Categories
Updates

Overstaying and Human Trafficking Cited As Main Reasons for Rendering Filipinos Ineligible for U.S. Temporary H2 Working Visas

Share this:

Every year since 2008, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State publish a list of countries whose nationals are eligible to receive H2A and H2B visas. Philippines has always been on this list except for 2019. In a surprising announcement through the Federal Register publication on January 18, 2019, the Philippines together with Dominican Republic (H2B only) and Ethiopia were deleted from the list. This means that no Filipinos will be able to receive H2 Visa beginning 2019.

Only Limited Categories of Working Visas Affected

The working visas impacted by this bad news are limited to the H2A and the H2B visas.

H2A visas are working visas issued to perform agricultural labor or agricultural services of a temporary or seasonal nature. The farm labor includes the raising of livestock, any practices including forestry and lumbering incident to or related to farming operations, handling, planting, packaging to market or carrier for marketing.

H2B visas, on the other hand, are those applied for to work in non-agricultural labor. The type of jobs mostly availed by Filipinos who are temporary and seasonal work in the hotel or construction projects.

Both these agricultural and non-agricultural working visas are temporary in nature and the holder of these visas are expected to return to their homeland after the expiration of the visas.

There are other categories of working visas that are not affected by this recent development and these include the H1B professional and specialty occupations, the H3 Trainees and the O1/P1 working visas. Filipino nationals may continue to apply for the latter visa categories.

Overstaying and Human Trafficking

The U.S. Department of Homeland Securities reports that 40% of those issued H2 visas do not return to the Philippines after the expiration of their visas. It was also mentioned that 40% of the quota number for derivatives of “T1” Trafficking Visas are issued to Filipinos. Visas for derivatives of victims of trafficking are identified as T2 or T3 visas.

Human trafficking occurs when traffickers lure individuals with false promises of employment and a better life often taking advantage of the vulnerable unemployed or low income individuals who lack access to social safety nets. Victims of human trafficking are issued T nonimmigrant visas and are allowed to work and remain in the United States. To prohibit the use of the H2B visa as a route for human traffickers to take advantage of their victims, the DHS decided to designate Philippines as a country whose nationals are no longer eligible for the H2B and H2A visas.

Given that overstaying the authorized stay is unlawful, It must be pointed out that overstaying of H2 workers is one major resulting consequence of becoming victims of human trafficking. Most of the victims borrowed huge sums of money to be able to pay their agents or traffickers. These workers are hesitant to return to the homeland because they will be facing financial issues, lawsuits if not harassment from their creditors in the Philippines.

There are 66,000 visas that are issued each fiscal year. For the year 2017, Filipinos availed of 767 of the H2B visas and that is approximately a little more than 1% of the allocated visa. In rendering Filipinos ineligible of the H2B visas, there is not much impact on U.S. employers in general. However, the 1% is still important to Filipino workers and to their employers and that most of those affected are head of their families. If there is a genuine employer and employee relationship, despite the ineligibility of Filipinos, their employers may still seek a reconsideration to qualify Filipino workers as a matter of discretion and on a case by case basis if it is in the U.S. interest for the Filipino worker to receive the H2B visa. A discretionary factor that may be taken into account is the worker’s prior admission as H2B and that the worker complied with the terms of the program.

In regards to the human trafficking issue, this is a more serious concern not just for the United States but also for the Philippine government. With the delisting of the Philippines from the H2B program, it will be an opportune time to review existing regulations and initiate more restrictive measures to protect our Filipino workers.

(Atty. Lourdes Santos Tancinco, Esq. is a San Francisco based immigration attorney and an immigrant rights advocate. She may be reached at 1 888 930 0808, law@tancinco.com, facebook.com/tancincolaw, or through her website tancinco.weareph.com/old)

Categories
Updates

Expedited removal may be expanded under Trump

Share this:

Several advocates are distributing “Know Your Rights” literature to those who may possibly be affected by the enhanced enforcement of immigration law brought by Trump’s Executive Orders. One of the rights that one should know is the right to a hearing before an immigration judge. This is a constitutional due process right that may be asserted during apprehension and prior to removal.

There is one particular instance where there is no right to hearing, and that is during an expedited removal. Given the changes brought about by Trump’s Executive Order, will an extension of this process affect those who are present in the United States in unlawful status?

Expedited removal

For 20 years now, the expedited removal has been a process used by the Department of Homeland Security to fast track the removal of certain individuals at the ports of entry, who are in violation of immigration law relating to fraud or are unable to show proper legal documents to prove lawful status.

It is commonly referred to by Filipino travelers as “Airport to Airport” or “A to A,” referring to a case where a passenger at the port of entry in the United States is found inadmissible and is returned the same day of arrival (or the next available flight) to the country of origin. In these cases, the arriving alien is not entitled to a hearing, and a determination of a federal agent is sufficient to send the traveler back to his home country.

Expedited removal has been extended twice. The first expansion of expedited removal is in 2002 when it applied it to those who:

  1. entered the United States by sea, either by boat or other means;
  2. were not admitted or paroled in the United States (entered without inspection) and
  3. have not been continuously present in the United States for at least 2 years.

In 2004, the DHS expanded the application of expedited removal to non-citizens who are encountered within 100 miles of the border, and who entered the United States without inspection less than 14 days before they are encountered by immigration authorities.

Due process right to a hearing

President Trump’s Executive Order instructs the Secretary of Homeland Security to apply expedited removal to the fullest extent of the law. Section 11(c) of the Executive Order states in full: “Pursuant to section 235(b)(1)(A)(iii)(I) of the INA, the Secretary shall take appropriate action to apply, in his sole and un-reviewable discretion, the provisions of section 235(b)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) of the INA to the aliens designated under section 235(b)(1)(A)(iii)(II).”

Applying expedited removal to the fullest extent of the law means putting millions of unauthorized immigrants who have been in the United States for less than 2 years at risk of an expedited removal without a hearing even if apprehended beyond 100 miles from the border.

The DHS rules are still being developed and they will soon be published in the Federal Register. Yet, overzealous immigration officers may put anyone in expedited removal if apprehended and if unable to prove legal status and 2 years of physical presence.

The right to a hearing of those who have been residing in the United States extends even those who are without legal status. The Supreme Court had settled this issue many years ago. Should there be a deprivation of the right to a hearing because of the proposed expanded expedited removal, the Executive Order entitled “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements,” will be challenged in the judicial courts as being unconstitutional just like the executive order on the travel ban.

(Atty. Lourdes Santos Tancinco, Esq. is a San Francisco-based immigration attorney and an immigrant rights advocate. She may be reached at 1 888 930 0808, law@tancinco.com or facebook.com/tancincolaw.)