USCIS Processing Times Get Even Slower Under Trump

By Walter A. Ewing, Ph.D. 

The Trump administration has slowed the processing of immigration benefit applications to a crawl, causing needless harm to immigrants, their families, and their employers. Under President Trump, the backlog of applications at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) doubled in the span of only one year. 

A recent analysis of USCIS data by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) refers to these “crisis-level delays” as “bricks in the Trump administration’s ‘invisible wall’ curbing legal immigration in the United States.” 

The numbers bear this out. According to AILA’s analysis, the average case processing time for all application types has increased 46 percent since Fiscal Year (FY) 2016—the last full fiscal year of the Obama administration. These escalating delays have occurred even when the number of new applications has fallen. For instance, from FY 2017 to 2018, processing times increased by 19 percent even though receipts of new applications declined 17 percent. So the delays cannot be plausibly blamed on rising workload. 

In fact, this state of affairs is exactly the opposite of what USCIS was intended to do. When USCIS was created in 2002, elimination of application backlogs—and prevention of future backlogs—were explicit priorities of the new agency. USCIS was meant to be an agency that provided immigration benefits to customers; it was not intended to function like an enforcement agency. 

But the tables have turned in the Trump era, with the institution of new security protocols that needlessly drag out the processing of virtually every application. For instance, in-person interviews are now required for each and every employment-based green card applicant. The administration’s overhaul of the refugee program has also brought processing of many cases to a complete standstill. 

From FY 2017 to FY 2018, the processing time of an N-400 (Application for Naturalization) rose from 8 months to over 10. Processing an I-485 (Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status) went from 8 to 11 months. And the processing time of an I-765 (Application for Work Authorization) rose from 3 to 4 months. 

Delays of this magnitude have serious repercussions when people can’t get a job, join their families, or escape refugee camps. The report cautions: 

“Longer processing times mean families struggle to make ends meet, survivors of violence and torture face danger, and U.S. companies fall behind.” 

The report suggests USCIS should begin providing service to its customers again rather than approaching everyone as a security risk. It also urges Congress to exercise some oversight authority over the agency, which has been sorely lacking during the past two years. Finally, USCIS operations should be made more transparent to the public so it is clear why applications take so long to process. 

USCIS processing delays and application backlogs under the Trump administration are having a devastating impact on the legal immigration system. This, in turn, is having an unnecessarily negative effect on families and employers across the country. 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4010-USCIS-Processing-Times-Get-Even-Slower.html

Written by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

Citing high rates of visa overstays, on January 18 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a new rule mostly barring nationals from the Dominican Republic, the Philippines, and Ethiopia from receiving certain temporary worker visas. The U.S. territory of Guam is likely to be most impacted as it relies on large numbers of Filipino workers. 

The new restrictions apply to two types of visas: H-2A visas for temporary or seasonal agricultural workers, and H-2B visas for temporary or seasonal non-agricultural workers. An employer petitioning for a worker to come on an H-2A or H-2B visa must show that the planned work is truly temporary or seasonal and there are not enough U.S. workers available to do the work. 

Only foreign nationals from countries that DHS has designated as “participating countries” are eligible for these visas. Ever year DHS and the Department of State evaluate the list of participating countries to determine whether they still meet the criteria for inclusion. 

DHS may remove a country it has previously designated as “participating” if nationals from that country tend to overstay the period of time they are authorized to be in the country. DHS also may remove a country from the participating list if the country does not cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in accepting deportations. 

Citing its own data, DHS estimated that Filipino workers on H-2B visas overstayed their authorized stay nearly 40 percent of the time. In addition, because there were serious concerns about trafficking of Filipino workers, DHS banned workers from that country from H-2A visas as well. 

DHS similarly revoked eligibility for nationals from the Dominican Republic for H-2B visas based on a 30 percent overstay rate. However, these nationals were not barred from receiving H-2A visas, based on a much lower overstay rate of ten percent. 

Ethiopia, by comparison, was removed from the list of participating countries as a result of its refusal to accept all deportees. In 2016, ICE designated Ethiopia “at risk of non-compliance” with ICE’s deportation demands. While DHS acknowledged that Ethiopia had made strides towards accepting more deportations since 2016, it chose to make Ethiopian nationals ineligible for H-2A and H-2B visas since it is no longer considered “at risk of non-compliance” with ICE. 

