Cyrus Mehta

HR 3012: A Good Bill Saddled With a Bad Amendment

/1 Comment/in /by

By Myriam Jaidi

As Cyrus Mehta noted in his December 7, 2011 blogpost regarding H.R. 3012, “How Fair is the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act?”, although not a perfect bill, H.R. 3012 passed the House in November 2011 by a landslide. The bill, as passed by the House, would eliminate the employment-based per country cap entirely by 2015 and raise the family-sponsored per-country cap from 7% to 15%. The passage of this bill by a margin of 389-15 signaled the strong bipartisan concern with the significant inequities in the immigrant visa system with regard to individuals from certain countries, especially individuals from India and China sponsored for employment-based immigrant visas. Although the country limits addressed by H.R. 3012 were originally enacted for all countries, these limits have resulted in mind-boggling wait times for people from India and China. For example, for Indians in the employment-based third preference (EB-3) category, some have estimated the wait times could be up to 70 years!

The landslide, bi-partisan passage of H.R. 3012 in the House was also proof positive that Congress, despite the gridlock and often seething partisanship, is in fact deeply concerned with repairing our country’s dysfunctional and unfair immigration system, especially in at a time when economic and global realities require the United States to reform the system to facilitate our ability to compete more effectively in the global economy. Both our “home-grown” and imported talent will mutually benefit from more reasonable access to visas for highly-skilled immigrant (and nonimmigrant) workers, as many U.S. business leaders such as Bill Gates have attested (see pages 12 to 14 of his testimony). Further proof of that fact is the strong support of entrepreneurs, both foreign and domestic, by the Obama Administration, as demonstrated by the Start-Up America and Entrepreneurs in Residence initiatives.

Then along came Senator Grassley’s hold on the bill in December 2011. After extensive negotiations, on July 11, 2012, Senator Grassley lifted his hold. To remove the hold, senators in favor of the original bill reached what may well be a sort of “Faustian bargain” with Senator Grassley. In order to agree to lift the hold on the bill, Senator Grassley demanded provisions that could severely hamper the already difficult H-1B nonimmigrant visa process and, in tandem with that, hamper U.S. businesses and their ability to compete in the global economy.

So, what’s the big deal? This is what Senator Grassley had to say about the amendment he proposed:

[T]here is agreement to include in H.R. 3012 provisions that give greater authority to program overseers to investigate visa fraud and abuse. Specifically, there will be language authorizing the Department of Labor to better review labor condition applications and investigate fraud and misrepresentation by employers. There is also agreement to include a provision allowing the Federal Government to do annual compliance audits of employers who bring in foreign workers through the H–1B visa program.

I appreciate the willingness of other members to work with me to include measures that will help us combat visa fraud, and ultimately protect more American workers.

Sounds fine, right? Protect American workers, combat fraud, what’s wrong with that? There is of course nothing wrong with protecting American workers and preventing fraud. Supporters of the amendment seem to frame their support in the same way that people who criticize the Constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and self-incrimination frame those criticisms: if companies are not doing anything wrong, they have nothing to fear, right, from a search, seizure or questioning?

Senator Grassley’s description of his proposed amendment is something of a gross oversimplification. First of all, the amendment covers issues already addressed by existing law so query whether the amendment will serve any constructive purpose. The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and implementing regulations, as well as the related rules promulgated by the Department of Labor (“DOL”) addressing the process of obtaining approval of a labor condition application (“LCA”), the necessary first step of the H-1B sponsorship process, already include extensive protections for American workers and provisions to search out and punish fraud, if it does occur. Just to name a few examples, the existing rules require notice to “U.S. workers” (which, pursuant to the DOL regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 655.715, include citizens or nationals of the United States as well as green card holders, refugees, asylees, or “an immigrant otherwise authorized (by the INA or by DHS) to be employed in the United States” – it is unclear who Senator Grassley’s term “American workers” includes), provide minimums for offered salaries to ensure that such salaries do not undercut the salaries of U.S. workers, and where employers are “H-1B dependent”, the rules require, if such employers offer a salary of less than $60,000 per year, that they attest, and when called upon to do so, demonstrate, that they have made good faith efforts to recruit U.S. workers for the offered position (see 20 C.F.R. § 655.738-655.739)). Penalties for violations of the rules are already included in the statute and governing regulations (see INA § 212(n)(2)(C)).

So what does Senator Grassley’s amendment do? The amendment changes, but does not clarify, the trigger for DOL review of an application from “only for completeness and obvious inaccuracies” to “for completeness, clear indicators of fraud or misrepresentation of material fact.” The amendment does not define what might constitute “clear indicators of fraud or misrepresentation of material fact,” although these may be similar to the ones some authors have observed that USCIS followed (and may still) as indicators of fraud in H-1B cases: companies grossing under $10 million per year, companies with less than 25 employees, companies established less than 10 years ago, etc. Grassley’s amendment to the bill also changes the investigation process by removing the need for “reasonable cause” to conduct an investigation based upon a complaint, which continues to be the basis on which an investigation may be commenced. Thus, any complaint, reasonable or not, received by the DOL about an employer could serve as the basis for an investigation.

What does this mean for the process? It could bring the process of getting an LCA approved to a standstill and therefore limit or even prove fatal to an employer’s ability to hire a highly skilled foreign worker on an H-1B nonimmigrant visa. First, let us consider cap-subject cases. Each fiscal year, only 65,000 H-1B visas are available and time is usually of the essence because the H-1B cap “opens” on April 1, for an October 1 start date for cases subject to the cap, and in many years, the cap was often reached on or soon after that April 1 date, so there is great competition for these visas and having them ready to file on time is crucial. Currently, the process of getting an LCA approved takes about 7 business days. During this period, the DOL checks for obvious inaccuracies, checks the existence of the employer, salary details, and whether the employer has made the appropriate attestations, among other details. This 7-day period is a built-in delay of the process. Under the current laws, an investigation may be conducted for a period of up to 60 days (see INA § 212(n)(2)(G)(viii)). Under the proposed amendment, there appears to be no time limitation on the length of time an investigation may continue.

Without any sense of how long an investigation may take, and given the uncertainty of the trigger, an employer who is certain it wants to hire an individual for an October 1 start date, cannot build in more than 6 months of precautionary time for what could amount to a random investigation, because the current process does not allow an LCA to be prepared and submitted to the DOL for processing more than 6 months prior to the intended start date of the H-1B visa. For cases that are not cap subject, such as a company hiring an individual who already holds H-1B status, the risk is losing a highly-skilled prospective employee who may be desperately needed because of uncertain delay in the very first step of the process. The portability process created by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (“AC21”), which allows a change to a new employer immediately after that employer files an H-1B petition, cannot do anything for an employer looking to transfer someone’s H-1B to their company if they cannot get the H-1B petition filed because the LCA process is held up by investigation. Viewed in this light, this amendment to a well-meaning bill would obstruct the flexibility promoted by AC21, the intent of which was to promote the United States’ ability to compete in the 21st Century!

Senator Grassley’s amendment also allows the DOL to conduct “surveys of the degree to which employers comply” with Grassley’s new LCA regime. Exactly how such surveys would be conducted, who would be involved, and how long they might take is unstated. Under Senator Grassley’s amendment, the DOL may also conduct annual compliance audits of any H-1B employer. Of course, compliance audits are already a part of the existing rules. However, the new twist is that the DOL must conduct such annual compliance audits of “each employer with more than 100 full-time equivalent employees who are employed in the United States if more than 15 percent of the number of such full-time employees are H-1B nonimmigrants . . . .” Although there is a four-year period between allowed compliance audits for employers who pass muster, the amendment also provides for publication of the DOL’s findings. Given the current anti-immigrant climate and the tendency of many people to blame foreign workers for the lack of available jobs, publishing results even of companies who are completely in compliance could lead to backlash against the companies, or could lead companies to avoid hiring foreign workers in the United States, and perhaps moving operations overseas or to Blueseed to avoid exposure.

Removing per-country limits on employment-based immigrant visas and increasing the limits on family-based immigrant visas are obviously laudable goals, but query what risks Senator Grassley’s amendment poses. The reality appears to be that the amendment will not serve its stated ends but rather will serve to obstruct access to highly-skilled foreign workers and undermine U.S. businesses and their ability to compete in the global economy. Perhaps it would be best if H.R. 3012 were passed – without Senator Grassley’s amendment.

Cyrus Mehta

The Ties that Bind: Can Family Unity Co-Exist with Maintenance of Lawful Permanent Resident Status?

/0 Comments/in /by

By Gary Endelman and Cyrus D. Mehta

While many covet lawful permanent resident (LPR) status in the US, popularly known as the green card, since it allows them to freely live and work in the US, it can also become a burden if one remains absent from the US, which can result in the loss of this status. This happened in Lateef v. Holder, where the petitioner, a Pakistani national, argued that despite multiple long absences from the United States, she did not intend to abandon her status, which also served as the foundation for her husband’s and child’s entry into the United States. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied the petition for review, holding that intent alone is insufficient to maintain LPR status and that her extended periods in Pakistan, including her final trip that lasted a year and three months, supported the BIA’s finding that she had abandoned her LPR status. The court also noted that the petitioner, at the end of a long and exhausting international flight, fearful of losing her LPR status, had lied in one instance to border officials about the date of her last visit to the United States.

Circuit Judge Jane B. Stranch dissented, noting among other things that errors by U.S. immigration officials were responsible for at least some of the delays in her returning, and that the petitioner’s daughter in Pakistan had emotional and physical problems that compelled her to spend time in Pakistan to care for her.

The main lesson learned from Lateef v. Holder is that waiting outside the US with your loved ones, until they can immigrate to the US, can result in abandonment of your green card. Due to the tremendous backlogs in the family-based immigration system, it can take years before an LPR can sponsor a spouse or child to the US, thus compelling the LPR to be absent from the US until such time that the family members are issued immigrant visas. The case highlights the tensions between a global world involving frequent travel, and where families live apart in different countries, and an insular immigration system.

Lateef, a native of Pakistan, became a LPR in 1991 along with her parents and brothers. She initially went back to Pakistan to complete her final 2 years of medical school, and then returned to the US and remained for over 2 years. After Lateef married her husband in Pakistan in June 1995, she spent most of her time in Pakistan until February 2001, when she was charged with inadmissibility based on abandonment of her LPR status. Between 1995 and 2001, she returned periodically to the US to take her medical exams. Her husband was also denied a visitor visa during this time. She also gave birth to a daughter in Pakistan. Although, according to the majority her daughter was granted LPR status “as a child born during a temporary visit abroad” to an LPR under 8 C.F.R. § 211.1(b)(1), Judge Stranch’s dissenting opinion disputes this fact. Due to an error by the INS at the port of entry, according to Judge Stranch, the daughter was not granted LPR status under this special dispensation. Lateef had to file a separate I-130 petition on behalf of her daughter, which resulted in the daughter having to wait in Pakistan for many years. Lateef’s daughter developed behavioral problems whenever she came to the US to take medical exams. She was thus forced to return to Pakistan, and she last left the US in November 1999 due to her daughter’s continuing behavioral problems, where she remained there for a year and three months. Her husband and children (by then she also had a son) were granted immigrant visas in November 2000, but she stayed in Pakistan until 2001 to attend weddings.

