Ten years after arriving in the United States, Eva seems to have lost her hope of legalizing her stay. She was petitioned by her U.S. citizen fiancé, but after a few weeks of living together as a couple, her petitioner abandoned her. Her U.S. citizen fiancé never married her. She now has a child who was born in the United States from a subsequent relationship, but the father also refuses to acknowledge the child; and, neither is he marrying Eva.
In 2014 when President Obama announced the Executive Actions for parents of U.S. citizens (DAPA), Eva became hopeful that she would have an opportunity to stay and work legally. After an adverse ruling was rendered on June 23, 2016 by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the injunction on the DACA+ and DAPA, Eva became fearful that this setback would have the effect of immediate removal/deportation from the United States for the millions of immigrants who were prospective beneficiaries of the DAPA and DACA+.
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson, made a public statement that the enforcement priorities will be focused on those who have criminal convictions, threats to public safety and national security and border security. New immigration violators or those who just arrived and are now in unlawful status are second in priority for enforcement. Last in priority of enforcement are those with other immigration violations or those who are in the country in unauthorized status. This last category of immigrants is considered non-priority.
Despite these categories of enforcement priorities, there are recent cases where the DHS still placed in removal proceedings individuals who are in a non-priority category. This is quite troubling for those who are already in authorized stay. While there is no increase in the apprehension of undocumented immigrants, it is important to understand that if there is no immediate relief available, prosecutorial discretion may still be requested.
This prosecutorial discretion refers to different actions by the DHS to avoid removal, placing an individual in removal proceedings, dismissing an action, deciding to release a detained individual or whether to grant deferred action or parole. There is a broader deferred action policy that may be asserted in requesting for prosecutorial discretion.
There are different factors taken into account in order to warrant a favorable exercise of discretion from DHS. It may include, among others, the following: length of time in the United States; military service; family or community ties in the United States; status as a victim, witness or plaintiff in civil or criminal proceedings; or compelling humanitarian factors such as poor health, age, pregnancy, a young child, or a seriously ill relative.
Eva may take still have the option of requesting for prosecutorial discretion if she ever finds herself in immigration court for removal proceedings. Whether or not she will be granted favorable exercise of discretion will depend on the circumstances of her case.
Absent comprehensive immigration reform as well as the DACA and DAPA programs, prosecutorial discretion remains good policy and may always be requested especially in humanitarian cases where removal will affect families with U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.
(Atty. Lourdes Santos Tancinco, Esq. is an immigration attorney with the Tancinco Law Offices, a San Francisco CA based law firm. She may be reached at 1 888 930 0808, law@tancinco.com, facebook.com/tancincolaw, or through tancinco.weareph.com/old)
