantly, Matter of Douglas is also an example of the BIA using its authority to go against Court of Appeals precedent decisions under National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005) (“Brand X”), to the benefit of an immigrant and potential U.S. citizen rather than to the detriment of the immigrant.At issue in Matter of Douglas was former section 321(a) of the INA, repealed effective February 2001 by the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, which in relevant part replaced INA §321(a) with the simpler rule of current INA §320.  As Matter of Douglas explained, former §321(a)

provided that citizenship was automatically acquired by a child born outside the United States of alien parents under the following conditions:

(1) The naturalization of both parents; or
(2) The naturalization of the surviving parent if one of the parents, is deceased; or
(3) The naturalization of the parent having legal custody of the child when there has been a legal separation of the parents or the naturalization of the mother if the child was born out of wedlock and the paternity of the child has not been established by legitimation; and if
(4) Such naturalization takes place while such child is under the age of eighteen years; and
(5) Such child is residing in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence at the time of the naturalization of the parent last naturalized under clause (1) of this subsection, or the parent naturalized under clause (2) or (3) of the subsection, or thereafter begins to reside permanently in the United States while under the age of eighteen years.

Matter of Douglas, 26 I&N Dec. in 198 (emphasis in original).The question in Matter of Douglas was the relevance of the order in which the conditions of former INA §321(a) were satisfied.  As the BIA explained, Mr. Douglas

was born in Jamaica on January 29, 1976, to his married parents, each of whom was a native and citizen of Jamaica. On December 14, 1981, [Mr. Douglas] entered the United States as a lawful permanent resident. [Mr. Douglas]’s mother was naturalized on April 13, 1988. His parents were divorced on July 25, 1990. [He] became 18 years old in 1994.

Matter of Douglas, 26 I&N Dec. at 198.  That is, Mr. Douglas’s mother became “the parent having legal custody of the child when there has been a legal separation of the parents” under former INA §321(a)(3) only after she was naturalized, having been naturalized in 1988 and divorced in 1990.  Both of these events, however, happened while Mr. Douglas was a lawful permanent resident and before he reached the age of 18, in compliance with former INA §321(a)(4)-(5).In its earlier decision in Matter of Baires, 24 I&N Dec. 467 (BIA 2008), the BIA had held that “A child who has satisfied the statutory conditions of former section 321(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act . . . before the age of 18 years has acquired United States citizenship, regardless of whether the naturalized parent acquired legal custody of the child before or after the naturalization.”  Matter of Baires, 24 I&N Dec. at 467.  Under this rule, Mr. Douglas would be a U.S. citizen.  Case law of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, however, as the BIA acknowledged, required that one seeking to show acquisition of citizenship under former INA §321(a)(3) demonstrate “that his [parent] was naturalized after a legal separation from his [other parent],” rather than before such a separation.  Jordon v. Att’y Gen., 424 F.3d 320, 330 (3d Cir. 2005)(alterations in original) (quoting Bagot v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 252, 257 (3d Cir. 2005)).  In Matter of Baires, the BIA had noted the Third Circuit case law, but had indicated that “we are not bound by the Third Circuit decisions on which the Immigration Judge relied because this case is within the jurisdiction of the Fifth Circuit.” 24 I&N Dec. at 469.  The proceedings in Matter of Douglas, however, had taken place within the jurisdiction of the Third Circuit, and so the BIA had to decide whether to follow Matter of Baires or the Third Circuit’s decisions in Jordon and Bagot.

The BIA chose to follow Matter of Baires, rather than Jordon and Bagot, and so found Mr. Douglas to be a U.S. citizen and terminated his removal proceedings.  Under Brand X, as the BIA explained, an administrative agency such as the BIA can sometimes be entitled to “Chevrondeference” pursuant to Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) regarding its interpretation of a statute, even when there has been a prior court interpretation of the statute going the other way, so long as that court did not find that the statute unambiguously supported its interpretation.  Believing that its interpretation in Baires was a reasonable interpretation of the statute, and that Jordon and Bagot had not interpreted the statute to be unambiguous, the BIA concluded that under Brand X it could and would follow Baires, rather that Jordonand Bagot, even in the Third Circuit.

It appears that this may be the first time that the BIA has explicitly relied on Brand X to rule in favor of the immigrant respondent.  The BIA has, to be sure, previously rejected Court of Appeals case law that it thought to be incorrect in favor of a more immigrant-friendly approach. In Matter of F-P-R-, 24 I&N Dec. 681 (BIA 2008), for example, the BIA declined to follow the Second Circuit’s decision in Joaquin-Porras v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 172 (2d Cir 2006), and held that the one-year period in which a timely application for asylum may be made runs from the applicant’s literal “last arrival” even when that last arrival followed a relatively brief trip outside the United States pursuant to advance parole granted by immigration authorities (which the Second Circuit had held would not restart the one-year clock).  The proceedings underlying Matter of F-P-R-, however, appear to have taken place in the Ninth Circuit, not the Second, see 24 I&N Dec. at 682 (referring to “the absence of any controlling decisions on the issue from either the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit or the Board”), and so the BIA did not have to determine whether it would follow Joaquin-Porras within the Second Circuit.  Here, in contrast, the BIA held that it would not follow Jordon and Bagot even within the Circuit that had decided them.  And while there was a footnote in the BIA’s acclaimed decision inMatter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, 25 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012) (regarding travel on advance parole by one who has accrued unlawful presence) that could be read as pointing in this direction, the BIA in Arrabally made much of the fact that it was addressing an aspect of the law that the petitioner in the Third Circuit’s previous decision in Cheruku v. Att’y Gen., 662 F.3d 198 (3d Cir. 2011), had not challenged, see Matter of Arrabally, 25 I&N Dec. at 775 n.6.  It appears that Matter of Douglas may be the first BIA decision to go flatly against a contrary Circuit precedent under Brand X and do so to the benefit of the immigrant respondent.

The possibility of using Brand X as a force for good has been raised before, notably by Gary Endelman and Cyrus D. Mehta in their articles on “The Tyranny of Priority Dates” and “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Through Executive Fiat”, as well as their post on this blog which explained how the BIA’s decision in Matter of Zeleniak, 26 I&N Dec. 158 (BIA 2013), implementing the Supreme Court’s striking down of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), effectively overruled the Ninth Circuit’s earlier decision in Adams v. Howerton, 637 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982) in regard to recognition of same-sex marriages for immigration purposes.  Like Matter of F-P-R-, however, Matter of Zeleniak had not explicitly relied on Brand X.  In this regard, Matter of Douglas is a significant step forward.Of course, Brand X is not always a force for good.  Less than a year ago, for example, the BIA decided in Matter of M-H-, 26 I&N Dec. 46 (BIA 2012), that it would disregard the Third Circuit’s decision in Alaka v. Att’y Gen., 456 F.3d 88 (3d Cir. 2006), and follow its own prior decision in Matter of N-A-M-, 24 I&N Dec. 336 (BIA 2007), so as to consider even some crimes that are not aggravated felonies as “particularly serious crimes” which can bar withholding of removal.  The merits of Matter of M-H- (which this author considers dubious) are beyond the scope of this blog post, but it is only one example of the fact that the BIA can seek to rely on Brand X to strip applicants for relief of protection that a Court of Appeals has given them.  Also within the last year, the BIA invoked Brand X in Matter of Cortes Medina, 26 I&N Dec. 79 (BIA 2013), to find that violation of California Penal Code 314(1), regarding indecent exposure, was categorically a crime involving moral turpitude, despite the contrary decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Nunez v. Holder, 594 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2010).  Nor are these the only examples; an exhaustive list of all instances in which Brand X has been invoked by the BIA to the advantage of the Department of Homeland Security and the disadvantage of an immigrant would unnecessarily lengthen this blog post.Now that the BIA has acknowledged in Matter of Douglas that Brand X is not a one-way ratchet and can also work in favor of immigrants, however, it is important for practitioners to keep Brand X in mind when they are faced with unfavorable Court of Appeals case law interpreting an ambiguous immigration statute.  Especially where existing BIA case law in other circuits is more favorable, an unfavorable Court of Appeals decision in a particular circuit need not be the last word.

