• Hours & Info

    3233 E. Broadway,
    Long Beach, CA 90803
    (562) 495-0554
    M-F: 8:00am - 6:00 p.m.
    Sat: 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.

  • Past Blog Posts

  • https://api.whatsapp.com/send?phone=13104885414

There are good changes on the horizon for Immigration Reform 2014

Posted on December 11, 2014 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

Immigration reform in 2014 has been issued. There are several items to Parole that are different, expanded and easier to get than in the past. Brian D. Lerner, immigration attorney explains that under immigration reform in 2014, first you would need to understand what exactly is ‘parole’ in order to have an appreciation of the differences.

 

At least three separate DHS memos address various aspects of “parole.” In the immigration context, parole refers to allowing an individual to temporarily enter the United States for purposes of significant public benefit or for humanitarian reasons without technically admitting the person into the country. Although parole is issued on a case-by-case basis, there is a long history of designated categories of individuals who may qualify for parole. “Advance parole” and “parole-in-place” are forms of parole. Advance parole refers to giving an individual currently residing in the United States in a temporary status permission to travel abroad for a short period and return to the United States without jeopardizing the existing status. Parole in-place is parole in which an individual who is already in the United States, but who is here without permission, is nonetheless granted parole without having to leave the country. Individuals granted parole—including advance parole and parole-in-place—may ultimately be able to gain lawful permanent status without leaving the United States, if they are otherwise eligible.

 

Brian D. Lerner states there are issues with this. For example, if somebody who might qualify under the immigration laws to adjust status in the U.S. – except for not being able to show legal entry, they might be able to use the parole. For example, they could qualify for DACA or DAPA under the immigration reform 2014, and because of that, they could apply for Advance Parole, leave the U.S. and then enter again legally. This legal entry would really be an admission to the U.S. states Brian Lerner. Because of that, the person could then adjust status in the U.S. assuming they have no other grounds of inadmissibility.

 

Here there is a specific change to immigration policy per the immigration reform 2014. Under direction from the Secretary of Homeland Security, DHS officials will be instructed to follow a 2012 immigration decision (Matter of Arrabally), finding that a lawfully present individual who travels abroad after a grant of advance parole does not trigger the three- or 10-year bars that ordinarily apply when a person departs the United States after residing here unlawfully for more than six months. Under this decision, individuals who would be eligible for LPR status but for the fact that their last entry into the United States was unlawful may be able to apply for permanent resident status upon their parole back into the United States. The new DHS instruction will ensure consistent application across the department. Assuming that this is actually followed, there will be consistency and a person leaving the U.S. under the immigration reform 2014, will be able to re-enter the U.S. without fear that they have just invoked the 3/10 year bar waiver. Brian Lerner states that prior to the immigration reform 2014, the adjudications of people re-entering the U.S. with the advance parole was inconsistent and different depending which officer you happened to get. Hopefully, this will end and there will be consistent adjudications.

 

Parole in Place adjudications has been expanded to include LPR relatives in the military as well as persons who intend to enter the military (not just personas already in the military.) Also, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security has stated that he would like USCIS to grant deferred action to persons who overstayed their visas and who have a relative who is a veteran. Thus, the immigration reform 2014 in fact has good news on the horizon for parole and should be used once the regulations are issued.

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/immigration-reform-2014/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/comprehensive-immigration-reform/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/immigration-reform/

https://californiaimmigration.us/good-changes-horizon-immigration-reform-2014/

Filed under: Immigration Reform | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a comment »

President Obama’s Immigration Reform also deals with Parole in Place for the military and inventors

Posted on December 9, 2014 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

At least three separate DHS memos address various aspects of “parole.” In the immigration context, parole refers to allowing an individual to temporarily enter the United States for purposes of significant public benefit or for humanitarian reasons without technically admitting the person into the country. President Obama’s immigration reform changes somewhat the policy.  Although parole is issued on a case-by-case basis, there is a long history of designated categories of

individuals who may qualify for parole.

 

“Advance parole” and “parole-in-place” are forms of parole explains Brian D. Lerner. Advance parole refers to giving an individual currently residing in the United States in a temporary status permission to travel abroadfor a short period and return to the United States without jeopardizing the existing status. President Obama’s immigration reform also deals with  Parole-in-place. This is a type of parole in which an individual who is already in the United States, but who is here without permission, is nonetheless granted parole without having to leave the country. Individuals granted parole—including advance parole and parole-in-place—may ultimately be able to gain lawful permanent status without leaving the United States, if they are otherwise eligible.

