Biden’s New Asylum Process: What You Need to Know

 

The Biden administration finalized its long-anticipated plan for overhauling the asylum system on March 24. The regulation, which is set to go into effect on an interim basis in 60 days, was first put forward for public comment in August 2021.

Asylum seekers arriving at the border and processed under the new regulation would potentially be able to have their entire case adjudicated within 6 months, as opposed to 3-4 years or more under the current system. The rule does not affect current cases and applies only to people who arrive after it goes into effect.

Although this new system could be a huge benefit to individuals with slam-dunk asylum cases, the rapid timelines envisioned in the regulation are likely to make the system much harder to navigate successfully for everyone else. 

More information https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a5405-Biden-New-Asylum-Process.html

Updates Medical Examination Guidance for Afghan

 

USCIS announced today that it is updating guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual regarding immigration medical examination requirements for certain Afghan nationals applying for adjustment of status after arriving in the United States under Operation Allies Welcome (OAW). Effective immediately, these applicants may not need to repeat an immigration medical examination if they already completed an immigration medical examination conducted by a panel physician before they arrived in the United States.

The updated guidance allows Afghan nationals applying for adjustment of status after arriving under OAW to use a report of medical examination completed

More information https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a5359-Updates-Medical-Examination-Guidance-for-Afghan.html

Concerns Over Denials of Afghan Humanitarian Parole Requests

 

By: Rebekah Wolf www.immigrationimpact.com/

As the United States hastily withdrew its military presence from Afghanistan in August 2021, it began Operation Allies Welcome, a program designed to assist the tens of thousands of Afghans who successfully fled Afghanistan as the Taliban took control. Many of these individuals had previously assisted the U.S. military and its allies throughout the decades-long war, and others were at serious risk of harm. But tens of thousands of Afghans were unable to flee. Months later, many of our allies have been denied protection in the United States or remain in limbo.

These rejections are coming despite the fact that both Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Ali Mayorkas and Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated that the United States had a moral obligation to help them. Now, numerous organizations and members of Congress have raised concern about the denials. More information  https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a5343-Denials-of-Afghan-Humanitarian-Parole-Requests.html

US policy toward haitian immigrants is part of a long, troubled history

 

Shocking images have emerged of Border Patrol officers on horseback charging toward Haitian immigrants in and around the border town of Del Rio, Texas. Thousands of Haitians have come to our southern border as conditions in their home country continue to deteriorate following a devastating earthquake in August and the assassination of President Jovenel Moise in July. Though the Biden administration acknowledged the horrific conditions in Haiti as it extended Temporary Protected Status to Haitians in May 2021, it has decided to remove thousands of Haitians from our southern border.

The administration’s treatment of Haitian migrants has received extensive criticism. Yet its actions are a continuation of a long history of mistreating Haitian migrants.

More information https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a5251-Haitians-is-part-of-a-long-and-turbulent-history.html

Biden Will Admit Asylum Seekers Ordered Deported Under Trump’s Migrant Protection Protocols

By Melissa Cruz - www.immigrationimpact.com/

Asylum seekers who were ordered deported for missing their U.S. court hearings under the Trump administration’s so-called Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) —informally known as the “Remain in Mexico” program—will be allowed to restart their proceedings in the United States. Thousands of others whose cases were terminated because of procedural errors before they had a chance to seek asylum will also be allowed to restart the process.

This is the second phase of the Biden administration’s winddown of MPP, following its suspension and termination. Court hearings under the program had technically been paused since the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020. But the Trump administration continued to place an additional 5,500 individuals into the program during its final year in office.

Who Was Subject to MPP?

It’s estimated U.S. officials sent roughly 70,000 people who came to the United States to ask for asylum back to Mexico over the course of two years. Many were from Central American countries such as Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala.
 

Continúe leyendo en https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a5172-Biden-Will-Admit-Asylum-Seekers-Ordered-Deported.html

Biden administration begins reuniting the first of thousands of migrant families still separated

By Melissa Cruz - www.immigrationimpact.com/

Four families separated under the Trump administration will be reunited this week, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced. They will be the first families to be reunited thanks to the efforts of the Family Reunification Task Force, launched by the Biden administration in February.

