Category Archives: Asylum law

Issues to Watch For In 2024

Posted on by

Welcome to the year 2024! As we embark on this new year, it is essential to stay informed and understand what to expect from the U.S. Congress in the year of 2004. The political landscape is constantly changing, it is crucial to have a clear understanding of the potential policies and legislation that may impact immigrant communities.
In 2024, immigrants can expect the United States Congress to continue debating and introducing legislation related to immigration reform. The issue of immigration has long been a contentious and polarizing topic in American politics, and it is likely that United States Congress will continue to address this issue in the coming years.

Here are some issues you should watch for in 2024.

1. H-1B – The Department of Homeland Security has recently proposed amendments to its regulations concerning H-1B specialty occupation workers. See H-1B proposed amendments here. The goal of the proposed amendments is to modernize and improve the integrity measures related to the H-1B visa program. This program allows foreign workers with specialized knowledge and skill to work in the United States, and it is vital for the American economy.
2. USCIS Fee Increases – The USCIS is expected to increase its fees for various immigration services, with some fees more than doubling in cost. For example, the fee for an application for naturalization, the process of becoming a U.S. citizen, is expected to increase from the current $725. to a proposed $1,170. Similarly, an application for a green card is expected to rise from $1,225. to $2,195. These substantial fee hikes are expected to have a significant impact on immigrants and their families, especially those who may already be struggling financially. Expecting USCIS to publish its final rule in April 2024.
3. DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals)- On September 13, 2023, the U.S. District Court for Southern District of Texas issued a decision finding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) unlawful and expanding the original July 16, 2021, Injunction and Order for vacatur to cover the Final Rule. See Decision here. However, the court maintained a partial stay of the Order for “All DACA recipients who received their initial DACA status prior to July 16, 2021. As of now, DACA recipients’ future is uncertain.

It is possible that the United States Congress may consider comprehensive immigration reform that addresses various aspects of the immigration system, including pathways to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, reforms to the legal immigration system, and border security measures. Additionally, there may be discussion about the future of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for immigrants from certain countries facing instability or natural disasters.

It is important for immigrants to stay engaged with the political progress of these issues. This can be done through contacting elected representatives, participating in advocacy organizations, and staying informed about policies and legislation that may impact immigrant communities.

Ultimately, the expectations for the United States Congress in 2024 will depend on the outcome of the upcoming election and the priorities of the elected officials. It is important for immigrants to stay informed and engaged in the political process in order to have a voice in shaping policies that impact their lives. By staying informed and actively participating in the democratic process, immigrants can help ensure that their needs and interests are represented in the decisions made by the U.S. Congress.

Welcome to the year of 2024, where the potential for progress and change is as vast as the sky. It is up to us to embrace the opportunities that lie ahead and to work towards creating a better, more sustainable, and inclusive future for generations to come.

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.

REFUGEE STATUS

Posted on by

Refugee law may be the world’s most powerful international human rights mechanism. Not only do millions of people invoke its protections every year in countries spanning globe, but they do so on the basis of a self-actuating mechanism of international law that, quite literally, allows at-risk persons to vote with their feet. This is because, as the United Nations High Commissioners of Refugees (“UNHR”) has insisted, refugee status is not a status that is granted by states; it is rather simply recognized by them:
“A person is a refugee within the meaning of the 1951 Convention as soon as he fulfills the criteria contained in the definition. This would necessarily occur prior to the time at which his refugee status is formally determined. Recognition of his refugee status does not therefore make him a refugee but declares him to be one. He does not become a refugee because of recognition but is recognized because he a refugee.” See UNHCR, Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, UN Doc. HCR/IP/4/Eng/REV.3 (2011).

Translations

O direito dos refugiados pode ser o mecanismo internacional de direitos humanos mais poderoso do mundo. Não só milhões de pessoas invocam as suas protecções todos os anos em países do mundo, como o fazem com base num mecanismo de auto-actuação do direito internacional que, literalmente, permite que pessoas em risco votem com os pés. Isso porque, como insistiu o Alto Comissariado das Nações Unidas para os Refugiados (“UNHR”), o status de refugiado não é um status concedido pelos Estados; é simplesmente reconhecido por eles:

“Uma pessoa é refugiada na acepção da Convenção de 1951 logo que preencha os critérios contidos na definição. Isso ocorreria necessariamente antes do momento em que seu status de refugiado é formalmente determinado. O reconhecimento do seu estatuto de refugiado não o torna portanto um refugiado, mas declara-o como tal. Ele não se torna refugiado por reconhecimento, mas é reconhecido porque é refugiado.” Ver ACNUR, Estatuto dos Refugiados ao abrigo da Convenção de 1951 e do Protocolo de 1967 relativo ao Estatuto dos Refugiados, Documento das Nações Unidas”

