New Public Charge Rule Should End Fear of Trump Wealth Test

 

Written by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick www.immigrationimpact.com

Three years ago, the Trump administration sent fear throughout immigrant communities across the nation with its Public Charge rule, which functioned as a wealth test for green card applicants. This fear had been amplified by a leaked draft of the rule in 2018, which would have punished intending immigrants whose U.S. citizen children received a wide variety of benefits.

Now, with a new public charge rule finalized last week, the Biden administration has restored the public charge standard that existed for decades before President Trump. This will hopefully assuage the fears of many immigrants who had avoided accessing benefits to which they were lawfully entitled.

The Biden administration’s new public charge was first announced... more information https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a5549-New-Public-Charge-Rule.html

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

The new public charge standard will no longer penalize Medicaid and Snap Recipients

 

By: Walter Ewing - www.immigrationimpact.com/

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to clarify the meaning of the “public charge ground of inadmissibility” on February 24. The new guidance will be welcome news for immigrants as well as state governments and immigrant-serving organizations across the country that have worked to combat fear and misinformation around public charge.

Under current law, immigrants applying for admission to the United States or those already here and seeking a green card must prove they are not “likely to become a public charge.” Although changes were implemented during the Trump administration, since 1999 immigrants have been required to prove that they would not become “primarily dependent” on certain cash welfare programs.

Changes to Public Charge Under Trump

The Trump administration attempted to change this standard by implementing its own version of the public charge rule in 2019, but its application was halted in March 2021 due to litigation.

More information: https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a5381-new-public-charge-no-longer-penalize-Medicaid-and-Snap.html

USCIS Plans Massive Fee Hike For Access To Genealogical Records

If you have ever wanted to trace your family’s immigration history, you should do it now—accessing genealogical records from the 1800s and 1900s may soon become far more expensive than ever before.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is planning to increase its fees to access millions of historical records held under the agency’s Genealogy Program. This includes citizenship and alien registration files, naturalization records, visa applications, and other documents.

In some cases, the fees to access these files would triple. In other instances, the fees would increase by nearly 500%, shooting up from $130 to $625 to obtain a single paper file.

This fee hike would price many people out of obtaining their own families’ immigration records. more: https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4692-Fee-Hike-for-Access-to-Genealogical-Records.html

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com

Trump Administration Begins Sending Asylum Seekers To Guatemala

In yet another major blow to America’s asylum system, on Wednesday the Trump administration reportedly began sending some asylum seekers from Honduras and El Salvador to Guatemala rather than permit them to seek protection in the United States.

Under the “Asylum Cooperative Agreement” deal signed with Guatemala in July, the Guatemalan government will process the asylum claims of people who arrive at the U.S. border without visas.

For the first time in American history, large numbers of refugees can now be returned to a third country without their consent.

This denies them any opportunity to seek protection in the United States. Instead, people will be required to apply for asylum in Guatemala, a country with one of the highest rates of poverty and malnutrition in the entire Western Hemisphere...

 

More information: https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4632-Sending-Asylum-Seekers-to-Guatemala.html 

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com

USCIS Proposes Increased Fees For All Immigration-Related Applications

By Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

In a new proposal officially put forward on Thursday, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) called for major fee hikes for immigration-related applications.

The cost for becoming a citizen would rise above $1,000 for the first time in history. In another first, USCIS proposed a new fee for asylum seekers, which would make the United States only the fourth country in the world to charge for humanitarian protection. Advocates decried the fee increases as an attack on legal immigration.

Under the proposed fees, an applicant for a green card through marriage who was applying from inside the United States would have to pay $2,750 in total. This is a $990 increase from the previous costs.

Applicants for citizenship would also pay over 60% more, with the total fees increasing from $725 to $1,170.

USCIS also plans to abolish fee waivers for a wide variety of applications, including for naturalization.

Currently, nearly 40% of applicants for citizenship receive a fee waiver, making this a significant change that could hit seniors and low-income immigrants the hardest. Under the agency’s plan, only fee waivers required by law would be allowed, with all other fee waivers abolished.

