K-1 Visa and Employment: Understanding Your Rights and Restrictions

 

Ever dreamed of starting a new life in the U.S. with your American fiancé(e)? The K-1 visa, also known as the fiancé(e) visa, offers a pathway to make that dream a reality. But amidst the excitement of wedding bells and new beginnings, a crucial question often arises: can I work with a K-1 visa?

The answer, like many things in immigration law, isn't a simple yes or no. While the K-1 visa doesn't automatically grant work authorization, there's a path to legally secure employment during your 90-day stay. Understanding your rights and restrictions on this journey is crucial, and this blog post is your comprehensive guide.

Imagine Sarah, a talented architect from Spain, eager to join her American fiancé, Mark, in California. Sarah dreams of contributing her skills to a local firm, but the complexities of K-1 visa employment leave her confused. This blog post empowers Sarah, and countless others like her, with the knowledge to navigate this crucial step towards their American dream.

So, can you work with a K-1 visa? Here's what you need to know:

1. Employment Authorization is Key: While the K-1 visa allows entry for marriage purposes, it doesn't grant automatic work authorization. To legally work in the U.S., you'll need to apply for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD). This separate application, known as Form I-765, requires additional fees and processing time.

More information https://inmigracionyvisas.com/a5967-k-1-visa-and-employment-understanding-your-rights-and-restrictions.html

7 Ways to Find Cheap International Flights from the USA

 

Are you dreaming of traveling abroad but worried about the cost of flights? Don't worry, we've got you covered with some key hacks and tips for getting good prices for international flights to and from the United States. Whether you want to explore Europe, Asia, Africa, or anywhere else in the world, you can find cheap flights if you follow these simple steps.

1. Be flexible with your dates and destinations. One of the best ways to save money on flights is to be flexible with your travel plans. If you can travel during the off-season or on weekdays, you can save a lot of money compared to peak times and weekends. You can also be flexible with your destination and use tools like Skyscanner's "Search anywhere" feature to find the cheapest places to fly to from your departure city.

More information https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a5852-7-Ways-to-Find-Cheap-International-Flights-from-the-USA.html

Legalization Through “Registry”

 

Current immigration law contains a provision called “registry” that allows certain non-citizens who are long-term residents of the United States, but who are either undocumented or present in the country under some sort of temporary immigration status, to “register” for Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) status. In order to qualify, individuals must have entered the country on or before a specified date (known as the “registry date”) and must demonstrate good moral character and continuous residence since their entry. After its creation in 1929, Congress advanced the registry date four times, most recently in 1986, when the date was set at January 1, 1972—meaning that only non-citizens who entered the United States by that date are eligible to apply for LPR status through registry. This date is now so far in the past that few individuals are eligible. However, Congress has the power to advance the registry date again at any time, which would potentially allow millions of non-citizens to become LPRs and, ultimately, U.S. citizens.

History of the Registry Provision

The original registry provision created in 1929 applied to any non-citizen who met the following conditions: entered the country prior to June 3, 1921; had continuously resided in the country since entering; demonstrated “good moral character”; was not subject to deportation under U.S. immigration laws; and for whom a record of lawful admission was not available. The registry provision was amended in 1940 and the registry date advanced to July 1, 1924. However, a more substantive revision took place in 1958. 

Continúe leyendo en  https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a5257-Legalization-Through-Registry.html

New exceptions for visa procedures in the United States

The Secretary has determined that the travel of immigrants, fiancé(e) visa holders, certain exchange visitors, and pilots and aircrew traveling to the United States for training or aircraft pickup, delivery, or maintenance is in the national interest for purposes of approving exceptions under the geographic COVID Presidential Proclamations (9984, 9992, and 10143). These proclamations restrict the entry of individuals physically present, within the 14-day period prior to their attempted entry into the United States, in the People’s Republic of China, Islamic Republic of Iran, Schengen Area, United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland, Federative Republic of Brazil, or Republic of South Africa. This article provides further details regarding this determination.

National Interest Exceptions for Immigrants and Fiancé(e)s

On April 8, 2021, the Secretary of State determined that travel on an immigrant or fiancé(e) visa is in the national interest for purposes of granting exceptions under the geographic COVID proclamations. Immigrant Visa processing posts may now grant immigrant and fiancé(e) visas to applicants otherwise eligible, notwithstanding these proclamations.

