Cyrus Mehta

ARE THERE SECOND CHANCES IN US IMMIGRATION LAW? JUDGE DENNY CHIN SHOWS THE WAY IN LAWSON v. USCIS

/0 Comments/in /by
By Myriam Jaidi

Second Circuit Court Judge Denny Chin’s decision in Lawson v. USCIS, 09 Civ. 10195 (DC) (issued July 7, 2011) provides a beacon of hope for individuals who have overcome a reprehensible past and wish to pursue U.S. citizenship, and serves as an exemplar to advocates and adjudicators not only on the legal question of good moral character but also on the way to analyze other cases such as waivers requiring a demonstration of extreme hardship. Like the issue of good moral character, which was the lynch pin in Lawson, extreme hardship waivers require the same care in preparation and in adjudication revealed by Judge Chin’s searching legal analysis in Lawson. Judge Chin’s scrutiny and weighing of all relevant facts and legal issues in the case provides a guide to adjudicators on how to conduct the required “case by case” legal analysis. Judge Chin expertly applies the appropriate legal standards with a keen awareness of relevant policies and priorities, and a judicious exercise of discretion that results in justice triumphing over petty posturing.

Judge Chin’s decision also makes clear that applying a set of government priorities in determining whether a legal standard has been met does not mean that individuals will have an easy time of making their cases. Advocates should review the decision and the laws at issue for a sobering overview of just how high the standard is, and how much work and client preparation need be done to succeed in arguing that someone has demonstrated good moral character in the context of naturalization, or merits a favorable decision on a waiver application in the admissibility context. Adjudicators should, in turn, review the case for guidance, in the absence of guidance from DHS/USCIS, on how to apply the law within the framework of agency priorities.

Make no mistake: the road to showing someone merits a favorable finding of good moral character or a favorable exercise of discretion for a waiver, is a hard one and the bars in these case are nebulous and set quite high. Here we will explore the difficulties of establishing good moral character as a matter of law, but readers should keep in mind that the same principles for building and analyzing a case can readily apply in the waiver context as well.

Although courts have long espoused the notion that “[w]e do not require perfection in our new citizens,” Klig v. United States, 296 F.2d 343, 346 (2d Cir. 1961), those who have committed significant crimes or have other grave negative incidents in their past face an uphill battle that can be won only if they do not fall within one of the bars to establishing good moral character and only if they have made exemplary efforts to redeem themselves.

In Lawson, the court concluded that Vernon Lawson, a Vietnam War veteran honorably discharged from the Marines, established good moral character and therefore was eligible to naturalize despite the fact that he was convicted of manslaughter for killing his wife in 1985 because he paid his debt to society serving 13 years in prison and while there “he overcame his drug and alcohol problems, earned three degrees (including two with honors), completed several training programs, and counseled and taught other inmates.” Lawson at page 2.

In addition, Mr. Lawson continued his efforts at reform after he left the confines of prison:

Upon his release, he obtained gainful employment, and spent eight years as a drug abuse counselor, drawing on his own experience to help countless individuals deal with their addictions. He moved back home with his mother and took care of her as her health failed. He went to church every Sunday and regularly volunteered to help in church activities. He brought food to homeless veterans, played chess in a neighborhood chess club, and tended a neighborhood garden.

Lawson, at page 3. As described by Judge Chin, Mr. Lawson made extensive, ongoing efforts to overcome his past and though, as the court noted, he committed an “unspeakable act”, by the time of the court’s decision he had utterly reformed his life, had paid his debt to society, and therefore established that he met the legal standard for good moral character.

Judge Chin also spent considerable effort in examining Mr. Lawson’s life experiences and how these impacted him, to place Mr. Lawson’s efforts at redemption and the changes he effected in his life in context. Judge Chin closely considered Mr. Lawson’s horrific experiences in Vietnam, where he became a substance abuser as a result of the stress and suffered psychological damage. He did not get the necessary treatment until he was in prison more than 20 years after he returned from serving his country honorably.

In Mr. Lawson’s case, as in many cases, good moral character made the difference between deportation and US citizenship. That these two outcomes are alternatives in one case is astounding and underscores the importance of closely examining and mustering the positive efforts and achievements in an individual’s past and present, even where a significant obstacle to a finding of good moral character may exist. Doing so (and making the determination of whether someone should risk applying for naturalization), however, requires an understanding of the nebulous concept of good moral character as well as a firm grasp of the government’s policy goals.

Although the relevant legislative and regulatory frameworks provide an idea of what precludes a finding of good moral character, no definition exists and the term has been called “incapable of exact definition.” Posusta v. United States, 282 F.2d 533, 535 (2d Cir. 1961). The statutory and regulatory bars may be found in INA 101(f) and 8 CFR 316.10. These laws dictate a finding of a lack of good moral character for a person who has ever been convicted of murder, who has been convicted of an aggravated felony (defined in INA 101(a)(43)) after November 29, 1990, and who has at any time has engaged in conduct described in section 212(a)(3)(E) (relating to assistance in Nazi persecution, participation in genocide, or commission of acts of torture or extrajudicial killings) or 212(a)(2)(G) (relating to severe violations of religious freedom). Further, an applicant must be found to lack good moral character if during the relevant statutory period the applicant:

(i) Committed one or more crimes involving moral turpitude, other than a purely political offense, for which the applicant was convicted, except as specified in section 212(a)(2)(ii)(II) of the Act;
(ii) Committed two or more offenses for which the applicant was convicted and the aggregate sentence actually imposed was five years or more, provided that, if the offense was committed outside the United States, it was not a purely political offense;
(iii) Violated any law of the United States, any State, or any foreign country relating to a controlled substance, provided that the violation was not a single offense for simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana;
(iv) Admits committing any criminal act covered by paragraphs (b)(2) (i), (ii), or (iii) of this section for which there was never a formal charge, indictment, arrest, or conviction, whether committed in the United States or any other country;
(v) Is or was confined to a penal institution for an aggregate of 180 days pursuant to a conviction or convictions (provided that such confinement was not outside the United States due to a conviction outside the United States for a purely political offense);
(vi) Has given false testimony to obtain any benefit from the Act, if the testimony was made under oath or affirmation and with an intent to obtain an immigration benefit; this prohibition applies regardless of whether the information provided in the false testimony was material, in the sense that if given truthfully it would have rendered ineligible for benefits either the applicant or the person on whose behalf the applicant sought the benefit;
(vii) Is or was involved in prostitution or commercialized vice as described in section 212(a)(2)(D) of the Act;
(viii) Is or was involved in the smuggling of a person or persons into the United States as described in section 212(a)(6)(E) of the Act;
(ix) Has practiced or is practicing polygamy;
(x) Committed two or more gambling offenses for which the applicant was convicted;
(xi) Earns his or her income principally from illegal gambling activities; or
(xii) Is or was a habitual drunkard.

Finally, a third set of preclusions apply, which includes a catchall. Unless the applicant establishes extenuating circumstances, the applicant shall be found to lack good moral character if, during the statutory period, the applicant:

(i) Willfully failed or refused to support dependents;
(ii) Had an extramarital affair which tended to destroy an existing marriage; or
(iii) Committed unlawful acts that adversely reflect upon the applicant’s moral character, or was convicted or imprisoned for such acts, although the acts do not fall within the purview of §316.10(b) (1) or (2).

The time frame relevant to a determination of good moral character may reach well beyond the specific statutory periods relevant to particular types of petitions, for instance 5 years (individuals applying as lawful permanent residents under INA 316(a)(1)), 3 years (if LPR living for 3 years in marital union with US citizen spouse under INA 319(a)), 1 year (under regulations governing eligibility under INA 329). According to 8 CFR § 316.10(a)(2), USCIS may

take into consideration, as a basis for its determination, the applicant’s conduct and acts at any time prior to [the relevant statutory] period, if the conduct of the applicant during the statutory period does not reflect that there has been reform of character from an earlier period or if the earlier conduct and acts appear relevant to a determination of the applicant’s present moral character.