El derecho de los refugiados puede ser el mecanismo internacional de derechos humanos más poderoso del mundo. Millones de personas no solo invocan sus protecciones cada año en países de todo el mundo, sino que lo hacen sobre la base de un mecanismo de derecho internacional que, literalmente, permite a las personas en riesgo votar con los pies. Esto se debe a que, como ha insistido el Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Refugiados (“ACNUR”), la condición de refugiado no es una condición otorgada por los Estados; Es más bien simplemente reconocido por ellos: “Una persona es refugiada en el sentido de la Convención de 1951 tan pronto como cumple los criterios contenidos en la definición. Esto ocurriría necesariamente antes del momento en que se determine formalmente su condición de refugiado. Por lo tanto, el reconocimiento de su condición de refugiado no lo convierte en refugiado, sino que lo declara como tal. No se convierte en refugiado por el reconocimiento, sino que es reconocido por ser refugiado”. Véase ACNUR.

难民法可能是世界上最强大的国际人权机制。不仅每年在世界各国有数百万人援引其保护，而且他们这样做的基础是国际法的自我驱动机制，从字面上看，允许处于危险之中的人用脚投票。这是因为，正如联合国难民事务高级专员（“UNHR”）所坚持的那样，难民地位不是国家授予的身份;他们相当简单地认识到： “一个人只要符合1951年《公约》的定义所载标准，即为该公约所指的难民。这必然发生在正式确定他的难民地位之前。因此，承认他的难民地位并不使他成为难民，而是宣布他为难民。他不是因为被承认而成为难民，而是因为他是难民而被承认。见难民署，《1951年公约》和1967年《关于难民地位的议定书》规定的难民地位，联合国文件HCR/IP/4/Eng/REV.3（2011年）。

শরণার্থী আইন বিশ্বের সবচেয়ে শক্তিশালী আন্তর্জাতিক মানবাধিকার ব্যবস্থা হতে পারে। বিশ্বজুড়ে ছড়িয়ে থাকা দেশগুলিতে প্রতি বছর লক্ষ লক্ষ মানুষ কেবল এর সুরক্ষাই প্রয়োগ করে না, তবে তারা আন্তর্জাতিক আইনের একটি স্ব-কার্যকর প্রক্রিয়ার ভিত্তিতে এটি করে যা আক্ষরিক অর্থে ঝুঁকিপূর্ণ ব্যক্তিদের তাদের পা দিয়ে ভোট দেওয়ার অনুমতি দেয়। এর কারণ, জাতিসংঘের শরণার্থী বিষয়ক হাইকমিশনাররা (“ইউএনএইচআর”) যেমন জোর দিয়ে বলেছেন, শরণার্থী মর্যাদা এমন একটি মর্যাদা নয় যা রাষ্ট্রগুলি দ্বারা প্রদত্ত হয়; এটি বরং তাদের দ্বারা স্বীকৃত: “একজন ব্যক্তি ১৯৫১ সালের কনভেনশনের অর্থের মধ্যে শরণার্থী হন যখনই তিনি সংজ্ঞায় অন্তর্ভুক্ত মানদণ্ডগুলি পূরণ করেন। এটি অবশ্যই তার শরণার্থী অবস্থা আনুষ্ঠানিকভাবে নির্ধারিত সময়ের আগে ঘটবে। তার শরণার্থী মর্যাদার স্বীকৃতি তাই তাকে শরণার্থী করে তোলে না বরং তাকে একজন হিসাবে ঘোষণা করে। স্বীকৃতির কারণে তিনি শরণার্থী হন না, বরং শরণার্থী হওয়ার কারণে তিনি স্বীকৃতি পান। দেখুন ইউএনএইচসিআর, ১৯৫১ সালের কনভেনশনের অধীনে শরণার্থী অবস্থা এবং শরণার্থীদের অবস্থা সম্পর্কিত ১৯৬৭ সালের প্রোটোকল, ইউএন ডক এইচসিআর / আইপি / ৪ / ইং / আরইভি .৩ (২০১১)

Ligji për refugjatët mund të jetë mekanizmi më i fuqishëm ndërkombëtar i të drejtave të njeriut në botë. Jo vetëm që miliona njerëz i përdorin mbrojtjet e saj çdo vit në vendet që shtrihen në glob, por e bëjnë këtë në bazë të një mekanizmi vetë-aktivizues të së drejtës ndërkombëtare që, fjalë për fjalë, lejon personat në rrezik të votojnë me këmbët e tyre. Kjo sepse, siç kanë këmbëngulur Komisionerët e Lartë të Kombeve të Bashkuara për Refugjatët (“UNHR”), statusi i refugjatit nuk është një status që jepet nga shtetet; Ajo është mjaft thjesht e njohur prej tyre: “Një person është refugjat në kuptimin e Konventës së vitit 1951 sapo plotëson kriteret e përmbajtura në përkufizim. Kjo do të ndodhte domosdoshmërisht përpara kohës në të cilën statusi i tij i refugjatit përcaktohet zyrtarisht. Njohja e statusit të tij të refugjatit nuk e bën atë një refugjat, por e deklaron atë të jetë një. Ai nuk bëhet refugjat për shkak të