 

Thus, Brian Lerner states that the PIP – Parole in place will be somewhat expanded.  Parole in place to protect military families  is where it will be expanded under President Obama’s immigration reform. Secretary Johnson announced new policies to protect unauthorized families of the U.S. military and of those seeking to enlist. In November 2013, DHS issued guidance permitting parole-in-place for unauthorized family members of military personnel and veterans. The new guidance will expand the availability of parole-in-place, as well as deferred action, to family members of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents who seek to enlist in the U.S. Armed Forces. Under President Obama’s immigration reform, the Secretary also asked USCIS to consider granting deferred action to family members of current military personnel and veterans who have overstayed their visas.

 

A very interesting development according to Brian D. Lerner is that DHS officials will be instructed to follow a 2012 immigration decision (Matter of Arrabally), finding that a lawfully present individual who travels abroad after a grant of advance parole does not trigger the three- or 10-year bars that ordinarily apply when a person departs the United States after residing here unlawfully for more than six months. Under this decision, states Brian Lerner, individuals who would be eligible for LPR status but for the fact that their last entry into the United States was unlawful may be able to apply for permanent resident status upon their parole back into the United States. The new DHS instruction will ensure consistent application across the department. This might be a very good way for somebody to adjust status in the U.S. Brian Lerner explains that they could get the parole, come back into the U.S. and under certain circumstances adjust.

 

President Obama’s immigration reform also adds a completely new parole for investors, researchers, and founders of start-up enterprises. Brian Lerner states there are currently no new regulations on this, but USCIS has been directed to draft regulations for a new category of parole to enable certain inventors, researchers, and founders of start-up businesses to enter the United States before they become eligible for a visa. Parole would allow these individuals to temporarily pursue research and development of promising ideas and businesses in the United States, rather than abroad. Thus, President Obama’s immigration reform has lots of good news on Parole for differing categories of persons and hopefully will get the regulations issued soon

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/immigration-reform/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/constitutionality-of-immigration-reform/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/immigration-reform-news/

https://californiaimmigration.us/good-changes-horizon-immigration-reform-2014/

 

 

Filed under: Immigration Reform | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

President Obama’s Immigration Reform Requirements extends to visa processing and employment based visas

Posted on December 7, 2014 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

Brian D. Lerner states that the Presidential Memorandum on visa modernization deals with the immigration reform requirements for visa processing and employment based visas.  On November 21, 2014, the President issued the Presidential Memorandum on “Modernizing and Streamlining the U.S. Immigrant Visa System for the 21st Century.” In this memo, Brian Lerner states the President called on immigration agencies to develop recommendations to improve the current visa system, while at the same time reinforcing that legislative reforms were needed to bring the U.S. immigration system in line with current economic and national security needs. He has directed the Secretaries of the Departments of Homeland Security and State, working in consultation with the White House, the Attorney General, the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, and Education, and non-governmental stakeholders to submit recommendation to him by March 20, 2015. The immigration reform requirements are quite extensive. As other people will very well know, it takes many years for visa numbers to become current. Hopefully, states Brian D. Lerner, when  the immigration reform requirements will greatly decrease visa waiting times and  allow families to get together years sooner.

 

The immigration reform requirements states that the recommendations shall be designed to ensure (1) that the processing of all immigrant (permanent) and non-immigrant (temporary) visas is done efficiently, with an emphasis on reducing costs, waste, and fraud while improving services; (2) that all available immigrant visa numbers are used consistent with demand; and (3) that a stronger technology infrastructure exists to improve the applicant’s experience, enable better oversight, and eliminate duplicative systems. The immigration reform requirements states that the recommendations must include metrics for measuring progress in implementation and in achieving service improvements, while still protecting U.S. border integrity and economic opportunities for U.S. and foreign workers. Brian Lerner states this is somewhat ambiguous what will actually happen, but it is certainly promising.

