Atty Lou Tancinco shares her latest updates via our quarterly newsletter.
Dear TLAW Subscribers:
The landscape of immigration law is constantly evolving, and recent policy shifts have brought significant changes and heightened uncertainty. To help you stay informed, our latest quarterly newsletter offers timely insights into key immigration issues.
In this edition, we focus on empowering individuals with knowledge about their rights, particularly in the event of an encounter with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). We address crucial questions such as: What are your rights if a friend or family member is detained? What recourse is available if there is no final order of removal?
We also delve into other critical topics, including:
We encourage you to take a moment to review these informative articles and updates. Staying informed is crucial for navigating the complexities of immigration law.
We remain committed to advocating for just, fair, and humane immigration reform. In the meantime, we urge you to be vigilant in asserting your rights. Our firm is here to provide guidance and support. If you have any questions or require legal assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.
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)
The U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 (H.R. 1177 and S.348) introduced in Congress by the Democrats on February 18 and 22, 2021 is currently referred to various committees including the Judiciary Committee for hearing and consideration. No significant action has been taken on this Biden bill since its introduction.
There are two stand-alone bills that were approved by the U.S. House of Representatives in the month of March 2021. These are the American Dream and Promise Act and the Farm Workforce Modernization Act. Both of the provisions of these bills are also included in the broader U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021.
(This update is current as of June 7, 2021. Previous updates on the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 may be viewed here.)
The U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 (H.R. 1177 and S.348) introduced in Congress by the Democrats on February 18 and 22, 2021 is currently referred to the Judiciary Committee for hearing and consideration. No significant action has been taken on this Biden bill since its introduction.
There are two stand-alone bills that were approved by the U.S. House of Representatives in the month of March 2021. These are the American Dream and Promise Act and the Farm Workforce Modernization Act. Both of the provisions of these bills are also included in the broader U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021.
The American Dream and Promise Act
On March 18, 2021, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the American Dream and Promise (H.R.6) by a bipartisan vote of 228 to 197. Nine Republicans voted yes with the Democrats.
The Dream and Promise Act would grant Dreamers conditional permanent resident status for 10 years, and cancel removal proceedings if they:
Have been continuously physically present in the U.S. on or before January 1, 2021;
Were 18 years old or younger on the initial date of entry into the U.S.;
Are not otherwise inadmissible.
The Farm Workforce Modernization Act
On March 18, 2021, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Farm Workforce Modernization Act by a 247 to 174 vote. The passage was bipartisan with 30 Republicans voting yes with the Democrats; one Democrat voted against the bill.
This bill establishes a program for agricultural workers in the United States (and their spouses and minor children) to earn legal status through continued agricultural employment. The bill provides a process for farm workers to seek Certified Agricultural Worker (CAW) status—a temporary status for those who have worked at least 180 days in agriculture over the last 2 years. CAW status can be renewed indefinitely with continued farm work (at least 100 days per year).
Both the American Dream and Promise Act and the Farm Workforce Modernization Act must be passed before the Senate before it becomes effective as legislation. The Senate must pass these bills with bi-partisan support. Given the support of the Republicans (9 Republicans on the Dream Act and 30 Republicans on the Farmworker bill), we are optimistic that these bills will also pass in the Senate.
We are monitoring progress of the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 where various committees including the Judiciary Committee must recommend approval of the bill after examining all the provisions. If approved it will provide, among others, pathways to citizenship for millions of unauthorized immigrants once passed into law. This is a 353-page bill that would revamp the outdated immigration law which has not been updated in 30 years. The bill states as its purpose “to provide an earned path to citizenship, to address the root causes of migration and responsibly manage the southern border, and to reform the immigrant visa system, and for other purposes.”
Normally, one has to be a U.S. citizen to be eligible to file a simultaneous I-130 petition and I-485 application for adjustment of status. Petitions by U.S. citizens on behalf of spouses, parents and minor children are considered as immediate relatives and visas are immediately available. In the last couple of months, the Visa Bulletin under the F2A visa category which covers petitions by green card holders for their minor children and spouses is reflecting a “current” visa availability. Filipinos who are green card holder petitioner’s in certain circumstances may also file simultaneous I-130 petition and I-485 adjustment of status under the F2A visa category.