When Lateef last arrived in the US in February 2001 after being out since November 1999, she falsely told the officer that she was last in the US in July 2000. Upon being confronted, she changed her story that she was last in the US in April 2000, which was also untrue. When being further confronted with documents found in the family’s luggage, she confessed that she was out since November 1999 and that she had previously lied to immigration officials.

Before we draw further lessons from Lateef v. Holder, we give you a primer on the law of abandonment of LPR status. For a more extensive review on this subject, we refer you to our article, Home Is Where The Card Is: How To Preserve Lawful Permanent Resident Status In A Global Economy, 13 Bender’s Immigration Bulletin 849, July 1, 2008. Essentially, an LPR must be returning from a temporary visit abroad under INA § 101(a)(27) in order to avoid a charge of abandonment. The term “temporary visit abroad” has recently been subject to interpretation by the Circuit Courts. The Ninth Circuit’s interpretation in Singh v. Reno, 113 F.3d 1512 (9th Cir. 1997) is generally followed:

A trip is a ‘temporary visit abroad’ if (a) it is for a relatively short period, fixed by some early event; or (b) the trip will terminate upon the occurrence of an event that has a reasonable possibility of occurring within a relatively short period of time.”If as in (b) “the length of the visit is contingent upon the occurrence of an event and is not fixed in time and if the event does not occur within a relatively short period of time, the visit will be considered a “temporary visit abroad” only if the alien has a continuous, uninterrupted intention to return to the United States during the visit.

Singh v. Reno is worth further elaboration as the facts in this case are somewhat analogous to Lateef v. Holder. Singh obtained lawful permanent residence through the special agricultural worker program on December 1, 1990. From that date till the initiation of the proceedings on July 8, 1993, Singh spent less than one-third of his time in the US. In fact, he spent time with his wife and daughter in the United Kingdom who were waiting for their family-based immigrant visa petition to materialize. During the time Singh spend in the US, he worked sporadically for a restaurant in California, and lived in temporary housing provided by the employer. Singh also applied for a visitor visa at the US consulate in London and entered the US four times on that visa after he obtained permanent residency in the UK. The Ninth Circuit held that Singh’s long visits to the UK did not qualify as a temporary visit, even though he was never out of the US for more than a year, and upheld the Board’s decision affirming his abandonment of LPR.

In a scathing dissent, Judge Reinhardt criticized the majority for failing to consider that Singh’s motive for spending time abroad was due to the wait for his wife and daughter to gain immigration status. Moreover, the dissenting judge disagreed with the majority that the wife and spouse were free to reside in the US while waiting for their immigration status.

Another important case is Hana v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 472 (6th Cir. 2005), which in turn drew from Singh v. Reno. Although the facts in Hana v. Gonzales, are similar to Singh, the Sixth Circuit found that Hana, an Iraqi national, did not abandon her status. On May 22, 1992, Hana was granted LPR status upon which she immediately filed immigrant visa petitions for her husband and four children. A few weeks later, on July 19, 1992, Hana returned to Iraq, and to her job as an inspector at the Central Bank of Iraq under the Saddam Hussein regime. Hana was compelled to return to Iraq to work because she was afraid that the government would hurt her family. Upon obtaining a reentry permit, Hana spent in the next two years in Iraq with her family and to care for her terminally ill mother in law. Two weeks prior to the expiration of her re-entry permit in December 1996, Hana returned to the US but was detained and charged with inadmissibility as an immigrant without a valid visa. Hana admitted that she had never paid income tax in the US and had no property in this country, but had initially entered with $10,000 in jewelry and money, which she gave to her brother so that she could ultimately purchase a home and car, and provide for her children when they arrived in the US.

While ruling in Hana’s favor, the Sixth Circuit emphasized that it must take into account the totality of the alien’s circumstances in addition to the two-part test established in Singh v. Reno to determine what constitutes a temporary visit abroad. Thus, while Hana did not possess family, property or job in the US, the Court held that she still had an intent to return to the US upon the materialization of her family members’ immigration visa petitions. It appears that the Sixth Circuit was influenced by Hana’s decision to remain in Iraq with her family to ensure that they were not harmed by a brutal regime’s henchmen and for caring for her terminally ill mother-in-law. The Sixth Circuit distinguished Singh v. Reno, by observing that Singh’s family, even though not free to reside in the US, could freely travel between the two countries which were relatively safe democratic nations, although the Court acknowledged that Singh was a “close case.” Clearly, Hana is a better decision as it recognizes an LPR’s need to remain with family overseas, and is also more understanding of the realities of the backlogs in family-based immigration, along with the difficulty that sponsored family members may have in obtaining visitor visas to the United States as well as the political and economic realities that might hinder one’s ability to return to the US quickly.

Lateef v. Holder is also from the Sixth Circuit, and Lateef sought to show that her case was similar to Hana, but the majority thought otherwise. Unlike the Hana petitioner, who was forced to remain in Iraq to protect her family from a brutal dictatorship, the Lateef court thought that Pakistan was a free country that allowed its people to travel. Also compare Hana’s intent to return to the US upon the immigration of her relatives, which the Sixth Circuit paid attention to despite her lack of other ties, with the refusal of the Sixth Circuit to pay similar deference to Lateef’s intent as a controlling factor. It appears that the Sixth Circuit thought that Lateef’s case was more like Singh who could freely travel between two democratic countries, the United Kingdom and the US, even though they had relatives who were waiting in the preference system for immigrant visas. While this is a refreshing observation on Pakistan, we know anecdotally that Pakistani nationals do not otherwise fare too well in our immigration system. Their applications for routine immigration benefits get scrutinized more than others through the prism of national security, and they are more amenable to be placed in removal proceedings notwithstanding the new DHS prosecutorial discretion policy set forth in the Morton Memo of June 17, 2011. It is true that Lateef did not have a reentry permit, unlike Hana, when she returned to the US in February 2011 and even lied about the last time she came back to the US. This may have cut against her, but the misrepresentation would not have been material, and thus an additional ground of inadmissibility, if she had not abandoned her LPR status. Also, a reentry permit is not an essential prerequisite for maintaining LPR status. In yet another decision involving a Pakistani national, Moin v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2003), the petitioner, after obtaining LPR status, left for Pakistan to marry and spent the majority of the next several years with her husband and children in Pakistan. Even though Moin had a sick child who died after barely one year and had a reentry permit, the fact that she spent most of the time in Pakistan without an intent to return within a relatively short period caused the Fifth Circuit to affirm the abandonment of her LPR status. The Fifth Circuit observed that “a reentry permit, in and of itself, does not prevent a finding that an alien has abandoned her permanent residency status.” Indeed, this lesson is one that is poorly understood by LPRs who see the re-entry permit as offering the absolute assurance of retention. The Lateef court, in finding that the petitioner had abandoned LPR status was more influenced by Moin and Singh than Hana.

Still Judge Stranch’s dissent in Lateef has considerable moral force like Judge Reinhardt’s dissent in Singh. Green card holders should not be deprived of their status primarily because they reside abroad with family members whom they have sponsored under our creaky immigration system. In Lateef, it appears that there was also an error with respect to her infant daughter being expeditiously granted LPR status at the airport under the special dispensation in 8 C.F.R. § 211.1(b)(1). Her daughter thus was forced to stay in Pakistan until the regular immigrant visa processing for a few years, and Lateef needed to be with her daughter in Pakistan due to continuing behavioral problems. Even though the court opined that Lateef and her family were free to travel, her husband was denied a tourist visa. This is often the case when a family member is being sponsored for a green card, and the tourist visa is routinely denied on the ground that the family member is wrongly suspected of being an intending immigrant and planning to overstay the visa. Moreover, the court seemed to be impressed by the fact that Hana brought $10,000 worth of valuables and cash with her to purchase a home and a car in the US when she finally would come and reside in the US. But the court glaringly missed the investment in time that Lateef was spending taking medical exams in the US that would qualify her to practice as a physician and establish a career in the US. It is clear that Lateef was expending her own human capital in the US even though she did not bring physical assets to the US like Hana, which appeared rather modest. On the other hand, Lateef’s investment of time in obtaining a medical license to practice in the US was impressive.

The unfortunate holding in Lateef v. Holder again compels us to offer our proposal that, if adopted, will change the law on preservation of LPR status in a really big way: green card holders, like US citizens, should not be presumed to abandon their status without a tangible manifestation or expression of informed consent. The significance of LPR status would be greatly enhanced if a presumption existed in favor of retention of status, notwithstanding the commission of certain acts that might suggest a contrary intent. US citizens now enjoy this same presumption and there is no reason why resident aliens should not as well. It is neither sound nor sensible to assume that naturalized Americans have a stronger or more meaningful attachment to this country than lawful permanent residents; indeed, there are numerous anecdotal reasons to commend the opposite conclusion. Extended absence from the US, without more, should never serve as the basis for abandonment; in a global economy, where an LPR may have to reside abroad with family members until their immigration process is completed or where international relocations are the price of career advancement or even job retention, the law should and must provide that no LPR can be stripped of their green card on the basis of abandonment unless he or she clearly states an unmistakable intention to give it up. No inference from proven conduct would be possible absent clear evidence that such was the desired and intended consequence. Application of this presumption would properly reflect the profound importance of lawful resident alien status while serving as symbolic recognition of the vast contributions that such permanent residents have made to their adopted home. How is the nation well served when we presume that a citizen does not intend the consequences of a potentially expatriating act while denying the LPR his or her right to rely upon the very same presumption? What reason is there to believe that a US citizen is more invested in keeping citizenship than an LPR in preserving the green card? Do we seek to punish the lawful permanent resident for retaining original loyalties and not taking that one, final, fateful step signifying that they have truly become one of us, making our cause their own?

So long as the green card holder has not violated our laws, or otherwise subjected themselves to justifiable removal, no public interest is advanced when the law refuses to shield permanent residents from involuntary loss of status. Our liberties are not made more secure, our federal coffers do not swell with more tax dollars, our enemies are not chastened nor our friends reassured from such an anomalous state of affairs. The genius of the American constitutional arrangement, that which has provided it with the equipoise so prized in times of crisis, lies in its ability to give all those affected by its operation a stake in society. As Professor Alexander M. Bickel taught us in Citizenship in the American Constitution, 15 Arizona Law Review 369 (1973), the value of citizenship is most authentically reaffirmed when the rights of citizens are least exalted above all others. No one, LPRs included, should have to choose between loyalty to family and retention of status. The true meaning of America lies elsewhere. F. Scott Fitzgerald in The Crack-Up (1933) points the way:

France was a land, England a people but America was somehow different… It had about it still the quality of an idea…It was, above all else, a willingness of the heart.
David Isaacson

WHAT THE THIRD CIRCUIT MISSED IN VERA, PART TWO: A PRACTICAL EXAMPLE OF WHY ACCEPTING UNREFUTED BUT UNSUPPORTED GOVERNMENT ASSERTIONS IS PROBLEMATIC

/0 Comments/in , /by

In a previous post on this blog, “The Prejudice Caused By Summary Removal After Visa Waiver Admission: What the Third Circuit Missed in Vera and Bradley”, I discussed the case of Vera v. Attorney General of the U.S., in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a woman who had entered the United States at the age of 12 under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) could be removed without a hearing before an immigration judge, even though the government could not produce proof that she had actually waived her right to such a hearing. The Third Circuit in Vera relied on a presumption that the waiver must have been properly executed since this was required by statute in order for Ms. Vera to be admitted under the VWP, and also on the argument, first accepted by the Third Circuit in the case of Bradley v. Attorney General of the U.S., 603 F.3d 235 (3d Cir. 2010), that there was no prejudice to Ms. Vera from any lack of a knowing and voluntary waiver because the summary removal that she now faced was the same consequence that she would have faced if she had refused to sign the waiver.

