Tag: Immigration and Nationality Act

Categories
Featured

Are you a Green Card holder and at risk of being detained at a U.S. airport?

Green Card Holder At Risk Detained US Airport
Share this:

Nowadays, a non-U.S. citizen returning from travel outside the United States is not necessarily guaranteed a smooth entry, even with a validly issued visa or lawful permanent resident (LPR) status. Many immigrants—including not just undocumented individuals but also green card holders—are increasingly fearful of their status. This atmosphere of fear has been fueled by the current administration’s heightened enforcement of immigration laws, along with stricter scrutiny of individuals’ past immigration and criminal histories upon entry into the U.S.

With recent news reports of numerous LPRs being detained at airports, this article aims to provide guidance on whether you might be at risk of possible detention or arrest upon arrival.

Why Are Lawful Permanent Residents Being Detained at Ports of Entry/Airports After Traveling Abroad?

A non-U.S. citizen is granted lawful permanent resident status by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to allow them to permanently reside and work in the United States. Green cards may be issued through family-based or employment-based petitions, as well as humanitarian visas.

However, holding a green card does not mean that your status is truly “permanent” or that you are automatically guaranteed re-entry into the U.S. Like temporary visas, lawful permanent resident status is a privilege granted by the U.S. government—not an absolute right. If you fail to meet the residency requirements or engage in conduct that violates immigration laws, your green card may be revoked.

Traveling and Returning to the United States

General Rule

As a green card holder, you generally should not fear returning to the U.S. after traveling abroad. However, if you have a case or past actions that fall under grounds for revocation of your green card, you could face detention and secondary inspection by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers at the port of entry.

Returning Resident vs. Arriving Alien

In immigration law, understanding certain key terms is essential. When entering the U.S. with a valid visa—whether a green card or a temporary visa—you are expected to be admitted after inspection of your travel documents. If no legal grounds exist to deny your entry, CBP must allow you in. However, if there are deficiencies in your visa or circumstances rendering you inadmissible, you may be classified as an “arriving alien” rather than a “returning resident.”

Generally, green card holders are not considered arriving aliens. However, there are exceptions where an LPR may be classified as an arriving alien, which could put them at risk of inadmissibility and denial of entry.

For example, an LPR may be deemed an arriving alien if CBP suspects that they abandoned their resident status or if they fall under a category subject to removal from the United States. If this occurs, the CBP officer may place the individual in secondary inspection, detain them at the airport, or refer them to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), depending on the nature of their case.

Categories of Green Card Holders Who May Be Detained or Considered Arriving Aliens

Even before the current administration’s restrictive enforcement of immigration laws, legal provisions already existed for classifying certain green card holders as arriving aliens under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Section 101(a)(13)(C). A green card holder may be deemed an arriving alien if they:

  • Have abandoned or relinquished their resident status
  • Have been absent from the U.S. for a continuous period exceeding 180 days
  • Have engaged in illegal activity after departing the U.S.
  • Departed the U.S. while under legal proceedings for removal
  • Have committed an offense that falls under INA Section 1182(a)(2) unless granted relief under INA 1182(h) or 1229b(a)

Criminal grounds of inadmissibility referred to in number 5 category refer to:

  1. Crime involving moral turpitude;
  2. Multiple criminal convictions;
  3. Controlled substance traffickers;
  4. Prostitution and commercialized vice;
  5. Human Trafficker;
  6. Money Laundering

To complicate matters for arriving aliens, there are certain crimes that require the law enforcers to detain non-U.S. citizens because of the Laken Riley Act which was enacted immediately after President Trump took office. Added to the crimes defined under existing law above, the following crimes may render the returning resident into stricter scrutiny:

  1. Burglary;
  2. Theft;
  3. Larceny;
  4. Shoplifting;
  5. Assault of law enforcement officer;
  6. Crime resulting in death or serious bodily injury to another person.

If an LPR falls into any of these categories—including those with prior criminal convictions—CBP may classify them as an arriving alien and detain them at the port of entry. However, similar to other immigrants detained after enforcement actions, LPRs detained at ports of entry still have rights they can exercise.

Before Traveling Abroad or Returning to the United States

The mere passage of time since receiving your green card or the fact that you have previously traveled in and out of the U.S. without incident does not guarantee future entry. Given the stricter enforcement environment, it is crucial to exercise due diligence before traveling.

