Ramifications of White House Green Card Ban

On April 22, 2020, President Donald Trump signed a presidential proclamation suspending the entry of aliens who are outside of the United States, and who either do not currently have a valid immigrant visa, or who do not have an official travel document permitting that alien to travel to the United States.  An immigrant visa is one that permits an alien to live in the United States permanently.  Such immigrants are legal permanent residents, or, colloquially, are said to hold a green card.  The proclamation is effective April 23, 2020 at 11:59pm, eastern daylight savings time.

President issued this proclamation in response to the COVID-19 crisis.  As of April 21, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention state that there are currently 802,583 cases of COVID-19 in the United States.  The disease has caused 44,575 U.S. deaths.

To slow the spread of the disease, the vast majority of states have issued stay-at-home orders, closing non-essential businesses.  As a result, over 22 million people have filed for unemployment benefits.  Trump has expressed his desire to begin re-opening the country, and putting people back to work.  He claims that the proclamation banning new green cards is necessary to protect the jobs of those Americans currently out of work.

On one hand, the White House has tailored this proclamation somewhat narrowly.  The green card ban does not affect doctors, nurses, healthcare workers and medical researchers working on combatting the spread of COVID-19, or their spouses and children under age twenty-one.  Certain family-based immigrants also escape Trump's green card ban.  They include: (1) spouses of U.S. citizens; (2) children, under age 21, of U.S. citizens; (3) prospective adoptees of U.S. citizens; (4) members of the U.S. Armed Forces; and (5) spouses and children of U.S. Armed Forces members.

Other immigrants not affected by the ban are: (1) foreign investors (these are foreigners who have either invested $1 million in the United States and employ ten people, or invested $500,000 in a distressed area and employ five people); (2) Iraqi and Afghani translators; (3) Iraqis and Afghanis who provided special services to the U.S. Government; (4) aliens whose entry would be in the national interest of the United States.

The ban does not affect those who already possess an immigrant visa, or those who are in the United States and applying for an immigrant visa.  Thus, an H-1B specialty worker, that is, an alien worker with a temporary employment visa whose job requires a bachelor's degree at a minimum, may still apply for an immigrant visa. There is a question, however, of whether such aliens may leave the United States, have their green card issued at a consulate in a foreign country and return to the United States.  If legally possible, such aliens may want to try to adjust to status while still present in the United States.

The ban also does not affect those currently in removal proceedings in the United States, or people who are seeking asylum, withholding of removal, or protection pursuant to the Convention Against Torture.  Moreover, law enforcement agencies may still request that individuals necessary for their objectives be permitted to enter the United States.

This is due to the limits to the president's immigration power.  In 2018, the Supreme Court held, in the case of Trump v. Hawaii, that the president has broad powers to suspend the entry of aliens who are trying to come into the United States.  With respect to aliens already present in the United States, Article I of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate immigration and nationality.

In the introduction to the proclamation, Trump notes that while the U.S. Department of Labor  is responsible for issuing labor certifications, such certifications take time to adjudicate, and therefore do not reflect the current U.S. labor market.  A labor certification is a determination that there are no U.S. workers who are ready, willing and able to accept a specific job with a U.S. employer.  U.S. employers must obtain a labor certification before petitioning for an alien worker to receive an employment-based visa.  The employer is required to demonstrate, by engaging in certain recruitment methods, that it is not able to fill a needed position with a U.S. worker.  It is a challenging and rigorous process, that can take over a year for the Labor Department to grant.

The proclamation is set to expire sixty days after the effective date.  However, it may be extended as necessary.

The President has further called on the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, other measures that may be appropriate to stimulate the U.S. economy, ensuring that U.S. workers get priority.  This may mean that while temporary employment visas are unaffected by this proclamation, such visas in the future may be subject to restriction.

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.

References

Proclamation Suspending Entry of Immigrants Who May Present a Risk to the U.S. Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the COVID-19 Outbreak (April 22, 2020).

Trump v. Hawaii, Slip Op. No. 17-965 (June 26, 2018).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Coronavirus Disease 2019."

Chapman, Steve, "Trump's immigration ban won't help fight COVID-19," Chicago Tribune (April 22, 2020).

