Texas Immigration Lawyer Blog

#USCIS proposes fee increase

I wrote a comment objecting to the increase in USCIS fees:

Comment:
I respectfully submit this comment opposing the proposed fee rule, DHS Docket No. USCIS-2021-0010.

Many of my clients struggle to save for filing fees at the present amount. Many immigrants have delayed making application for benefits for years because of the cost of the filing fees. Although fee waivers are available for some applications, applicants are also required to prove they will not be a public charge.

For example, currently a USC filing a petition for her spouse who then adjusts status, with an I-765 and I-131 is $1,760. A concurrent application will cost $2,990 (assuming the I-130 must be filed on paper to file concurrently). A USC who reaches age 21 whose parents are eligible to adjust status currently must pay filing fees of $1,760 for each parent (total $3,520). The increase to a total of $7,280 for both parents will cause many people to be unable to file, particularly where parents are older and will have more difficulty in proving they will not be a public charge.

The current length of adjudicating applications is also a heavy burden to immigrants. The delay in issuing lawful permanent residence also delays the date when the immigrant can apply to naturalize. The delay in removing the conditions from permanent residence or in issuing employment authorizations are unconscionable.

Although this might support DHS's argument for increased fees, there is no evidence to support the fact that higher fees will reduce the egregious processing times currently experienced by applicants. The costs of any fee increase should be applied to making adjudications more accessible and efficient, not to pay for enforcement or investigations, and should take into consideration the burden upon family unity.

I recognize that USCIS requires sufficient funding to adjudicate the millions of benefit requests it receives each year and, while its costs have increased, it has not adjusted its application and petition fees in approximately six years. We also acknowledge that USCIS recently exited a particularly difficult period during which Executive Branch policy initiatives impaired efficiency and exacerbated, to crisis levels, the processing backlogs with which the agency is still struggling. To make the agency’s situation even more challenging, the Covid pandemic profoundly affected its operations. Nevertheless, I believe the NPRM’s proposed fees are far beyond the amount reasonably necessary for USCIS to maintain efficient processing of newly filed cases while addressing its backlog.

Sincerely, Ms. Susan I. Nelson

Texas Sanctuary Cities law blocked temporarily

U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia halted major portions of a controversial Texas "sanctuary cities" law scheduled to go into effect on September 1, 2017.  Judge Garcia granted a preliminary injunction of Senate Bill 4, that seeks to outlaw “sanctuary cities.” those that don’t enforce federal immigration laws. 

SB 4 allows local law enforcement officers to question the immigration status of people they detain or arrest and seeks to punish local government department heads and elected officials who don’t cooperate with federal immigration "detainers" — requests by agents to turn over immigrants subject to possible deportation. Punishment could come in the form of jail time and penalties that exceed $25,000.

Judge Garcia halted the part of the bill that required jail officials to honor all detainers, and another that prohibits “a pattern or practice that 'materially limits' the enforcement of immigration laws.” The detainer provision, he said, would violate the Fourth Amendment

Judge Garcia did let stand one of the most controversial portions of the law — allowing police officers to question the immigration status of people they detain. Because the inquiry into status isn’t a prolonged detention, he said, it wasn’t enjoined. But he explained that officers who make the inquiry are limited in what they can do with the information. “If during a lawful detention or arrest an officer obtains information that a detained or arrested individual is undocumented he may not arrest the individual on this basis,” he said, adding that the officer is not required to ask the question. But he said if the officer feels like they should, they can only share the information. “In sum, SB 4 gives local officers discretion to inquire and share information, but it does not provide them with discretion to act upon the information that they may obtain,” he wrote in a footnote to his 94-page ruling.

The bill was scheduled to go into effect Sept. 1, but opponents of the legislation, including the cities of Houston, Austin, San Antonio and El Cenizo, as well as Maverick and El Paso counties and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, argued the bill violates several provisions of the Constitution. Judge Garcia's decision means the bill is on hold until that issue is decided or until the preliminary injunction is appealed. 

