Trump Emphasizes Enforcement Priorities; Prosecutorial Discretion Remains Intact

U.S. President Donald Trump did not appear to curb the authority of immigration officials to engage in prosecutorial discretion when he signed an executive order on immigration policy and internal security on January 25, 2017.  This observation was supported by morning proceedings before the Arlington Immigration Court on January 26, 2017.  An attorney for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) stated in open court that her agency had received no instructions not to accept applications for prosecutorial discretion.  Accordingly, in a number of cases, Immigration Judge Thomas Snow granted continuances to permit immigration attorneys to submit prosecutorial discretion requests to ICE on behalf of their clients.

The process of exercising prosecutorial discretion to administratively close removal cases pending in Immigration Court which were not high enforcement priorities was first instituted by President Barrack Obama in 2011.  President Obama noted the limited resources available to enforce U.S. immigration law, and instructed immigration authorities to concentrate those resources on certain priority cases.  Those priorities included aliens with a criminal history, who pose a threat to public safety or national security, and who recently violated immigration law by entering without inspection by a Customs authority. 

In a memorandum dated June 17, 2011, ICE Director John Morton formalized the policy of exercising prosecutorial discretion.  Morton listed numerous factors for immigration authorities to weigh, including the length of the alien’s presence in the United States, the circumstances of the alien’s arrival, the alien’s ties to the United States, such as education, family members and contributions to the community, and other humanitarian concerns such as the health of the alien or the alien’s U.S. relatives.  By exercising prosecutorial discretion in appropriate cases, ICE would agree to administratively close a pending removal case, essentially permitting an alien who was present in the United States in violation of immigration law to remain.

President Trump's executive order is entitled "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States."  In the opening paragraph, President Trump emphasizes the importance of enforcing U.S. immigration law in the interior of the country, to safeguard national security and public safety.  The President outlines his enforcement priorities to include alien who: (a)  Have been convicted of any criminal offense; (b)  Have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not been resolved;  (c)  Have committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense; (d)  Have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter or application before a governmental agency; (e)  Have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits; (f)  Are subject to a final order of removal, but who have not complied with their legal obligation to depart the United States; or (g)  In the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security. These priorities are similar to those of the Obama Administration.

The President did not specifically mention prosecutorial discretion or the June 17, 2011 memorandum in his executive order.  However, the outlining of enforcement priorities lends credence to the conclusion that the ability of immigration authorities to exercise prosecutorial discretion remains in effect.

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.

For an appointment, call (703) 837-8832

(571) 551-6069 (ESP)

Marriage Equality and Full Faith and Credit

I had my first consultation with a same sex couple in a post Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) world. Without giving away any specific facts, this was a gay couple in a long term relationship living in Virginia seeking immigration advice. I suggested that if they were to get married in the District of Columbia, we could file a visa petition on behalf of the non-citizen spouse. But, there would be one issue that could complicate matters. 

That is, under current Virginia law a same sex marriage performed in a state where it is legal will not be recognized. I warned that USCIS could use that as a reason to deny the petition. That is, while the marriage would be legal where it was performed, it would not be legal in the state of residence. 

In my honest opinion, I don't think this Administration would split hairs like that. To the contrary, given how quickly USCIS approved a visa petition for a married gay couple two days after the Supreme Court decision striking down DOMA, I think this Administration would likely approve a petition involving a DC marriage even if the couple is living in Virginia. Nonetheless, my opinion could be wrong, and thus I had to warn my potential clients up front. 

But this does bring up an interesting issue. The Constitution requires the states to give full faith and credit to the actions and records of another state. Thus, a marriage performed in Ohio, for example, must be recognized in Virginia. 

Still, I believe that some states will stick to their guns, and continue to refuse to recognize same sex marriages until forced to do so by the Supreme Court. I think Virginia and North Carolina are among those states. 

The next round of litigation may be over the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. In fact, I would not doubt that some organization has already drafted up the Complaint, ready to file for the right case. In the end, I believe that same sex marriages will have to be recognized in all states.  Otherwise, the full faith and credit clause would be meaningless. Virginia may not be required to allow same sex couples to marry within its borders. But eventually, Virginia may be required to recognize a DC same sex marriage as legal. 

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr. 

(703) 837-8832

Info@kovatchimmigrationlaw.com

Immigration Reform Heads to the Republican Controlled House of Representatives

Immigration reform passed the Senate last week with a vote of 68-32.  The issue now heads to the House of Representatives, where it's future is less certain.

While almost 70 Senators voted for the reform bill, the fact remains that only 14, or less than one-third, of Republican Senators voted for it.