What You Should Do:

  1. Consult an immigration attorney before traveling if:
    • You have a prior arrest or criminal record (convictions or pending charges)
    • You have a pending case with immigration court or USCIS
    • There is anything in your immigration history that was not disclosed during your green card application and could raise questions upon re-entry
  2. Be mindful of extended absences from the U.S.
    • Staying outside the U.S. for more than six months may have serious consequences. While this alone may not revoke your green card, CBP may view it as evidence of abandonment.
    • If pressured to sign an abandonment of residence form at the airport, know that you are not required to sign it against your will.
  3. Know your rights as a lawful permanent resident.
    • Understanding the legal framework surrounding LPR status will help you navigate interactions with CBP officials and avoid unnecessary complications upon return.

Final Thoughts

Not all green card holders are at risk of being detained at the airport upon re-entry. However, those classified as “arriving aliens” may face heightened scrutiny and potential enforcement actions by CBP. If you are an LPR, remember: “Use it, or lose it.”

(Author Atty. Lourdes Santos “Atty. Lou” Tancinco is an immigration attorney and immigrant rights advocate based in the San Francisco Bay area and a partner at the Tancinco Law P.C., law firm established since 1992.  She is also a producer/host of Pusong Pinoy sa Amerika, an immigration law informational show aired on GMA Pinoy TV. She may be reached at law@tancinco.com, www.tancinco.com, facebook/tancincolaw, or at 1-888-930-0808)

Categories
Updates

Marry, Divorce & Remarry: Effect on the Conditional Green Card Holder Spouse

Marry, Divorce & Remarry: Effect on the Conditional Green Card Holder Spouse
Share this:

Entering into a good faith marital relationship is always with the intention to stay married forever.  But what if there is no “forever”? What will happen when there is separation or divorce?  What are the effects of these circumstances to the petitioned spouse who is a green card holder with only a conditional resident status? 

Let’s take the case of Joseph (not his real name).  In 2015, Joseph entered the United States based on the petition of his U.S. citizen spouse Rita.  They were childhood sweethearts and have known each other since high school.  So when Rita attended their high school reunion, both Joseph and Rita rekindled the old flame and got married in a simple wedding ceremony.  Upon returning to the United States, Rita petitioned Joseph.  After a year of petitioning, Joseph was able to travel to the United States and was issued a 2-year conditional green card with an expiration date of  12/30/2018.  

After being together for only 6 months, Rita and Joseph began to experience marital problems until they decided to go their separate ways. Rita obtained a divorce decree ending their short lived relationship.  

With Joseph’s green card’s validity expiring, he was at a loss on whether he will return to the Philippines (to avoid falling out of status) or file for a waiver.  He decided to return to the Philippines but a few months before his departure, he met Cecilia who is also a U.S. citizen.  Cecilia and Joseph started dating regularly until Cecilia offered to marry and petition Joseph.  Now Joseph is presented with a situation where he has to choose to return to the Philippines or have Cecilia petition him.  Can he be petitioned even if he still has 6 months validity on his original conditional resident card?  Will the USCIS allow him to adjust his status in the U.S. once Cecilia petitions him?

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Section 245(d), conditional residents are barred from adjusting unless they take the necessary steps to remove the two year conditions on their status.  This means that a person could not obtain conditional resident status based on marriage to a U.S. citizen, divorce that petitioner spouse, remarry a second U.S. citizen and re-adjust during that 2 year period.  

When a person with conditional resident status fails to file for the Petition to Remove Condition (I-751) prior to expiration of the validity of the two year conditional status, the USCIS usually issues a decision terminating the status of the green card holder.  The next process then is that the petitioned spouse will be facing the Immigration Judge in a court proceeding to have a filed I-751 be reviewed to prove validity of the first marriage. 

This rule had applied for many years until the interpretation of this rule was changed in 2019 by the USCIS based on the case of Matter of Stockwell, 20 I&N Dec 309 (BIA 1991), where a person with condition resident status may adjust based on second marriage without having to go to immigration court.

Therefore, in the case of Joseph, once he gets the USCIS Notice Terminating his resident status, he will be allowed to adjust based on the second marriage.  USCIS interpretation is that conditional status is now terminated as a matter of law on the second anniversary of the noncitizen’s lawful admission for resident status. 

Categories
Updates

Tancinco Law 4.0: 2023 Onwards. The Era of a Hybrid Law Firm.

