PERM Ads Immigration Advertising

Labor Certification Recruitment Ad Agency

PERM Labor Certification Advertising

The Administration is Weaponizing COVID-19 to End Immigration

by

In early January 2020, the first identified cases of COVID-19 caused by the novel coronavirus were reported in Wuhan, China. On January 30, 2020, the first reported case of person-to-person transmission of COVID-19 was confirmed in the U.S. Instead of treating COVID-19 as a humanitarian and scientific problem to be addressed on behalf of the people of the United States, Trump and his allies politicized their response from the beginning, and used COVID-19 to go after their perceived enemies: China, Iran, and, mostly, immigrants.

 

The dysfunctional response and lack of leadership have led to the known deaths of more than 130,000 U.S. citizens and residents, and probably far more. The numbers are significantly undercounted because some states like Florida refuse to report people who have died of COVID-19 if they are undocumented or not residents of the state. (In fact, the Florida governor fired the state statistician when she complained they were politically manipulating the data).

 

Other states such as Nebraska refuse to require companies to report people with COVID-19, including immigrants, who work in meatpacking and other factories, saying it is a “business decision.” These responses, as frightening as they are, pale in comparison to the use of COVID-19 to rewrite the immigration laws of the United States consistent with the administration’s long-held agenda to essentially end immigration to the country.

Trump’s use of Presidential Proclamations and Executive Orders, even before COVID-19, demonstrated how immigration laws can be radically altered without congressional consent. For the first time since INA §212(f) was enacted, Executive Orders were issued to ban all citizens of certain countries. In contrast to the targeted approach of past Executive Orders, the Orders issued in 2017–18 banned 150 million Muslims from the U.S. and all citizens of at least seven countries. The Supreme Court upheld this unprecedented use of presidential power in Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S.Ct. 2392 (2018). Although always pictured as “short term,” these bans have remained in effect for years.

 

Having the taste of success from the slim majority of the Supreme Court who believes in the “unitary-Executive” (a Dick Cheney doctrine to allow the President to exercise kingly powers), Trump then issued his Health Insurance ban. By Presidential Proclamation an immigrant (with certain exceptions) is barred from entry unless “covered by approved health insurance” within 30 days of entry or “possesses the financial resources to pay for reasonably foreseeable medical costs.” A nationwide preliminary injunction, however, was issued enjoining the Proclamation’s effect. and the 9th Circuit denied a stay of the order.

 

But then came the novel coronavirus and Trump, Miller, and their restrictionist friends saw an opportunity. They could now ban their perceived enemies (China, Iran, and even European Union countries–but noticeably not Russia despite it having one of the highest COVID-19 infection rates in the world) and could transform immigration through Presidential Proclamations. This year, Trump has issued one travel ban after another targeting China, Iran, the Schengen Countries, UK/Ireland, Brazil and most recently Chinese graduate students who are working in perceived sensitive military applied areas. The major ban came on Apr. 22, 2020.

On that day Trump issued the proclamation banning immigration into the United States except for the most restrictive categories possible under the guise of protecting “us” from the virus and protecting hard-working Americans facing unemployment.

He essentially shut down immigration into the United States. The Proclamation suspends and limits the entry of all immigrants seeking to enter the United States if:

(1) they are outside the United States on Apr. 23, 2020

(2) they do not have an immigrant visa valid on Apr. 23, 2020

(3) they do not have an official travel document other than a visa

(such as a transportation letter, an appropriate boarding foil, or an advance parole document) that is valid on Apr. 23, 2020 or is issued thereafter permitting travel to the U.S.

In essence, it bans everyone except the spouses and children of USCs, EB-5, and special immigrants from Iraq and Afghanistan. This is in keeping with Miller and Trump’s often-stated goal of ending family migration (they call it “chain migration”) and ending all employment categories by replacing them with a point system. Although the ban was “only” for 60 days, Trump signaled that it would be expanded to nonimmigrant visas. And expanded it was.

On June 22, 2020, Trump issued Proclamation 10052, Suspension of Entry of Immigrants and Nonimmigrants Who Present a Risk to the United States Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak (June 22, 2020), 85 FR 38263-67 (Jun. 25, 2020). Proclamation 10054, Amendment to Proclamation 10052 (June 29, 2020), 85 FR 40085 (July 2, 2020).

