Tag: U.S. Supreme Court

Categories
Updates

DHS Memorandum Policy on DACA contrary to Supreme Court ruling

Share this:

On June 18, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court handed a decision invalidating the September 2017 Trump’s administration’s rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). After one month from the decision, on July 28, 2020, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a Memorandum affecting more than 640,000 DACA recipients. The Memorandum states that it will begin to wind down legal protections for hundreds of thousands of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients. While it conducts a review of the program it will reject all initial DACA applications and will limit the protection for those renewing their DACA applications to one year, rather than two years.

1. What Does This New Policy Mean To The DACA Recipients?

Two categories of DACA recipients are affected: first, the current DACA recipients or those who are already receiving the DACA protections from June 2012 to the present; and second: new DACA applicants: those who became eligible beginning September 2017 were it not for Trump’s rescission.

For the first category, current DACA recipients: They will be limited to one year protection and one year employment authorization card instead of the usual 2 years. Furthermore, they will not be allowed to apply for advance parole.

For the second category, new DACA applicants who have been eligible for DACA are now prevented from applying for DACA protections because of the Trump administration’s recent policy memorandum. These are the thousands of young immigrants who have been waiting to qualify and apply for DACA protections.

2. What are the Administration’s reasons for limiting the applicability of DACA?

The reasons are stated in the DHS memorandum released: (1) Congress should have sole authority to resolve whether DACA should continue and (2) concerns about enforcement policy that enforcing the law against those in unlawful status will not be consistently exercised if it favors a group like the DACA population. These are all flimsy excuses that run contrary to vast majority of the Americans who support protection for these young immigrants. And more importantly, these reasons do not justify issuance of this policy that runs contrary to a judicial decision of the Supreme Court and that of the District court of Maryland requiring the USCIS to accept new DACA applications.

3. What steps should present and future DACA recipients take in view of this new policy?

In view of this policy, DACA recipients should be aware of the limitations of their protections which is only one year now, and that they should not allow their DACA protections and employment cards to expire. If their employment cards are expiring the DACA recipients should renew early. And for new DACA applicants, they should hold off to the filing of new applications until this policy is reversed or rescinded. For our readers, please contact your legislators to urge them to pass the The American Dream and Promise Act, a bill if enacted would result in a permanent fix to this issue of our Dreamers by creating a pathway to U.S. citizenship.

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

Immigration reformers eye Gang of 8 revival

Share this:

Politico reports that several members of the Gang of Eight, the bipartisan group of senators that shepherded a comprehensive immigration reform bill through the Senate in 2013 only to watch it stall in the House a year later, are ready to try again. Several influential lawmakers, including Gang of Eight leader Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), see another opening for immigration reform in 2017, especially in light of the upcoming presidential and congressional elections and the U.S. Supreme Court’s deadlock in United States v. Texas. (source)

Categories
Global Pinoy

US high court’s one-line ruling only a temporary defeat for DACA+

Share this:

“The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court,” this is the one-line ruling of the highest court of the land in the much awaited decision on Obama’s Executive Action on DACA extension and DAPA program. After more than two years of waiting for the injunction to be lifted on the programs and looking forward to a decision on the merits, immigrant rights supporters were disappointed when the Supreme Court laid out its ruling in a deadlock vote of 4-4. But it’s only a temporary defeat; there are still legal ways to move forward with the executive action.

Jose Antonio Vargas, a Filipino national, is the most outspoken advocate of the DREAM Act and the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). In 2012 when President Obama announced the DACA program for the first time, he was not included on the list of those qualified to apply even if he was only 12 years old at the time of his arrival in the US. The first DACA program in 2012 included a requirement that the applicant must be below 31 years old at the time of the application for deferred action under DACA. Jose just turned 31 years old in 2012 and lost the opportunity to apply for DACA.

His hope of getting temporary relief under DACA was revived when in 2014, President Obama announced the DACA+ and the DAPA executive actions. For the DACA+ program, the age ceiling of 31 years old was eliminated, maintaining only the minimum age requirement of 15 and below at the time of entry into the United States. Jose would have qualified, but the anti immigrants would not allow the DACA+ and the DAPA program to push through. Conservative states filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration, and a 5th District Court Judge issued an injunction against its implementation.