Share this:

Typewriters, copier machines, telephone landlines and stack of legal pads..these were the initial office tools that we had when Tancinco Law opened in May 1992.  The office was located at the center of downtown San Francisco on Fifth and Market.

In 1992, Tancinco Law was founded by two alumni of the University of the Philippines College of Law, spouses Rey and Lourdes Tancinco. Equipped with a law degree, Philippine and California bar licenses, they started their own practice to provide legal services to their fellow immigrants in their adopted land.

F.B.I. were the initial areas of practice:  Family Law, Business Law and Immigration. As the years passed and as the client base increased, it found itself practicing 80% immigration law with clients mainly from the first generation of Filipino immigrants.

The First Decade: 1992-2002 “Baby Steps” Years

Just like a toddler learning to walk, the first 10 years were marked with baby steps to building clientele. Family and close friends were indispensable to building the practice. In fact, the first few attorneys and staff were close friends. It was during this first decade that Attorney Lourdes Tancinco (Atty Lou) engaged voluntarily in community service by providing pro bono legal services to Filipino World War II veterans who were new immigrants then arriving under the IMMACT90. Through the free legal clinic, thousands of elderly veterans were able to reunite with their spouses and other family members.A 501(c)(3) organization was co-founded by Attorney Lou, the San Francisco Veterans Equity Center (SFVEC).

Tancinco Law’s immigration practice took on general immigration cases such as family and employment based visas. Highlights of the practice was the increase of the healthcare workers being petitioned by hospitals and health care agencies. During this decade the H1A visas, specifically created for registered nurses, were issued to many Filipino nurses assisted by the firm.  The firm also assisted with getting visas for managers and employees of businesses in the Philippines extending their operations in the United States. In 1997, a legislation was passed resulting in the major overhaul of the Immigration & Nationality Act making it more difficult for those with prior fraud immigration violations and criminal cases to legalize their stay in the United States.

While no legalization law was enacted, Section 245i was enacted giving opportunity for those in unlawful presence to adjust status as long as they have approved petitions filed before April 30, 2001. Thousands of Filipino clients took advantage of this legislation.

Second Decade: 2002-2012 “Expansion Years”

The second decade is about expansion. Physical locations of the Tancinco Law were established. First with the Manila office in 2007, Vallejo in 2008, Milpitas in 2012. With the physical offices in various locations Tancinco Law attorneys were able to reach more clients in close proximity to the office location.

With no new legislation affecting immigrants coupled with the 2008 Recession, the practice of law was somehow adversely affected. Nonetheless, the firm continued its immigration advocacy as Atty Lou continued to engage in educational campaigns through her newspaper columns published weekly in Philippine Daily Inquirer, Philippine News and Filipino Guardian. It was also during this second decade that Attorney Lou embarked on a non-traditional lawyering project, that of a Host and Producer of an Immigration TV show known as GMA’s Pusong Pinoy Sa Amerika. Pinoy Panawagan at TFC’s Balitang America was also launched where she appeared on TV answering viewers’ questions on immigration matters. 

One of the historic moments during this decade was enactment into law of the Filipino Veterans Compensation Act of 2009. Atty  Lou through the San Francisco Veterans Equity Center, and other community advocates actively lobbied for the passage of this Act which benefited thousands of Filipino veterans who fought during World War II.

The Third Decade 2012-2022 “Survival Years & the Birth of the New Normal”

With four physical locations in existence, a fifth location was established in 2015. The goal was to reach more clients in the Los Angeles area. The law firm became busy this era not because we had more clients availing of services but because we had more inquiries about consequences of Trump’s anti-immigrant policies. Restrictive deportation rules were enforced. The firm was able to assist clients in their removal cases and successfully got their green cards despite the lengthy wait.

This decade experienced the worst and unexpected crisis: the COVID-19 outbreak in the early months of 2020. The firm closed all of its 4 physical locations. Operations of Tancinco Law were done remotely. Attorneys and staff using technology were all working from home but efficiently reached out to clients and completed tasks more productively. The pandemic years gave way to the new normal, the hybrid law firm where the practice will continue to use technology to provide efficient service to its clientele.

The physical location of the office moved from the City of  San Francisco CA to Burlingame CA (near SFO Airport about 20 minutes away from the City). Tancinco Law remains very accessible to existing and potential clients. On its website, clients may reach attorneys and schedule appointments. The phone number and email addresses are the same.