It’s estimated that over 1,000 children are still separated from their families, and the parents of 445 children have yet to be located.

The Family Reunification Task Force—housed within DHS—is tasked with working across agencies to identify and reunite families separated at the U.S.-Mexico border as a result of the Trump administration’s cruel “Zero Tolerance” policy. This policy sought to criminally prosecute anyone—even those seeking asylum—suspected of crossing the border without authorization or in between ports of entry. This led to the forced separation of thousands of children when their adult family members were charged with unlawful entry.

More information https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a5132-Biden-administration-begins-reuniting-the-migrant-families-still-separated.html

Explaining Title 42 Expulsions at the Border

 

By: Jorge Loweree www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org - Photography: Arog Vila

The ability to seek asylum in the United States is a fundamental human right. But since March 2020, that right has largely been suspended.

U.S. government officials began “expelling” people who arrive at our southern border without any due process protections in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

They have carried out hundreds of thousands of expulsions under a little-known provision of U.S. health law called Title 42. Despite objections from scientists, the Trump administration implemented Title 42 to close the border to immigrants and asylum seekers.

Many asylum seekers continue to be expelled back to Mexico or their home countries under Title 42. The Biden administration has not put forward any plan to end the use of Title 42 at the border.

What is Title 42 and how did it go into place?

On March 20, 2020, the Department of Health and... more information https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a5103-Title-42-Expulsions-at-the-Border.html

Which Countries Could Get Temporary Protected Status (TPS) Next?

 

By: Melissa Cruz - www.immigrationimpact.com

By the end of the Trump presidency, Temporary Protected Status (TPS) was all but destroyed. The former administration had attempted to end crucial protections for the hundreds of thousands of vulnerable people who benefited from the status.

Now, just a short time into the Biden administration, those protections are being restored or extended.

Foreign nationals already living in the United States whose countries have been designated for TPS will once again be able to live and work without fear of losing their status. Without these protections, people could be forced to return to a country experiencing war, famine, or environmental disaster.

More information https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a5097-Countries-Could-Get-Temporary-Protected-Status.html

The Plan to Process Asylum Seekers Subject to the Migrant Protection Protocols

 

By: Aaron Reichlin-Melnick - www.immigrationimpact.com

The Trump administration sent over 70,000 people who came to the U.S border seeking asylum back to Mexico to wait for court hearings. This so-called “Migrant Protection Protocols” (“MPP”) program placed people in serious danger and made it nearly impossible for anyone to win protection. Court hearings under MPP were indefinitely suspended in March 2020. This left thousands of people stuck in Mexico in limbo.

One of President Biden’s first actions instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) not to put any new people into the program. Three weeks later, his administration has announced a plan to allow the thousands of people still waiting in Mexico to enter the United States.

Who will be allowed to enter?

Under the Biden administration’s plan, the only people who will be allowed to reenter the United States are the roughly 25,000 individuals who have pending MPP cases.

Importantly, far fewer people are likely still waiting at the U.S.-Mexico border. While exact figures are not available, it is likely that many have already returned to their home countries or left for safer locations in Mexico.

Those who have been waiting the longest will be prioritized for readmission. Some people have been waiting

More information https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a5063-Process-asylum-seekers-with-migrant-protection-protocols.html

Refugee Admissions To Hit 40-Year Low Under Trump

Por: Mary Giovagnoli http://immigrationimpact.com

President Trump yesterday proposed a reduction in the annual number of refugee admissions to 18,000 persons for 2020. This is the lowest number ever in the 40-year history of the refugee program , and the fourth time Trump has reduced refugee admissions since January 2017.

Simultaneously, Trump has issued an Executive Order that requires states and localities to consent to the placement of refugees in their communities. This new order appears to track arguments made by states like Texas in failed lawsuits challenging the government’s right to resettle refugees. It sets up a scenario in which cities and states could be pitted against each other in cases where a local community welcomes refugees but the state government does not. This one-two punch has already been swiftly denounced by religious leaders, refugee organizations, and a wide range of politicians who view these actions as essentially a death knell for the refugee program in the United States.

How did we get to this place?