Cyrus Mehta

DOS Releases Info on Cut-Off Date Calculations; November 2013 Visa Bulletin Shown Movement in China ‘Other Workers’ Category

/0 Comments/in /by

The Department of State (DOS) recently released information about how it calculates visa availability cut-off dates. Separately, the Visa Office has released the latest November 2013 Visa Bulletin, which explains additional points and notes forward movement in the China employment-based third preference “Other Workers” category.

Visa availability calculations. DOS explained that each month, its Visa Office subdivides the annual preference and foreign state limitations into monthly allotments based on totals of documentarily qualified immigrant visa applicants reported at consular posts and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services offices, grouped by foreign state chargeability, preference category, and priority date. If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered “Current.” For example, if the monthly allocation target is 3,000 and there is only demand for 1,000 applicants, the category will be Current. Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be “oversubscribed” and a visa availability cut-off date is established. The cut-off date is the priority date of the first documentarily qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a visa number. For example, if the monthly target is 3,000 and there is demand for 8,000 applicants, it would be necessary to establish a cut-off date so that only 3,000 numbers would be allocated. In this case, the cut-off would be the priority date of the 3,001st applicant.

The DOS noted that the FY 2013 employment annual limits were reached before the end of September, and no further allocation of numbers was possible after that time. Offices continued to process employment cases, submitted them in the normal manner, and such cases were then held in the Visa Office’s “Pending Demand” file. All eligible cases were then allocated employment-based numbers on October 1, 2013, under the FY 2014 annual limits.

DOS said that the number of 1-485 adjustment of status applications already filed in the employment third preference (on which U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has not yet finalized action) for countries other than India and the Philippines exceed the numbers currently available. These filings are the result of the cut-off dates for those countries having been advanced by over three years since April. DOS said that such demand must be considered in the determination of the monthly cut-off dates to prevent any unnecessary fluctuation in those dates.

The imposition of cut-off dates for some categories/countries has limited the number of applicants who have been able to file for adjustment of status with USCIS, and such applicants would not be included in the totals, DOS noted. In addition, new applicants are constantly becoming eligible for processing in categories for which cut-off dates do not apply, or for a category other than that in which they initially filed for status. Therefore, DOS said that the totals in the Visa Bulletin charts should not be interpreted to reflect the total universe of applicant demand. These totals only represent the amount of demand taken into consideration during the determination of new dates.

Visa Bulletin. The Visa Office noted in its November 2013 Visa Bulletin that:

It is important to remember that the establishment of a monthly cut-off or “Current” status for a numerically controlled category (preference or Diversity [Visa]) applies to those applicants who were reported prior to the allocation of visa numbers for that month. For example, all qualified applicants who were reported to the Visa Office in time to be included in the calculation of the September cut-offs, who had a priority date or rank-order number before the relevant September cut-off, would have been allotted visa numbers for September. There would be no expectation, however, that sufficient numbers would be available for the processing of cases which subsequently became eligible for final action during that month. Additional numbers may be allocated outside the regular monthly cycle, but only to the extent that such numbers remain available under the applicable annual limit. The availability of additional numbers is subject to change at any time and should never be taken for granted. This is especially true late in the fiscal year when numerical allocations are often close to or at the annual limits.

When applicants fail to appear 9r overcome a refusal (even for reasons beyond their control) during the original month of scheduled interview, they risk not having their case processed later in the fiscal year. This is because the establishment of a monthly cut-off or “Current” status for a numerically controlled category (preference or Diversity Visa) applies to those applicants who were reported before the allocation of visa numbers for that month.

China: Rapid forward movement of the cut-off date, as a result of there being insufficient demand to use all available numbers, allowed the category to reach the Worldwide third preference cut-off date in May 2013. The continued lack of demand has allowed the “otherwise unused” numbers available under that limit to be provided for use in the China employment third preference Other Workers category. The continued addition of those numbers has allowed the cut-off date for that category to reach the China third preference date for November. This is the same action which has been possible for the Other Worker category in other “oversubscribed” countries such as India and Mexico. A sudden increase in demand for China employment third preference visas could require corrective action in the China Other Worker cut-off date at any time.

The DOS’s information includes charts showing the estimated total number of visas available for each employment preference category and country for fiscal year 2014. Demand data used in the determination of the November 2013 employment preference cut-off dates are also included in the charts. The information is available at http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/EmploymentDemandUsedForCutOffDates.pdf. The latest Visa Bulletin for November 2013 is available at http://travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_6168.html.

 

Cyrus Mehta

DELAYS FOR OVERSEAS SPOUSES OF US CITIZENS SEEKING GREEN CARDS

/6 Comments/in /by

One of the most fundamental benefits under immigration law is for the ability of a US citizen to quickly sponsor a foreign national spouse for a green card.  While the granting of immigration benefits is contentious in today’s political environment, no one has disputed, even immigration restrictionists, that a US citizen cannot swiftly bring into this country a foreign national whom he or she has married overseas. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the spouse of a US citizen qualifies as an immediate relative, and falls outside the quotas that other relatives of US citizens may be subject to such as adult sons and daughters or siblings. Minor children and parents of US citizens also qualify as immediate relatives.

The Form I-130 petition is used to sponsor a spouse, minor child or parent of a US citizen who is outside the US. In the recent past, such an I-130 petition filed with the United States Immigration and Citizenship Services on behalf of an immediate relative got approved in about 3-4 months. The case was then sent to the National Visa Center, a clearing house for the consular posts of the Department of State. Once the petitioner submitted the required documents to the NVC, the file was dispatched to the consular post and an appointment was quickly scheduled. The entire process generally took about six months or a little over.

More recently, I-130 petitions filed on behalf of spouses and other immediate relatives are reportedly taking much longer. This author has heard that I-130s filed in January or February 2013 have still not been approved. The Vermont Service Center states that I-130 petitions received on October 22, 2012 for immediate relatives are being adjudicated presently. The California Service Center does not indicate any processing time for a similar I-130 petition.  This is quite frankly a shocking state of affairs. The reason for the delay is that the I-130s are being shunted to local USCIS offices for processing rather than being processed at the California or Vermont Service Centers, which is how they were processed previously. Still, this is no excuse for the USCIS to cause so much delay. It makes no sense to allow spouses of US citizen to wait for so long outside the US before they can join their loved one in the US. The USCIS is capable of far greater efficiency as it demonstrated when it more quickly adjudicated thousands upon thousands of applications under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

While the filing of a concurrent I-130 petition with an I-485 application for adjustment of status may process more quickly, the foreign spouse has to be in the US in order to adjust status. If a spouse enters the US on a nonimmigrant visa, such as a tourist visa, with the intention to adjust status, such an I-485 can be denied if the spouse had a preconceived intent to apply for permanent residence while entering the country as a tourist. If, on the other hand, the spouse came genuinely as a tourist, but changed his or her mind after arriving in the US, then it can be demonstrated that there was no preconceived intent, or worse, fraud or misrepresentation with respect to the purpose of entering the US on a tourist visa.  Of course, if the spouse enters on a nonimmigrant visa, such as an H-1B or L visa, which allows for dual intent, then the spouse’s intent to apply for a permanent immigrant benefit is not an issue. The number of people on H or L visas who become spouses of US citizens is relatively few, though, and many people are unable to apply for a tourist visa to even visit the US temporarily to meet their spouses while the I-130 petition remains pending. People who are nationals of Visa Waiver countries can visit the US for 90 days without applying for a visa, but they too may risk being questioned about their intent at the port of entry.