The State of Texas plans to appeal the injunction to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. 

 

 

USCIS substitutes "Assimilation" for "Integration" in Naturalization grant

USCIS Grant Opportunities

USCIS offers grants to non-profit organizations to prepare legal permanent residents for Naturalization. Yesterday, the name was changed from "Citizenship and Integration" to "Citizenship and Assimilation" grants. 

These are competitive grant opportunities for organizations that prepare lawful permanent residents for naturalization and promote civic assimilation through increased knowledge of English, U.S. history and civics.

This is an ominous and Orwellian change to a program meant to encourage citizenship in permanent residents. 

 

Bipartisan 2017 DREAM Act introduced in U.S. Senate

Photo by LongIslandWins

From Immigration Impact:

The bipartisan Dream Act of 2017 was just introduced by Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Richard Durbin (D-IL) in the U.S. Senate. The bill provides legal status, as well as a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrant youth who entered the United States before the age of 18.

The Dream Act, if passed into law, will allow young immigrants who have called the United States home for most of their lives to begin to realize their full potential and know the sense of security that comes with living with documentation.

The Dream Act was first introduced in 2001 and has enjoyed broad bipartisan support, but has yet to pass into law.

The renewed urgency to pass this legislation comes as media speculates that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative, which 800,000 Dreamers are currently protected from deportation by, could come to an end in the coming weeks or months. The threat came after a group of 10 states led by Texas asked the Trump administration to end the DACA initiative and threatened to file a lawsuit challenging it. Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly also recently met with lawmakers on Capitol Hill and said he is supportive of DACA but that it may not survive a legal challenge.

The Dream Act of 2017 lays out a three-step path to citizenship, first providing Conditional Permanent Resident (CPR) status to undocumented youth who:

• entered the United States under the age of 18,
• entered four years prior to enactment and have since been continuously present,
• have not been convicted of a crime where the term of imprisonment was more than a year, or convicted of 3 or more offenses were the aggregate sentence was 90 days or more (with an exception for offenses which are essential to a person’s immigration status), and
• have been admitted to an institution of higher education, have graduated high school or obtained a GED, is currently enrolled in secondary school or a program assisting students to obtain a diploma or GED.
• Anyone with status under DACA is immediately granted CPR status for up to eight years, which includes work authorization.

After maintaining CPR status, individuals become eligible for Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) status—a green card holder. In order to receive LPR status an individual must either:

• complete at least two years of higher education or
• two years of military service with an honorable discharge, or
• demonstrate employment over a total period of three years.

Additionally, LPR applicants with disabilities, who are full-time caregivers for a minor child, or an applicant whose deportation would cause extreme hardship to a U.S. citizen spouse, parents, or child can receive a “hardship waiver” which exempts them from the higher education, military service, or work requirements.

The Dreamers, for whom this bill is named, have lived in America since they were children and built their lives here. They are American in every way except for their immigration status. It is past time that this nation comes together and does right by them.

 

Texas House committee advances "Sanctuary Cities Lite" bill

Texas Tribune by Julian Aguilar

The Texas House advanced their "Sanctuary Cities Lite" bill out of committee yesterday. Although less harsh than the Senate bill, it criminalizes heads of law enforcement agencies who do not cooperate with federal authorities, allows law enforcement to question arrestees about their immigration status, and includes college campuses in the enforcement requirements. 

Cops shouldn’t be in the immigration-enforcement business:

“It still creates a chilling effect for immigrants to work with local law enforcement, and it still perverts the mission of local law enforcement,” said state Rep. Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas. “You can be arrested for anything, virtually. It doesn’t require due process, it simply requires probable cause.”

A costly special session is likely this summer if a bill fails to pass as Governor Abbott has identified the legislation as a priority.

 

The Sanctuary Movement in the U.S.

