Articles Posted in Court Orders

by

The aftermath of the presidential election has sent shockwaves throughout the immigrant community.

In just 70 days, Donald Trump is set to become the next President of the United States. That means that major changes are coming to immigration law and policy.

In this video attorney Jacob Sapochnick explains what Trump’s victory means for immigration, including his promise to execute mass deportations throughout the United States, as well as other controversial immigration policies that he is expected to implement when he takes office on January 20, 2025.

Want to know more? Just keep on watching

Overview

Mass Deportations

Throughout his campaign, Trump has called for mass deportations nationwide which he has said will be the “largest deportation effort in American history. “

It is said that his advisors are discussing whether they can declare a “national emergency,” to allow the government to call upon military officials to detain and remove undocumented migrant gang members from the United States. His campaign has also suggested ending sanctuary cities to remove suspected criminals, including drug dealers and cartel members from the population.

His promises also include hiring thousands of border patrol agents to secure the southern border to deter illegal immigration.

Trump’s Top Five Policies Targeting Immigration Law

The following are the top 5 areas where Trump’s policies will have the greatest impact in the lives of immigrants in the United States.

Immigrants should understand the potential challenges they could face under the Trump administration and consult with an experienced immigration attorney to create a plan of action in the months ahead. It is important to do so as soon as possible, because sensitive cases may call for immediate action before Trump is inaugurated.

#1 Asylum Restrictions

During Trump’s presidency in 2017, his administration was responsible for implementing widespread asylum restrictions. It is likely that his administration will re-implement many of his previous immigration policies, which limit asylum applications.

His policies are also likely to restrict asylum applications at the border, as they did during his first term in office.

Examples of Asylum Restrictions:

In 2020, the Trump administration published 7 final rules in the Federal Register to:

Continue reading

by

In this video, attorney Jacob Sapochnick discusses the current status of parole in place applications under the Keeping Families Together program and how a new lawsuit will impact the approval of applications under the program.

To learn more, please keep on watching this video.

What is Keeping Families Together?

The Keeping Families Together program was recently established by presidential executive order to create a pathway to permanent residency for undocumented spouses and stepchildren of U.S. Citizens, who entered the country without inspection, and have been continuously present in the United States since at least June 17, 2024.

Those granted parole in place under Keeping Families Together are given three years to apply for temporary work authorization and permanent residency from inside the United States. At least 500,000 spouses, and about 50,000 of their children are set to benefit from this program.

Parole in place simplifies the green card application process by eliminating the need for spouses to apply for an extreme hardship “waiver,” and to depart the United States to attend a visa interview at a U.S. Consulate abroad.

In doing so, this process prevents prolonged family separation and enables applicants to obtain permanent residency without departing the United States.

Federal Judge Temporarily Halts Parole in Place Program

On August 19, 2024, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) began accepting online applications for parole in place, using a new electronic form called Form I-131F, Application for Parole in Place for Certain Noncitizen Spouses and Stepchildren of U.S. Citizens.

Several days later, the state of Texas along with 15 other states filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of the program.

Continue reading

by

In this video and blog post, we discuss a recent Supreme Court decision finding that U.S. Citizens do not have a fundamental right in having their noncitizen spouses admitted to the United States.

What is this ruling all about?

Department of State v. Muñoz

On June 21, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision in Department of State v. Muñoz that U.S. citizens petitioning for their foreign spouses do not have a constitutional liberty interest in their spouses being admitted to the country.

What’s worse, the court upheld the doctrine of consular nonreviewability, which says that there can be no judicial review of a consular officer’s decision finding a visa applicant inadmissible, except in a very limited class of constitutional cases.

About the Case

The plaintiff in the case, Sandra Muñoz, married her husband, a Salvadoran citizen in 2010, and shared a U.S. Citizen child with him. Thereafter, her husband applied for an immigrant visa at the U.S. Consulate in El Salvador so that they could live together in the United States and sought a waiver of inadmissibility. He denied having any gang affiliations despite being heavily tattooed.

After undergoing several interviews, the consular officer denied his application, citing §1182(a)(3)(A)(ii), a provision that renders inadmissible a noncitizen whom the officer “knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in” certain specified offenses or “any other unlawful activity.”

The plaintiff’s husband assumed that he had been denied a visa based upon the erroneous finding that he was a member of the gang MS-13. He denied being a member and requested the Consulate to reconsider its findings.

After the consulate refused, they appealed to the Department of State, which ultimately agreed with the consulate’s determination.

The couple then sought Congressional intervention and sued the State Department, claiming that they violated the plaintiff’s constitutional liberty interest in her husband’s visa application by failing to give a sufficient reason why he was inadmissible under the “unlawful activity” bar.

Continue reading

by

In this video, attorney Jacob Sapochnick discusses the top 5 reasons a U.S. immigrant may be subject to deportation in the year 2024 and how to avoid falling into these circumstances.