Chalfant, Morgan and Bernal, Rafael, "Trump signs executive order limiting immigration," The Hill (April 22, 2020).

Kapur, Shahil, "Trump Halts Immigration for 60 Days.  Here's What the President's Order Means," NBC News (April 22, 2020).

Perper, Rosie, "Trumps signs executive order suspending immigration into the U.S. for 60 days," Business Insider (April 22, 2020).

Williams, Pete, "Does Trump have the authority to halt immigration?", NBC News (April 21, 2020).

Temporary Restraining Order Blocks Trump Administration from Implementing Rule Requiring New Immigrants to Have Health Insurance

On November 2, 2019, Judge Michael Simon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon issued a nation-wide temporary restraining order ("TRO"), preventing the Trump Administration from implementing its new policy of requiring aliens applying for visas to become lawful permanent residents to demonstrate that they will be covered by an approved health insurance plan within 30 days of entering the United States.  The Trump Administration was set to implement the policy on November 3, 2019.

A group of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging the policy on October 30, 2019.  The followed up by filing a motion for a TRO on November 1, 2019.  The Court held an emergency hearing on November 2, 2019.  The parties presented oral arguments at the hearing, but did not have time to file written arguments.

The Government had argued that the plaintiffs made their own emergency, by delaying until a few days before the policy was to go in effect to file their complaint and motion.  Judge Simon disagreed, noting that the Presidential Policy announcing the new policy was published on October 4, 2019, and that under the circumstances, filing a complaint twenty-six days after the issuance of the Proclamation was not an unreasonable delay.

Pursuant to the Presidential Proclamation, if an applicant for an immigrant visa could not show that he or she would be able to purchase an approved health insurance policy within 30 days of entering the United States, they would be deemed inadmissible as likely to become a public charge, and barred from entering the United States.

The Court first noted that Congress had addressed the public charge grounds of inadmissibility in the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA").  Congress provided that a number of factors should be examined to determine whether a person is likely to become a public charge, which include the alien's age, health, family status, assets, resources, and financial status, and education and skills.  No one factor was to be determinative.  The statute did not mention a person's health insurance status as one of those factors.

Moreover, the Proclamation listed a number of health insurance plans that would acceptable.  The Court found that almost all of the listed types of insurance plans would be unavailable to most intending immigrants.  In addition, the Proclamation excluded any health insurance plan purchased through a state's marketplace pursuant to the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) if the state subsidized the plan.  Thus, the Court noted that the Proclamation excluded the one type of health insurance plan many intending immigrants would be able to afford.  Furthermore, the Court noted that Congress had rejected a proposal to consider the receipt of non-cash benefits from the government in making the public charge consideration.  The Presidential Proclamation, therefore, was inconsistent with the congressional intent as expressed through the INA.

Because this was an extraordinary measure being taken by the Court at such an early stage in the lawsuit, Judge Simon limited the TRO to 28 days, unless extended by the Court.  The Court further scheduled another hearing on November 22, 2019.

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.

I'm Not Dead Yet: How DAPA Has Survived the Supreme Court Decision

Yesterday, in a one sentence decision, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that they were deadlocked in the case of United States v. Texas, and therefore the Circuit Court decision stands. 

The media hailed the decision as a major defeat for President Obama's Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program. The President announced in November of 2014 that parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents present in the United States could qualify for a promise that the government will not seek their deportation and a chance to apply for work authorization. The President took matters into his own hands when he believed Congress had become deadlocked on the issue of immigration reform. Critics immediately dubbed the move amnesty. 

Texas and other states filed suit over the measure, claiming the President had no authority to implement the program without congressional authorization. Before the District Court could hold a hearing on the main case, the states sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the Administration from implementing the program while the lawsuit was pending. The District Court granted the injunction. The Administration appealed. The Circuit Court upheld the injunction. The Administration sought review before the Supreme Court. 

Meanwhile, the main case continued before the District Court. 

The Supreme Court decision concerned only the preliminary injunction. Because the main case is still pending, this means that the issue could once again reach the Supreme Court. 