Interesting podcasts about the Sanctuary movement to protect Central Americans seeking asylum in the U.S. in the 1980's from 99% Invisible. (2 episodes) 

Sanctuary, Part 1: Church

In the 1980s, Rev. John Fife and his congregation at Southside Presbyterian Church began to help Central American migrants fleeing persecution from US backed dictatorships. Their efforts would mark the beginning of a new — and controversial — social movement based on the ancient religious concept of “sanctuary,” the idea that churches have a duty to shelter people fleeing persecution. There’s been a lot of talk about “sanctuary” in the news recently and the modern movement in the U.S can trace its roots back to Fife.

Sanctuary, Part 2: State

In the 1980s, the United States experienced a refugee crisis. Thousands of Central Americans were fleeing civil wars in El Salvador and Guatemala, traveling north through Mexico, and crossing the border into the U.S. [Note: Just tuning in? Listen to the previous episode.]
In response to this mass migration, a network of churches across the country declared themselves “sanctuaries,” offering shelter to Central Americans who were threatened with deportation and in some cases helping to smuggle people across the border. Leaders and members of these sanctuary churches believed they had a religious imperative to help people fleeing persecution.
The government, however, wasn’t swayed by the religious motivations of participating churches. In 1984, the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service), a predecessor to ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), launched a full-scale investigation into the sanctuary movement.

 

Waco Immigration Information Session

Immigration Information Session

Come hear Susan and other attorneys speak about:

• Current removal priorities and activities
• Your rights if you have an encounter with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 
• DACA going forward
• Family Safety planning

March 7, 2017, 7PM

El Calvario Presbyterian Church -- 2222 Dutton, Waco, Texas

Speakers:

Susan I. Nelson, The Nelson Law Firm, P.C. and Baylor Law Immigration Clinic

Anali Gatlin, American Gateways

Michelle Tuegel, Hunt & Tuegel, PLLC

Kent McKeever, Greater Waco Legal Services (formerly Mission Waco Legal Services)

ICE Enforcement Activity in Waco, Texas

I am hearing from family members of immigrants picked up by ICE at meetings with their probation officers in Waco. If you are undocumented, don't miss your meeting with probation, but be ready with documents to show your connections to the U.S. and phone numbers to call family members. 

Here are links to Family Safety Plans prepared by the Immigrant Services Network of Austin:

Formulario de Planificacion de Seguridad de Familia (Espanol)

Family Safety Plan (English)

Immigration law and the border

Denise Gilman on why people don't just "get in line" from The Daily Texan article by Lisa Dreher

Denise Gilman is the director of the UT Immigration Clinic, which provides legal assistance to low-income immigrant families. Gilman said the tedious legal process causes families to opt for other ways to get through.

“You can’t come on any permanent basis, and so it’s difficult to cross through official customs and border control,” Gilman said. “Not because there’s a line at the border or because customs and border control is stopping people, but because the way our law is set up, there’s no legal way for many, many intending immigrants to come into the United States.”

Gilman said immigrants are accepted by customs and border control mainly if they have family in the U.S., are asked by an employer to work in the states or are seeking asylum.

“It’s not so much about the physical border as it is about what the laws are that don’t acknowledge the many categories of people who would like to come and contribute to the United States,” Gilman said. “Immigrants who need to get to the United States will do so over, under (or) around any border wall.”

Understanding the Dangerous Implications of President Trump’s Immigration Executive Order

From the American Immigration Council by Walter Ewing

On January 25, President Trump signed a pair of immigration-related executive orders, one dealing with border security and the other with immigration enforcement in the interior of the country. The order on border security has received the most public attention—particularly the “great wall” that Trump is so anxious to build. But it is the other order that presents the greatest danger to unauthorized immigrants.

The order, Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States, effectively makes all unauthorized immigrant in the United States an “enforcement priority,” regardless of whether they entered the country without inspection or overstayed a visa, and irrespective of whether or not they have a criminal record. And the order ramps up efforts to find and remove unauthorized immigrants from the country by expanding the ranks of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and transforming more local police into immigration agents.