Within this framework, USCIS is directed by regulation to evaluate good moral character “on a case-by-case” basis. 8 CFR § 316.10(a)(2) There is sparse policy guidance on the question of good moral character. The Adjudicator’s Field Manual contains a lengthy section on good moral character but the section is designed to provide an overview of the statutory bars, methods of uncovering fraud, and procedures for defending challenges to a denial rather than apprising officers of how to objectively assess a person’s character within the framework of the laws and overarching agency policies. The AFM provides a baseline for analysis, specifically that “good moral character means character which measures up to the standards of average citizens of the community in which the applicant resides. Any conduct or acts which offend the accepted moral character standards of the community in which the applicant resides should be considered, without regard to whether the applicant has been arrested or convicted.” AFM 73.6(a). The AFM also provides some helpful guidance with regard to what kind of misstatements may be excused or insignificant because they do not demonstrate the requisite intent to deceive for an immigration benefit. (“[M]isrepresentations that results [sic] from poor memory or because the applicant did not understand the question are not false testimony.”) However, in the next paragraph, the AFM goes on to note that individuals use the failure to understand the question as a “very common defense” and refers readers to another section “regarding interviewing techniques and proper documentation to file in order to eliminate this line of defense.” Perhaps more helpful to adjudicators would be direction on how to figure out whether someone is using a “line of defense” or sincerely has not understood. Such direction is once again found in Judge Chin’s decision.

In Mr. Lawson’s case, the government finally based its effort to deport Mr. Lawson on its claim that he committed perjury (at the deposition taken as part of the action in district court regarding his application for naturalization) for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit (in violation of 8 CFR § 316.10(b)(2)(vi)). The government argued that Mr. Lawson did not truthfully answer a question about whether he continued to drink alcohol. Closely examining the questions asked and answers given, Judge Chin found that Mr. Lawson had not understood the question at the deposition. Judge Chin recognized that Mr. Lawson had interpreted the words “drinking” and “drinks” [and “alcohol”] to mean “hard liquor” and reasonably interpreted the question as inquiring whether he continued to engage in abusive drinking. The court concluded that Mr. Lawson could therefore not be found to have committed perjury for not mentioning that he occasionally had wine or beer at family gatherings. The court noted that “[i]n light of the case law and all of the compelling circumstances, the Government’s latest position seems nothing but petty.”

After Mr. Lawson’s many years of hard work to redeem his character, it is daunting to think that a misinterpretation of question could have made all the difference in his case. What saved Mr. Lawson was not only that the court found that he had not answered the question “falsely” but also that case law recognizes other possible motives for false statements besides that of seeking to obtain an immigration benefit or naturalization exist and requires these alternatives to be considered. Judge Chin reviewed case law recognizing that fear, embarrassment or a desire for privacy could be alternative reasons, see Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 782 (1988) as could misinterpretation of a question. See United States v. Hovsepian, 422 F.3d 883 (9th Cir. 2005).

Hovsepian involved two individuals who had been convicted in the past of serious crimes, but who, like Mr. Lawson, had completely reformed their lives, both earning advanced degrees and becoming community and youth role models, devoting a great deal of their lives to community leadership. The government argued that in the course of their quest for naturalization, each made false statements on the Form N-400 and regarding other issues (one regarding the nature of a youth group to which he belonged; the other regarding other names by which he had been known). Ultimately, the court found no error in the lower court’s conclusion that the individuals had not given intentionally false testimony for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit. Interestingly, the court noted that the question on the form at issue — “Have you at any time, anywhere, ever ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person because of race, religion, national origin, or political opinion?” — was rife with potential for misinterpretation or different reasonable interpretations given the extensive case law regarding the concept of “persecution.”

Individuals and their advocates must parse the question of good moral character very carefully and prepare to answer questions carefully, asking for clarification where they do not understand in order to avoid running afoul of the legal standards by mistake. What might appear to be a lost cause may not be if the individual can demonstrate that he has changed for the better because the laws are not meant to punish “but to admit as citizens those who are law-abiding and useful.” Posusta, 285 F.2d at 535-36. Circuit Judge Chin’s decision serves as an excellent reference for understanding what good moral character is and how it can be demonstrated. It also presents guidance for individuals who seek to reform themselves after having committed an act that stands as an obstacle (though not falling within the statutory bars) to naturalization. These individuals must demonstrate sincere and significant efforts to become upstanding and engaged contributors to their communities and to the nation in order to merit a favorable finding on their behalf. Finally, the decision serves, in the absence of guidance from DHS/USCIS on the adjudication of good moral character and similarly the exercise of discretion in waiver cases, as an exacting guide of the type of searching legal and factual inquiry adjudicators should make in these cases, not simply to uncover suspected fraud, but to analyze a person in light of their experiences, their mistakes, and their efforts to remake themselves into law-abiding and useful members of their local and national communities.

David Isaacson

LEAVING TOO MUCH FOR ANOTHER DAY: WHAT THE SECOND CIRCUIT’S RECENT CSPA DECISION MISSED IN AGREEING WITH THE RESULT OF MATTER OF WANG

/0 Comments/in , /by

By David A. Isaacson

In its recent decision in Li v. Renaud, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that a derivative beneficiary of a family-based petition, whose adjusted age even under the Child Status Protection Act (“CSPA”) is above 21, cannot use section 203(h)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) to retain the priority date originally given to the principal beneficiary with respect to a petition in the 2B preference category by that principal beneficiary. That is, if your grandfather filed a petition for your father when you were 14 years old, and the petition took one year to process, but a visa number was not available for another 10 years, you cannot retain the family’s place in the priority-date waiting line now that you count as over 21 after subtracting the year that the petition was pending; instead, you will have to go to the back of the years-long waiting line for an immigrant visa number.

In so holding, the Second Circuit essentially approved the result reached by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) in its Matter of Wang decision in 2009, although for somewhat different reasons. In the process, however, the Second Circuit appears to have overlooked the significance of its reasoning as applied to employment-based petitions, a subject which was deliberately left for another day but which I would argue sheds substantial light on why the Second Circuit’s decision in Li was incorrect.Additional background regarding the CSPA in general and Matter of Wang in particular can be found in an earlier article written by this author for our firm’s website. The section construed by Matter of Wang and Li v. Renaud, INA § 203(h), reads as follows:

(h) RULES FOR DETERMINING WHETHER CERTAIN ALIENS ARE CHILDREN-

(1) IN GENERAL.– For purposes of subsections (a)(2)(A) and (d), a determination of whether an alien satisfies the age requirement in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) of section 101(b)(1) shall be made using–

(A) the age of the alien on the date on which an immigrant visa number becomes available for such alien (or, in the case of subsection (d), the date on which an immigrant visa number became available for the alien’s parent), but only if the alien has sought to acquire the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence within one year of such availability; reduced by

(B) the number of days in the period during which the applicable petition described in paragraph (2) was pending.

(2) PETITIONS DESCRIBED- The petition described in this paragraph is—

(A) with respect to a relationship described in subsection (a)(2)(A), a petition filed under section 204 for classification of an alien child under subsection (a)(2)(A); or

(B) with respect to an alien child who is a derivative beneficiary under subsection (d), a petition filed under section 204 for classification of the alien’s parent under subsection (a), (b), or (c).

(3) RETENTION OF PRIORITY DATE- If the age of an alien is determined under paragraph (1) to be 21 years of age or older for the purposes of subsections (a)(2)(A) and (d), the alien’s petition shall automatically be converted to the appropriate category and the alien shall retain the original priority date issued upon receipt of the original petition.

(4) APPLICATION TO SELF-PETITIONS- Paragraphs (1) through (3) shall apply to self-petitioners and derivatives of self-petitioners.

Enacted into the U.S. Code at 8 U.S.C. § 1153(h)(3), this section can be found online within 8 U.S.C. § 1153 .