 

What changes are proposed for employment-based visas asks Brian D. Lerner. The immigration reform requirements lists that  DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson issued a memorandum outlining new policies that support U.S. high-skilled businesses and workers by better enabling U.S employers to hire and retain foreign workers. First, the Secretary directed USCIS to take steps to reduce wait times for employment-based immigrant visas and improve visa processing. Far too often, visas have gone unused due to processing issues. In accordance with the immigration reform requirements, USCIS will work with the Department of State (DOS) to ensure that all visas authorized by Congress are issued to eligible individuals when there is sufficient demand. USCIS also will work with DOS to improve the process for determining when immigrant visas are available to applicants during the fiscal year. In addition, the Secretary directed USCIS to consider regulatory or policy changes that ensure that individuals with pending immigrant visa petitions will not lose their place in line if they change jobs. Brian Lerner states this will be a welcome addition to the immigration reform requirements insofar as it will allow a way out for employees waiting year after year for the visa number to become current.

 

Next, the immigration reform requirements state that the agencies have announced a series of policy changes intended to prevent ambitious and creative people, many of whom received their higher education in the United States, from continuing to leave the country and work abroad—a trend that has created great uncertainty and frustration for employers. The proposed changes will include:

  • Reforms to the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program, which authorizes foreign students before and after graduation from U.S. schools to gain experience through work in their fields. The changes would expand the degree programs eligible for OPT. In addition, they would allow foreign students with degrees in designated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields who are already eligible for OPT to work for a longer period in the United States states Brian D. Lerner;
  • Expanded opportunities for foreign inventors, researchers, and founders of start-up enterprises to conduct research and development and create jobs in the United States.
  • Consolidated guidance to ensure greater consistency in the adjudication of L-1B visas for “intracompany transferees.” These visas allow multinational companies to transfer certain managers, executives, or persons with specialized knowledge in their fields to the United States for a temporary period. Brian D. Lerner states that the immigration reform requirements is very good here considering that the L-1B program has suffered considerably in the past.
  • Increased flexibility in the rules permitting applicants for employment-based permanent resident status to change jobs (called “porting”), if their applications are stalled due to processing delays.
  • Review of the Department of Labor’s certification process for foreign labor, known as the PERM process. The certification process is an initial step in obtaining employment-based permanent resident status and requires DOL to determine that there are not sufficient U.S. workers for the position and that employment of the foreign worker will not adversely affect U.S. workers. Perhaps, states Brian D. Lerner, this will greatly increase the efficiency of the PERM process.
  • Finally, the immigration reform requirements  list that completing work on current initiatives such as providing employment authorization to certain spouses of foreign workers with H-1B visas (i.e., high-skilled, temporary workers) who have been approved to receive permanent resident status based on employer sponsorship. Brian D. Lerner states that this immigration reform requirement would be a welcome addition to the H-1B program and get it inline with the E-2 and L-1 which allows spouses to work.

Filed under: Immigration Attorney, Immigration Reform | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a comment »

The Immigration Reform and when it becomes effective

Posted on December 6, 2014 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

The immigration reform by President Obama has several different provisions states Brian D. Lerner. Many of those provisions have different dates upon which they will become effective. The immigration reform provides a new DAPA, an expanded DACA, updated Prosecutorial Discretion standards through different priorities, expanded standards for eligibility for the Provisional Waiver and various other matters.

 

Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Attorney states that there are different priorities and exceptions to the those priority standards. The revised guidance shall be effective on January 5, 2015 states Brian D. Lerner. Implementing training and guidance will be provided to the workforce prior to the effective date for the immigration reform. The revised guidance in the immigration reform memorandum applies only to foreign nationals encountered or apprehended on or after the effective date, and aliens detained, in removal proceedings, or subject to removal orders who have not been removed from the United States as of the effective date. Therefore, Brian D. Lerner suggests that if you are in Removal Proceedings right now, it might be a good idea under immigration reform to request a continuance from Immigration Court until after January 15, 2015.

Nothing in the immigration reform guidance is intended to modify USCIS Notice to Appear policies, which remain in force and effect to the extent they are not inconsistent with the immigration reform memorandum. The actual Memorandum put out by Jeh Johnson actually rescinded many prior memos. Brian Lerner states that the official memorandum actually have been rescinded:

 

“Civil Immigration Enforcement: Priorities for the Apprehension, Detention, and  Removal Of Aliens,” (ICE, John Morton, Mar. 2, 2011), “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Consistent with the Civil Enforcement Priorities  of the Agency for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens,” (ICE, John  Morton, June 17, 2011),  “Case-by-Case Review of Incoming and Certain Pending Cases,” (ICE, Peter  Vincent, Nov. 17, 2011) , “Civil Immigration Enforcement: Guidance on the Use of Detainers in the Federal,  State, Local, and Tribal Criminal Justice Systems,” (ICE, Dec. 21, 2012) , “National Fugitive Operations Program: Priorities, Goals, and Expectations,” (ICE,  Dec. 8, 2009) , “Policies for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants,” (Nov. 20, 2011).