More information in  https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a5107-New-exceptions-for-visa-in-United-States.html

Why Don’t Immigrants Apply for Citizenship?

 Many people wonder why all immigrants do not just come to the United States legally or simply apply for citizenship while living here without authorization. These suggestions miss the point: There is no line available for current unauthorized immigrants and the “regular channels” are largely not available to prospective immigrants who end up entering the country through unauthorized channels. Even though most unauthorized immigrants have lived in the United States for nearly 15 years, many could live out the rest of their lives without any opportunity to become legal residents of this country.

No “line” is available for the vast majority of unauthorized immigrants.

Immigration to the United States on a temporary or permanent basis is generally limited to three different routes: employment, family reunification, or humanitarian protection. Each of these possibilities is highly regulated and subject to numerical limitations and eligibility requirements. As a result, most unauthorized immigrants do not have the necessary family or employment relationships and often cannot access humanitarian protection, such as refugee or asylum status. This means that no matter how long they have been in the United States, most unauthorized immigrants have no path to legal status. Even those who pay taxes, work hard, and contribute to their communities, have no way to "get in line" unless Congress were to create a new path to legal status.

Many unauthorized immigrants are barred from obtaining legal status while inside the United States.

Unauthorized immigrants who entered the United States without being legally admitted and inspected are generally not eligible to obtain green cards while still inside the country. Even if there is a visa available, they are barred from "adjusting status" and getting a green card without leaving the country because of how they entered the United States.

More information https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a5004-Immigrants-Dont-Apply-for-Citizenship.html

I am a permanent resident, How do I apply for U.S. citizenship?

 

U.S. citizenship provides many rights, but also involves many responsibilities. Thus, the decision to become a U.S. citizen through naturalization is important. In most cases, a person who wants to naturalize must first be a permanent resident. By becoming a U.S. citizen, you gain many rights that permanent residents or others do not have, including the right to vote. To be eligible for naturalization, you must first meet certain requirements set by U.S. law.

What are the basic requirements to apply for naturalization?

The process of applying for U.S. citizenship is known as naturalization. In order to be eligible for naturalization, you must first meet certain requirements required by U.S. immigration law.

Generally, to be eligible for naturalization you must:

• Be age 18 or older; and
• Be a permanent resident for a certain amount of time (usually 5 years or 3 years, depending on how you obtained status); and
• Be a person of good moral character; and
• Have a basic knowledge of U.S. government (this, too, can be excepted due to permanent physical or mental impairment); and
• Have a period of continuous residence and physical presence in the United States; and
• Be able to read, write, and speak basic English. There are exceptions to this rule for someone who at the time of filing:
  • Is 55 years old and has been a permanent resident for at least 15 years; or
  • Is 50 years old and has been a permanent resident for at least 20 years; or
  • Has a permanent physical or mental impairment that makes the individual unable to fulfill these requirements.



When can I apply for naturalization?



Continúe leyendo en https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4966-How-do-I-apply-for-US-citizenship.html 

U.S. Citizen Children Impacted By Immigration Enforcement

In the United States today, more than eight million citizens live with at least one family member, often a parent, who is undocumented. Children make up the majority of these U.S. citizens; almost six million citizen children under the age of 18 live with a parent or family member who is undocumented. Consequently, immigration enforcement actions—and the ongoing threats associated with them—have significant physical, emotional, developmental, and economic repercussions on the children left behind. Deportations of parents and family members have serious consequences that affect children and extend to communities and the country as a whole.

This fact sheet provides an overview of the U.S. citizen children who could be impacted by immigration enforcement actions, the challenges and risk factors that these children face, and the existing mechanisms designed to protect children if a parent is detained or deported. 


Millions of U.S. citizen children have undocumented parents and family members. 

• 4.1 million U.S. citizen children under the age of 18 live with at least one undocumented parent according to the most recent estimates available (analyzing 2009-2013 U.S. Census data).
• 5.9 million U.S. citizen children under the age of 18 live with an undocumented family member, according to the most recent estimates available (analyzing 2010-2014 census data).
• Roughly half-a-million U.S. citizen children experienced the apprehension, detention, and deportation of at least one parent in the course of about two years, according to the most recent estimates available (analyzing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) data between 2011 and 2013).
• As of 2017, Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders from El Salvador, Honduras, and Haiti had an estimated 273,000 U.S.-born citizen children. With those TPS designations terminated, many of these parents will become undocumented by the end of 2019.