As explained in my previous blog post, the assertion of lack of prejudice that formed an important part of the Third Circuit’s initial decision in Vera was based on an error. It has now become apparent that the presumption of a proper waiver in the Third Circuit’s decision was also based on an error, one that helps illustrate why courts in the immigration context should be reluctant to indulge unproven executive-branch assertions about how something must have happened. The Third Circuit has now had to vacate its decision in Vera, because the government discovered that Ms. Vera actually was not admitted under the VWP at all!

As discussed in a June 11 post on AILA’s Slip Opinion blog, following the Third Circuiit’s March 1 decision in her case, Ms. Vera secured pro bono counsel to represent her in a petition for rehearing en banc before the Third Circuit, and they in conjunction with the New York State Youth Leadership Council succeeded in getting her released from immigration detention in April after she had been detained for nine months. Then, as reported on May 21, 2012 by Ms. Vera’s new pro bono counsel at the Heartland Alliance’s National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) , to whom congratulations are due, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) cancelled the removal order against Ms. Vera after belatedly realizing that Ms. Vera had not been admitted under the VWP, and the Office for Immigration Litigation (OIL) (federal court lawyers who represent DHS), filed a motion to throw out Vera’s immigration case. On May 25, 2012, at the urging of Ms. Vera’s new NIJC counsel, Ms. Vera was granted deferred action in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. And in an order issued on June 13, 2012, the Third Circuit vacated its earlier decision in Vera and dismissed the case, because there was no longer any final order of removal and thus nothing for the Third Circuit to review.

In its June 13, 2012 order vacating its earlier decision, the Third Circuit stated: “The Court notes that it based its decision on the incorrect representation of the Department of Homeland Security that petitioner was admitted to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program and further notes that petitioner did not challenge this representation.” The original March 1, 2012 decision had acknowledged that Ms. Vera “did not concede expressly that she entered the United States under the VWP” but concluded that the government’s assertions, plus Ms. Vera’s failure to contend otherwise, left the Court “satisfied” that such was the case:

In her opening brief in this Court, Vera did not concede expressly that she entered the United States pursuant to the VWP. But the government in its answering brief pointed out that Vera stated that she was admitted under the VWP in the Record of Sworn Statement that she executed when Immigration and Custom Enforcement officers took her into custody and that her father, in an affidavit submitted on her behalf, made the same representation. Though she had the opportunity in her reply brief to contest the government’s representation of the contents of those documents she did not do so nor does she deny now that she entered the United States under the auspices of the VWP. Moreover, she does not contend that she entered the United States on any basis other than under the VWP. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that she entered pursuant to the VWP. We also point out that there is no indication in the briefs or the record on the petition before us that she ever has left this country since the time of her entry.

Vera v. Att’y Gen., 11-3157 (3d Cir. March 1, 2012), slip op. at 4 n.3. That is, the Third Circuit concluded from the government’s unchallenged descriptions of prior statements made by Ms. Vera and her father that Ms. Vera must have been admitted under the VWP, despite the lack of any documentation showing this to be true. This despite the fact that Ms. Vera was describing events that had happened more than 10 years ago, in September of 2000, when she was only 12 years old. Although hindsight is, to be sure, 20-20, it is problematic to expect someone to have definitive knowledge of what specific immigration-law provision she entered under many years ago during her childhood, and it is not that much better to rely on the recollection even of an adult layman regarding the legal details of an immigration-related event that occurred more than a decade ago.

One of the reasons that at our firm, and I suspect at most other firms practicing in the area of immigration law, prospective clients are asked to bring to the initial consultation any and all documents that may shed light on their immigration history, is that the vague recollection of a layperson regarding what formal program he or she may have entered under some time ago, and what may have happened since, is not particularly likely to be reliable when it is not backed up by documentation. Immigration law is incredibly complex. In softcover book form, the Immigration and Nationality Act alone is nearly four hundred pages long, and the related Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations is more than one thousand pages in length. There are also other federal regulations that relate to immigration law, various administrative handbooks of different agencies (such as the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual, or the Adjudicator’s Field Manual and Inspector’s Field Manual of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and Customs and Border Protection respectively), and other government policy memoranda that will also sometimes need to be reviewed in order to determine precisely what has happened in a particular case. Moreover, not only the regulations and handbooks but the Immigration and Nationality Act itself can change frequently over time. The current version of the Visa Waiver Program, for example, was created by the Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act in October 2000, as explained by a 2004 Congressional Research Service report (see page 9)– that is, the current version of the VWP was created by statute after Ms. Vera’s September 2000 entry into the United States.

Because of the complicated nature of the immigration system as it exists today, and because of the equally convoluted history underlying today’s version of the immigration system, a non-lawyer who has gone through the immigration process will often mistake one status or legal mechanism for another. In this field, fallible memory is often no substitute for actual paperwork. That is particularly so when one is trying to reconstruct events that happened more than a decade ago. While it is sometimes the case that one must rely on human memory because no paperwork was issued at the time of a particular admission (such as when a car is “waved through” at a border post, which is still an admission for purposes of adjustment of status as explained by the Board of Immigration Appeals in Matter of Quilantan), that is different from relying on memory when government paperwork should exist according to the government’s theory of the case, but the government simply cannot find it.

The path taken by Ms. Vera’s case demonstrates why it is problematic to assume the truth of facts not explicitly conceded by a particular noncitizen, in the absence of records showing the truth of those facts, simply because those facts appear most consistent with the orderly functioning of the immigration system and the noncitizen is not sure of their falsity. While it is perhaps understandable that the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit chose to rely on facts confidently asserted by the government and seemingly not disputed by Ms. Vera or her then-counsel prior to the Court’s original decision, the ultimate outcome of the case demonstrates that government assertions about someone’s immigration status are not necessarily true just because the subject of the assertions cannot with assurance recognize them as false.

Immigration law is sufficiently complex that it is easy for laypeople and even government bodies to make mistakes. One important way to guard against a mistaken reconstruction of significant details of a case’s history is to insist that the government prove its allegations are true, rather than merely assuming them to be true because an immigrant is unable to state with certainty that those allegations are false. Particularly when the right to a full and fair hearing regarding one’s potential removal is at stake, the better approach, as the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in Galluzzo v. Holder, 633 F.3d 111, 115 (2d Cir. 2011), quoting from Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 (1938), is to “indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights.” If the government cannot produce documentation proving that a particular person actually entered under the VWP and actually signed a valid waiver of her right to contest removal, then the government should not be permitted to remove that person without a hearing.

Cyrus Mehta

Dreaming in Arizona: Can Prosecutorial Discretion Co-Exist With Show Me Your Papers?

/0 Comments/in /by

By Gary Endelman and Cyrus D. Mehta

In our blog, From Madison to Morton: Can Prosecutorial Discretion Trump State Action In USA v. Arizona?, we speculated whether the federal government’s ability to decide not to remove certain non-citizens from the US would be its trump card in Arizona v. USA, 567 U.S ___ (2012). A few days prior to Arizona v. USA, the Obama administration announced deferred action for young persons via a June 15, 2012 memorandum, which will prevent the deportation of over a million people who fell out of status of no fault of their own while Arizona’s SB 1070 aims at driving away these very people through an attrition policy. These young people who will benefit under administrative deferred action would have otherwise been eligible under the DREAM Act, which narrowly failed to pass Congress in December 2010.

We were almost correct. In a 5-3 ruling (with Justice Kagan recusing), the Supreme Court invalidated most of the provisions of SB 1070 on the grounds that they were preempted by federal law such as criminalizing the failure to carry registration documents (section 3), criminalizing an alien’s ability to apply for or perform work (section 5(c)), and authorizing state officers to arrest a person based on probable cause that he or she has committed a removable offense (section 6). On the other hand, the Supreme Court, 8-0, narrowly upheld section 2(B), the “show me your papers” law,  which requires state officers to make “a reasonable attempt….to determine the immigration status” of any person they stop, detain, or arrest on some other legitimate basis if “reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States.” Section 2(B) further provides that “[a]ny person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.”

Before we analyze the Court’s narrow upholding of section 2(B) and how it would impact the federal government’s prosecutorial discretion policies, the following extract from Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion acknowledging the federal government’s ability to exercise prosecutorial discretion is worth noting:

A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials…… Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all. If removal proceedings commence, aliens may seek asylum and other discretionary relief allowing them to remain in the country or at least to leave without formal removal….

Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns. Unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime. The equities of an individual case may turn on many factors, including whether the alien has children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished military service. Some discretionary decisions involve policy choices that bear on this Nation’s international relations. Returning an alien to his own country may be deemed inappropriate even where he has committed a removable offense or fails to meet the criteria for admission. The foreign state maybe mired in civil war, complicit in political persecution, or enduring conditions that create a real risk that the alien or his family will be harmed upon return. The dynamic nature of relations with other countries requires the Executive Branch to ensure that enforcement policies are consistent with this Nation’s foreign policy with respect to these and other realities.

 Arizona v. USA, supra, Slip Op. at pages 4-5.

It is indeed unfortunate that despite noting the role of the federal government in formulating immigration policy, the Court did not, at least for the moment, invalidate 2(B), which essentially legalizes racial profiling. See US v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 US 873 (1975) (Mexican ancestry on its own cannot be an articulable fact to stop a person). The Court was obviously mindful of concerns relating to racial profiling, but the case that the United States brought against Arizona is more about whether federal immigration law preempts 2(B) and the other provisions of SB 1070. Both conservative and liberal justices did not think so since 2(B) was not creating a new state immigration law as the other invalidated provisions did. All that 2(B) does is to allow Arizona police officers to determine if someone was unlawfully present in the context of a lawful stop by inquiring about that person’s status with the federal Department of Homeland Security, and such communication and exchange of information has not been foreclosed by Congress.

The question is whether 2(B) will interfere with the federal government’s dramatic new prosecutorial initiative to not deport over a million young undocumented people if they met certain criteria. The June 15 memorandum on deferred action directs the heads of USCIS, CBP and ICE to exercise prosecutorial discretion, and thus grant deferred action, to an individual who came to the United States under the age of 16, has continuously resided in the US for at least 5 years preceding the date of the memorandum and was present in the US on the date of the memorandum, and who is currently in school, or has graduated from school or obtained a general education certificate, or who is an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States. Moreover, this individual should not be above the age of thirty and should also not have been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise poses a threat to national security or public safety. This directive further applies to individuals in removal proceedings as well as those who have already obtained removal orders. The grant of deferred action also allows the non-citizen to apply for employment authorization pursuant to an existing regulation, 8 CFR § 274a(c)(14).

