Greetings!
Beach-Oswald Immigration Law Associates is committed to providing you with this newsletter to keep you up to date with information regarding immigration law and other issues that affect you. Read on for our May 2013 e-newsletter edition!
|
|
RECENT SUCCESSES
Ms. A, a native of the DRC, has new hope of remaining permanently in the United States with her US citizen husband. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) recently granted BOILA's appeal of a USCIS decision, denying her application for adjustment of status and her related application for a waiver of inadmissibility, for having willfully misrepresented a material fact in order to obtain an immigration benefit. The AAO agreed with BOILA's arguments on appeal that Ms. A's US citizen husband would suffer extreme hardship in the event of her removal to the DRC and she will now be able to be granted adjustment of status.
Mr. C.S., a native and citizen of Bolivia, had his appeal sustained in part by the Board of Immigration Appeals. The Board agreed with BOILA's argument that the Immigration Judge failed to provide the proper advisals regarding Respondent's eligibility for voluntary departure.
Mr. N, a native of Cameroon, was granted asylum by the Arlington Immigration Court. Mr. N was arrested and arbitrarily detained on two separate occasions by the Cameroon government on account of his activism with the Southern Cameroons National Council (SCNC), a movement fighting for the independence of Southern Cameroons from the Republic of Cameroon. In addition, in an effort to locate Respondent, government security forces arrested Mr. N's father who ultimately died as a result of injuries sustained in custody. BOILA had previously assisted Mr. N in getting his case remanded by the Board of Immigration Appeals on the basis that the immigration judge had made numerous legal errors when assessing Mr. N's credibility and when failing to give him an opportunity to address the lack of certain pieces of corroboration.
Mr. E, a native of Cameroon, was granted asylum by the Baltimore Immigration Court. Like Mr. N, Mr. E. was a strong supporter and member of the SCNC in Cameroon. As a result of his political activities, he was arrested in 2005, and detained for approximately two months, during which time he was tortured and confined in deplorable conditions. In addition to his own victimization, his father and brother were also targeted by the government, arrested, and imprisoned. He is now able to move forward with his life, without fear of being forcibly returned to his native country.
Ms. N, a citizen of the DRC, was granted political asylum by the Arlington Immigration Court. Ms. N had been struggling to be recognized as a refugee for roughly 12 years, since she first arrived in the US in 2000. Ms. N's prior application for asylum was denied by the Court, and although her appeal to the BIA was successful, her case was denied once again by the immigration judge. BOILA later assisted Ms. N in filing a motion to reopen her case in 2011, on the basis that because of her recent political activities with the UDPS in the United States in opposition of the DRC government, her sister, brother and several cousins still living in the DRC had been arrested and tortured. Based on the wealth of evidence that country conditions had changed, Ms. N was finally granted asylum.
Ms. M, a citizen of Cameroon, had her removal proceedings administratively closed by the Arlington Immigration Court after long negotiations between BOILA and the DHS Office of Chief Counsel. Although Ms. M did not qualify for any form of substantive relief from removal, BOILA persuaded DHS that her case merited a favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion, thereby preventing her deportation to Cameroon. Ms. M had lived in the US since she entered the country in 2001 when she was only 17 years old. The majority of her family lives in the US. BOILA succeeded in demonstrating that Ms. M's lengthy residence in the U.S., extensive family ties and the existence of adverse conditions in her country of removal warranted her ongoing residence in the United States.
Ms. K, a citizen of Ghana, was granted conditional permanent residence by the Baltimore Immigration Court based on her bona fide marriage to her US citizen husband. Ms. K first entered the US in 1999, however, for roughly 14 years she has struggled because she did not have lawful immigration status. She and her husband no longer need to worry that they will be separated.
Ms. B, a citizen of Tanzania, is the beneficiary of an approved I-130 Petition for Alien Relative, filed on her behalf by her US citizen stepfather. BOILA is also currently helping Ms. B's mother seek adjustment of status based on her marriage to her US citizen husband.
