Articles Posted in Litigation

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

Welcome back to the Immigration Lawyer Blog, where we discuss all things immigration. In this video, attorney Jacob Sapochnick provides a breaking news update: the government has officially ended the public charge rule.

How did this happen? What does this mean for you?

Keep on watching to find out more.

Overview

On March 9, 2021 the government announced that effective immediately it would be rescinding the Trump administration’s public charge rule, which was first put in place by former President Donald Trump in 2019. That rule is no longer in effect due to the Biden administration’s decision to no longer oppose the rule.

The government revealed its decision by way of a final rule published in the Federal Register that removes the 2019 public charge regulations as of March 9, 2021.

The Department of Homeland Security will now return to its previous policy of following the 1999 Interim Field Guidance to determine whether a person would be likely to become a public charge on the U.S. government. As before, petitioners are still required to submit Form I-864 Affidavit of Support and demonstrate that they meet the income requirement to sponsor their relative in the United States.

For its part, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has also said that it has stopped the immediate enforcement of the rule as a result of the government’s actions.

What does this decision mean for you?

The decision to rescind the public charge rule means that the government is no longer applying the public charge rule to adjustment of status applicants, immigrant visa petitions at U.S. Embassies and Consulates abroad, and applications for extension or change of nonimmigrant status.

Accordingly, such applicants will no longer need to provide information, nor evidence relating to the public charge rule including Form I-944, Declaration of Self Sufficiency.

Additionally, the government will no longer consider a person a public charge who received any of the following benefits for more than 12 months in the aggregate within any 36-month period:

  • Supplemental Social Security Income (SSI)
  • Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)
  • Medicaid
  • Non-Emergency Medicaid
  • Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program (SNAP)
  • Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program
  • Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance and
  • Certain other forms of subsidized housing.

Continue reading

by

Welcome back to the Immigration Lawyer Blog, where we discuss all things immigration. In this video, attorney Jacob Sapochnick provides an important update regarding K-1 litigation and the status of K-1 status around the world.

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

Overview

What is happening with K-1 visas?

As you know, the Department of State suspended routine visa services worldwide in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It was not until July of 2020 that the Department of State announced that U.S. Embassies and Consulates would begin a phased resumption of routine visa services. Unfortunately, this phased resumption has occurred only on a post-by-post basis, as country conditions have allowed.

For the most part, the majority of visa services have remained suspended at U.S. Embassies and Consulates worldwide except in cases of emergency, mission-critical visa services, and where applicants have been able to qualify for a national interest exception or expedited interview request.

When pressed for answers, the response from Consulates has been the same. The majority have refused to provide a specific date as to when each mission will resume visa services or when each mission will return to processing visas at pre-pandemic workload levels.

To make matters worse, there are a number of COVID-19 related Presidential Proclamations that remain in force which prevent the entry of foreign nationals who have been physically present in the Schengen Area, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Brazil, China, and Iran, within the 14 days preceding their entry or attempted entry into the United States. These individuals remain barred from traveling unless they qualify a national interest exception. Those who do not qualify will not be able to obtain a visa until the Proclamations have been lifted by the President.

Continue reading

by

Welcome back to the Immigration Lawyer Blog, where we discuss all things immigration. In this video, attorney Jacob Sapochnick discusses some breaking news in the world of immigration. On January 26, 2021, a federal judge in Texas temporarily blocked the Biden administration’s 100-day pause on deportations.

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

Overview

The Biden administration is facing its first legal challenge. We recently learned that a federal judge from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has granted a 14-day nationwide temporary restraining order that immediately blocks the Biden administration’s efforts to put a 100-day pause on deportations.

How did this happen?

The federal judge’s decision came after the Attorney General of Texas filed a lawsuit requesting a temporary restraining order to stop the Biden administration from pausing deportations.

Judge Drew B. Tipton, appointed by former President Donald Trump, ultimately agreed with the State of Texas that Biden’s suspension of deportations violates the Administration Procedure Act (APA), as well as key provisions of the INA which mandate that aliens with final orders of removal be deported within 90 days.

Continue reading