2023 will be the beginning of its 4th decade. No more typewriters and paper files. It is an operational hybrid firm that has adopted the new normal of being a paperless office, staff working remotely and communicating more efficiently using different platforms. Tancinco Law is moving forward and continuing its commitment to provide services to the immigrant community especially now that it has retooled using new and best digital technology. 

Categories
Updates

Change in State Department Policy: Child Born Abroad to Same-Sex Married Couple is a U.S. Citizen

Share this:

In a recent development relating to transmission of U.S. citizenship to children born abroad to same sex couples, the U.S. Department of State said that it will recognize birthright citizenship for children born abroad to married parents, as long as one parent is an American citizen. This is a policy change that makes it easier for same-sex couples to pass citizenship on to their children born overseas.

This change in policy was prompted by a series of federal court cases where the court sided with same-sex couples, many of whom married and started families abroad before the U.S. legalized same-sex marriage.

One of the cases filed was that of Laura Fieldne. Laura, a U.S. citizen, is married to her wife, Maria, a Spanish citizen.  Maria gave birth to their older daughter, L.F.,  in Spain with the help of an anonymous sperm donor.  Laura, being a U.S. citizen, reported the birth of LF abroad as a U.S. citizen but the registration was denied, stating that the qualifying US citizen parent does not have a biological relationship with the child. In 2020, Laura filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of State policy as being discriminatory and unconstitutional.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, while married couples can give birthright citizenship to their children born abroad if either parent is eligible to do so, children born “out of wedlock” must be biologically related to the eligible citizen parent. The State Department’s policy before was to treat babies born through assisted reproductive technology to same-sex couples as out of wedlock. This policy is certainly unconstitutional disregarding the dignity and equality of the marriages of same-sex couples. How can both same sex couples be blood-related to the child?

The change in policy is a welcome development to the immigrant and LGBTQ community. State Department spokesperson Ned Price said in a press statement that children born abroad to married parents can now have birthright citizenship if they have a genetic or gestational tie to at least one of their parents and if at least one of their parents is an American citizen.

“This updated interpretation and application of the [Immigration and Nationality Act] takes into account the realities of modern families and advances in [assisted reproductive technology] from when the Act was enacted in 1952,” Price said.

Categories
Updates

7 Immigration Policy Changes Important to Filipinos

Share this:

On his first day in office, President Joe Biden will introduce hundreds of pages of immigration executive orders that will cover most of the policies he pledged to change. With several provisions that are proposed, the more than 4 million Filipinos residing in the United States and their relatives still waiting to migrate are looking forward to major change in policies. Below are 7 immigration related agenda that may have the most impact for Filipinos.

1. The DACA Program

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients are immigrants who arrived in the United States at a very young age. After several attempts to pass legislation to confer legal status to this category of immigrants and the failure of Congress to pass law, former President Obama issued an Executive Order giving these young immigrants protection from deportation and issuing them employment authorization. When President Trump came into office in 2017, one of his first executive actions was to rescind the DACA program. More than 800,000 DACA recipients were affected by Trump’s rescission of the program. Court litigation ensued and the Supreme Court affirmed the legality of the DACA program. While the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services started implementing the DACA protections to initial applicants, it did so only a few months ago leaving thousands of DACA recipients still in limbo about their status.

During this pandemic crisis, more than 200,000 DACA recipients are considered essential workers. Thus, in the Biden proposal, green cards or permanent immigrant visas will be granted to DACA recipients with a pathway to U.S. citizenship in three (3) years.

2. FWVP Program

More than 200,000 Filipinos were conscripted to join the U.S. Armed Forces during World War II (WWII)when the Philippines was still a territory of the United States. Under the War Powers Act, those who fought under the American flag may be entitled to apply for U.S. citizenship. All 66 allied countries nationals who fought side by side with the Americans during WWII were able to obtain U.S. citizenship but not the Filipino Veterans. A 1946 Rescission Act was enacted declassifying their services during WWII as not considered services for purposes of the veteran benefits. Hundreds of thousands of veterans lost their opportunities to apply for U.S. citizenship until 1990, when the Immigration and Nationality Act was enacted allowing belatedly the then 70 and 80 year old veterans to apply for U.S. citizenship.