If you would like to know more about this topic, we invite you to watch our video.

Overview

There are several reasons that may lead immigration to start the process of deporting an immigrant from the United States to their country of origin. Removal may occur because of certain actions undertaken by the foreign national that violate the immigration laws of the United States.

One of the most common scenarios is where the foreign national did not have the right to be in the United States in the first place. But this is not the only reason a person may be subject to deportation. Other reasons may include crossing the border illegally or even overstaying a U.S. visa beyond your authorized period of stay.

Here we discuss the top 5 most common reasons that may lead to deportation.

Continue reading

by

Welcome back to the Immigration Lawyer Blog, where we discuss all things immigration. In this video, attorney Jacob Sapochnick shares a new update from the Department of State that was recently provided to the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) Liaison Committee regarding the movement of family sponsored categories on the Visa Bulletin. This information was not previously shared on the “Chats with Charlie,” monthly broadcast with Charlie Oppenheim, the Chief of the Immigrant Visa Control and Reporting Division at the Department of State. Additionally, we share new updates regarding employment-based sponsorship, the current retrogressions in the EB-3 category, as well as Diversity Visa lottery updates following recent developments in the judicial system.

Want to know more? Just keep on watching!

Overview

What’s the latest news with respect to immigrant visa numbers?

U.S. immigration laws limit the number of immigrants that can be admitted to the United States each year. The annual numerical immigrant visa limits are based on complex formulas and are subdivided among several preference categories and country “caps.” To illustrate, the annual limit for family-sponsored petitions is 480,000, which includes visas for immediate relatives, while 140,000 visas are allocated for employment-based immigrants. Unused family preference visas from the preceding years are added to employment-based visa numbers to maximize number use.

We have learned that employment-based visa numbers for fiscal year 2022 are expected to be 290,000 – an all-time high. As of today, the pending demand experienced by both the State Department and USCIS in the employment third preference category, for applicants born in India and China, will already exceed the amount of numbers that are available to applicants from those countries throughout fiscal year 2022 in the third preference category. In comparison, in fiscal year 2021, only 9,000 employment-based visas in the third preference category went unused. In fiscal year 2022, there may be close to 85,000 unused employment-based immigrant visas.

Continue reading

by

Welcome back to the Immigration Lawyer Blog, where we discuss all things immigration. In this video, attorney Jacob Sapochnick informs you of an exciting new court decision handed down by a federal judge from the Northern District of California. This new court decision immediately vacates the 2019 Modernization Rules passed under the Trump administration. As our readers will be aware, the 2019 Rules sought to raise the minimum investment amount for EB-5 investors from $500,000 to $900,000, narrowing the pool of applicants able to apply for a green card. The good news is that this new ruling reinstates the original rules governing the EB-5 visa program and reverts the minimum investment amount back to $500,000.

In addition to this exciting news, Jacob discusses further updates regarding immigration reform bills before Congress, pending litigation against the State Department, and more!

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

Overview

New Court Ruling Reinstates $500,000 Minimum Investment Amount for the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program

We are happy to announce that thanks to a new landmark court decision, known as matter of Behring Regional Center LLC V. Chad Wolf et al. EB-5 Immigrant Investors will now have the opportunity to invest a minimum amount of $500,000 in an EB-5 project within a geographic area, considered a Targeted Employment Area. On June 22nd Federal Judge Corley announced in a court ruling that the 2019 Modernization Rule passed under the Trump administration would be vacated immediately, considering that the former acting DHS Secretary, Kevin McAleenan was not properly appointed to his position under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act when he implemented the 2019 Modernization Rule. As a result, Mc Aleenan did not have the authority to issue the rule, and it has now been declared invalid under the eyes of the law.

Continue reading

by

Welcome back to the Immigration Lawyer Blog, where we discuss all things immigration. In this video, attorney Jacob Sapochnick discusses a new federal court order that reinstates the DACA program (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and invalidates the Wolf Memorandum which previously posed an obstacle to initial requests for DACA.

Want to know more? Keep on watching for more information.

Overview

On December 4, 2020, U.S. District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the Eastern District of New York made history when he signed a court ruling that will force the government to accept new initial requests for DACA within 3 calendar days.

This legal challenge was brought before the court after the government’s publication of the controversial “Wolf Memorandum” on July 28, 2020, in which the acting Secretary of Homeland Chad Wolf unlawfully directed DHS personnel to (1) reject all pending and future initial requests for DACA (2) reject all pending and future applications for advance parole absent exceptional circumstances, and (3) to shorten DACA renewals to a two-year period.