Claire was petitioned by her mother under the F1B visa category. Her mother is a U.S. citizen who waited for more than 10 years before Claire was able to immigrate to the U.S. under the F1B visa petition. Claire has a minor child, Jason, but was not married to Nico, the father of her child.
When Claire immigrated in 2018 to the United States, she was able to take her minor child Jason with her. But Nico was left behind in Manila. Recently, Nico arrived in the United States on a student visa (F1), he is taking up Masteral Degree related to his career. Claire and Nico recently got married and Claire filed a petition for Nico under the F2A visa category (spouse of a green card holder) on December 1, 2019.
Nico regularly follows and reads the Visa Bulletin issued by the Department of State (DOS) to determine when his visa may become available. He noticed that for the months of F2A, the Final Chart on the Visa Bulletin shows that the F2A has the letter “C” on it. But the Filing Chart shows a 2009 priority date. What does the “C” status on the F2A category mean for Nico? Can Claire now file for his petition and simultaneously adjust his status?
Understanding the Two Charts on the Visa Bulletin
The monthly Department of State Visa Bulletin has two different charts. The DOS will post two charts per visa preference category. The charts are: (1) Application Final Action Dates (dates when visas may finally be issued); and (2) Dates for Filing Applications (earliest dates when applicants may be able to apply).
According to the recently released November 26, 2019 policy guidance, when USCIS determines there are immigrant visas available for the filing of additional adjustment of status applications, generally, the Dates for Filing Applications chart will be used to determine when to file an adjustment of status application with USCIS. Otherwise, if the priority is current as indicated on the Application Final Action Dates chart, then the final action date chart must be used to determine when to file an adjustment of status application with USCIS.
This means that despite a cut-off date on Filing Chart (second chart), if the Final Action chart (first chart) shows a “C” or a current priority date for a visa category, the application for adjustment of status may be filed immediately for that specific month.
Going back to the case of Nico, who is the beneficiary of an F2A petition, since the Final Action chart indicates a C (or a current priority date), he may now file for an adjustment of status. This is because the C indicates that a visa is available for the month of December 2019. However, unlike immediate relative petitions of U.S. citizens, unless there is 245(i) eligibility, beneficiaries of F2A petitions must be in lawful status to be able to file for adjustment of status.
Beginning July 5, 2019, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) field office in Manila will be closed. Visa applicants and those who have pending visa petitions were alarmed by this recent development. It is important to note that the processing and issuance of visas will still continue at the U.S. Embassy in Manila through its visa services unit. USCIS and the U.S. Embassy have distinct responsibilities when it comes to immigration.
The USCIS
The USCIS is an agency within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and administers the country’s naturalization and immigration system. USCIS field offices such as the one in Manila handle immigration petitions such as petitions for immediate relatives (I-130), Application for Travel Document (Carrier Documentation), Abandonment of Lawful Permanent Resident Status (I-407), among others. The USCIS announced that individuals who were previously assisted in its Manila field offices before June 3, 2019 must follow new filing instructions that may be found on their website (www.uscis.gov).
The U.S. Embassy
The U.S. Embassy is under the U.S. Department of State (DOS) has varying responsibilities in immigration law which include non-immigrant visas, immigrant visas and anti-fraud activities related to the administration of visa issuances among others. The U.S. Embassy handles applications and the issuance of visas.
Both immigrant and non-immigrant visa processing with the U.S. Embassy will continue despite the closure of the USCIS office. General information about the U.S. Embassy Manila is available on the embassy’s website (https://ph.usembassy.gov).
The U.S. Department of State released a report indicating the number of petitions that are still considered pending for issuance of visas. In the numerical system of immigration, there are only limited number of visas that may be allocated in a given year. The worldwide quota for family based petitions each year is 226,000 and each country gets 7% of this quota. For the petitions filed by US citizens or lawful permanent residents for their qualified relatives in the Philippines, this means that only 15,820 are issued each year.
Immediate relative petitions for spouses, parents and minor children of U.S. citizens do not fall into a category where they have to wait for a visa to be made available. These immediate relative visa petitions have immediate visas available but will have to undergo a visa approval process and a consular processing. On the other hand, family preference petitions relating to petitions filed by U.S. citizens on behalf of their adult single (F1B), adult married children (F3), their siblings (F4) will have to wait for their priority dates to be current. The same holds true to petitions filed by green card holders on behalf of their spouses, unmarried minor (F2A) or unmarried adult (F2B) children.