The litigation reached the Supreme Court, and there was a hearing on the merits. Unfortunately, on June 23, 2016, the Supreme Court did not issue a decision, but rather announced a per curiam ruling stating that the court was divided and that the judgment of the lower district court is affirmed.

The arguments in favor of the DACA+/DAPA Executive Actions seemed to make more legal sense during the hearing. It obviously did not turn out that way. The split in the evenly divided Supreme Court shows the sharp ideological divide between the factions in it. The feeling is that it is a politicized court with an ultra-conservative right and a liberal left-wing faction.

Had Justice Scalia not passed away recently, the conservatives would have had a clear victory. On the other hand, had Congress done its job and voted on President Obama’s replacement for Justice Scalia’s seat in the Supreme Court, it would not be inconceivable that the DACA+/DAPA Executive Actions would have been upheld.

To put this in perspective, this is only a temporary defeat for the immigrants. There are still legal ways to move forward with Executive Action as no decision on the merits was issued. But to initiate a new action would take time, which the current president no longer has. Come November 7, a new president will be elected. Whoever is elected as the next president gets to nominate the next Justice for the Supreme Court vacancy. That single appointment can tip the balance of the Supreme Court’s ideological divide to the left (or to the right) for years and years to come; hence, the importance of voting for the right president in the coming November election.

(Atty. Lourdes Santos Tancinco, Esq. is an immigration attorney with the Tancinco Law Offices, a San Francisco CA based law firm. She may be reached at 1 888 930 0808, law@tancinco.com , facebook.com/tancincolaw, or through her website tancinco.weareph.com/old)

Categories
Global Pinoy

Will Obama’s immigration executive actions prevail?

Share this:

More than 4,000 immigrants and advocates gathered outside the highest court of the United States while the justices heard the case of United.States. v. Texas. Among those who were present were immigrant families who are undocumented and who have a stake in the result of the litigation.

Certainly, there were Filipino Americans advocates and families who also joined the rally and were very vocal about their support for the programs. The 4 million individuals who have a stake in this litigation include numerous Filipino families who will benefit from the Obama’s executive actions. The most pressing question after the hearing is, What is the likelihood of a decision in favor of the Obama’s DACA/DAPA executive actions?

United States v. Texas is a lawsuit initiated by 26 States questioning the legality of Obama’s Executive Actions on DAPA and the DACA extension. DAPA refers to Deferred Action for Parental Accountability where deferred action will be granted to undocumented parents of U.S citizens.

The DACA expanded program will allow more undocumented children to apply for deferred action. If deferred action is granted, employment authorizations will be issued to qualified applicants while it does not confer any other immigration benefit such as a pathway to legal resident status.

An estimated 4 million individuals who are currently undocumented are expected to benefit from these DACA and DAPA programs. Implementation of these programs were stalled by court injunction. The case ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court and legal arguments were heard by the justices on April 18, 2016.

The issues on standing and the merits of the executive actions were argued well by the U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. in favor of the DACA/DAPA programs. Verrilli emphasized that the States do not have the standing or legal capacity to bring the lawsuit.

The nature of the controversy was more of a political disagreement with the Federal government rather than a legal dispute. Considering that it is it a political disagreement on federal enforcement, to render a decision in favor of standing will open a floodgate of cases where states may, at anytime, sue the federal government for any political disagreement.

Most of the legal arguments centered on the issue of standing. As to the merits of the DACA/DAPA, the lawyer for the Respondent States, Texas Solicitor General Scott A. Keller wrongly argued that these executive actions confer legal status. This argument was met by the Verrilli’s rebuttal that deferred action does not confer legal status but rather a tolerated presence by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The decision will be rendered sometime in June 2016. With very compelling and convincing arguments raised during the hearing by Verrilli, a favorable outcome in favor the DAPA/DACA Executive Actions, with at least a 5-3 vote, is hoped for by thousands of families who will be affected by the Supreme Court decision. Unfortunately, with one vacancy in the U.S. Supreme Court, there are only 8 justices. If the justices are divided 4-4, then the injunctions on the executive actions will remain.