Immigration enforcement—and the threat of such actions—can negatively impact a child’s long-term health and development. 

• A child’s risk of having mental health problems like depression, anxiety, and severe psychological distress increases following the detention and/or deportation of a parent. Since late 2016, doctors and service providers have reported anecdotally that they have seen more children exhibiting stress- and anxiety-related behavioral changes, including symptoms of “toxic-stress,” due to fear that a family member will be deported.
• A study of Latino citizen children from 2013-2015 found that post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms were significantly higher for children who had at least one detained or deported parent.
• A 2010 study of immigration-related parental arrests (at home or worksites) found that the majority of children experienced at least four adverse behavioral changes in the six months following a raid or arrest. Compared to the previous six months, children cried or were afraid more often; changed their eating or sleeping habits; and/or were more anxious, withdrawn, clingy, angry, or aggressive.
• Even before birth, immigration enforcement can put a child’s health at risk. The 2008 worksite raid in Postville, Iowa—the largest single-site immigration raid in U.S. history—was tied to premature and underweight births, complications that put babies at risk for infant death or long-term health problems. Researchers found that babies born to Latina mothers in Iowa within 37 weeks of the raid were 24 percent more likely to be underweight compared to the previous year. This increased risk was not evident in babies born to non-Latina white mothers in Iowa.

The detention or deportation of a parent puts children at risk of economic instability. 

The deportation, and even the arrest or detention, of a parent or other household family member has significant short- and long-term financial implications. U.S. citizen children and any remaining family members can face substantial economic disadvantages following the removal of a primary provider. 

• An analysis of 2014 median family income estimated that a family’s income would decrease 50 percent following the deportation of a family member.
• A study of immigration enforcement in six U.S. locations between 2006 and 2009 found that families lost 40 to 90 percent of their income, or an average of 70 percent, within six months of a parent’s immigration-related arrest, detention, or deportation.
• The ability to afford housing may become more tenuous following the deportation of a provider, resulting in the loss of a family’s home and more frequent relocations.
• A 2016 study of immigration enforcement and housing foreclosures found that “deportations exacerbate rates of foreclosure among Latinos by removing income earners from owner-occupied households.” Furthermore, the research revealed that counties with 287(g) agreements, which authorize immigration enforcement collaboration between local police and ICE, had substantially higher foreclosure rates among Latinos.

U.S. citizen children may end up in the child welfare system following the detention or deportation of their parent. 

Parents—regardless of immigration status, detention, or deportation—have a constitutional right to custody of their children (unless deemed unfit). While the child welfare system generally recognizes that it is in a child’s best interest to remain with a parent or family member, the intersection with immigration enforcement can negatively impact parental rights and thus a child’s well-being. For example, the lack of coordination between agencies has historically led to prolonged family separation and even termination of parental rights. 

To ensure that enforcement activities did not “unnecessarily disrupt the parental rights” of parents or legal guardians of minor children, ICE issued its Parental Interests Directive in 2013. The Parental Interests Directive was replaced in 2017 with a new Detained Parents Directive. The 2017 policy eliminated many aspects of the 2013 directive, including guidance for the use of prosecutorial discretion in cases involving children and all references to parental rights. The 2017 directive instead instructs ICE agents to “remain cognizant of the impact enforcement actions may have” on certain children.

• According to ICE’s 2017 Detained Parents Directive, when certain minor children are encountered during immigration enforcement, ICE agents should “generally accommodate” the parent or legal guardian’s efforts to make child care arrangements before contacting local child welfare or law enforcement to take temporary custody.
• If a parent is unable to arrange childcare or custody prior to detention or deportation, the child may be taken by the state’s Child Protective Services (CPS) for placement and case management. The child is usually placed in an emergency shelter; group home; or with a relative, friend, or stranger in a foster home while custody is determined in family court.
• An estimated 5,000 U.S. citizen children in foster care had a detained or deported parent in 2011, according to a national study.
• Children in foster care in counties with 287(g) agreements were 29 percent more likely to have detained or deported parents compared to non-287(g) counties studied in 2011.

There are limited mechanisms to safeguard parental rights, which are incredibly difficult for parents to regain following detention or deportation. 

All parents have the right to receive a notification of custody proceedings affecting their children, attend such proceedings, and receive copies of related court documents. Yet there are few enforceable, permanent policies in place to protect these rights.