Mr. N, a citizen of Cameroon, was granted legal permanent residence by USCIS based on his marriage to his US citizen wife. BOILA had previously represented Mr. N in his efforts to seek asylum, but his proceedings were closed after Mr. N was diagnosed with leukemia and became gravely ill. With the support of his wife, Mr. N made a miraculous recovery and he and his wife are now able to plan for their future together without fear of his removal to Cameroon. BOILA wishes them a healthy and happy life together.
Mrs. A, a US citizen, had her I-130 Petition for Alien Relative approved by USCIS, which she filed on behalf of her husband, Mr. A, a citizen of Cameroon. Although Mr. A previously had received his permanent residence through his marriage to Mrs. A, such status was revoked after Mr. A was required to live abroad for many years to care for his ill parents. Consequently, BOILA is now assisting the couple in re-filing the necessary petitions so that the couple can again be reunited.
Ms. B, a citizen of South Africa, had her I-751 Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence approved by USCIS. Ms. B produced sufficient evidence that she remains married to her US citizen husband to establish her eligibility for permanent residence in the US.
Ms. I, a citizen of Cameroon, had her I-130 Petition for Alien Relative approved, which was filed on her behalf by her US citizen daughter.
Finally, BOILA is pleased to announce that two of our clients were recently naturalized and became US citizens. BOILA congratulates Ms. N (a native of Cameroon) and Mr. C.M (a native of El Salvador) on their US citizenship and is pleased to have had the opportunity to help them in their immigration matters.
|
AILA'S 8 POINTS FROM THE SENATE IMMIGRATION BILL
Just to barely scratch the surface, here are but a few things S.744 would do: - Legalization: Allow noncitizens who are unlawfully present and who entered the U.S. before December 31, 2011 to adjust status to that of Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI). Eligible applicants would be required to pay a penalty and back taxes. Individuals in RPI status would receive work authorization and may travel abroad. They would also become eligible to apply for LPR status after 10 years, and can apply for naturalization 3 years after acquiring a green card. Includes generous provisions for DREAMers and agricultural workers.
- Family-Based Immigrants: Move the current FB-2A category into the immediate relative classification, allow for derivatives of immediate relatives, eliminate the FB-4 category, cap the age of eligibility of married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens at 31, and bring back the V visa.
- Employment-Based Immigrants: Exempt the following categories from the quota: EB-1 immigrants, doctoral degree holders, physicians who have completed the foreign residency requirement, and derivatives. Add a new "EB-6" category for certain entrepreneurs.
- Temporary Workers: Create a W-1 visa for lesser-skilled workers, a W-2 visa for aliens coming to the U.S. temporarily to perform agricultural services or labor under a written contract, and a W-3 visa for "at-will" workers with an offer of full-time employment in an agricultural occupation. The W-2 and W-3 visas would replace the current H-2A agricultural worker program.
- Asylum: Eliminate the one-year filing deadline and authorize asylum officers to grant asylum during credible fear interviews.
- E-Verify: Require all employers to be on the system after 5 years.
- H-1Bs: Increase the quota to a floor of 110,000 and a ceiling of 180,000, increase the U.S. advanced degree exemption to 25,000 but limit it to STEM graduates, add a recruitment requirement for all H-1B labor condition applications involving a detailed posting on an Internet site designed by the Labor Department, add a non-displacement attestation, change the prevailing wage formula, provide EADs for spouses, and add a 60-day grace period after an H-1B has been terminated from his or her job.
- Fraud: Make it a crime to knowingly defraud an immigrant or hold oneself out as an attorney or BIA accredited representative when one is not authorized to do so. Require the identification of individuals who assist immigrants with the completion of forms and empower the Attorney General with injunctive authority to act against an unscrupulous "immigration service provider" at the federal level.