Even though the new deferred action policy has not been implemented, the memorandum instructs ICE and CBP to refrain from placing qualified persons in removal proceedings or from removing them from the US. How does this very explicit instruction to ICE and CBP officials square with Arizona’s section 2(B)?  While Justice Scalia, who fiercely dissented and blasted the Obama administration from the bench, saw no need for preemption of any of Arizona’s provisions based on the federal government’s ability to exercise prosecutorial discretion, the majority, fortunately, were more mindful of this factor. Suppose a young DREAMer who prima facie qualifies under the deferred action program was stopped for jaywalking in Tuscon, and the Arizona police officer had a reasonable suspicion that her presence was unlawful, would it be reasonable for the police officer to detain this person even though she would not ordinarily be detained for the offense of jay walking? Even if the Arizona officer could query ICE about her status, how long would it take for ICE to respond? Moreover, even though she may qualify for the deferred action program, how would ICE be able to tell if there is no record of her application at all? DHS has yet to even create an application process, but it has instructed its officers from immediately refraining placing such persons in removal proceedings or removing them from the US. Even once an application is lodged, it may take weeks or months before the DHS is able to grant deferred action. While this person should not be apprehended by the federal government under its deferred action policy, Arizona could potentially hold her.

But not for long.The majority explicitly held that 2(B) should be read to avoid the hold of a person solely to verify his or her immigration status. The Court noted in connection with the jaywalker hypothetical, “The state courts may conclude that unless the person continues to be suspected of some crime for which he may be detained by state officers, it would not be reasonable to prolong the stop for the immigration inquiry.” Slip Op. at 22 (citation omitted). Even in a case where a person is held in state custody for a non-immigration offense, the Court cautioned that the delay in obtaining verification from the federal government should not be a reason to prolong that person’s detention. The Court also suggested that 2(B) ought to be “read as an instruction to initiate a status check every time someone is arrested…rather than a command to hold the person until the check is complete no matter the circumstances. Slip Op. at 23. This temporal limitation harkens back to the Court’s rationale for justifying warrantless stops by roving patrols in the border regions with Mexico in Brignoni-Ponce:

The intrusion is modest. The Government tells us that a stop by a roving patrol “usually consumes no more than a minute.” Brief for United States 25. There is no search of the vehicle or its occupants, and the visual inspection is limited to those parts of the vehicle that can be seen by anyone standing alongside…(citation omitted) . According to the Government ;”[a]ll that is required of the vehicle’s occupants is a response to a brief question or two and possibly the production of a document evidencing a right to be in the United States.  422 US at 880.

Finally the Court noted that its opinion did not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges as the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect. This is particularly the case if delay in the release of a detainee flowed from the requirement to check their immigration status. Indeed, it is only if such status verification took place during a routine stop or arrest and could be accomplished quickly and efficiently could a conflict with federal immigration law be avoided.

As for Justice Scalia, who concurred with the majority on 2(B), but also dissented as he would have upheld all of the other provisions, it is ironic that he is willing to have Arizona add to penalties imposed by Congress but not willing to let the President, a co-equal branch whose role in federal immigration policy is certainly less subject to challenge than that of the states, relieve the harsh impact of such penalties for a discretely delineated protected class. It is also ironic that theAdministration is actively moving ahead to find an administrative solution to our broken immigration system by granting DREAM act relief while Arizona seeks to uphold its right to put in place an enforcement mechanism it may not seek to enforce, if only to avoid further constitutional challenge.

It does not require a crystal ball to imagine that 2(B), if enforced,  will cause mayhem for young DREAMers and their ability to remain in the US through further administrative remedies, despite the Court’s narrow upholding of the provision. It will be difficult, if not impossible, for ICE to communicate with certainty to overzealous Arizona officials like Sheriff Joe that a young person who qualifies for the deferred action program is not unlawfully present. In fact, such a person continues to be unlawfully present even though he or she may qualify for deferred action presently, prior to the filing of the application. Moreover, even after an application is filed, it is not clear how long DHS will actually take to grant deferred action and such a person will still remain unlawfully present during the pendency of the application. Although the grant of deferred action stops unlawful presence for purposes of the federal 3-10 year bars to reentry, it is not clear whether the Arizona definition of lawful presence would recognize someone who has an outstanding removal order but who has also been granted deferred action.  This situation, and many others, such as a potential US citizen being detained for being suspected of being unlawfully present, will result in further challenges to 2(B), which hopefully, the next time around, will be successful.

The Court upheld 2(B) because there was no evidence that Arizona was yet enforcing it. Indeed, for all practical purposes, it had yet to go into effect. Given the natural judicial reluctance to fray the bonds of federalist comity, the Supreme Court stayed its hand for now so that state courts could determine whether SB 1070 could be consistently administered within the straitjacket of the Supreme Court’s ruling. So, in this sense, the issue was not ripe for a determination on pre-emption.  When will this change? How many will have to suffer the consequences before the Supreme Court will act? For this reason, knowing what the future will bring, the nation and its liberties would have been better served if 2(B) had been invalidated.   It is hard to imagine how Section 2(B) can survive if and when Arizona tries to make it come alive. Let us not forget that, despite Arizona Governor Brewer’s protestation to the contrary, the real guts of this law, the warrantless arbitrary arrest powers granted by Section 6, did not survive today. The rule of law did. The status check authorized by Section 2(B) can only happen after there is probable cause to believe that a non-immigration law violation has taken place, and they happen very quickly so as not to prolong any stop or detention. For all our concerns, and despite our fondest hopes for a more sweeping victory, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed our oldest national tradition, that here in America, there is still much room to dream- in Arizona and beyond.

Cyrus Mehta

Deferred Action: The Next Generation

/1 Comment/in /by

By Gary Endelman and Cyrus D. Mehta

President Obama at last came through with a bold memorandum on June 15, 2012, executed by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, granting deferred action to undocumented people. The Administration has always had authority to grant deferred action, which is a discretionary act not to prosecute or to deport a particular alien. While critics decry that Obama has circumvented Congress, the Administration has always had executive branch authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion, including deferred action, which is an expression of limited enforcement resources in the administration of the immigration law. It makes no sense to deport undocumented children who lacked the intention to violate their status and who have been educated in the US, and who have the potential to enhance the US through their hard work, creativity and determination to succeed.

We have always advocated that the Administration has inherent authority within the INA to ameliorate the hardships caused to non-citizens as a result of an imperfect and broken immigration system. In Tyranny of Priority Dates, we argued that the Administration has the authority to  allow non-citizens who are beneficiaries of approved family (I-130) or employment-based (I-140) petitions affected by the crushing backlogs in the priority date system to remain in the US through the grant of parole under INA 212(d)(5) based on “urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefits.” When the DREAM Act passed the House in 2010, but narrowly failed to garner the magic super majority of 60 in the Senate, we proposed that the President could also grant similar parole to DREAM children as well as deferred action in our blog, Keeping Hope Alive: President Obama Can Use His Executive Power Until Congress Passes The Dream Act.

The new memorandum directs the heads of USCIS, CBP and ICE to exercise prosecutorial discretion, and thus grant deferred action, to an individual who came to the United States under the age of 16, has continuously resided in the US for at least 5 years preceding the date of the memorandum and was present in the US on the date of the memorandum, and who is currently in school, or has graduated from school or obtained a general education certificate, or who is an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States. Moreover, this individual should not be above the age of thirty and should also not have been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise poses a threat to national security or public safety. This directive further applies to individuals in removal proceedings as well as those who have already obtained removal orders. The grant of deferred action also allows the non-citizen to apply for employment authorization pursuant to an existing regulation, 8 CFR § 274a(c)(14).

While this memorandum is indeed a giant step in providing relief to a class of immigrants who have been out of status for no fault of their own, we propose other incremental administrative steps so that such individuals, even after they have been granted deferred action and work authorization, can obtain permanent residence. We are mindful, as the accompanying FAQ to the memorandum acknowledges, that the grant of deferred action does not provide the individual with a pathway to permanent residence and “[o]nly the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer the right to permanent lawful status.”  But just as people were skeptical about our ideas for administrative action when we first proposed them, some of which has come to fruition, we continue to propose further administrative steps that the President can take, which would not be violative of the separation of powers doctrine.

There are bound to be many who have been granted deferred action to also be on the pathway to permanent residence by being beneficiaries of approved I-130 or I-140 petitions. Unless one is being sponsored as an immediate relative, i.e. as a spouse, child or parent of a US citizen, and has also been admitted an inspected, filing an application for adjustment of status to permanent residence will not be possible for an individual who has failed to maintain a lawful status under INA § 245(a). Such individuals will have to depart the US to process their immigrant visas at a US consulate in their home countries. Although the grant of deferred action will stop unlawful presence from accruing, it does not erase any past unlawful presence. Thus, one who has accrued over one year of unlawful presence and departs the US in order to process for an immigrant visa will most likely face the 10 year bar under INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II). While some may be able to take advantage of the proposed provisional waiver rule, where one can apply in the US for a waiver before leaving the US, not all will be eligible under this new rule.  A case in point is someone who is sponsored by an employer under the employment-based second preference, and who may not even have a qualifying relative to apply for the waiver of the 10 year bar.

We propose that the USCIS extend the holding of the Board of Immigration Appeals in Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, 25 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012) to beneficiaries of deferred action. In Arrabelly and Yerrabelly, the BIA held that an applicant for adjustment of status, who leaves the US pursuant to a grant of advance parole, has not effected a departure from the US in order to trigger the 10 year bar under INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II). If a beneficiary of deferred action is granted advance parole, this person’s trip outside the US under this advance parole ought not to be considered a departure. Such facts would square with Matter of Arrabelly and Yerrabelly if the individual returned back to the US under advance parole. However, here, the individual may likely return back on an immigrant visa and be admitted as a permanent resident. That might be hard to sell to the government – how can you apply for a visa at a consulate in a foreign country and still not leave USA? Still, this idea has merit as it is the initial “departure” under advance parole that would not be a trigger for the bar to reentry, not the subsequent admission as an immigrant. In the leaked July 2010 memorandum to USCIS Director Mayorkas, the suggestion is made that the USCIS “reexamine past interpretations of terms such as ‘departure’ and ‘seeking admission again’ within the context of unlawful presence and adjustment of status.” Using  Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly in the manner we propose seeks to do just that. Once again, as with the concept of parole, we seek to build on past innovation to achieve future gain.

As an alternative we propose, as we did in The Tyranny of Priority Dates, that the government, in addition to the grant of deferred action, also grants parole in place on a nunc pro tunc or retroactive basis under INA 212(d)(5).  For instance, the USCIS informally allows spouses of military personnel who would otherwise be unable to adjust under INA § 245(a) if they were neither “inspected and admitted or paroled” to apply for “parole in place.” The concept of parole in place was also proposed in the leaked memo. Interestingly, in this memo, a prime objective of granting parole in place was to avoid the need for consular processing of an immigrant visa application: “By granting PIP, USCIS can eliminate the need for qualified recipients to return to their home country for consular processing, particularly when doing so might trigger the bar to returning.”  This would only be the case, however, where the adjustment applicant is  married to a US citizen, or is the minor child or parent of a US citizen,  and need not be barred due to lack of an inspection or admission. Because we advocate a much wider extension of parole in place, the need for retroactivity, both for the parole and companion employment authorization becomes readily apparent. The use of parole in place, while not common, is certainly not without precedent and, as the leaked memo recites, has been expansively utilized to promote family unity among military dependents. For our purposes, “applicants for admission who entered the US as minors without inspection” were singled out as a class for whom parole in place was singularly suitable.

