Tag Archive for: Wang v. Blinken

Cyrus Mehta

DHS’s Family Reunification Parole Initiative Can Serve as Template for Other Bold Executive Actions to Reform the Immigration System Without Fear of Being Sued by a State

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box*

On July 7, 2023, DHS announced a new family reunification parole initiative for beneficiaries of approved I-130 petitions who are nationals of Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, & Honduras. Nationals of these countries can be considered for parole on a case-by-case basis for a period of up to three years while they wait to apply to become lawful permanent residents. This is an example of the administration using its executive authority to shape immigration policy in the absence of meaningful Congressional action to reform the system. Indeed, this initiative can serve as a template to allow beneficiaries of approved I-130, I-140, and I-526 petitions to be paroled into the US while they wait for a visa number to become available, which under the backlogs in the employment and family preference categories, can take several years to decades.

Section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security, in his discretion, to parole noncitizens into the United States temporarily on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. The parole authority has long been used to establish family reunification parole (FRP) processes administered by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, including the Cuban Family Reunification Parole Program, which was established in 2007, and the Haitian Family Reunification Parole Program, which was established in 2014.

The processes begin, according to the DHS announcement, with the Department of State issuing an invitation to the petitioning U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident family member whose Form I-130 on behalf of a Colombian, Salvadoran, Guatemalan, or Honduran beneficiary has been approved. Beneficiaries awaiting an immigrant visa could include certain children and siblings of U.S. citizens and certain spouses and children of permanent residents. The invited petitioner can then initiate the process by filing a request on behalf of the beneficiary and eligible family members to be considered for advance travel authorization and parole.

The new processes allow for parole only on a discretionary, case-by-case, and temporary basis upon a demonstration of urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit, as well as a demonstration that the beneficiary warrants a favorable exercise of discretion. Individuals paroled into the United States under these processes will generally be considered for parole for up to three years and will be eligible to request employment authorization while they wait for their immigrant visa to become available. When their immigrant visa becomes available, they may apply to become a lawful permanent resident.

The Federal Register Notices for Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras provide more information on the FRP process and eligibility criteria.

According to the federal register notices, the justification for the new FRP initiative is part of a broader, multi-pronged, and regional strategy to address the challenges posed by irregular migration through the Southwest border. Consideration of noncitizens for parole on a case-by-case basis will meaningfully contribute to the broader strategy of the United States government (USG) to expand access to lawful pathways for individuals who may otherwise undertake an irregular migration journey to the United States. The case-by-case parole of noncitizens with approved family-based immigrant visa petitions under this process will, in general, provide a significant public benefit by furthering the USG’s holistic migration management strategy, specifically by: (1) promoting family unity; (2) furthering important foreign policy objectives; (3) providing a lawful and timely alternative to irregular migration; (4) reducing strain on limited U.S. resources; and (5) addressing root causes of migration through economic stability and development supported by increased remittances.

It remains to be seen whether states like Texas will attack this program in federal court. A similar humanitarian parole program has been the subject of a lawsuit by Texas and nineteen other states, and  allows 30,000 qualifying nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to be admitted to the United States every month for up to two years. The new FRP initiative is more narrowly tailored as it applies only to spouse, children and sibling beneficiaries of  approved I-130 petitions. Also, in United States v.  Texas, the Supreme Court in an 8-1 majority opinion rendered a blow to Texas and Louisiana in holding that they had no standing to challenge the Biden administration on federal immigration policy on enforcement priorities. Although that case dealt with whether a state could challenge the federal government’s ability to exercise prosecutorial discretion, it can also potentially deter a state’s ability to demonstrate standing when it challenges other federal immigration policies.

