Tag: President Donald Trump

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

Are You At Risk of Being Stripped of Your U.S. Citizenship?

Are You At Risk of Being Stripped of Your U.S. Citizenship?
Share this:
If you are a naturalized U.S. citizen, are you at risk of being stripped of your U.S. Citizenship in a 2nd Trump term?

President Trump’s focus on immigration is on border security, undocumented immigration and enforcement of immigration law including a plan for a mass deportation. So far, there is no “denaturalization policy” that was expressed. It was during his prior administration that he created a Denaturalization Task Force and a Denaturalization Section targeted against U.S. citizens. What are the chances that this effort is going to be revived? And if you are a naturalized U.S. citizen are you at risk of being stripped of your U.S. Citizenship? 

Denaturalization is 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. 

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:

  1. 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. 
  1. Prior removal cases and assumed identities:  Several  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.
  1. 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 Department of Justice’s Denaturalization Section under 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.

Naturalized U.S. citizens must now realize that just like in the past Trump administration and now with the present administration. 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, have your case assessed by competent legal counsel. And, 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 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

Should the Unauthorized Immigrant Leave Voluntarily?

Should the Unauthorized Immigrant Leave Voluntarily?
Share this:

San Francisco, CA – With President-elect Trump’s promise of a mass deportation of illegal immigrants, many unauthorized immigrants (including those who have overstayed their visas) are concerned about their future in the United States. While Mexico has 4.1 million unauthorized immigrants, there are approximately 350,000 Filipino immigrants in the U.S. with undocumented status.

Though Trump has pledged to initiate mass deportations on the first day of his term, the details of this policy remain unclear. At present, there are no explicit guidelines on how deportations might be implemented. Based on campaign statements, the following actions are anticipated:

  • Use of emergency and executive authorities to bypass existing laws
  • Reactivation of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, which served as the legal basis for the detention of people of Japanese, German, and Italian descent during WWII
  • Enlisting local and state police, U.S. military, and the National Guard to enforce immigration laws

According to the American Immigration Council, deporting one million people per year could cost taxpayers an estimated $88 billion annually. Additional resources would be required to increase law enforcement staffing, expand detention facilities, and staff immigration courtrooms, along with the substantial costs of deporting noncitizens via commercial airlines and chartered flights.

During his initial term in 2016, President Trump also discussed mass deportation, yet no more than one million immigrants were deported. Most of those removed were convicted felons or individuals with final orders of removal.

3-10 Year Bar Rule Applies

Choosing to leave the United States voluntarily before a potential mass deportation requires careful consideration of the consequences. The term “voluntary departure” can have different meanings for laypeople and within legal contexts.

In layman’s terms, voluntary departure means leaving the United States independently, such as by taking a flight back to the Philippines. This option is available only if the noncitizen is not currently in removal proceedings. However, there are consequences: even with an approved petition, departing voluntarily can result in a 3-10 year bar on reentry. Specifically, unauthorized immigrants who have been in the U.S. for over six months face a three-year bar, while those who have stayed over one year face a ten-year bar. For families with a mix of U.S. citizens or green card holders and unauthorized immigrants, this could mean separation from family members in the U.S. for three to ten years.

For those in removal proceedings, voluntary departure might allow them to reenter the U.S. later if proceedings were initiated while they were still in status. If they were already out of status, however, a 10-20 year or even a permanent bar may apply depending on the reason for deporation.

In conclusion, voluntary departure has significant immigration consequences, and consulting a licensed legal professional before making such a major decision is essential.

Rights of Unauthorized Immigrants

The U.S. Constitution guarantees due process rights to all residents, meaning that noncitizens may have the opportunity to be heard by an immigration judge before deportation. If detained, unauthorized immigrants may be entitled to a hearing. With a backlog of over three million cases, these hearings may be delayed by months or even years.

Exceptions to the right to a hearing include those who have been in the U.S. for less than two years and are arrested within 100 miles of the border and these group of immigrants may be subject to expedited removal. Most of the 350,000 unauthorized Filipino immigrants have resided in the U.S. for more than two years, and many have lived here for over 20 years.

ICE Raids and Targeted Arrests

With an anticipated increase in interior enforcement, ICE raids are expected to become more frequent during Trump’s administration. Former acting ICE Director Tom Homan noted that raids would not be indiscriminate neighborhood sweeps but rather targeted arrests based on investigative processes.

In a recent  NBC interview, President-elect Trump stated that there is no “price tag” for these deportation efforts, emphasizing that the removal of individuals involved in severe crimes is non-negotiable. According to Pew Research, of the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S., the majority have no criminal record. However, collateral arrests may still occur for those without criminal convictions who are encountered during ICE raids.