The filing of an I-130 petition for consular processing, when the spouse is based overseas, is thus the legally appropriate method to apply. The USCIS should not discourage this process by inordinately delaying the approval of an I-130 petition, and thus encourage people to circumvent the process by coming on tourist visas, or other nonimmigrant visas that do not allow for dual intent, with the intent to apply for adjustment of status. Moreover, it is worth noting that with Section 3 of the  Defense of Marriage Act being declared unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor, same sex spouses of US citizen can also for a green card through an I-130 petition. These spouses were unjustly deprived of a benefit for years on end as a result of an unconstitutional statute, and they should not be required to wait that much longer for the I-130 petition to get approved.

In light of long delays in the processing of the I-130 petition, it may be worth considering filing an I-129F petition for a K-3 visa. Congress specifically designed the K-3 visa to allow spouses of US citizens to enter the US if the I-130 processing got delayed. In recent times, K-3 petitions have not been filed due to the fact that I-130 petitions were processed in a few months. It now makes sense to revive the K-3, and to file for it after the I-130 petition has been filed. Both the Vermont and California Service Centers indicate that K-3 processing is taking 5 months. If that time frame is accurate, then the beneficiary of a pending I-130 petition, which is expected to take a year or longer under current processing times, can at least unite with the US citizen spouse through a K-3 visa. Once the spouse is here on a K-3 visa, it is permissible under law to file an I-485 application for adjustment of status. While this is not a perfect solution as it involves two steps, the spouse can at least expect to unite with the US citizen spouse somewhat sooner.

(This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice)
Cora-Ann Pestaina

BALCA ON THE HOME OFFICE OPTION

/0 Comments/in /by

It’s time for another lesson, courtesy of BALCA (Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals).  In a November 2010 blog entitled PERM AND THE ROVING EMPLOYEE I discussed different types of roving employees and the existing BALCA or DOL (Department of Labor) guidance on how recruitment for these types of positions ought to be conducted. I raised the question, “What should the employer do when the employee works from home in a location that is different from the employer’s headquarters?” and stated “[this] less common issue of the home office has not yet been the subject of a BALCA decision.”

In an October 2011 blog entitled, BALCA SAYS THERE IS NO NEED TO LIST EVERY BENEFIT OF EMPLOYMENT IN JOB ADVERTISEMENTS, with still no definitive word from BALCA on the home office issue, I discussed Matter of Emma Willard School, 2010-PER-01101 (BALCA, September 28, 2011) where the DOL’s CO (Certifying Officer) had denied the employer’s PERM application because the recruitment failed to state that subsidized housing was being offered to the qualified US worker. In that case, BALCA held that there is no obligation for an employer to list every item or condition of employment in its advertisements and listing none does not create an automatic assumption that no employment benefits exist. In my blog, I suggested that an employer whose PERM application was denied because the recruitment did not list a “work from home” benefit, might be able to argue, under Emma Willard School, that it was not required to list all benefits in its recruitment and that the choice not to list the “work from home” benefit should not serve to deter any US workers from applying for the position because US workers are savvy and well aware of the increasing flexibility offered by employers with regard to where they perform the duties of the job. While I presented an argument that could have been made after receipt of a PERM denial, readers of that blog would likely have taken away that it is certainly better to list the “work from home” benefit in all of the recruitment. BALCA has finally spoken on this issue and has made the requirement very clear.

In Siemens Water Technologies Corp., 2011-PER-00955 (July 23, 2013), the employer filed a PERM application for the position of Field Service Engineer. In all its recruitment the employer listed Houston, Texas as the location for the job opportunity and conducted recruitment from that location. The PERM was audited and in its audit response, the employer explained that the primary worksite listed on the ETA Form 9089 was the same as the foreign worker’s home address because the Field Service Engineer would be permitted to work from home and travel to various client sites as necessary. The CO denied the application because the benefit of working from home was not offered to U.S. workers.

In its Request for Reconsideration, the employer argued that there is no regulation that requires advertisements to indicate that the geographic location is a home office. The employer argued that its recruitment was properly conducted based on the Texas worksite address and in support of its position cited minutes from the DOL’s March 15, 2007 Stakeholders Liaison Meeting which read as follows:

19. If an employer requires an employee to work from home in a region of intended employment that is different from the location of the employer’s headquarters (i.e. work is required to be performed in a designated county or state that differs from the employer’s headquarters), please confirm that the prevailing wage determination and recruitment can take place in the location of the employee’s region of intended employment. Please confirm that the notice of posting under this circumstance should be posted at the company’s headquarters.

If the 9089 form shows the worksite at a designated location other than headquarters, the PWD and recruitment would be for the worksite. AILA note: This issue essentially requires a strategy decision. The PERM form can state that the worksite is the home office, in which case the PWD and recruitment can be for the area of the home office, but the fact that the worksite is the same as the foreign national’s home address will be picked up by the PERM system and the case will likely be audited. This can then be addressed in the audit response and should not be a problem, if the case is otherwise approvable. Alternatively, the PERM form can state that the worksite is the headquarters office, but then the PWD and recruitment must be done for that location.

20. In the case of a telecommuter or an employee whose location is not specific to the job, please confirm that the notice of posting, recruitment, and prevailing wage determination should be based on the location of the employer’s headquarters.

Please see answer to number 19 above.

The employer argued that its recruitment did not contain any terms and conditions of employment that were less favorable than those offered to the foreign national. The CO denied reconsideration and forwarded the case to BALCA.

BALCA held that the employer’s reliance on the minutes of the Stakeholders Liaison Meeting was misplaced and stated that while the employer may indeed conduct recruitment from the location where the foreign national resides and may list the foreign national’s address as the primary worksite on the ETA Form 9089, the minutes of the Stakeholders Liaison Meeting are silent on what geographic location should be included in the advertisements in cases where the applicant would work from home. BALCA found that applicants reading the employer’s advertisements would think that they were restricted to working in Houston, Texas when, in contrast, the foreign national was given the option to work from his home which did not necessarily have to be in Houston, Texas. BALCA held that the recruitment was unduly restrictive and misleading and could have prevented potential US applicants from applying for the job. Although the CO did not cite this in the initial denial, BALCA also found that the recruitment violated 20 CFR § 656.17(f)(3) and (4) because it was not specific enough to apprise applicants of where they would have to reside to perform the job and applicants were also not informed of the travel requirement that the employer explained in its audit response.

Time and time again we see that the fact that the PERM regulations provide no guidance on a particular issue is no defense when the DOL decides that an error has been made. As practitioners, we are left constantly trying to anticipate potential novel reasons for denial. We cannot confidently rely on existing guidance but must somehow anticipate future guidance and comply with that! One of the main takeaways from this case is that, as a rule of thumb, it’s a good idea to include in the recruitment any unusual benefit that will be given to (e.g. work from home, subsided housing) or requirement that will be asked of (e.g. travel, relocation, mandatory week-end employment) the qualified candidate for the offered position.
Cyrus Mehta

CAN AN UNDOCUMENTED LAWYER PRACTICE IMMIGRATION LAW?

/0 Comments/in /by

All eyes are focused on whether the California Supreme Court will grant an undocumented lawyer a law license in the case of Sergio Garcia. If an undocumented lawyer like Garcia is granted a license, what would happen if he chooses to practice immigration law? In the past, undocumented lawyers who practiced immigration law have been disciplined by bar counsel within the immigration agencies.  The same fate should not befall future undocumented lawyers if they choose to practice immigration law after the state has granted them a license to practice law.