This ban extended the earlier immigrant ban until Dec. 31, 2020, and now included a nonimmigrant ban. Trump banned the following NIV categories with limited exceptions: (a) H-1B and H-2B, and any persons accompanying or following to join such H-1Bs or H-2Bs; (b) Js participating in an intern, trainee, teacher, camp counselor, au pair, or summer work travel program, and any person accompanying or follow to join such J entrant; and (c) L visa and any person accompanying or following to join such L

There is no doubt in my mind that this ban will remain in effect for the entirety of Trump’s tenure in office unless the courts intervene, or he forces Congress to eliminate family- and employment-based quotas and replace them with a point system. Of course, this will ultimately turn on the Supreme Court, but it is highly unlikely that the “unitary-Executive” slim majority of the Court would do anything but rubber-stamp Trump’s broad use of Executive power.

But the June 22, 2020 ban also foreshadowed other horrible practices and regulations that this administration is rushing to complete before Jan. 20, 2020.

The proclamation asks DHS to take action that would ban most employment authorization of nonimmigrants and others in the United States and engage in other  “additional measures” that include:

(a) directing  HHS and CDC (“shall”) to provide guidance to DOS and DHS on implementing measures to reduce the risk of persons seeking entry of introducing, transmitting, or spreading the virus that causes COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2)

(b)  directing to  DOL and DHS (“shall”) to consider promulgating regulations to ensure that persons seeking admission under EB-2, EB-3 or H-1B do not disadvantage U.S. workers. DOL shall undertake investigations pursuant to INA §212(n)(2)(G)(i) [LCA and H-1b practice violations]

(c) directing that DHS shall: : (i) take action prohibiting eligibility for any immigration benefit unless the applicant has been registered with biographical and biometric information including photos, signatures, and fingerprints; (ii) prohibit employment authorization to persons who (a) have final orders of removal; (b) who are inadmissible or deportable from the U.S.; (c) who have been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of a criminal offense;  and (iii) promulgate regulations or other appropriate action regarding the allocation of visas pursuant to INA §214(g)(3) ensuring that H-1Bs do not disadvantage U.S. workers.

 

While Covid-19 was tearing through the U.S. Trump also issued a Presidential Memorandum on Visa Sanctions (Apr. 10, 2020), that is designed to force other countries to take back their citizens even if they caught COVID-19 courtesy of ICE detention centers.

 

Numerous newspaper reports have noted that Trump has sent people back to Haiti and other countries knowing they had active cases of COVID-19.  And finally, using COVID-19 as cover, all embassies and consulates around the world have been closed for over two months without any determination of the individualized conditions in those countries that may warrant some or full work on adjudicating visas. Instead, they are only open for “emergency” services which are defined as services to USCs who have problems abroad.

 

 

Source: The Administration is Weaponizing COVID-19 to End Immigration

How Ice Helped Spread the Coronavirus

by

An investigation reveals how Immigration and Customs Enforcement became a domestic and global spreader of COVID-19.

This video was produced in collaboration with The New York Times.

Admild, an undocumented immigrant from Haiti, was feeling sick as he approached the deportation plane that was going to take him back to the country he had fled in fear. Two weeks before that day in May, while being held at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility in Louisiana, he had tested positive for the coronavirus — and he was still showing symptoms.

He disclosed his condition to an ICE official at the airport, who sent him to a nurse.

“She just gave me Tylenol,” said Admild, who feared reprisals if his last name was published. Not long after, he was back on the plane before landing in Port-au-Prince, one of more than 40,000 immigrants deported from the United States since March, according to ICE records.

Even as lockdowns and other measures have been taken around the world to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, ICE has continued to detain people, move them from state to state and deport them.

An investigation by The New York Times in collaboration with The Marshall Project reveals how unsafe conditions and scattershot testing helped turn ICE into a domestic and global spreader of the virus — and how pressure from the Trump administration led countries to take in sick deportees.

We spoke to more than 30 immigrant detainees who described cramped and unsanitary detention centers where social distancing was near impossible and protective gear almost nonexistent. “It was like a time bomb,” said Yudanys, a Cuban immigrant held in Louisiana.

At least four deportees interviewed by The Times, from India, Haiti, Guatemala, and El Salvador, tested positive for the virus shortly after arriving from the United States.

So far, ICE has confirmed at least 3,000 coronavirus-positive detainees in its detention centers, though testing has been limited.

We tracked over 750 domestic ICE flights since March, carrying thousands of detainees to different centers, including some who said they were sick. Kanate, a refugee from Kyrgyzstan, was moved from the Pike County Correctional Facility in Pennsylvania to the Prairieland Detention Facility in Texas despite showing Covid-19 symptoms. He was confirmed to have the virus just a few days later.