Upon such a grant of parole in place retroactively, non-immediate relatives who have not maintained status may also be able to adjust status.   Such a retroactive grant of parole, whether in the I-130 or I-140 context, would need to be accompanied by a retroactive grant of employment authorization in order to erase any prior unauthorized employment.  We acknowledge that it may be more problematic for the individual to be eligible for adjustment of status through an I-140 employment-based petition rather than an I-130 petition, since INA § 245(c)(7), requires an additional showing of a lawful nonimmigrant status, in the case of an employment-based petition under INA § 203(b).  Still,  the grant of nunc pro tunc parole will wipe out unlawful presence, and thus this individual can leave the US and apply for the immigrant visa in the US Consulate in his or her home country without the risk of  triggering the 3 or 10 year bar.

One conceptual difficulty is whether parole can be granted to an individual who is already admitted on a nonimmigrant visa but has overstayed. Since parole is not considered admission, it can be granted more readily to one who entered without inspection.  But this impediment can be overcome: It may be possible for the government to rescind the grant of admission, and instead, replace it with the grant parole under INA § 212(d)(5). As an example, an individual who was admitted in B-2 status and is the beneficiary of an I-130 petition but whose B-2 status has expired can be required to report to DHS, who can retroactively rescind the grant of admission in B-2 status and be retroactively granted parole.

There may be other obstacles for individuals in removal proceedings or with removal orders, but those too can be easily overcome. If the individual is in removal proceedings, if he or she is also eligible for deferred action, such removal proceedings can be terminated and he or she can also receive a grant of nunc pro tunc parole, thus rendering him eligible for adjustment of status in the event that there is an approved I-130 or I-140 petition. Even a person who already has a removal order can seek to reopen the removal order through a joint or consent motion with the government for the purposes of reopening and terminating proceedings, and this person too could potentially file an adjustment application, if he or she is the beneficiary of an I-130 upon being granted  nunc pro tunc parole, and the beneficiary likewise could travel overseas for consular processing without risking the 10 year bar.

We of course would welcome Congress to act and pass the DREAM Act, as well as Comprehensive Immigration Reform, so that this memorandum does not get reversed or discontinued in the event that a new Administration takes over from January 2013. However, until Congress does not act, the June 15, 2012 memo does provide welcome relief for young people, but it still leaves them in a limbo with only deferred action. The elephant in the room may be whether the USCIS has the capacity to deal with hundreds of thousands of requests for deferred action. In the absence of congressional action, the agency lacks the capacity to charge special fees for this purpose. Consequently,  all relevant federal agencies, including ICE and CBP, must willingly but swiftly reassign existing personnel now devoted to less urgent tasks so that the President’s initiative of last Friday does not become a dead letter. Our proposal for an additional grant of nunc pro tunc parole in place to individuals who have already been conferred deferred action will at least allow them to enter the regular immigration system and hope to adjust status to permanent residence, or consular process, and thus on the path to citizenship, should they become the beneficiaries of approved family or employment-based petitions. Again, as we noted earlier, and as we noted in Tyranny of Priority Dates, we are not asking for the executive branch to create new forms of status. We are only asking for the Executive to remove barriers to the ability of otherwise deserving applicants for permanent residents to take advantage of the existing system. We want to emphasize there is nothing in the INA that prevents the immediate adoption of our recommendations just as there was nothing in the INA that prevented last Friday’s memorandum. We also want to emphasize that I-130’s and I-140s will still be necessary. We do not want to create a new system, only to allow the old one to work more effectively. The future is ours to shape. For those who lack faith, we remind them of Tennyson’s injunction in Ulysses: “Come my friends, ‘tis not too late to seek a newer world.”

Cyrus Mehta

Matter Of O. Vazquez: BIA Issues Precedential Decision on “Sought to Acquire” Under the Child Status Protection Act

/0 Comments/in /by

In Matter of O. Vasquez, 25 I&N Dec. 817 (BIA 2012), the first precedential decision on this issue, the Board of Immigration Appeals has clarified the “sought to acquire” provision under the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA).  The CSPA artificially freezes the age of a child below 21 years of age so that he or she is not deprived of permanent residency when the parent is granted the same status. One of the requirements is for the child to seek permanent residency within one year of visa availability. Often times, a CSPA protected child falls through the cracks by failing to meet the prevailing rigid filing requirements within the one-year deadline. Thus, the meaning of the term “sought to acquire” permanent residency has been hotly litigated in recent times. Does it encompass only a filing of an application or can it encompass something less than a filing of an application for immigration status?

 According to the BIA in Matter of O. Vazquez, an alien may satisfy the “sought to acquire” provision of section 203(h)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“Act”) by filing an application for adjustment of status or by showing that there are other extraordinary circumstances in the case, particularly those where the failure to timely file was due to circumstances beyond the alien’s control. The BIA further elaborated that the “sought to acquire” requirement could still be met if the applicant filed an adjustment application, but was rejected for technical reasons, such as the absence of a signature. With respect to a showing of extraordinary circumstances, the BIA indicated that an applicant could show that he or she paid an attorney to prepare an application prior to the one year deadline, but the attorney then failed to take the ministerial step of actually filing the application, thus effectively depriving the aged out child from the protection of the CSPA for no fault of its own.

While the BIA did provide examples of “sought to acquire” just short of a filing; unfortunately, the BIA’s interpretation in Matter of O. Vazquez is more restrictive than its earlier interpretations in unpublished decisions discussed in a prior blog, BIA Continues To Reaffirm Broad “Sought To Acquire” Standard Under CSPA.  The BIA stopped short of holding that the term can encompass other actions not associated with the filing of an adjustment application, such as seeking the advice of an attorney or other similar sorts of efforts. In Matter of O. Vazquez, the “aged out” child argued that he sought to acquire permanent residency by consulting a notario organization within one year of the visa availability. The BIA held that such an action did not fall under the “sought to acquire” definition. Given that the CSPA is a remedial statute to ameliorate the hardships caused to children who age out, the facts in this case were also sympathetic as the alien was wrongly advised by an organization not authorized to practice law in the first place, and thus deprived of the chance to be protected under the CSPA.

As a background, INA §203(h), introduced by Section 3 of the CSPA, provides the formula for determining the age of a derivative child in a preference petition even if the child is older than 21 years. To qualify as a child under INA §101(b)(1), one must be below the age of 21 and unmarried. The age is determined by taking the age of the alien on the date that a visa first became available (i.e. the date on which the priority date became current and the petition was approved, whichever came later) and subtracting the time it took to adjudicate the petition (time from petition filing to petition approval). Based on this formula, if the child’s age falls below 21, the child is protected under the CSPA. Specifically, §203(h)(1)(A) also requires the alien to have “sought to acquire” LPR status within one year of visa availability. It is the interpretation of the term “sought to acquire” that was the subject of the Board’s holding in Matter of O. Vazquez.

The BIA unfortunately arrived at this more restrictive interpretation by agreeing with DHS’s position that the reason for Congress not including the term “filed” is because § 203(h) applies to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of State (DOS), both of which adjudicate requests for immigration status. The DHS adjudicates applications for adjustment of status from within the US while the DOS adjudicates applications for immigrant visas from outside the US. Under DOS immigrant visa processes, one generally does not “file” an immigrant visa application, DS-230, but rather, the DOS regulations use the word “submit” or “submission” rather than “file” when referring to a DS-230 visa application. See 22 C.F.R. § 42.63 and 22 C.F.R. § 42.63(c). The “filing” of an application in DOS occurs after it is submitted and much later in the process, the BIA noted. See 22 CFR § 42.67(b). According to the BIA, it was due to the difference in the usage of terms in the DOS and DHS regulations that Congress compelled Congress to use the term “sought to acquire” permanent residency rather than to allow for broader actions such as consulting with a notario organization, as was done in Matter of O. Vasquez, to satisfy the “sought to acquire” definition.

Still, it can be argued that the discussion in Matter of O. Vazquez of the use of the word “filing” in DOS regulations, and the multi-step DOS process more generally, does seem to leave room for the possibility that something other than submission of a DS-230 can qualify as seeking to acquire permanent residence for CSPA purposes.  Matter of O. Vazquez holds that “it is reasonable to expect the proper filing of an application, when it comes to DHS cases, as a way to unquestionably satisfy the ‘sought to acquire’ element of the Act.”  25 I&N Dec. at 820.  This holding is limited by its terms to “DHS cases”, in which the formal application process is in the ordinary case more unified into a single step of filing an application form (or that single filing step plus an interview).  The taking of any substantial step in the multistage DOS immigrant-visa process, such as the payment of the immigrant visa fee, as we pointed out in State Department Takes Broader View Of “Sought To Acquire” Provision Under CSPA, or the making of a written request that a particular derivative child be added to a consular case, should arguably still be sufficient to meet the “sought to acquire” requirement even under Matter of O. Vasquez.

Another aspect worth exploring further may be footnote 3 of the decision, on page 821.  The BIA analogizes its “extraordinary circumstances” standard to that applicable to termination-of-registration cases under INA 203(g).  In practice,  DOS has not applied the 203(g) standard as strictly as, say, some IJs apply the asylum one-year “extraordinary circumstances” standard.  If that is so, the linkage of the new Matter of O. Vazquez CSPA sought-to-acquire standard to the 203(g) standard may be significant: the Matter of O. Vazquez standard for extraordinary circumstances is apparently supposed to be interpreted no more strictly than 203(g).

In the view of this author, Congress probably intended the “sought to acquire” requirement to apply more broadly than interpreted in Matter of O. Vazquez. In a prior unpublished decision In re Jose Jesus Murillo, A099 252 007 (October 6, 2010), the BIA interpreted the legislative history behind the CSPA as being expansive, which is worth reproducing here:

The congressional. intent in enacting the CSPA was to “bring families together” (Rep. Sensenbrenner, 148 Congo Rec. H4989-01, H49991, July 22, 2002) and to “provide relief to children who lose out when INS takes too long to process their adjustment of status applications”(Rep. Gekas, id. at R4992); see also, Rep. Jackson-Lee, “where we can correct situations to bring families together, this is extremely important.’.’ ld. atH4991. In enacting the CSPA, Congress expressed its concern that alien children “through no fault of their own, lose the opportunity to obtain immediate relative status.” H.R. Rep. 107-45, H.R. Rep. No.4 5, I 07th Cong., 1st Sess. 2001, reprinted in 2002 U.S.C.C.A.N. 640, 641 (Apr. 20, 2001). Indeed, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that the CSPA should “be construed so as to provide expansive relief to children of United State citizens and permanent residents.” Padash v. INS,358 F.3d 1161, 1172 (9th Cir. 2004).

However, since Matter of O. Vazquez is a precedential decision, we will need to now live and work with it when dealing with instances under which our clients have “sought to acquire” permanent residency in order to protect their age under the CSPA.

