Suspension of DACA Would Pose Legal Challenges for DREAMers

Add caption

Last Friday, Daniel Ramirez, who had been granted deferred action and work authorization pursuant to President Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, was seized by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, who raided his house to arrest Ramirez's father.  Ramirez's work authorization was still valid.  But this did not deter ICE agents from seizing him, as ICE contends that Ramirez admitted to being associated with a gang.  Ramirez claims he has no gang association, and that he was pressured by ICE to make such statements.

Ramirez has now initiated suit against the Untied States' Government. But his arrest and detention should serve as a warning to the thousands of young people who have applied for, and received, protection pursuant to DACA.

DACA is simply a promise made by President Obama that his Administration would not seek the removal of young people who were brought to the United States by their parents when they were children.  The President did this by granting deferred action.  Once the President grants deferred action, the recipient is entitled to apply for legal authorization to work in the United States.  But deferred action is not a legal status.  It is simply a promise from the Government not to seek removal.

DACA was not authorized by statute.  In fact, President Obama only created DACA when Congress failed to pass the DREAM Act, which would have created a path to legal residency and possibly citizenship for the young people who were brought to this country as children, but grew up knowing America as their home.  The people who would have qualified for status under the DREAM Act are affectionately known as DREAMers.

But because DACA is not a creature of statute, it is a very fragile promise.  The President is under no obligation to extend protection pursuant to DACA once the current protection expires.  Moreover, because it is a matter of executive discretion, an applicant is unable to challenge the denial of DACA protection in U.S. courts.

But once a DREAMer has been granted DACA protection, that person has an expectation to continue to receive protection from removal until the program expires.

This is the expectation that ICE violated when it took Ramirez into custody.  Ramirez, who has no other legal immigrant status, will now face proceedings in Immigration Court where the United States will seek his removal.

In many instances, Immigration Court can grant relief from removal.  There are some programs, such as asylum or cancellation of removal, which the Immigration Court by law can grant after a hearing.  However, because DACA is not a legal program, but an exercise of executive discretion, the Immigration Courts have no power to issue a ruling on whether DACA protection was improperly suspended for any individual.

This does not leave DREAMers without a remedy.  Because DACA recipients have an expectation of a governmental benefit, that benefit cannot be rescinded arbitrarily or capriciously.  That is, DACA recipients have a due process right to have their protection honored until the expiration of the program.  But to enforce this right, DACA recipients may need to go to federal district court.

That is, if ICE arrests a person who has been granted DACA protection, and seeks that person's removal, the DACA recipient will need to file a lawsuit in a U.S. District Court alleging constitutional violations, such as due process.  Such a lawsuit is expensive and can become complicated.  In Ramirez's case, he will have to address ICE's claims that Ramirez admitted to being associated with street gangs.  There will be discover and a hearing.

The availability of such a process may not be comforting news to other DACA recipients.  Many are not in a position to spend thousands of dollars on legal expenses to fight over weak legal promise which will expire anyway in a little more than a year.  Indeed, the current Administration could be counting on that level of vulnerability to pick off DACA recipients one by one, making tenuous claims of gang association, knowing that they are forcing the DACA recipients into an expensive legal battle.  In that way, the Administration can claim that it is merely going after the "bad hombres" and highlighting its argument that President Obama overstepped his authority when he instituted DACA.  This is a position that would play well with many of President Trump's supporters.

DACA recipients need to be prepared to defend their rights.  All immigrants should know that ICE cannot issue warrants to itself that allow entry into a dwelling.  Only a judge can issue such a warrant.  Before letting ICE into your house, make sure everyone knows that they need to ask to see the warrant, and to check whether it is judge-issued.  All residents of your home should also know that they are under no obligation to answer any question posed by ICE agents, except their name.  If asked anything by ICE agents, demand your right to consult a lawyer.  Sign nothing without consulting a lawyer.  Do not be intimidated by ICE.  Spread the word.

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
For an appointment, call (703) 837-8832
(571) 551-6069 (español)

The Senate Must Vote on Judge Garland's Nomination

While pursuing Facebook yesterday, I came across a post from Michelle Malkin on President Obama's nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. The post was a link to an article in the Conservative Review simply entitled, "What Conservatives Need to Know About Merrick Garland."  When I clicked the link, I was shocked to find a one word answer as the first paragraph of the article. It simply said, "Nothing."

Author Brian Darling's analysis didn't get much more informative. The crux of his argument was that because Judge Garland was nominated by President Obama, he is a liberal and will tip the balance on the Supreme Court in favor of the liberals. 