Importantly, nationals from these countries are not entirely barred from entering on H-2 visas. The petitioning employer would have to convince U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services that the foreign worker’s entry would be in the national interest. In addition, certain military construction projects on Guam are exempt from the restrictions under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019. 

The visa restrictions on Filipinos appear most likely to affect Guam. Business organizations in the territory expressed surprise at the announcement and a concern about how the island would be affected. Filipino workers on H-2B visas make up the majority of foreign workers who are brought in for construction projects in Guam. Some on the island are worried that this new announcement could lead to delays in construction projects and a possibility of lost investment. 

Under the new announcement, current H-2A and H-2B workers from those countries are unaffected but cannot apply to extend their stay or change their visa status. However, the new restrictions go into effect immediately for 2019, which will likely affect the record number of H-2A and H-2B petitions filed in early January.

 

 

Fuente: www.immigrationimpact.com  

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4002-Blocks-H2B-Visas-For-Filipinos-Dominicans-And-Ethiopians.html

Promise to ‘Build the Wall’ Hurts Businesses and Residents Along the Border

Written by Tory Johnson

As the partial government shutdown stretches on, many individuals, families, and businesses around the country are struggling. At the heart of the shutdown and budget standoff is President Trump’s promise to “build the wall.” Yet for many people and businesses along the border, this is the last thing they want. 

Ahead of President Trump’s visit to the U.S.-Mexico border last week, business owners and leaders spoke out against the president’s continued demand to build additional fencing along the border. 

Business leaders in San Diego say that President Trump hyper-focusing on the wall is bad for the local economy and also an ineffective way to use taxpayer money, in part because the wall itself and the construction process can make it harder for people to cross the border at legal ports. With an estimated 90,000 northbound daily crossings at the San Ysidro port of entry, it is vital that business employees, customers, and goods or services can cross the border smoothly and efficiently. 

Businesses and communities throughout the border region have long voiced concern about the border wall and militarization stifling cross-border commerce, literally creating barriers that cut into vital revenue and relationships. 

According to Karim Bouris, executive director of Business for Good San Diego, San Ysidro businesses lost upwards of $5 million in November when the government closed the busy border crossing for several hours to install additional security barriers. In Santa Cruz County, California, businesses near the Tumacácori National Historical Park suffered when there were fewer visitors and tourists coming to the park from the Mexican side. 

Fewer tourists and shoppers means less money for the city of Nogales in Arizona, which relies on its sales taxes to pay for important services like law enforcement and sanitation. In border towns like Nogales, thriving businesses that attract new and return customers are vital to the local economy. 

But it can be hard to do this when customers can’t get across the border—or don’t want to. City Councilmember Marcelino Varona told Arizona Public Media that because of new barbed wire fencing in Nogales, “the frontier here—the border—looks like a prison system instead of a community.” 

In addition to U.S. businesses relying on shoppers coming from the Mexican side of the border, increased military presence and border fortifications negatively impact Americans visiting Mexico. For example, the U.S. government recently purchased a public parking lot in Nogales close to the border. Rather than sitting in long car lines to cross the U.S.-Mexico border, U.S. residents have parked in the lot and gone through the pedestrian crossing into Mexico, which is often a more efficient way to cross for short trips. 

The lot is currently inaccessible. After the government bought it, they closed the lot to the public and started filling it with military equipment. Without access to the lot, border residents have to park further away or skip the trip altogether—meaning fewer dollars added to the local economy and ultimately less money for public services in Nogales. 

When it comes down to it, border businesses and residents have been dealing with the presence of military personnel, equipment, physical barriers, and yes—a wall—for years. The border wall already exists and shutting down the government in an attempt to get money to build even more is a poor economic and policy decision. 

Ask those who see and cross the border every day—taxpayer dollars should fund policies that make ports of entry more efficient, safe, and support the people and businesses that make the border a viable place to live and visit.

Source: http://immigrationimpact.com/
http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a3993-Build-the-Wall-Hurts-Businesses-and-Residents.html

The Judicial Black Sites the Government Created to Speed Up Deportations

Written by Katie Shepherd

As the Trump administration continues to strip away due process in immigration courts, the recent creation of two “Immigration Adjudication Centers” is cause for concern. The two new facilities are called “Centers,” not “courts,” despite being places where judges decide whether to issue orders of deportation.