Unlike the Senate, the House is controlled by Republicans.  Speaker of the House, John Boehner, is not likely to bring proposed legislation to the floor for a vote unless a majority of the House Republicans are in favor of it.  Although Republicans are in favor of certain reform measures, there is one issue that Republicans may strongly contest.

Namely, the pathway to citizenship for those already present in the country may turn out to be a measure House Republicans won't swallow.  In a way, Republicans may be guided by the politics of self-preservation.  On the one hand, PBS reports that most House Republicans are in safe districts.  This means that if those Republicans vote in favor of a pathway to citizenship, they are more likely to face a primary challenge from a conservative candidate angry over immigration reform than a strong Democratic challenge in the November 2014 elections.

Then, there is the issue of what would happen to the future electoral chances of the Republican Party if millions of Latinos already present in the United States become full citizens with voting rights.  Although it is a mistake to consider Latinos as a single, unified group (Cubans tend to vote differently than Mexicans, for example), in generally Latinos tend to vote Democratic.  In the last election, over two-thirds of the Latino vote went to President Obama.  Republicans will be very reluctant to endanger their future electoral success by voting for a pathway to citizenship.

That is not to say that Republicans oppose immigration reform.  Jeb Bush and Clint Bolick published an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal making a Republican case for immigration reform.  Their emphasis was on reducing family based immigration in favor of more employment based immigration.  The two viewed this as the House of Representative's opportunity to make changes to the Senate proposal, more in line with conservative values.  The House, for example, can insist on greater border control measures.  Regarding the path to citizenship, Bush and Bolick would make the civics test for naturalization more challenging.

In the end, Bush and Bolick state that Republicans have more in common with immigrants, such as "beliefs in hard work, enterprise, family, education, patriotism and faith."  Bush and Bolick urge Republicans to stop being an obstacle to reform, "and instead point the way toward the solution."

Of course, there may be a way to push for reform, with providing some political cover for House Republicans.  This is through the use of the discharge petition.  If 218 House members sign a discharge petition, then the legislation would come to the floor of the House for a vote despite opposition of the House leadership.   This is a rare occurrence, as it requires a few members of the majority party to join forces with the minority party in order to bypass House leadership.  In normal circumstances, this would mean reprisals against the those members of the majority party who side with the minority party.

A discharge petition, however, may be exactly what House Republican leaders need to allow immigration reform to come to a vote without making it look like their fingerprints are on it.  That is, if there is pressure from Republican leaders outside of the House to bring the measure to the floor, the House leadership could work behind the scenes to encourage those Republicans in the House who support the measure to sign the discharge petition and force the measure to come to the floor.  Then, the House leadership and the majority of the House Republicans could go back to their districts and claim that they had nothing to do with immigration reform and even voted against it.

This is just one vision of how things could proceed in the House.  As of this moment, it is just speculation.  Steve Benen of MSNBC reports that the House already has a bipartison group working on its own version of immigration reform legislation.  If nothing else, immigration reform may continue to dominate Washington politics for a few months before we know what the outcome will be.

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

Confirmed: Same Sex Couples May Obtain Immigration Benefits

The New York Times is reporting that the first green card to a same sex couple was issued on Friday, June 28, 2013.  Julian Marsh, a U.S. citizen from Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, married Traian Popov, who is from Bulgaria and applied for a green card.  Mr. Popov received word that his green card was approved by email, an unusual move which signifies the desire of the Obama Administration to move quickly to come in compliance withe the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor.

If you are a same sex couple looking to apply for immigration benefits, call me at (703) 837-8832 for an appointment.

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

Marriage Equality Was Discussed in Crafting Senate Immigration Reform Bill

As I've posted on this blog a few days ago, the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor removed the last legal impediment to allowing same sex couples to apply for immigration benefits for the foreign born spouse.  The New Yorker reports that this topic was actually discussed during the negotiations of the Senate bill on immigration reform.

According to Ryan Linza, the Democrats in the Gang of Eight wanted to include a provision in the bill which would have given gay and lesbian couples the right to apply for immigration benefits.  The Republican members opposed the measure, with Senators Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham threatening to withdraw support if the measure were added.

The Supreme Court's decision, however, has apparently made this debate moot.  Because the Federal Government cannot discriminate against those in lawful same sex marriages, that would seem to indicate that immigration benefits must be granted on equal footing.  Indeed, the Washington Blade reports that the Office of Personnel and Management has already laid out a plan to provide Federal benefits for Government employees in same sex marriages.

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

Immigration Reform Passes Senate; What Will Happen in the House?