(The author thanks David A. Isaacson for his thoughtful input)

 

Cyrus Mehta

“CULTURALLY UNIQUE” DEFINITION UNDER P-3 VISA CAN INCLUDE HYBRID OR FUSION ART FORMS OF MORE THAN ONE CULTURE OR REGION

/0 Comments/in /by
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) issued a binding precedent decision in Matter of Skirball Cultural Center, 25 I&N Dec. 799 (AAO 2012) addressing the term “culturally unique” and its significance in adjudicating P-3 visa petitions for performing artists and entertainers. This decision is significant in light of a growing trend where the culturally unique artistic tradition of one country or ethnicity is influenced by artistic traditions from elsewhere. For instance, musicians trained in Indian classical music have incorporated Western jazz and rock influences. The most famous example of such a fusion band was Shakti, which incorporated South Indian Carnatic music and jazz elements, featuring guitarist John McLaughlin, South Indian violinist L. Shankar and Zakir Hussain on tabla and T.H Vikku Vinayakram on the ghatam (an earthen pot). Examples of hybrid groups abound all over the world, and a contemporary example is Afro Celt Sound Systems, which is a hybrid of African and Celt music. Afrobeat is another classic example of a fusion genre that originally fused American funk music with African rhythms, and its main exponent has been Fela Kuti. Until this decision, there was a risk that such groups would not be considered to be “culturally unique” as they did not incorporate the music which is unique to a particular country, nation, society, class, ethnicity, religion, tribe, or other group of persons.

The Skirball Cultural Center filed a P-3 nonimmigrant petition on behalf of a musical group from Argentina that was denied a performing artists’ visa for failing to establish that the group’s performance was “culturally unique” as required for this visa classification. USCIS noted that “due to the unusually complex and novel issue and the likelihood that the same issue could arise in future decisions, the decision was recommended for review.”

The AAO approved the petition after its review of the entire record, which included expert written testimony and corroborating evidence on behalf of the musical group. USCIS said that the regulatory definition of “culturally unique” requires the agency to make a case-by-case factual determination. The decision clarifies that a “culturally unique” style of art or entertainment is not limited to traditional art forms, but may include artistic expression that is deemed to be a hybrid or fusion of more than one culture or region.

The petitioner had sought classification of the beneficiaries as P-3 entertainers for a period of approximately six weeks. The beneficiaries were musicians in the group known as Orquesta Kef. The ensemble of seven musicians from Argentina had been performing together for between four and eight years, according to a letter dated September 2009, and performed music that blended klezmer (Jewish music of Eastern Europe) with Latin and South American influences. The group’s biography stated that the band had developed “its own and unique musical style” based on “the millenary force of tradition and the powerful emotion of the Jewish culture, mixed in with Latin American sounds.” The petitioner also provided a letter from an associate professor at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication supporting the band’s claim to cultural uniqueness, among other submitted expert opinion letters and published materials.

The decision noted that Congress did not define the term “culturally unique” and the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (now USCIS) defined it in regulations as “a style of artistic expression, methodology, or medium which is unique to a particular country, nation, society, class, ethnicity, religion, tribe, or other group of persons.” See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(p)(3)(2012).

In her decision denying the petition, the director stated that a hybrid or fusion style of music “cannot be considered culturally unique to one particular country, nation, society, class, ethnicity, religion, tribe, or other group of persons.”

The AAO said that the director’s reasoning was not supported by the record, noting:

[T]he fact that the regulatory definition allows its application to an unspecified “group of persons” makes allowances for beneficiaries whose unique artistic expression crosses regional, ethnic, or other boundaries. While a style of artistic expression must be exclusive to an identifiable people or territory to qualify under the regulations, the idea of “culture” is not static and must allow for adaptation or transformation over time and across geographic boundaries. The term “group of persons” gives the regulatory definition a great deal of flexibility and allows for the emergence of distinct subcultures. Furthermore, the nature of the regulatory definition of “culturally unique” requires USCIS to make a case-by-case factual determination based on the agency’s expertise and discretion. Of course, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the beneficiaries’ artistic expression, while drawing from diverse influences, is unique to an identifiable group of persons with a distinct culture. To determine whether the beneficiaries’ artistic expression is unique, the director must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the entire record.

The AAO pointed out that the director’s decision failed to note that the beneficiary group was a klezmer band and “seemed to struggle to identify the nature of the group’s musical performance, focusing instead on the group’s musical influences. Here, the evidence establishes that the beneficiaries’ music is, first and foremost, Jewish klezmer music that has been uniquely fused with traditional Argentine musical styles.” The AAO said it found particularly persuasive an expert opinion explaining that klezmer music, “while often associated with ethnically Jewish people, is an artistic form that has migrated and is continually mixed with and influenced by other cultures.” The AAO also noted the fact that the beneficiaries were South Americans born to Eastern European immigrants and therefore were influenced by both cultures to create something new and unique to their experience. All the opinion letters submitted also recognized the existence of a distinct Jewish Argentine culture and identity that was expressed in the beneficiary group’s music. Furthermore, the AAO noted, the published articles submitted recognized a musical movement in Argentina that fuses Argentine styles with influences from Jewish music and other Eastern European styles, and the articles and opinion letters placed the beneficiary group at the forefront of this trend.

Accordingly, the AAO found that the petitioner had established by a preponderance of the evidence that the modern South American klezmer music performed by the beneficiary group was representative of the Jewish culture of the beneficiaries’ home country of Argentina and that the group’s musical performance therefore fell within the regulatory definition of “culturally unique.” The AAO added that the petitioner had submitted an itinerary showing that the beneficiary group would be performing at Jewish cultural centers and temples during its U.S. tour, which provided further evidence that the performances would be culturally unique events.

Matter of Skirball Cultural Center remarkably recognizes the significance of crossover cultural trends and that “the idea of culture is not static,” which is increasing in our globalized world, where people have access to music from anywhere on an iPhone and have learned to enjoy fusion and hybrid forms. The favorable impact of this decision can extend to other art forms such as dance and drama too. Thanks to this decision, audiences in America need not fear of being deprived of hearing their favorite fusion bands live!

Cyrus Mehta

Halt America’s Decline by Welcoming Skilled and Entrepreneurial Immigrants

/0 Comments/in /by

In recent times, there has been a confluence of diverse events, if stitched together, make immigration reform a virtual no brainer even if we have yet to come out of the economic doldrums.   Indeed, immigration reform in favor of skilled immigration, even if it is piecemeal and not comprehensive, can stimulate our economy in unimaginable ways.

First, the Census Bureau has officially indicated that white births are no longer a majority in the US. Non-Hispanic whites accounted for 49.6 percent of all births in the 12-month period ending last July. This is not something to be alarmed about; rather it is cause for celebration. The population in the US is now multi-ethnic and represents the diverse nations of the world. In our hyper-connected world, Americans who can adapt and interact with others across national boundaries can gain more benefit, bringing about further innovation, ideas and the understanding of other cultures. Of course, critics of increased immigration will bemoan this fact and blame it on the 1965 Immigration Act, which abolished the national origin quota system and opened up immigration to people from all countries. But such fear is driven more by xenophobia than anything else.   It is the 1965 Immigration Act, which has brought diversity into the US. Those who have come to the US regardless of their country of origin have clearly contributed to the country in immeasurable ways. They have also forged closer ties between the US and their country of origin. The symbiotic relationship between Silicon Valley and Bangalore is one such example.  While it has become a national obsession to comment about America’s declining superpower status, one way for it to continue to remain a superpower and be respected as well as admired is to foster a multi-ethnic population that represents all the countries of the world. Even the rest of the world will sit more comfortably with a multi-ethnic superpower than a superpower that favors one group over all others.

Second, we are on the cusp of what The Economist has called The Third Industrial Revolution. New advances in manufacturing will soon make the factory as we now know it obsolete. As manufacturing is going digital, especially with the advent of 3D Printer, we will no longer need long lines of factory workers. A product can be designed on a computer and “printed” on a 3D printer, which will have the potential of rendering supply chains obsolete. Also, the factory of the future will run on its own devoid of workers in oily overalls, and as The Economist presciently notes, “[m]ost jobs will not be on the factory floor but in the offices nearby, which will be full of designers, engineers, IT specialists, logistics experts, marketing staff and other professionals. The manufacturing jobs of the future will require more skills. Many dull, repetitive tasks will become obsolete: you no longer need riveters when a product has no rivets.” The US needs to attract these new skilled professionals who will run the factories of the future.

Third, a new report, Not Coming to America: Why The US Is Falling Behind In the Global Race for Talent, reveals how foreign countries are reshaping their immigration policies to boost their economy while the US remains mired in an obsolete and broken immigration system. The US is thus losing talent to other countries. The report, which has been issued by Partnership For A New American Economy, headed by NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, identifies three major risks if it does not reform its immigration laws: a shortage of workers in innovation industries, a shortage of young workers and slow rates of business startup and job creation. US companies are hungry for jobs in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM), but these jobs are hard to find among native US workers. The report also explores the more business friendly immigration policies of Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Singapore and the United Kingdom in attracting talented immigrants and entrepreneurs. For instance, New Zealand has a rather broad welcoming policy for foreign entrepreneurs. There is no specific job creation or minimum capital requirement, and after two years of self employment “beneficial to New Zealand,” the entrepreneur can apply for permanent residency.

This fortuitous alignment of the stars bodes well for reform of our immigration system, which is not just creaky and obsolete but completely broken. The US has no special visa category that would encourage entrepreneurs to start innovative businesses and become permanent residents. The H-1B visa, which US companies rely on to bring in foreign skilled employees, especially in the STEM fields, is hobbled by a 65,000 annual cap, and the numbers under the FY2013 cap are expected to be reached many months ahead of the start of the next fiscal year, October 1, 2012! Even the employment-based immigration system has broken down even though there is no national origin quota. If you are born in China and India, and have been sponsored by an employer through the onerous labor certification process, it can take several years, even decades, before you get permanent residence.

One wonders how the US has an immigration system dominated by quotas, which also micromanages the employer and foreign national worker, when it espouses free market capitalism. Such a system is more reminiscent of one that could have been designed by communist apparatchiks in the former Soviet Union.  In order to unleash economic growth, it is essential to allow foreign nationals easy access into the US so that they can implement their ideas, create companies and employ more Americans. In a recessionary economy, we need more entrepreneurs to set up businesses and create jobs, and immigrants may have a greater propensity to engage in entrepreneurial activities. There may be a ray of hope. In a rare bipartisan move, freshman senators Marco Rubio (R-FA), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan,) and Mark Warner (D-Va) have introduced Startup Act 2.0, which includes immigration-related provisions to attain the following objectives:

  • Creates a new STEM visa so that U.S.-educated foreign students, who graduate with a master’s or Ph.D. in science, technology, engineering or mathematics, can receive a green card and stay in this country where their talent and ideas can fuel growth and create American jobs;
  • Creates an Entrepreneur’s Visa for legal immigrants, so they can remain in the United States, launch businesses and create jobs;
  • Eliminates the per-country caps for employment-based immigrant visas – which hinder U.S. employers from recruiting the top-tier talent they need to grow.

