• Hours & Info

    (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

USCIS Taking Extreme Measures to Retrieve Erroneously Issued Three-Year DACA EADs

As a result of Judge Hanen’s July 7, 2015, order threatening contempt citations in the ongoing litigation in Texas v. United States, USCIS advised stakeholders during a phone call on July 13, 2015, that it is implementing additional—and in some cases extreme—steps to retrieve approximately 2,500 three-year EAD cards and DACA approvals that were erroneously issued after the court’s February 16, 2015, injunction temporarily halting the implementation of expanded DACA

Texas Judge wants to dig in with his order against Immigration Reform

Following a new order by U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen in the Texas v. United States litigation, USCIS advised DACA recipients who received a three-year Employment Authorization Document (EAD) that the three-year EAD and DACA approval notice are no longer valid, and reminded recipients to return three-year EADs previously issued to them. The new July 7, 2015, order requires top immigration enforcement officials, including DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, to appear at a hearing in Texas on August 19, 2015, to discuss the 2,000 three-year EADs that were issued following the injunction on expanded DACA and DAPA.

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

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

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

https://californiaimmigration.us/immigration-reform-dapa/

AP: Judge: DACA Recipients Can Get In-State Tuition in Arizona

The Associated Press reports that a judge in Arizona ruled yesterday that DACA recipients are eligible for in-state college tuition at Maricopa County colleges. In his ruling, the judge wrote, “Federal law, not state law, determines who is lawfully present in the U.S,” and because the federal government considers recipients of deferred action lawfully present, they can receive lower in-state tuition.

The Associated Press reports that a judge in Arizona ruled yesterday that DACA recipients are eligible for in-state college tuition at Maricopa County colleges. In his ruling, the judge wrote, “Federal law, not state law, determines who is lawfully present in the U.S,” and because the federal government considers recipients of deferred action lawfully present, they can receive lower in-state tuition.

Daca meaning

DACA attorney

President protects DACA

Physical presence in DACA?

Thousands of DACA Recipients Are Losing Their Work Permits

Thousands of DACA recipients are suddenly losing their ability to work legally, because USCIS is struggling to renew their employment authorization documents on time. Over 11,000 young immigrants, roughly 5% of the total number of DACA renewals that USCIS has approved so far, have had their DACA status and work permits expire in spite of having applied on time.

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/daca-2/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/abogado-daca/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/daca/

https://californiaimmigration.us/evidence-need-order-prove-various-requirements-physical-presence-daca/

The Preliminary Injunction of Expanded DACA by Texas Judge

Arizona Daily Star: 200 Individuals Freed From Immigration Custody in Arizona

As reported by the Arizona Daily Star, ICE officials have stated that more than 200 individuals have been released from immigration custody in Arizona in the last month following the announcement on DHS’s new enforcement priorities, and that as of December 27, 2014, ICE has released 618 individuals nationwide, including detainees who appear to qualify for DACA or DAPA.

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/dapa/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/dapa-2/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/daca-2/

https://californiaimmigration.us/evidence-need-order-prove-various-requirements-physical-presence-daca/

The immigration reform has stirred national debate. Is it constitutional?

As most people know at this point, immigration reform has hit the U.S. through an executive order by President Obama and not through Congress. Brian Lerner explains that there is a hefty debate going on with this issue as to whether the immigration reform was constitutional or not.

See Brian D. Lerner speak about the immigration reform news 2014 about the new DACA

The Republicans are angry and state that Congress should be making laws regarding immigration reform. However, the U.S. Senate prepared a complete bill for immigration reform. It included an overhaul of both enforcement and affirmative immigration. However, explains Brian D. Lerner, when the Bill was sent to the U.S. House of Representatives, it sat there and sat there and sat there. The Speaker of the House would not even bring it for an up or down vote. Thus, while the Republicans are now furious that President Obama took the immigration reform in his own hands, the statements that Congress should do something is a bit disingenuous. They may have disagreed with the Senate version of the Bill, but why not put it up for debate? Why not allow it to go for a vote? Rather, they did nothing. Thus, explains Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Attorney, it is not as though President Obama came rushing through the doors to do immigration reform. Rather, he waited 1 ½ years after the Senate passed a bill. Clearly the immigration system is broken and immigration reform is needed.

 

Thus, the question: Is executive action by the President of the United States on Immigration Reform constitutional? In actuality, all the way back to the first President of the United States, George Washington, there have been executive orders. In this case, only when Congress has failed to act, did President Obama take action. In actuality, President Obama has not issued a lot of executive orders in his tenor as President of the United States. Now, for what seems like the first time, the House is stating they should debate and talk about the issue on immigration reform. That is great! If the President giving an executive order  is what is necessary to get the House to do something for the people of the United States on immigration reform, then President Obama’s executive action is working.