CONTENT COPIED DIRECTLY FROM THE AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION - www.aila.org
|
|
9th Circuit Grants Petition for Review Based on Totality of Circumstances
 Last week, the 9th Circuit came out with an opinion rejecting the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision. In Madrigal v. Holder, the 9th Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT") to a Mexican citizen who sought asylum based on his past military service and involvement in the arrest of several members of the Los Zetas drug cartel.
Victor Hugo Tapia Madrigal ("Mr. Madrigal") is a citizen of Mexico and a member of the Mexican army. In 2007, 10 members of the Los Zetas drug were arrested, including one high-ranking member. Mr. Madrigal assisted in transferring the arrestees from the small town where they were apprehended to authorities in Guadalajara.
A few months after, Mr. Madrigal learned that all the soldiers who had arrested the 10 members of Los Zetas had been beheaded. Fearing for his safety, he decided to leave the army. He was living at his family's home for a few months until he found out his commander had also been killed. At that point, Mr. Madrigal decided to leave his family's house and move to a small town. After living in his new town for a few months, a group of unknown individuals shot at Mr. Madrigal while he was walking down the street. Mr. Madrigal was able to escape the bullets, but after this experience, he decided he needed to leave Mexico.
Mr. Madrigal entered the United States in 2008, to seek protection from Los Zetas. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Madrigal's mother received an anonymous letter that threatened Mr. Madrigal's life and stated that he had been located. His mother also said that unknown people had been asking his relatives where he had gone. In 2009, the government initiated removal proceedings against Mr. Madrigal. Mr. Madrigal sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. However, an immigration judge found him ineligible for asylum and the BIA dismissed his appeal.
However, the 9th Circuit granted Mr. Madrigal's petition for social group-based asylum for both past persecution and well-founded fear of future persecution. The Court rejected BIA's finding that no evidence supported the belief that Los Zetas were responsible for Mr. Madrigal's past persecution. Judge Raymond Fisher writing for a three-judge panel stated: "The BIA appears to have reached this conclusion by viewing each incident in isolation, instead of examining the totality of the circumstances. This was error because post-military incidents took place in the context of a larger pattern of conduct." When assessing the totality of the circumstances, the Court found that there was a very distinct possibility that Los Zetas were responsible for the harm Mr. Madrigal experienced post-military.
Further, the Court found that BIA erroneously concluded that the lack of nexus between Mr. Madrigal's persecution and a protected ground precluded a grant of asylum. The Court explained: "[I]f Tapia Madrigal can establish that Los Zetas are responsible for his post-military ... then the record compels the conclusion that such persecution was on the basis of his membership in the particular social group of 'former Mexican army soldiers who participated in anti-drug activity." In other words, if Mr. Madrigal can show that he was mistreated because of his affiliation with the Mexican army, then he will be able to obtain asylum on account of being a former military member, which is recognized a valid social group. This case is significant because the 9th Circuit's approach allows asylees a chance to argue eligibility based on the totality of the circumstanced and nexus between the harm suffered and the protection sought.
|
|
|
New Hope for Immigration Reform in the United States: An Analysis of the Proposed Legislation
 By Maureen Johnson
The 2012 presidential election campaign demonstrated the growing power of Latino voters in key states such as Texas and California and gave new political life to long-stagnant efforts at immigration reform. In this context, on April 16, 2013, a bipartisan group of Senators, known commonly as the "Gang of Eight," introduced an 844-page bill titled, The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 (S. 744) that, if passed, will significantly change the U.S. immigration system, in both positive and negative ways. It is currently estimated that 11.5 million undocumented immigrants are living in the United States, and the legislation currently proposed is geared towards legalizing their status and providing the first major overhaul of the immigration system since the Ronald Reagan administration in the 1980s.
The analysis below draws largely from an extensive summary of the bill's contents provided by the Democratic Policy and Communications Center (DPCC). As of this writing, the bill has not yet been voted on in the Senate or taken up in the House of Representatives and so its contents are still subject to change. However, an analysis of the bill in its current form is warranted, as it is the clearest and most comprehensive indication of the future of immigration law in the United States.
