Preface to the Seventh Edition 11 results (showing 5 best matches)
- When the first edition of this Nutshell was written, there did not yet exist a standard casebook on immigration law and it was unclear what substance belonged in a course on immigration law and procedure. At that time only a few law schools considered immigration law worthy of a course. Since then many major law schools have decided to offer immigration law courses and three principal coursebooks have been published: Thomas Alexander Aleinikoff et al., Immigration and Citizenship: Process and Policy (7th ed. 2011); Richard Boswell, Immigration and Nationality Law: Cases and Materials (4th ed. 2010); and Stephen Legomsky and Cristina M. Rodriquez, Immigration and Refugee Law and Policy (6th ed. 2015). It was gratifying to see that several parts of this Nutshell were reprinted and other views reflected in those coursebooks.
- This nutshell presents the information that a student should want to know about the immigration process as it functions in the United States. With the enactment of immigration statutes in 1996, 2001, 2002, 2005, and 2010, immigration law and procedures have undergone significant change. On top of those legislative changes, the Obama administration has fostered significant executive actions. Political upheaval throughout the world has made immigration a far more visible and controversial issue—leading, in turn, to a constantly evolving body of laws, regulations, decisions, and policies. The seventh edition of this text is organized in six parts to reflect these changes and make them as comprehensible and accessible as possible.
- This brief text is designed to assist students in obtaining an overview of the material that might be expected to be found in a course on immigration law and procedure.
- part—chapters 1 through 4—provides a general overview of the history, constitutional source, and institutional structure of immigration law. In addition to tracing the evolution of immigration law and history in the U.S., the first part discusses the increasing recognition of the federal power to regulate immigration and describes the federal agencies and congressional committees responsible for the formulation and implementation of immigration law.
- part—chapters 5 through 7—covers the various standards and application procedures for immigrant, nonimmigrant, and student visas. It should be noted, however, that this Nutshell does not attempt to serve as a manual for practitioners or potential immigrants and should not be considered legal advice.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 16 Conclusion 5 results
- The immigration laws and administrative structure and procedures described in this Nutshell have changed significantly in the twenty-six years since the publication of the first edition. Beyond landmark legislation like IRCA (1986), the 1990 Act, AEDPA (1996), IIRIRA (1996), and the Homeland Security Act (2002), the immigration authorities and the judiciary continually revise and clarify the regulations that form the foundation for practicing immigration law. After September 11, 2001, the threat of terrorism stimulated efforts to increase border security and tighten visa and admission procedures. These security concerns have led to increases in funding and staffing for the Department of Homeland Security and agencies the Department oversees: the Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Citizenship and Immigration Services. As a result, immigration authorities are apprehending, detaining, prosecuting, and removing undocumented immigrants at unprecedented rates. Many...
- It seems appropriate to conclude this Nutshell by making a general observation about the nature of immigration law practice. Faced with all the detailed requirements for visas and other immigration remedies about which this volume says so much, some advocates, including attorneys, and their clients devote most of their attention to gathering the minimum information necessary to fulfill the various requirements. Unfortunately, some lawyers and almost all unrepresented non-citizens do not view the immigration process as an appropriate place for intelligent advocacy. This tendency has been addressed by groups such as the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) which, through seminars and publications, has sought to raise the level of expertise in the practice of immigration law.
- Congress and the Administration have undertaken reforms to modernize immigration procedures, to resolve at least partially the very difficult problems created by the hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of non-citizens who wish to live in the United States, and to decide which non-citizens should be allowed to immigrate. Many elected representatives, immigration officials, and lawyers recognize that new reforms are necessary to improve the current immigration system, but the debate over immigration reform has proven to be contentious and polarizing. Nonetheless, immigration concerns will continue to persist. Population analysts have noted that the U.S. may suffer a severe shortage of workers in coming decades and that immigration will be an important way of supplying workers for the U.S. economy. During periods of high unemployment and economic distress, however, immigration becomes particularly unpopular and the long-term needs of the U.S. economy may be ignored.
- Ultimately, it is the duty of immigration lawyers to muster the relevant facts in such a way as to convince immigration officers that the lawyers’ clients should receive the appropriate immigration status. One should never forget when submitting an application that one has the power to establish the record on which the client’s case will be won or lost. In addition, lawyers should remember that immigration officers are administrative decision-makers who ought to receive the same sort of attention and polite, effective advocacy as judges. Certainly, immigration laws and the multitude of immigration forms about which the student has read are not invitations to forget all the advocacy skills used in other contexts.
- Hence, students should be aware that the target at which they are shooting is, indeed, moving and will require continued attention.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 17 Bibliography 160 results (showing 5 best matches)
- (vol. 9 contains State Department interpretations and regulations on immigration and citizenship) (reproduced in
- For articles about immigration law, policy, and procedure, the should be consulted under the following headings: Emigration & Immigration; Deportation, Citizens & Citizenship; and Aliens. The following periodicals are of continuing interest in the area of immigration.