The Centers came out of a “ Caseload Reduction Plan” devised by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) as one of several mechanisms designed to reduce the number of cases pending before the immigration courts. This initiative first surfaced in December 2017 ostensibly as one of a series of ways to address the record-high backlog within the immigration court system. In fact, EOIR’s caseload has almost tripled since 2011, from fewer than 300,000 pending cases to 810,000 as of November 2018. This is likely to worsen given the current government shutdown. 

A total of fifteen Immigration Judges currently sit in the two Centers—four in Falls Church, Virginia, and 11 in Fort Worth, Texas. 

It is unclear whether the Centers are open to the public, despite laws stating such hearings must be. All the cases heard by immigration judges in the Centers will be conducted exclusively by video-teleconference (VTC), with immigrants, their lawyers, and prosecutors in different locations. 

According to one source , it’s likely that “thousands of immigration cases will be heard with respondents never seeing a judge face-to-face.” 

The utter lack of transparency around these Centers is alarming, given the documented concerns with the use of video teleconferencing and the current administration’s commitment to speed up immigration court hearings, even at the risk of diminished due process. 

Speeding up cases could benefit detained individuals who often languish for months or even years behind bars before their release or deportation. However, the impact of these Centers overall could be much more ominous. 

The Centers raise serious questions about whether detained immigrants will be disadvantaged by the arrangement. These questions include: 

• How will an individual who is unrepresented and detained in a facility three time zones away from the judge submit critical evidence to the court during a hearing?
• How can an immigration judge adequately observe an asylum seeker’s demeanor for credibility without being in the same room?
• Will the immigration judges be required to postpone hearings if there are issues with the telephonic interpreters, and could this lead to prolonged detention?

Further, only 14 percent of detained immigrants have attorneys and many may not have the ability to adequately prepare for their cases on an expedited timeframe. A very real outcome of speeding up cases in this manner is that many immigrants are deported even though they may have valid claims to stay in the United States. 

Until the government is more transparent with these Centers, there is simply no way of knowing how many detained individuals—including children—have been deported without the opportunity to obtain counsel, and without appropriate safeguards preventing their removal to imminent harm. 

 

 

Source: http://immigrationimpact.com/ 

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a3992-the-government-Created-to-Speed-Up-Deportations.html

With Comment Period Expired, Uncertainty Remains About H-1B Registration Process

Written by Walter Ewing

January 2 marked the final day for comments on a proposed rule by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) that would implement a new registration requirement for H-1B visas for well-educated foreign professionals. This proposal would require employers looking to hire H-1B workers to first register electronically with the agency during a specified registration period.

Hasty implementation of the proposal in 2019 could disrupt the Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 H-1B petition process and impose significant costs on employers. The proposed rule would also change how H-1B visa petitions are counted, likely restricting the ability of businesses to get the most qualified workers. 

The most obvious problem with the proposed registration system is that it is not yet functional, yet USCIS is counting on it being in place by April 1—which seems unlikely. Even if the system is up and running in time and performs as expected, it would still wreak havoc on the H-1B petition process. 

Companies have already devoted resources to petitioning for H-1B workers under the current system. Having to then switch to a new system at the last minute would be costly, not to mention disruptive to businesses trying to hire the workers they need in a timely fashion. This would be particularly harmful to smaller businesses, which have fewer resources to switch gears in the middle of the petition process. But even big businesses could suffer from a crushing workload in a short span of time if they suddenly have to file multiple petitions under a new system only weeks before the FY 2020 H-1B season begins. 

As for the proposed change in the way petitions for H-1Bs are counted, the harm to employers is less obvious yet costly all the same. Currently, there are two pools of H-1B workers—one in which USCIS selects 20,000 petitions filed for graduates of certain U.S. master’s degree programs (or higher) that are exempt from the annual cap of 65,000; and another pool of applicants who fall under the cap. 

Since demand usually exceeds supply for H-1B visa numbers, USCIS set up a lottery for each of these two pools. The 20,000 U.S. master’s degree petitions are the first selected by lottery. Then, all remaining petitions are eligible for another lottery. 