I was shocked because even though I consider myself a Republican with conservative leanings, my reaction to President Obama's pick was far different. I was surprised by how non-controversial the appointment would be. 

Judge Garland has sat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit since 1997.  He is currently the Chief Judge.  Because of the location of the DC Circuit, it is the court that tends to hear cases involving Federal policy most often. The court is often considered a stepping stone to the Supreme Court. 

In addition, Judge Garland is a former prosecutor who is 63 years old. Not only has he worked in law enforcement, he is not likely to stick around the Supreme Court for a very long time. 

At this point, conservatives point to two cases in which he was involved to ring the alarm bells that he will rob us all of our gun rights. The first is the case that overturned the District of Columbia's gun control law. The case was decided by a three judge panel, and Judge Garland voted for the case to be reheard en banc, which means in front of all of the judges of the DC Circuit. 

The second was a case where Judge Garland agreed that the FBI could retain gun purchase records for six months to ensure that a computerized background check was working. 

Neither case hardly says anything about the Judge's views on the Second Amendment. Yet it is enough that Judge Garland acted in a way displeasing to the NRA for conservatives to mobilize opposition by engaging in the Second Amendment fear mongering. 

Conservatives are mourning the loss of Justice Antonin Scalia. The prospect that his seat on the Supreme Court could be filled by an Obama appointee is just devastating to them. Thus, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took the unprecedented step of announcing that there would be no hearings on any Obama nomination. Instead, the choice would be left to the new president. President Obama has countered with the nomination of a highly respected jurist, who is not likely to stay around for a very long time. The result is that Senate Republicans look far worse than just merely obstructionists. They look like whiny, petulant children. 

One of the most frightening characteristics of the Tea Party movement, and its influence on the Republican Party, has been the uncompromising willingness to shut down normal government functions in the name of promoting conservatism. Faced with very little on the record to challenge a nominee who appears to be eminently qualified, the conservatives resort to fear mongering. Senate leaders should not play this game. Rather, they should do their constitutional duty of allowing the full Senate to give advice and consent by holding hearings on Judge Garland, and sending his nomination to the floor for a vote. 

Federal Judge Violates Separation of Powers to Issue an Opinion on Separation of Powers

From The New York Times to The Washington Times to CNN, headlines about the case of United States v. Juarez-Escobar all emphasized that a federal judge had found President Obama's immigration program unconstitutional.  Upon reading the articles, none of the major news outlets asked the question, how could a program that was announced less than a month ago and that not yet been implemented ever come to a point this quickly where a federal judge is issuing an opinion on it?

Keep in mind that Article III of the Constitution provides that the judicial power of the United States extends to cases arising under the Constitution and the laws of the United States.  That is, unlike some other countries, the U.S. federal courts cannot issue an opinion on a law or police ad hoc.  There must be an actual case or controversy before them; a party must actually be aggrieved by some action.

So what is the case or controversy involved in Juarez-Escobar?  The case involved a man who was ordered deported in 2005.  He left the United States, but returned without obtaining a visa to work with his brother, who is a U.S. citizen.  The man has a U.S. citizen child.  He was pulled over in Western Pennsylvania for driving under the influence.  While in state custody, the Federal Government was informed of his incarceration.  He was criminally charged in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania with re-entering the United States after having been deported without a proper visa.  After first pleading not guilty, the defendant changed his plea to guilty and was in the process of being sentenced by the court.  The court was about to follow its own practice of sentencing the defendant to time served plus one year of supervised probation with an order that the defendant obtain a proper visa before re-entering the United States.  The change of plea hearing took place in October of 2014.  Before the court passed sentence, President Obama made his announcement of the deferred action program for parents of U.S. citizens.  A few days later, on its own motion, the court requested briefing on how the President's program would affect the defendant's case.

It was in this posture that the court issued its opinion that the President's program was unconstitutional because it violated separation of powers.

The problem here is that issues of whether a particular defendant would be deported or whether they qualify for some form of immigration relief never go before a U.S. District Court.  Almost all immigration matters are appealed to the U.S. Circuit Courts directly from the administrative agency in charge of making the decision.  The only exceptions are cases where the Government denies a petition for naturalization (citizenship) or when the Government has taken so long to issue its decision that a party finds it necessary to seek a Writ of Mandamus.  U.S District Courts, in the context of a criminal sentencing, just do not have jurisdiction to consider immigration relief.  Indeed, in this very opinion the judge recognizes that he would have no jurisdiction to pass on issues of whether a defendant would qualify for some sort of immigration relief.