On June 27, 2013, immigration reform passed the Senate by an overwhelming 68-32 vote.  The bill which passed the Senate was broad set of reforms, from asylum law changes to the creation of immigration benefits for a broad set of people currently present in the country without status.  The most controversial portion of the bill appears to be the creation of the Registered Provisional Immigrant status, which provides legal status to alien present in the country since on or before December 31, 2011.

Reform now faces a tough test in the House of Representatives, which is controlled by the Republicans.  The Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Reince Priebus, has stated that the country needs comprehensive immigration reform. Speaker of the House, John Boehner, however, has made it clear that the House will not simply take up the Senate bill and vote on it.  Instead, the House will craft its own bill, based on the leanings of Republican majority.  Some analysts believe the House will pass a series of smaller bills, each addressing a discrete topic of immigration reform.  Other believe that the House will pass a comprehensive bill, and will send the issue to a joint committee with the Senate to negotiate a compromise.

One of the biggest sticking points for House Republicans could be the Registered Provisional Immigrant status, which some view as amnesty for illegal actions.  Of course, Republicans may pressure to find a way to appeal to Latino voters, who voted for President Obama in the last election at a ratio of 3 to 1.

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

Supreme Court Decision May Bring Changes to Immigration Law

Today, in the case of United States v. Windsor, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the holding of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which found the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional.  The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, provided that the Federal Government could not recognize same sex marriages as legal for the purposes of Federal law.

The case itself involved a lesbian couple, who at the time could not marry in their home state of New York (this has since changed as New York legalized same sex marriages).  The couple went to Ontario, Canada, where same sex marriage was legal, and wed.  The couple moved back to New York.  When one spouse died, the surviving spouse sought to take advantage of the marital deduction under the Federal Estate Tax.  This was prohibited under DOMA.  The surviving spouse sued, and won before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

In affirming the Second Circuit's decision, the Supreme Court first noted that the definition of who can get married has been an issue left to the several states.  When a state has chosen to recognize same sex marriages as legal, the effect of DOMA to prohibit Federal benefits to those married couples violated the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The decision itself involves Federal Estate Tax law.  However, under the same logic, there is no reason why it cannot also be applied to U.S. immigration law. 

U.S. immigration law itself does not define "marriage" or "spouse."  However, several immigration benefits are open due to marriage.  Up until now, DOMA has been the main impediment to having the Federal Government grant those benefits to a foreign born spouse of a same sex marriage.

For example, the foreign born spouse of a U.S. citizen is considered to be an "immediate relative," and as such is entitled to an immigrant visa without waiting in line under the preference system.  With DOMA being found unconstitutional, a U.S. citizen should be able to file an I-130 visa petition on behalf of a same sex spouse, so long as the marriage itself is legal.

Also, in many instances, when a person is granted a visa, that person can obtain a visa for certain derivative beneficiaries.  A specialty worker with an H-1B visa, for example, can have a spouse receive a temporary visa as well.  Under the Windsor decision, that H-1B visa holder should be able to apply for a derivative visa for a same sex spouse so long as the marriage is legal.

The Obama Administration is very likely the best administration to test this theory.  In September of last year, the Administration announced that long-term same sex partners would be considered U.S. relatives for the purposes of granting some form of discretionary relief, such as deferred action or prosecutorial discretion.  With such a track record, it seems likely that the Administration would now look favorably on a visa petition filed by a U.S. citizen on behalf of a same sex spouse.

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

Link to the Supreme Court's Opinion in United States v. Windsor

The Supreme Court has found provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional.  The case is called United States v. Windsor.  You can find the text of the opinion at this link.

The case specifically addresses U.S. estate tax law.  However, I believe that it clears the way for immigration benefits for same sex couples.  This article from the Washington Times agrees with me.

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

Same Sex Couples, Let's Challenge Immigration Law

The Supreme Court has struck down a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act. I believe this means that the Federal Government now cannot deny immigration benefits to same sex couples married where their marriage is legal. 

Do you want to apply for permanent residency for your same sex spouse. Call me for an appointment. 

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr. 

(703) 837-8832

Info@kovatchimmigrationlaw.com

Asylum Law Changes May Be Coming

The U.S. Government may grant a person asylum if that person can show that he or she has a reasonable fear of persecution because of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.  Reasonable fear has been defined by the Supreme Court as at least a 10% chance of the persecution occurring.  Currently, an asylum application must be filed within one year of the person entering the United States.  If asylum is granted, the asylee can apply for permanent residency, and then citizenship.

If a person has not filed an asylum petition within one year, that person could still be eligible for withholding of removal.  However, the standard is higher.  The person would have to show that he or she is more likely than not to face persecution.  Those granted withholding of removal are not later entitled to apply for permanent residency or citizenship.