Das Flüchtlingsrecht ist vielleicht der mächtigste internationale Menschenrechtsmechanismus der Welt. Nicht nur, dass sich jedes Jahr Millionen von Menschen in Ländern auf der ganzen Welt auf ihren Schutz berufen, sie tun dies auch auf der Grundlage eines selbsttätigen Mechanismus des Völkerrechts, der es gefährdeten Personen buchstäblich erlaubt, mit den Füßen abzustimmen. Dies liegt daran, dass, wie der Hohe Flüchtlingskommissar der Vereinten Nationen (“UNHR”) betont hat, der Flüchtlingsstatus kein Status ist, der von Staaten gewährt wird; Es wird von ihnen eher einfach erkannt: “Flüchtling im Sinne der Konvention von 1951 ist, wer die in der Definition enthaltenen Kriterien erfüllt. Dies würde notwendigerweise vor dem Zeitpunkt.‘
Le droit des réfugiés est peut-être le mécanisme international des droits de l’homme le plus puissant au monde. Non seulement des millions de personnes invoquent ses protections chaque année dans des pays du monde entier, mais elles le font sur la base d’un mécanisme de droit international qui s’active automatiquement et qui, littéralement, permet aux personnes à risque de voter avec leurs pieds. En effet, comme l’a insisté le Haut-Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés (UNHR), le statut de réfugié n’est pas un statut accordé par les États ; c’est plutôt simplement reconnu par eux : « Une personne est considérée comme réfugiée au sens de la Convention de 1951 dès lors qu’elle remplit les critères contenus dans la définition. Cela se.

IMMIGRATION AND THE ISRAEL-GAZA WAR WEB CONSEQUENCES

Posted on by

By: Norka M. Schell, Esq.

Immigration has always been a contentious issue that elicits emotions and stirs debates. One of the many significant global consequences of this phenomenon is its intricate connection to the ongoing conflict between Israel and Gaza. While maintaining a cooperative mindset, I aim to shed light on the short-term outcomes and long-term implications arising from immigration in the context of the Israel-Gaza conflict.

To comprehensively examine the interplay between immigration and the Israel-Gaza conflict, it is crucial to understand the root causes of the conflict. The Israel-Palestine issue is primarily driven by historical, political, and territorial disputes. These complex issues lead to a polarized environment that has dire consequences not only for the involved nations but also for the region as a whole.

Immigration, often triggered by conflict and persecution, plays a distinct role in this complex web of consequences. The oppressed and marginalized population from Gaza seeks refuge in neighboring countries, including Israel. This influx of immigrants, seen as a threat to Israeli security by some, triggers harsh immigration policies and heightened tensions in the region. The short-term outcome of this is increased hostility and violence, resulting in a vicious cycle where both sides suffer.

The implications of immigration in the Israel-Gaza conflict extend far beyond the short-term consequences. As the number of immigrants grow, the socio-political dynamics of the region experience a significant shift. The demographic changes brought about by immigration challenge the existing power dynamics, raising questions of identity, national sovereignty, and human rights.
Moreover, the consequences of immigration are not confined to the physical borders of the region. The Israel-Gaza conflict has consequences that reverberate globally, as it fuels religious and political tensions worldwide. The influx of immigrants into the neighboring territories has the potential to destabilize the delicate balance of power in the Middle East and beyond. Additionally, the continued strife reinforces an “us versus them” mentality, which can lead to the marginalization and radicalization of individuals.

In order to navigate this web of consequences, a cooperative approach is essential. It is critical for all involved parties to recognize the interconnectedness of immigration and the Israel-Gaza conflict. Instead of viewing immigration as a threat, it should be seen as an opportunity for dialogue, understanding and empathy. Cooperation can pave the way for innovative solutions that address both the immediate challenges and the underlying factors causing the conflict.

Efforts towards conflict resolution must also involve comprehensive immigration policies that prioritize the safety and well-being of displaced individuals. Simultaneously, the international community must aid in supporting the host countries in managing the influx of immigrants, ensuring adequate resources for their integration and economic sustainability.

In conclusion, immigration and the Israel-Gaza conflict are inextricably linked, and understanding their interplay is crucial in effectively addressing the challenges they present. From short-term implications, such as increased violence and tensions, to long-term consequences, including demographic shifts and global tensions, the impact of immigration cannot be underestimated. By adopting a cooperative mindset and comprehending the complexities of immigration in the context of the Israel-Gaza conflict, we can work toward sustainable solutions that prioritize peace, justice, and equality for all involved.