Know Your Options and Rights Before Departing

For Filipino nationals who have resided in the U.S. for extended periods, possess strong family ties, and lack criminal convictions, exploring legal options before deciding to leave is advisable. You may still have a right to a hearing where relief, such as a green card, might be possible through immigration courts.

On the other hand, if the prospect of a mass deportation creates anxiety and sleepless nights, you may choose to depart voluntarily—so long as you understand the legal consequences of your decision.

(Atty. Lourdes 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

Trump’s “No Insurance, No Green Card” Rule Now Revoked by Biden

Share this:

Under the Trump Proclamation 9945 announced in October 2019, immigrant visa applicants had to prove they were covered by approved insurance, such as employer-sponsored plans, unsubsidized plans or family members’ plans, or “possess[ed] the financial resources” to pay for any reasonably foreseeable medical costs before they may granted their immigrant visas or green cards. Trump’s belief was that the cost of immigrant health care would be pushed onto American taxpayers and drive hospitals into insolvency.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of State and other federal agencies on behalf of a proposed class of affected individuals and the nonprofit Latino Network, claiming that Trump’s rule was unconstitutional and that the administration sidestepped a notice-and-comment period required under administrative law.

On May 14, 2021, President Biden issued a proclamation lifting former President Donald Trump’s Proclamation 9945 and said his administration can expand access to quality affordable health care without barring the entry of non-citizens who seek to immigrate lawfully but lack the means to pay for health plans. Biden revoked the rule saying that Trump’s policy was at odds with an executive order of his own from February aimed at “restoring faith” in the immigration system.

Categories
Updates

International Entrepreneur (IE) Parole Program to Continue under Biden Administration

Share this:

In 2016, the Obama Administration created the International Entrepreneur Parole (IEP) Program. It was established with the purpose of granting parole status to an applicant who is an “entrepreneur” of a start-up who takes an active role in the operations and growth of the business. The program was set to begin in July 2017, but the Trump administration pushed the start date to the following year, citing an executive order looking to crack down on parole abuse. The Trump administration then through a proposed rule published on May 29, 2018, suggested eliminating the program, saying the policy didn’t adequately protect U.S. workers and that parole wasn’t an appropriate vehicle to attract or retain international entrepreneurs.

On May 10, 2021, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced that the IEP program will no longer be revoked but in fact will continue to implement the program pursuant to existing regulations contained in 8 CFR 212.19.

Under this program the entrepreneur must have recently formed a new start-up entity within three years before the date of filing the initial parole application. Unlike an 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 3 alternative ways to prove this:

  • first, that the business has significant U.S. capital investment of $345,000 or 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.

If an IE Parole 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.

More than 50 percent of start-ups in the United States with a $1 billion valuation were founded by at least one immigrant. This IE Parole program is significantly beneficial to U.S. public interest considering that the United States is a popular destination for start-up founders, but many other countries (including Canada, the United Kingdom, China, Japan, Israel, Germany, Australia, and New Zealand) are competing to entice entrepreneurs to their shores.

Categories
Updates

10 Essential Info About Trump’s Ban on Legal Immigration

Share this:

On June 22, 2020, President Trump issued a second proclamation “Suspending Entry of Immigrants Who Present Risk to the U.S. Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the COVID-19 Outbreak.” This proclamation became effective on June 24, 2020 and will expire December 31, 2020.

1. What is the effect of the June 2020 Proclamation on legal immigrants?

The June 22, 2020 Proclamation (June Proclamation) extends the April 2020 Proclamation which suspended the entry of certain immigrants into the United States until December 31, 2020. It expanded also the ban on certain visa applicants mostly employment based nonimmigrant visas

The Proclamation suspends the issuance of visas for those seeking entry pursuant to a(n):

  • H-1B visa and any foreign national accompanying or following to join them;
  • H-2B visa and any foreign national accompanying or following to join them;
  • J visa, to the extent the foreign national is participating in an intern, trainee, teacher, camp counselor, au pair, or summer work travel program, and any foreign national accompanying or following to join them; and
  • L visa, and any foreign national accompanying or following to join them

Significant number of Filipino visa applicants and businesses under the above mentioned categories(H1B, J and L) will be adversely impacted by this suspension. For the H2B visa category, Philippine nationals have already been barred from receiving this visa in the last 2 fiscal years.

Those severely affected are those outside the United States.