“I was panicking,” he said. “I thought that I will die here in this prison.”

We also tracked over 200 deportation flights carrying migrants, some of them ill with coronavirus, to other countries from March through June. Under pressure from the Trump administration and with promises of humanitarian aid, some countries have fully cooperated with deportations.

El Salvador and Honduras have accepted more than 6,000 deportees since March. In April, President Trump praised the presidents of both countries for their cooperation and said he would send ventilators to help treat the sickest of their coronavirus patients.

So far, the governments of 11 countries have confirmed that deportees returned home with Covid-19.

When asked about the agency’s role in spreading the virus by moving and deporting sick detainees, ICE said it took precautions and followed guidelines of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. As of last week, ICE said that it was still able to test only a sampling of immigrants before sending them home. Yet deportation flights continue.

Source: ‘It Was Like a Time Bomb’: How ICE Helped Spread the Coronavirus

Adrian Gomez, Who Cared for Migrant Youth, Is Dead at 52

by

This obituary is part of a series about people who have died in the coronavirus pandemic. Read about others here.

The Trump administration’s practice of separating parents from children in families crossing the border illegally from Mexico has received plenty of attention in recent years. So have the shelters to which those children and unaccompanied migrant teenagers are sent, like the one operated by the nonprofit Southwest Key Programs in a former Walmart superstore in Brownsville, Texas.

Less notice goes to the people employed by those shelters, like Adrian Gomez, who worked for Southwest Key for 18 years. He was an assistant program director at a smaller shelter run by Southwest Key in Brownsville.

Mr. Gomez died on June 26 in a Brownsville hospital. He was 52. The cause was complications of the novel coronavirus, his daughter, Alysha Lynn Harrington, said.

His death prompted an outpouring of online condolences from friends and colleagues who recalled his commitment as an elementary-school coach, as a Cameron County juvenile probation officer, as a personal trainer at a gym and as a shelter employee.

His job at the shelter, a relatively small one, was to make sure the young people he supervised were properly housed and educated while they were seeking asylum or until they were reunited with their families, and to help find them permanent homes through a program of the Texas Council of Child Welfare Boards.

“He chose his profession because he wanted to make a difference in others’ lives,” Ms. Harrington said. “He cared about his clients and helped them by getting them on the right path to a bright future. He wanted them to have a good education and to live happily. He loved everyone and had a huge heart.”

Mr. Gomez was born on April 13, 1968, in Brownsville and rarely ventured much beyond the city, which abuts the border next to Matamoros, Mexico. He remained closest to his mother, Maria de Gomez, who along with his daughter survives him, as do his brother John Gomez; his sister, Marisela Erwin; and two grandchildren.

He earned a bachelor of science degree in criminal justice at the University of Texas in Brownsville and worked for Southwest Key for 18 years.

“He had no underlying health issues,” Ms. Harrington said. “He was 52 and could have had many more years ahead of him.”

Source: Adrian Gomez, Who Cared for Migrant Youth, Is Dead at 52

Immigration Provisions in the Biden Unity Plan

by

On July 8, the campaign of former Vice President Joe Biden released its long-awaited “Unity Plan,” a joint platform created by supporters of Biden, as well as those of the socialist firebrand Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). The 110-page document touches on almost every policy issue at stake in the 2020 presidential election, including immigration.

The “unity plan” is the result of the strength of Sanders’ brand of democratic socialism. Although Sanders officially withdrew from the Democratic Party’s presidential primary contest, his effect on the 2020 Democratic primary was profound. Building on his momentum from his 2016 run, the self-described socialist moved the politics and policies of his fellow candidates to the left almost single-handedly.

This pressure to move to the left impacted Joe Biden, who voted for the Secure Fence Act and who has suggested that a border wall would stop “tons” of drugs from coming into the country. His initial immigration plan suggested creating a pathway to citizenship for the 14.3 million people in the United States illegally, legalizing temporary agricultural guest workers, and giving states and localities the ability to petition for visas themselves. The unity plan shares some similarities with that document, but diverges in other areas.

The plan mainly addresses immigration enforcement. First and foremost, Biden reaffirms his commitment to provide a pathway to citizenship for every single illegal alien in the United States. This goes far beyond previous suggestions to amnesty so-called “Dreamers” or even farmworkers. This calls for the largest amnesty in American history, with absolutely zero reforms to stop future flows of illegal entrants.