The first question is whether an undocumented lawyer can be granted a law license by the relevant state.  The Department of Justice has arguedthat 8 USC §1621 prohibits a state from granting a public benefit to an undocumented alien, which also includes a professional license. At the oral argument last Wednesday, September 4, the judges seemed to agree with the DOJ’s position. However, 8 USC §1621 also allows a state to bypass §1621 by enacting specific legislation that could grant a benefit to an undocumented alien. Thus, even if the California Supreme Court rules against Garcia,  the California legislature has passed specific legislation, AB 1024, that would authorize the granting of law licenses to undocumented aliens. This legislation, if signed by the governor,  will moot the case in the California Supreme Court, but the DOJ is likely to make the same argument in other states.

The DOJ’s hypertechnicalargument clearly goes against the spirit of the Obama Administration’s deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA) policy, although Garcia was too old to take advantage of it. The DOJ has also argued in a similar case in Florida that §1621 precludes a state from granting a law licenses to a person who has since received work authorization under DACA.  It boggles the mind as to why the DOJ would read §1621 so broadly so as to oppose the granting of a license to a lawyer who has been authorized to remain in the US and work under DACA.

There are compelling arguments why an undocumented lawyer should be granted a law license. A law license should be separated from the ability to work in the US. There are many foreign lawyers who get law licenses in this country even though they may not be eligible to work in the US. They have entered the US on student or tourist visas, and take the state bar exam. While they may not be able to remain in the US longer than their visa and plan to return to their countries, they are nevertheless granted a license based on their competence and fitness to be lawyers. Such lawyers can practice US law in their own countries, and even apply their knowledge of such law, when they legitimately visit the US for business purposes.

With respect to an undocumented lawyer who may remain in the US, he or she need not be employed by an employer in violation of federal immigration law. Such a lawyer could potentially work as an independent contractor or perform pro bono work as a volunteer without potentially violating the employer sanction laws. The DOJ in its brief cites Matter of Tong, 16 I&N Dec. 593 (BIA 1978) to argue that self-employment qualifies as working without authorization. But Matter of Tong was decided long before the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which made it unlawful for an employer to hire a person who is not authorized to work in the US. Matter of Tong only held that an alien who engages in self-employment, when otherwise not authorized to work, cannot adjust status under INA §245. It does not prohibit self-employment, and in any event, an undocumented person is ineligible to adjust status.

So, what would happen if an undocumented lawyer is granted a license, which is about to happen in California,  and then decides to practice immigration law? The DOJ’s brief in the Sergio Garcia case cites instances of disciplinary action taken against licensed attorneys who were not authorized to work in the United States by disciplinary counsel within the USCIS and the EOIR . See Matter of Ravindra Singh Kanwal, D2009-053 (OCIJ July 8, 2009) and Matter of Noel Peter Mpaka Canute, D2020_124 (OCIJ March 16, 2001). In both the cases, the attorneys had work authorization and then fell out of status, but never contested the charges and consented to the order of discipline. They were indefinitely suspended, but could apply for reinstatement if they could demonstrate that they had lawful immigration status or were granted employment authorization. Both of these attorneys were then reciprocally disciplined by their state bars in New Yorkand Coloradoand other states where they were admitted as attorneys.

Despite the groundswell of support for granting licenses to undocumented attorneys, bar counsel within the immigration agencies could potentially start disciplinary actions against them if they practice immigration law based on the prior precedents.  When a state has granted a law license to an undocumented lawyer, knowing fully well that the lawyer is undocumented, one is hard pressed to think about the ethical basis to discipline a lawyer who decides to practice immigration law. Under 8 CFR 1.1 and 1001.1, both the DHS and EOIR must recognize an attorney “who is eligible to practice law in and is a member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of any State, possession, territory, or Commonwealth of the United States, or the District of Columbia, and is not under any order suspending, enjoining, restraining, disbarring, or otherwise restricting him in the practice of law.” An undocumented attorney who falls under this definition is recognized under federal law to engage in the practice of immigration law.

Although the two published decisions are devoid of details as the immigration attorneys conceded to the disciplinary charges, it is hard to find a disciplinary ground under the federal immigration rules in 8 CFR 1003.102 that would sanction an undocumented attorney who chooses to practice immigration law, especially if such an attorney is not employed in violation of the employer sanction provisions, practices as an independent contractor and otherwise engages in ethical conduct. Moreover, in the unfortunate event that such an attorney does get disciplined by the immigration agencies for merely being undocumented, it would be equally hard for a state disciplinary authority to find a reciprocal disciplinary ground under the various state rules of professional responsibility, which have largely adopted the ABA Model rules.  Even ABA Model Rule 8.4(c), which can sanction attorneys who “engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation” or Rule 8.4(d), which sanctions attorneys who “engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice” can hardly apply to an undocumented lawyer who has been granted a license by his or her state bar, and who otherwise does not engage in unethical conduct.

Even from a public policy standpoint, a foreign national lawyer, who is otherwise in H-1B visa status, can fall out of status unbeknownst to him or her if the employer forgets to timely file an extension of the H-1B status. This lawyer may have also mistakenly received an I-94 authorizing him or her to remain in the US up to a date earlier than the date on the H-1B approval notice, and the lawyer only finds out after it is too late.  A lawyer may have also applied for adjustment of status based on marriage to a US citizen, and timely applies for a renewal of the employment authorization document, but may not receive such a document from the USCIS in a timely manner. Lawyers who find themselves in such situations, and while waiting for the government to extricate themselves from this mess, may still wish to engage in a pro bono case for a foreign national client. Should such a lawyer be disciplined for unethical conduct?

The disciplining of an undocumented lawyer also goes against the grain of prevailing policies and attitudes towards undocumented immigrants. There are millions of undocumented people who are waiting for immigration reform, and the Senate has already passed S. 744, which will give them Registered Provisional Status, and then put them along the pathway to permanent residency and eventually citizenship. Indeed, being documented or undocumented is part of the same continuum. A thoroughly undocumented person, when placed in removal proceedings, can seek cancellation of removal under stringent criteria pursuant to INA §240A(b), such as by being physically present in the U.S. on a continuous basis for not less than 10 years, by demonstrating good moral character during this period, by not being convicted of certain offenses and by demonstrating “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child,” who is a citizen or a permanent resident. Such a person whose visa has long since expired could also possibly get wrapped up in a romantic encounter with a U.S. citizen, marry, and dramatically convert from undocumented to permanent resident within a few months. Until the recent fall of DOMA, a lawyer in a same sex marriage with a US citizen could not even apply for an immigration benefit through that marriage.  At times, Congress bestows such permanent residency, as we have already seen, through section 245(i) or the LIFE Act, or a person can obtain Temporary Protected Status (TPS), if a calamity were to befall his or her country such as the recent TPS program and its extension for Haitians after the devastating earthquake on January 12, 2010. Conversely, a documented person, such as one in H-1B status can according to the government also technically be considered not in status, during the pendency of an extension request, although this position has been successfully challenged.

The following extract from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Plyer v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), which held that undocumented children could not be deprived of a public education, is worth noting:

To be sure, like all persons who have entered the United States unlawfully, these children are subject to deportation. But there is no assurance that a child subject to deportation will ever be deported. An illegal entrant might be granted federal permission to continue to reside in the country, or even become a citizen.

As undocumented immigrants become attorneys, many may want to get involved in some way in the practice of immigration law. Many of them were brought to the US as children and are without status for no fault of their own.  They may engage in advocating for the rights of immigrants, for immigration reform and may also perform pro bono work in the immigration field.  They can hardly be accused of engaging in unethical conduct by bar counsel within the immigration agencies, especially when their states have granted them licenses after being fully aware of their undocumented status.