• Federal law mandates that parental rights be terminated if a child has been out of a parent’s custody for 15 of the past 22 months. Policies and procedures vary by state, but in order to maintain or regain parental rights, CPS generally implements a reunification plan that requires a parent to have regular contact with the child and participate in family court hearings. Detained or deported parents have historically faced significant barriers to these requirements.
• Parents may request release from detention in order to care for their children while they are in immigration proceedings. However, ICE no longer provides its personnel with guidance for exercising such discretion in cases that involve a child.
• The 2017 directive generally instructs agents to facilitate regular visitation for detained parents and their minor children, though no longer emphasizes in-person visitation. ICE personnel should also arrange for a detained parent's participation in custody proceedings when required by a court.

Significant issues persist for detained parents who may be dealing with both immigration and custody proceedings. Since ICE is not required to inform CPS of a parent’s whereabouts, CPS may have difficulty locating and properly notifying a detained parent; family courts and caseworkers may not understand why a parent is detained and unable to participate in proceedings; and ICE officials may underestimate the impact that enforcement has on U.S. citizen children who are likely to be left behind. 


Parents with a final deportation order must make the difficult decision of whether to bring their children—including U.S. citizen children—with them. 

ICE issued more than 200,000 deportation orders between 2010 and 2012 for parents who report having U.S. citizen children, according to the most recent estimates of government data available. While the government does not track whether U.S. citizen children stay in the United States or leave with a deported parent, both scenarios occur and pose challenges.

• If parental rights remain intact, parents with a pending deportation may make custody arrangements for their children to stay in the United States. ICE is supposed to “accommodate, to the extent practicable,” a detained parent's efforts to make guardianship or travel arrangements for the child prior to deportation.
• If a child’s custody is still being determined after a parent has been deported, the ability of the parent to regain custody or participate in proceedings—even if the court requires the parent’s attendance—is extremely limited. ICE no longer has guidance to consider facilitating the travel of a deported parent back to the United States to participate in proceedings that may result in the termination of parental rights.
• Deported parents have the right to reunite with their children outside of the United States as long as the reunification plan is ongoing, but this requires significant coordination between family members, the parent country’s consulate, and U.S. state and federal agencies. It can be difficult for deported parents to prove that they can provide for their children in a stable and safe environment in the country of deportation, based on many of the same conditions that may have triggered the parent’s migration to the United States

Source: www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org  
https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4339-Citizen-Children-Impacted-by-Immigration.html

USCIS Announces Plan To Improve The Naturalization Test

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is revising the current naturalization test with improvements to ensure it continues to serve as an accurate measure of a naturalization applicant’s civics knowledge and that it reflects best practices in adult education assessments. The goal is to create a meaningful, uniform, and efficient test that will assess applicants’ knowledge and understanding of U.S. history, government and values.

This spring, the former USCIS director signed the strong>Revision of the Naturalization Civics Test Memorandum (PDF, 202 KB). This memorandum announces the revision of the naturalization test and formalizes a decennial revision schedule of the naturalization test based on adult education best practices.

“Granting U. S. citizenship is the highest honor our nation bestows,” said USCIS Acting Director Ken Cuccinelli. “Updating, maintaining, and improving a test that is current and relevant is our responsibility as an agency in order to help potential new citizens fully understand the meaning of U.S. citizenship and the values that unite all Americans.”

In December 2018, USCIS formed a naturalization test revision working group with members from across the agency. The working group has been reviewing and updating the naturalization test questions. The working group will also assess potential changes to the speaking portion of the test. USCIS is soliciting the input of experts in the field of adult education to ensure that this process is fair and transparent. After careful analysis of the pilot, and thorough officer training, USCIS will set an implementation date in December 2020 or early 2021. 

Section 312 of the Immigration and Nationality Act outlines the English and civics requirements for naturalization. By law, candidates for naturalization must have “…an understanding of the English language, including an ability to read, write, and speak words in ordinary usage in the English language…” and “…knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of the history, and of the principles and form of government, of the United States...” This test revision will comply with all statutory and regulatory requirements, and USCIS will pilot it this fall.

In Fiscal Year 2018, USCIS naturalized nearly 757,000 people, a five-year high in new oaths of citizenship. The naturalization test revision is a key part of preparing legal immigrants to fully exercise their rights and meet their responsibilities. 

Source: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4329-USCIS-Improve-the-Naturalization-Test.html

What Happens To Dreamers Now That The Supreme Court Is Hearing The DACA Case?