In Texas’ challenge to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, Texas has argued that it is entitled to “special solicitude.” The doctrine first enunciated in Massachusetts v. EPA allows states to skirt some of the usual standing requirements, like whether the court can redress an alleged injury. However, Justice Brett Kavanaugh addressed the doctrine in a footnote in United States v. Texas stating that the states’ reliance on Massachusetts v. EPA to support their argument for standing was misplaced. Massachusetts v. EPA held that the state could challenge the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s failure to regulate greenhouse gases based on special solicitude, although that case dealt with a “statutorily authorized petition for rulemaking, not a challenge to an exercise of the executive’s enforcement discretion,” the footnote said. Another footnote in Justice Kavanaugh’s majority opinion said lower courts need to be mindful of constraints on lawsuits filed by states, saying that indirect effects on state spending from federal policies don’t confer standing. Still, Justice Kavanaugh’s opinion in United States v. Texas left open the possibility that “a challenge to an Executive Branch policy that involves both the Executive Branch’s arrest or prosecution priorities and the Executive Branch’s provision of legal benefits or legal status could lead to a different standing analysis”. Note that Justice Kavanaugh said that it “could” lead to a different standing analysis and not that it would.

Florida has already challenged the Biden administration’s “Parole Plus Alternatives to Detention” (Parole+ATD) and “Parole with Conditions in Limited Circumstances Prior to the Issuance of a Charging Document” (PWC) policies in Florida v. Mayorkas  that is currently pending before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In a brief filed on July 5, 2023, the government argued that the “special solicitude” doctrine proffered by states in United States v. Texas. should not apply in the humanitarian parole context. Florida asserted that it was entitled to special solicitude for the same reasons articulated by Texas in United States v. Texas – “a challenge to its sovereignty and indirect fiscal costs flowing from the presence of more noncitizens in its state.” Because the Supreme Court rejected an almost identical argument for the application of special solicitude in United States v. Texas, the government argued that Florida is similarly not entitled to avail of the doctrine.

The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Texas could have interesting implications for challenges to DACA, as well, and DACA recipients as intervenors have filed additional briefing to the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas in US v. Texas, Case No. 1:18-CV-68. In his concurrence in United States v. Texas, Justice Gorsuch argued that the harm Texas and the states that joined it were concerned with – primarily increased spending to provide healthcare and other services to higher numbers of undocumented immigrants present in the state – was not redressable. Although an injunction would prevent the implementation of the Biden administration’s enforcement guidelines, Justice Gorsuch argued that this remedy was unavailable to the states because of 8 U. S. C. § 1252(f )(1), which provides that “no court (other than the Supreme Court) shall have jurisdiction or authority to enjoin or restrain the operation of ” certain immigration laws, including the provisions that the states want to see enforced. The district court attempted to avoid offending this provision by “vacating” the Biden administrations guidelines instead of issuing an injunction, but Judge Gorsuch argued in part that a vacatur order nullifying the guidelines does nothing to redress the states’ supposed injuries because the “federal officials possess the same underlying prosecutorial discretion”, even in the absence of the guidelines. DACA recipients argued that this program also represents an exercise of inherent prosecutorial discretion, and states’ challenge of the program therefore suffers from the same redressability problem identified by Judge Gorsuch. Similarly, the states challenging the DACA program have alleged indistinct injuries similar to those articulated by Texas in United States v. Texas. Because the Supreme Court found that Texas lacked standing to challenge the Biden administration’s guidelines, DACA recipients have argued that states do not have stating to challenge the DACA program based on similar theories.

DOJ attorneys and intervenor defendants filed a joint motion on July 7, 2023, asking Judge Tipton of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas to delay a bench trial in the earlier lawsuit filed by Texas to challenge the Biden administration’s parole program for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans. Although the motion argued that the outcome of United States v.  Texas would determine whether Texas had standing in the federal suit, Judge Tipton predictably declined to push back the trial date. Texas had previously argued that the parole program is distinguishable from the Biden administration’s enforcement guidelines because “[w]hatever discretion [the administration] might have in choosing which aliens to arrest or otherwise take into custody, [it has] no discretion to parole into the country aliens who do not meet the statutory criteria for parole.” At this point, states like Texas are arguing that their legal challenges to Biden’s earlier humanitarian parole or DACA program can be distinguished from United States v. Texas, which involved enforcement priorities, while the Biden administration and intervenors such as DACA recipients are arguing that Texas should not have standing to challenge even other immigration programs.