(The view’s expressed in this blog are the author’s personal views and do not necessarily represent the views of any organization that he is a part of)

Cyrus Mehta

AMERICA’S ROLE IN SYRIA AFTER THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS ATTACK AND IMMIGRATION REFORM

/0 Comments/in /by

By Gary Endelman and Cyrus D. Mehta

After hearing about the horrific killing of civilians in Syria in a chemical weapon attack, President Obama stated:  “We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out. And if that’s so, then there need to be international consequences.” The United States may resort to this military action alone, even though Britain has backed out, although France too believes that there must be a serious deterrent to discourage the use of chemical weapons again. The potential use of force against another country brings up the specter of Iraq, when we went to went to war on false information that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. This time it is different. There is conclusive proof of a chemical weapons attack, and it is sad to see images of rows of bodies of innocent children, which was most likely perpetrated by the Assad regime in Syria.

Still, people are legitimately questioning America’s role and whether it is legal for America to use force without a Security Council resolution. It is a foregone conclusion that Russia, which is a steadfast ally of the Assad regime, will veto any proposal in the Security Council to militarily intervene through a UN force to protect the Syrian people from future chemical weapon attacks. The United States, along with France, is attempting to assert and develop a new legal doctrine to bypass the Security Council, which is that a country can use force to protect the citizens of another country that have been killed, such as in the Syrian chemical weapon attack.  They use the recent example of NATO’s use of force during the Kosovo crisis in 1999 and bypassing the Security Council in the face of a Russia veto, that prevented Milosevic from further slaughtering the Albanians, and which resulted in his downfall. Today, Serbia is a member of the European Union and Kosovo is an independent country. Kosovo is a successful example of countries intervening through force to stop a humanitarian disaster. On the other hand, the world stood by when there was genocide of unimaginable proportions in Rwanda.

No matter what people think, but America still remains the superpower and is expected to lead the rest of the world during such a crises. America will never win universal admiration as a superpower and it will make terrible mistakes, like the Iraq invasion, whose specter still haunts us and inhibits countries today from intervening in the affairs of another sovereign state even in the face of an actual chemical weapon attack that has resulted in the slaughter of thousands of innocents (including 400 children) like insects killed by pesticide.

If America, as a superpower, continues to play the role of a cop in world affairs by virtue of its superpower status, it will have more moral legitimacy to do so if it embraces people from the world through a humane and compassionate immigration system.  It is a system that allows immigrants to quickly integrate and become part of America regardless of their nationality, religion or ethnicity. Even though our immigration system is presently broken and does not permit all deserving people to become legal, American has not en mass deported its 10 million undocumented immigrants.   The world would much rather prefer America as a superpower that embraces immigration than a rising superpower such as China, which may not in the same way as America. In the same vein, if America is trying to develop a new international legal norm, which is the right to protect people and bypass the moribund Security Council, even if one does not agree whether use of force is the only way to protect, America will have more legitimacy to do that if it is still looked upon as the beacon for hope through its immigration system.

At the dawn of the American Republic, Thomas Paine in Common Sense rightly and most proudly proclaimed that “the cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind.” In this fateful hour of decision, with history and our conscience the only sure guide, surely the reverse must be true.  From the time that Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence attacked King George III for interfering with immigration, since the first Congress enacted the Naturalization Act of 1790, our immigration system has been a symbol of what kind of a people we are and what manner of nation we seek to become.  The many ideological grounds of exclusion in the 1952 Immigration Act eloquently reflected the anxieties and prejudices of the Cold War.  The abolition of the national origins quota in 1965, passed the same year as the Voting Rights Act, testified to the nation’s belief in the promise of equality for all. The Refugee Act of 1980 was the embodiment of our continued commitment to the preservation and promise of America as a refuge for the persecuted and the oppressed. The Immigration Act of 1990 by tripling the number of employment-based visas and creating the national interest waiver reflected a growing national realization that participation in a global economy required an enhanced readiness to accept and admit the best and the brightest from all nations regardless of nationality. An American that readily  embraces immigrants from around the world will be more likely to better understand the world.

Therefore, while the Obama Administration and Congress are involved with Syria, they must not lose focus on Comprehensive Immigration Reform. The Senate Bill, S. 744, which has already passed the Senate, will expand pathways for people to come to the US, and will also legalize more than 10 million people. If the House passes a similar version of S. 744, a reformed immigration system will continue to burnish America’s role in the world.  Perhaps, no other country would have legalized 10 million of its undocumented population ever, regardless of where they have come from, and put them on the path towards becoming Americans. The significance and impact of such an immigration measure would give America more moral legitimacy to speak on behalf of the world and to seek to establish new international legal norms that would protect vulnerable populations from future humanitarian disasters such as the chemical weapons attack we witnessed in Syria. Now, it is our turn to decide if our policy abroad and our actions at home will honor Dr. King’s teaching that “the arc of history is long but it bends towards justice.”

(Guest writer Gary Endelman is Senior Counsel at FosterQuan)

Cyrus Mehta

Nearly 12 Years After 9/11 Applicants Perceived as Muslims Still Targeted Under a Secret Immigration Program

/0 Comments/in /by

After the 9/11 attacks, anything and everything concerning immigration has been viewed through the prism of national security. Even a straightforward bona fide marriage between a US citizen and foreign national spouse will only be approved after every aspect of the spouse’s information is extensively checked against humongous and error-prone national data bases. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, immigrants from mainly Muslim countries were detained and deported in secret. Although they were detained because of immigration violations, it was under the pretext of investigating them for suspected links to terrorism. In the end, the 1000+ immigrants who were detained and deported in secret were not charged or convicted of terrorism.

The Bush Administration in 2003 implemented Special Registration, which applied to males from 26 countries, 25 of which had significant Islamic populations. Dutifully, 85,000 people lined up to register, thinking that they should cooperate with the government. 13,000 men who were found to have immigration violations, many of whom may have been on the path to getting green cards, were placed in deportation proceedings. Those who failed to register during the filing window continue to be affected even today, and may be unable to apply for an immigration benefit even through marriage to a US citizen.

One would like to think that in 2013, this wholesale profiling against people because of their nationality or religion would have stopped, but a little known program known as Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program or CARRP since 2008 has been targeting some  applicants who are Muslim or perceived as Muslim for immigration benefits from Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim and South Asian communities, resulting in their applications languishing in limbo or being denied for reasons other than merit. Immigration attorneys have always suspected this all along, but thanks to the ACLU, there is now a damming report that has unearthed the workings of CARRP, which according to the ACLU is code for “Muslims Need Not Apply.”

CAARP essentially discourages the granting of an application, whether it is for citizenship or for another immigration benefit, to anyone who presents a national security concern. CAARP, an unusual acronym in its own right has engendered other peculiar acronyms and terms, many with devastating consequences for the applicant. An applicant may be identified as a national security concern if she is a Known or Suspected Terrorist (KST) or a Non-Known or Suspected Terrorist (Non-KST). A KST is someone whose name has been thrown into the over-inclusive Terrorist Watch List. One need not be suspected of terrorist activity for one’s name to be included in the Terrorist Watch List.