2. Who are NOT affected from the suspension of immigration?

Among others, these are the categories of individuals who are not affected by the Proclamation:

  1. Those adjusting status in the United States.
  2. Green card holders or immigrant visa holders at the time of the proclamation. If an individual is already in possession of an immigrant visa or green card before the Proclamation, they can still travel back to the United States.
  3. Those with temporary travel documents can still enter the U.S. Examples are individuals in possession of transportation letters issued by the U.S. Embassy, re-entry permits and advance parole issued by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

3. Can you explain what the “National Interest Exemption” is about?

The Proclamation on suspension of visas will not apply and consular officers will still grant issuance of visas if the visa applicant can prove that his/her case falls under the national interest exemption.

For purposes of determining who is covered under the “national interest” exemption, the Proclamation directs the Secretaries of State, Labor, and Homeland Security to determine standards for those to whom such an exemption would be available, including any individuals who:

  • are critical to the defense, law enforcement, diplomacy, or national security of the United States;
  • are involved with the provision of medical care to individuals who have contracted COVID-19 and
  • are currently hospitalized;
  • are involved with the provision of medical research at U.S. facilities to help the United States combat COVID-19;
  • are necessary to facilitate the immediate and continued economic recovery of the United States; or
    are children who would age out of eligibility for a visa because of this proclamation or Proclamation 10014.

4. What about other non-immigrant visas such as fiance, student and visitors visa holders are they still allowed to travel to the United States?

The June proclamation explicitly mentions the type of temporary visas that are suspended. These include mostly employment based visas: H1b, H2b (working visas); L1 (intra-company executives transferees); and J1 visas (seasonal workers in the hospitality industry, students on work-study summer programs and au pairs who arrive under other auspices).

June 2020 Proclamation does not ban other visas such as the visitors visas, fiance visas, student visas and the investors visas among others. So as soon as the U.S. Embassy opens to provide their regular consular services, applicants for the other types of visas that are not included in the proclamation may still pursue their application. Also, those who are in possession of non-immigrant visas not enumerated in the proclamation may still use their validly issued visas to travel.

5. A beneficiary of an approved visa petition was issued a printed immigrant visa on his passport after an interview with the consular officer at the U.S. Embassy. He was not able to enter travel to the U.S. yet and now wants to plan on going to the U.S. He is afraid that the Trump Proclamations will apply to him and would result in his inability to travel to the U.S. Will this individual be prevented from entering the United States because of the Proclamation?

No. The Proclamation does not affect those who are in possession of immigrant visas. Although he has not received his actual green card, he is considered to have gone through a completed process for him to be considered as an immigrant visa holder, hence, he can travel to the United States.

6. If the individual who was issued an non-immigrant employment based visa (H1B, L or J) or immigrant visa by the U.S. Embassy is not ready to travel to the United States during this COVID-19 pandemic, will he risk losing his immigrant visa by revocation?

No. Valid non-immigrant visas issued before the June proclamation and that were not used for travel will not be revoked under this Proclamation.

7. An adjustment of status applicant left the United States for a temporary visit abroad, will this adjustment applicant be able to return with his advance parole document?

Yes. An advance parole is considered as a travel document not covered by the Proclamation, hence this individual may travel back to the U.S. using his advance parole document.

8. A lawful permanent resident plans to file a visa petition for his minor children, will he be permitted to file a visa petition with the USCIS?

Yes, lawful permanent residents may still file for visa petitions on behalf of their minor children. What the Proclamation prohibits is the issuance of visas for these individuals. The proclamation exempts only minor children and spouses of U.S. citizens.

9. A visa petition was approved for a parent of a U.S. citizen. The parent was already interviewed before the Proclamation effectivity date of April 23, 2020 but no visa has been issued yet. Can this parent follow up on the issuance of his visa and travel to the United States?

No. Clearly, under the April Proclamation, which effectivity was extended until December 31, 2020, parents of U.S. citizens who have not been issued visas or are not in possession of visas may not be allowed to immigrate temporarily. They are covered by the Proclamations and are not exempt from the ban.

10. A child beneficiary of a preference immigrant visa petition is turning 21 years old and will age out during the period of suspension, what steps can s/he take before losing the opportunity to immigrate as a minor derivative child?

One of the categories of visa applicants that is part of the national interest exemptions refers to children who are aging out or turning 21 years old. This category will be exempt from the ban. So it is important to take steps and seek to qualify the aging out child as an exempt visa applicant quoting the provision under the national interest exemptions.

Categories
Updates

What’s in the Horizon for Filipino Officials and Individuals Subject to the U.S. Travel Ban?

Share this:

On December 20, 2019, President Trump signed a budget law known as the “Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020” (Public Law 116-94). This law includes a provision that implements the Global Magnitsky Act which is a legislation that relates to significant steps that U.S. may take to protect and promote human rights and combat corruption around the world. Part of the sanctions under this Act is a U.S. travel ban of those individuals identified to have violated human rights .