The Refugee Act of 1980 created two independent streams of protection for persecuted people—1) the admission of refugees, meaning people outside the United States who have already been found to need protection; and 2) the asylum system, created for people who seek protection within the U.S. or at our borders. The President is authorized to set the annual refugee admission numbers, in recognition of the role refugee admissions play in diplomacy and national security, but there is no cap for asylum seekers. After all, how can you predict how many people will be desperate enough to risk everything to seek asylum in another country?

Although the administration claims it is cutting refugee admissions because of security concerns and resource allocation issues, it’s been clear from the beginning that slashing refugee admissions is part of a concerted effort to slash all immigration by any means possible.

The President must consult with Congress over refugee admissions, but ultimately has the final say, so destroying the refugee program has been an easy starting point. And yet the State Department has justified the cuts as necessary to deal with the humanitarian crisis at our southern borders, arguing that we shouldn’t go looking for refugees abroad when we should be dealing with those in need of protection within our own country.

This is double-speak at its finest. The refugee admissions program has always operated independently of the domestic immigration scheme—no matter how many different attempts to reform the immigration system, the refugee program was able to operate effectively and within strong security parameters, admitting people when virtually every other aspect of our immigration system was grid-locked by backlogs and punitive laws. In many ways, the refugee program was a jewel in the crown, emblematic of America’s best values and motives.

To destroy that program in the name of a humanitarian crisis on our southern border is disingenuous. The Trump administration has made no effort to prioritize humanitarian cases in the United States. Instead, it has sent asylum seekers back to Mexico to wait for months, facing violence and poverty, while they wait for a hearing date, creating a humanitarian crisis in which at least 48,000 people are forced to remain in Mexico with no infrastructure to support them. Thousands more are still waiting at the border for a chance to even make their claim, as the Trump administration has imposed strict limits on the number of people who can enter the country to seek asylum each day.

In light of the staggering drop in refugee admission numbers, and the outlandish claims about the impacts of asylum caseloads, the executive order is like pouring salt on a wound. So few refugees will be admitted this year that existing refugee resettlement programs will have to drastically reduce locations and staff. It’s likely that the only sites able to receive refugees in the coming year will be those who already have deep community support and where refugees are already thriving.

Many communities enthusiastically welcome refugees and immigrants and will continue to do so, but these latest actions will make it even harder for refugees to feel safe.

Reviving the refugee program one day in the future will be difficult, though not impossible. But it depends on the country rejecting claims that admitting refugees and processing asylum claims are mutually exclusive. They are not, no more than admitting foreign students or visitors prevents the government from naturalizing people. The Trump administration is trying to narrow our vision of what is possible by pitting refugees against asylum seekers. There is room for both, and for far more than the administration wants us to believe.

 

Fuente: http://immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4514-Refugee-Admissions-Under-Trump.html

Syria Is Not Redesignated For TPS, Despite Ongoing Armed Conflict

By Melissa Cruz

After months of uncertainty, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced on Thursday that it will extend—but not redesignate—Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Syria. This life-saving humanitarian program protects foreign nationals from being deported back to a country that is facing ongoing armed conflict, environmental disaster, or other temporarily dangerous conditions. 

The 18-month extension will exclusively offer protections to some 7,000 Syrian nationals legally residing in the United States. It does not, however, redesignate the country itself for TPS. The decision therefore excludes any Syrian nationals living in the United States not currently covered by TPS, particularly those who arrived here in the last three years. 

DHS had the choice to extend the program and redesignate Syria for TPS—the agency has done so nearly every time the country has come up for a decision since its initial designation in 2012. But by only offering an extension, the Trump administration is shutting out thousands of Syrian nationals who are now at risk of deportation back to a war-torn country. 

Syria was first designated for TPS in 2012 after violence erupted in the country. The Syrian government, led by Syrian President Bashar al Assad, began unleashing the military on civilians to suppress political demonstrations. Within a year, President Assad murdered 7,500 Syrians and internally displaced hundreds of thousands more. The government also conducted sweeping, indiscriminate arrests and frequency utilized torture. 

