Author Archive Phillip Kim

ByPhillip Kim

DHS to Publish Final Rule That Expands I-601A Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver Eligibility

On July 29, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) will publish in the Federal Register a final rule that will expand eligibility for I-601A provisional unlawful presence waivers.

Prior to the expansion, DHS allows only certain immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who are residing in the United States to request an I-601A provisional unlawful presence waiver before departing for consular processing for their immigrant visas. The waiver would be available to applicants where the sole ground of inadmissibility would be unlawful presence under section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. In order to get the waiver approved, applicants must show they are statutorily eligible for the unlawful presence waiver and establish extreme hardship to his or her U.S. citizen spouse or parent.

Under the expanded provisional waiver, applicants can now also show extreme hardship to his or her lawful permanent resident (LPR) spouse or parent. The expanded provisional waiver is expected to open the door to more eligible applicants and will be effective starting August 29, 2016.

ByPhillip Kim

Supreme Court Tie Blocks Obama Immigration Plan- DAPA & DACA expanded

Today, June 23, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court deadlocked in a 4 to 4 split in the long-awaited case, United States v. Texas, effectively upholding the lower court’s injunction halting the expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and the creation of a new program known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). The original DACA program remains in place.

The decision was just nine words long: “The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court.”

The case, United States v. Texas, No. 15-674, concerned a 2014 executive action by the president to allow as many as five million unauthorized immigrants who were the parents of citizens or of lawful permanent residents to apply for a program that would spare them from deportation and provide them with work permits. The program was called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA.

The court did not disclose how the justices had voted, but they were almost certainly split along ideological lines. Administration officials had hoped that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. would join the court’s four-member liberal wing to save the program.

The case hinged in part on whether Texas had suffered the sort of direct and concrete injury that gave it standing to sue. Texas said it had standing because it would be costly for the state to give driver’s licenses to immigrants affected by the federal policy.

Chief Justice Roberts is often skeptical of expansive standing arguments. But it seemed plain when the case was argued in April that he was satisfied that Texas had standing, paving the way for a deadlock.

White House officials had repeatedly argued that presidents in both parties had used similar executive authority in applying the nation’s immigration laws. And they said Congress had granted federal law enforcement wide discretion over how those laws should be carried out.

But the court’s ruling may mean that the next president will again need to seek a congressional compromise to overhaul the nation’s immigration laws. And it left immigration activists deeply disappointed.

In their Supreme Court briefs, the states acknowledged that the president had wide authority over immigration matters, telling the justices that “the executive does have enforcement discretion to forbear from removing aliens on an individual basis.” Their quarrel, they said, was with what they called a blanket grant of “lawful presence” to millions of immigrants, entitling them to various benefits.

In response, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. told the justices that this “lawful presence” was merely what had always followed from the executive branch’s decision not to deport someone for a given period of time.

Speaking at the White House, President Obama described the ruling as a deep disappointment for immigrants who would not be able to emerge from the threat of deportation for at least the balance of his term.

“Today’s decision is frustrating to those who seek to grow our economy and bring a rationality to our immigration system,” he said. “It is heartbreaking for the millions of immigrants who have made their lives here.”
(from nytimes)

ByPhillip Kim

USCIS to Implement Filipino World War II Veterans Parole Program

WASHINGTON—Beginning June 8, 2016, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will allow certain Filipino World War II veteran family members who are beneficiaries of approved family-based immigrant visa petitions an opportunity to receive a discretionary grant of parole on a case-by-case basis, so that they may come to the United States as they wait for their immigrant visa to become available.

This parole policy was announced in the White House report, Modernizing and Streamlining Our Legal Immigration System for the 21st Century, issued in July 2015. An estimated 2,000 to 6,000 Filipino-American World War II veterans are living in the United States today. Among other things, this policy will enable many eligible individuals to provide support and care to their aging veteran family members who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.

Under the Filipino World War II Veterans Parole Program, USCIS will review each case individually to determine whether authorizing parole is appropriate. When each individual arrives at a U.S. port of entry, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will also review each case to determine whether to parole the individual.

Additional information about the Filipino World War II Veterans Parole guidance on eligibility, the application process and where to file—is Form I-131 instructions and the Federal Register notice published today.
We will not accept applications under this policy until June 8, 2016. USCIS strongly encourages eligible individuals interested in requesting parole under the FWVP Program do so within 5 years from June 8, 2016.
(from USCIS)

ByPhillip Kim

AB 60 Driver’s License in California ab60

In 2015, California DMV issued more than 600,000 Driver’s License under AB 60.
Here are the things you need to know about AB 60.