While the chances of this bill passing in the current partisan political climate, prior the 2012 Presidential elections remain remote, one can still be surprised. After all, immigration ought to cut across partisan lines, and our elected representatives need to enact sound immigration proposals for the good of the country and the world. Although it would be ideal to comprehensively reform our immigration system, which would include providing a path to legalization for the millions of undocumented immigrants, small but meaningful initiatives such as Startup 2.0 could still be passed in the mean time. In the event that Startup Act 2.0 goes nowhere, there is still scope within our existing system to encourage skilled and entrepreneur immigration if only our immigration bureaucrats interpret existing immigration visa categories generously rather than in a mean spirited and niggardly manner. For instance, the intra-company transferee L-1A visa ought to remain a viable option for an entrepreneur to establish a branch or subsidiary of a foreign business in the US. Yet, in recent times, L-1A petitions get turned down wholesale on the ground that a small startup entity can never support a person in an executive or managerial capacity. This is nonsense and bureaucratic gobbledygook, as Congress never intended that small businesses could not support entrepreneur executives or managers. Sad to say, we happen to be in double whammy mode of no good legislation, along with bureaucrats reading out existing visa categories out of the law. The writing is on the wall, and unless we want to perversely see America spiral into decline, it is time to act fast and enact sound immigration reform.

Cyrus Mehta

Assault On Battered Immigrants: HR 4970 Undoes VAWA Protections and Risks Lives

/0 Comments/in /by

By Myriam Jaidi

“This will get people killed,” my colleague and I agreed while we reviewed the “Immigration Provisions” of HR 4970, the bill introduced in the House in April, ostensibly to “reauthorize” the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) originally promulgated in 1994 and reauthorized and strengthened since its original passing.  The Immigration Provisions found in Title VIII of HR 4970, however, will effectively dismantle VAWA as we know it in the immigration context, place people in danger, set up a system that will likely violate the United States’ treaty obligations, and reverse decades of progress in the nation’s understanding of domestic violence and the pernicious ways in which an abuser can exercise power and control in domestic relationships.  Overall, HR 4970 undermines the central goals of VAWA: protecting victims of domestic violence and other crimes and assisting law enforcement with the protection of victims, and the investigation and prosecution of crimes.  If passed, it would also pull VAWA relief out of the paradigm governing all other forms of humanitarian relief in the immigration context.

The risks run high and tempers hot in the context of domestic violence or other types of abusive relationships – such as trafficker to trafficking victim, criminal to crime victim.  Men and women come to us for help in our capacity as immigration lawyers – it is important to recognize that although the law is called the Violence Against Women Act, it helps all victims regardless of whether they are male or female, and we have seen many cases of men being abused either in marital relationships or other contexts.  Clients who come to us have been traumatized and are deeply fearful of further abuse and retaliation from their abuser for their daring to seek help and to escape the abuser.  They fear that the fact of submitting an application will lead to discovery and place them in grave danger.  And they are fearful of law enforcement and concerned that instead of being protected for coming forward, they will be removed from the United States, perhaps sent back to a place where abusers or their family members will have free reign to harm them.

Congress recognized a long time ago that immigrants are a particularly vulnerable group when it comes to relationship dynamics because they are at a disadvantage – their ability to obtain a green card requires sponsorship. Thus, the person seeking status is, until the end of the process, until the green card has been delivered, subject to the will of the sponsoring United States citizen (USC) or lawful permanent resident (LPR). Congress created the self-petitioning process “so that the battered alien can seek status independent of the abuser.” Paul Virtue, Acting Executive Associate Administrator, Non-Disclosure and Other Prohibitions Relating to Battered Aliens: IIRIRA § 384 (May 5, 1997).

Given the draconian provisions of the bill, discussed below, the drafters of HR 4970 appear to be operating on the unfounded assumption that fraud is rampant in the VAWA self-petition context. This has not been our collective experience at CDMA nor have we heard anecdotally that fraudulent self-petitions have been routinely approved. To the contrary, our experience shows that the VAWA Unit at the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Vermont Service Center (VSC) is extremely well trained and carefully adjudicates VAWA self-petitions, issuing requests for evidence and/or notices of intent to deny in cases where an applicant has not provided sufficient proof of eligibility and denying cases where applicants ultimately are unable to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that they are eligible for deferred action under the law.

HR 4970 changes all aspects of a VAWA self petition, taking this form of affirmative relief out of the paradigm governing other forms of affirmative, humanitarian-based forms of relief, and converting the process into a trial of the VAWA self-petitioner. Title VIII of HR 4970 jettisons the long-standing standard of proof in VAWA self-petitions. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not provide for a standard of proof for VAWA self-petitions, therefore pursuant to Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010) a VAWA self-petitioner “must prove by a preponderance of evidence that he or she is eligible for the benefit sought.” In assessing whether an applicant has met this burden, INA § 204(a)(1)(J) provides that in adjudicating a self-petition, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “shall consider any credible evidence relevant to the petition” and DHS has discretion to determine what evidence is credible and how much weight to give the evidence. Moreover, the rules governing the process provide that a petition may not be denied solely on the basis of information provided by the abuser or a member of the abuser’s family living in the same household as the victim. See 8 USC § 1367(a). Any derogatory information must be independently corroborated. Also, violations of the confidentiality provisions can result in disciplinary action or civil penalties up to $5,000. See 8 USC § 1367(c).

Congress set the standard of proof as it did, precluded dependence on information provided by the abuser, and created strict confidentiality standards based on the established need to protect applicants from being located by an abuser or subjected to retaliation and further abuse. People do in fact get hurt and even killed in these situations. Because of that fact, the protections for applicants under VAWA, especially the confidentiality protections as promulgated in 1996, have been crucial to the central goals of VAWA and therefore strengthened with each subsequent reauthorization of VAWA to date (2005 and 2011).

HR 4970 would impose a “clear and convincing” evidence standard and dismantle the confidentiality provisions, replacing them with a perverse situation in which power over the application submitted by a battered spouse is effectively handed back to the abuser. The clear and convincing evidence standard is a very high standard, far above the default preponderance of the evidence standard applicable to most immigration petitions, whether business or family based. Even individuals in removal proceedings attempting to show that a mandatory ground of denial of an application for relief do not apply to them, carry only the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the grounds do not apply. 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d). Thus a battered spouse faces a higher standard of proof in an affirmative application process under HR 4970 than an individual in removal proceedings attempting to overcome evidence that he has committed a particularly serious crime or presents a danger to the security of the United States!

Moreover, the protections of applicants for asylum are not granted to VAWA self-petitioners under HR 4970. HR 4970 provides that upon filing, a VAWA case will be transferred to a local service center for adjudication and that an officer “shall conduct an in-person interview of the alien who filed the petition” and “may also gather other evidence and interview other witnesses, including the accused United States citizen or lawful permanent resident, if they consent to be interviewed.”

The government and the advocacy community have learned over decades how important confidentiality is to victim safety. As recognized by the White House in a recent blog, “the risks of serious injury and homicide increase when a victim is taking steps to leave an abusive relationship,” a central basis for the confidentiality provisions of VAWA. Confidentiality is a long-standing, crucial component of humanitarian forms of relief. For example, in the asylum context, confidentiality is paramount and it is unthinkable to ask the abuser for input on the persecution of the asylum applicant. Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section 208.6 provides that

Information contained in or pertaining to any asylum application, records pertaining to any credible fear determination conducted pursuant to § 208.30, and records pertaining to any reasonable fear determination conducted pursuant to § 208.31, shall not be disclosed without the written consent of the applicant, except as permitted by this section or at the discretion of the Attorney General.

In the asylum context, confidentiality is considered breached when information contained in an asylum application is disclosed to a third party such that the third party can “link the identity of the applicant to: (1) the fact that the applicant has applied for asylum; (2) specific facts or allegations pertaining to the individual asylum claim contained in an asylum application; or (3) facts or allegations that are sufficient to give rise to a reasonable inference that the applicant has applied for asylum.” Joseph E. Langlois, Director, Asylum Division, Office of Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations, USCIS Interoffice Memorandum, Fact Sheet on Confidentiality (June 15, 2005). That is a significant protective regime founded on a compelling logic: “Public disclosure of asylum-related information may subject the claimant to retaliatory measures by government authorities or non-state actors in the event that the claimant is repatriated, or endanger the security of the claimant’s family members who may still be residing in the country of origin.” Id.

The rationale behind the VAWA confidentiality provisions are similarly rooted and make sense in the context of the significant risks faced by battered individuals and the purpose of VAWA: to allow battered immigrants “to leave their batterers without fearing deportation.” Violence Against Women Act of 1993: Summary and Purpose, H.R. Rep. No. 103-395, at 25 (1993). Congress developed the existing confidentiality measures to protect victims of domestic violence from being tracked down by their abusers for retaliation and continued abuse. These provisions are crucial to breaking the cycle of power and control that is the crux of domestic violence, and essential to bringing immigrant victims out of the shadows. Experience bears out the fact that whether or not the petitioning individual lives with his or her abuser the possibility that the abuser will be contacted about the application puts the individual in danger. Clearly, HR 4970 makes a mockery of the important protections and undermines them by providing that “all credible evidence submitted by an accused [USC or LPR] . . . shall be considered.” HR 4970 strongly implies that the abuser has to be given notice of the application, as the only way an investigation may be done is if the abuser is contacted and asked to participate. This should simply not be allowed. People will be killed as a result of a measure like this.

The bill’s use of the term “the accused” in reference to the abuser is completely inappropriate and highlights the fact that the bill shifts the inquiry from a victim-centered assessment of eligibility to a trial of the victim, shockingly taking a defensive stance in favor of the abuser, with the presumption being that the applicant is lying. Other fora already exist in which “the accused” can have his or her day in court such as divorce court, criminal court, family court, or civil court. Disputes between individuals can be weighed in all of these fora. But the self-petition process should not be a trial and is not intended to be adversarial. Furthermore, as noted above, there is extensive documentation of the fact that victims are afraid to come forward and press charges against their abusers specifically because they fear retaliation meted upon them or their children and other loved ones.

Another deeply troubling aspect of the bill is the proposed dismantling of the VAWA Unit at the USCIS Vermont Service Center. The VAWA Unit has amassed 12 years of specialized experience in adjudicating VAWA self-petitions and officers there receive extensive training on how to assess applications, uncover fraud, and properly determine an applicant’s eligibility under the law. Dismantling this unit in favor of local adjudication would be a huge waste of money and undermine the purpose of VAWA.

HR 4970 adds other obstacles to the process by requiring a stay of adjudication “if an investigation or prosecution is pending” and directing the adjudicating officer to consider the fact that “no investigation has been undertaken or if a prosecutor’s office has not commenced a prosecution after the matter was referred to it . . . .” No acknowledgement is made of the legion reasons why a case might not be prosecuted even after it commenced, including prosecutorial discretion, limited resources, a victim being threatened by the abuser that his or her cooperation will lead to retaliation by the abuser, or a combination of factors. In the U visa context, a prosecutor will sometimes decide not to issue the required U visa certification to the victim who needs it to apply for a U visa, if there is to be a trial in a criminal case, until the trial is completed. This is done for various reasons, the central one being so that the defense cannot use the fact of the certification to impeach the victim’s testimony or to ensure cooperation of the witness at trial. However, the key distinction is that in one case the prosecutor is exercising her discretion whereas in the other, the prosecutor’s discretion does not come into play in a meaningful way. HR 4970 makes the decision for the prosecutor – and stalls a case if a prosecution ensues or paints a case with a negative brush if a prosecutor decides not to proceed.