Returning to the idea of how this initiative can be broadened, parole can potentially be expanded to all beneficiaries of approved I-130, I-140, and I-526 petitions who are waiting overseas in the green card backlogs. Even if parole is expanded, the administration can still remain faithful to INA § 212(d)(5) by approving parole on a discretionary and case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit. For instance, it may be possible to justify the parole of certain beneficiaries of I-526 petitions who have made a minimum investment of  $500,000 in a US business prior to May 15, 2022 or $800,000 after this date,  and created 10 jobs as that could be considered a significant public benefit. The same justification can be made for certain beneficiaries of approved I-140 petitions in the EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 preference categories whose presence in the US can benefit US employers who have sponsored them through the labor certification process or who have demonstrated that they are either persons of extraordinary ability or are well situated to advance the national interest of the United States. Beneficiaries of approved I-130 petitions who are caught in backlogs can make a justification for parole for urgent humanitarian reasons to unite with family members in the US.

Out of the four proposals Cyrus Mehta made to the Biden administration in May 2021 for reforming the legal immigration system without waiting for Congress to act, we are happy to see that two have come to fruition- parole for beneficiaries of I-130 petitions and using the Dates for Filing (DFF) for protecting the age of the child under the Child Status Protection Act. Cyrus Mehta has also proposed that the administration has the authority to advance the DFF in the State Department Visa Bulletin to current to maximize the number of people who can file for adjustment of status in the US. Cyrus Mehta has also proposed that there is nothing in INA § 203(d) that requires the counting of derivatives in  the family and employment green card preferences, although since the submission of this proposal, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in Wang v. Blinken ruled that INA § 203(d) requires the counting of derivative. Hence, any hope of administrative reform with regards to the unitary counting of family members has been shelved for the time being unless Congress is able to provide clarification on §203(d). Even if the administration issues a new interpretation to INA § 203(d) and abandons the position it took in Wang v. Blinken, the DC Circuit Court of Appeal’s interpretation will still prevail within the jurisdiction.

As Texas v. United States has made it harder for a state like Texas, which has reflexively sued on every immigration policy to get standing, the Biden administration should consider moving forward more boldly by reforming the immigration system through executive actions without fear of being sued by these states. It may be no coincidence that the latest family reunification parole initiative was unveiled within two weeks of the favorable ruling for the Biden administration in Texas v. United States!

[This blog is for informational purposes only and should not be considered as a substitute for legal advice]

*Kaitlyn Box is a Senior Associate at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC.

Cyrus Mehta

Second Circuit Upholds Trump Era Interpretation on Administrative Closure Even Though Biden Has Changed It. Does This Leave Open Possibility that Biden Era Interpretation May Also Be Upheld If Future Administration Changes It?

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box*

The Second Circuit in Garcia v. Garland upheld the BIA’s decision not to grant administrative closure under Matter of Castro-Tum, despite the fact that that the case has since been overruled.

Matter of Castro -Tum, a Trump era decision, held that Immigration Judges (IJs) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) do not have the authority to administratively close cases, unless expressly authorized by a previous regulation or a previous judicially approved settlement. We have previously advocated that Matter of Castro-Tum be withdrawn and its predecessor, Matter of Avetisyan, be reinstated. Avetisyan held that IJs and the BIA may administratively close removal proceedings, even if a party opposes, if it is otherwise appropriate under the circumstances, and that IJs or the BIA should weigh all relevant factors in deciding whether administrative closure is appropriate. In prior blogs, see here and here, we have argued that Avetisyan sets a more common sense standard for administrative closure that and would go a long way towards clearing the Immigration Court’s backlogged dockets.