If the immigration reform bill currently before the Senate becomes law, a major change to U.S. asylum will take place.  The one year deadline in which to file an asylum petition will be removed.  But that's not all.  All of those people who were granted withholding of removal solely because they did not meet the one year deadline will be eligible to have their status changed to that of an asylee.

Currently, the Government protects the one year deadline zealously in Immigration Court proceedings.  Removing the deadline would open this form of relief to numerous people who would otherwise be ineligible to remain in the safety of the United States.

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

Drunk Drivers Beware!

Currently, a conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), or driving while intoxicated (DWI), is not an automatic ground for inadmissibility or deportation.  But, all of that could change if the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act becomes law.

Section 3702 of the Act creates a new ground of inadmissibility and a new ground of deportation: Habitual Drunk Drivers.  A Habitual Drunk Driver is defined as a person who has three or more DUI or DWI convictions.

One key difference between the new ground of inadmissibility and the new ground of deportability is that in order for an alien to be deportable, at least one of the convictions must occur after the passage of the Act (click here for a discussion on the difference between inadmissibility anddeportability).  Because this provision is not in the section of the Act defining inadmissibility, that could lead to the conclusion that Congress intends for this provision to be applied retroactively for those who are present in the country illegally, or who apply for admission in the future.  That is, even though DUI and DWI convictions do not currently render an alien inadmissible, if the Act passes, then those aliens who are present in the country illegally and who currently have three or more DUI or DWI convictions could find themselves in immigration trouble.

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.

(703) 837-8832

info@kovatchimigrationlaw.com

Deferred Action Recipients May Get Preferential Treatment in Immigration Reform

For those who waited to file an application for the President's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, this may be the time to do it.  Under the current version of the Senate bill, those who received deferred action under the DACA program may automatically qualify for Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) status.  The bill gives the Secretary of Homeland Security the discretion to grant RPI status to DACA recipients who have not otherwise engaged in conduct that would render the DACA recipient ineligible for RPI status.  In fact, those who received DACA benefits may be immediately eligible for citizenship upon becoming a permanent resident.

DACA is the program announced by the President last year where certain young people who entered the United States before the age of 16 could be granted a reprieve from deportation and work authorization.  The requirements for DACA eligibility can be found here.

Current estimates are predicting passage of the bill in the Senate with as many as 70 votes.  How the bill will fare in the House, which is controlled by Republicans, remains to be seen.

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.

(703) 837-8832

info@kovatchimigrationlaw.com

What is Registered Provisional Immigrant Status?

With a vote coming up in the Senate, one of the hot topics in Washington is immigration reform.  While passage of immigration reform is by no means guaranteed, even critics of current reform bill, such as Rush Limbaugh, believe that passage in the Senate is likely.  It is prudent, therefore, to prepare for the passage of immigration reform, and in particular the creation of a new immigration benefit, Registered Provisional Immigrant.

Under the current bill (click here for the text of the Senate bill, S. 744), Registered Provisional Immigrant, or RPI, status can be granted to those who are already present in the country illegally.   

The current qualificationsfor RPI status are that the applicant:

• have been present on or before December 31, 2011;
• have continuous physical presence in the United States since December 31, 2011;
• pay a $500 fine along with the filing fee for the application;
• pay all taxes due;
• not have been convicted of an aggravated felon as defined by U.S. immigration law, any other felony, three of more misdemeanors, an offense in a foreign country that would otherwise render the applicant inadmissible under U.S. immigration law, or unlawful voting;
• is not a threat to national security;
• does not have a communicable disease such as tuberculosis;
• is of good moral character.

Dependent spouses and children of the applicant may also be eligible.

While the bill has not passed, potential applicants would be prudent to start collecting documentation necessary to prove eligibility.  This is of particular importance because the bill contains a deadline of one year from the date of the publication of the application procedures in the Federal Register in order to make the application.

What documents are you likely to need?  At this time, there is no definitive list.  However, using other programs as a guide, certain requirements can be expected:

•  Proof of identity:  birth certificates, passports, documento unico de indentidad (DUI)
• Proof of physical presence:  official mail such as utility bills, tax records, school records, church records, leases, marriage certificates (if married in the United States), birth certificates of children born in the United States
• Proof of taxes paid: tax returns, W-2 forms, 1099 forms, employment records
• Criminal issues: criminal background reports from your local police, criminal background reports from the FBI, criminal background reports from your home country, certified copies of all judgments and proof of completion of sentence (including any proof of payment of fines, fees or restitution)
• Good moral character:  letters from friends, relatives, employers, religious leaders

Those who qualify for RPI status will be eligible to apply for full permanent residency after 10 years.

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.

info@kovatchimmigrationlaw.com

(703) 837-8832