The crisis in Syria was then compounded by the rise of the Islamic State of Syria and the Levant (ISIL). The terrorist group went on to capture large swaths of Syria, and with the assistance of the Assad government, waged chemical weapon attacks, air strikes, and torture against the Syrian people. This resulted in widespread destruction, displacement, and food and water insecurity within the country. By 2018, at least 511,000 people had been killed and nearly 7 million were displaced. 

In a travel advisory released April 2019, the U.S. government warns: “No part of Syria is safe from violence. Kidnappings, the use of chemical warfare, shelling, and aerial bombardment pose significant risk of death or serious injury.”

Yet, the Trump administration’s decision to not redesignate TPS puts at least 7,000 more Syrian nationals right back into this conflict zone. President Trump’s repeated, unsuccessful attempts to end the entire program show blatant disregard for human life. Sending Syrian nationals back to their country amounts to a death sentence.

 

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4375-Syria-Is-Not-Redesignated-For-TPS.html

 

Attorney General Barr Rolls Back Asylum Protections For Families

By Aaron Reichlin-Melnick 

Attorney General William Barr issued a decision that significantly restricts the ability of many current asylum seekers to win their cases on Monday. In Matter of L-E-A-, Barr issued a new immigration court decision that says people should generally not be granted asylum if they face persecution because of who their family is.

Many individuals currently qualify for asylum because they have been targeted for persecution based on who is in their family. For example, cartels often kill a target’s relatives to send a message or governments may go after a political dissident’s family as a means of leverage. 

Despite the courts granting such “family-based” asylum claims for years, in Matter of L-E-A-, Barr declared that membership in a family would generally not qualify as “membership in a particular social group” for the purposes of asylum law. This essentially means that families are not “social groups” under the law. Under Barr’s decision, “family-based” asylum could largely be eliminated. Barr left in place only a few exceptions. This includes individuals who come from families of “greater societal import” and people from clan-based societies where family groups are significantly larger than in most Western societies. 

Although Barr did not give an exact definition for families that are of “greater societal important,” it suggests that he believes only some families matter enough to qualify for asylum. For example, the child of a rich and powerful family might qualify for asylum while the child of a poor family might not, even if the motive of the persecutor—and potential for harm or death—is the same. 

Barr’s decision comes slightly more than a year after former Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a similarly sweeping decision restricting asylum for victims of domestic violence. That decision was decried by former immigration judges as “an affront to the rule of law.” Not surprisingly, asylum grant rates this year have fallen. 

Monday’s decision may also cause the asylum grant rate to go down. Absurdly, the Trump administration is making it harder to win asylum, yet using the very fact that fewer people are winning asylum to argue that Congress should further restrict asylum. Through these artificially created barriers to asylum, the Trump administration is building its own evidence that the asylum process should be reformed—even though individuals’ reasons for fleeing their home countries is unchanged. 

Before Barr issued his decision, an individual in Honduras who was targeted for death because a family member chose to speak out against the gangs would have been able to argue that he was eligible for asylum. After Barr’s decision, such cases will be far harder to win. 

Barr’s decision also flies in the face of years of legal precedent. In a 2015 case, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that “the family provides a prototypical example of a particular social group.” Indeed, every single federal court to consider whether families qualified for asylum that way agreed that they did. The Ninth Circuit has also declared that “the family remains the quintessential particular social group.” 

Despite this long legacy of historical precedent, Barr declared that his interpretation of the law was binding and that each federal circuit court had come to the wrong conclusion. This declaration of authority will likely be tested as cases affected by his new decision go through the appeals process. 

Many individuals won’t be able to wait for appeals, however. Barr’s decision goes into effect immediately in immigration courts across the country and will be applied at border asylum screenings as well. Regardless of whether a court eventually find that the decision is wrong, asylum seekers today face an even higher bar to winning their cases than ever before. 

As more asylum seekers arrive at the border in 2019 than any previous year, we should be working on ensuring that our system provides full protections to anyone fleeing harm—not working to undermine the basic humanitarian protections that we have offered for decades. Barr’s decision takes us in the wrong direction. 