As soon as they became U.S. citizens, they started filing petitions for their children. As the system in place takes more than 20 years to be current due to the severe backlog, most of the veterans who came in 1990s have already passed away. In the last 5 years, approximately 8,000 veterans are still alive but they have been slowly reducing in numbers. The Obama Administration proposed a Parole program specifically for the families of the veterans to enter the United States and be reunited with their veteran parents who are now of advanced age and sickly. This parole program is the Filipino World War II Veterans Parole Program. This Program only has a 5 year validity until 2021. Last December 2020, the Trump administration issued a notice to rescind the FWVP after 60 days of comment period. President Biden should consider supporting legislation that will give immediate green card status to families of the veterans; or, if not, extend the FWVP program.

3. Family Reunification

Family unity is very important to immigrants, and this applies most specially to Filipino immigrants. Petitioning immediate relatives by U.S. citizens is faster than petitioning adult children and siblings. For those being Petitioned from the Philippines the waiting period for visas to become available for adult married children and siblings of U.S. citizens takes approximately 20 years. And for those who are unmarried adult children, the waiting period is approximately 10 years.

With the pandemic crisis, even those whose visas are available who waited more than 20 years are not being processed at the U.S. Embassy because of the Trump Presidential Orders banning certain immigrants from entering the United States. Visa applications of parents and fiances of U.S. citizens are also put on hold at the U.S. Embassy. President Biden should reform the immigration system by adding more visas to the Family based category to reduce the backlog and make it faster for U.S. citizens or green card holders to petition their family members. Trump’s Presidential Proclamations 10014 and 10052 banning the entry of immigrants and processing of their visas at the U.S. Embassy must be revisited and rescinded.

4. Pathway to Citizenship for Undocumented Immigrants

About 2% of the 11 million undocumented immigrants are unauthorized Filipino immigrants. These are mostly those who fell into the cracks because of the broken immigration system leaving them no option to legalize their status. These unauthorized immigrants are with their family members in the U.S., are hardworking and regularly pay taxes. It is just an opportune time to provide them a pathway to U.S. citizenship.

The Biden administration is introducing the immigration reform bill that will allow unauthorized immigrants an 8 years pathway to citizenship by granting them green cards after 5 five years and allowing them to obtain U.S. citizenship in 3 years. This proposal is the centerfold of the immigration bill introduced by Biden and needs to be passed by Congress to become effective.

5. Public Charge Rule

One of the salient feature of the Trump legacy on immigration is not just curbing illegal immigration but also legal immigration. Deeply disguised as promoting national interest, the public charge rule also known as the wealth test prohibits the grant of immigrant visa if the petitioner or the beneficiary does not have enough financial resources to show that the beneficiary will not rely on public assistance for their subsistence. Restrictive rules were issued making it difficult for US citizens with meager income to be reunited with their families. There is also the 2019 Trump “uninsured ban” rule where those coming to the United States must be able to show proof within 30 days of arrival that they have health care insurance coverage. All these restrictive rules have become barriers to lawful immigration and it is cloaked in a way that benefits the U.S. when in fact it is based on the Trump administration’s assumption that immigrants are a drain to the nation’s resources. This has to change. Most of Filipino immigrant families are educated and bring their skills and knowledge to flourish and succeed in this country. President Biden should rescind the restrictive changes made by the Trump administration related to the public charge rule.

6. Healthcare Workers

During this global pandemic, the Filipino immigrants who are admired most as heroes are our health care workers. We have many Filipino caregivers, physical therapists, medical practitioners and nurses. These essential workers have proven their worth especially during this time of crisis. Current immigration law makes it difficult for most healthcare workers to obtain their immigrant visas. Even when the priority dates for employment-based third preference became current for Philippine nationals, it is usually still subject to long delays of months or years for the healthcare professionals to migrate to the United States. The increasing need for the essential healthcare workers had never been critical and President Biden should consider re-establishing a temporary visa category for nurses like before such as the H1C and H1A visas. This category will make it faster for healthcare workers to enter the United States.

7. Other Employment Based Visas

Philippines was included again in the list of those countries eligible to participate in a temporary working visa program or the H2B. Realizing how it will be in the best interest of the U.S. to make sure that the Filipinos are added to the workforce in the construction of military bases in Guam. This is a positive development. But also, there are Filipinos who are holders of H1B, J and L visas that have been affected by the Presidential Proclamation banning them from entering except those covered by litigation. President Biden should rescind this proclamation and reverse the H1B regulatory changes that Trump released prior to his departure from the White House.