Q1. What is an AB 60 license and how can I use it?
Governor Brown signed AB 60 into law in 2013, which directs the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to issue a driver’s license to any California resident who is eligible, regardless of immigration status. This means that an applicant who is undocumented can receive a driver’s license under AB 60.

Q2. How can I use an AB 60 license?
An AB 60 license is valid for driving and for state ID purposes. An AB 60 license is not a federal ID and cannot be used for certain federal purposes, such as entering restricted parts of federal buildings. It does not give anyone the right to work, vote, or receive any benefits that the person wasn’t already eligible for.

Q3. Is there any risk of using an AB 60 license with law enforcement?
It is against the law for state and local law enforcement to discriminate against someone because he or she has an AB 60 license. This means that you can use your AB 60 license to identify yourself to California police officers if you get pulled over in a traffic stop.
But the law does not protect against discrimination from federal law enforcement or law enforcement from other states. Because of this, do not present an AB 60 license to federal officials, such as ICE, CBP, or TSA, or to law enforcement in another state.

Q4. Can I use an AB 60 license to board an airplane?
We recommend NOT using an AB 60 license to board an airplane. There are two risks. First, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) might not accept it. The TSA has been inconsistent regarding the acceptance of AB 60 licenses (or similar licenses from other states). Second, and more importantly, TSA officials could use the license as a basis to stop someone, question that person, and ultimately refer the person to ICE. AB 60 does not protect against discrimination by TSA officials, and the concern is that TSA agents may use an AB 60 license to flag people and refer them to ICE. If a person needs to fly, she should use other identity documents, such as an unexpired passport, and be aware that TSA engages in immigration enforcement.

Q5. What if I applied for a California driver’s license in the past?
If I had a valid CA driver’s license in the past, can I apply for a new one under AB 60?
If you applied for a driver’s license in the past using only correct information, there should not be any problem in applying for an AB 60 license. Some people who are undocumented may have applied for a driver’s license before California began requiring proof of lawful status in 1993. Other people may have had lawful status in the past and obtained a driver’s license. If you used false information in a previous application to the DMV, see the following questions.
(from ILRC)

To Apply:
https://dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?1dmy&urile=wcm:path:/dmv_content_en/dmv/ab60/index

ByPhillip Kim

Obama Administration Files Brief in DACA/DAPA Case at Supreme Court.

The Obama Administration filed its brief with the Supreme Court in United States v. Texas, the case where Texas and 25 other states are challenging the President’s executive action on expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). The brief sets forth the arguments for why the Fifth Circuit was wrong to block expanded DACA and DAPA from being implemented.

The Obama Administration begins by saying simply that this case does not even belong in court. The states bringing suit are trying to force the Supreme Court into “complex debates over immigration policy that the Constitution reserves to the political Branches of the National Government.” And for this simple reason alone, the Fifth Circuit’s ruling should be reversed.

The government explains that none of the states in this suit have standing—legal capacity to bring the lawsuit. The states have previously argued that they have a legal stake in the case because of additional costs Texas might incur to issue drivers’ licenses to individuals granted deferred action. The Administration states in its brief that these claims “are nothing more than allegations of indirect or incidental effects from the [DAPA] Guidance, not invasions of any legally-protected interest under the Constitution.” In fact, “virtually any administration of federal law by a federal agency could have such effects.”

The Obama Administration also makes the important point that even the States do not dispute that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can set enforcement priorities—that DHS may choose how to use its limited resources and exercise prosecutorial discretion—and, that DHS’s prioritization is immune from court intervention. Yet, the States object here because they believe that the grant of work authorization to individuals who get deferred action makes deferred action different from prioritizing enforcement activities. As Roll Call notes, the Administration explains why the States are wrong on this point:

“’deferred action’” is one of the well-established ways that the department exercises enforcement discretion, the government brief states. And it points out several laws (PL 109-13, PL 103-322, PL 107-56) that Congress passed that refer to deferred actions in immigration, such as a 2005 law allowing states to issue driver’s licenses to immigrants with “approved deferred action status.”

