Articles Posted in Central America

by

Welcome back to Immigration Lawyer Blog! In this video, attorney Jacob Sapochnick discusses an exciting new procedure for individuals arriving at the United States border to apply for asylum, specifically with respect to those asylum seekers who are subject to expedited removal.

Want to know more? Keep on watching for all the details.

Overview

What is Asylum?

Asylum is a form of protection which allows an individual to remain in the United States instead of being removed to a country of feared persecution. To apply for asylum in the U.S., individuals must file the required application, form I-589, and submit it with the appropriate documentation within one year of arriving to the United States. To be successful, individuals must establish that they have suffered persecution or fear that they will suffer persecution based on their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

Under current immigration law, individuals applying for defensive asylum at the border (meaning that they do not have a valid visa at the time of entry) are detained by the United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and become subject to removal proceedings. Once an immigration hearing is scheduled, the asylum seeker is given the opportunity to make his or her case for asylum before an immigration judge.

Currently, the defensive asylum process is taking over 7 years to complete in the United States, including the required scheduling of a hearing before an immigration judge.

New Interim Final Rule

To streamline the defensive asylum application process at the border, the Biden administration recently published a new interim final rule in the federal register entitled, “Procedures for Credible Fear Screening and Consideration of Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT Protection Claims by Asylum Officers.”

Under the new interim final rule, released on March 29, 2022, the Biden administration seeks to overhaul the current defensive asylum system to drastically reduce backlogs in the immigration courts and improve filing procedures.

The final rule proposes sweeping changes to current asylum law including allowing asylum claims to be heard and evaluated by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) asylum officers instead of immigration judges.

Continue reading

by

In this live stream, attorneys Jacob Sapochnick and Marie Puertollano discuss recent topics in immigration including the immigrant caravan, the new proposed rule to restrict admission of aliens reliant on public benefits, updates relating to the I-751, NTA memos, and the upcoming H-1B season and new proposals.

Immigrant Caravan

The immigrant caravan is comprised of a large group of individuals traveling together from Central America for the purpose of claiming asylum in the United States. Unfortunately, there are long waiting times for individuals to be scheduled for what is known as a “credible fear” interview, where an immigration officer will determine whether the applicant has a credible fear of asylum. This waiting period of course is exacerbated by the large amounts of people who continue to seek asylum at a port of entry.

Proposal to Restrict Admission for Aliens Reliant on Public Benefits 

The Department of Homeland Security recently announced a new proposed rule that may prevent non-citizens reliant, or likely to become reliant on public benefits, from gaining admission to the United States.

Under the proposed rule, a non-citizen can be found inadmissible to the United States if they have become reliant on a prohibited public benefit, or if they are likely to become reliant on a prohibited public benefit. The non-citizen seeking to gain admission to the United States bears the burden of proving that they will not become a public charge to the United States government. This can be accomplished by showing that the non-citizen applicant has sufficient finances to support themselves in the United States, or by presenting a signed and completed affidavit of support.

Under the proposed rule receipt of any of the following types of public benefits could make a person inadmissible on public charge grounds:

Continue reading