Under the new proposed rules, however, USCIS would reverse the process. It would first conduct the lottery using all H-1B petitions. Then, after that lottery is complete, USCIS would run a second lottery restricted to all remaining “master’s exempt” petitions. The net result of this change would be an increase in the number of petitions selected for workers with U.S. master’s or higher degrees. Consequently, a foreign national who recently graduated with a master’s degree from a U.S. university might have a significantly better chance of getting an H-1B visa number than a much better-qualified worker who has years of professional experience and a Ph.D. from a foreign university. 

Employer and industry groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have urged USCIS to delay implementation of the new registration system until after the FY 2020 petition season, giving businesses more time to adjust before the next round of H-1B “cap subject” petitions. They are also urging USCIS to reconsider changing the order of the H-1B lotteries so that employers have maximum flexibility to hire those workers best suited to particular jobs. 

As it now stands, a great deal of uncertainty surrounds the H-1B petition process this year. Reflecting the anxiety this has created among employers, more than 750 comments to the proposed rule have been filed. USCIS should take this feedback seriously—and think twice about hurriedly implementing an unfinished system that changes the way H-1B petitions are filed.

 

Source: http://immigrationimpact.com/ 

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a3985-Uncertainty-Remains-About-H1B-Registration-Process.html

2018 Closes On a Week Filled With Immigration Victories and New Challenges

Written by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

2018 proved that the only thing you can predict about the Trump administration’s immigration policy is it’s unpredictable. On Wednesday, two separate court decisions dealt blows to the Trump administration’s efforts to deter asylum seekers. On Thursday, the administration announced an unprecedented new plan to force asylum seekers to remain in Mexico, overturning current practices in use for decades And on Friday, the president held Congress hostage as he continued to threaten to shut down the government over $5 billion in border wall funding

The most recent rollercoaster began on Wednesday morning when a federal court in Washington, DC struck down part of former Attorney General Jeff Session’s efforts to prevent victims of domestic violence or gangs from receiving asylum. The ruling prevents the administration from applying the new limits at the credible fear interview stage, the initial screening for many asylum seekers apprehended at the border. However, the ruling did not prevent Sessions’ limits on asylum from being applied in affirmative asylum interviews or immigration court proceedings. 

Later on Wednesday, a federal judge in San Francisco issued a preliminary injunction in a case challenging the Trump administration’s asylum ban for individuals who entered the United States between ports of entry. The injunction extends a previous order which had halted the plan only days after it went into effect. On Friday afternoon, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to reject the Trump administration’s request to put the decision on hold, a further blow to the asylum ban. 

On Thursday morning, the Trump administration announced that it had taken yet another major action to halt asylum seekers from coming to the United States. It rolled out a new plan to return to Mexico those asylum seekers who arrive at U.S-Mexico border for the duration of immigration court proceedings in the United States. Details of the plan, including who it will apply to, how it will work, and where it will be used in Mexico, remain vague. 

Mexican officials expressed total surprise at the announcement, and many were wary about the effects the plan might have on border cities. One official in Tijuana told Buzzfeed News that “We don’t want that. It will create a huge problem for us.” However, the government of Mexico responded by announcing they would issue humanitarian visas and work permits to asylum seekers waiting for U.S. immigration court hearings. 

Finally, by the end of the week, the President made yet another surprising move to shut down the government over a bipartisan plan that would have funded the government into February without providing any additional money for a border wall. Despite declaring last week that he would take proud ownership of a government shutdown, on Friday morning the President instead tried to shift the blame to Democrats for voting against a bill that would provide an additional $5 billion to build a wall along the southern border. It is possible that a shutdown would continue through January 3rd, when Democrats take control of the House of Representatives. 

Rather than offering well-reasoned plans that can both survive court challenges and advance American prosperity, the administration remains relentlessly focused on obstructing asylum seekers and attacking the immigrant community. As we move into 2019, we should expect more of the same. But the time and energy spent on these efforts should instead be directed toward working with Congress to build legislative compromise to achieve what is best for the nation.

 

 

Source: http://immigrationimpact.com/ 

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a3976-2018-a-year-of-immigration-victories-and-new-challenges.html

USCIS Proposed H1-B Registration Rule Creates More Uncertainty for Employers

 

Written by Leslie Dellon

Just months short of the normal starting date for the annual H-1B petition process, USCIS has proposed major changes. U.S. employers who rely on this visa category, which is for jobs that require a bachelor’s or higher degree in a “specific specialty” or equivalent at the entry-level, are now in limbo, unsure whether these changes will be implemented before the normal petition-submission date. 