If the person is not a KST, then CARRP directs immigration officers to look to any other relevant sources to find whether an applicant is a national security concern, and thus a Non-KST. First, CAARP directs officers to examine the security and terrorism grounds of  inadmissibility and deportability under INA Sections 212(a)(3)(A), (B), (F) and 237(a)(4)(A) and (B) to determine whether the applicant’s association with any persons or associations can render him a Non-KST. Second, CAARP instructs that the assessment under these overbroad INA provisions do not need to satisfy the legal standard for determining admissibility or removability in order to designate an applicant as a national security concern. As a result of this directive, many Muslim applicants who may have given donations to charitable organizations that have later been designated as terrorist organizations have become national security concerns even though they did not know of the designation. Such a person cannot have provided “material support” to a terrorist organization if he or she “did not know or should not have reasonably known” of it and cannot be found inadmissible or removable. Still, CAARP allows officers to implicate applicants under these provisions as national security concerns even though they are not technically admissible or removable.

CAARP allows officers to even look beyond the parameters of these provisions through “other suspicious activities” such as unusual travel patterns, large scale transfers or receipt of funds, or membership or participation in organizations outlined in sections 212(a)(3)(A), (B), or (F), or 237(a)(4)(A) or (B) of the INA.   Finally CAARP allows officers to wander much further to look at whether the applicant has a family member or “close associate” who is a national security concern. Such a “close associate” could be a roommate, co-worker, employee, owner, partner, affiliate or friend.

Once an applicant is designated as a national security concern, CAARP introduces another strange term, but again with adverse consequences for the applicant, called “Deconfliction.” Deconfliction means coordination between USCIS and any investigative agency, which is the owner of the national security information “to ensure that planned adjudicative activities (e.g. interview, request for evidence, site visit, decision to grant or deny a benefit or timing of the decision) do not compromise or impede an ongoing investigation.” This subjects the application to even more mind boggling bureaucratic procedures reflective of a post 9/11 paranoid national security apparatus such as internal vetting/eligibility assessment, external vetting and adjudication (aka denial).  It is not difficult to imagine that “Deconfliction” allows another agency such as the FBI to control the adjudicative process, resulting in the pretextual denial of the immigration benefit if the national security concern is not resolved. Attorneys have seen denials of naturalization applications, especially involving Muslims, where the applicant has not listed “membership” or “association” with every organization or group. The overbroad question on the Form N-400 asks –“Have you ever been a member of or associated with any organization, association, fund, foundation, party, club, society or similar group in the United States or in any other place?” It is likely that a Muslim applicant could get denied for inadvertently failing to list his association with a religious group, but a Christian applicant may not face a similar denial for failing to list her church.

With the revelation of CAARP, attorneys can explain to clients why applications have been delayed for so long, as well as take steps to protect their clients from pretextual denials if they have been designated as national security concerns. It would be worthwhile to accompany all clients for interviews who could be potentially CAARPed as well as insist that the USCIS video tape their interviews. It is also incumbent to advise the client on how to answer the overbroad question regarding his or her membership in associations or organizations on the Form N-400 or other applications, and it is best to err on the side of caution and interpret this question broadly to also include organizations to which the applicant may have made a charitable contribution. If the client forgets to provide information at the interview, it is important to provide that information as soon as possible in order to avoid a denial based on a misrepresentation to obtain benefits. An attorney can also challenge a denial if the client was not provided adverse information prior to the denial or for not being given the opportunity to contest a CARRP determination. Finally, an applicant subject to CAARP will not only face a denial, but the government may also find a way to place her in removal proceedings or even initiate a criminal prosecution. It is important to protect the client by being familiar with her history, and to pay attention to irregularities, which even if minor and may be overlooked for others, could result in the institution of removal proceedings or criminal proceedings.

While there are still legitimate concerns regarding national security, our government should not be encouraged to use secret programs like CAARP to deny the legitimate and meritorious applications of certain people applying for citizenship, green cards and other benefits for which they are legally eligible. If there is truly a national security concern, the non-citizen should be charged with removability or inadmissibility under Sections 212(a)(3)(A), (B), and (F), and 237(a)(4)(A) and (B) of the INA. Moreover, it the government has evidence, it also has the tools to criminally prosecute an individual.  The reason for not doing so is that the government does not have sufficient evidence, and instead, delays or denies the application for an immigration benefit.   Such policies do not in any way prevent terrorism; rather they alienate communities and people who are aspiring to become Americans. Just like Special Registration turned out to be a colossal failure and waste of government money, CAARP too is heading that way.  The USCIS should cancel this program and ensure that all applications be adjudicated in conformance with existing immigration law, as well as adhere to basic standards of fairness and due process.

Cyrus Mehta

The Lazarus Effect: How Comprehensive Immigration Reform Can Survive The House GOP and Come Back to Life

/0 Comments/in /by

By Gary Endelmanand Cyrus D. Mehta

“The only true test of leadership is the ability to lead and lead vigorously”

President John F. Kennedy

The Republican National Committee passed a resolution on Friday calling on Congress to pass immigration reform by the end of the year. Unlike the Senate Bill, s. 744, the Border, Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act, which grants a path way to citizenship, the RNC resolution contemplates legalizing immigrants who came to the US above the age of 18, but only by granting them 2 year renewable work permits. For those who came to the US as minors, they would get a renewable 5 year permit. There is no pathway to citizenship in the RNC’s resolution.

This tepid resolution is completely at odds with BSEOIMA, which will dramatically reform the immigration system. Although the bill does not have everything that everyone wants, S. 744 offers a pathway to legalization for the 10 million undocumented, a new W visa to allow for future flows of lower skilled immigrants and attempts to clear up the backlogs in the employment and family preferences. It also reforms the existing system in many ways by removing the 1 year bars to seeking asylum, creating a startup visa for entrepreneurs, clarifying a contentious provision under the Child Status Protection Act, providing greater discretion to both Immigration and Judges to terminate removal proceedings, among many other beneficial provisions.

Therefore, it remains uncertain whether any measure that the House passes can get reconciled with BSEOIMA, which truly reforms the immigration system. The intransigence in the GOP controlled House, while frustrating the hopes and aspirations of all those who believe that a reformed immigration system will benefit America, also further foreshadows doom for the party in future elections.  What caught our attention was a statement by Senator Rubio on the anniversary of the Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, one of the main Republican architects of BSEOIMA, when he warned his party members in Congress that if they did not pass a reform bill then President Obama could extend the administrative relief for young people to everyone through administrative action.

The authors have since 2010 been advocating the ability of the President to ameliorate the plight of non-citizens trapped in a broken system through administrative measures. We have also proposed that the President can resolve the crisis in the backlogs in the employment and family based preferences by not counting derivative family members.  It was thus heartening to know that Rubio also acknowledged the President’s ability to pass an executive order, although he sees this more as a threat for his party.  First, if Obama provides ameliorative relief to millions of immigrants, it will benefit the Democrats in future elections, just as DACA benefited the President in his reelection in November 2012. Second, if the President were to expand DACA to a broader group of undocumented people, and allow them to apply for work authorization and travel permission, this might be better than the GOP immigration reform proposal, if it got passed into law as part of a compromise with the Senate. Such an executive order will not be accompanied by a needless and expensive militarization of the border (which is also a feature of S. 744), along with mandatory E-Verify that will bog down business large and small.  It will not include draconian provisions that the House might likely pass in exchange for legalization, such as authorizing enforcement of immigration law by state police or criminalizing undocumented status.

This is not to say that a Presidential executive order is a substitute for comprehensive immigration legislation. The President will not be able to grant permanent residence to the undocumented, only work authorization and travel permission, and the family and employment based preferences will continue to have a limited supply of visas. Still, in the absence of Congress passing a comprehensive bill to reform the broken system, something is better than nothing. As we have already commented, if we do not count family members, that in itself would dramatically reduce waiting times in the family and employment preferences. Many of the people who will be legalized under an executive order may be able to ultimate get permanent residence through existing pathways.  It is true that the President will not be able to increase badly needed H-1B visas through executive fiat, but it may be possible to give employers greater access to the unlimited O-1 visa by broadening the definition of “extraordinary ability” to allow many more accomplished foreign nationals to work in the US. While an executive order will not include a new start up visa, if the current Entrepreneurs Pathways initiative is implemented faithfully, many entrepreneurs can start companies in the US under existing work visa categories.