Some groups will be particularly impacted, including crime and trafficking victims seeking U visas or T visas. Individuals seeking these visas often need to file Form I-192, which allows them to officially reenter the United States on the new visa. The current fee is $930, for which a fee waiver is available.

Under the new proposal, the fee would increase to $1,415 and no fee waivers would be available. This could mean that victims of trafficking would be unable to afford the visa allowing them to stay in the United States, even though they were otherwise eligible to receive it.

USCIS also proposes to charge people $50 to ask for asylum, which the agency says will discourage “frivolous filings.” Currently, only Iran, Fiji, and Australia charge a fee for asylum seekers. The $50 fee would likely prove prohibitive to people seeking asylum—who are not legally allowed to work in the United States until after applying for asylum.

A $50 fee for applying for asylum would also have devastating effects on asylum seekers in detention, who earn at most $1 a day through Immigration and Custom Enforcement’s so-called “voluntary work program.”

Because fees set by USCIS apply automatically to applicants in immigration court, it would take a new regulation in the immigration court system to exempt detained asylum seekers. USCIS also proposes to hike fees an additional 6% across the board, and then send $200,000,000 yearly to ICE to use however that agency wishes. In essence, they would be forcing immigrants to pay extra in order to detain and deport other immigrants. However, the agency acknowledges that it may need congressional approval in order to do this.

Taken as a whole, these changes would make it more expensive to legally immigrate, imposing significant burdens on low-income immigrants in particular. The agency is soliciting comments on the new fees, with the comment period set to end on December 16, and opposition to the rule is likely to be strong.

Given the significant impact of theses changes, if the agency moves forward with its plan it’s likely to face opposition in court.

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4620-USCIS-Proposes-Increased-Fees.html

USCIS Changes Policy On Fee Waivers, Potentially Deterring Thousands Of Citizenship Applications

By Melissa Cruz

The cost of filing an application for citizenship—usually a hefty $725—has long been a barrier for some immigrants. Now, a change to the naturalization process may leave even more people priced out of becoming a U.S. citizen.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) recently announced a new policy that will change how the agency determines eligibility for a waiver of its application fees. It is set to go into effect December 2.

The policy will narrow the fee waiver eligibility for those applying for citizenship, green cards in certain categories, work permits, and other immigration benefits.

Currently, USCIS has a straightforward way of determining eligibility for a fee waiver. If an applicant receives a means-tested benefit—such as Medicaid or supplemental food assistance—then they automatically qualify for a fee waiver. As of 2017, approximately 40% of all citizenship applicants requested this fee waiver; most did so by showing they received a means-tested benefit.

The new policy will eliminate the means-tested benefit from the eligibility criteria.

Under the change, people may only request a fee waiver if they can prove their annual household income is at or below 150% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines or if they can demonstrate financial hardship by some other means.

The two remaining alternatives are more difficult to prove. They require substantial documentation and often the help of an attorney. Sifting through this documentation would likely be more time-consuming for an already overburdened USCIS, creating even greater backlogs.

Filing fees may be out of reach for many people, including low-income immigrants, the elderly, and families that file more than one application at a time. With limited ways to get a fee waiver, some people may be deterred from applying for immigration benefits—including citizenship—at all.

The policy change is one of many attacks the Trump administration has made against legal immigration. It comes just two weeks after the Trump administration’s public charge rule got struck down in several federal courts. The rule would have made it easier for the government to deny a green card to immigrants it deemed likely to receive certain public benefits in the future, including non-cash benefits like Medicaid or food stamps. The widely condemned rule , and its counterpart for immigrant visa applicants, was also seen as a “wealth test” for those wanting to live in the United States.

This latest policy change creates more obstacles for people navigating our immigration system. Our process should encourage people to become U.S. citizens, not turn them away with high fees and inflexible criteria.

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4585-USCIS-Changes-Policy-on-Fee-Waivers.html

New Process In El Paso Seeks To Deport Asylum Seekers In Less Than 10 Days

By Katie Shepherd

The Trump administration began a secretive new asylum process in El Paso, Texas that came to light late last week. It seeks to deter asylum seekers from coming to the United States and to remove them as quickly as possible once they’re here.