Watch Brian D. Lerner speak about immigration reform enforcement priorities

Brian Lerner states that Immigration reform has made it that the following memoranda remain in effect:  “Revised Guidance for the Referral of Cases and Issuance of Notices to Appear  (NTAs) in Cases Involving Inadmissible and Removable Aliens,” (USCIS, Nov. 7,  2011) and “Prosecutorial Discretion: Certain Victims, Witnesses, and Plaintiffs,” (ICE, John Morton, June 17, 2011).

 

Thus, Brian Lerner notes that since so many of the prior policy memorandum have been revoked and are no longer in effect, it only shows how much more important the new policy memo on enforcement and removal of aliens and priorities of removal will be. In fact, the memorandum makes clear that all of the divisions under the Homeland Security will and should follow the mandates of the memorandum.


Immigration reform is here and while there are more than 15 governors suing President Obama claiming that the immigration reform is unconstitutional, there are far more Professors, businesses, have written their support for the immigration reform. Maybe, states Brian D. Lerner, the immigration reform will move Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Maybe this executive order leading to certain immigration reform will be the precursor to a much bigger and much broader immigration reform.

Filed under: Immigration Attorney, Immigration Reform | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

Immigration Reform: How to get prosecutorial discretion from the different Priorities

Posted on December 2, 2014 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

Filed under: Immigration Attorney, Immigration Reform | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Immigration Reform: New Detention Policies

Posted on December 2, 2014 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

Filed under: Immigration Attorney, Immigration Reform | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Under immigration reform USA, here are exceptions to the priorities of deportation

Posted on November 30, 2014 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

The immigration reform USA has made specific reference to three priorities and how they are to be deported and put into removal proceeding and deported. However, the same memorandum, explains Brian D. Lerner, goes into exceptions of what you can do in order to not be deported or placed into deportation proceedings, even if you fall under one of the priorities.

Priority 1 Exceptions:

Brian D. Lerner reminds that Priority 1 targets are the highest level of targets, such as terrorist suspects, national security, various felonies, aggravated felons and various gang related crimes. The immigration reform USA exceptions to priority 1 are as follows: Of course, if you qualify for asylum, then it does not matter if you are in priority 1 as you can apply and stay if granted asylum. However, the immigration reform USA states that if you do not qualify for asylum and are under priority #1, that you can request that under prosecutorial discretion, you are not placed into removal proceedings and/or removed if in the judgment of an ICE Field Office Director, CBP Sector Chief, or CBP Director of Field Operations, there are compelling and exceptional factors that clearly indicate you are not a threat to national security, border security, or public safety and should not therefore be an enforcement priority.

Clearly, the immigration reform USA is quite strict on allowing an exercise of prosecutorial discretion if you are under Priority #1. It also allows a variety of levels of personnel to make the decision. It might be best, states Brian D. Lerner, to apply with the top official, rather than the lowest level official who might not have as much sympathy or knowledge or procedure. However, it is possible explains Brian D. Lerner if you have a packet put together that is persuasive and that shows that there are compelling and exceptional factors to grant the request for prosecutorial discretion to not be removed. In the memo itself, in the immigration reform USA, it does not discuss what is defined as ‘compelling’ or ‘exceptional’, and therefore, there is lots of room to properly argue relief from deportation.

Priority 2 Exceptions:
Brian D. Lerner reminds that Priority 2 is the mid level priority to deport people. In summary, Priority #2 deals with persons who have 3 or more various misdemeanors, or a significant misdemeanor of which deals with specific crimes such as domestic violence, gun crimes, drug crimes, burglary, or other crimes where there was 90 days or more in custody. The immigration reform USA also included in Priority #2 includes people entering illegally or re-entering illegally and cannot prove they have been in the U.S. prior to January 1, 2014 and finally those people who have abused the visa waiver or other visa programs and in their discretion should be deported.