In addition, the Administration’s brief discusses the “take care” clause. When the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, it directed both sides to address whether the President’s actions violated the “Take Care” Clause of the Constitution, which states that the President must “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” The government notes that previously the Supreme Court has stated that the President’s duty to faithfully execute the laws is “purely executive and political and not subject to judicial direction” and regardless the Secretary of Homeland Security is faithfully executing the “immigration laws, fully utilizing DHS’s appropriations for enforcement and removing hundreds of thousands of aliens each year.”

Now that the government has filed its brief, those who wish to file an amicus brief (a friend of the court brief) in support of the Obama Administration’s position have until March 8 to file. Texas and the other states have until March 28 to file their brief in the case.

Oral arguments in the case will likely be scheduled for April 2016, and the Court will likely issue a decision before its current term ends at the end of June 2016. For the sake of the immigrant families whose lives are riding on this decision, let’s hope that the Court makes clear that President Obama, like every President before him dating back to Eisenhower, has the authority to take executive action on immigration. from immigrationimpact.

ByPhillip Kim

DACA & DAPA- What Could Happen After Supreme Court’s Recent Certiorari?

In November 2014, President Obama announced Executive Actions: Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

These Executive Actions would allow over 10 millions of immigrants to apply for protection from deportation and a work permit.

Subsequently, Texas and 25 other states filed a lawsuit challenging the Executive Actions. In February 2015, a federal district court in Texas issued an order putting DAPA and expanded DACA on hold. The Obama administration quickly appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On November 9, 2015, a divided panel of the Fifth Circuit issued a decision that affirms the Texas federal district court’s order that temporarily blocks DAPA and expanded DACA.

Timeline of Expected Events:

March 4, 2016: Obama’s brief due
March 11, 2016: Amicus briefs supporting DACA/DAPA due
April 27, 2016: Last day of this term’s arguments in Sp. Ct.
June 2016: Decision by Sp. Ct.

ByPhillip Kim

Obama Appeals Executive Action to Supreme Court – DACA DAPA immigration ruling by 5th Circuit

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration appealed to the Supreme Court on Friday for an expedited review of its plan to shield more than 4 million undocumented immigrants from deportation.

The request, outlined in a 35-page court filing, asserts that the case “warrants immediate review” because of an “unprecedented and momentous” ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit earlier this month that upheld a challenge to the deferred deportation plan brought by Texas and 25 other states led by Republican governors.

“If left undisturbed, that ruling will allow states to frustrate the federal government’s enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws,” the Justice Department said. “It will force millions of people … who are parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents to continue to work off the books, without the option of lawful employment to provide for their families.”

The administration’s appeal sets up the possibility of a major legal battle over immigration at the end of President Obama’s tenure, in the midst of partisan battles over Syrian refugees, and in the midst of an already caustic presidential election campaign.

Arguing that the federal appeals court ruling earlier this month had “far-reaching and irreparable humanitarian impact,” administration lawyers said the lower court decision bars an estimated 4 million parents “who have lived in this country for years, would pass a background check, are not priorities for removal and have a son or daughter who is a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident.”

The coalition of Republican governors had argued to the appeals court that Obama lacked the authority to protect about one-third of the nation’s undocumented immigrants by executive fiat. The authority that the administration claimed, the court said in a 2-1 ruling, would allow it “to grant lawful presence and work authorization to any illegal alien in the United States.”

The administration and immigration rights groups have hung their hopes on the Supreme Court rather than the conservative appeals court with jurisdiction over Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. But the four-month wait for the lower court’s ruling means that the administration had to rush its appeal in hopes of getting the case on the high court’s docket this term.

Texas now has a month to respond, and the justices could take up the request in early January — barely enough time to schedule the case for oral arguments in April and a decision by the end of June. That is the scenario the administration seeks; a decision reversing the appeals court — hardly a guarantee — would give the Department of Homeland Security seven months to begin implementing the policy before Obama’s term ends in January 2017.

If the case is not heard until later in 2016, even a reversal would leave the 4.3 million undocumented immigrants deemed eligible for the program at the mercy of the next president — either a Democrat who likely would continue the program or a Republican who likely would have campaigned against it.

Obama unveiled the program exactly a year ago as an extension of his 2012 policy delaying the threat of deportation for about 770,000 undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children. The new plan would broaden that program and add protections for adults with children who are U.S. citizens. It would make them eligible for driver’s licenses, work permits and a host of health care, disability and retirement benefits.

Federal District Court Judge Andrew Hanen temporarily blocked the program in February, ruling that the states were likely to win their argument that Obama lacked executive authority to carry out the plan without congressional action, or at the least a formal period for public comment. In May, the appeals court panel refused to let the program continue while it considered the appeal.