In Matter of Wang, the BIA had overturned a previous unpublished decision called Matter of Maria T. Garcia, which did allow the aged-out child of a family preference petition beneficiary to retain the priority date that she previously had shared with her parent. The BIA found that the language of § 203(h)(3) was ambiguous, but that legislative intent showed § 203(h)(3) to codify an existing regulatory practice in which priority dates could be retained when the same petitioner filed a second petition for the same beneficiary. As the BIA explained, this practice was “limited to a lawful permanent resident’s son or daughter who was previously eligible as a derivative beneficiary under a second-preference spousal petition filed by that same lawful permanent resident.” Outside that context, the BIA found § 203(h)(3) inapplicable to derivative beneficiaries.
The Second Circuit in Li went a step further, holding that the statutory language was not even ambiguous, and that one need not resort to legislative intent to find that a priority date could not be retained “to use for a different family petition filed by a different petitioner.” Under circumstances such as the grandfather/child/grandchild fact pattern noted earlier (modeled on the facts of Li), the Second Circuit said, there is no “appropriate category” to convert to, because there is, for example, “no family preference category for grandchildren of LPRs”.
In footnote 1 of the Li opinion, at the urging of amicus curiae Mohammed Golam Azam, the Second Circuit made clear that they were leaving the issue of employment-based petitions for another day, and not determining how § 203(h)(3) applies to such petitions. The problem with this well-intentioned effort not to decide an issue unnecessarily is that it allowed the court to avert its eyes from the implications of the Liholding in the employment-based context, implications which I would argue suggest a problem with the entire holding.

As the reader will note from the quoted text of INA § 203(h) above, § 203(h)(2) specifically applies § 203(h) to derivative beneficiaries under § 203(d) not just of family-based petitions covered by § 203(a), but also of petitions in employment-based cases covered by § 203(b) and in diversity cases covered by § 203(c). Moreover, § 203(h)(3) specifically mentions subsection (d), pertaining to derivative beneficiaries, so we know that § 203(h)(2) doesn’t just apply to principal beneficiaries under § 203(a)(2)(A), children of Lawful Permanent Residents (“LPRs”) petitioned-for under the “2A” preference, who age out and must use the 2B preference for adult sons and daughters. Rather, the structure of § 203(h) read as a whole clearly indicates that the CSPA mechanisms apply to employment-based cases just as well as to family-based cases, and that priority-date retention applies to derivative beneficiaries just as much as to principal beneficiaries.

In the employment-based context, however, the reasoning of Li, if taken to its logical conclusion, suggests that § 203(h)(3) has no role to play at all. Being the child of the beneficiary of an employment-based petition will never qualify as a preference category in its own right, any more than being the grandson of a family petitioner is its own category does, and the derivative beneficiary will never (or almost never) be the direct beneficiary of a second petition by the same employer. Perhaps the Second Circuit in a later case will choose to shy away from this implication and prevent its precedent from going further down the wrong path, but that does appear to be the direction in which Li points it.
On the other hand, § 203(h)(3) does have work to do in the context of § 203(b) petitions if we adopt the interpretation that Li and Matter of Wang rejected, the one previously offered by the BIA in Matter of Maria T. Garcia: that the appropriate category for an aged-out derivative under § 203(d) is the 2B category, under INA § 203(a)(2)(B), with respect to the original beneficiary. This interpretation allows the derivative beneficiary to continue in essentially the same relation to the principal beneficiary that has existed all along, modified for the aging-out. It should not come as a surprise that the process allowed by this interpretation requires awaiting the LPR status of the principal beneficiary, because the defining characteristic of derivative beneficiaries under § 203(d) is always their entitlement to “the same order of consideration . . . if accompanying or following to join[] the spouse or parent”—to quote directly from the text of § 203(d) as enacted at 8 U.S.C. § 1153. By definition, one cannot accompany or follow to join a parent who has not yet become an LPR, whether or not the CSPA is involved.
The irrelevance of § 203(h)(3) with regard to § 203(b) derivatives caused by the interpretation in Li is a contextual clue in the statute that this interpretation is incorrect. Interpretations which render part of a statute superfluous are, and should be, disfavored. According to the logic of Li, it appears that even though § 203(h)(2)(B) mentions family-based petitions under § 203(a) and employment-based petitions under § 203(b) in precise parallel as contexts in which the entirety of § 203(h) should apply to derivative beneficiaries under § 203(d), and even though § 203(d) is specifically cited in § 203(h)(3) as a context in which that particular subsection applies, § 203(h)(3) may not apply at all to § 203(d) derivative beneficiaries of § 203(b) employment-based petitions. Whether or not one agrees with the BIA’s policy decision in Matter of Wang (which this author finds overly harsh) as applied to a statute thought by the BIA to be ambiguous, it certainly seems excessive given this clue to read the statute as unambiguously mandating such a result. And yet that is what the Second Circuit did in Li.
There is a famous saying, often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, that you should never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. Courts are often properly reluctant to follow this maxim, because it is a principal of judicial decision-making in our system of law that a court should not reach out to decide questions unnecessarily. But when a court too cavalierly puts off until tomorrow a question which is actually important to the resolution of the issue it is deciding, it may come to an incorrect result. It appears that this may be what occurred in Li.

Cyrus Mehta

IMMIGRATION LESSONS FROM THE FALL AND RISE OF STRAUSS-KAHN – PART II

/2 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta

Ever since the criminal case of Strauss-Kahn began to disintegrate after the New York District Attorney’s office revealed flaws in the credibility of the accuser, I looked back at my earlier blog, Immigration Lessons From the Fall of Strauss Kahn and feel that many of the immigration lessons I reflected upon still hold true. I wrote:

It is difficult for any victim of a sex crime to come forward, given that the defense will seek to turn the tables against her and undermine her credibility. It is even more difficult for an immigrant who has been a victim of a sex crime to come forward since this person’s immigration status, or lack thereof, will also be put under the microscope.

One of the reasons why the case has collapsed is because DSK’s accuser lied on her asylum application. She also fudged her tax returns. I can only speculate that if the NY DA’s office had an immigration expert on its team at the very outset, her asylum story could have been closely analyzed. If it was found to be fabricated, she could have been advised to come clean. Even if her asylum grant was potentially revocable, she could have been assured a U visa status in exchange, which is issued to non-citizens who have been or who will be helpful in a prosecution involving certain offenses, including rape and sexual abuse. Even if the prosecution of such an offense is not successful or is not likely to move forward presently, the non-citizen may still qualify for U visa status. It may have also been possible to file another asylum claim based on the genuine grounds.

Many asylum applicants may have genuine claims, but are still encouraged by unscrupulous practitioners, often times unauthorized, to embellish or alter their stories. This is particularly true of people fleeing desperately poor countries like Guinea who may not be sophisticated and employ the services of a competent attorney in their quest for asylum. The same holds true for the filing of tax returns. Many poor immigrants are misled into filing less than perfect tax returns. An experienced immigration attorney often comes across immigrants who have claimed dependants they were not supposed to claim in their tax return, and the prudent course is to advise the client to amend the tax return or explain to the Immigration Judge, especially in a waiver application where demonstration of good moral character is crucial, the circumstances that caused the filing of an improper tax return. Often times, this strategy is successful and it is still possible to invoke the favorable discretion of the Immigration Judge in granting relief. Putting the false tax return issue in perspective, I am sure if IRS agents looked really carefully they might find flaws in the tax returns of many Americans with regard to their deductions or other positions they may take to save a few dollars in taxes.