The matter of applying this sanction on certain Philippine government officials responsible for the detention of Philippine Senator Leila De Lima is not mentioned specifically in the budget law signed by President Trump. However, it is found in the Senate Committee Report by reference stating that the Global Magnitsky Act provision banning from entry to the U.S. applies to Philippine government officials responsible for the detention of Senator De Lima. Committee Reports accompany most bills that become law and are sources of determining legislative intent. It can be inferred that the congressional intent is to include the officials responsible for the detention of Senator De Lima and apply the sanctions.

To expound further on the congressional intent, Senate passed S.Res 142 on January 8, 2020, “A resolution condemning the Government of the Philippines for its continued detention of Senator Leila De Lima, calling for her immediate release, and for other purposes”. Among the provisions of the resolution is the call to apply the sanctions of the Global Magnitsky Act to Philippine government officials responsible for the arrest and prolonged detention of Senator De Lima. Until resolutions are incorporated into a bill that becomes law, a resolution merely expresses the opinion of the Senate. They have no force of law.

But with the Committee Report and now the S.Res 142, it is more likely the sanctions of the Global Magnitsky Act will apply to government officials of the Philippines responsible for the arrest and detention of Senator De Lima. And if they apply, what is next?

Within 30 days from the date of the signing of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020, the names of individuals that are included in the sanctions of the Global Magnitsky Act which includes a ban from entering the United States will be reported to the U.S. Congress and will be posted on the State Department website. This means those on the list will have visa applications denied, or be refused entry even if they have prior issued visas.

There will be no arbitrary process for inclusion in the travel ban list. The State Department should have “credible” information that government officials are involved in human rights violations or in the arrest and detention of Senator De Lima. The agency that decides who will be on the travel ban list is the Department of State. Assuming a government official and his/her family members are on the list, will this travel ban be a permanent bar?

Unless the grounds for denial of visas are based on espionage, sabotage or attempt to overthrow the U.S. government, most grounds of inadmissibility are subject to waivers. These include prior criminal convictions, public charge grounds, misrepresentation, fraud and prior removal. And if waivers are approved, the visa applicant may be approved for the visa and be allowed to enter the United States.

The same waiver may apply to those subject to the travel ban under the Global Magnitsky Act. The budget law specifically mentions that the Secretary of State, “may waive the application of paragraph (1) if the Secretary determines that the waiver would serve a compelling national interest or that the circumstances which caused the individual to be ineligible have changed sufficiently”. So if there is a compelling national interest or if the circumstances have changed, the travel ban will be lifted and visas may be issued again.

Since this will affect mostly government officials, there is also an exception to the application of the sanctions. The budget law states that the ban will not apply if the entry to the U.S. would further U.S. law enforcement objectives or is necessary to permit the U.S. to fulfill its obligations under the United Nations Headquarters Agreement and as long as it will not derogate U.S. obligations under applicable international organizations.

Given the above provisions, we can conclude that the travel bans are not absolute. To propose counter sanctions by requiring Philippines visas to U.S. citizens, including former Filipino citizens who are not dual citizens, is certainly within the exercise of prerogatives by the Philippine government. However, it may be fair game to ask if doing so is beneficial to Philippine interests considering that the majority of US citizen travelers to the Philippines would most likely be former Filipino citizens themselves and/or may discourage investments from US citizens or entities due to visa requirements.

(Atty. Lourdes Santos Tancinco, is an immigrant advocate, founder and a principal partner at the Tancinco Law Offices, 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)

Categories
Updates

Deportation of “Millions” of Undocumented Immigrants?: Know Your Rights in Case of ICE Arrest

Share this:

President Trump’s tweet on June 17, 2019 that millions of immigrants are going to be deported beginning next week is once again a threat to hundred thousands of Filipino immigrants who are without legal status. While interior enforcement of immigration law has been Trump’s administration priority, mass deportation was not really fully effected perhaps because of lack of ICE resources or some constitutional issues. If indeed ICE is now ready to “remove millions of undocumented immigrants’’, revisiting their rights becomes of utmost importance.

The Immigration Legal Resource Center based in San Francisco CA released the Know Your Rights below which may be asserted if the inescapable ICE visit or arrest takes place.

You have the right to remain silent.
You can assert your fifth amendment right. You can refuse to speak to an ICE agent. Do not answer any questions, especially about your birth place, immigration status or how you entered the United States. Say that you want to remain silent until you speak with a lawyer.

