Articles Posted in Injunction

by

In this video, attorney Jacob Sapochnick discusses the new parole in place program for undocumented spouses and stepchildren of U.S. Citizens recently announced by the Biden administration.

In this video you will learn about the parole in place application process, who is eligible to apply, and what will happen to those with pending extreme hardship waivers with USCIS.

Overview

On August 19, 2024, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) began accepting applications for parole in place for undocumented spouses and stepchildren of U.S. Citizens under a new program called Keeping Families Together.

Applications for this program may now be submitted online using a new online electronic form called Form I-131F, Application for Parole in Place for Certain Noncitizen Spouses and Stepchildren of U.S. Citizens, by creating a myUSCIS online account. Paper filings sent by mail will not be accepted by USCIS.

The fee to apply for parole is $580. No fee waivers or fee exemptions are available for this process at this time.

What is parole in place?

Parole in place is a discretionary authorization issued for a 3-year period, that allows certain noncitizens who are present in the United States without admission or parole to become “applicants for admission.”

If granted parole, these individuals may apply for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence (green card holder) during the parole period, without being required to leave the United States and be processed by a U.S. consulate overseas.

Previously, undocumented spouses of U.S. Citizens who entered without inspection, were required to travel outside the United States to legalize their status through an extreme hardship “waiver” process which required a face-to-face interview at a U.S. Consulate abroad. This process has been very challenging on families because approval of the hardship waiver can take several years and lead to prolonged family separation.

It is estimated that as many as 500,000 noncitizen spouses of U.S. citizens could be eligible for parole in place, and an additional 50,000 noncitizen stepchildren of U.S. citizens.

What are the eligibility requirements for parole in place?

To be considered for a discretionary grant of parole in place under Keeping Families Together, you must meet the following eligibility criteria:

If you are the noncitizen spouse of a U.S. citizen, you must:

  • Be present in the United States without admission or parole (entered without lawful inspection);
  • Have been continuously physically present in the United States since at least June 17, 2014, through the date of filing your request;
  • Have a legally valid marriage to a U.S. citizen on or before June 17, 2024;
  • Have no disqualifying criminal history and otherwise not deemed to be a threat to public safety, national security, or border security; and
  • Submit biometrics and undergo required background checks and national security and public safety vetting.

If you are the noncitizen stepchild of a U.S. citizen, you must:

  • Have been under the age of 21 and unmarried on June 17, 2024;
  • Be present in the United States without admission or parole (entered without lawful inspection);
  • Have been continuously physically present in the United States since at least June 17, 2024, through the date of filing your request;
  • Have a noncitizen parent who entered into a legally valid marriage with a U.S. citizen on or before June 17, 2024, and before your 18th birthday;
  • Have no disqualifying criminal history and otherwise not deemed to be a threat to public safety, national security, or border security*; and
  • Submit biometrics and undergo required background checks and national security and public safety vetting.

Please read the frequently asked questions on the USCIS webpage here.

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

by

Welcome back to the Immigration Lawyer Blog, where we discuss all things immigration. In this video, attorney Jacob Sapochnick discusses a very important new update regarding the “public charge,” rule. On July 29, a federal judge in the state of New York issued a ruling temporarily blocking the Trump administration from enforcing the public charge rule on noncitizens seeking permanent residency in the United States, as well as nonimmigrant visa applicants abroad, for as long as the coronavirus pandemic remains a public health emergency. The ruling was made in response to a federal lawsuit filed by several states against the government, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) in State of New York, et al. v. DHS, et al. and Make the Road NY et al. v. Cuccinelli, et al.

Stay tuned for more information on this topic.

Overview

In response to a lawsuit filed by the states of New York, Connecticut, and Vermont, challenging the “public charge” rule, federal judge George Daniels approved a nationwide injunction, which temporarily blocks the government from “enforcing, applying, implementing, or treating,” as effective the “public charge” rule for any period during which there is a declared national health emergency in response to the COVID-19 outbreak.

The judge in this case ultimately sided with the states recognizing that the public charge rule ultimately discourages non-citizens nationwide from obtaining the necessary treatment and care they would need during the Coronavirus pandemic. In his opinion, the judge stated that in consideration of the “substantial harm” that the public would suffer from application and enforcement of the public charge rule, it was necessary to issue a temporary injunction to preserve the status quo and allow non-citizens to seek public benefits necessary for their health and well-being. The judge stated, “no person should hesitate to seek medical care, nor should they endure punishment or penalty if they seek temporary financial aid as a result of the pandemic’s impact.”

Continue reading

by

In this video attorney Jacob Sapochnick discusses some new developments regarding the government’s planned implementation of a final rule that would have made certain individuals inadmissible to the United States on public charge grounds.

On October 11, 2019, judges in three separate cases before U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York (PDF), Northern District of California (PDF), and Eastern District of Washington (PDF) granted court orders to stop the government from implementing and enforcing the terms of the public charge rule proposed by the Trump administration. As a result, the final rule has been postponed pending litigation until the courts have made a decision on the legality of the rule on the merits. These court orders have been placed nationwide and prevent USCIS from implementing the rule anywhere in the United States.

What would the public charge rule have done?

The public charge rule was set to be enforced on October 15, 2019. The rule would have expanded the list of public benefits that make a foreign national ineligible to obtain permanent residence and/or an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa to enter the United States.

A person would have been considered a “public charge” under the rule, if they received one or more designated public benefits for more than 12 months in the aggregate, within any 36-month period.

Continue reading

by

In this segment, attorney Jacob J. Sapochnick discusses a new development relating to President Barack Obama’s November 2014 executive action on immigration. For more information about President Obama’s executive actions on immigration please click here and here.

Overview: 

  • SCOTUS recently granted a request that secures timely consideration for President Obama’s Executive Actions raising the likelihood the case will be heard in the spring and a decision by the end of June; just a few months before the Presidential election.
  • When the Executive Actions on immigration were announced last year, several states filed an injunction against extended DACA and DAPA and those provisions have been at a standstill ever since.
  • Twenty-six states were involved in the lawsuit, with Texas as the lead plaintiff.

Remember to follow us on Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, and Instagram. For legal advice please contact us.

Capture