While the authors support the passage of  S.744, it is tempting to add that executive action can avoid the economic illiteracy that plagues the H-1B wage provisions embraced by the Senate as the price of passage and avoid the misguided tendency of House Republicans to extend this inflationary regime to other categories such as the TN.  Unlike S. 744, it will not discourage employers from hiring foreign nationals by mandating artificially inflated wages for foreign nationals, a feature of S. 744 that sharply conflicts with expanded H-1B quotas and more generous provisions for employment-based migration. It will not cripple start-up companies who badly desire key foreign personnel but will under the new law be unable to afford them. It will not price American companies out of the green card sponsorship market, divert precious funds that would otherwise be invested in cutting-edge research or  dry up surplus capital that would be better spent on equipment modernization. Executive action will be devoid of the hugely inflationary wage rules adopted by the Senate as part of the deal making that resulted in the passage of S. 744, thereby encouraging more employers to refrain from moving jobs offshore or to low wage labor markets out of the United States. As a result, when compared to S. 744, action now by President Obama might make it more, not less, likely that companies will sponsor foreign workers for green cards.

The President always has this ace up his sleeve, which is the ability to grant relief through an executive order, to force Congress to pass immigration reform. If Congress in fact fails to pass immigration reform, the President can actually bring about immigration reform, which may look better than any of the reform proposals being floated by the GOP in the House. Of course, a future President can get rid of such administrative measures, but this usually does not happen as it would be politically too dangerous to further alienate the Latino vote. It is more likely that a future Congress will bless such administrative measures like the way BSEOIMA did with DACA recipients. So, in light of  all the uncertainty regarding the passage of a comprehensive immigration bill, a Presidential executive order, or the potential for one (as Rubio presciently realized)  may not be such a bad thing.

The invocation of executive action would allow the undocumented to remain in the United States with the opportunity for employment authorization and seek to utilize existing avenues for transition to lawful permanent resident status. It puts them in the same position as everyone else who seeks the green card. From this perspective, executive action would be consistent with the compromise proposal advocated by House Judiciary Committee Chair Robert Goodlatte ( R-Va.).  Many of the undocumented already have, or will, over time, acquire adult US citizen children; others may marry American citizens and still others could attract employer sponsorship. Keep them here, allow them to come in from the shadows, and let the undocumented regularize their status through the disciplined utilization of existing remedies. Not only is this a solution that does not require the House GOP to abandon dysfunctionality as their prime governing philosophy, something they are manifestly loath to do, but, even if Congressional ratification subsequently is felt necessary or desirable, this is precisely the path to legalization that Represenative Goodlatte has already outlined.

The President cannot grant more L-1 intra-company transferee visas but he can restore the relevancy of those that now exist by ending the war on claims of specialized knowledge. No new allowances for extraordinary ability can come through the stroke of a pen but an enlightened decision to banish the suffocating Kazarian final merits determination would give new hope to aliens who now have none but otherwise satisfy what the law requires.  Only Congress can exempt green card categories from the tender mercies of PERM but no legislative sanction is required to halt the use of audits as a tool of intimidation. The need for change should not blind us to the ample opportunities for remediation that the present law affords.  As valuable as comprehensive reform is, as badly needed as the benefits it will bring most surely are, no law will succeed if those who enforce and interpret it lack the moral courage and political will to usher in a newer world. As that fan of Tudor prerogative told us long ago in no less contentious times, “the fault dear Brutus is not in our stars but in ourselves.”

(Guest author Gary Endelman is Senior Counsel at FosterQuan)

David Isaacson

Waiving Goodbye to Unappealable Decisions: Indirect AAO Jurisdiction, or Why Having Your Appeal Dismissed Can Sometimes be a Good Thing

/1 Comment/in /by

The USCIS Administrative Appeals Office, or AAO, has administrative appellate jurisdiction over a wide variety of USCIS decisions that are not appealable to the Board of Immigration Appeals.  This jurisdiction is primarily set forth in a regulatory list that has been absent from the Code of Federal Regulations since 2003, but was incorporated by reference that year into DHS Delegation 0150.1.  Pursuant to that delegation, as manyAAOdecisionsstate, the AAO exercises appellate jurisdiction over the matters described at 8 C.F.R. 103.1(f)(3)(iii) as in effect on February 28, 2003.  (It has been previously pointed out by attorney Matt Cameron that a currently nonexistent jurisdictional regulation is an undesirable state of affairs for an appellate body; USCIS recently indicated in a July 2013 Policy Memorandum regarding certification of decisions that DHS intends to replace the list in the regulations in a future rulemaking.)

The regulatory list of applications over which the AAO has jurisdiction does not include Form I-485 applications for adjustment of status, with a minor exception relating to applications based on a marriage entered into during removal proceedings denied for failure to meet the bona fide marriage exemption under INA §245(e).  Thus, it would appear that the AAO would not have appellate jurisdiction over denials of adjustment applications, and that one’s sole administrative recourse if an adjustment application is denied would be to seek review before an immigration judge in removal proceedings, as is generally permitted (except for certain arriving aliens) by 8 C.F.R. §1245.2(a)(5)(ii).  But appearances can be deceiving.

Many, although not all, of the grounds for denial of an adjustment application are potentially subject to waiver under appropriate conditions.  If an application is denied because the applicant was found inadmissible under INA §212(a)(2)(A)(i) due to conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”), for example, a waiver can be sought under INA §212(h) if either the criminal conduct took place more than 15 years ago, or the applicant can attempt to demonstrate that the applicant’s U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse, parent, son or daughter would face extreme hardship if the applicant were not admitted.  Similarly, one who is found inadmissible under INA §212(a)(6)(C)(i) due to fraud or willful misrepresentation (not involving a false claim to U.S. citizenship taking place after September 30, 1996) can seek a waiver of inadmissibility under INA §212(i) based on extreme hardship to a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or parent.  Various other grounds of inadmissibility are waiveable as well.

While the AAO does not have jurisdiction directly over the denial of an adjustment application, the AAO does have jurisdiction over the denial of most waiver applications.  And in the AAO’s view, appellate jurisdiction to determine whether someone should have been granted a waiver necessarily includes jurisdiction to decide whether that applicant even needed a waiver in the first place.  If the AAO finds that a waiver was unnecessary, it will dismiss the waiver appeal and remand for further processing of the adjustment application.  That is, it will decide on appeal that the applicant was not, in fact, inadmissible, and thus in effect will have reviewed the denial of the underlying adjustment application even without regard to whether a waiver would be justified if one were indeed necessary.  Although this process does not appear to be documented in any precedential AAO decision, comparatively few AAO precedent decisions of any sort having been published, this exercise of indirect appellate jurisdiction by the AAO occurs with some frequency in non-precedential, “unpublished” decisions that have been made available online (generally by USCIS itself, or occasionally by other sources).