The unity plan also calls for eliminating all executive actions taken by the Trump Administration since January 2017, including the president’s travel ban and the successful agreements made with the Northern Triangle countries and Mexico to slow the arrival of asylum-seeking aliens.

The plan would halt removals for 100 days to allow for a government review of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and end the use of private facilities to house ICE inmates. Private facilities currently house a significant number of ICE detainees. Eliminating private detention without building new federal facilities would shackle ICE’s ability to house dangerous criminal aliens.

Incredibly, the plan suggests, “Enforcement should sanction employers, not workers. End workplace raids and ensure that I-9 audits do not undermine workers’ ability to organize and assert their rights.”

This is completely contradictory. Workplace enforcement is ICE’s best tool at sanctioning employers. Employers subjected to relentless worksite pressure by ICE will not hire illegal aliens. How can ICE sanction employers without the use of worksite raids? How would I-9 audits differ from worksite raids if an employer’s I-9 forms reveal that there are numerous illegal workers present?

Outside of enforcement, the unity plan calls for an increase in overall levels of legal immigration. Further, Biden calls for a refugee ceiling of 125,000 annually, a stark contrast to the current ceiling of 13,000. Unlike other parts of immigration law, the refugee ceiling is solely created at the discretion of the president and does not require congressional approval. The plan suggests exempting STEM PhD program graduates from any visa caps, without clarifying whether the degree came from an American university or not.

The plan “reaffirms family migration as a cornerstone of U.S. immigration policy” and “prioritize(s) family reunification, including by eliminating family-based green card backlogs and reforming the system to speed up family-based visas.” This completely contradicts the will of the American public who generally support moving the United States to a merit-based immigration system rather than one based simply on chain migration.

Finally, the unity plan states, “Democrats believe that our fight to end systemic racism in our country extends to our immigration system, including the policies at our borders and ports of entry, detention centers, and within immigration law enforcement agencies and their policies and operations” [emphasis added]. This declaration reveals that the plan’s authors reject the notion that opposition to widespread immigration is rooted in anything other than nativism, xenophobia, and racism.

Biden’s advocates did reject some of Sanders’ most radical proposals, such as eliminating immigration enforcement agencies and decriminalizing illegal border crossings. But even still, what remains in the Biden unity plan is anathema to advocates of immigration reform.

Instead of moving to a merit-based system, the unity plan proposes simply increasing total numbers and keeping chain migration as the “cornerstone” of our system. Instead of giving ICE and CBP the tools they need to do their congressionally-authorized job, the unity plan proposes to shackle and audit them for at least 100 days. Instead of prioritizing the safety of American citizens and legal immigrants, the unity plan encourages the growth of dangerous sanctuary jurisdictions.

Biden’s unity plan is notably radical in the immigration sphere for a major presidential candidate. No serious presidential campaign has ever suggested the kind of sweeping reforms presented in this plan. If these ideas became law, they would represent the most sweeping change to the immigration system in our country since the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act.

Source: Immigration Provisions in the Biden Unity Plan

Appeals Court Strikes Down Trump Administration’s Asylum Ban

by

LOS ANGELES — A federal appeals court on Monday struck down President Trump’s policy that barred most migrants from seeking asylum in the United States if they had passed through another country, concluding that the government did “virtually nothing” to make sure that another country is “a safe option” for those fleeing persecution.

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco affirmed the decision of a federal judge who ruled last year that the so-called third-country transit rule was unlawful, with one judge calling it “perhaps the most significant change to American asylum in a generation.”

The ruling was an interim but important step. In September, the Supreme Court had allowed the Trump administration’s rule forbidding most Central American migrants from seeking asylum in the United States to take effect while the appeals courts deliberated its legality.

That stay remains in place until the Supreme Court takes up the case or the Trump administration abandons the policy. In the meantime, nearly all asylum seekers have been temporarily blocked from entering the country under a separate administration directive, issued as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, that closed the border to all but United States citizens and lawful permanent residents.

Still, Monday’s opinion was an important legal milestone, a 66-page opinion that found serious legal deficiencies in one of the administration’s signature immigration policies.

“The Trump administration is sure to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor of immigration at Cornell Law School.

The transit rule was issued jointly by the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security in July 2019, when thousands of migrant families were pushing toward the southwestern border, many of them seeking asylum from violence in Central America. Countering decades of law and policy, under which the United States had long provided refuge in such cases, it declared that any migrant who passed through another country en route to the border would be ineligible for asylum, with few exceptions.

The policy required migrants traveling over land from El Salvador, Honduras or other countries to apply for and be denied asylum by Mexico, Guatemala or another country through which they traveled before they could be eligible to make a claim for protection in the United States.

If they did not, those who managed to reach the United States would be automatically considered to lack a credible fear of persecution in their home countries.

The appeals court said there was evidence that contradicted the administration’s assertion that migrants could obtain safe protection in Mexico and other countries.

It also said the administration had not justified its assumption that a person who failed to apply for asylum in a third country was unlikely to have a meritorious claim.

Judge William A. Fletcher, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, wrote the opinion for the panel, which also included Judge Eric D. Miller, who was appointed by President Trump this year, and Judge Richard R. Clifton, appointed by former President George W. Bush.

Judge Miller concurred in part and dissented in part, writing that the federal agencies’ “deficient” justification for the transit rule was “particularly troubling because the rule represents such a major change to policy — perhaps the most significant change to American asylum in a generation.”

The main opinion said there was “no evidence in the record” to support the rule’s assumption that migrants who do not apply for asylum in Guatemala or Mexico en route from, say, El Salvador or Honduras, can be assumed to lack a credible fear of persecution in their home country.

“This ruling says very simply that Congress is in control of asylum, and the administration cannot act unilaterally to destroy our asylum system,” said Lee Gelernt, the lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union who argued the appeal on behalf of several groups challenging the rule.

Neither the Justice Department nor the Department of Homeland Security had any immediate comment on the decision.

In a related case this month, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the administration had illegally put into place the transit rule by not allowing public comment first.

That decision resulted in a suspension of the transit ban on more narrow grounds.

The order that effectively closed the border to asylum seekers, using the coronavirus pandemic as justification, is being challenged in a federal court in Washington.

 

Supreme Court Limits Failed Asylum Seekers’ Rights to Appeal

YouTube: VOA News

 

Source: Appeals Court Strikes Down Trump Administration’s Asylum Ban

One Brother Got DACA, One Didn’t. It Made All the Difference.

by

Chad F. Wolf, the acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, has said that after the Supreme Court’s decision, the government would continue to process renewals, but the question of new applications remains up in the air. President Trump pledged on Twitter after the court’s ruling to try anew to rescind the entire program, a move the administration could initiate at any time.

“If you are relying on a new application to be approved, you should have real concerns about whether that will happen,” said Ian Macdonald, a lawyer who is a chair of Greenberg Traurig’s immigration compliance practice in Atlanta.

But the financial woes of the immigration agency, which is in the process of furloughing a large share of its workforce, could have the effect of preventing new applications in any case.

“The Supreme Court decision requires the government to take new applications, but there are many, many ways that the administration can slow that down to such an extent that it doesn’t really happen,” said Michael Kagan, who teaches immigration law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Research has shown that DACA has had a transformative impact on recipients, offering them access to higher education, jobs and temporary protection from deportation that otherwise would be unavailable to them.

Jack Miralrio and his younger brother Owen, were both born in Mexico and then brought into the United States illegally by their mom at a very young age.  Growing up, they both loved to play video games, play soccer, build things, and both excelled throughout their academic career especially college.

Now, Jack is 20 and is on his way to becoming a  mechanical engineer. Owen, 17, is become a mechanic but not his first choice, his dream was to become a mechanical engineer just like his brother.

Give me your tired,
Your poor,
Your huddled masses,
Yearning to breathe free,
And we’ll tear gas them.

 

Although Their lives were very similar, their paths have recently diverged as a result of Jack being a beneficiary to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, which allows him to get a driver’s license and monetary support to continue college.

Owen on the other hand was getting ready to finalize his paperwork and submit in September 2017, but the Trump administration ended the program on September 5th, 2017, and stopped accepting any new applications.

“I have to stop persuing my dream profession and accept being a mechanic,” mentioned Owen, who still lived together with his mother and father, older brother and two U.S.-born sisters in Milwaukee.

“College would be way too expensive, and then I wouldn’t be able to use my degree,” said Owen, who graduated from high school in June.“I know people who own garages and hire mechanics without papers,” he said, sounding defeated.

His older brother sympathized with him while realizing that their differences are only due to bad timing and politics.

Nevertheless, Owen accepted his fate and was now among one of the 66,000 dreamers who were also shut out of DACA since it was terminated almost three years ago.

Will new applicants be allowed to enroll in the life-changing immigration program?

Recently,  in June, the Supreme Court gave Owen hope again, by ruling that DACA was improperly terminated. 

Most legal scholars believe that to comply with the court’s decision, the administration must revive DACA, which would mean that new applications would have to be accepted. Refusal to accept them would incite lawsuits, they said.“The Supreme Court decision makes it clear that the original program is still in place,” said Geoffrey Hoffman, director of the immigration clinic at the University of Houston Law

 

 

Here is another story about Juan Escalante and his brother:

Juan Escalante is an immigrant advocate and online strategist who has been fighting for the Dream Act and pro-immigration policies at all levels of government for the past 10 years.

IMG_6736.JPG

You can read the full story titled “Juan Escalante: American” here: https://www.kulturamag.com/article/juan-escalante-american

Today, Juan is a spokesperson for America’s Voice and the writer of a bi-weekly column on HuffPost. Last year he moved from Florida to Washington, D.C. in order to further the fight he’s helping lead for himself, his community, and our country. Though the progress that’s been made is overshadowed by the toxic political climate, he emphasizes the changes that have taken place in the last eleven years such as DACA, in-state tuition for undocumented students, and many more.

The fight continues for many……

 

 

Source: One Brother Got DACA, One Didn’t. It Made All the Difference.

USCIS Hasn’t Approved a Single Person for Liberian Legalization Program

by

A program created in late 2019 to allow certain Liberian noncitizens in the United States to become lawful permanent residents (LPRs) is falling far short of its potential, according to a new report.

The program in question is Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness (LRIF), a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 enacted on December 20, 2019.

A. Purpose and Background

Enacted on December 20, 2019, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 included a provision, Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness (LRIF), which provides an opportunity for certain Liberian nationals and their eligible family members to obtain lawful permanent resident (LPR) status.[1] After adjusting to LPR status under LRIF, some aliens would then immediately become eligible to apply for naturalization.

The $738-billion National Defense Authorization Act  was signed into law by President Trump would allow up to 4,000 Eligible Liberian nationals who were physically present in the United States since November 20, 2014, as well as their spouses and unmarried children, to apply for a green card under LRIF.

B. Legal Authority

  • Section 7611 (PDF) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 – Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness[2]

C. Eligibility Requirements

To adjust to LPR status based on LRIF a Liberian principal applicant must meet the eligibility requirements shown in the table below.[3]

 

However, USCIS has yet to approve a single application under the program which launched four months ago according to a report from CLINIC and African Communities Together.

Recent data from USCIS shows that only 1,177 Liberians had applied for relief under LRIF as of April 17. This amounts to only 12 percent of eligible applicants. One can assume that the risks and hardships related to the coronavirus pandemic are distracting and obstructing more people from applying at this time.

The report also found that:

  • The top three states of residency for applicants so far are Minnesota (18%), Pennsylvania (16%), and Maryland (9%).
  • Just over half of applicants (54%) are over the age of 45.
  • 58% of applicants are female.

Moreover, recent estimates indicate that far more people are eligible for the program than previously thought. The report found that 10,000 Liberians, plus 300 of their family members, are eligible to apply for LPR status under the program. This is far more than a widely cited previous estimate that only 4,000 people were eligible to apply.

The situation is unlikely to improve given the severe budget problems currently being experienced by USCIS, which is requesting $1.2 billion in emergency funding from Congress and may soon furlough two-thirds of its workforce.

From 1991 to 2019, Liberia was continuously designated for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) or Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) due to unsafe country conditions. However, Liberians in the United States who were protected from deportation under these temporary relief programs had no opportunity to acquire a more permanent status. LRIF was supposed to change that.

Currently, the deadline for eligible Liberians to apply for relief under LRIF is December 20, 2020. As the report correctly concludes, given USCIS adjudication delays, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the much larger number of potential applicants than previously anticipated, the December 2020 deadline should be extended for at least one additional year.

Source: USCIS Hasn’t Approved a Single Person for Liberian Legalization Program

Federal Judge Strikes Down Trump Administration Asylum Rule

by

WASHINGTON — A federal judge appointed by President Trump has ruled that the Trump administration must end a policy that effectively bars most Central American migrants fleeing poverty and persecution from obtaining asylum in the United States.

The asylum rule in question prevents migrants from gaining protection in the United States if they fail to first apply for protection in a country en route to the southwest border. But Judge Timothy J. Kelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said late Tuesday night that the Trump administration illegally put in effect the rule by not allowing the public to weigh in on it. The administration had argued that allowing for a public comment period after announcing the rule would have prompted migrants to rush to the border, a claim Judge Kelly did not accept.

The ruling was only the latest in a string of defeats the Trump administration has been dealt by judges who decided that administration officials, in their haste to make policy, violated federal law laying out how regulations must be carried out or rolled back. The Supreme Court last month preserved Obama-era protections for about 700,000 young undocumented immigrants known as Dreamers, ruling that the administration had violated procedures in rolling back the rule.

In April, an effort to roll back nutrition standards for school meals championed by former first lady Michelle Obama, was reversed on similar procedural violations. In the environmental arena, federal courts have found at least five times that the Trump administration violated the Administrative Procedures Act by skipping steps when it tried to delay conservation rules that had already taken effect.

The same factors may have cost the president his hard-fought rule to block asylum seekers.

“It’s notable in this case that Judge Kelly reiterated what other judges recently retorted to the administration: Do your homework,” said Claudia Cubas, litigation director for the Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

The Departments of Justice and Homeland Security did not respond to requests for comment.

While the decision will immediately invalidate the rule demanding that asylum seekers apply for protection before arriving at the United States, it is unlikely to lead to a flood of asylum claims. The Trump administration has issued other overlapping policies that have effectively sealed the border to asylum seekers.

The federal government is currently citing the coronavirus pandemic and emergency health protections to rapidly return migrants to Mexico or their homes countries, preventing nearly all of them from seeking protection.

The Trump administration will also continue to use agreements made with Guatemala and Honduras to deport migrants who cross the border back to those Central American countries, where they would have to seek asylum from those governments.

“Should the border ever reopen, the government could simply use the asylum cooperating agreements to turn away everyone anyway,” said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy counsel for the American Immigration Council, an immigrant advocacy organization. “Of course, it is extraordinarily unlikely the Trump administration will lift the ban at the border through his first term in office.”

But immigration lawyers said the decision issued Tuesday would create some opportunities for migrants, including children, who had sought asylum in the United States after the rule was issued last July, including many who were forced to wait in Mexico while their hearings were delayed. With the rule in place, their asylum claims could have been rejected by a judge if they had not previously applied for asylum in another country en route. Now many of those migrants may be able to secure asylum in court.

“They will finally get a chance at asylum, something they should’ve got from the first get-go,” Ms. Cubas said.

The administration had moved forward with the policy after the Supreme Court in September lifted an injunction against it, allowing it to be enforced while the legal fights played out in the courts.

The Supreme Court had stepped in after federal judges in San Francisco and Washington issued conflicting rulings on the policy. Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco had ordered the administration to continue accepting the migrants, saying the policy was inconsistent with existing asylum laws. But Judge Kelly in Washington had ruled that the plaintiffs would not face “irreparable harm” by the policy.

Once the stay was lifted, advocacy groups in the Washington case bolstered their filings by adding women and children who had fled persecution and violence in Central America, Cuba and Angola but had not applied for asylum before reaching the U.S. border. On Tuesday, Judge Kelly found that the administration’s excuse for not allowing the public to weigh in on the rule was not justified.

“After carefully examining the record, the Court finds that it does not contain sufficient evidence,” Judge Kelly wrote.

Immigration lawyers were elated.

“We are thrilled that Judge Kelly has held the administration accountable for failing to follow longstanding procedural rules as it tries to eviscerate the asylum system,” said Keren Zwick, director of litigation at the National Immigrant Justice Center. “The rule had a devastating impact on asylum seekers, and we are glad to see Judge Kelly clearly state that this administration is not above the law even as it tries to villainize refugees.”

Source: Federal Judge Strikes Down Trump Administration Asylum Rule

Supreme Court limits First Amendment rights of US companies’ foreign affiliates

by

The US Supreme Court ruled 5-3 Monday that requiring foreign groups to have explicit policies opposing prostitution and sex trafficking in order to receive federal funds applies to US companies’ foreign affiliates because they do not possess First Amendment rights.

The case, Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc., raised the question of whether the federal government violated the First Amendment by prohibiting a US company’s foreign affiliate from receiving federal funding because it had not made an explicit policy statement.

The specific law at issue was the US Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003, which required that American and foreign organizations have an explicit policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking in order to receive federal funds.

In 2013, this stipulation, known as the Policy Requirement, was deemed an unconstitutional restraint on free speech when applied to American organizations. But whether it applied to a domestic company’s foreign affiliate was an open question until Monday.