The process—dubbed the “Prompt Asylum Claim Review” or “PACR”—condenses the asylum process from several months or more to under 10 days. It is riddled with due process concerns and will likely result in countless individuals’ deportation to imminent harm. Media reports indicate that the program is being piloted in El Paso and is a joint initiative between the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department.

Under PACR, individuals apprehended in the El Paso area are kept in holding cells (known in Spanish as hieleras) or are taken to a local 1,500-bed soft-sided facility operated by Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

They are given 24 hours to make a phone call to an attorney or otherwise prepare for their case before having an interview with an asylum officer. The officer will decide whether they have a credible fear of persecution if returned to the country they fled.

Many asylum seekers being processed at the border are subjected to the asylum transit ban, which blocks asylum eligibility for those who traveled through another country before reaching the United States. As a result, Central Americans are especially impacted by the ban. They are only eligible for a more limited form of relief (withholding of removal) under a heightened fear screening standard that is much harder to meet.

Those who fail these screening interviews may have their case reviewed via telephone by an immigration judge. The judge conducts a cursory review of the case.

Even if someone can secure a lawyer within 24 hours, they are unable to meet with them in person at the facility. CBP does not permit attorneys to physically access the facilities. Detainees only have limited access to phone calls.

Individuals seeking asylum will remain in CBP custody during their credible fear interview. This is a big departure from previous procedures. Typically, individuals only spend a few days in CBP custody before being transferred to a detention center operated by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

CBP facilities are notorious for their terrible conditions and have long been the subject of litigation. The facilities are designed to hold individuals only for short-term stays. Government guidance advises that individuals be held for no longer than 72 hours—far less than the 10 days called for under PACR.

Reports have surfaced in recent weeks exposing these substandard conditions and inadequate access to medical care. This is particularly concerning, since those subject to the program include families with young children and infants.

The obstacles set before asylum seekers along the U.S.-Mexico border—and El Paso in particular—are almost insurmountable. Individuals placed in PACR must secure counsel within 24 hours, endure deplorable conditions for days in CBP custody, and meet a much higher legal standard than before.

This pilot process is yet another example of the Trump administration setting up asylum seekers to fail. The program entirely disregards due process for those who the asylum system was specifically designed to protect.

 

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4571-New-Process-Seeks-To-Deport-Asylum-Seekers.html

DOJ Moves To Further Politicize Immigration Court System

By Katie Shepherd www.immigrationimpact.com 

The Trump administration implemented more drastic changes to the U.S. immigration court system. A new rule gives the director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)—a Trump political appointee—the power to adjudicate cases and appeals. 

Described as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing,” the rule turns the immigration court system into a law enforcement agency and undermines any semblance of judicial independence within the immigration court system. 

The new interim final rule was published by the Department of Justice (DOJ) just days after it was announced by the administration. It allows the director of EOIR to decide cases that “cannot be completed in a timely fashion”–within 90 days for detained cases and 180 days for non-detained cases. The move raises grave concerns about having a political appointee adjudicate immigration cases—essentially allowing the director to shape case law. The director reports to Attorney General William Barr and may now feel beholden to his political whims. 

Currently, only immigration judges, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the attorney general are permitted to adjudicate cases. The immigration court system is currently housed within the DOJ, the same executive branch agency responsible for prosecuting immigrants in federal court. This is an inherent conflict of interest. 

This summer, the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), and others sent a letter to Congress, calling for an independent immigration court system. 

The new rule has met immediate criticism. NAIJ issued a stinging statement in response, calling the announcement: “An unprecedented attempt at agency overreach to dismantle the Immigration Court,” alleging that the “DOJ’s action ends any transparency and assurance of independent decision making over individual cases.” 

The rule also formalizes the creation of the Office of Policy, which is housed within EOIR and has been in operation since 2017. Many of the more problematic policies issued by EOIR over the past year—including initiatives to speed up deportations and weaken due process protections—have originated from this Office of Policy. The office has remained largely unresponsive to stakeholders seeking clarification or basic information about new policies. 