You have the right to demand a warrant before letting anyone into your home.
The ICE agent may not enter your home without a warrant. You do not have to give permission for him to enter. It is okay not to open your door unless the agent shows you the warrant. If the warrant is presented to you, ask the agent to slip it under the door or through the window. Make sure it is signed by a judge with your correct name, address and date of birth.

You have the right to speak to a lawyer and the right to make a phone call.
It is important to have your attorney’s phone number handy. You will be entitled to make a phone call. If you do not know your attorney’s number, call a trusted friend or relative to coordinate with your attorney.

You have the right to refuse to sign anything before you talk to a lawyer.
There will be some documents that will be presented to you for signing after you are apprehended and taken into custody.. Do not sign anything. If you sign without understanding the nature of the document, it is possible that you are signing a waiver of your rights to a lawyer or to a hearing. And if you waive these rights, it may result in your immediate removal without a hearing.

You have the right to refuse to show any documents before speaking with a lawyer.
When you are visited by an ICE agent, you do not have to give permission to search any of your belongings unless there is a warrant. You can ask to speak with a lawyer before you submit any documentation.

Each case of an unauthorized individual is distinct and all non-U.S. citizens must be vigilant about their rights. Considering the threat of a mass apprehension, it is worth exploring legal options with a trusted professional immigration attorney and from there decide on an appropriate course of action to obviate fear of possible removal.

(Atty. Lourdes S. Tancinco is a San Francisco CA based immigration attorney at Tancinco Law Offices and may be reached at law@tancinco.com, tancinco.weareph.com/old, facebook/tancincolaw, or at 1 888 930 0808 or at 1 415 397 0808)

Categories
Updates

Latest Court Ruling Orders USCIS to Accept New DACA Applications

Share this:

After President Trump announced the termination of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) on September 5, 2017, several lawsuits were filed questioning the validity of the termination. Two court injunctions were already issued by the federal courts in San Francisco and New York ordering the USCIS to continue accepting renewals for the DACA protection. On April 26, 2018, another federal court in the District Court of Columbia also issued an injunction against the termination of the DACA program. With the latest injunction the court ordered USCIS to also accept new DACA applications.

Who will benefit from this latest court ruling?

Joshua entered the United States when he was 7 years old. When the DACA was announced in 2012, Joshua was only 10 years old. When Joshua turned 15 in December 2017, he was not allowed to apply for a DACA application. No new DACA applications were accepted after the announcement of the termination of the DACA protection in September 2017. This is the reason why Joshua has not applied for the DACA protection. Last week, Joshua heard about this new court ruling and wants to apply for the DACA protection and for an employment authorization card. What can he do?

Requirements for DACA

DACA was available to any undocumented young immigrant who:

  1. came to the United States when she was under the age of sixteen;
  2. had lived in the United States continuously since at least June 15, 2007;
  3. was enrolled in school or had graduated from high school or been honorably discharged from the military;
  4. had not been convicted of certain criminal offenses and posed no threat to national security or public safety; and
  5. was under the age of thirty. Young immigrants who are out of status, who met these criteria were eligible for renewable, two-year grants of “deferred action” on their removal from the United States.

Termination of DACA and the Lawsuits

On September 5, 2017, then-Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine C. Duke issued a five-page memorandum rescinding DACA program. USCIS would adjudicate any properly filed DACA applications that were pending as of September 5, 2017, as well as any new applications for the renewal of DACA benefits that were filed on or before October 5, 2017 by persons whose benefits were set to expire on or before March 5, 2018.

On September 8, 2017, the University of California filed a complaint challenging the rescission of the DACA program and asking the court to enjoin the implementation of the rescission. On January 9, 2018, the district court issued an order directing the government to partially maintain the DACA program. As a result, the USCIS issued guidance that they are accepting renewal applications.

On April 24, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that DHS’s decision to rescind DACA was “arbitrary and capricious” and vacated the termination of the program. The court ordered DHS to accept and process new DACA applications, as well as renewal DACA applications – however, it stayed its order for 90 days to give the government a chance to respond. The decision of the court differed from previous court rulings because it would affect new applications – i.e. initial applications from individuals who have never applied for DACA previously but who are eligible to apply.

After 90 days, Joshua will be able to file for a new DACA application as per order of the U.S. District Court by proving that he meets all the above eligibility requirements. While this is a positive development, DACA is only a temporary program and its future is very uncertain. It would be best if there will be a permanent path to citizenship for the Dreamers. At the moment, there are several bills before the U.S. Congress addressing this issue. The most appropriate bill that must be passed into law is the Dream Act (HR 3440 and S.1615). If passed into law, it will provide a path to naturalization to Dreamers after 5 years in conditional permanent resident status.

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