By Brenda Solorzano

After months of speculation, the Supreme Court agreed to review three cases challenging the Trump administration’s decision to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The Court is expected to issue its decision by June 2020, coming in the midst of the presidential race. In the meantime, current DACA recipients remain eligible to submit their renewal applications. 

Even if the Supreme Court rules against the Trump administration, a long-term solution for Dreamers would not be provided. It would only restore the situation to the status quo before the Trump administration ended DACA, leaving many young people with lapsed or no protections. 

The cases reached the Supreme Court after the Department of Justice filed a special request for “certiorari before judgement,” which skips waiting on a federal appeals courts decision and requests to be heard by the Court. In total, four appeals courts have heard arguments on whether President Trump went through the proper procedure before ending DACA. Both the Ninth Circuit and the Fourth Circuit held that Trump’s decision to end DACA was improper. Decisions are still pending in the Second Circuit and D.C. Circuit. 

Currently, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is required to continue accepting and processing DACA renewal applications. Those who are currently granted renewals will continue to receive protection from deportation and work permits, unless the Supreme Court issues a decision otherwise. 

What does the Court’s future decision mean for DACA recipients? For most, continued and distressing uncertainty. 

If the Court rules in the Trump administration’s favor, nearly 700,000 DACA recipients would be left without permits to work legally and will be at risk of deportation. As a result, DACA recipients are left to wonder what their status will be in the future. 

DACA recipients are not the only ones that hope for an opportunity to stay in the country that they call home. In June, the House of Representatives took the opportunity to put forward definitive answers for the future of DACA by passing the American Dream and Promise Act. This bill provides a path to citizenship for DACA recipients, as well as those with Temporary Protected Status and protections under Deferred Enforced Departure. 

The Supreme Court’s decision to take up the DACA cases emphasizes that Dreamers can no longer wait for more court decisions granting temporary relief of deportation. For them, hopes for a permanent solution currently lie in the hands of Congress. As polls show, the vast majority of Americans support Dreamers and want to give them an opportunity to continue to positively impact the country. That is why a long-term solution for Dreamers and others who live in insecurity is way past due.

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com  

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4303-Now-the-Supreme-Court-Is-Hearing-the-DACA-Case.html

Dream Act And DACA Policies Designed To Protect Dreamers

With the rescission of the Deferred Action for Children Arrivals (DACA) initiative, there has been renewed pressure on Congress to pass federal legislation known as the Dream Act to protect young immigrants who are vulnerable to deportation. This fact sheet provides an overview of the Dream Act and other similar legislative proposals, explains changes made to DACA on March 13, 2019, and provides information about policies at the state level that support Dreamers. 


History of the Dream Act

The first version of the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act was introduced in 2001. As a result, young undocumented immigrants have since been called Dreamers. Over the last 18 years, at least ten versions of the Dream Act have been introduced in Congress. While the various versions of the Dream Act have contained some key differences , they all would have provided a pathway to legal status for undocumented youth who came to this country as children. Some versions have garnered as many as 48 co-sponsors in the Senate and 152 in the House. 

Despite bipartisan support for each bill, none has become law. The bill came closest to full passage in 2010 when it passed the House of Representatives but fell just five votes short of the 60 necessary to proceed in the Senate. 

In July 2017, versions of the Dream Act were introduced in the Senate by Senators Lindsay Graham (R-SC) and Richard Durbin (D-IL) and in the House by Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA) and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL). That year, members of the House of Representatives introduced several other legislative proposals to address undocumented youth, most of which were variants on the Dream Act. Although some of these bills drew significant support, none became law. 


Current Federal Legislative Proposals

The most recent version of the Dream Act, H.R. 2820, was introduced in May 2019 in the House by Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA). H.R. 2820 was passed by the House Judiciary Committee on May 22, 2019, and the bill was subsequently combined with H.R. 2821, the American Promise Act of 2019, to form H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019. H.R.6 would provide permanent legal status for “Dreamers” as well as beneficiaries of two humanitarian programs: Temporary Protected Status and Deferred Enforced Departure. 


What Does the Dream Act do? 

The American Dream and Promise Act of 2019 allows current, former, and future undocumented high-school graduates and GED recipients a three-step pathway to U.S. citizenship through college, work, or the armed services. 