This order is flawed at a number of levels. To begin with it is based on a false premise; that immigrants pose some kind of threat to native-born Americans. The order actually says:

“Many aliens who illegally enter the United States and those who overstay or otherwise violate the terms of their visas present a significant threat to national security and public safety.”

In reality, an enormous amount of evidence has accumulated over the past century demonstrating that high rates of immigration are associated with lower crime rates, and immigrants are less likely to commit serious crimes or be behind bars than the native-born. This holds true for both legal immigrants and the unauthorized, regardless of their country of origin or level of education. In other words, the overwhelming majority of immigrants are not “criminals” by any commonly accepted definition of the term.

A second major flaw in this order is that it treats unauthorized immigration as if it were exclusively a law-enforcement issue and nothing more. It calls for 10,000 new ICE agents; agreements between the federal government and local police that would enable the police to act as immigration agents, and consider withholding federal funding from so-called “sanctuary cities” in which police don’t ask people about their immigration status so as to maintain trust with the communities they serve. This fails to recognize that unauthorized immigration is a symptom of a larger problem: an immigration system in which avenues for legal immigration are out of sync with the economic and social forces which drive immigration.

A third key problem with this order is that it fails to establish any priorities for determining which immigrants to detain and deport first. The order states that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should prioritize the removal of any and all “aliens” who have been convicted of a crime, charged with a crime, or committed an act which could be construed as a chargeable crime—not to mention anyone who has crossed the border without permission or overstayed a visa. These priorities are defined so expansively as to be meaningless. Real enforcement priorities would zero in on violent criminals first—not unauthorized immigrants driving in a car with a broken tail light.

In the final analysis, this executive order is little more than a crass form of immigrant-bashing. Unauthorized immigrants are stereotyped as criminals and treated as such. No consideration is given to the financial costs of new enforcement measures, the social costs of tearing apart U.S. families and communities in order to deport non-violent individuals, and the undermining of community policing by turning police into immigration agents. No matter how you look at it, this order is a disaster.

Trump's Executive Order: Extreme Interior Enforcement

Yesterday, President Trump signed an Executive Order titled "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States."

Answer: Immigration x Trump + Kobach = Bad.* 

Increase enforcement against aliens without criminal convictions, authorize local law enforcement officers to act as immigration officers, hire more immigration officers, cut off funds to jurisdictions who decline to honor detainers or share information with ICE, bring back Secure Communities, make reports listing immigration status of all aliens imprisoned in the U.S., services for victims of crimes committed by removable aliens. 

The order instructs Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to target "all removable aliens." It prioritizes aliens with any criminal conviction, charge or "who have committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense." This expands criminal aliens to include those charged (but not convicted) and those who have not been charged with a crime. To accomplish this, 10,000 additional immigration officers are to be hired. 

State and local law enforcement officers will be allowed to "perform the functions of immigration officers in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens." This amounts to a national "show me your papers" policy, allowing any law enforcement officer to ask for proof of immigration status, and leading to racial profiling.

The order also defines "sanctuary jurisdictions" as those who refuse or limit requesting, maintaining or exchanging information about immigration status. A list of jurisdictions that decline to honor detainers will be published weekly with a list of criminal actions committed in those jurisdictions by aliens. It also establishes an office to provide services to victims of crimes committed by removable aliens. 

The Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) is terminated and "Secure Communities" is reinstated, which means that any undocumented alien who is arrested will be placed in removal. The order also requires reports listing immigration status of all aliens imprisoned in the U.S.

Maybe the answer should be "Worse."* 

*See, The Mouse and His Child, Russell Hoban, Muskrat's "Us and Them Tables."

**Kris Kobach is an advisor to Mr. Trump on immigration. He is the Kansas Secretary of State and the author of the Arizona "show me your papers" law.