Dismissal of a waiver appeal as moot can occur in the context of a §212(h) waiver, for example, where the AAO finds that the applicant’s conviction was not for a CIMT (see also these additional decisionsfrom 2012; 2010; February, March, Apriland June of 2009; 2008; and 2007).  Even if the applicant does have a CIMT conviction, that AAO may conclude that the applicant’s only conviction for a CIMT qualifies for the petty offense exception under INA §212(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II) and thus does not give rise to inadmissibility (see also these decisions along the same lines from Januaryand Marchof 2009, 2008, and 2006).  Dismissal of a §212(h) waiver application as moot can also occur when the AAO finds that the applicant was not convicted of a crime at all given that the official disposition of a charge was a “Nolle prosequi”, or that an applicant who was not convicted of a crime had not given a valid admission to the elements of a crime, in accordance with the procedural safeguards required by precedent, so as to give rise to inadmissibility in the absence of a conviction.  Outside the CIMT context, as well, the AAO can dismiss a §212(h) waiver appeal as moot upon a finding that no waiver is needed, such as when someone who was thought to have a waiveable conviction involving 30 grams or less of marijuana successfully points out on appeal that disorderly conduct under a statute not mentioning drugs is not an offense relating to a controlled substance.

In the context of a denial based on inadmissibility for fraud or misrepresentation, the AAO can dismiss an appeal from the denial of a §212(i) waiver as moot if it finds that the misrepresentation was not material (see also these decisions from 2010, 2009and 2007), or that an applicant who was victimized by others submitting a fraudulent application on his behalf without his knowledge did not make a willful misrepresentation, or that any misrepresentation was the subject of a timely retraction (see also this decision from 2006).  AAO dismissal of a §212(i) waiver appeal as moot can also be used to vindicate the legal principle that presenting a false Form I-94 or similar false documentation to an employer to obtain employment does not give rise to inadmissibility under §212(a)(6)(C)(i), and neither does procuring false immigration documentation from a private individual more generally, because a misrepresentation under 212(a)(6)(C)(i) must be made to an authorized U.S. government official.  Finally, AAO dismissal of a §212(i) waiver appeal as moot can occur where the only alleged misrepresentation occurred in the context of a legalization program which is subject to statutory confidentiality protection, such as the SAW (Special Agricultural Worker) program under INA §210 or a LULAC late legalization application or other application under INA §245A, and therefore any such misrepresentation cannot be the basis of inadmissibility under §212(a)(6)(C)(i) because of the confidentiality protection.

This sort of indirect AAO jurisdiction can also be used to correct errors regarding inadmissibility for unlawful presence under INA §212(a)(9)(B), if a waiver application is filed under INA §212(a)(9)(B)(v).  For example, in a 2012 decision involving an applicant who was admitted for duration of status (D/S) and had been incorrectly found to have accrued unlawful presence after failing to maintain status even absent any finding of such by USCIS or an immigration judge, contrary to the 2009 Neufeld/Scialabba/Chang USCIS consolidated guidance memorandum on unlawful presence, the AAO dismissed the appeal as moot upon finding that the applicant was not, in fact, inadmissible under §212(a)(9)(B).

The AAO’s indirect appellate jurisdiction over inadmissibility determinations has even been exercised where the initial inadmissibility determination was made not by a USCIS officer in the context of an application for adjustment of status, but by a Department of State consular officer in the context of a consular application for an immigrant visa.  In a 2009 decision, the AAO dismissed as moot an appeal from the denial of a §212(h) waiver by the Officer in Charge (OIC) in Manila, holding that the applicant did not require a waiver because the applicant’s admission to an examining physician that he had used marijuana in the past did not give rise to inadmissibility, and that Pazcoguin v. Radcliffe, 292 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 2002) (finding a valid admission to the elements of a crime resulting in inadmissibility under similar circumstances) did not apply because the applicant and the office that made the decision were located in the Philippines rather than within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit.  The AAO ordered “the matter returned to the OIC for further processing of the immigrant visa application.” It explained the source of its authority in this context as follows:

The Secretary of Homeland Security (and by delegation, the AAO) has final responsibility over guidance to consular officers concerning inadmissibility for visa applicants. See Memorandum of Understanding Between Secretaries of State and Homeland Security Concerning Implementation of Section 428 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, issued September 30, 2003, at 3.

Matter of X- (AAO June 17, 2009), at 4.

Nor was that Manila case an isolated exception, although the detailed explanation of the source of the AAO’s authority in the consular context that was contained in that decision is rarer that the exercise of the authority itself.  The AAO has also dismissed as moot an appeal of the denial of an application for a §212(h) waiver by the Mexico City district director in the case of an applicant who sought an immigrant visa in the Dominican Republic and had been convicted of a firearms offense which would properly give rise to deportability but not inadmissibility; dismissed an appeal from a decision of the Frankfurt, Germany OIC denying a §212(h) waiver for an applicant whom the AAO determined had not been convicted of a CIMT; dismissed an appeal from a decision of the Vienna, Austria OIC denying a §212(h) waiver for an applicant the AAO found had only been subject to juvenile delinquency proceedings not giving rise to a conviction for immigration purposes under Matter of Devison-Charles, 22 I&N Dec. 1362 (BIA 2001); and dismissed another appeal from a decision of the Vienna OIC where the AAO found that the applicant’s conviction qualified for the petty offense exception.  Indeed, the AAO has exercised its indirect appellate jurisdiction over a consular inadmissibility determination in at least one appeal from a decision of the Mexico City district director where “the applicant did not appear to contest the district director’s determination of inadmissibility” but the AAO found that neither of the crimes of which the applicant had been convicted was a CIMT.  The AAO’s indirect appellate jurisdiction has also been exercised in a case coming from the New Delhi, India OIC where an applicant disputed his date of departure from the United States which started the running of the ten-year bar, and the AAO found that the applicant’s actual departure had been more than ten years prior and thus no §212(a)(9)(B)(v) waiver was required.

Perhaps most interestingly, it appears that the AAO will even exercise its indirect appellate jurisdiction over inadmissibility determinations in some cases where the applicant has failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for the relevant waiver, although the only examples that this author have been able to find of this involve the AAO’s indirect jurisdiction over USCIS adjustment denials rather than consular-processing of an immigrant visa.  In a 2006 decision, an applicant who had not provided any evidence that his wife was a Lawful Permanent Resident who could serve as a qualifying relative for either a §212(i) waiver or a §212(a)(9)(B)(v) waiver was found not to be inadmissible because he had made a timely retraction of any misrepresentation, and had accrued no unlawful presence due to last departing the United States in 1989.  In a 2009 decision, an applicant who had pled guilty to hiring undocumented workers, and who had been found inadmissible under INA §212(a)(6)(E)(i) for alien smuggling and appealed the denial of his application for a waiver of inadmissibility under INA §212(d)(11), was found not inadmissible by the AAO, which withdrew the district director’s contrary finding—even though the district director had found that the applicant did not meet the requirements of §212(d)(11), and seems very likely to have been right about that, since §212(d)(11)applies only to an applicant who “has encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided only an individual who at the time of the offense was the alien’s spouse, parent, son, or daughter (and no other individual) to enter the United States in violation of law.”  And in 2010, the AAO declared moot a waiver application under INA §212(g) by an individual infected with HIV who apparently had not established any relationship with a qualifying relative, on the ground that in January 2010 the Centers for Disease Control had removed HIV from the official list of communicable diseases of public health significance, and therefore HIV infection was no longer a ground of inadmissibility.  Some potentially difficult ethical and practical questions would need to be resolved before deliberately filing a waiver application on behalf of an applicant ineligible for such waiver in order to obtain AAO review of whether the applicant was inadmissible at all, but it is at least a possibility worthy of further analysis.

So when an application for adjustment of status, or even for a consular-processed immigrant visa, is denied, it is important to keep in mind that an appeal may be available even if it does not appear so at first glance, and that establishing the necessary hardship to a qualifying relative to support a waiver application is not necessarily the only way to win the case.  If a waiver of the ground upon which the denial was based is at least theoretically available, so as to support AAO jurisdiction over the denial of that waiver, then one can leverage the waiver to seek AAO review of whether a waiver was necessary in the first place.