Monday’s new rule is hardly the first time the Trump administration has taken aim at the immigration court system. 

Earlier this month, the Trump administration moved to decertify the immigration judge’s union, the 40-year-old collective bargaining representative of U.S. immigration judges. 

The House Judiciary Committee issued a strong statement in response: “The Trump Administration has taken unprecedented steps to strip immigration judges of judicial independence by limiting their ability to manage their dockets and make informed discretionary decisions.” 

The committee pledged to hold hearings in the coming months to explore the current state of the immigration court system and the possibility of legislation to create an independent immigration court. 

The new rule has concerning implications for the future of the immigration court system and erosion of due process for the thousands of immigrants whose lives are now in the hands of the EOIR director. 

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4438-DOJ-Further-Politicize-Immigration-Court-System.html

USCIS Is Slowly Being Morphed Into an Immigration Enforcement Agency

Written by Joshua Breisblatt

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued new guidance to initiate deportation proceedings for thousands of applicants denied for any immigration benefit. This policy change will have far-reaching implications for many of those interacting with the agency, but also signals a major shift in how USCIS operates. 

USCIS was never meant to be tasked with immigration enforcement. Their mandate has always been administering immigration benefits. With its distinct mission, USCIS was created to focus exclusively on their customer service function , processing applications for visas, green cards, naturalization, and humanitarian benefits. 

The new USCIS guidance instructs staff to issue a Notice to Appear (NTA) to anyone who is unlawfully present when an application, petition, or benefit request is denied. This will include virtually all undocumented applicants, as well as those individuals whose lawful status expires while their request is pending before USCIS. 

An NTA (Form I-862) is a charging document issued to individuals when there are grounds for deporting them from the United States. The NTA is issued by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and USCIS. It must be served to the individual and presented to the immigration court for removal proceedings to be triggered. When someone receives an NTA, they must appear before an immigration judge at an assigned date and location to determine if they are eligible to remain in the country legally or should be removed. 

NTAs are traditionally issued under certain situations, such as terminations of conditional permanent residence, referrals of asylum cases, and positive credible fear findings. 

Beginning immediately, NTAs will also be issued by USCIS: 

• For denials of an initial application or re-registration for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) or a withdrawal of TPS when the applicant has no other lawful immigration status.
• When fraud, misrepresentation, or evidence of abuse of public benefit programs is part of an individual’s record, even if the application or petition has been denied for other reasons.
• When someone is under investigation or arrested for any crime, regardless of a conviction, if the application is denied and the person is removable.
• When USCIS issues an unfavorable decision and the individual is not lawfully present in the United States.

A second policy memorandum issued at the same time as the new NTA guidance makes applicants for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) the exception to this new NTA policy. 

This move essentially ends all prosecutorial discretion, a key tool used by law enforcement and prosecutors all over the country to effectively prioritize cases. In the past, immigration agencies used prosecutorial discretion when deciding under what circumstances to issue NTAs. 

Past leaders of USCIS have issued memos against the practice of widespread NTA issuance, noting it was impractical, would divert scarce resources, create longer wait times, and clog the immigration courts. Further, denials of immigration benefits applications are often reversed upon reconsideration or appeal. This means that thousands of cases that will ultimately be approved will be needlessly tossed onto the dockets of an already overburdened court system. If an immigration benefit request is approved on appeal, the individual must then seek termination of proceedings, which consumes even more court resources. With over 700,000 cases already in the court backlog , it’s inconceivable for the agency to manage many thousands more. 

This new NTA policy is both overbroad and short-sighted, not taking into account the practical effects on government resources or the chilling effect it will have on noncitizens needing to apply for or renew benefits. Our complex immigration system will become even more inefficient, burdensome, and confusing. 

Source: www. immigrationimpact.com 

http://inmigracionyvisas.com/a3846-USCIS-Into-an-Immigration-Enforcement-Agency.html