Just last week, USCIS issued a proposal to change the current system for H-1B “cap-subject” petitions. The proposal has two components: requiring employers to register online in advance to be eligible to submit an H-1B petition and reversing the order in which petitions are selected. 

Currently, USCIS selects petitions for the 20,000 “master’s exemption” first (for workers with a master’s or higher degree from U.S. colleges or universities that meet certain requirements). Any of these not selected are included when USCIS selects petitions for the 65,000 “cap.” (Selection is only the first step: USCIS has to accept a selected petition for filing, and then decide whether to approve.) 

USCIS has provided a 30-day comment period, ending January 2, 2019. It appears that USCIS wants to proceed with the change in the selection process for April 2019, even if—as is likely—the registration system is not ready. 

As proposed, USCIS would provide at least 30 days’ advance notice, through its website, of the registration start date. The registration period would run for at least 14 days, beginning at least 14 days before the first business day in April on which H-1B petitions could be filed. 

When registering, the employer would have to identify the foreign national it intends to hire. As a result, the employer would have less time to consider hiring foreign nationals who need an H-1B classification. 

When the initial registration period ends, if USCIS has more registrations than required for visa number allocation, the agency will hold a “lottery,” but keep the unselected registrations “on reserve” for that fiscal year. If there are less registrations than needed, then USCIS will open another registration period. 

For any registrations selected, USCIS will notify employers and provide at least 60 days within which to file. USCIS anticipates that it will stagger the filings to help the agency manage its workflow. 

The proposal increases uncertainty because employers will need to proceed as if they will be required to register but also will need to prepare their H-1B petitions since registration is unlikely—and they will not know if their petitions are less likely to be selected than before if the petition does not fall within the “master’s exemption.” 

The registration process also injects even greater uncertainty than currently exists as to when USCIS may make a decision on a petition—because USCIS will control how long the registration period lasts and the time period during which a selected registrant may file an H-1B petition. 

USCIS describes the proposal as a “merit-based” rule in support of President Trump’s Buy American and Hire American Executive Order to “suggest reforms to help ensure that H-1B visas are awarded to the most-skilled or highest-paid petition beneficiaries.” Since current law does not have a “most-skilled” or “highest-paid” hierarchy for H-1B eligibility, it is questionable whether USCIS could accomplish this through regulation. But even apart from its legality, it remains to be seen whether the proposal would favor those with master’s degrees from U.S. schools that meet the “master’s exemption” requirements. 

USCIS assumes that “master’s exemption” petitions would be for jobs requiring more skills and at a higher salary. But the “master’s exemption” is determined by the degree the beneficiary holds. 

The job offered to the beneficiary may or may not require a master’s degree. Also, the salary an employer offers depends on several factors, such as the type of job, the geographic location, and whether prior work experience is required. 

With these variables, there are many situations in which a job requiring a bachelor’s degree and work experience would be the “most-skilled” and “highest paid.” 

Also, what makes a U.S. master’s degree from a low-ranking U.S. university more meritorious than, say, a Ph.D. from Oxford. 

It also is possible that the proposed new selection order will harm a particular industry, or a particular region, which could reduce the income and opportunities for U.S. workers. 

The agency acknowledges that it “has not been able to determine how this may impact particular industries currently submitting H-1B cap petitions for individuals without master’s degrees … and how this may impact particular types of workers” and “welcomes input.” Comments should be submitted to furnish the critical data that USCIS lacks.

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a3962-Proposed-H1B-Registration-Rule-Creates-More-Uncertainty-for-Employers.html

How States Took Action on Immigration in 2018

Written by Tory Johnson

States and localities continue exploring policies and positions on immigration to serve the needs of their communities and, at times, respond to the aggressive immigration agenda touted by the Trump administration.

In the first year of Donald Trump’s presidency, states enacted more laws and resolutions involving immigration than ever before. But was this trend a fluke, or will immigration continue to be a central topic addressed by states and localities? 

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), nearly 300 immigration-related laws and resolutions were passed at the state level in the first half of 2018. The majority dealt with integration and education programs, immigrant and refugee services, and law enforcement. This is a slight decrease from the 328 laws and resolutions enacted during the same period in 2017. 