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4358-Rolls-Back-Asylum-Protections-for-Families.html

Certain Detained Asylum Seekers Must Receive a Bond Hearing Within 7 Days

Written by Kristin Macleod-Ball 

Attorney General William Barr announced in April 2019 plans to eliminate bond hearings for immigrants who pass an asylum screening interview after entering the United States. This would have forced many people to remain incarcerated for months or years during their asylum proceedings. However, on Tuesday, a federal court recognized that this fundamental attack on due process is unconstitutional. 

A U.S. district court judge found that the government cannot lock up certain detained asylum seekers without giving a bond hearing before an immigration judge. The Seattle judge ordered that those hearings must take place within seven days of requesting one and that immigration courts must provide new legal protections at the hearings. 

This ruling comes after the Attorney General said, in a case called Matter of M-S-, that he would bar immigration courts from deciding whether to release certain asylum seekers held in immigration detention during their often-lengthy asylum proceedings. 

The district court’s recent decision in the Padilla v. ICE case protects these immigrants’ right to a bond hearing. It is set to go into effect on July 16. It applies nationwide to people who enter the United States between ports of entry, are put into a fast-tracked deportation process called expedited removal, and then pass an initial screening interview about their requests for asylum. The government is likely to ask a higher court to overturn the decision. 

In response to Tuesday’s decision, the White House issued a statement. The statement claims that the decision in Padilla would somehow “lead to the further overwhelming of our immigration system” and that amounted to the judge “[imposing] his or her open borders views on the country.” 

Unfortunately, this is merely more of the same from the Trump administration. The White House regularly sends out harmful, anti-immigrant rhetoric with no basis in fact and attacks the courts when judges uphold the Constitution. In reality, Tuesday’s decision simply protects against the Attorney General’s unlawful efforts to upend a half century of standard immigration court procedure by indefinitely and unnecessarily incarcerating asylum seekers. 

No one should be subject to arbitrary imprisonment while seeking asylum. This decision could protect many immigrants who would otherwise spend months or years locked up by the Department of Homeland Security simply because they are seeking protection in the United States.

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com  

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4294-Asylum-Seekers-Must-Receive-a-Bond-Hearing-Within-7-Days.html

The Government Ended An Effective And Less Costly Alternative To Immigration Detention

Written by Tory Johnson

Case management isn’t necessarily something you would think of in relation to the U.S. immigration system, but a few years ago—for the first time in more than a decade—officials chose to invest in a model of individualized case management to support families seeking protection in the United States – and it worked. 

A recent study from the Women’s Refugee Commission looked closely at the Family Case Management Program (FCMP) , highlighting crucial successes and limitations of the pilot program. Understanding the advantages of these options is all the more important now, as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has grown its detention capacity —without congressional approval—in the last two years. 

ICE, the agency which oversaw the program, described FCMP as “first tend[ing] to the basic necessities when these families arrived, ensuring they had appropriate access to food, shelter, and medical care, so that they may be more ready and able to comply with immigration requirements.” 

Unfortunately, the Trump administration abruptly ended the program in June 2017—just one-and-a-half years after it began, and well short of its five-year contract. 

Despite its premature closure, the program provides important lessons about meaningful and viable alternatives to detention. 

WRC’s analysis, based on program documentation from the government and contractors, as well as interviews, provides several insights. Notably, the program was considered a “resounding success” by both ICE and Geo Cares, the company contracted to run the program. 

Here are five key points to know about the FCMP: 

1. In its short lifespan between January 2016-June 2017, FCMP served 952 families in five metropolitan areas. The program provided individualized case management services, assisting released families with access to medical, social, and legal services. This, in turn, also helped compliance with immigration requirements.

2. The estimated daily cost was $38 per family. This is a fraction of the cost of ICE detention—detaining a family of two in Dilley, Texas, costs taxpayers nearly $600 per day .

3. Families enrolled in FCMP had nearly perfect compliance. The program had compliance rates over 99% with both ICE check-ins and immigration court appearances. 

4. Final evaluations of the program by ICE and Geo Cares determined the program successfully supported stabilization in the community and compliance with immigration requirements—including removal. 

5. The FCMP provides a successful model for a program that can and should be scaled up, if done right. WRC found limitations with the program’s contracting model and would benefit in the future from working directly with experienced community-based organizations with the ties and connections needed to serve immigrant and refugee populations. 