All 7 immigration issues are just a few of the immigration priorities of the Biden Administration. As we maintain our faith in the new administration, we also hope that the Democratic led Congress will find it a priority to pass the Biden’s immigration reform bill for all these provisions to have a meaningful impact on our Filipino immigrants and their families.

(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, or through her firm’s website at www.tancinco.com)

Categories
Updates

Revisiting 245i: Adjustment of Status For Those In Unlawful Presence

Share this:

First off, this section 245i applies only to those with approved family or employment petitions whose priority dates are current, and are present in the United States in unlawful status.

How can they obtain their green card without having to leave the United States? Can they adjust their status in the United States applying 245i?

Mary, a Filipino national, entered the United States in December 2000 as a crew-member D visa. She boarded the ship going to the U.S. but eventually she jumped ship upon advice of her U.S. citizen sister who filed a petition for her in March 2001. When the petition of her sister was approved, she was told that she has to wait for more than 20 years before the visa will become available. Mary fell out of status and tried to find ways to obtain legal status.

In 2007, a U.S. employer hired her as a caregiver. She worked for a health care facility and a petition was filed on her behalf. The petition was denied because the petitioner, who filed for bankruptcy in 2008 cannot show proof of ability to pay her salary. Mary suffered depression but recovered. She now is working again as a caregiver.

Recently, she noticed that her sister’s visa petition’s priority date of 2001 is now current. She has been in unlawful status for 20 years and is wondering if she can still get her green card in the United States. Another concern that she has is Trump’s Suspension of Immigration for family based preference petitions which would cover the petition filed by her sister.

What can Mary do?

Section 245(i)

The nation’s immigration law had been remarkably amended during the Clinton Administration. But it was also under President Clinton’s time that thousands of immigrants who were in unlawful presence were able to obtain legal status when he enacted section 245i of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

INA §245(i) allows certain persons to apply for adjustment of status notwithstanding the fact that they entered without inspection, overstayed, or worked without authorization. A person who is not generally allowed to adjust status may do so if s/he is grandfathered under §245(i) provided that: (1) s/he is the beneficiary of a labor certification or visa petition under section 204 (including I-140, I-130, I-360, I-526) that was filed on or before Jan. 14, 1998; or (2) s/he is the beneficiary of a labor certification or visa petition that was filed after Jan. 14, 1998 but on or before Apr. 30, 2001, and he or she was physically present in the U.S. on Dec. 21, 2000.

To be grandfathered, an immigrant visa petition or labor certification application on or before Apr. 30, 2001 had to be: (1) timely filed; (2) the application had to be “approvable when filed” which is defined as (i) properly filed; (ii) meritorious in fact; and (iii) nonfrivolous.

Those who meet the eligibility requirements even if they are in unlawful status and are generally barred from filing adjustment of status under Section 245A and 245(c) may use this specific provision to obtain the green card.

Those who have immediate relatives (U.S. citizens on behalf of spouses, minor children and parents) as their petitioners may not need 245i to adjust their status because unlawful presence is waived for immediate relatives. This 245i applies mostly to family and employment based preference categories (eg. 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th categories).

Since there were numerous unlawfully present individuals who filed visa petitions under the Clinton administration (to take advantage of the 245i provision), and their priority dates of 2001 are now current in 2020, section 245i may allow them now to adjust their status. After 20 years, they can now finally adjust to get their green card.

In the case of Mary, since the petition was filed before April 30, 2001, the priority is now current based on the July 2020 visa bulletin, she will qualify under 245i to obtain her green card in the United States. The Trump Suspension of Immigration will not affect those who are present in the United States, hence, Mary may still file for her adjustment of status.

(Lourdes Santos Tancinco, Esq is a partner at the Tancinco Law Offices, a Professional Law Corp. Her office is located at One Hallidie Plaza, Ste 818, San Francisco CA 94102 and may be reached at 1-888-930-0808; email at law@tancinco.com, www.facebook.com/tancincolaw or check their website at tancinco.weareph.com/old.)

Categories
Updates

3 Categories of Immigrants Who Risk Being Stripped of U.S. Citizenship

Share this:

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced in June 2018 the establishment of a Denaturalization Task Force within the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The new USCIS office will focus on investigating cases of naturalized U.S. citizens and determine whether they will be recommended for denaturalization.

