Category Archives: Removal

IMMIGRATION COURTS AND USCIS CASES BACKLOG

Posted on by

The backlog in the Immigration Courts and in the United States Citizenship Services (USCIS) is a growing concern for many immigrants and their families. The backlog has created long wait times for individuals seeking resolution to their immigration cases, leading to uncertainty and anxiety about their status in the United States.

The Immigration Courts, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice, are responsible for adjudicating immigration cases, including removal proceedings (deportation), and asylum claims. In recent years, the backlog of cases in these courts has reached unprecedented levels, with over 1.3 million cases pending as of 2021. This backlog means that individuals may have to wait years for their cases to be heard, leaving them in limbo and ensure of their future in the United States.

The USCIS, the agency responsible for processing immigration applications and petitions, has also been plagued by a significant backlog. As of 2021, the agency has over 6.3 million applications pending, including naturalization, green card applications, visa applications, and employment authorizations. This backlog has resulted in lengthy processing times, with some individuals waiting years for their applications to be adjudicated.

The backlog in both the Immigration Courts and the USCIS has far-reaching consequences for immigrants and their families. It can result in prolonged separation from loved ones, uncertainty about employment and housing, and a constant state of limbo and anxiety. Additionally, the backlog hinders the efficient and fair administration of the immigration system, leading to delays in resolution of cases and preventing individuals from moving forward with their lives in the United States.

There are various factors that have contributed to the backlog in the Immigration Courts and USCIS. The complexity of immigration laws and regulations, increased enforcement actions, and lack of resources and staffing have all played a role in creating this backlog. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic has further exacerbated the situation, leading to court closures and processing delays.

Efforts are being made to address the backlog in both Immigration Courts and USCIS. The Biden administration has proposed more judges and staff, improved technology and infrastructure, and streamline processes. Additionally, there have been calls for legislative reforms to the immigration system to address the root causes for the backlog and ensure a more efficient and fain adjudication of cases.

In conclusion, the backlog in the Immigration Courts and USCIS is a pressing issue that has significant implications for immigrants and their families. It is essential for efforts to be made to address this backlog, to ensure timely and fair resolution for immigration cases, and to provide individuals with the certainty and stability the need to build their lives in the United States.

THE WHITE HOUSE’S POTENTIAL OVERHAUL OF AMERICAN’S ASYLUM SYSTEM: A LAST-DITCH EFFORT TO SECURE REPUBLICAN SUPPORT FOR THE SPENDING BILL

Posted on by

> The White House’s consideration of significant changes to America’s Asylum System and nationwide expansion of authority to expeditiously remove people from the interior represents a dramatic shift in U.S. immigration policy. The proposed changes are being viewed as a last-gasp effort to garner Republican support for a necessary supplemental spending bill. However, the potential consequences of these changes raise serious concerns and should be carefully considered.

One major consequence of these proposed changes is the potential violation of international human rights enshrined in international law, and any attempt to drastically alter the asylum system could be seen as violation of these standards. The expansion of authority to expedite removals from the interior could also lead to issues of due process and the risk of departing individuals who genuinely fear persecution in their home countries.

Furthermore, the changes could lead to an increase in the number of individuals being deported, including those who have established lives in the United States. This could have devasting consequences for families and communities, tearing apart the fabric of society and causing immense human suffering. Additionally, a rapid expansion of deportations could strain resources and infrastructure, leading to logistic challenges and potential human rights abuses in detention facilities.

In addition the proposed changes could engender a climate of fear and uncertainty among immigrant communities. The threat of expedited removals and significant changes to the asylum system could deter individuals from seeking protection and accessing necessary services. This could lead to further marginalization and vulnerability for already vulnerable population.

From a political perspective, the proposed changes could further polarize an already deeply divided issue. While the White House may hope to gain Republican support for Supplemental Spending Bill, the potential impact of these changes on immigrant communities and human rights could result in backlash and further alienation.