More troubling is that deferred action is a matter of pure discretion by the Executive Branch.  That is, no one has a right to receive deferred action.  It can be denied by the Executive Branch for any reason.  Thus, because no one has a right to deferred action, no one can sue the Government if deferred action is denied.

The fact that President Obama had announced his intention to grant deferred action to a number of parents of U.S. citizens or permanent residents, therefore, had no relevance to the sentencing of the defendant in Juarez-Escobar.  It is not an issue that a U.S. District Judge would have any jurisdiction to address.  Accordingly, the U.S. District Judge in this case, Arthur J. Schwab simply had no power or authority to issue this opinion.  Indeed, the opinion itself will have no legal effect beyond the case before the court.  Indeed, inexplicably, after writing an elaborate opinion finding the deferred action program unconstitutional, Judge Schwab then gives the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his guilty pea in order to consider if he would want to apply for the very program the judge found unconstitutional.

Why them would Judge Schwab, a Bush appointee, issue such an opinion?  The ultimate action by the court could have been accomplished very simply.  The court could simply have ordered that in light of the pending Executive action, the defendant could consider whether to withdraw his guilty plea and leave it at that.  The fourteen pages of the opinion which analyze the President's action in light of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers simply had no bearing on the court's ultimate action.  This leads to the inescapable conclusion that Judge Schwab issued this opinion for purely political reasons.

And thus, we are left with the ultimate irony in this case.  In order to find that the President violated Separation of Powers, the judge himself had to violate Separation of Powers and issue an opinion on a topic over which he had no jurisdiction. 

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832
(571) 551-6069 (ESP)
wkovatch@kovatchlegalservices.com

Memorandum Supporting President's Deferred Action Program

The White House released the memorandum written by the Justice Department detailing the legal support for his deferred action program.  Through this memorandum, President Obama's legal counsel provides analysis on whether it is permissions for: (1) the Department of Homeland Security to prioritize its resources to target undocumented aliens who are criminals; (2) the President to issue deferred action to parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents; and (3) the President to issue deferred action to parents of DACA recipients.

 

Interestingly, the Justice Department concludes that while it is permissible to issue deferred action to the parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents, it would not be permissible to do so for parents of DACA recipients.  The distinction appears to lie in the fact that U.S. citizens and permanent residents have a legal status, whereas DACA recipients do not.

 

The release of this memorandum would seem to indicate that the President will not expand his deferred action program to cover the parents of DACA recipients later, as some have surmised.  To do so would clearly contradict the advice from his own Justice Department.

 

It is also interesting to note that this memorandum does not cover the spouses of U.S. citizens or permanent residents.  This is not to say that such undocumented aliens would be ineligible to receive deferred action, merely that this memorandum, and presumably the President's program, will not cover such aliens at this time.

 

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.

(703) 837-8832

(571) 551-6069 (ESP)

Wkovatch@kovatchlegalservices.comn

Procedures for the President's Immigration Action Not Yet in Place

The President announced that the spouses and parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have been in the United States for five years, pass a background check, and pay their taxes can qualify for deferred action. At this time, USCIS reports that there are no procedures to apply for this program.  We at William J. Kovatch, Jr., Attorney at Law, PLLC expect the application process to be much like the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Before the procedures are adopted, we will be accepting consultation appointments where we will take the information we believe will be necessary to apply for this deferred action and discussing whether you should apply.  We will use that information to fill out the forms, once they are adopted.

Call for an appointment: (703) 837-8832
(571) 551-6069 (ESP)

Graphic on the President's Immigration Program

Obama, Daring Congress, Acts to Overhaul Immigration

From the New York Times, a report on the President's announcement on immigration.

President Obama's Speech on Immigration, November 20, 2014

Will You Qualify for the President's Program?

President Obama has announced a program to assist those who are present in the United States who have either spouses or children who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents.  The President will grant those who are eligible for the program deferred action, meaning that he will promise not to start deportation proceedings against them.  Those who are granted deferred action may also be granted legal authority to work in this country.

If you think you are eligible for the President’s program, call me at (571) 551-6069.  We can sit down and discuss your situation.

If you make an appointment to see me, you will first sit down with my of my bilingual staff members to collect your information.  Once we have collected your information, I will review it and discuss whether you are qualified for the program.

There will be a consultation fee of $200.  If you are eligible for the program, that money will be credited against the legal fee for helping you apply for this program.

The legal fee will depend on how difficult your case is. 