In its ruling earlier this month, the appeals court’s 2-1 majority said Obama’s program “would allow illegal aliens to receive the benefits of lawful presence solely on account of their children’s immigration status, without complying with any of the requirements … that Congress has deliberately imposed.”

Their ruling said the program “would dramatically increase the number of aliens eligible for work authorization, thereby undermining Congress’s stated goal of closely guarding access to work authorization and preserving jobs for those lawfully in the country.”

Judge Carolyn Dineen King dissented, arguing that the deferred action program was an “exercise of prosecutorial discretion” beyond the reach of federal court judges. She also criticized her court for stalling well beyond its normal 60-day period of review.

“I have a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made,” she said. “That mistake has been exacerbated by the extended delay that has occurred in deciding this ‘expedited’ appeal. There is no justification for that delay.”
USAToday

ByPhillip Kim

Work Permit for Nepali F-1 Students; work authorization nepal

DHS notice announcing the suspension of certain regulatory requirements for F-1 nonimmigrant students from Nepal who are experiencing several economic hardship as a result of the 2015 earthquake. This notice is effective 11/9/15 and will remain effective until 12/24/16. (80 FR 69237, 11/9/15)

SUMMARY: This notice announces that the Secretary of Homeland Security
(Secretary) has suspended certain regulatory requirements for F–1
nonimmigrant students whose country of citizenship is the Federal Democratic
Republic of Nepal (hereinafter ‘‘Nepal’’) and who are experiencing severe
economic hardship as a direct result of the earthquake in the Federal
Democratic Republic of Nepal on April 25, 2015.

The Secretary is taking action to provide relief to these Nepali citizens
who are F–1 students so they may request employment authorization,
work an increased number of hours while school is in session, and reduce
their course load while continuing to maintain their F–1 student status.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will deem an F–1 student who
receives employment authorization by means of this notice to be engaged in a
‘‘full course of study’’ for the duration of the employment authorization, if the
student satisfies the minimum course load requirement described in this
notice.

DATES: This notice is effective November 9, 2015 and will remain in
effect until December 24, 2016.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

ByPhillip Kim

CA Gov. Brown Signs AB 1352, Key Drug Reform Bill Into Law but Vetoes AB 1351

10/08/2015, CA Governor Brown signed A.B. 1352, which allows those who have completed court ordered drug diversion since 1997 to file with the court to convert their plea to a “not guilty.”

But, Brown vetoed A.B. 1351, which would have allowed people charged with simple possession or other related drug offenses to successfully complete a treatment program before pleading guilty – thus avoiding the disproportionate federal punishments, including deportation for immigrants. This patches a hole in the current system, enabling people to be participating and productive members of the community. For immigrants, that means a focus on rehabilitation, not deportation. ILRC

ByPhillip Kim

Deportation Terminated under New Case Law of 9th Circuit Court

Immigration Law has been changing- sometimes with a huge media coverage but more often, without much coverage because of the new changes’ limited application.

For example, when DACA and DAPA were announced, almost every single media channel has reported on those new laws. There have been, however, many more changes in immigration law mostly made by courts’ rulings. Those new laws apply to the cases that meet the specific situations required by those courts.

The 9th Circuit Court recently made a ruling in Lopez-Valencia v. Lynch, No. 12-73210 (9th Cir. Aug. 17, 2015).

One of Attorney Phillip Kim’s clients was waiting for her first court hearing in September 2015. The DHS was trying to deport her under the previous laws, which made her deportable.

One month before her Court Hearing, the 9th Circuit released a new case law. Attorney Phillip Kim filed a Motion To Terminate citing the new 9th Circuit case law among others such as Fregozo v. Holder, Descamps (by US Supreme Court), Lopez-Valencia (by US Supreme Court).

A few days before her first Court Hearing, the Judge from Immigration Court terminated her Deportation Proceedings.

Moreover, Attorney Phillip Kim contacted DHS ICE Chief Counsel’s office. The ICE Prosecuting Attorney agreed to return the Client’s Green Card because the Judge terminated proceedings.

Very fortunately and dramatically right before the first Court Hearing, the Client was able to receive her Green Card. She did not even have to appear in court.

Many of you have been waiting for an opportunity to get your case approved. Be hopeful and patient because Immigration Laws are changing in favor of immigrants.