In another previous blog, extracts of which are reproduced here, we discussed the numerous Circuit Court decisions that have overturned Castro-Tum. In 2019, the Fourth Circuit in Romero v. Barr held that the language “may take any action…..appropriate and necessary for the disposition” of the case” at 8 CFR §§ 1003.1(d)(1)(ii) & 1003.10(b) unambiguously confers upon IJs and the BIA the general authority to administratively close cases. Meza-Morales v. Barr, decided by the Seventh Circuit in 2020, also concluded that the “immigration regulations that grant immigration judges their general powers [are] broad enough to implicitly encompass that [administrative closure] authority.” Most recently, the Third Circuit in Sanchez v. Attorney General, held that 8 CFR §§ 1003.10(b) and 1003.1(d)(1)(ii) unambiguously grant IJs and the BIA general authority to administratively close cases by authorizing them to take “any action” that is “appropriate and necessary” for the disposition of cases. The Court in Sanchez relied on the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Kisor v. Wilkie, which held that an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations will only be entitled to deference if the following criteria are met: i) that the regulation is “genuinely ambiguous” — the court should reach this conclusion after exhausting all the “traditional tools” of construction; (ii) if the regulation is genuinely ambiguous, whether the agency’s interpretation is reasonable; and (iii) even if it is a reasonable interpretation, whether it meets the “minimum threshold” to grant Auer deference, requiring the court to conduct an “independent inquiry” into whether (a) it is an authoritative or official position of the agency; (b) it reflects the agency’s substantive expertise; and (c) the agency’s interpretation of the rule reflects “its fair and considered judgment.”

On July 15, 2021,  Attorney General Garland issued a decision in Matter of Cruz-Valdez that overrules Castro-Tum in its entirety and held that “[i]mmigration judges and the Board should apply the standard for administrative closure set out in Matter of Avetisyan…” The decision noted that three courts of appeals have rejected Castro – Tum, “holding that administrative closure is ‘plainly within an immigration judge’s authority’ under Department of Justice regulations”, while only the 6th Circuit upheld it in Hernandez-Serrano v. Barr, 981 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2020). Even the 6th Circuit eventually ruled that IJs and the BIA do have the authority to administratively close cases for the purpose of allowing noncitizens to apply for provisional unlawful presence waivers, however. See Garcia-DeLeon v. Garland, No. 20-3957 (6th Cir. 2021). The decision also pointed to the 2020 DOJ final rule codifying Castro-Tum, Appellate Procedures and Decisional Finality in Immigration Proceedings; Administrative Closure, 85 Fed. Reg. 81588, 81598 (Dec. 16, 2020), which was the subject of a nationwide preliminary injunction and undergoing reconsideration by the DOJ, as further justification for overruling Castro-Tum. Because Castro-Tum departed from longstanding practice regarding administrative closure, AG Garland held that IJs and the BIA should revert to the standards for administrative closure laid out in cases like Avetisyan.

Despite Castro-Tum being overruled, it is disappointing that the Second Circuit held that a decision not to close under a prior precedent is still binding even though the Biden administration has overruled it.  It is also surprising that Biden’s Justice Department defended the BIA’s decision. Garcia v. Garland involved a Petitioner, Antonio Luna Garcia, who was issued a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) in 2004 under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) because he had entered the U.S. in 1999 and remained ever since without having been inspected or paroled. Garcia’s wife then filed an I-130 petition on his behalf, which was approved. Because he had never been admitted or paroled into the U.S., however, Garcia was ineligible to adjust status in the U.S. If he were to return to Mexico to consular process, he would be subject to the 10-year bar under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) as he had been accrued far more than a year of unlawful presence in the U.S. Garcia requested that the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) adjourn his merits hearing to a later date to allow him to apply for an I-601A waiver. The IJ declined to grant a continuance, finding that Garcia failed to show good cause. The IJ also declined to grant administrative closure, stating that it was “no longer an option in this case” after Matter of Castro -Tum. On appeal, the BIA upheld the IJ’s denial of administrative closure, citing Matter of Castro -Tum and holding that “[t]he Attorney General has explicitly held that the Board and the Immigration Judges lack the general authority to administratively close cases.”

Garcia appealed to the Second Circuit, arguing first that the agency’s overturning of Matter of Castro -Tum in Matter of Cruz-Valdez renders its previous reliance on Castro-Tum an abuse of discretion. Garcia also asserted that, even if the agency’s earlier application of Castro-Tum was not an abuse of the discretion, Castro-Tum conflicted with the regulations which expressly empower IJs and the BIA to grant administrative closure. Finally, Garcia argued that 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(e)(4)(iii) expressly contemplates administrative closure in cases like his, so the IJ or the BIA could have granted administrative closure in his case, despite the general rule of Castro-Tum.