Thus, Brian Lerner states, that under immigration reform USA, it is in the memorandum that in order to try to apply for prosecutorial discretion so that you are not deported or put into deportation proceedings if you are in Priority #2, the following must be done: First, as with Priority #1, if you qualify for asylum, explains Brian D. Lerner, then you will not be deported here. However, assuming that is not the case as under the immigration reform USA, in the judgment of an ICE Field Office Director, CBP Sector Chief, CBP Director of Field Operations, USCIS District Director, or USCIS Service Center Director, there are factors indicating the alien is not a threat to national security.

Brian D. Lerner, explains that the procedure and requirements to qualify for a Priority #2 exception, might look the same as Priority #1 under the immigration reform USA, it is not the case. First of all, you do not need to show ‘compelling’ or ‘exceptional’ circumstances. Brian Lerner states this is huge. The burden of proof needed to show why prosecutorial discretion should be exercised is much less with a Priority 2 request. Additionally, in Priority 2, you must only show that you will not be a threat to national security, whereas under Priority 1, you must show not only you will not be a threat to national security, but to border security or public safety. Thus, the immigration reform USA makes it abundantly clear that it will be easier to get prosecutorial discretion granted under Priority 2, rather than Priority 1.

Priority 3 Exceptions
As you might already guess, Brian D. Lerner explains, Priority #3 is the least priority given to deporting people. The immigration reform USA states that Priority #3 which basically consists of persons issued a final order of removal after January 1, 2014, but do not fall under the other priorities.

In order to be issued prosecutorial discretion if you fall under Priority 3, it must be shown that in the judgment of an immigration officer, the alien is not a threat to the integrity of the immigration system or there are factors suggesting the alien should not be an enforcement priority. Thus, Brian D. Lerner states that under immigration reform USA, this burden is even less than Priority 2. No arguments need to be made about national security. Rather, it must be shown that there is no threat to the integrity of the immigration system, or in the alternative, you are not an enforcement priority. Brian Lerner states it is a bit ambiguous what exactly is meant by ‘integrity to the immigration system’, but the fact it is listed on Priority 3 exceptions, would mean it has the least amount of burden to prove.

Therefore, there are ways to argue that prosecutorial discretion should be exercised in each and every priority. Brian Lerner reminds you that you should have the packet for prosecutorial discretion exercised in a very persuasive manner and get a qualified immigration attorney to help comply with the requirements of the immigration reform USA.

Filed under: Immigration Attorney, Immigration Reform | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Immigration Reform News Makes new Policies for deportation

Posted on November 29, 2014 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

The immigration reform news has made new policies states Brian D. Lerner, for who will be targeted for deportation. There are three different priorities with the first priority being the highest level of deportation and the second priority being the middle level priority and the third priority given the least preference and lowest priority for deportation.

However, the immigration reform news makes clear that there are issues and policies that apply to all of the priorities. Brian D. Lerner explains that prior policy memos were specifically revoked per the immigration reform news. The memorandum by Jeh Johnson states as follows: Nothing in this memorandum should be construed to prohibit or discourage the apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens unlawfully in the United States who are not identified as priorities herein. However, resources should be dedicated, to the greatest degree possible, to the removal of aliens described in the priorities set forth above, commensurate with the level of prioritization identified. Immigration officers and attorneys may pursue removal of an alien not identified as a priority herein, provided, in the judgment of an ICE Field Office Director, removing such an alien would serve an important federal interest. Unfortunately, Brian D. Lerner, immigration attorney, states that this is a rather wide open policy. It certainly allows an ICE official to simply claim that deporting a particular individual is in the ‘federal interest’ of the U.S., or deporting somebody who entered illegally would serve the ‘federal interest’ by not encouraging others to do the same act. The immigration reform news certainly has delineated the different policies, but this particular paragraph, explains Brian D. Lerner is problematic. It would seem that the ICE official which is essentially on the bottom of the enforcement hierarchy should not be given the authority in her own individual opinion what is and is not in the Federal interest of the U.S. This is exactly what the memorandum on the ‘policies’ of deportation spells out.