STEP 1: CONDITIONAL PERMANENT RESIDENCE

An individual is eligible to obtain conditional permanent resident (CPR) status for up to 10 years, which includes work authorization, if the person: 

• Entered the United States under the age of 18;
• Entered four years prior to enactment and has since been continuously present;
• Has been admitted to an institution of higher education, has graduated high school or obtained a GED, or is currently enrolled in secondary school or a program assisting students to obtain a high school diploma or GED.
• Has not been convicted of any "crime involving moral turpitude" or controlled substance offense, any crime punishable by more than one year in prison, or three or more offenses under state or federal law where the individual was imprisoned for 90 days or more. There is an exception for offenses which are essential to a person’s immigration status;
• Has not been convicted of a crime of domestic violence unless the individual can prove the crime was related to being the victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, child abuse, neglect in later life, human trafficking, battery, or extreme cruelty.

Under the terms of the bill, the Secretary of Homeland Security can issue waivers for humanitarian purposes, for family unity, or when the waiver is otherwise in the public interest. In addition, anyone who has DACA would be granted a swift path to CPR status. 


STEP 2: LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE

Anyone who maintains CPR status can obtain lawful permanent residence (LPR status or a “green card”) by satisfying one of the following requirements: 

• Higher education: Has completed at least two years, in good standing, of higher education or of a program leading to a certificate/credential from an area career and technical education school;
• Military service: Has completed at least two years of military service with an honorable discharge;
• Work: Can demonstrate employment over a total period of three years.

Individuals who cannot meet one of these requirements can apply for a “hardship waiver” if the applicant is a person with disabilities, a full-time caregiver of a minor child, or for whom removal would cause extreme hardship to a spouse, parent, or child who is a national or lawful permanent resident of the United States. 


STEP 3: NATURALIZATION

After maintaining LPR status for five years, an individual can generally apply to become a U.S. citizen through the normal process. 

According to the Migration Policy Institute, as many as 2.31 million individuals would qualify for conditional permanent resident status under the 2019 version of the Dream Act, putting them on a path to citizenship. The bill would also provide a path to citizenship for an estimated 429,000 people who are current or former beneficiaries of TPS or DED. 


Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

On June 15, 2012, then-Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano created Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). DACA is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion, providing temporary relief from deportation (deferred action) and work authorization to certain young undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. DACA has enabled almost 800,000 eligible young adults to work lawfully, attend school, and plan their lives without the constant threat of deportation, usually to an unfamiliar country. nlike federal legislation, however, DACA does not provide permanent legal status to individuals and must be renewed every two years. 

On September 5, 2017, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine Duke rescinded the 2012 DACA memorandum and announced a “wind down” of DACA. Effective immediately, no new applications for DACA would be accepted. DACA beneficiaries whose status was due to expire before March 5, 2018 were permitted to renew their status for an additional two years if they applied by October 5, 2017. Any person for whom DACA would have expired as of March 6, 2018, would no longer have deferred action or employment authorization. 

On January 9, 2018, a federal judge in California blocked the Trump administration’s termination of DACA and continued to allow renewal requests. Similarly, on February 13, 2018, a federal judge in New York issued a preliminary injunction preventing the administration from abruptly ending the DACA program. As of June 2019, individuals with DACA or those who have had DACA in the past can continue to renew their benefits on a two-year basis. However, first-time applications are no longer being accepted. 


State Policies that Protect Dreamers

States cannot legalize the status of undocumented immigrants, but they may address collateral issues that stem from being undocumented. Most notably, numerous states have enacted legislation that helps overcome barriers to higher education faced by many undocumented youth. Pursuant to some state laws and policies, undocumented students may be able to attend state universities and qualify for in-state tuition. 

Colleges and universities each have their own policies about admitting undocumented students; some deny them admission while others allow them to attend. Even when undocumented students are allowed to attend college, however, the tuition is often prohibitively expensive. If students cannot prove legal residency in a state, they must pay the much higher out-of-state or international-student tuition rates. Further, undocumented students do not qualify for federal student loans, work study, or other financial assistance. As a result, it is extremely difficult for undocumented students to afford to attend public universities. 

To help undocumented students afford college, at least 19 states have passed laws that provide them with the opportunity to receive in-state tuition. California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington permit undocumented students who have attended and graduated from the state’s primary and secondary schools to pay the same college tuition as other state residents. The laws generally require undocumented students to attend a school in the state for a certain number of years and graduate from high school in the state. 