The bottom line is that such a person should not be branded as a fabricator and liar. Such actions are a desperate attempt to flee poverty and persecution in exchange for hope in America. While one should not condone the filing of false applications to gain an immigration benefit, there may be ways to mitigate the adverse consequences by either rehabilitating the application or by exploring other forms of relief. If DSK’s accuser had a history of filing a false asylum application and tax returns, it should not undermine her ability to be a credible witness regarding the circumstances of her sexual assault, and there is still clearly a case for trying Strauss-Kahn. As to the conversation the accuser had with her friend in immigration detention regarding gaining a financial benefit, one need not reach the sole conclusion that her accusation was false. Is it so unusual for anyone who has been victimized to vent to a family member or close friend that she is prepared to take the perpetrator to the cleaners because he can afford to compensate her for lost wages?

Possibly, if the accuser was advised by someone with a perspective on how desperate immigrants try to enter the US, and given assurances regarding her ability to continue to remain in the US notwithstanding the fabrication in her asylum claim, there may have been less of a chance for the case to get derailed and she may have testified more consistently to the grand jury. Even so, there is no reason why the case should not go ahead. Failure to prosecute this case, when there is still a credible accusation of sexual assault, will dissuade other immigrants from coming forward if their immigration past will be viewed under a microscope for the purpose of tearing their credibility to shreds. One ought not to be the perfect immigrant or victim to be able to come forward with a criminal complaint.

Finally, in my prior blog post, I also reflected about how non-citizens on temporary visas are less likely to get bail even before they have been found to be guilty. This is because their non-immigrant status, often linked to a job, evaporates after they are arrested and indicted, and they are then automatically viewed as a flight risk. I do hope that after the lessons learned from the fall and rise of Strauss-Kahn, judges in criminal court will be more prone to releasing a non-citizen defendant on bail and not automatically view this person as a flight risk just because he or she is not a US citizen.

Cyrus Mehta

RIGHT TO APPOINTED COUNSEL IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS? THE SUPREME COURT MAY HAVE OPENED THE DOOR IN TURNER v. ROGERS

/1 Comment/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta

A non-citizen placed in removal proceedings has the privilege of being represented at no expense to the government pursuant to §240(b)(4)(A) and §292 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. While every non-citizen has a right to be represented by competent counsel of his or her choosing, he or she cannot ask the Immigration Court to appoint counsel if indigent. Even though we all know that immigration law is extremely complex, and a respondent’s chances to stave off removal are substantially increased if represented by counsel, this person is out of luck if he or she cannot afford a lawyer or does not have access to one if detained in a remote area where an immigration attorney may not be in close proximity.

Intuitively to one, including a lawyer, unschooled in immigration procedures, it may seem obvious that a respondent in removal proceedings, especially if incarcerated, should be afforded counsel to navigate through the labyrinthine maze of immigration law as would a defended in criminal proceedings. The Sixth Amendment clearly grants an indigent defendant the right to state appointed counsel in a criminal case, Gideon v. Wainright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), and so why not the same right to a non-citizen in a removal case? Deportation has always been classified as a civil rather than as a criminal procedure. Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 (1952). Deportation even while harsh, which tears the person away from family and all that life is worth living for, is not seen as punishment, Bugajewitz v. Adam, 228 U.S. 585 (1913), and nor is detention for the sole purpose of facilitating the deportation. Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003).

Not many may have noticed the Supreme Court’s June 20, 2011 decision in Turner v. Rogers, 64 U.S ____(2011) for its relevance in the immigration context, which held that an indigent parent threatened with incarceration for civil contempt for failure to provide child support does not have a right to counsel under the Fourteenth Amendment. Although Turner v. Rogers dwelt on whether a right to counsel was applicable to an indigent non-custodial parent in a civil contempt proceedings, on first brush it applies negatively to all civil proceedings, including immigration removal proceedings. But hold your breath! The Supreme Court qualified its holding that there is no right to appointed counsel only if certain other safeguards are met in child custody cases. The question is whether such safeguards even exist in immigration cases? The answer is a clear “No,” and this author believes that Turner v. Rogers can be used favorably by immigration advocates seeking to establish a right to appointed counsel in immigration removal proceedings.

In Turner v. Rogers the petitioner, Michael Turner, who had been incarcerated previously for civil contempt, was again sentenced to 12 months of incarceration for civil contempt even though he tried to demonstrate that he was unable to pay the child support. Turner appealed on the ground that that the Federal Constitution entitled him to right to counsel. The Supreme Court had to decide whether Turner threatened with incarceration for civil contempt was entitled to the same right as counsel under the Fourteenth Amendment as a criminal defendant under Gideon v. Wainwright, supra. The majority acknowledged that a contempt proceeding is a civil proceeding although it still involved the indigent parent’s loss of liberty through imprisonment. However, such imprisonment in a civil proceeding is not punishment, but only to coerce the defendant to do what the court had ordered him to do. While there is still a requirement of fairness in civil proceedings under the Due Process clause, it does not always require the provision of counsel even where there is a threat of incarceration. Key to this analysis, however, is the defendant’s ability to pay. If the defendant parent subject to the child support order can demonstrate indigence, he or she can avoid incarceration. Thus, if the defendant is given an opportunity in the civil contempt proceeding to demonstrate the lack of ability to pay, including a meaningful opportunity to respond to questions of financial status during the hearing, such safeguards would be have been met. The Supreme Court also took into consideration that the other parent opposing the defendant at the hearing is also mostly not represented by counsel, which was the case with Ms. Rogers, the custodial parent. Therefore, providing a lawyer to the non-custodial parent would create an asymmetry of representation, resulting in delay, making the proceeding overall less fair and increasing the risk of the depriving the family in need of support the payment it is entitled to receive. Even though Turner did not have a lawyer, he also did not receive the benefit of the alternative safeguards such as a notice that his ability to pay would make the difference between being incarcerated or not, or a finding on his ability to pay. The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the South Carolina court for further proceedings in conformance with its opinion.

Now compare these safeguards that were elaborated by the Supreme Court in the context of a civil contempt proceeding to an immigration removal hearing. The respondent charged with deportability cannot avoid incarceration by meeting a condition precedent like the non-custodial parent such as an ability to pay! Indeed, INA §236(c) makes it mandatory for the detention of a non-citizen based on the commission or conviction of an assortment of offenses, no matter even if the respondent can pay a million dollars to post bond. The respondent’s opponent in removal proceedings is the government, which is always represented by a well trained counsel employed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Interestingly, the majority in Turner v. Rogers concluded, “Neither do we address what due process requires in an unusually complex case where defendant “can fairly be represented only by a trained advocate.”[citing Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 788 (1973)].

No one, not even opponents of due process for immigrants, can deny the fact that immigration removal proceedings are extremely complex, and can only fairly be represented by a well trained attorney conversant in immigration law. Yet, the majority of incarcerated respondents never have access to counsel. According to the Katzmann Immigration Representation Study Group’s recent findings, 60% of detained immigrants in New York City and 27% of non-detained immigrants do not have counsel by the time their cases are completed. Individuals who are transferred elsewhere and who remain detained and out of New York are unrepresented 79% of the time. This is truly a crisis. It is unthinkable to allow respondents in removal proceedings to proceed without the assistance of a lawyer to navigate and help through the complex maze of statutes, regulations and legal interpretations. This same study indicates that where there is competent representation of those who have been released or never detained, 74% had a successful outcome.

Advocates must continue to press for the right to appointed counsel in removal proceedings where the respondent cannot afford his or her own lawyer. Such a cause may be too unpopular for Congress to pass legislation at this time. Only a court ruling can make this happen, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Turner v. Rogers may provide the analytical framework to make a winning argument. Gideon v. Wainright was historic as it established the right to counsel under the Fourteenth Amendment for criminal defendants in state courts. We need a civil Gideon, and the best place to establish this is in immigration removal proceedings.

In conclusion, the following passage from Gideon v. Wainright citing Mr. Justice Sutherland’s eloquent and moving need for a right to counsel in Powell v. Alabama , 287 U.S. 25 (1932) will surely resonate with those seeking a right to appointed counsel in removal proceedings:

The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel, he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence.