In conclusion, the consequences of the proposed changes to America’s Asylum System and the nationwide expansion of authority to expeditiously remove people from the interior are deeply concerning. The potential violations of international human rights standards, the impact on families and communities, the climate of fear among immigrant populations, and the potential for further political polarization all points to the need for careful consideration and deliberation. The implications of these changes go beyond political expediency and require a thoughtful and through examination of their impact on vulnerable populations and the foundational principles of international human rights.

MATRIMONIAL FRAUD AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

Posted on by

“Marriage fraud,” that is to enter into or endeavor to enter into a marriage for the sole purpose of procuring immigration benefits, is a very serious charge in the immigration context.

Attempting to procure or procuring immigration benefits through a sham marriage can lead to inadmissibility and/or deportation, depending on the alien’s situation.

In the case of Salas-Velazquez, the Petitioner who was a native and citizen of Mexico entered the United States as a visitor for pleasure. He purported to marry a citizen of the United States, and, on the basis of that alleged marriage, filed a petition to adjust his status to that of a permanent resident alien. That petition was denied in 1989 on the ground that the marriage was fraudulent, entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws. Almost two years later, in 1991, the Immigration and Naturalization Service served petitioner with an order to show cause, charging him with deportability.

A hearing was held before an immigration judge, during which petitioner made a motion for adjustment of status based on a second marriage, also to a United States citizen. There was no dispute as to the genuineness of the second marriage. The immigration judge denied this motion. Later, the judge found that petitioner’s first marriage was fraudulent, that petitioner and his first wife never lived together, and that petitioner contracted the marriage for the purpose of immigrating to the United States. On the basis of this evidence, the judge sustained the charges of deportability. Salas-Velazquez v. INS. 34 F. 3d 705 – Court of Appeals. 8th Circuit 1994.

Beside of the severity immigration consequences, a person who enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the INA can be prosecuted and if convicted, faces term of imprisonment for up to five years, a fine of up to $250,000.00, or both imprisonment and a fine. See 8 U.S.C. § 1325(c).

The Current State Of The DACA Program

Posted on by

On Oct. 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a decision on the 2012 Deferred Action for Child Arrivals (DACA) policy. The court partially affirmed the district court’s July 2021 decision declaring the 2012 DACA policy unlawful. However, the court of appeals preserved the partial stay issued by the district court in July 2021 and remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings regarding the new DHS DACA regulation published on Aug. 30, 2022 and scheduled to go into effect on Oct. 31, 2022.

At this time, this ruling does not affect current grants of DACA and related Employment Authorization Documents. Consistent with the court’s order [PDF] (PDF) and the ongoing partial stay, we will continue to accept and process renewal DACA requests, accompanying requests for employment authorization, and applications for advance parole for current DACA recipients, and will continue to accept but not process initial DACA requests.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) today announced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) final rule, which has been posted for public inspection on the Federal Register’s website. The final rule generally codifies existing policies with limited amendments to preserve and fortify DACA. The final rule is effective Oct. 31, 2022.

REINSTATMENT OF REMOVAL

Posted on by

“Reinstatement of removal” is a summary removal procedure pursuant to § 241(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5), 8 C.F.R. § 241.8. With limited statutory and judicial exceptions, the reinstatement statute applies to noncitizens who return to the United States without authorization after having been removed under a prior order of deportation, exclusion, or removal.

Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 241 (a)(5) states, “if the Attorney General finds that an alien has reentered the United States illegally after having been removed or having departed voluntarily, under an order of removal, the prior order of removal is reinstated from its original date and is not subject to being reopened or reviewed, the alien is not eligible and may not apply for any relief under this chapter, and the alien shall be removed under the prior order at any time after the reentry.”

Reinstatement of removal is applied to noncitizens who reenter the United States illegally after having been removed under an order of deportation and makes such individuals ineligible for all forms of discretionary relief, including adjustment of status, under the INA. It does not apply to noncitizens who were ordered deported or excluded but failed to comply with the order.

For more information about reinstatement of removal, call the Law Offices of Norka M. Schell, LLC at (212) 258-0713.