 

The President has the constitutional power to carry out his Presidency. He has actually not made any new laws, but has instituted an executive order in which to implement his policies. This is his prerogative. The issue with the constitutionality of this executive order is further shown to be legal based upon the past. DACA or DREAMERS or Deferred action has been around for a couple of years. This was also made via an executive order by President Obama. Why did the Republicans not question this executive order? Why did they not bring a lawsuit or try to get some order that DACA itself was not constitutional? Here, explains Brian D. Lerner with the current executive order, DACA has been expanded. However, the expansion of DACA goes to basically taking away the upper age limit and making it so instead of being here in the U.S. since 2007, it would be 2010. Granted, the immigration reform and constitutionality of that reform is questioning the other provisions as well. However, it seems, according to Brian Lerner, that it is the content of the immigration reform and perhaps the expansion is what has many Republicans trying to fight it. However, according to Brian D. Lerner, the immigration reform has taken effect and there are a great many organizations and Law Professors all across the U.S. which have expressed their support for the immigration reform and its constitutionality. Of course there are about 17 Repblican Governors that have filed suit against the unconstitutionality of the immigration reform. It is the opinion of Brian D. Lerner, that this suit is more of a political statement as it is unlikely to be ruled that it is not constitutional.


There are certainly a lot of arguments on both sides. However, immigration reform is needed (whether you are for immigration reform or against immigration reform) and one way or another it must be done. Thus, if President Obama’s executive action has started the wheels of Congress debating and moving forward, then hopefully the momentum will continue and Congress will ultimately pass a much needed immigration reform package.

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

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

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/immigration-reform-2013/

https://californiaimmigration.us/immigration-reform-dapa/

What evidence do you need to in order to prove the various requirements of physical presence in DACA?

The immigration reform expanded DACA and allows persons who meet various requirements to essentially get relief from deportation and removal from the United States, to be able to stay here legally and to get a 3 year work permit.

Brian D. Lerner states it is one thing to qualify for immigration reform under DACA and yet another thing to prove that you qualify. For example, one of the requirements is that you entered the U.S. before you were age 16. How can you prove this? There are various ways according to Brian D. Lerner, immigration attorney.  For example, for the immigration reform for DACA, you could provide declarations from persons familiar with when you entered the U.S. and how you entered. Of course, the more specific they can be in the declaration, the more credible and believable the declaration is.

 

Brian Lerner states you could also provide any receipts you have received when you entered the U.S. For example, invoices, rent receipts, tickets, groceries, etc. Of course, it might be many years ago you entered the U.S., and therefore, getting receipts might be difficult. Per the immigration reform requirements for DACA, you could also get tax bills you might have received when you were young. You could get your parents tax filings to show you were a dependant. If you want to school, states Brian Lerner, you could get report cards, school records, immunization records and the like.

For immigration reform, each case is different, but there are ways of properly putting together a petition so that you have a much better chance of success. Brian Lerner states in some cases, when people will try to submit the immigration reform DACA package themselves, they will put a statement to the effect: “I was here in the U.S. before I turned 16 years old”, but they will not provide one scintilla of evidence otherwise. Obviously, this will not work. Remember, states Brian Lerner, it is your burden to prove the elements for the immigration reform DACA, not Immigration’s burden to disprove it.

 

Another element, states Brian D. Lerner, that must be proven for the immigration reform for DACA is that you have been physically present in the U.S. since January 1, 2010. This is not the same type of burden that would be required as  would be the case showing you entered before you were 16 years old. This is a continuous showing of evidence, not just a single day. Thus, Brian Lerner states that under the immigration reform for DACA, you could also submit declarations from yourself and other people to verify how long you have been here and that you meet this requirement. However, if the declarations are given by persons that are not related to you, it will carry a lot more weight than for example if it is your mother or father.

See Brian D. Lerner speak about the immigration reform news 2014 about the new DACA

Additionally, the declarations must be of personal knowledge, not just what you might have told them. In other words, according to Brian D. Lerner, a supporting declaration must be believable, detailed and have sufficient facts to meet the burden of proving this requirement for the immigration reform for DACA. Here instead of simply showing school records from when you were 16, you could show the years of school records from 2010 up until the present. You could get evidence that you have worked and get payroll records and tax records for all those years. If you rent, you could get rental statements and lease agreements and evidence you have paid utilities for all the various years in question.