If you have all of the documents that are required to apply, such as your birth certificate, your marriage certificate, your children’s birth certificates, proof that your spouse or children are U.S. citizens or permanent residents, and proof of presence in the United States for the past five years, the legal fee will be $750.

If you do not have all of your documents, the legal fee will be $1,000.

If you have two or more convictions for misdemeanors, or other problems with your eligibility, the fee will depend on how difficult your case will be.

These fees are in addition to any filing fees required by the Government to apply for the program.

If you need your documents translated, we can translate them for you.  The fees for translations are:

·         $50 for birth certificates

·         $75 per page for all other documents that are type-written

·         $100 per page for all documents that are hand-written.

We can translate from Spanish and French.

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.

(703) 837-8832

(571) 551-6069 (ESP)

wkovatch@kovatchlegalservices.com

Harsh Republican Action May Spur Administrative Response on Immigration

In a move largely seen as pandering to Tea Party activists, House Republicans passed a bill Friday that would increase funding for border security and attempt to send the tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors attempting to enter the United States over the southern border back to their home countries expeditiously. House Republicans also took action to undo President Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. 

The move appears to be a purely symbolic one, since the bill has no chance of passing the Democratically controlled Senate. Still, House Republicans have sent a signal that they may not be willing to consider serious immigration reform. 

In a purely political calculation, House Republicans may see a greater threat from more conservative candidates in the primaries than from Democrats in the general election. The stunning primary loss of Eric Cantor has only emphasized this line of thinking. This, House Republivans do not appear to be willing to be seen as supporting anything closer to "amnesty" prior to the November elections. 

The House move, however, may have encouraged the Obama Administration to take drastic measures on its own. Democrats are already facing the prospect of the Republic as maintaining their majority in the House of Representatives. There is a possibility that the Republicans could take the Senate as well. Either way, the chances of legislative action on immigration reform before the end of President Obama's term appear almost non-existent. 

The President may, therefore, take executive action to ease deportations and removals for non-criminal undocumented aliens. One proposal that has been floated has been to grant the parents of DACA recipients deferred action. Another has been to grant deferred action to all undocumented aliens without a criminal record. 

The Administration appears to have anticipated the argument that such a move would be overreaching. Articles have already appeared in the media warning that Republicans may seek to initiate impeacent proceedings if the President takes such action. This could be an attempt to portray Republican resistance as being unreasonable. 

What action may happen is now hard to predict. William J. Kovatch, Jr., Attorney at Law, PLLC will remain on top of decelopments, ready to assist those with immigration issues when any action occurs. 

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.

(703) 837-8832

Wkovatch@kovatchlegalservices.com

President to Press for Immigration Reform Early in the Next Congress

According to the Los Angeles Times, President Obama is preparing to press for comprehensive immigration early in the next Congress.  The plan calls for an all-out blitz as soon as talks over the country's fiscal problems dies down.  Reportedly, the campaign to press for immigration reform will focus on convincing Americans that reform will provide benefits in such areas as education, health care, business and safety.

The exact details of the President's proposal are still evolving.  Reportedly, the proposal will include a pathway to citizenship for those undocumented aliens already present in the United States, increased border security, increased penalties for employers who hire aliens unauthorized to work in the United States, and increased opportunities to hire foreign workers.

According to the Times, some Democrats believe that there is a narrow window to press for reform.  The closer it gets to the next congressional elections, the more likely members of Congress will be reluctant to vote in favor of a bill that has political risks.

Republicans, however, appear to be in favor of slower approach, tackling one issue at a time before addressing whether there should be a pathway to citizenship.  Florida Senator Marco Rubio has stated, "Portions of immigration reform can be dealt with quicker than others."  Congress, for example, could first approach expanding opportunities for science and technology workers and addressing undocumented aliens who were brought here as children before the more controversial subjects.

Recently, however, a bill to expand the number of visas available to science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) workers stalled in the Senate after being passed by the House.  The fight over the bill highlighted a key difference of opinions between Republicans and Democrats over the shape of reform.  Specifically, Republicans appear to believe that in order for there to be more visas available for STEM workers, over visa categories have to be eliminated.  Democrats, by contrast, do not view reform as a zero-sum game, seeing no need to eliminate some visas in order to expand the availability of others.

One key concern for Republicans is whether they would be sacrificing their political future by supporting immigration reform now.  Specifically, conservatives, such as Rush Limbaugh, have argued that if Republicans support a pathway to citizenship, they would simply be expanding the number of Democratic voters in the future.  This is a fear that can be seen by careful analysis of the Achieve Act currently pending  in the Senate.