The immigration reform news then goes on to state that its policies on detention. It is actually quite fair states Brian D. Lerner. Specifically, the immigration reform news states as follows regarding the detention policies: As a general rule, DHS detention resources should be used to support the enforcement priorities noted above or for aliens subject to mandatory detention by law. The immigration reform news states that absent extraordinary circumstances or the requirement of mandatory detention, field office directors should not expend detention resources on aliens who are known to be suffering from serious physical or mental illness, who are disabled, elderly, pregnant, or nursing, who demonstrate that they are primary caretakers of children or an infirm person, or whose detention is otherwise not in the public interest. The Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner states it is about time. There has been years of detaining pregnant mothers, elderly, mentally infirm and persons with physical disabilities. It has taken a toll and not looked very humane to the rest of the world. However, the immigration reform news per this memo seems to put an end to this type of detention. The immigration reform news goes on to state that to detain aliens in those categories who are not subject to mandatory detention, DHS officers or special agents must obtain approval from the ICE Field Office Director.Brian D. Lerner explains this is very fair as it does not put all the decision making ability in the front-line officer and will make a more uniform execution of this policy If an alien falls within the above categories and is subject to mandatory detention, field office directors are encouraged to contact their local Office of Chief Counsel for guidance.

Brian D. Lerner explains that this immigration reform news shows how the Obama administration priority is to not deport or to detain persons who are not in the listed priorities of deportable persons. What is interesting, explains Brian D. Lerner, is that on other parts of this memo, broad discretion is given to officers to decide whether or not to place one in removal proceedings. However, here, if the person is in detention, in accordance with the immigration reform news, they are not given that discretion, and in actuality, must go to a supervisor to keep the person detained if they fall under this category. Thus, the immigration reform news is good, but there are parts that could use clarification states Brian Lerner.

Filed under: Immigration Attorney, Immigration Reform | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a comment »

The new immigration reform bill makes changes to prosecutorial discretion

Posted on November 28, 2014 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

The immigration reform bill just issued by President Obama is actually not a ‘bill’ per se, but rather, an executive order. One part of the order was a comprehensive memo by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security that changed, altered and made in some respects clearer the priorities for deporting people and/or putting people in deportation proceedings.

Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Attorney, states that the immigration reform bill that deals with priorities has three major parts. The highest priority is referred to as Priority 1, second highes t is Priority 2 and of course the third and least preference is Priority 3. Therefore, states Brian Lerner, if you will be requesting prosecutorial discretion and you are under Priority 3 of the immigration reform bill, you should have the highest chance of success.

Priority 3 of the immigration reform bill states as follows: Priority 3 (other immigration violations): Priority 3 aliens are those who have been issued a final order of removal on or after January 1, 2014. The immigration reform bill states that aliens described in this priority, who are not also described in Priority 1 or 2, represent the third and lowest priority for apprehension and removal. Hence, states Brian Lerner, it is listed by the Secretary of Homeland Security that is the lowest priority. This is quite interesting, because usually somebody with a prior removal order will get one of the highest priorities from immigration.

Resources should be dedicated accordingly to aliens in this priority according to the immigration reform bill. Priority 3 aliens should generally be removed unless they qualify for asylum or another form of relief under our laws or, unless, in the judgment of an immigration officer, the alien is not a threat to the integrity of the immigration system or there are factors suggesting the alien should not be an enforcement priority. Unfortunately, it is this part of Priority 3 of the immigration reform bill that gives most concern. It puts a great deal of discretion in the officer at the lowest levels the ability to basically believe that removing somebody is always an enforcement priority. Brian Lerner states that it is this section that also is the most ambiguous and unclear. Perhaps in the months to come before the regulations are issued, there will be clarification as to this last part of Priority 3.

Brian D. Lerner explains in more detail the immigration reform bill and its reference to a ‘final order of removal’. It is necessary, explains Brian Lerner to know what is meant by the term ‘final order of removal’. An order of removal made by the immigration judge at the conclusion of proceedings under section 240 of the Act shall become final: (a) Upon dismissal of an appeal by the Board of Immigration Appeals; (b) Upon waiver of appeal by the respondent; (c) Upon expiration of the time allotted for an appeal if the respondent does not file an appeal within that time; (d) If certified to the Board or Attorney General, upon the date of the subsequent decision ordering removal; (e) If an immigration judge orders an alien removed in the alien’s absence, immediately upon entry of such order; or (f) If an immigration judge issues an alternate order of removal in connection with a grant of voluntary departure, upon overstay of the voluntary departure period, or upon the failure to post a required voluntary departure bond within 5 business days. Brian Lerner states that if the respondent has filed a timely appeal with the Board, the order shall become final upon an order of removal by the Board or the Attorney General, or upon overstay of the voluntary departure period granted or reinstated by the Board or the Attorney General.