An approved preference petition will have to wait for its priority date to become current before a visa may be issued. When there are more petitions filed than the visas that are available, a backlog is created. This means that petitions are adjudicated on a first come first serve basis depending on what the priority date is on the petition. Priority date is the date when the petition was filed and it is usually reflected on the the Approval Notice issued by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Let us examine the severity of the backlogs in family petitions filed on behalf of Filipino nationals. As of November 1, 2018, there are 3,671,442 petitions that are on the pipeline waiting for visas to be issued. The top 3 countries with the highest waiting list are:
Mexico with 1,229,505
Philippines with 314,229
India with 298,571
The petitions that are mostly backlogged for Philippines are petitions by U.S. citizens for their married children (119,315) under the F3 category and those for their siblings (113,489) under the F4 category.
Considering this backlog in the issuance of visa petitions, the longest waiting time for a Filipino family member to receive his/her visa under the F3 and F4 category is 23-24 years. As of the December 2018, the visa petitions that are being processed are those with priority dates of 1995. This means that only petitions that were filed in 1995 are being processed. And if your relative is filing the petition for a sibling or married child in 2018, the waiting time will be 23 years assuming that the the movement of the priority dates is yearly.
Other visa categories like petitions for unmarried adult children of U.S. citizens or permanent residents are taking at least 9-10 years before visas are issued. The petitions by lawful permanent residents for their spouses and minor children take more or less 2 years.
With lengthy waiting periods, situations relating to status or health of petitioners and even beneficiaries (persons being petitioned) may change. Some petitioners may live long enough to see the beneficiaries arrive in the United States and be reunited with them. Others may be stricken with illness and eventually decide to return to the Philippines or even die while waiting for their visas to be issued. Unfortunately, the petition dies with the petitioner rule applies generally unless there is humanitarian reinstatement.
Despite this broken immigration system, a Filipino immigrant does not give up and waits patiently for the relative to arrive. Time passes swiftly and I have witnessed significant number of family reunifications through this lengthy petition process. As I often say to my senior citizen clients, stay healthy and in jest, even tell them ‘bawal mamatay’ (you can’t die yet) if you have a pending petition for your relative. For a Filipino immigrant, family is everything. We are all inspired to work hard because of family and in the end “family unity” is what every immigrant attains to achieve.
On October 1, 2018, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced the implementation of its New Notice to Appear (NTA) policy that will have an impact on immigrants with denied applications for benefits. On November 8, 2018, an expansion of the list of applications and petitions affected by this new policy was announced by USCIS and most of them are humanitarian in nature.
WHAT IS AN NTA ?
NTA stands for Notice to Appear which refers to the charging document that is issued to foreign nationals who are deemed “removable” or deportable from the United States. When an individual receives a notice to appear, it means that he is put in removal proceedings so he should appear before an Immigration Judge. During the hearing, he is expected to defend himself from deportation by raising appropriate relief/defenses/waivers that may be available to avoid his deportation or to allow him to remain in the United States.
WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS NEW NTA POLICY TO NON-U.S. CITIZENS APPLYING FOR IMMIGRATION BENEFITS?
USCIS began issuing notices to appear on October 1, 2018 to non U.S. citizens whose applications for immigration benefits are denied. More specifically this applies to those with denied applications for adjustment of status and applications to extend or change non-immigrant status. Before October 1, 2018, those with denied applications are not affected by this new NTA policy and may not necessarily be put in removal proceedings.
In its recent press release, starting Nov. 19, 2018, USCIS may issue NTAs based on denials of the following humanitarian type of applications/petitions:
I-914/I-914A, Applications for T Nonimmigrant Status, and
Petitions for Forms I-918/I-918A, Petitions for U Nonimmigrant Status;
I-360 Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er);
I-929, Petition for Qualifying Family Member of a U-1 Nonimmigrant,
Special Immigrant (Violence Against Women Act self-petitions and Special Immigrant Juvenile petitions); and
I-730 Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition, when the beneficiary is present in the US, as well as Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjustment of Status, filed with these underlying form types.
Note that USCIS not ICE will issue the notice to appear when there is a denial practically compelling these individuals into a court system and making it difficult for them to depart the United States while their removal case is pending.