In the opinion of the court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote, “it is long settled as a matter of American constitutional law that foreign citizens outside U.S. territory do not possess rights under the U.S. Constitution,” and “it is long settled as a matter of American corporate law that separately incorporated organizations are separate legal units with distinct legal rights and obligations.” Together, these “two bedrock principles of American constitutional law and American corporate law … lead to a simple conclusion: As foreign organizations operating abroad, plaintiffs’ foreign affiliates possess no rights under the First Amendment.”

In rejecting the second claim, the court stated that this view is incorrect and that the 2013 decision was limited to American organizations.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch joined Kavanaugh’s opinion.

Thomas filed a concurring opinion to state that he disagrees with the 2013 decision. In his concurrence, he wrote “[t]he First Amendment does not mandate a viewpoint-neutral government,” so the government may condition funds on an affirmation that each organization can accept or reject.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the dissent, which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor joined. In his dissent, Breyer said that the question at hand is not about foreign entities, but rather US-based entities and their protection under the First Amendment. Breyer’s dissent states that the corporate structure plays little role in an American company’s First Amendment protection. “[O]ur First Amendment precedents leave no doubt that corporate formalities have little to say about the issue now before us. We have made clear again and again (and again) that speech may be attributed across the corporate lines in the First Amendment context⁠—including in our previous opinion in this very case.” In concluding, Breyer wrote,

I fear the Court’s decision will seriously impede the countless American speakers who communicate overseas in a similar way. That weakens the marketplace of ideas at a time when the value of that marketplace for Americans, and for others, reaches well beyond our shores.

Justice Elena Kagan did not take part in the consideration or decision of the case.

The post Supreme Court limits First Amendment rights of US companies’ foreign affiliates appeared first on JURIST – News – Legal News & Commentary.

Source: Supreme Court limits First Amendment rights of US companies’ foreign affiliates

COVID-Related Consular Closures Affect Many

by

The  U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq is among the many COVID-related closures of U.S. consulates that have stranded immigrants around the globe.

As this pandemic keeps borders shut, closed consulates are the biggest barrier for many, couples are separated, H-1B workers and students remain stuck outside the U.S. as coronavirus shutdown extends into the fourth month.

When Natasha Bhat rushed to India after her father-in-law died in late February, she didn’t think that returning to her residence in Fremont, California would be a problem. But when she tried to get her H-1B visa stamped at the U.S. Consulate in Kolkata India, they were closed.

Ms. Bhat, who works in human sources at a tech startup, had quickly packed just one small bag and left with her husband and 4-year-old son.

Her husband, also an H-1B visa holder, was in a position to have his visa stamped March 13 to return. However Ms. Bhat’s appointment a day later was canceled when the consulate shut down. They are just one of the many families affected by the closures.

The fact, people have been unable to schedule consular appointments since March — to get their visas stamped or to complete required interviews — are affecting “hundreds of thousands of people worldwide based on the average number of visas the State Department issued each month during the last fiscal year.”

Since late January, in response to the pandemic, the Trump administration has enacted a patchwork system of journey and immigration restrictions barring foreigners from some international locations—China, Brazil, and most of Europe—from getting into, in addition to some household of U.S. residents seeking to immigrate.

This week, President Trump barred a number of hundred thousand folks on a slate of pending employment-based visas from immigrating by way of the top of the 12 months.

The WSJ does a good job of explaining that these hurdles are a direct result of COVID-related precautions on the part of the U.S. State Department. Thus, this is a problem that has been brewing since the start of the nation’s response to the outbreak in mid-March.

As such, the problems PRE-date by months the President’s new efforts to pause employment-based migration.

The article notes that for one international student, delays in processing may delay educational opportunities in the fall. If his experience is being replicated around the globe, it’s entirely possible we’re going to see our first dip in international student enrollment in many years.

In observe, nevertheless, practically every foreigner wishing to journey to the U.S. faces an easy however impassable hurdle: Most American embassies and consulates stay closed. Whereas an exact determine is tough to estimate, a whole bunch of hundreds of individuals worldwide could also be caught since March as a result of they will get their visas stamped or attend the required interviews to have visas issued, primarily based on the typical variety of visas the State Division issued every month over the last fiscal 12 months.

The pause in regular visa processing, which has been in impact since mid-March, means couples, engaged or married, can’t reunite, the staff is being removed from their jobs or members of the family, and worldwide college students are worried as the autumn semester approaches.

As of now, many can’t schedule an interview at the American embassy till at the least mid-September.

 

Source: COVID-Related Consular Closures Affect Many