The immigration reform bill does give a lot of hope to the families and to foreign nationals here in the U.S. However, Brian Lerner states there are ambiguities in the Priorites memo and you should get an experienced attorney to help you.

Filed under: Immigration Attorney, Immigration Reform | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Priority #2 of immigration reform bill latest news give 2nd tier for enforcement of deportations

Posted on November 27, 2014 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

The immigration reform bill latest news is very good news for people who are here in the U.S. illegally. There is an expanded DACA, a new DAPA and a completely new memo on prosecutorial discretion and when to exercise the authority to put someone into removal proceedings and to try to deport them.

 

The new memo, explains Brian D. Lerner based upon the immigration reform bill latest news is divided into priorities. Basically priority 1 is who gets put into removal proceedings and who is targeted for deportation. As you would expect, claims Brian D. Lerner, it would be those with various kinds of crimes and those who have committed aggravated felonies.

 

However, there are other priorities in the immigration reform bill latest news. Priority 2 consists of (misdemeanors and new immigration violators). The immigration reform bill latest news states that aliens described in this priority , who are also not described in Priority 1, and Brian D. Lerner states that this represents the second-highest priority for apprehension and removal. Note it is the 2nd highest which means that it will be easier to get a Prosecutorial Discretion request granted.

 

The immigration reform bill latest news states on priority 2 that resources should be dedicated

accordingly to the removal of the following:

 

(a) aliens convicted of three or more misdemeanor offenses, other than minor traffic offenses or state or local offenses for which an essential element is the alien’s immigration status, provided the offenses arise out of three separate incidents. Brian Lerner states that this element seems to be met whether it is significant or insignificant misdemeanor offenses (unless of course we are talking only about traffic offenses).

 

The immigration reform latest news lists the second subcategory under Priority 2 as follows:  (b) aliens convicted of a “significant misdemeanor,” which for this purpose

is an offense of domestic violence ; sexual abuse or exploitation; burglary; unlawful possession or use of a firearm; drug distribution or  trafficking; or driving under the influence; or if not an offense listed above, one for which the individual was sentenced to time in custody of 90 days or more (the sentence must involve time to be served in custody, and does not include a suspended sentence). Thus, the Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner states that assuming the particular situation does not fall under subcategory(a), that only a single crime will permit satisfying the requirement of this section under Priority 2.

 

The immigration reform latest news for the differing priorities lists the third subcategory as follows:  (c) aliens apprehended anywhere in the United States after unlawfully entering or reentering the United States and who cannot establish to the satisfaction of an immigration officer that they have been physically  present in the United States continuously since January 1, 2014. Brian D. Lerner explains that this element is quite interesting in that it does not outright put somebody who entered illegally in this preference of priority 2 removals. Rather, it would seem based upon the language of the immigration reform latest news that if you can properly show you have been in the U.S. since January 1, 2014, that you will not fall under this section.  While it might not be clear, the immigration reform latest news does seem to imply that if you re-entered illegally after a deportation order that it could be argued you do not fall under this subsection.

 

The immigration reform latest news gives the last element of what makes Priority 2 of  enforcement as follows: (d) aliens who, in the judgment of an ICE Field Office Director, USCIS

District Director, or USCIS Service Center Director, have significantly abused the visa or visa waiver programs. Brian Lerner states that this element both gives more room to argue that prosecutorial discretion should be mandated to not deport these people, but on the other side, it does give a significant amount of discretion to the immigration officer to put the person into deportation proceedings.

 

The immigration reform latest news states that these aliens listed in Priority 2 should be removed unless they qualify for asylum or another form of relief under our laws or, unless, in the judgment of an ICE Field Office Director, CBP Sector Chief, CBP Director of Field Operations, USCIS District Director, or users Service Center Director, there are factors indicating the alien is not a threat to national  security, border security, or public safety, and should not therefore be an enforcement priority. Therefore, the immigration reform latest news shows that there is certain room in Priority 2 to argue there should not be deportation.

 

Filed under: Immigration Attorney, Immigration Reform | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

« Previous Page — Next Page »

  • Brian D. Lerner

    Immigration Lawyer

  • Blog Stats

    • 300,075 Visitors

  • Categories

  • Recent Posts