Source: www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4234-Dream-Act-and-DACA-in-United-States.html

The Trump Administration Continues to Attack Low-Income Immigrants

Written by American Immigration Council

President Trump signed a memorandum last week that will place additional and unwarranted pressure on sponsors—usually family members—who accept financial responsibility for immigrants living in the United States. The Trump administration says the memo is meant to direct federal agencies to develop new “procedures and guidance” to ensure that ineligible immigrants do not receive certain public benefits. 

But its real purpose seems to be to intimidate sponsors by targeting them for reimbursement of certain public benefits an immigrant may use. If the sponsor of the immigrant is unable to pay the bill, collection agencies will get involved. 

The president’s memorandum emphasizes that it is only enforcing the law on the books, but it directs numerous agencies to take additional steps to go after sponsors. This is the first time provisions of a 1996 law have been enforced to such an extreme. 

It requires the Departments of Agriculture (USDA) and Health and Human Services (HHS) to develop several procedures for sponsors and immigrants. These include procedures to: 

• Hold sponsors accountable for means-tested public benefit reimbursements.
• Assess the sponsor’s income and resources to determine whether the sponsored immigrant is eligible for the benefit in the first place.
• Collaborate with the Departments of Homeland Security and State to reach out to sponsors about how the procedures will be enforced.

The memo also calls on numerous agencies to report on their current processes for issuing public benefits. 

This is the latest in a series of attacks leveled by this administration against immigrants who might depend on lawful public benefits. 

In September 2018, the administration proposed rules that would expand the definition of “public charge” to capture greater numbers of low-income immigrants, immigrants with disabilities, the elderly, and immigrants who don’t speak English. Greater scrutiny of immigrants’ financial status before allowing them to enter or permanently reside in the United States could lead to a significant decrease in legal immigration to the United States. 

Another recent proposed rule from the Department of Housing and Urban Development threatens to evict undocumented immigrants from public housing. This may potentially displace thousands of mixed-status families (where at least one family member is a citizen, legal permanent resident, or refugee). 

There are some exemptions to the reimbursement requirement. The administration acknowledged that no reimbursements are required when an immigrant has been battered, subjected to extreme cruelty, or would be unable to obtain food and shelter without public benefits. Reimbursements are also not required for children and pregnant women who receive state medical assistance under the Children’s Health Insurance Program or Medicaid, among other exemptions. 

Instead of encouraging sponsors to help immigrants in this country and lend their financial support, the administration would rather act like a collection agency. It’s likely this will lead to less immigrants applying for benefits for which they are entitled. This may leave many in our country poorer and sicker. 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4205-trump-administration-to-attack-low-income-inmigrants.html

More Immigrants Requesting To Return To Their Countries Of Origin Under Threat Of Deportation

Written by Kristin Macleod-Ball

More immigrants facing deportation are requesting “voluntary departure” from the United States instead of fighting their cases in court. 

Voluntary departure is a process though which certain immigrants who the government is trying to deport in immigration court leave the United States without receiving a removal order. The number of applications for voluntary departure in fiscal year 2018 doubled from the previous year, according to new U.S. Department of Justice data. The increase in immigrants applying for voluntary departure began shortly after President Trump’s inauguration. 

Immigrants who receive voluntary departure orders are required to leave the United States, just like those ordered deported. However, they do not face all the same legal consequences—like bars to returning to the United States and the risk of lengthy criminal sentences if they come back without government authorization. If someone with a voluntary departure order does not leave the United States in a set time, they automatically receive a removal order. 

While the data doesn’t explain why more people are asking for voluntary departure, the increase comes at a time the Trump administration is making it harder to get a fair hearing in immigration court. For example, Department of Justice officials want more people to stay locked up during their immigration court proceedings and have made it more difficult for people to show they are entitled to asylum. 

Faced with more and more obstacles, some immigrants may give up on strong claims to stay in the United States to avoid spending months or years incarcerated in immigration detention while fighting deportation. 

Notably, not all immigrants facing deportation are eligible for voluntary departure. Many people who have criminal convictions are barred from receiving voluntary departure orders. For others, it is unaffordable: voluntary departure generally requires individuals to post a bond and pay for their own travel to their countries of origin. Individuals in these situations face an even harsher choice: whether to accept a removal order to get out of immigration detention or stay incarcerated. 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4160-Immigrants-Requesting-to-Return-to-Their-Countries-of-Origin.html