While overall numbers are down compared to last year, many notable trends remain. States continue to weigh their role in federal immigration enforcement. As of June, at least 25 states had considered 66 proposals generally seeking to either establish or prohibit policies that would limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, often given the misnomer “sanctuary” policies. About 100 such policies were proposed during the same period last year. 

As of June, three states had enacted bills related to “sanctuary” policies: 

• California passed a law generally prohibiting its law enforcement agencies from contracting with the federal government for civil immigration detention purposes.
• Lowa passed a law that, among other things, prevents localities from adopting a policy seeking to limit participation in federal immigration enforcement activities.
• A law enacted in Tennessee bars localities or officials “from adopting or enacting a sanctuary policy.” Under the new law, entities with such a policy are ineligible for certain state-level grants.

States also responded to federal immigration actions through resolutions. Among the 175 resolutions adopted at the state level as of June, several opposed the Trump administration’s policies on immigration. 

For example, when the president implemented the policy separating migrant children from their parents at the border, within a week New Jersey, Vermont, and Puerto Rico adopted resolutions condemning the government’s actions. 

With several state legislatures still in session, it is too early to know with certainty how many state-level immigration laws will pass in 2018. But it is clear that immigration remains an important—and complex—topic for states and localities to explore. 

As we move toward a new year, with many newly elected officials stepping into office, let’s hope leaders engage in meaningful and thoughtful discussions on immigration that reflect the interests of communities and the values of the nation as a whole.

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a3957-How-States-Took-Action-on-Immigration.htmlhttp://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a3957-How-States-Took-Action-on-Immigration.html

DACA Is Still In Effect As It Heads To The Supreme Court

Written by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stinging rebuke to President Trump’s ongoing efforts to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative last week, unanimously upholding a lower court injunction which had blocked the Trump administration from ending the program. 

Just three days before that hearing, the Department of Justice (DOJ) took the unusual step of asking the Supreme Court to bypass the appeals process and hear the DACA case before the Ninth Circuit issued a decision. Now that the Ninth Circuit has ruled, the Supreme Court could take up the case as early as next spring—with DACA remaining in effect until they rule. 

Back in September 2017, the administration announced that it would be ending DACA, the initiative which allows undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children to receive temporary permission to remain in the country. Multiple lawsuits challenging the termination of DACA soon followed. 

In one of those challenges, a federal court in San Francisco found that the administration’s termination of DACA was “based on a flawed legal premise” and ordered the government to continue processing renewal applications. Courts in New York and the District of Columbia soon followed suit with similar orders, which remain on appeal. 

The Ninth Circuit’s decision concluded the same. Though DOJ had argued the original DACA initiative was illegal and unconstitutional—supposedly giving the agency no legal ability to review or continue the program—the court found differently. The Ninth Circuit determined that it had the authority to review and reject the administration’s conclusions as to whether DACA was legal. 

Noting that many previous presidents (including Eisenhower, Reagan, and H.W. Bush) had provided discretionary immigration benefits to large groups, the Ninth Circuit declared that DACA “was a permissible exercise of executive discretion.” Since the administration had offered essentially no other reason for ending DACA beyond its claim that DACA was illegal, the Ninth Circuit held that the government had improperly ended DACA. 

Importantly, the Ninth Circuit was clear that the administration could have chosen to end DACA as a matter of discretion at any time—but had chosen not to, instead relying on the legal conclusion that it simply had no authority to continue the initiative. It is possible that the administration chose not to use its discretion to end DACA because in doing so it would have been forced to admit it was legal. 

Although judges ruled 3-0 against the government, at least one judge on the Ninth Circuit would have gone even further. In a concurring opinion, Judge Owens declared that the plaintiffs should have been granted an injunction due to the administration’s “unconstitutional racial animus” against DACA holders. Most DACA beneficiaries are Latino, people who have borne the brunt of the president’s attacks on immigrants. 

Now that the Ninth Circuit has ruled, the case is directly on path to the Supreme Court. Until the Supreme Court issues a decision, individuals who have DACA can continue to apply for DACA renewals and the government will continue to process them. If the Supreme Court accepts the case, it is likely that a decision would come at the end of the term in June. Until then, the initiative remains in place.

Última Actualización: Noviembre 19 de 2018
Fuente: www.immigrationimpact.com