According to the WRC, “with critical improvements and expansion, a program like the FCMP could serve many thousands more, save millions of dollars, and increase efficiency in an immigration system that desperately needs it.” 

In just over a year of the program, it proved to be a viable and successful option for helping asylum-seeking families navigate and comply with the immigration system. It can work again—hopefully our political leaders will see the benefits and reinvest in smart solutions. 

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com  

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4280-Family-Case-Management-Program-FCMP.html

Temporary Protected Status: An Overview

Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is a temporary immigration status provided to nationals of certain countries experiencing problems that make it difficult or unsafe for their nationals to be deported there. TPS has been a lifeline to hundreds of thousands of individuals already in the United States when problems in a home country make their departure or deportation untenable. This fact sheet provides an overview of how TPS designations are determined, what benefits TPS confers, and how TPS beneficiaries apply for and regularly renew their status. 


What is Temporary Protected Status? 

Congress created Temporary Protected Status (TPS) in the Immigration Act of 1990. It is a temporary immigration status provided to nationals of specifically designated countries that are confronting an ongoing armed conflict, environmental disaster, or extraordinary and temporary conditions. It provides a work permit and stay of deportation to foreign nationals from those countries who are in the United States at the time the U.S. government makes the designation. 


For what reasons can a country be designated for TPS? 

A country may be designated for TPS for one or more of the following reasons: 

• An ongoing armed conflict, such as a civil war, that poses a serious threat to the personal safety of returning nationals;
• An environmental disaster, such as an earthquake, hurricane, or epidemic, that results in a substantial but temporary disruption of living conditions, and because of which the foreign state is temporarily unable to adequately handle the return of its nationals;
• Extraordinary and temporary conditions in the foreign state that prevent its nationals from returning to the state in safety (unless the U.S. government finds that permitting these nationals to remain temporarily in the United States is contrary to the U.S. national interest).

Who has the authority to designate a country for TPS? 

The Secretary of Homeland Security has discretion to decide when a country merits a TPS designation. The Secretary must consult with other government agencies prior to deciding to designate a country—or part of a country—for TPS. Although these other agencies are not specified in the statute, these consultations usually involve the Department of State, the National Security Council, and occasionally the Department of Justice (DOJ). The Secretary’s decision as to whether or not to designate a country for TPS is not subject to judicial review, according to immigration law. 


How long are TPS designations? 

A TPS designation can be made for 6, 12, or 18 months at a time. At least 60 days prior to the expiration of TPS, the Secretary must decide whether to extend or terminate a designation based on the conditions in the foreign country. Decisions to begin, extend, or terminate a TPS designation must be published in the Federal Register. If an extension or termination decision is not published at least 60 days in advance of expiration, the designation is automatically extended for six months. The law does not define the term “temporary” or otherwise limit the amount of time for which a country can have a TPS designation. 


Who is eligible for TPS? 

In order to qualify for TPS, an individual must: 

• be a national of the foreign country with a TPS designation (or if stateless, have last habitually resided in a country with a TPS designation);
• be continuously physically present in the United States since the effective date of designation;
• have continuously resided in the United States since a date specified by the Secretary of Homeland Security;
• not be inadmissible to the United States or be barred from asylum for certain criminal or national security-related reasons, such as individuals who have been convicted of any felony or two or more misdemeanors.

Nationals of a designated country do not automatically receive TPS, but instead must register during a specific registration period and pay significant fees. In addition, an individual’s immigration status at the time of application for TPS has no effect on one’s eligibility, nor does the previous issuance of an order of removal. 


What does TPS authorize a noncitizen to do? 

An individual who is eligible for TPS must register by submitting an application to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), an agency of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). If a person demonstrates eligibility and USCIS grants TPS, that person receives a temporary stay of deportation and temporary authorization to work in the United States. TPS beneficiaries are also eligible for advance parole, which provides permission to travel abroad and return to the United States, but they must apply for it separately. Beneficiaries are not eligible for any public assistance by virtue of their TPS status. 


Which countries have TPS? 