Brian Lerner states that you could get court documents if there were any court action, or you could get various records that you were under medical care or in some type of proceedings. Brian Lerner states that just submitting one form of evidence is probably not sufficient and will not meet your burden for the immigration reform requirements.

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/daca-2/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/daca/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/abogado-daca/

https://californiaimmigration.us/evidence-need-order-prove-various-requirements-physical-presence-daca/

Immigration reform update gives hope to millions even with criminal history

 

The immigration reform update was waited for years years by millions. Brian Lerner explains that over 16 months ago, the U.S. Senate put together a comprehensive immigration package and sent it to the U.S. House to bring up for a vote and hopefully pass. However, the House just sat on the Bill and did not do anything. Whether it was only John Boehner who did nothing, or other people in the Tea Party forcing their views and policies is unknown. However, Brian D. Lerner states that the immigration reform update is given by President Obama as an executive order which has expanded the already existing DACA program and creates the new DAPA program.

 

However, another part of the immigration reform update is made so to give clear guidelines as to enforcement priorities for  whom will be deported. This will affect all those, states Brian Lerner, as to whom will or will not be deported, but under the immigration reform update, should also have an effect on who can and cannot qualify for DACA and/or DAPA who have a criminal history of some type. On the same day practically that President Obama made the announcement of the Executive Order in the immigration reform update, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson sent a memo explaining the new enforcement priorities to Thomas S. Winkowski, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, R. Gil Kerlikowske, Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Leon Rodriguez

Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and Alan D. Bersin, Acting Assistant Secretary for Policy. Thus, the immigration reform update initiated this memo to heads of about every division of U.S. Immigration states Brian Lerner. This means that the officer at the port of entry or one who works in the detention facility or one who is adjudicating petitions will all have to follow the guidlines in this memo as it is ordered by the Secretary of Homeland Security.

 

Therefore, what does the memo per the immigration reform update talk about and mandate, asks Brian Lerner? Foremost, it deals with the new/updated policies of removal, detention and apprehension of foreign nationals in the United States. The immigration reform update mandated the policies change and be updated. Brian D. Lerner explains that the overiding direction of the memo is that it directs enforcement against those who issue a threat to the public safety or national security of the United States. The immigration reform update also gives high priority to border security.

 

A quote from the immigration reform update memo from Jeh Johnson is a follows:

 

“In the immigration context, prosecutorial discretion should apply not only to the decision to issue, serve, file, or cancel a Notice to Appear, but also to a broad range of other discretionary enforcement decisions, including deciding: whom to stop, question, and arrest; whom to detain or release; whether to settle, dismiss, appeal, or join in a motion on a case; and whether to grant deferred action, parole, or a stay of removal instead of pursuing removal in a case. “

 

Clearly, explains Brian D. Lerner, the memo makes crystal clear that people who are not in the enforcement priority categories should not be targeted for deportation. That would serve the whole purpose of the immigration reform update. In fact, explains Brian D. Lerner, the memo states that the prosecutorial discretion can and should be exercised at all stages of the enforcement process from the time the initial contact with the foreign national up until the moment of removal. The prosecutorial discretion can be exercised at anytime .  

 

The immigration reform update divides enforcement categories into priorities with the top priorities listed in order of enforcment and significance. Priority 1 (threats to national security, border security, and public safety) gets the top tier attention. Brian Lerner states that foreign nationals described in this priority represent the highest priority to which enforcement resources should be directed. Per the immigration reform update, it is foreign nationals in this priority 1 enforcement that should be targeted for deportation. They are (a) aliens engaged in or suspected of terrorism or espionage, or who otherwise pose a danger to national security; (b) aliens apprehended at the border or ports of entry while attempting to

unlawfully enter the United States; (c) aliens convicted of an offense for which an element was active

participation in a criminal street gang, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 52 l(a), or aliens not younger than 16 years of age who intentionally participated in an organized criminal gang to further the illegal activity of the gang; (d) aliens convicted of an offense classified as a felony in the convicting jurisdiction, other than a state or local offense for which an essential element was the alien’s immigration status; and (e) aliens convicted of an “aggravated felony,” as that term is defined in section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act at the time of the conviction.

 

Thus, the priority 1 category of the immigration reform update makes clear who and who will not be targeted. Therefore, if you are not under this particular category, you should be able to apply for the DAPA and expanded DACA programs. In fact, explains Brian D. Lerner, if you are under one of the Priority 1 updates, you should still seek immigration advice so as to see if you can reduce or vacate the crime so it is not listed as a Priorty 1 offense in the immigration reform update.