Cora-Ann Pestaina

NOT SO FAST! DOL HESITANT TO FOLLOW MATTER OF HORIZON COMPUTER SERVICES ON PREVAILING WAGE VALIDITY

/1 Comment/in , /by
By Cora-Ann Pestania

My elation over the recent Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals’ (BALCA) decision in Matter of Horizon Computer Services, Inc., 2010-PER-00746 (May 25, 2011), expressed in my last blog, has proven to be short-lived. Last week, I attended the American Immigration Lawyers’ Association’s (AILA) Annual Conference on Immigration in San Diego, CA. At the conference, one of the most popular panels is the Department of Labor (DOL) Open Forum where members of AILA are permitted to directly question such bigwigs as William Carlson, Administrator, and Elissa M. McGovern, Chief of Policy Division, both of the Office of Foreign Labor Certification, U.S. Department of Labor. Naturally, the subject of Matter of Horizon Computer Services arose.

In Matter of Horizon Computer Services, the employer commenced its earliest recruitment before the Prevailing Wage Determination’s (PWD) validity period and filed the PERM after the PWD had expired. The DOL, citing 20 C.F.R. §656.40(c), denied the application because the employer did not begin its earliest form of recruitment during the PWD’s validity period. The DOL currently interprets 20 C.F.R. §656.40(c) to mean that the employer must begin the earliest recruitment or file the PERM labor certification application within the PWD’s validity period and has denied PERM applications where the employer commenced recruitment before the PWD’s validity period and filed the PERM application after the PWD had expired. In Matter of Horizon Computer Services, BALCA held that the timing of the employer’s recruitment complied with the regulations in 20 C.F.R. §656.40(c) and that regulatory history and fundamental fairness precluded the DOL’s interpretation of the regulation. BALCA held that the employer must initiate some recruitment during the PWD validity period but not necessarily the “earliest” recruitment.

At the AILA Conference, the DOL Open Forum panel was questioned as to whether the DOL would soon be issuing a new FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) with regard to the holding in Matter of Horizon Computer Services and whether attorneys could safely rely on this case when conducting recruitment for purposes of a PERM labor certification application. We did not get the answer we were hoping for. Instead, Ms. McGovern explained that the DOL reviews BALCA decisions just as attorneys do and that Matter of Horizon Computer Services is currently being reviewed along with BALCA’s decision in Matter of Ecosecurities, 2010-PER-00330 (June 15, 2011), which she said has a “similar fact pattern.” Ms. McGovern informed attendees that the DOL will figure out a path “in between” the two decisions and devise a directive.

In Matter of Ecosecurities, the employer commenced recruitment on May 6, 2007. The employer obtained a PWD valid from June 18, 2007 to September 16, 2007. The employer filed the PERM on Monday, September 17, 2007. The DOL Certifying Officer (CO) denied the PERM under 20 C.F.R. §656.40(c) because neither the earliest date listed for a recruitment step nor the date the application was filed, fell within the PWD validity period. The employer requested reconsideration and argued that because the PWD expired on a weekend, the expiration date ought to be extended to Monday, September 17, 2007. As authority, the employer cited the Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings Before the Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ) which provides that “[i]n computing any period of time under these rules…the time begins with the day following the act, event, or default, and it includes the last day of the period, unless it is a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday observed by the Federal Government in which case the time period includes the next business day.” 29 C.F.R. § 18.4(a). The CO affirmed the denial and forwarded the case to BALCA finding that there was no reason why the employer could not have filed the application on Sunday, September 16, 2007 since the Permanent Online System (www.plc.doleta.gov) is available 24 hours a day and seven days a week. BALCA held that the OALJ Rules of Practice and Procedure cited by the employer in support of its argument that the PWD ought to be considered valid until Monday, September 17, 2007, have no bearing on the expiration date of the employer’s PWD because they only govern filings before the OALJ and, moreover, govern filings by mail on days when the office is closed. BALCA stated that while its decision “may appear to elevate form over substance,” it is an appellate body and it “simply does not have the discretion to waive the clearly stated regulatory requirements.”

BALCA had, a mere 21 days earlier, held in Matter of Horizon Computer Services, that the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) did not intend that the first recruitment step begin during the validity period, only that some recruitment step be initiated during that time and BALCA vacated the denial of the PERM application filed after the PWD’s expiration date. In light of that, why didn’t BALCA similarly hold, in Matter of Ecosecurities?

Matter of Ecosecurities is devoid of any facts that would aid in a perfect side by side comparison of the two cases. But, in Matter of Horizon Computer Services the employer placed the Job Order only 2 days before the PWD validity period and then commenced every other type of recruitment within the PWD validity period. In its decision, BALCA made an effort to point out that “the employer initiated every single recruitment step during the validity period with the exception of its first recruitment step.” In Matter of Ecosecurities, the Employer initiated its first form of recruitment 43 days before the PWD validity period. This long time period is significant. The fact that BALCA did not discuss the other forms of recruitment and when they were each initiated is significant. Since there is no discussion about the timing of the other recruitment, we can assume that no recruitment was initiated during the PWD validity period and all recruitment was initiated prior to June 18, 2007. This makes Matter of Horizon Computer Services and Matter of Ecosecurities entirely distinguishable. If the employer in Matter of Ecosecurities had initiated some recruitment within the PWD validity period, BALCA would have decided the case similar to Matter of Horizon Computer Services. Contrary to Ms. McGovern’s statements, the two cases do not have “similar fact patterns” and the DOL should not conflate the two decisions!

Nevertheless, at least for now and until the DOL issues a directive, it is safest for practitioners to continue to abide by the DOL’s erroneous interpretation of 20 C.F.R. §656.40(c) and ensure that our clients either begin the earliest recruitment or file the PERM labor certification application within the PWD’s validity period. In my opinion, though, Matter of Horizon Computer Services can indeed be relied upon if the DOL has denied a PERM application where the employer commenced recruitment before the PWD validity period, initiated at least one form of recruitment during the PWD validity period and filed the PERM after the PWD had expired.

Cyrus Mehta

ETHICAL BASIS FOR PRO BONO

/1 Comment/in /by
By Cyrus D. Mehta

I am most honored to be the recipient of the American Immigration Lawyers Association 2011 Michael Maggio Pro Bono Award. Thank you very much.

The news of the award came to me as an utter surprise and my instant response was that I did not deserve it. I immediately recalled the many immigration attorneys far more engaged in pro bono than me, and more deserving of this award. Upon further reflection of this award, knowing there was nothing I could do about it, I thought it best to accept it in recognition of all the valiant lawyers who have spent many hours doing pro bono on behalf of immigrants and their families. I also accept this award on behalf of all my colleagues who have been instrumental in organizing the many immigration pro bono events and projects that you have been hearing of in recent years, which in turn encourage more lawyers to do pro bono work.

We all know how important it is to assist vulnerable immigrants who cannot afford a lawyer. As Judge Katzmann said in his historic Marden lecture at the New York City Bar on February 28, 2007 – “In our legal system, driven by complex rules and procedures, a lack of access to competent legal services damages fundamental concepts of fairness and equality before the law.” I strongly believe, and agree with Judge Katzmann, that lawyers, by virtue of being granted a license, enjoy a monopoly with respect to providing legal services (which they justifiably work very hard to preserve), and this monopoly ought to be used wisely and to achieve justice. Accordingly, pro bono service is not an act of charity, but an ethical obligation on the part of the lawyer.

One of the reasons that drew me towards immigration law, which is what has drawn all of us to this fields, was that I could help people and make an impact in their lives, no matter who they are or where they come from. Even as I undertake to manage a busy immigration law firm, this ideal continues to drive my work till this day, which I also try to instill in my associates and other colleagues. Each time I took up a leadership capacity in the bar, I have always striven to organize activities to encourage lawyers to meet the unmet needs of the immigrant community.