From among the 20 million naturalized U.S. citizens, who are at risk of being stripped of their U.S. Citizenship?

Denaturalization may be found in Section 340 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. There are only certain legal basis to denaturalize an individual and this is initiated by the government through the federal district courts. In the past, it was seldom utilized except in extreme cases like in denaturalization of former Nazis who lied about their past who illegally procured naturalization.

In 2008, Operation Janus was launched by the Department of Homeland Security and identified 854 individuals who had prior removal order, criminal convictions who were able to naturalize. These individuals’ fingerprint records were missing from the centralized DHS database. Now the current administration is planning to refer 1,600 more cases to the Department of Justice for denaturalization.

Those who are most likely to be affected by the administration’s effort to strip U.S. citizenship from naturalized citizens may be divided mainly into 3 categories. These are immigrants who procured their citizenship illegally because of the presence of:

  • Prior criminal conviction that was concealed: Those who concealed their criminal convictions on their naturalization applications and their criminal cases are grounds for removal may have their cases referred for naturalization. Note that criminal charges or convictions must have occurred before and during the naturalization process.
  • Prior removal cases and assumed identities: Ten (10) years ago, the U.S. government discovered hundreds of individuals who had prior deportation orders and who used different names in their green card and naturalization applications. These cases are now being investigated and may be re-opened for denaturalization.
  • Material fraud and misrepresentation. This refers to those who lied in obtaining their green cards through fraud and misrepresentation. The lie must have a relation to the eligibility for green card or naturalization to be a basis for denaturalization.

Once an immigrant is identified for investigation by USCIS for purposes of denaturalization, the matter will be referred to the Office of Immigration Litigation and the Assistant U.S. Attorney. Thereafter, the case will be filed with the federal district court having jurisdiction over the residence of the immigrant being stripped of citizenship. When the case is filed with the court, the naturalized U.S. citizen may present evidence to avoid denaturalization. Note that this is a judicial process and only a federal judge may strip one of U.S. citizenship. There is a due process involved and a right to a hearing. If a citizen is denaturalized, most probably this individual will be put in removal proceedings. Whether or not he will be deported depends on available relief or waivers.

These days the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is not the only agency in charge of immigration enforcement. The USCIS, with the creation of the Denaturalization Task Force, is now also involved indirectly in enforcement matters. Likewise, naturalized U.S. citizens must now realize that they no longer have a sense of permanence when it comes to their immigration status. If you believe that you fall into any of the categories of those who might be affected by this denaturalization effort of USCIS, it will be best to revisit and re-examine your naturalization application and have your case assessed by competent legal counsel. If there is a possibility of denaturalization, prepare yourself to defend yourself in the federal court and, in the worst case scenario, explore applicable waivers or defenses to avoid removal.

(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)

Categories
Updates

Supreme Court Spares Filipino from Deportation: Sessions v. Dimaya

Share this:

On April 17, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision in the case of Sessions v. Dimaya ruling that the definition of the crime of violence as an aggravated felony is void for being vague. The Respondent (deportee) in this case is James Dimaya who is a Filipino citizen and a lawful permanent resident of the United States. Mr. Dimaya’s deportation case was terminated as a result of the Supreme Court ruling.

James Garcia Dimaya, who is citizen of the Philippines, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1992. In 2007 and 2009, Dimaya was convicted under the California Penal Code for first-degree residential burglary; both convictions resulted in two years’ imprisonment. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), a non-citizen convicted of an aggravated felony is subject to deportation.

The INA definition of aggravated felony includes a ‘crime of violence,’ which is any offense that involves the use or substantial risk of physical force against another person or property. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) subsequently initiated deportation proceedings against Dimaya and claimed that his burglary convictions constituted crimes of violence under the Act. The Immigration Judge held that Dimaya was deportable and that burglary constitutes a crime of violence because it always involves a risk of physical violence. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. On appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the definition of crime of violence was struck down as being vague. The Supreme Court ruled the same way stating that the crime of violence provision was unconstitutionally vague and could therefore not be a basis of the deportation or removal.

Since the decision was rendered last week, several questions were raised by those who may potentially be affected by this Supreme Court ruling.

Among these questions are the following:

Why did majority the Supreme Court Justices rule in favor of the immigrant in this case?