Major Changes
As it is currently written, the legalization of currently-undocumented immigrants (who would acquire legal status) is contingent upon several "triggers," not least of which would be expanded resources and enforcement measures in the area of border security. To that end, the proposed bill would allocate $3 billion to fund enhanced border and immigration security measures, including the development of a border security fencing plan by the Secretary of Homeland Security, a "mandatory and operational" Electronic Employment Verification System (EEVS, more commonly known as E-Verify), and the implementation of "a biographic entry-exit system at air and seaports."
Registered Provisional Immigrant Status
The law would provide a new form of relief called Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) Status. Undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. before December 31, 2011 and have continued to reside in the U.S. would be able to apply for RPI status. In the long march towards permanent residency and eventual citizenship, RPI applicants would be required to pay multiple fines and fees and any back taxes, pass multiple background checks, show that they are working to learn English (if they do not speak it already), and be able to demonstrate economic self-sufficiency. Once RPI status is approved, persons with RPI status would retain such status for six years and be given employment authorization as well as travel authorization, both of which would be significant benefits for many people who have long been unable to legally seek gainful employment or travel to their native countries. After six years, RPIs would need to file to renew their status, showing they still meet all the eligibility criteria and paying additional filing fees.
Roughly 10 years after acquiring RPI status, individuals would be able to apply for permanent residence. Such applicants would be required to wait until the existing backlog of applicants had been processed before adjustment of their status would be reviewed. Three years after attaining permanent residency, former RPIs could then apply for naturalization to become U.S. citizens. All told, the time from granting of RPI status to citizenship would come to at least 13 years.
The long wait before acquiring permanent residency seems somewhat arbitrary, especially when applied to individuals who have already been living in the United States for decades. Moreover, throughout the entire process, immigrants would have to pay at least $2,000 in fines and hundreds more in fees along the 13-year path to citizenship, thereby potentially excluding those unable to pay the fees. The employment or income requirements for both RPI status and permanent residency through RPI status also seem highly problematic, absent further guidance on how such requirements would be enforced in actuality, as it seems that low-income immigrants could be deprived of the benefits offered through the legislation. Moreover, even though the proposed legislation aims to eliminate the creation of future backlogs, it is questionable whether the existing backlogs could be cleared in the timeframe allotted such that RPIs could in fact seek adjustment of status 10 years after becoming RPIs.
While the bill would offer previously unavailable relief to many millions of individuals, it can also be criticized for the people it excludes. For instance, persons who entered the United States after December 31, 2011 would be unable to benefit from the bill's provisions. In addition, many individuals may likely be barred by acquiring RPI status because of expansive definitions of certain criminal acts under existing immigration law. For instance, if a person has committed three relatively minor misdemeanor offenses, they may be ineligible for RPI status. Finally, the English language requirement for adjustment of status could pose further barriers to otherwise deserving immigrants.
On the positive side, the bill as currently written would codify many important parts of the long-dormant DREAM Act, allowing RPIs who came to the U.S. before age 16 and earned a GED or high school diploma to apply for permanent residency. Moreover, the law would also so-called 'DREAMers' to apply for naturalization after five years as an RPI (rather than ten). Although the passage of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was a step in the right direction, the proposed bill offers a permanent solution and path to citizenship for the millions of individuals who came to this country as children and have made the United States their home.
Family Unity and Employment-Based Immigration
Aside from the creation of RPI status, the proposed legislation contains broad changes to the existing family- and employment-based immigration system. Legal immigrants who have been in the United States continuously for ten years or longer would be eligible to seek permanent residency, and permanent residents would be able to "immediately" sponsor their spouses or children for permanent residency. This would be a huge improvement in the current family-based immigration system, as it would eliminate the grossly long wait that permanent residents have to endure for their spouses and children to obtain legal status. The bill would also enable "families with approved petitions to work and live in the U.S. while waiting for their green card" and would allow siblings short-term visitation periods.
Despite all of the positive aspects of the proposed legislation, there are several negative aspects that would potentially hinder family unity. For instance, sponsorship of siblings for permanent residency would be eliminated, and children at or over 31 years of age would also be ineligible for sponsorship from their US citizen parents. While previously-filed petitions would seemingly not be impacted, this would deprive many individuals of the right to be reunited with their adult children (over age 31) and/or siblings, and potentially leave recently-naturalized elderly individuals without family care takers to assist them as they age.
The bill also seeks to introduce a new merit-based system to the processing of immigrant visas. It is a complicated point-based system, wherein prospective applicants for a so-called 'Track One' visa would be prioritized based on "various factors, including educational degrees, employment experience, and needs of U.S. employers, U.S. citizen relatives, and age," as well as how long the applicant has been living in the U.S., while 'Track Two' visas would be granted to backlogged family-or employment-sponsored applicants (waiting five years or longer) and to individuals who have been legal permanent residents for at least ten years.
One problem with the point system is the clear prioritization it gives to those immigrants who are already likely to benefit the most from their training and economic resources, leaving low-wage and low-skilled workers in a potentially indefinite wait period while their better-educated and wealthier counterparts skipped to the head of the line.
Despite my skepticism about the points-based merit system contained in the proposed legislation, there are numerous improvements with relation to the availability of certain employment-based visas. For instance, it would increase the number of H1B visas available each year, as well as increase the availability of visas for certain low-skilled labor positions through the creation of a new "W" visa category.
Many concerns are being raised over bill's provisions mandating the national implementation of the Electronic Employment Verification System (EEVS), commonly known as E-Verify. While government officials report that E-Verify's accuracy has improved in the years since its introduction, the remaining possibility for error means that some individuals will undoubtedly be wrongfully denied employment to which they should be entitled. Additionally, the system would potentially be expensive to maintain, and civil liberties advocates, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have expressed concerns that the centralization of personally identifiable information (PII) poses risks to Americans' privacy and increases the risk of identity theft.
Asylum Applicants
In my opinion, there would be at least two highly significant improvements in the law governing asylum if the proposed legislation is passed. First and foremost, S. 744 seeks to eliminate the one-year filing deadline by which all asylum applicants must file their applications in order to be deemed eligible for asylum. For many years, the requirement that an individual must file for asylum within one year of entering the U.S. has deprived many individuals from being granted asylum. Often, individuals fleeing their countries with genuine claims of past persecution suffer from severe trauma, may not have had a formal education, or are unknowledgeable about the legal requirements for asylum. Elimination of the one-year filing requirement would mean that such individuals would no longer be prejudiced based on their lack of knowledge of U.S. immigration laws. Secondly, there would be cause for celebration if the proposed legislation were passed because it would provide certain at-risk persons in removal proceedings with legal counsel. At present, while there is a right to counsel, there is no right to have counsel provided for those in need, which deprives many people facing deportation from relief from removal.
As summed up especially well in a recent Op-Ed by Bill Frelick of Human Rights Watch and law student Brian Jacek, a major challenge faced by many asylum seekers, and one that the proposed Senate bill fails to fully address, is the difficulty asylum applicants have supporting themselves economically while their cases are being reviewed. Many asylum applicants are denied the right to employment while their applications for asylum remain pending, thereby depriving them of the opportunity to support themselves. As Frelick and Jacek explain, the inability to work legally means that many asylum-seekers not only cannot afford attorneys to assist with their cases, but they also are pushed into the informal work sector, rely on assistance from friends or family, or may even end up living on the streets. Unfortunately, S. 744 in its current form would not modify the existing regulations on employment authorization for prospective asylees.
Politics
Supporters: Business, Labor, Religious Groups. A striking element of the recent push for immigration reform has been the broad support it has received from many disparate sectors of the American political spectrum. Many sectors such as the hospitality (restaurants, hotels, etc.) and agriculture industries rely heavily on low-wage workers, many of them undocumented, and would benefit from a normalization of their workforce as well as the ability to bring in additional part-time or seasonal workers from abroad. The technology sector, including industry leaders such as Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, has lobbied for increased opportunities to fill positions that they contend are currently vacant due to a lack of qualified American workers. Many labor unions, meanwhile, view the normalization of undocumented workers' status as an opportunity to increase union membership by organizing newly-legalized RPIs. Such organizers believe that legalization would stem the so-called 'race to the bottom' in which U.S. citizens and legal immigrants continually accept cuts to wages and benefits in order not to lose out to their undocumented counterparts. Many religious organizations have also lent their support to the immigration reform push, though (as discussed below) that support could waver if the bill is amended to include extension of sponsorship privileges to bi-national same-sex partners. Finally, comprehensive immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship stands to benefit elected representatives from both major parties, helping to appeal to Latino voters while demonstrating that bipartisan compromise is still possible in a political climate that is often described as just as dysfunctional, ineffective, and broken as the current immigration system itself.
Immigration Restriction Advocates. Immigration restriction and border enforcement advocates such as Jim DeMint and conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation have derided what they refer to as "amnesty," or any attempt to provide currently undocumented immigrants living in the United States. While it s strongly contested, the Heritage Foundation recently released a report arguing that legalizing the status of the 11.5 million undocumented immigrants currently in the United States will cost the country over $6 trillion over those immigrants' lifetimes. Because the public's attention is not yet fully focused on the proposed law, it remains to be seen whether these arguments will gain traction, though a recent reporting suggests that the majority of Americans (76% percent) favor passage of the proposed immigration legislation. If such polling is accurate, it would suggest that there is sufficient bipartisan support to overcome concerns raised by the outspoken critics of immigration reform.
Same-Sex Couples. One of the biggest question marks currently hanging over the current reform effort relates to the status of binational same-sex couples. As reported in Politico, Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat and member of the 'Gang of Eight,' has promised to introduce an amendment to the proposed bill that would allow U.S. nationals to sponsor their same-sex partners for permanent residency (a move for which President Obama has also voiced support). In response, according to Politico, Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio claimed that the amendment "will virtually guarantee that [the bill] won't pass," though many Democrats reportedly remain skeptical of that assertion. This, the article continues, is because support might waver or drop off entirely from the Republicans and religious groups upon whose success the bill depends (if the bill fails or only narrowly passes in the Senate, its chances in the House of Representatives are greatly diminished).
The entire question of the status of binational same-sex couples could, however, become irrelevant if the Supreme Court rules that the relevant portions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) are unconstitutional. In that case, binational same-sex married couples would be entitled to the same federal protections and benefits currently available only to heterosexual couples. In my opinion, failure to include rights for same-sex couples would represent a major flaw in the legislation. Truly comprehensive immigration reform should not exclude U.S. citizens and permanent residents in same sex-relationships from having the right to file petitions on behalf of their spouses.
In summary . . .
There is still a long way to go before S.744 becomes law and some lawmakers, such as Sen. Rubio, are skeptical as to whether or not it will ever be passed as it is currently written. While the proposed bill contains several areas for concern, overall the enactment of S.744 would be an enormous success for immigrants and immigrant rights advocates. Immigrants to the United States have continuously contributed to this country culturally, politically, socially, and economically. Unfortunately, the current immigration system has long been broken, and has not adapted to evolving economic, familial, and humanitarian needs. Immigration reform is in our country's best interests economically and reform would address the harm and suffering of so many deserving immigrants who seek to remain united with their families or otherwise wish to contribute to the nation in positive ways. The time is long overdue for Congress to enact meaningful immigration reform, and the majority of the provisions contained in the proposed bill would be a huge step in the right direction.
|
|
|
|
AILA Member Since 1992
|
|
| |
Family Category Processing Times:
1st: 04/01/06
2A: 03/01/11
2B: 05/15/05
3rd: 08/08/02
4th: 05/01/01
Employment Category Processing Times:
1st: Current
2nd: Current
3rd: 12/01/07
Unskilled: 12/01/07
4th: Current
Religious: Current
5th: Current
Targeted Employment Areas/Regional Centers:
Current
5th Pilot Programs: Current
|
TPS EXTENDED FOR HONDURAS
| |
"WASHINGTON-Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano has extended Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for eligible nationals of Honduras for an additional 18 months, beginning July 6, 2013, and ending Jan. 5, 2015.
Current Honduran beneficiaries seeking to extend their TPS status must re-register during the 60-day re-registration period that runs from April 3, 2013, through June 3, 2003. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) encourages beneficiaries to register as soon as possible once the 60-day re-registration period begins. Applications will not be accepted before April 3, 2013.
The 18-month extension also allows TPS re-registrants to apply for a new employment authorization document (EAD). Eligible Honduran TPS beneficiaries who request an EAD and meet the re-registration deadline will receive a new EAD with an expiration date of Jan. 5, 2015. USCIS recognizes that some re-registrants may not receive their new EADs until after their current EADs expire. Therefore, USCIS is automatically extending current TPS Honduras EADs that have a July 5, 2013, expiration date for an additional six months. These existing EADs are now valid through Jan. 5, 2014."
For the complete article - please visit Temporary Protected Status Extended for Hondurans on the uscis.gov website.
|
Agreement Reached in National Class Action Lawsuit on Work Authorization for Asylum Seekers
| |
Washington D.C. - "The Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security have agreed to settle a nationwide class action lawsuit challenging the denial of work authorization to asylum seekers who have been waiting six months or more for a decision on their asylum applications. If approved by a federal judge, this agreement will help ensure that asylum seekers, who have fled persecution in their home countries, are not unlawfully prevented from working and supporting their families while the government adjudicates their cases. The settlement agreement represents the culmination of years of advocacy by the American Immigration Council's Legal Action Center (LAC) and other groups on behalf of deserving asylum seekers.
The agreement stems from a case filed in December 2011 by the LAC and the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP), with co-counsel from the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute and the Seattle law firm Gibbs Houston Pauw. The complaint challenged widespread problems with the "asylum clock"-the system government agencies use to determine when immigrants who have applied for asylum may obtain permission to work lawfully in the United States.
The case, filed on behalf of asylum-seekers around the country, alleged that the current system unlawfully denies asylum applicants the opportunity to obtain employment authorization if their asylum application has been pending for six months or more. Some end up waiting several months or years for the government to make a decision on their asylum application. Indeed, one plaintiff from China has been waiting nearly 10 years for his case to be resolved. Employment authorization is critical given that most applicants have fled their home countries without any resources, and thus have no means to support themselves.
"The settlement agreement includes significant changes to ensure that vulnerable asylum-seekers are no longer arbitrarily deprived of the ability to work while the government decides their cases," according to Mary Kenney, Senior Staff Attorney with the Legal Action Center.
"We are extremely pleased that we were able to achieve a solution that we believe will help hundreds, if not thousands, of people seeking asylum," said Chris Strawn, director of the asylum unit at NWIRP. "Many asylum seekers who were stuck in limbo, without any way to support themselves or their family members while waiting for their asylum applications to be resolved, will now be able to obtain employment authorization."
"Getting work authorization has been a huge benefit to me and my family, allowing us to sustain ourselves while waiting for a decision on my asylum application," said B.H., one of the named Plaintiffs in the suit.
Because the suit involves a class action, the settlement agreement, filed April 12, 2013 in a federal district court in Washington State, will have to be approved by Judge Richard Jones, the judge overseeing the case."
###
SOURCE - American Immigration Council Legal Action Center
|
|
|