Another highly disturbing component of the bill is the mandated denial of a petition and expedited removal of an applicant “upon receiving any evidence of any material misrepresentation on a petition . . . .” The evidence need not be credible. The misrepresentation need not be knowing or willful. Thus a simple mistake of fact on the part of the applicant leads to draconian results including not only denial of the petition, but being processed for expedited removal and being barred from eligibility for any other form of relief. This provision could potentially come into direct conflict with the United States’s treaty obligations, such as those imposed by Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture, which prohibits the United States from returning an alien to a state where there are substantial grounds for believing that the individual would be subjected to torture.

This bill effectively represents throwing decades of research and aggregated knowledge about domestic violence out the window and constitutes an abuser’s dream codified and approved by the federal government. And no wonder. The Huffington Post discovered one of the driving forces behind HR 4970 is the head of a mail order bride service. A federal jury awarded one of the brides her company matched with an abusive American husband $434,000 after a trial. The verdict was affirmed upon appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Go figure.

Cyrus Mehta

Hidden Treasure: How States that Want Immigrants Can Take Advantage of Arizona v. US

/0 Comments/in /by

By Gary Endelman and Cyrus D. Mehta

Anyone in favor of federal preemption of state immigration laws, especially Arizona’s SB 1070, was disappointed with the way the oral arguments before the Supreme Court justices on April 25, 2012 turned out in Arizona v. US.  It appears that the core provision of SB 1070, Section 2(B), which mandates police officers to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop if they have a “reasonable suspicion” that the person in “unlawfully present in the United States” may be upheld even if other provisions are  preempted. And while it is obvious that this provision would lead to racial profiling, the case that the United States brought against Arizona is more about whether federal immigration law preempts 2(B) and other provisions. Both conservative and liberal justices did not think so since 2(B) was not creating a new state immigration law. All it does is to allow police officers to determine if someone was unlawfully present by inquiring about that person’s status with the federal Department of Homeland Security. Whether this would lead to the incarceration of both citizens and lawfully present non-citizens did not seem to concern the justices as the inquiry regarding immigration status would be made in conjunction with another state offense, such as speeding or driving without a license. Moreover, even without SB 1070, the justices noted that the federal government has allowed state enforcement personnel to do much the same thing, especially through its Secure Communities program or through cooperation in the “investigation, apprehension or detention of aliens in the United States” under INA § 287(g).

The colloquy, below,  between Chief Justice Roberts and Solicitor General Verrilli  during oral argument gives us some insight into why 2(B) is likely to be upheld:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Right. So, apart from Section 3 and Section 5, take those off the table, you have no objection to Section 2?

GENERAL VERRILLI: We do, Your Honor. But, before I take 3 and 5 off the table, if I could make one more point about 3 and 5, please? The — I think -­because I think it’s important to understand the dilemma that this puts the Federal government in.

Arizona has got this population, and they’ve — and they’re, by law, committed to maximum enforcement. And so the Federal government’s got to decide, are we going to take our resources, which we deploy for removal, and are we going to use them to deal with this population, even if it is to the detriment of our priorities –­

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Exactly. You — the Federal government has to decide where it’s going to use its resources. And what the state is saying, here are people who are here in violation of Federal law, you make the decision. And if your decision is you don’t want to prosecute those people, fine, that’s entirely up to you. That’s why I don’t see the problem with Section 2(B).

We hope we are proved wrong and the Supreme Court will find SB 1070 unconstitutional in its entirety, but even if we are not wrong, do not lose heart. Good things can also come out of it.  Take a look at Peter Spiro’s intriguing essay in the New York Times, where he argues that even if SB 1070 stands, it will ultimately wither as Arizona, and other copycat states, will continue to hurt economically. Thus, such laws that Arizona and some states will enforce with vigor will ultimately die their own natural death. Of course, this still does not excuse the fact that 2(B), while in existence, is likely to result in mass incarcerations, while the state police inquire about each detainee’s status. One saving grace it that someone who is actually affected, such as an individual who is lawfully present,  can mount another challenge based on due process and equal protection violations, rather than preemption, and this may have more of a chance to succeed. In the mean time, Spiro states, “One of federalism’s core virtues is the possibility of competition among states. Competition in this context is likely to vindicate pro-immigrant policies.” Thus, most other states that welcome immigrants, legal and undocumented, and recognize their contributions, will deliberately not pass similar laws like Arizona’s. By not enacting similar laws, they will be competing with those states by enticing their corporations, as well as jobs, to move over.

While there are very good arguments in support of preemption, if  part of SB 1070 is upheld, states that want immigrants can go even further than do nothing. For instance, a state can pass a law that encourages immigrants who reside within to apply for a personal endorsement from the state’s governor in support of a national interest waiver request, which waives the job offer and labor certification requirement, when applying for permanent residency. The state can set criteria for whom it wants to encourage, such as entrepreneurs or robotics specialists, and its governor can write a  personal letter in support of their petitions for permanent residency through the federal national interest waiver pursuant to INA § 203(b)(2)(B)(i). As in Arizona’s Section 2(B), the state is not creating a new immigration category, but simply assisting the federal government to make a determination under federal law. Unlike Arizona’s SB 1070, which is premised on driving away immigrants from the state through attrition, the purpose of a state law in our hypothetical example is to encourage the immigrant to remain in that state and contribute to its economy, which in turn will benefit the national interest of the US. Indeed, we commend noted attorney Rami Fakhoury of Troy, Michigan, who is proposing such standards for Governor Snyder of Michigan to implement in order to support a national interest waiver request from a Michigan resident.

In the same vein, a state can designate certain occupations as shortage occupations, which may assist the Department of Labor in more easily certifying a labor certification  pursuant to INA § 212(a)(5) of an employer filed on behalf of a non-citizen resident in the state. A state can be a more effective judge of shortage occupations than the federal government, and if a labor certification is filed on behalf of a non-citizen in that particular state designated shortage occupation, the DOL may be more influenced in making a favorable determination on the labor certification. Similarly, even with regards to an undocumented immigrant, a state may be able to enact criteria for recommending that such a person, who has otherwise not been convicted of serious crimes and is say an essential farm worker,  is deserving of prosecutorial discretion by the federal government under its new prosecutorial discretion policy and thus be permitted to remain in the state and  prevent its farm produce from otherwise rotting away. There may already be such authority under INA § 287(g), which authorizes the federal government to enter into a written agreement with a state to perform the function of a qualified immigration officer in relation to the “investigation, apprehension and detention” of non-citizens. In the era where the government has implemented a broad prosecutorial discretion policy, a state can assist the federal government in the “investigation, ”  rather than the apprehension or detention, of an individual who may merit such discretion from the federal government.

While Utah has also passed an enforcement oriented immigration law similar to Arizona’s, it contains one unique provision quite unlike any other state’s law. The Utah provision offers work permits to undocumented immigrants who pass background checks, have paid fines and can demonstrate a work history. The measure does not offer legal status or citizenship, but would allow unauthorized workers who meet its criteria to continue working in Utah. This provision also requires a federal waiver. If the Utah provision, which is currently enjoined, is allowed to go forward, in the event that the Supreme Court gives a green signal to states in Arizona v. US, we estimate that there will be more states that will enact laws similar to the Utah guest worker provision than Arizona’s SB 1070.

There is no reason to think that it will always be punitive. Many of the progressive achievements in modern American history, such as women suffrage, popular election of senators, wage and hour laws, occupational safety, and most recently same sex marriages, to name but a select few, first appeared on the state level. The many instances where federal intervention has been necessary to protect civil rights against state abuse should not blind us to the possibility that state action can also be a force for good. Long ago, Justice Brandeis recognized that federalism offered a constitutional framework for experimentation and creativity:

To stay experimentation in things social and economic is a grave responsibility. Denial of the right to experiment may be fraught with serious consequences to the Nation. It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country…

New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 52 S.Ct. 371, 76 L.Ed. 747 (1932)(Brandeis, J. dissent)

Since the New Deal, the operating assumption in American politics has been that reform must come from Washington DC to be imposed upon the states. The growth of the imperial presidency has flowed directly and inevitably from this core conviction. This is certainly the case with immigration reform given the plenary federal power over this issue as an extension of foreign policy. The inability or unwillingness of Congress to deal effectively with undocumented migration to this country on an unprecedented level has created the impetus for state action to fill up the vacuum. We advocate that Congress must deal with this situation by creating more pathways to legal status over an enforcement only approach, which is what states like Arizona have done.  Until now, such state action has been deprived of constitutional legitimacy; the Supreme Court may be ready to change that. Indeed, the first signs of this came with Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 131 S. Ct. 1968, 179 L.Ed.2d 1031 (2011) when a 5-3 ruling upheld the 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act thus transforming the power of state regulators to grant or withhold business and professional licenses into tools of immigration enforcement. Should the High Court sustain SB 1070, for the first time since the 1870’s, the states will be able to take advantage of a constitutional regime that not only tolerates but welcomes their presence and invites their participation. Of course, Congress can also deal with states legislating on immigration by expressly preempting such action, but one will need to wait for that day to happen.

Those who think immigration is good for America will then have to find a way to review and revise their most basic assumptions on the nature of American reform. There is a way to make lemonade out of lemons.  Even now, not all state and local action has been negative. Utah is but one such example. Look and you will find others. Congress may not have passed a federal Dream Act but California and Illinois have done precisely that on the state level. Maryland too adopted its own Dream Act in 2011 and the Maryland Supreme Court will soon decide if this measure must go to a voter referendum this fall. In his most recent state-of-the-city address, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg vigorously supported a Dream Act for New York State, though Governor Cuomo has yet to declare his position. 12 states now grant in-state tuition rates to undocumented students. Texas, California and New Mexico provide financial aid to undocumented students. If we look north to our neighbor, Canada, its provinces have considerable influence in Canada’s immigration policy. An intending immigrant to Canada will get a preference if he or she meets certain requirements of Quebec province, for example.

Our position on SB 1070 has not changed. We do not believe it is constitutional. We do not write to endorse a patchwork immigration system of 50 different approaches without unity or definition. The dangers of this are apparent to all and we devoutly wish that our ideas will be made irrelevant when the Supreme Court finds SB 1070 to be constitutionally impermissible. Yet, candor requires us to admit that the result may not be as we would like. Now is the time to prepare for what may come and think the unthinkable. We owe it to our clients and our country to turn a problem into an opportunity.  Until now, both supporters and critics of SB 1070 have assumed that if the Supreme Court were to uphold the law,  it will unleash a tsunami of copycat legislation. This may happen and it may hurt. Yet, the future often has a way of surprising us. More may emerge; the outcome could well be different than what most hope or fear. This blog points a way forward. What happens next is up to you.

(The views expressed by guest author, Gary Endelman, are his own and not of his firm, FosterQuan, LLP)