According to the Katzmann Immigration Representation Study Group’s recent findings, 60% of detained immigrants in New York City and 27% of non-detained immigrants do not have counsel by the time their cases are completed. Individuals who are transferred elsewhere and who remain detained and out of New York are unrepresented 79% of the time. This is truly a crisis. It is unthinkable to allow respondents in removal proceedings to proceed without the assistance of a lawyer to navigate and help through the complex maze of statutes, regulations and legal interpretations. This same study indicates that where there is competent representation of those who have been released or never detained, 74% had a successful outcome.

We the members of the leading immigration bar association in the country, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, must think outside the box to resolve this crisis and urgently address the unmet needs of poor or vulnerable immigrants, for whom the presence of a competent lawyer can make all the difference. I also urge all AILA lawyers to spend a few hours each year doing pro bono. Pro bono representation could either involve taking on a case to its completion, or could also involve spending a few hours at a legal clinic. Moreover, an expert immigration attorney can also serve as a mentor on a pro bono case that is handled by other lawyers in a law firm that does not specialize in immigration law. And for those who own or manage law firms, please encourage your associates to also participate in pro bono. In fact, there is a strong business case too for engaging in pro bono as you gain more skills that you can utilize in paid cases, earn a reputation within the community and among potential clients, and attract motivated lawyers to your firms.

Last evening’s first Pro Bono clinic at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law on June 16, 2011, in conjunction with the annual AILA conference in San Diego also gave an opportunity for AILA lawyers and law students to exercise their skills (and learn new ones) in providing high quality legal consultations to members of the San Diego immigrant community. Approximately 100 people from San Diego’s immigrant community of several nationalities and speaking several languages were served. These brief services are invaluable as they provide the immigrant with a truthful and accurate roadmap of the available options, thus empowering this person so that he or she does not get scammed later by an unauthorized practitioner. For this reason, AILA must continue to organize similar clinics again and again.

Finally, I am deeply honored that I am receiving this prestigious award in the memory of Michael Maggio whom I knew and deeply admired. Michael was the shining example of a very successful lawyer who gave back through his outstanding pro bono efforts. I am also humbled that the recipient of last year’s pro bono award was Judge Katzmann himself, who has used the prestige of his office as a judge of the Second Circuit to advance pro bono in New York in a most powerful and forceful way. It is hoped that we all follow Judge Katzmann’s example and spearhead and inspire similar initiatives all over the country.

Thank you again for this award, and rather than cheer for me now, your time will be better spent if you all roll up your sleeves and do some pro bono!

(This blog post is based on Cyrus D. Mehta’s remarks upon accepting the AILA Michael Maggio Memorial Award in San Diego on June 16, 2011).

Cora-Ann Pestaina

BALCA GETS IT RIGHT!! RECRUITMENT AND THE PREVAILING WAGE DETERMINATION’S VALIDITY PERIOD

/0 Comments/in , /by
Cora-Ann V. Pestaina

Pardon me while I take a moment to pump my fist! I am just really excited (and also relieved that sanity finally prevailed!) over the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals’ (BALCA) recent decision in Matter of Horizon Computer Services, Inc. 2010-PER-00746 (May. 25, 2011), http://j.mp/jAQRfO. Along with many fellow practitioners, I have long been irked by the Department of Labor’s (DOL) continued erroneous and hypertechnical interpretation of the rule found in 20 C.F.R. §656.40(c). I first wrote on this issue in August 2009 on www.cyrusmehta.com, in my article entitled, “How the Definition of the Word “Begin” Could Affect Your PERM Application.” http://j.mp/k1e5e6.

The DOL has long interpreted 20 C.F.R. §656.40(c) to mean that the employer must begin the earliest recruitment or file the PERM labor certification application within the prevailing wage determination’s (PWD) validity period. The DOL has consistently denied PERM applications where the employer commenced recruitment before the PWD’s validity period and filed the PERM application after the PWD had expired. Rather than fight with the DOL (and suffer through the long wait in the appeals queue!), most employers simply conducted new recruitment and filed a new PERM application. In my article, I argued that the DOL’s interpretation of the rule was (1) overly narrow and contrary to the plain meaning of the regulation; and (2) contrary to the Employment and Training Administration’s (ETA) intent when promulgating the regulation which was to have the employer conduct at least one form of recruitment within the PWD validity period. I expressed the hope that a well-crafted Motion to Reopen and Reconsider would bring forth a more definitive statement from BALCA.

We finally have this statement in Matter of Horizon Computer Services! In this case, the employer began its earliest recruitment by placing a job order on January 22, 2007. The employer obtained a PWD with a validity period from January 25, 2007 to June 30, 2007. The employer filed the PERM application on July 20, 2007, after the PWD had expired. The DOL denied the application because the employer did not begin its earliest form of recruitment during the PWD’s validity period and cited 20 C.F.R. §656.40(c) as authority for the denial. The employer fought back in a Request for Review and cited to the ETA’s notice of proposed rulemaking for PERM regulations wherein the ETA sought to explain the need for specific PWD validity periods and stated:

2. Validity Period of PWD
We are proposing that the SWA must specify the validity period of PWD on the PWD form, which in no event shall be less than 90 days or more than 1 year from the determination date entered on the PWDR. Employers filing LCA’s under the H-1B program must file their labor condition application within the validity period. Since employers filing applications for permanent labor certification can begin the required recruitment steps required under the regulations 180 days before filing their applications, they must initiate at least one of the recruitment steps required for a professional or nonprofessional occupation within the validity period of the PWD to rely on the determination issued by the SWA. Employment and Training Administration, Proposed Rule, Implementation of New System, Labor Certification Process for the Permanent Employment of Aliens in the United States [“PERM”], 20 CFR Part 656, 67 Fed. Reg. 30466, 30478 (May 6, 2002).

Based on the ETA’s statements, the employer in Matter of Horizon Computer Services argued that the ETA did not intend that the employer’s first recruitment step begin during the validity period but only that some recruitment step be initiated during that time. In fact, with the exception of the job order, the employer had initiated all of its recruitment during the PWD validity period.

BALCA agreed with the employer, vacated the DOL’s denial and held that the timing of the employer’s recruitment complied with the regulations and that regulatory history and fundamental fairness precluded the DOL’s interpretation of the regulation. BALCA agreed that the ETA intended only that the employer initiate some recruitment during the PWD validity period and not the earliest recruitment.

Accordingly, under Matter of Horizon Computer Services, in order to rely on an expired PWD in the filing of a PERM application, the employer must have initiated at least one recruitment step during the PWD’s validity period. That is, the first day of at least one form of recruitment must fall within the PWD validity period. Conducting or initiating all recruitment prior to the PWD’s validity period and then filing after the PWD has expired will likely still result in a denial of the PERM application.

Matter of Horizon Computer Services is an important decision especially at this time of the year when the DOL issues PWDs with only a narrow 90-day validity period. The DOL updates its prevailing wage databases on July 1st. PWDs issued around this time of year have only a 90-day validity period as opposed to PWDs issued after July 1st which are typically valid until June 30th of the following year. Employers who initiated recruitment prior to obtaining the PWD, initiated additional recruitment during the PWD’s 90-day validity period but were then unable to file the PERM application within the brief 90-day validity period of the PWD, would previously have had no recourse.

David Isaacson

IF EVEN THE CHIEF JUSTICE CAN MISUNDERSTAND IMMIGRATION LAW, HOW CAN WE EXPECT STATES TO ENFORCE IT PROPERLY? REMOVAL ORDERS AND WORK AUTHORIZATION

/1 Comment/in , /by
By David A. Isaacson

In part of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting upholding an Arizona law that imposed sanctions on employers (formally implemented as suspension or revocation of business licenses) for hiring “unauthorized alien” workers, the Court found that the Arizona law was not impliedly pre-empted because it tracks the federal definition of an “unauthorized alien” and insists that the state rely on the federal determination of an alien’s status. According to the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts, the verification of an individual’s “citizenship or immigration status” that the federal government is required to provide under 8 U.S.C. § 1373(c) is likely to be a sufficient determination under many circumstances. As the Chief Justice wrote for the Court, in response to the concern expressed in Justice Breyer’s dissent that § 1373(c) “says nothing about work authorization”:

But if a §1373(c) inquiry reveals that someone is a United States citizen, that certainly answers the question whether the individual is authorized to work. The same would be true if the response to a §1373(c) query disclosed that the individual was a lawful permanent resident alien or, on the other hand, had been ordered removed.

Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 563 U.S. ___ (2011), slip op. at 17.

The clear implication is that the Chief Justice, and the Court majority for which he wrote, believed that verification that an individual “had been ordered removed” would establish that individual’s lack of authorization to work. As explained below, this is incorrect. The fact that even the Chief Justice of the United States and a majority of the Supreme Court could make such a mistake is a vivid demonstration of the perils of involving non-specialists less qualified than Supreme Court Justices, such as state authorities, in determinations relating to immigration status and work authorization.

Under section 274A(h)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), the Attorney General and now the Secretary of Homeland Security have long had broad regulatory authority to determine who shall be authorized to work in the United States. That section says that “the term ‘unauthorized alien’ means, with respect to the employment of an alien at a particular time, that the alien is not at that time either (A) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or (B) authorized to be so employed by this Act or by the Attorney General.” This subsection (B) power to authorize employment has been exercised through the promulgation of regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12 (and related regulations at § 274a.13-14), which list many categories of aliens who are authorized to be employed incident to their status or can apply for and receive employment authorization. Although the existence of a removal order or ongoing removal proceedings certainly is not itself a basis for employment authorization, there are many regulatory bases for employment authorization that are not inconsistent with the existence of a removal order.

Perhaps the most common way for someone to have valid employment authorization despite having been ordered removed is when the person who has been ordered removed is challenging the removal order in federal court by a petition for review filed in the federal Court of Appeals for the appropriate Circuit (say, the Second Circuit if the case took place in New York). Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c), when employment authorization is based on the pendency of an application, the “validity period for an employment authorization document . . . may include any period when an administrative appeal or judicial review of an application or petition is pending.” An asylum applicant who obtains employment authorization under 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(8), for example, may renew this employment authorization if the asylum application has been denied by an immigration judge and even the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), and the applicant has been ordered removed, but a court challenge to this denial of asylum and the accompanying removal order is pending. This seems only fair, given that it is hardly uncommon for a BIA denial of asylum to be overturned by a federal court, and the victim of this BIA error should not be denied the right to work while the error is being corrected—but it means that one who has been ordered removed, and whose order of removal has not yet been vacated by a court, may well have valid employment authorization.

The same scenario can arise when an applicant for adjustment of status under INA § 245 or cancellation of removal for nonpermanent residents under INA § 240A(b) has his or her application denied by an immigration judge and the BIA, is ordered removed, and petitions for judicial review of the order of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) on the ground that a legal or constitutional error has been made by the BIA in adjudicating the application. An applicant for adjustment of status can apply for employment authorization under 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(9), and an applicant for cancellation of removal can do so under 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(10). Both would be entitled, pursuant to the introductory language in 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c), to renew this employment authorization while their federal court case was pending, despite the fact that they had been ordered removed.

Another way that someone who has been ordered removed can obtain valid employment authorization based on a pending application stems from an anomaly created by the BIA’s decision in Matter of Yauri, 25 I&N Dec. 103 (BIA 2009). In that case, the BIA recognized that USCIS often has jurisdiction over an application for adjustment of status filed by someone who has been ordered removed as an “arriving alien” (for example, after entering on advance parole based on a different application), but said that it would generally refuse to reopen such a removal order while the application for adjustment was pending before USCIS. That is, the BIA said that if, for example, someone enters on advance parole because of a pending employment-based adjustment application, then enters into a bona fide marriage with a U.S. citizen, and then is placed in removal proceedings following the denial of their employment-based adjustment application, an application for adjustment of status based on the marriage would go forward with USCIS independently of the removal proceedings before the Immigration Judge and BIA (in which the person would not be allowed to apply for adjustment of status based on the marriage as relief from removal). If someone who had already been ordered removed as an arriving alien more than 90 days ago applies for adjustment of status with USCIS, then according to Matter of Yauri, USCIS has jurisdiction to grant them adjustment of status notwithstanding the removal order, but in the meantime while the adjustment application is pending, the BIA generally will not reopen the removal order. Someone with a pending adjustment application as an arriving alien under Matter of Yauri, therefore, can have been ordered removed by an immigration judge and the BIA, and yet have a perfectly valid application for adjustment of status pending before USCIS, based on which they may have employment authorization under 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(9). The peculiarity of a pending application before USCIS, valid employment authorization, and an outstanding removal order all existing at the same time (even absent federal court involvement or some similar complication) may be an argument against the BIA’s refusal in Matter of Yauri to reopen removal orders based on applications for adjustment by an arriving alien, but as long as the rule of Matter of Yauri remains, this possibility will remain entirely plausible despite the applicant’s best efforts to resolve his or her situation.

Yet another way for people who have been ordered removed to have valid employment authorization is if their removal to particular countries (usually their countries of nationality) has been withheld under INA § 241(b)(3) or under the Convention Against Torture, because they would, more likely than not, face persecution or torture in those countries. This often occurs, for example, when an otherwise meritorious application for asylum is rejected as untimely under the one-year deadline of INA § 208(a)(2)(B). Someone who has been granted withholding of removal can theoretically be removed to another country besides the country of feared persecution or torture, but it is very rare for this to happen in practice, since most countries will not simply volunteer to accept a deportee with whom they have no previous connection. While they remain in the United States for lack of a third country willing to accept them, withholding of removal grantees are entitled to employment authorization pursuant to INA § 274a.12(a)(10). They too, therefore, will be authorized to work despite the fact that they have been ordered removed.

In addition, there is a section of the regulations that explicitly contemplates the issuance of employment authorization to certain people who have been ordered removed simply because the order of removal cannot be executed, even when withholding of removal to a particular country has not been granted due to the threat of persecution or torture. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(18):

An alien against whom a final order of deportation or removal exists and who is released on an order of supervision under the authority contained in section 241(a)(3) of the Act may be granted employment authorization in the discretion of the district director only if the alien cannot be removed due to the refusal of all countries designated by the alien or under section 241 of the Act to receive the alien, or because the removal of the alien is otherwise impracticable or contrary to the public interest. Additional factors which may be considered by the district director in adjudicating the application for employment authorization include, but are not limited to, the following:
(i) The existence of economic necessity to be employed;
(ii) The existence of a dependent spouse and/or children in the United States who rely on the alien for support; and
(iii) The anticipated length of time before the alien can be removed from the United States.

For this reason, as well, one who has been ordered removed may nonetheless be authorized to accept employment.

It was therefore incorrect for the Court in Whiting to say that it “answers the question whether the individual is authorized to work . . . . if the response to a §1373(c) query disclosed that the individual . . . had been ordered removed.” An individual may have been ordered removed, and yet nonetheless be authorized to work pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(a)(10), 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(8), 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(9), 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(10), or 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(14)—and even this is not intended as an exhaustive list of the regulatory provisions authorizing employment that may be applicable to someone against whom an order of removal has been entered. Disclosure that an individual has been ordered removed simply does not foreclose the possibility that the same individual is authorized to work.

The fact that even the Chief Justice of the United States could make this mistake may shed some light on why the prospect of state officials attempting to implement immigration law strikes many attorneys who work in the immigration field as highly inadvisable. Immigration law, both in the area of employment authorization and in other areas, is highly complex, and can confuse even specialists or legal generalists of the highest caliber. It seems reasonable to say, without fear of insult, that the legal education and acumen of most state law-enforcement officials as it relates to matters of federal law is often not going to meet the high standard required of a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Thus, implementation of immigration law by such state officials is likely to lead to frequent errors.