Biden Administration and Immigration in 2022

Posted on by

CNN — How many times has the Biden White House had an unresolved conflict between idealism and pragmatism on the issue of immigration? How many times has it hesitated to take action, opting instead for political messaging? The sad answer to both questions is: every time.

Most of the officials appointed by President Joe Biden to work on immigration have resigned in frustration, according to a bombshell report from The New York Times in April. “The White House has been divided by furious debates over how – and whether – to proceed in the face of a surge of migrants crossing the southwest border,” the report said.

Some wanted more openness to immigrants of all kinds. Others wanted a coherent set of rules to be applied to the millions of people at the border. And some others wanted a compromise with Republicans to create a new merit-based, green-card system. They all got nothing.

A new report from the Department of Homeland Security for August confirmed over 2 million border apprehensions and expulsions this year so far. Previously, the United States only experienced more than 1 1/2 million apprehensions a few times in its history: during the late 1990s and then in 2021. At the current pace, that record could be doubled by the end of this year. And next year, if no policies change, it could double again…

Open border chaos increases human trafficking and drug trafficking. It turns what should be a foreign policy strength into a national security weakness.

When we ponder what Biden should do to address the immigration mess at the border, the honest answer is: something, anything. Because the status quo of playing politics while seemingly ignoring policy is not only politically divisive, but it’s also missing a golden opportunity.

Biden should take advantage of his moment in history to boldly reform American refugee policy. He could, at the stroke of a pen, redefine how many refugees are allowed into the United States by taking advantage of the distinction our laws make between those granted temporary protection and those awarded permanent residency.

Editor’s Note: Tim Kane is the president of the American Lyceum and a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution. His most recent book is “The Immigrant Superpower.” The views expressed in this commentary are his own. View more opinion on CNN.https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/05/opinions/immigration-policy-biden-administration-kane/index.html

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.

Proposed Two New Rules for Immigrants and Asylum Seekers

Posted on by

On November 14, 2019, the Trump Administration published two proposed rules that will detrimentally impact individuals who are seeking to legally live and work in the United States. One would adjust USCIS’s fees by a weighted average increase of 21 percent, add new fees, and make other changes.

  1.  DHS proposed rule which would make multiple changes to the regulations governing asylum applications and eligibility for employment. See Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2019 / Proposed Rules.

2. DHS proposed rule which would make changes to the USCIS fee schedule. DHS proposes to adjust fees by a weighted average increase of 21 percent,             add new fees, and make other changes, including form changes and the introduction of several new forms. See Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 220 /               Thursday, November 14, 2019 / Proposed Rules.

Comments on these proposed rules are due December 16, 2019.

Enhancing State and Local Involvement in Refugee Resettlement

Posted on by

President Document 

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 1, 2019/ President Document

Executive Order 13888 of September 26, 2019

Enhancing State and Local Involvement in Refugee Resettlement

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

” Section 1. Purpose. In resettling refugees into the American communities, it is the policy fo the United States to cooperate and consult with State and local government, to take into account the preferences of State governments, and to provide a pathway for refugees to become self-sufficient. These policies support each other. Close cooperation with State and local governments ensure that refugees are resettled in communities that are eager and equipped to support their successful integration into American society and the labor force.

The Federal Government consults with State and local governments not only to identify the best environments for refugees but also to be respectful of those communities that may not be able to accommodate refugee resettlement, State and local governments are best positioned to know the resources and capacities they may or may not have available to devote to sustainable resettlement, which maximizes the likelihood refugees places in the area will become self-sufficient and free from long-term dependence on public assistance. Some States and localities, however, have viewed existing consultation as insufficient, and there is a need for closer coordination and a more clearly defined role for State and local governments in the refugee resettlement process. My Administration seeks to enhance these consultations.

Section 6(d) of Executive Order 13780 of March 6, 2017 (Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States), directed the Secretary of the State to determine the extent to which, consistent with applicable law, State and local jurisdictions could have greater involvement in the process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and to advise a proposal to promote such involvement.

I have consulted with the Secretary of State and determined that, with limited exceptions, the Federal Government, as an exercise of its broad discretion concerning  refugee placement accorded to it by the Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act, should resettled only in those jurisdictions in which both State and local governments have consented to receive refugees under the Department of State’s Reception and Placement Program (Program)….”

District Court Enjoins ICE from Issuing Detainers Based on Error-Filled Databases

Posted on by

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued a permanent injunction enjoining ICE from issuing detainers to state and local law enforcement agencies in states where there is no explicit state statute authorizing civil immigration arrests on detainers, and also enjoining ICE from issuing detainers based solely on database searches that rely upon information from sources that lack sufficient indicia of reliability for a probable cause determination for removal. (Gonzalez, et al. v. ICE, et al., 9/27/19).