The Second Circuit rejected all of Garcia’s arguments. First, the court held that the BIA’s previous reliance on Matter of Castro -Tum was not an abuse of discretion because the holding of the case was “valid and applicable” at the time of the agency’s decision. The court reasoned that agencies need not overturn precedential decisions in the same way that courts do, stating that “when an agency reinterprets an ambiguous statutory provision, it is making policy within the bounds of discretion that Congress has conferred on the agency by statute”. The court further stated that “[b]ecause an agency interpretation of its regulations may reflect policy judgment, the interpretation may vary at different times—especially between different administrations—without casting doubt on the validity of the interpretation at either time”. Additionally, the court held that the “regulations considered in Matter of Castro-Tum are at least ambiguous and that the Attorney General’s interpretation was reasonable”, so the BIA did not abuse its discretion by following that interpretation. The court disagreed with circuits that have found the “necessary and appropriate” language of 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.10(b) and 1003.1(d)(1)(ii) to unambiguously authorize administrative closure, reasoning that these provisions authorize actions necessary “for the disposition of” a case and administrative closure is arguably not a disposition because it does not resolve a case on its merits. The Sixth Circuit, as the court pointed out, adopted a similar interpretation of the regulations in Hernandez-Serrano v. Barr, 981 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2020). Because the regulations can be read in this way, the court found both the AG’s interpretation to reasonable, and held that the IJ and BIA permissibly relied on this reading. Further, the court rejected Garcia’s contention that administrative closure remained an option in his case, reasoning that IJs and the BIA are delegates of the AG, not the Secretary of Homeland Security, so a DHS regulation cannot provide independent authorization for administrative closure.

On the whole, Garcia v. Garland upheld as valid the application of Castro-Tum before the case was overruled. It also unfortunate that the government did not decline to defend the BIA’s decision on that ground that it relied on Matter of Castro-Tum, which the Biden administration has since overturned.  Nonetheless, the case leaves open some interesting possibilities. In Garcia v. Garland the Second Circuit held that that agency’s interpretation on administrative closure was valid because Matter of Castro-Tum was valid and applicable at the time of the agency’s decision. Thus, if an IJ or the BIA grant administrative closure in reliance on Matter of Cruz-Valdez, that decision should be upheld even if a less immigrant-friendly administration overrules the decision in future. The same logic could apply to other Biden administration policies should they be challenged in future. Further, the decision in Garcia v. Garland asserts that principle that different administrations may reinterpret ambiguous statutory provisions. We have previously suggested, here and here, that the Biden administration could interpret INA § 203(d) to count derivatives with the principal family member. The language of INA § 203(d) provides authority for family members to be counted under the preference quotas, and states that family members are “entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration” as the principal. The plain language of the statue does not require that family members be allocated separate visa numbers. Unfortunately, in Wang v. Blinken, the DC Court of Appeals held that there was no ambiguity under INA § 203(d) thus making it clear that derivatives need to be separately counted. If the Biden administration or another administration changes its mind and decides to adopt a nationwide policy to not count derivatives on the ground that INA § 203(d) is ambiguous, it would be precluded from implementing this policy for people living within the jurisdiction of the D.C Circuit, but the policy could be applicable to people outside the DC Circuit under the Brand X doctrine (thus overruling the case everywhere except in the DC Circuit). This situation exists today even with administrative closure. Matter of Cruz-Valdez has overturned Castro-Tum nationwide except in the Sixth Circuit.

Although Garcia v. Garland is a disappointing decision, it provides an opening for the administration to reinterpret ambiguous statutes as well as protects prior interpretations should a future administration decide to change the interpretation.

*Kaitlyn Box is a Senior Associate at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC.

Cyrus Mehta

Wang v. Blinken Nixes Any Hope for Excluding the Counting of Family Members in the Green Card Caps

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box*

On July 9, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion in Wang v. Blinken, No. 20-5076 (D.C. Cir. 2021), interpreting INA § 203(d) to include the counting of derivatives toward the EB-5 investor cap. The Plaintiffs in the case are a group of EB-5 investors who would have been able to adjust status long ago if not for the lengthy backlogs in the EB-5 China, and subsequently Vietnam, categories caused by counting derivative family members against the EB-5 cap.