Interestingly in this 5-4 ruling, the arguments raised were regarding a constitutional protection that is extended to immigrants or non citizens. The issue that was resolved was whether the law in question which is the definition of a crime of violence under 8 USC 16(b) met the constitutional standard for due process and that accused is aware of the conduct that is proscribed by the statute. If it is not then it is considered void for vagueness. After hearing the arguments, majority of the justices ruled that the definition of a crime of violence is unconstitutionally vague and therefore this particular provision may not be used as basis to deport an immigrant.

Clearly this is a precedent case decided by the Supreme Court – who will benefit from this decision?

This is a deportation/removal case where the basis for removal is a criminal conviction relating to a crime of violence as an aggravated felony. This decision affects favorably those who are charged with removal based on crime of violence as in this case which is the crime of burglary.

What is the impact of this Supreme Court decision on future removal/deportation cases?

Those who are similarly situated as Dimaya – meaning those who are being charged with deportation because of a “crime of violence” – may have their cases revisited, reopened and terminated. Again this case affects those who are in removal proceedings because of the vague definition of “crime of violence” under 8 USC 16(b). It does not affect those aggravated felonies where the definition is contained elsewhere in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

(Atty. Lourdes S. Tancinco is a San Francisco based immigration lawyer and immigrant’s right advocate. She may be reached at law@tancinco.com, facebook.com/tancincolaw, or 1 888 930 0808)

Categories
Updates

Int’l Entrepreneur Parole good as Dep’t of Homeland Security loses lawsuit

Share this:

No matter how eager the current administration is to restrict immigration policies, the rule of law must still prevail. An immigration regulation that went through the process of the required public notice and comment may not be abruptly rescinded without violating the Administrative Procedure Act. This was the issue of contention in the case against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security when it sought to delay the implementation of the International Entrepreneur Parole from July 17, 2017 to March 14, 2018.

The Delay Rule was released by DHS on July 11, 2017 without offering the public the required advance notice, or an opportunity to comment, claiming that there was good cause to issue the rule. A lawsuit was filed against DHS by the Plaintiff National Venture Capital Association, and the court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff. The U. S. District Court rendered the Delay Rule invalid for failure to afford public comments and notice on the change.

As a result of this court ruling, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services released a statement on December 14, 2017 informing the public that the International Entrepreneur Parole applications will be accepted without further delay.

Entrepreneur Parole Program

The entrepreneur parole program grants parole status to a foreign national who is an “entrepreneur” of a startup and who has an active role in the operation of the business. This entrepreneur must have recently formed a new start-up entity within three years before the date of filing the initial parole application.

Unlike an applicant for investors visa, where the entrepreneur must show infusion of capital to the business that is formed from his own resources, an international entrepreneur seeking parole must show that the start-up business has potential for a “rapid growth and job creation.” There are three alternative ways to prove this: first, that the business has significant U.S. capital investment of $345,000 or capital from established U.S. investors such as venture capital firms, angel investors and the like who have a history of substantial investment in successful start-up entities; second, the business received government funding of grants totaling $100,000 or more; and, third, any reliable and compelling evidence that will prove significant public benefit to the United States.

The USCIS will now start accepting applications on new USCIS Form 941. The filing fee for this application is $1,200. Once the application is approved, the entrepreneur, his/her spouse and minor children will be paroled into the United States and will receive employment authorization documents. Parole will be granted for up to 2 years and may be renewed for up to 3 years.

Parole Authority

The current immigration law allows the DHS to exercise its parole authority under section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act if the presence of the paroled non-U.S. citizen would provide a significant public benefit to the United States.

Under the entrepreneur parole program, eligible applicants may be granted a stay of up to 30 months, with the possibility to extend it for a period of up to 30 additional months. Those targeted to receive parole are entrepreneurs who shall work with the start-up businesses.

Approximately, 3,000 entrepreneurs are expected to apply for parole under this program. Most of those who are planning to apply come from the tech industry as well as those who are planning to develop new business ventures that will spur economic growth and job creation.

While the rule is now in effect, according to DHS, the administration is still determined to terminate this program at some point, and the agency is now planning to afford enough public notice and comment before its termination. In the meantime, those who are eligible may consider immediately filing their applications.

(Atty. Lourdes S. Tancinco is a San Francisco based immigration lawyer and immigrant’s right advocate. She may be reached at law@tancinco.com, facebook.com/tancincolaw, or 1 888 930 0808)

Also appears in: Inquirer.net