DACA applicants who had an application for deferred action through DACA pending between June 30, 2020 and July 28, 2020 (the date the Wolf Memorandum was issued) brought sought alleging that the Wolf Memorandum was a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Continue reading

by

Welcome back to the Immigration Lawyer Blog, where we discuss all things immigration. In this video, attorney Jacob Sapochnick answers your frequently asked questions relating to K-1 visas, the National Visa Center, and consular visa processing during the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic.

Want to know more? Keep on watching for more information.

Your Frequently Asked Questions

Q: How can I contact the National Visa Center?

A: Once your Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative has been approved, your case will be transferred to the National Visa Center for further processing. Once pre-processing has been completed, your case will be forwarded to the U.S. Consulate or Embassy near you. At the NVC stage, you will be asked to provide additional supporting documentation including the affidavit of support, Form DS-260 Immigrant Visa Electronic Application, and other important documents.

To ensure all of your supporting documentation has been received it is very important to maintain contact with the National Visa Center.

You may contact the NVC by email at NVCinquiry@state.gov or by telephone at 603-334-0700.

Q: Will immigration consider my priority date or approval date for interview?

A: For family-sponsored immigrants, the priority date is the date that the Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, or in certain instances the Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant, is properly filed with USCIS.

Depending on the type of relationship you have to the U.S. petitioner, you may need to reference your priority date to determine when an immigrant visa (or green card) will become available to you.

Immigrant visas for immediate relatives of U.S. citizens are unlimited, so they are always available. Immediate relatives include:

  • The spouses of U.S. citizens;
  • The children (unmarried and under 21 years of age) of U.S. citizens;
  • The parents of U.S. citizens at least 21 years old; and
  • Widows or widowers of U.S. citizens if the U.S. citizen filed a petition before they died, or if the widow(er) files a petition within two years of the citizen’s death.

Continue reading

by

Welcome back to the Immigration Lawyer Blog, where we discuss all things immigration. In this video, attorney Jacob Sapochnick discusses a new and exciting court ruling decided this morning, November 2, 2020, that sets aside the public charge rule, known as the Inadmissibility on Public Charge rule effective immediately.

Want to know more? Keep on watching for more information

Overview

Today, November 2, 2020, federal judge Gary Feinerman of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, issued a ruling in the case, Cook County Illinois et al. v. Chad Wolf et al., immediately setting aside the public charge rule on a nationwide basis.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit brought a motion to vacate the final rule arguing that the rule should be stricken because (1) it exceeds the government’s authority under the public charge provision of the INA (2) is not in accordance with the law (3) is arbitrary and capricious and (4) violates the equal protection clause of the fifth amendment.

The judge agreed with the plaintiffs based on a previous ruling issued by the Seventh Circuit court which found that the public charge rule was substantively and procedurally defective under the APA, and was likely to fail the arbitrary and capricious standard under the law based on the government’s failure to adequately consider the interests of state and local governments.

In support of his decision to set aside the public charge rule, Feinerman stated “the Seventh Circuit has held that continued operation of the Final Rule [the public charge rule] will inflict ongoing harms on Cook County and on immigrants, and this court has held that the same is true of ICIRR [the other named plaintiff].”

Continue reading

by

Welcome back to the Immigration Lawyer Blog, where we discuss all things immigration. In this video, attorney Jacob Sapochnick updates you regarding the status of K-1 visa interview scheduling at U.S. Consulates and Embassies worldwide, as well as the status of a new lawsuit that seeks to push K-1 visa cases through the pipeline.

Want to know more? Keep on watching for more information.

Overview

Since the beginning of the Coronavirus pandemic, U.S. Consulates and Embassies abroad have refused to schedule K-1 visa applicants for interviews and have instead opted to prioritize interview scheduling for certain spouses of U.S. Citizens. As a result, thousands of couples have remained separated for months on end with virtually no end in sight. This has been a very puzzling phenomenon given that foreign fiancés should be given priority for visa issuance based on their qualifying relationship to a U.S. Citizen. In some cases, K-1 visa applicants have had their interviews cancelled with no follow-up from the Consulate or Embassy regarding future rescheduling, while in others K-1 visa applications have not moved past the NVC stage for interview scheduling.

In our own experience very few K-1 visa applicants have received visa interviews and the cases that have been prioritized are because of serious medical emergencies or other urgent needs. We have been successful in receiving interviews only where the applicant has received approval for expedited processing.

In an unexpected turn of events on August 30, 2020, the Department of State released a cable stating that effective August 28th K-1 visa cases would receive “high priority.” The cable directed K-1 visa applications to check the website of their nearest U.S. Embassy or Consulate for updates on the services offered by the post.

Unfortunately, this cable did not provide applicants with any relief because it was largely ignored by U.S. Consulates and Embassies. Many applicants contacted their posts directly and were given generic messages stating that the post was not able to provide services for K-1 visa applicants until further notice. These new revelations ultimately forced K-1 applicants to seek relief from the courts.

Continue reading