In a previous blog, we discussed the case at the District Court Level, where Plaintiffs’ primary argument was that nothing in the language of INA § 203(d), which states that “[v]isas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 7.1 percent of [the 140,000 employment-based] worldwide level, to qualified immigrants seeking to enter the United States for the purpose of engaging in a new enterprise…..in which such alien has invested” a qualifying amount of capital, and which will create at least 10 jobs for U.S. workers, requires derivative family members to be counted against the cap. Instead, spouses and children, under INA 203(d) are “entitled to the same status and the same order of consideration provided in the respective subsection, if accompanying or following to join, the spouse or parent.”

Plaintiffs also argued that Congress intended to exempt derivative family members from the numerical caps when it changed the relevant regulatory language in the Immigration Act of 1990. Prior to 1990, the “same status, and the same order of consideration” language as it pertains to derivative family members appeared in a section describing which immigrants “are subject to the numerical limitations”, but in 1990 this provision was shifted to a new section entitled “Treatment of Family Members”. Plaintiffs argued that this change indicated an intent on the part of Congress to subject only EB-5 investors, and not their spouses and children, to the numerical cap.

The Court, however, disagreed with this reasoning. Judge Walker, who authored the opinion, interpreted the key phrase “same status” to mean that because an EB-5 investor’s family members get the same type of visa as the principal, they must also be counted against the cap, and reasoned that “same order of consideration provided in the respective subsection,” which refers to the worldwide cap on employment-based visas, further indicates that spouses and children of EB-5 investors are subject to the cap.

The Court’s decision in Wang v. Blinken comes as a deep disappointment to the many immigration attorneys who had hoped that the Biden administration could reinterpret INA § 203(d) to support either not count derivatives at all or counting family units as one. We have long taken the position that not counting derivatives under the preference quotas would be consistent with INA § 203(d). See, for example, our blogs on The Tyranny of Priority Dates in 2010, How President Obama Can Erase Immigrant Visa Backlogs With A Stroke Of A Pen in 2012, and The Way We Count in 2013. The Biden administration solicited recommendations on how to remove barriers and obstacles to legal immigration, and unitary counting of derivatives, an idea which our firm proposed,  would have done much to serve this goal by relieving the decade-long backlogs. If the Biden administration wanted to reform the immigration system through executive actions, reinterpreting the law to not count derivatives in the green card categories would have been a good first step, along with not opposing the plaintiffs in Wang v. Blinken. Sadly, though, the administration did not choose to go in this direction, and the Court’s decision in Wang v. Blinken is likely a death knell for other, future lawsuits that would make similar arguments under other employment or family-based visa categories.

While the Court’s decision in Wang v. Blinken can still be appealed to the Supreme Court, a positive outcome is not likely given the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, which has adopted a pseudo textualist approach to interpreting immigration statutes. For instance, the Supreme Court in Sanchez v. Mayorkas also recently strictly interpreted INA § 244(f)(4) to hold that the grant of Temporary Protected Status did not constitute an admission thus allowing recipients to adjust status in the US.   Even if different plaintiffs could get a favorable decision in another circuit, the Supreme Court would likely rule on the circuit split anyway. Particularly as it has Chevron deference on its side, the government is likely to prevail in any litigation scenario. And even if the Biden administration later changes its mind and decides to adopt a nationwide policy to not count derivatives, it would be precluded from implementing this policy for people living within the jurisdiction of the D.C Circuit.  Perhaps a better way forward would be convincing Congress to explicitly state that derivative family members will not be counted against the cap under INA § 203(d). Passing such an amendment would be extremely difficult in a divided Senate, but one idea is to pass a measure through the reconciliation procedure that requires only a simple majority, rather than a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

(This blog is for information purposes, and should not be relied upon as a substitute for legal advice).

* Kaitlyn Box graduated with a JD from Penn State Law in 2020, and works as a Law Clerk at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC.