Articles Posted in TRO

by

In this video, attorney Jacob Sapochnick discusses the new parole in place program for undocumented spouses and stepchildren of U.S. Citizens recently announced by the Biden administration.

In this video you will learn about the parole in place application process, who is eligible to apply, and what will happen to those with pending extreme hardship waivers with USCIS.

Overview

On August 19, 2024, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) began accepting applications for parole in place for undocumented spouses and stepchildren of U.S. Citizens under a new program called Keeping Families Together.

Applications for this program may now be submitted online using a new online electronic form called Form I-131F, Application for Parole in Place for Certain Noncitizen Spouses and Stepchildren of U.S. Citizens, by creating a myUSCIS online account. Paper filings sent by mail will not be accepted by USCIS.

The fee to apply for parole is $580. No fee waivers or fee exemptions are available for this process at this time.

What is parole in place?

Parole in place is a discretionary authorization issued for a 3-year period, that allows certain noncitizens who are present in the United States without admission or parole to become “applicants for admission.”

If granted parole, these individuals may apply for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence (green card holder) during the parole period, without being required to leave the United States and be processed by a U.S. consulate overseas.

Previously, undocumented spouses of U.S. Citizens who entered without inspection, were required to travel outside the United States to legalize their status through an extreme hardship “waiver” process which required a face-to-face interview at a U.S. Consulate abroad. This process has been very challenging on families because approval of the hardship waiver can take several years and lead to prolonged family separation.

It is estimated that as many as 500,000 noncitizen spouses of U.S. citizens could be eligible for parole in place, and an additional 50,000 noncitizen stepchildren of U.S. citizens.

What are the eligibility requirements for parole in place?

To be considered for a discretionary grant of parole in place under Keeping Families Together, you must meet the following eligibility criteria:

If you are the noncitizen spouse of a U.S. citizen, you must:

  • Be present in the United States without admission or parole (entered without lawful inspection);
  • Have been continuously physically present in the United States since at least June 17, 2014, through the date of filing your request;
  • Have a legally valid marriage to a U.S. citizen on or before June 17, 2024;
  • Have no disqualifying criminal history and otherwise not deemed to be a threat to public safety, national security, or border security; and
  • Submit biometrics and undergo required background checks and national security and public safety vetting.

If you are the noncitizen stepchild of a U.S. citizen, you must:

  • Have been under the age of 21 and unmarried on June 17, 2024;
  • Be present in the United States without admission or parole (entered without lawful inspection);
  • Have been continuously physically present in the United States since at least June 17, 2024, through the date of filing your request;
  • Have a noncitizen parent who entered into a legally valid marriage with a U.S. citizen on or before June 17, 2024, and before your 18th birthday;
  • Have no disqualifying criminal history and otherwise not deemed to be a threat to public safety, national security, or border security*; and
  • Submit biometrics and undergo required background checks and national security and public safety vetting.

Please read the frequently asked questions on the USCIS webpage here.

Continue reading

by

Welcome back to the Immigration Lawyer Blog, where we discuss all things immigration. In this video, attorney Jacob Sapochnick discusses a very important new update regarding the “public charge,” rule. On July 29, a federal judge in the state of New York issued a ruling temporarily blocking the Trump administration from enforcing the public charge rule on noncitizens seeking permanent residency in the United States, as well as nonimmigrant visa applicants abroad, for as long as the coronavirus pandemic remains a public health emergency. The ruling was made in response to a federal lawsuit filed by several states against the government, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) in State of New York, et al. v. DHS, et al. and Make the Road NY et al. v. Cuccinelli, et al.

Stay tuned for more information on this topic.

Overview

In response to a lawsuit filed by the states of New York, Connecticut, and Vermont, challenging the “public charge” rule, federal judge George Daniels approved a nationwide injunction, which temporarily blocks the government from “enforcing, applying, implementing, or treating,” as effective the “public charge” rule for any period during which there is a declared national health emergency in response to the COVID-19 outbreak.

The judge in this case ultimately sided with the states recognizing that the public charge rule ultimately discourages non-citizens nationwide from obtaining the necessary treatment and care they would need during the Coronavirus pandemic. In his opinion, the judge stated that in consideration of the “substantial harm” that the public would suffer from application and enforcement of the public charge rule, it was necessary to issue a temporary injunction to preserve the status quo and allow non-citizens to seek public benefits necessary for their health and well-being. The judge stated, “no person should hesitate to seek medical care, nor should they endure punishment or penalty if they seek temporary financial aid as a result of the pandemic’s impact.”

Continue reading

by

Welcome back to the Immigration Lawyer Blog, where we discuss all things immigration. In this video, attorney Jacob Sapochnick discusses the Supreme Court’s recent ruling which will allow the public charge rule to go forward and be implemented by the government.

Overview:

On January 27, 2020, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of the Trump administration allowing the government to implement the final rule “Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds” nationwide except for in the State of Illinois, where litigation remains pending.

Following the Court’s decision, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) published a news release on its website notifying the public that the agency will begin implementing the final rule on February 24, 2020 to applications and petitions postmarked (or submitted electronically) on or after February 24, 2020 (except for in the State of Illinois). For applications or petitions sent by a commercial courier (UPS/FedEx/ or DHL), the postmark date will be the date reflected on the courier receipt.

According to the press release, “The Final Rule prohibits DHS from considering an alien’s application for, certification or approval to receive, or receipt of certain non-cash public benefits before Oct. 15, 2019, when deciding whether the alien is likely at any time to become a public charge. In light of the duration of the recently-lifted nationwide injunctions and to promote clarity and fairness to the public, DHS will now treat this prohibition as applying to such public benefits received before Feb. 24, 2020.

Similarly, the Final Rule prohibits DHS from considering the receipt of public benefits by applicants for extension of stay and change of status before Oct. 15, 2019 when determining whether the public benefits condition applies, and DHS will now treat this prohibition as applying to public benefits received on or after Feb. 24, 2020.” Continue reading

by

In this video attorney Jacob Sapochnick discusses some new developments regarding the government’s planned implementation of a final rule that would have made certain individuals inadmissible to the United States on public charge grounds.

On October 11, 2019, judges in three separate cases before U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York (PDF), Northern District of California (PDF), and Eastern District of Washington (PDF) granted court orders to stop the government from implementing and enforcing the terms of the public charge rule proposed by the Trump administration. As a result, the final rule has been postponed pending litigation until the courts have made a decision on the legality of the rule on the merits. These court orders have been placed nationwide and prevent USCIS from implementing the rule anywhere in the United States.

What would the public charge rule have done?

The public charge rule was set to be enforced on October 15, 2019. The rule would have expanded the list of public benefits that make a foreign national ineligible to obtain permanent residence and/or an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa to enter the United States.

A person would have been considered a “public charge” under the rule, if they received one or more designated public benefits for more than 12 months in the aggregate, within any 36-month period.

Continue reading

by

In this Facebook live stream, immigration attorneys Jacob J. Sapochnick and Laurel Scott discuss the impact of the President’s Executive Orders, the Ninth Circuit’s refusal to reinstate the travel and refugee ban, and what the future of immigration looks like from here. Don’t forget to like our Facebook page to join in on future Live streams.

By federal court order, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, has decided that it will not reinstate President Trump’s Executive Order “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.” This means that the President’s 90-day travel ban of foreign nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries (Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen) will no longer be enforced, as well as the 120-day suspension of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program barring Syrians from seeking refugee admission to the United States. The government is likely to appeal the Ninth Circuit’s decision to the United States Supreme Court or seek a ruling “en banc.”

The Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection released the following statement, “In accordance with the judge’s ruling, DHS has suspended any and all actions implementing the affected sections of the Executive Order entitled, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States. This includes actions to suspend passenger system rules that flag travelers for operational action subject to the Executive Order.” This means that the Executive Order will no longer bar the entry of immigrant and non-immigrant travelers from the seven Muslim-majority countries (Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen) until a Court rules otherwise. 

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services issued a statement confirming that USCIS will continue to adjudicate and process applications and petitions filed for or on behalf of individuals in the United States, as well as applications and petitions for individuals outside of the United States, and applications for adjustment of status to permanent residence, irrespective of the beneficiary’s country of nationality. 

For more information about these executive orders please contact our office. Remember to follow us on Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, and Instagram 

Capture

by

In this Facebook live stream, attorney Jacob J. Sapochnick discusses the legal significance of the Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) issued Friday, February 3, 2017, by a federal judge from the Western District of Washington. The TRO has temporarily suspended all provisions of  the President’s Executive Order entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” nationwide. This means that the travel ban on foreign nationals from the 7 Muslim-majority countries (Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen) has been suspended, and the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program has been reinstated. For more information please keep watching.

In his ruling, Judge Robart stated that after hearing arguments, the States adequately demonstrated that they have suffered immediate and irreparable harm because of the signing and implementation of the order, and that granting a TRO would be in the public interest. In addition he stated “the Executive Order adversely affects the States’ residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel. These harms extend to the States. . . are significant and ongoing.” A three-judge panel from the Ninth Court Court of Appeals is expected to issue a final ruling on the Executive Order tomorrow.

Since issuance of the TRO, DHS has suspended any and all actions implementing the affected sections of the Executive Order entitled, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” including “actions to suspend passenger system rules that flag travelers for operational action subject to the Executive Order.”

Continue reading