What this means is that the 2016 presidential election has now become a critical election for immigration reform. Justice Antonin Scalia died this year, leaving an open Supreme Court seat. With an even number of Supreme Court justices, any case where the vote is tied means that the lower court decision stands. The Republicans in the Senate have refused to hold hearings on President Obama's nominee to take Scalia's seat. 

This means that the new President will have the power to appoint a new justice, and thereby break the deadlock before the main case reaches the Supreme Court.  The fight over DAPA, therefore is not over; its fate rests in the hands of the voters. 

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr. 

For an appointment, call (703) 837-8832

Se habla español (571) 551-6069 

Do I Need a Lawyer to Apply for Citizenship?

While attending a class with other immigration lawyers, I heard a presenter express her experience that USCIS is reviewing the basis of a person's permanent residency in many more cases when that person has applied for citizenship.  Indeed, I have personally come across a number of people who found themselves in trouble after submitting a naturalization application because USCIS had uncovered some problem with their permanent residency.  Indeed, other immigration lawyers stated that the situation had gotten to a point that when a person comes to them for assistance in filing a naturalization application, the lawyers are now going in depth in questioning the potential client on how they became a permanent resident.

When a person submits a naturalization petition, USCIS does not simply adjudicate whether that person should become a citizen.  Quite the contrary, USCIS sees this a its last opportunity to look into the background of the applicant, and be sure that everything in the applicant's background is in order.  This means that the adjudicator routinely reviews the applicant's basis for applying for permanent residency in the first place, to ensure that the applicant was granted permanent residency properly.

While it may no seem fair, if, during the naturalization application process, the adjudicator finds something was wrong with the way that the green card was issued, he or she can recommend that the green card be revoked.

For example, if an adult child of a permanent resident was granted an immigrant visa, he or she must remain unmarried until being admitted to the United States as a permanent resident.  If that person were to get married at some point after the U.S. consulate issued the visa, but before actually entering the United States, then that person would have been unqualified to have been admitted as a permanent resident.  When applying for naturalization, that person will be required to disclose the details of all marriages.  A thorough adjudicator could notice that the date of marriage preceded the date of admission, conclude that at the point of admission the person did not qualify for the green card, and then recommend that the green card be revoked.

Similarly, there is a requirement that an applicant for citizenship show five years of good moral character.  Applicants should be aware that the FBI will be conducting a background check on them.  That means that any convictions will likely be brought to the Government's attention if a naturalization application is filed.

The bottom line is that sometimes it may be the better course simply not to apply for citizenship.  But, in order to know that, a person would likely need to consult with a knowledgeable immigration lawyer.  Thus, while the application process would appear simple, consulting with a lawyer beforehand can avoid some disastrous consequences.

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

Video Blog: USCIS Field Office in Fairfax for a Marriage Visa Interview

I was at the Fairfax Field Office of USCIS this morning to attend a marriage visa interview.

Video Blog: Criminal Issues and Immigration Law

Immigration Law Provides Opportunities to Bring Foreign-Born Relatives to the United States

U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents can petition for visas to bring certain foreign-born relatives to live in the United States.  How fast the process works depends on whether the petitioner is a citizen and which relative is involved.

Spouses, minor children, and in some cases parents of U.S. citizens are defined as "immediate relatives."  The process for immediate relatives tends to be much quicker than other relatives.  Immediate relatives, for example, do not have to wait for a visa number to become available to immigrate.  Immediate relatives also have more liberal rules to allow them to adjust to status if they are present in the Untied States after being inspected and admitted.

Adult children and siblings of U.S. citizens, and spouses and children of permanent residents can also immigrate. But, the numbers are limited by Congress to 400,000 per year.  This is called the preference system.  Visas become available based on the date that the visa petition is filed.  For some countries, it is not unusual to have to wait years for a visa to become available.  In most cases, these relatives must process their visa applications at their local U.S. Consulate before being admitted as a permanent resident.

For more information on the availability of family-based visas, and the process, please click here to see my article.

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

Some Expressing Relief Upon Receiving Deferred Action

Some recipients under the President's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program are expressing relief.  But, an issue that this article raises towards the end, questions remain concerning a permanent solution that could lead toward permanent residency and citizenship.