As of May 2019, the following 10 countries were designated for TPS and the designation had not expired: 

• *El Salvador (Extended until January 2, 2020)
• *Haiti (Extended until January 2, 2020)
• *Honduras (Termination was scheduled to be effective January 5, 2020, but is on hold)
• *Nepal (Termination was scheduled to be effective June 24, 2019, but is on hold; employment authorization is auto-extended through March 24, 2020)
• *Nicaragua (Extended until January 2, 2020)
• Somalia (Extended until March 17, 2020)
• South Sudan (Extended until November 2, 2020)
• *Sudan (Extended until January 2, 2020)
• Syria (Extended until September 30, 2019)
• Yemen (Extended until March 3, 2020)

*As of May 2019, these TPS designations had been terminated by DHS but will not go into effect until further notice, contingent upon rulings in at least two lawsuits, including: Bhattarai v. Nielsen (Honduras and Nepal) and Ramos v. Nielsen (El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Sudan). 


Which countries have had TPS in the past? 

Since TPS was created, the following countries or parts of countries have had TPS designations that are now terminated: 

• Angola (Expired March 29, 2003)
• Bosnia-Herzegovina (Expired February 10, 2001)
• Burundi (Expired May 2, 2009)
• Guinea (Expired May 21, 2017)
• Guinea-Bissau (Expired September 10, 2000)
• Province of Kosovo (Expired December 8, 2000)
• Kuwait (Expired March 27, 1992)
• Lebanon (Expired April 9, 1993)
• Liberia (Expired May 21, 2017)
• Montserrat (Expired August 27, 2004)
• Rwanda (Expired December 6, 1997)
• Sierra Leone (Expired May 21, 2017)

Does TPS create a path to permanent residence or citizenship? 

TPS does not provide beneficiaries with a separate path to lawful permanent residence (a green card) or citizenship. However, a TPS recipient who otherwise is eligible for permanent residence may apply for that status. 

Generally, a person who entered the United States without inspection is not eligible to apply for permanent residence. As of May 2019, three federal appellate circuits had ruled on this issue: 

• Two federal appellate circuits (the Ninth and Sixth Circuits) ruled that a person with valid TPS status could adjust status to lawful permanent residence if otherwise eligible through a family-based or employment-based petition, even if he or she entered the United States without inspection.
• The Eleventh Circuit ruled that a TPS recipient who entered without inspection is not eligible to adjust to permanent residence.

DHS’ position, applicable in all other circuits, is that a TPS holder is not eligible to adjust status within the United States. In order to gain permanent resident status, a TPS recipient must instead depart the country to have a visa processed at a consular post. For many TPS holders who originally entered the United States without inspection, a departure to have a visa interview would trigger bars to re-entry for up to 10 years. 

Alternatively, some TPS recipients may be eligible to adjust status if they were granted advance permission from USCIS (referred to as advance parole), traveled abroad and were paroled back into the United States. 


What happens to a TPS beneficiary when a TPS designation ends? 

TPS beneficiaries return to the immigration status that the person held prior to receiving TPS, unless that status has expired or the person has successfully acquired a new immigration status. TPS beneficiaries who entered the United States without inspection and who are not eligible for other immigration benefits, for example, would return to being undocumented at the end of a TPS designation and become subject to removal. 


How are “Deferred Enforced Departure” and “Extended Voluntary Departure” related to TPS? 

Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) is very similar to TPS but derives from the President’s foreign policy authority rather than from a specific law. As of May 2019, the only country designated for DED was Liberia, effective until March 30, 2020. 

• There are no explicit criteria for making DED decisions or for determining who would be eligible for DED once a designation is determined.
• Just like TPS holders, DED beneficiaries receive a work permit and stay of deportation; however, they are not permitted to travel abroad.

Extended Voluntary Departure (EVD) was the predecessor to TPS prior to the Immigration Act of 1990. It was a discretionary authority used by the Attorney General (at a time when the Immigration and Naturalization Service was housed in DOJ) to give nationals of certain countries experiencing turbulent country conditions temporary permission to remain in the United States. Congress eliminated EVD with the creation of TPS. 

 

Source: www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org  

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4228-Temporary-Protected-Status-An-Overview.html