Cyrus Mehta

B-1 IN LIEU OF H-1B VISA IN JEOPARDY: DON’T THROW THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATHWATER

/1 Comment/in /by
By Cyrus D. Mehta and Myriam Jaidi

The “B-1 in lieu of H-1B” visa has been an important and legitimate source of flexibility facilitating the needs of global businesses and business travelers, with significant benefit to the United States economy. The April 14, 2011 letter from Senator Charles E. Grassley to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano in light of the lawsuit against Infosys, may threaten the existence of this important category. We write to clarify its utility for American businesses in a globalized world, and strongly urge that the “B-1 in lieu of the H-1B” not be eliminated as this will undermine US competitiveness.

As we noted in a recent article on the B-1 category, the B-1 business visa remains one of the “most ill-defined” visas but plays a very important role in providing flexibility to business travelers. While the B-1 visa is associated with visiting the US to participate in meetings and negotiate contracts, the “B-1 in lieu of H-1B” was created to facilitate travel to the US of individuals who would otherwise qualify for an H-1B visa, but only needed to come to the United States for a limited period of time. In the current controversy over the US of the B-1, scant attention has been paid to the “B-1 in lieu of the H-1B,” which permits broader activities than the regular B-1 visa, albeit for a short period of time. Indeed, many of the activities that have been alleged to be outside the scope of the B-1 may be permissible under the “B-1 in lieu of the H-1B.” Hence, what has been alleged to be fraud may not really be the case if viewed under activities permissible under the “B-1 in lieu of the H-1B.”

The “B-1 in lieu of the H-1B,”, which is in 9 Foreign Affairs Manual § 41.31 Note 8, and available on the US Consulate, Mumbai, website is tightly regulated and involves strict requirements. First, qualified individuals must otherwise qualify for an H-1B visa, meaning they must be working in a specialty occupation and qualify for the position by means of a bachelor degree in a specific field required for the occupation. In addition, they must show nonimmigrant intent (established by showing significant ties to their home country, including establishing that they have a residence abroad that they have no intent to abandon), must be regularly employed abroad and their salary must be paid by their employer abroad. They may perform work in the United States only for a limited time and only if they continue to be paid abroad, and not by the United States entity for which they are performing services. These are not simple showings to make, especially to consular officers trained to spot applicants who may wish to stay beyond the term of their B-1 visa status.

One issue raised in the controversy concerning the “B-1 in lieu of H-1B” is the absence of the prevailing wage obligation by the employer. The H-1B visa is one of the few visa categories that requires that nonimmigrants in this status be paid at least the “prevailing wage” (the average rate of wages paid to workers similarly employed in the geographical area of intended employment) and to have a labor condition application (LCA) certified before the petition may proceed. Prevailing wage data is available from many sources, including the Department of Labor’s Foreign Labor Certification Data Center, available here: http://www.flcdatacenter.com/. Other temporary nonimmigrant work visa categories such as the O-1, TN, L, E, P and others do not require an LCA or a promise to pay the prevailing wage in order to be approved. Thus, contrary to Senator Grassley’s assertions, the fact that an LCA is not required for the “B1 in lieu of H-1B” is not so unusual within the US nonimmigrant visa system, and if properly applied, should not be viewed as an attempt to skirt the rules, nor should it be mischaracterized as a loophole.

The category plays an important role in filling a gap in the available visa categories for short-term, professional workers. Moreover, it can only be used by a multinational business that has the ability to regularly employ the individual at an overseas entity while he or she is in B-1 status. There are other companion “in lieu of” B-1 categories such as the “B-1 in lieu of the H-3” and the “B-1 in lieu of the J-1.” These B-1 categories allow for short term training assignments in the US without the need for a US employer to file a lengthy petition or obtain authorization through a J sponsor. All of these are extremely useful and legitimate short term B-1 uses that allow a US business to remain competitive and responsive to spontaneous short-term needs in a globalized economy. We urge that the baby not be thrown out with the bathwater just because of ex-parte allegations by a plaintiff in one law suit against an IT consulting company, which has led to further investigations by the US authorities.

The Department of State’s (DOS) response to Senator Grassley’s missive is troubling in that it conveys that the “B-1 in lieu of H-1B” may be at risk. In a letter by Joseph Macmanus, Acting Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, he says that DOS is “working with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to consider removing or substantially amending the FAM note” allowing the B-1 in lieu of H-1B category. However, all hope is not lost as Mr. Macmanus points out that problems with the B-1 category usually result from misrepresentation in the visa application, not from a misapplication of visa law. In addition, Mr. Macmanus’s letter makes clear that consular officers are carefully trained to determine whether issuing a B-1 visa or a “B-1 in lieu of H-1B” is appropriate. These categories are not taken lightly and have strict requirements, carefully enforced, with fewer than 1000 “B-1 in lieu of H-1B” visas issued each year worldwide. This restrictive view of the category is sometimes too carefully enforced to the detriment of companies that need individuals from their foreign entities to come to the United States entity for training that is unavailable at the foreign entity, and that is crucial to the global operations of the company as a whole.

We hope that the DOS and DHS continue to recognize and defend the importance of the “B-1 in lieu of H-1B” and other companion “lieu of” categories to international commerce and the benefits that accrue to the United States economy, rather than eliminate it or read it out of existence as a knee jerk reaction to a Senator’s objections, especially one who has generally been opposed to the existence of the H-1B and L visa programs.

Cyrus Mehta

IMMIGRATION LESSONS FROM THE FALL OF STRAUSS-KAHN

/2 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta

From an immigration lawyer’s perspective, the fall of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the former head of the International Monetary Fund, who has been charged with attempted rape and other serious sex offenses against an immigrant hotel worker from Guinea in a posh New York hotel, resonates with important immigration themes.

Most important, the word of an immigrant worker who was subject to attempted rape, imprisonment and other charges has been taken extremely seriously against one of the world’s most powerful men. So seriously was her word taken that the NYPD actually arrested Strauss-Kahn while his Air France plane was about to take off from JFK airport last Saturday.

It is difficult for any victim of a sex crime to come forward, given that the defense will seek to turn the tables against her and undermine her credibility. It is even more difficult for an immigrant who has been a victim of a sex crime to come forward since this person’s immigration status, or lack thereof, will also be put under the microscope.

While media reports indicate that Strauss-Kahn’s accuser was granted asylum, and as a result, is in a lawful status, there are many survivors (rather than victims) of domestic abuse and sex crimes who may not even be in a lawful status. Despite all the flaws in the US immigration system, one shining spot is that survivors of domestic violence and sex crimes do have recourse. The battered spouse of a US citizen or lawful permanent resident, and in some cases of a nonimmigrant, can apply on their own for status without the help of the abuser. Those who are the victims of sex crimes, even though the perpetrator may not be a spouse, can apply for U or T visas if they are helpful to the investigation or prosecution. Once the application is approved, many of the grounds of ineligibility that would apply to other prospective immigrants either do not apply to this group of vulnerable immigrants or can be more easily waived.

Another lesson can also be drawn from the sordid Strauss-Kahn saga. Even the alleged perpetrator, Strauss-Kahn, is not a citizen of the US and has been on a nonimmigrant visa, presumably a G-4 visa for officers of international organizations, while he was with the IMF. I have observed that many nonimmigrants, who are accused of crimes, even non-violent white collar crimes, have a harder time to get bail after they have been arrested. In many situations, the nonimmigrant visa status is linked to the employment in the US, which more often than not disappears after the defendant is accused of the crime. The prosecutor seizes upon this to argue that the defendant is more of a flight risk than a defendant who is a US citizen. While Strauss-Kahn is in a different league from a regular nonimmigrant who is charged with a crime, and poses additional flight risk considerations, the fact of the matter is that one who is on a temporary visa in the US has a harder time to get bailed out. Still, Strauss-Kahn has done better than most other criminal defendants on a nonimmigrant visa because he just got bail.