The Achieve Act, sponsored by Republicans Kaye Bailey Hutchison, John Kyl and John McCain, is the Republicans' response to the DREAM Act.  It would create a way for some undocumented aliens brought to this country as children to have legal status.  However, the bill would create a non-immigrant visa for such aliens, which would not itself lead to citizenship.  Thus, beneficiaries under the Achieve Act would not automatically be on the path to obtain the right to vote.

While this appears to be the most positive atmosphere for immigration reform since President Bush attempted to press for a guest worker program, the battle will not be easy.  Competing interests will need to be addressed, and in some instances overcome, if the press for immigration reform is to be successful.

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832
info@kovatchimmigrationlaw.com

Political Wrangling Over Immigration Reform Begins

In the aftermath of the 2012 presidential election, some Republicans began pressing to change the party's stance on immigration reform as a way to change the party's image with Latino voters.  Over 70% of Latinos voted for President Obama, and was seen by many as a key reason for the President's victory.

Comprehensive immigration reform will take time and negotiations.  Some Republicans eager to start changing the party's image have introduced smaller proposals in Congress now, during the lame duck session, in an effort to give the GOP some credibility.

One such proposal is the expansion of the number of permanent residency visas available for workers in science, technology, engineering and math, so-called STEM workers.  I have already discussed the arduous process of hiring foreign-born STEM workers and applying for their visas on this blog.

While Republicans may not be completely unified on comprehensive immigration reform, STEM worker visas is one area where the GOP does have a degree of unity.  One Republican proposal on STEM worker visas was brought to a vote in September of this year.  The plan would have increased the number of visas available for STEM workers by 50,000, while eliminating the diversity visa program.  The diversity visa program, also known as the visa lottery, makes 50,000 visas available to people born in areas of the world that have sent the fewest immigrants to the United States in the past five years.

The GOP bill was brought to the floor in September under the suspension calendar, and needed a two-thirds majority to pass in the House of Representatives.  While the proposal failed to gain the required support in September, the bill to expand the number of STEM visas came to the floor on the regular calendar, and passed the House on November 30, 2012.  The bill passed, and was introduced in the Senate.

In the Senate, Republican John Cornyn sought unanimous consent to bring the bill on STEM worker visas to a vote.  Democrat Chuck Schumer objected, noting that while Democrats favored expanding the number of visas available for STEM workers, that Democrats did not believe it had to be done by eliminating the visas available under other immigration programs.

The political wrangling over immigration reform has therefore begun.  There is a question over whether the Democrats will even permit immigration reform to pass.  If immigration reform were to pass, it would rob the Democrats of a political issue where they believe they have an advantage over Republicans. 

This first foray into the issue of immigration reform, therefore, does not bode well for the passage of comprehensive reform.  If political parties cannot agree on the specifics of this one issue, where there is general agreement for the need to expand the visas available for STEM workers, then finding common ground on a host of other immigration topics could prove elusive.

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832
info@kovatchimmigrationlaw.com

Dream to Achieve: Comparison of Proposals to Address Young Undocumented Aliens

In the wake of the presidential elections, many in the Republican Party have shown a greater willingness to consider comprehensive immigration reform. In particular, many have seen a softening of the GOP's stance on immigration reform necessary in light of the overwhelming majority of Latino voters who supported President Obama.

Nonetheless, the Republicans may not be in complete uniformity on what shape comprehensive immigration reform should take.  One issue that may prove to be the most difficult to address could be what to do about the many undocumented aliens already in the country.  The issue of creating a guest worker program, with some pathway to citizenship, may complicate the drive for comprehensive reform.

In the meantime, there appears to be some agreement that young people, brought to this country as children and who have grown up as if they were Americans, deserve some form of relief.  This is on the heals of the President's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which could grant a promise not to deport such young people who meet certain qualifications.  The program has its roots in the DREAM Act, which failed in 2010 when a Senate filibuster prevented the bill from coming up for a vote.

At least two Republicans have been working on a similar bill over the past year.  Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and Jon Kyl, both of whom will retire in January, have been working on the Achieve Act as an alternative to the DREAM Act.  There appears to be a movement to try to bring the Achieve Act up for a vote before January.

The Achieve Act, however, has some major differences in qualifications when compared to the President's deferred action program.  If the Achieve Act were to pass, it could cause a number of people, who have applied for and already received deferred action, out in the cold as far as permanent relief is concerned.

The requirements for relief under the Achieve Act are:  (1) the applicant must have completed high-school and be admitted to college or earned a college degree, or completed high school and be enlisted in or have completed four years of military service; (2) the applicant must have entered the country before the age of 14; (3) the applicant must have lived in the U.S. continuously for five years; (4) the applicant must have not committed a felony, two misdemeanors with a jail term of over 30 days, or a crime of moral turpitude; (5) the applicant must not be subject to a final order of removal; (6) the applicant must pay a $525 fee; and (7) the applicant must be under the age of 28 (or 32 if they have a bachelor's degree from a U.S. university).

The major differences are:  (1) the deferred action program only requires that the applicant be enrolled in a U.S school, have a high school diploma, have a GED or be enrolled in classes to work toward a GED; (2) the deferred action program only requires that the applicant enter the United State before age 16; and (3) the deferred action program only requires that the applicant be under age 31 as of June 15, 2012.

With these key differences, there are several young people who would qualify under the deferred action program,  who would not qualify under the Achieve Act.  People who entered the United States after age 14, but before age 16, for example, would be out of luck under the Achieve Act.  Likewise, people who have a high school diploma, but who chose not to go on to higher education would be left out.  Finally, the cut-off age is lower for the Achieve Act.

It is unclear why the Republican proposal has stricter qualification requirements than the current deferred action program.  It may be explained by the fact that the bill was drafted before the President announced the program.  Nonetheless, equity would argue that the bill be modified to cover all of those covered by the deferred action program.  Whether that will happen, or the Republicans stick to their guns remains to be seen.

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832
info@kovatchimmigrationlaw.com

Kay Bailey Hutchison, of Texas, and Jon Kyl, of Arizona

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/16/republicans-mull-own-version-dream-act-vote-on-achieve-act-by-january/#ixzz2Cte3l3Wt

Kay Bailey Hutchison, of Texas, and Jon Kyl, of Arizona

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/16/republicans-mull-own-version-dream-act-vote-on-achieve-act-by-january/#ixzz2Cte3l3Wt

President Promises to Press for Comprehensive Immigration Reform

In his first press conference since the November 6th election, President Obama promised to press for comprehensive immigration reform in early 2013.  According to the President, immigration reform will include strengthening the borders, greater penalties for employers who hire undocumented aliens, and a pathway to citizenship for those already present in the United States illegally.

The last attempt at comprehensive immigration reform took place during the Bush Administration.  The Bush proposal also included a pathway to citizenship.  However, the legislative package failed to pass Congress.

In 2010, Congress came close to passing the DREAM Act, which would have given legal status to young people who were brought the United States as children and who have attended school in the United States or were honorably discharged from the U.S. military.  The DREAM Act died in a Senate filibuster.  However, the President announced a program to grant some form of relief to those who would have qualified for benefits under the DREAM Act through his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.  The deferred action program, however, does not lead to permanent residency.

Click here to read more on the President's statements concerning immigration reform.

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832
info@kovatchimmigrationlaw.com

Election Results Bring Greater Certainty to Deferred Action Program

The re-election of President Obama may spark a greater number of applications for deferred action.  The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program offered a promise to certain young aliens present in the United States illegally that the Government would not seek their removal or deportation.  The program also offered an opportunity to receive the legal authorization to work in the United States.

The President's program would provide this promise for two years.  At the end of the two years, deferred action could be renewed.  However, the program was the result of an exercise of executive discretion, and not law.  This meant that the program could be rescinded at any time.  Indeed, the grants of deferred action themselves could be rescinded.

President Obama's opponent, Mitt Romney, had expressed that he would terminate the program if he were elected.  However, he promised that any grants of deferred action under the program before his presidency would be honored.

Romney's campaign statements, and the close presidential race, left many uncertain as to the future of the deferred action program.  Would the information disclosed through the application process be used for enforcement purposes once the program had been terminated?  Would something else replace the program, or would the Federal Government pursue enforcement more vigorously?

The election should allay some fears.  Already, thousands of applicants have been granted deferred action.  However, only a small fraction of the estimated number of those aliens who could potentially benefit have actually applied.  With a greater certainty that the program will likely be around for a few years longer, this may prompt those who were hesitant to apply.

Of course, before applying, it is a good idea to consult with a legal professional knowledgeable of the program and of the risks and benefits of applying.

Here is an article discussing the greater certainty some feel about the deferred action program.

Guidelines on the deferred action program can be found on the USCIS website.

More information on deferred action can be found here.

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832
info@kovatchimmigrationlaw.com