CAN YOU CITE EXAMPLES OF THOSE WHO MAY POTENTIALLY BE AFFECTED?
An individual in possession of a H1B visa, or a student visa holder filing for an extension of status, and the application for extension of status is denied by the USCIS is an example. Upon denial, USCIS may now put this individual in removal/deportation proceedings. Another example is a spouse of a U.S. citizen filing for adjustment of status; if denied for any reason, the spouse applicant for adjustment of status may be put in removal proceedings. Also, beginning November 19, 2018, those whose U, T or VAWA (Violence Against Women’s Act) self petitions are denied may be issued NTAs.
WHAT CAN INDIVIDUALS WHO INTEND TO FILE FOR APPLICATIONS FOR IMMIGRATION BENEFITS DO TO AVOID RECEIVING NTAs?
This new NTA policy has harsh effects on applicants. The best step to take is to make sure that whatever application is filed, all eligibility requirements are met and all possible issues which may be grounds for denials are addressed in the application. I also understand that many file applications on their own but these days, it will be best to exercise due diligence by consulting with trusted legal professionals before filing an immigration application. In the worse case scenario that an NTA is received, do not depart immediately. If you depart after receiving an NTA without justifiable reason, an order of deportation in absentia may be issued and it will have a serious consequential effect on one’s ability to return to the United States in the future.
On November 8, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the rescission of the DACA program by the Trump Administration is arbitrary and capricious. What does this ruling mean to DACA applicants?
The Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals, commonly referred as DACA, begun in 2012 allowing non-citizens who entered the United States as children, who have clean criminal records, and who meet certain eligibility requirements – to apply for two-year renewable periods of deferred action. Deferred action is a revocable decision by the government not to deport an otherwise removable person from the country. Those granted deferred action are issued an employment authorization document for limited periods of time.
Josh is a Filipino DACA recipient. He entered the United States when he was only 9 years old as a visitor visa holder. His parents are still without legal status but Josh was able to get DACA protection in 2016. He is now gainfully employed in a financial institution and has been a good citizen. When he was about to renew his DACA employment authorization, Joshua was told that he only has a small window to benefit from the DACA program as a result of the Trump Administration’s announcement in September 2017, that the DACA program is to be terminated in phases.
Lawsuits were filed in Northern District of California after the Trump announcement of the DACA rescission in September 2017; in January 2018, the District Court ruled that the DACA rescission was unlawful. Hence, a resulting nationwide preliminary injunction was issued to hold off Trump’s plan to phase out the DACA program.
The Trump administration continued to argue for the validity of the DACA termination arguing its case with the Court of Appeals. The primary bases of the government in stating that the DACA program is illegal was that DACA was “effectuated without proper statutory authority and is unconstitutional.” Without waiting for a decision from the Court Appeals the government filed in November 5, 2018 a petition for writ of certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court arguing on the legality of the DACA rescission.
On November 8, 2018, three days after filing the petition before the Supreme Court, the Ninth Court of Appeals ruled that the DACA rescission was unlawful, arbitrary and capricious. It also affirms the District Court’s issuance of a preliminary injunction and thus holding off to the termination of the DACA program.
As a result of the affirmation of the preliminary injunction, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will continue to receive and adjudicate renewal of DACA applications with the following exceptions:
That new applications from applicants who have never before received deferred action need not be processed;
That the advance parole feature need not be continued for the time being for anyone; and
That DHS may take administrative steps to make sure fair discretion is exercised on an individualized basis for each renewal application.
Hence, in the case of Josh above, and based on recent developments on DACA, he can still be permitted to renew his DACA protection and seek renewal of his employment authorization document.
The fate of the DACA program is now with the U.S. Supreme Court. With the current structure of the court and the recent appointment of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, several of us immigration advocates are quite apprehensive about the future of the DACA program. Meanwhile, considering that it has not ended, DACA recipients must continue to avail of its benefit.
In concluding the panel’s recent decision, Justice Wardlaw of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals emphasized how important it is for the government to be “democratically accountable” to the public in the exercise of its discretion in the enforcement of immigration law. It stated in part, “whether Dulce Garcia and the hundreds of thousands of other young dreamers like her may continue to live productively in the only country they have ever known is, ultimately, a choice for the political branches of our constitutional government. With the power to make that choice, however, must come accountability for the consequences.”
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.