- Immigration Act of 1990
- Bender’s Immigration Case Reporter
- This chapter suggests some principal references for research in immigration law. Items which are starred (*) might be found in the core immigration law library of an immigration practitioner or serious student.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 4 The Congressional Role in the Immigration Process 32 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 offers an example of congressional action to establish an amnesty program for some of the hundreds of thousands of undocumented non-citizens in the U.S., to impose criminal sanctions on employers of non-citizens not eligible for legalization, and to provide for stricter border control in the future. The 1990 Act attempted to update family immigration quotas in light of increasing demand and to modernize grounds of inadmissibility. The 1990 Act also set out to toughen laws related to non-citizen criminal offenses and to create a more globally competitive workforce while trying to protect the U.S. labor market. The 1996 Act manifests the capacity of Congress to make radical changes in immigration legislation, especially in enforcement, grounds for inadmissibility and removal, restrictions of benefits for non-citizens, and procedures for seeking asylum. The 2002 Act demonstrates the power of Congress to alter the structure of immigration...
- The most obvious responsibility of Congress in the immigration arena is considering public legislation. Congress took virtually no action in immigration legislation until passing its first general immigration statute in 1882. Over the next 70 years, Congress passed a variety of restrictive immigration laws. In large part these laws functioned to exclude Asians, criminals, and the diseased from the U.S.
- Casework in the immigration area often involves the interests of a U.S. citizen who has filed a petition on behalf of a non-citizen relative or prospective employee. A complaint to a Senator or Representative that one of the immigration bureaus is giving inadequate treatment to a citizen’s petition will normally lead to communication from the member of Congress or the congressional staff to immigration officials. Such communication is occasionally helpful in relieving excessive delays and ensuring that the immigration bureau is enforcing immigration laws in accordance with congressional intent. Members of Congress may, and often do, request a status report on a USCIS petition or request USCIS review of a particular case. Sometimes, the Congressperson will also write a letter in support of a non-citizen, either to the USCIS directly or to a U.S. ...ensure that a letter of support is warranted, however, the Congressperson will often require extensive information on the status of the...
- Private legislation, through a private bill, may be introduced specifically to benefit an individual non-citizen or a group of non-citizens. In effect, a non-citizen is asking that he or she be exempted from the general immigration laws. In conjunction with this request, Congress acts as a tribunal of last resort—primarily through the House and Senate Subcommittees on immigration. Congress is generally hesitant, however, to provide exceptions to immigration laws. Former House Subcommittee Chairman Mazzoli spoke to this practice: “Since the Subcommittee acts as a court of equity in deciding whether to grant special relief in private immigration cases, it must reserve affirmative action to those of extraordinary merit and posing heavy hardship.”
- The U.S. Senate and House of Representatives are important actors in the formation of immigration law and policy. Congress drafts and approves legislation that, with Presidential signature, becomes the foundation of U.S. immigration law. Congress performs other vital immigration functions as well. In cases of extreme hardship, private legislation may be passed providing lawful permanent residence or even citizenship to an individual. Senators and Representatives are available to take up the case of a non-citizen who may be facing administrative barriers. Both houses of Congress hold oversight hearings in which they examine the internal workings of the immigration agencies. Furthermore, particularly in the area of refugees, the executive branch must regularly consult with Congress.
- Open Chapter
Preface: New Challenges to Immigration Law 29 results (showing 5 best matches)
- While most of this volume focuses on the broad structures, norms, and procedures of immigration law developed over decades, President Donald Trump and his new administration have brought particular attention in 2017 to several aspects of immigration law. President Trump made immigration law and policy a focal point of his campaign. Speaking to his supporters, President Trump promised to “prioritize the jobs, wages and security ,” by “establish[ing] new immigration controls to boost wages and to ensure that open jobs are offered to American workers first.” To achieve these goals, President Trump pledged to build a “wall” along the United States-Mexico border; to deport millions of immigrants living in the United States; to repeal President Obama’s key executive actions like DACA); to block federal funding to so-called “sanctuary cities”; and to prevent Muslim immigrants from entering the country. As President Trump took office, the question remained of whether he and the Congress...
- President Trump’s campaign criticized “sanctuary cities” as places that support illegal immigration and refused cooperation with immigration enforcement and national security. Sanctuary cities may limit their cooperation by, for example, refusing to ask residents for their immigration status or refusing to detain residents simply because of their undocumented status. President Trump has pledged that one of the top priorities in office is to “cancel all federal funding to sanctuary cities.” He took the first step in his Executive Order entitled, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.” This Executive Order also specified certain enforcement priorities, provided for hiring 10,000 additional immigration officers, encouraged state and local law enforcement authorities to be empowered to enforce federal immigration laws under agreements entered into under INA § 287 , imposed sanctions on countries who refuse to accept the return of deported individuals, and created
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), under the directive of the DHS, holds all the information DACA recipients have provided to receive deferred action. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), also under the DHS control, is responsible for enforcing the country’s immigration laws. Given that there are currently no protections that would prevent USCIS from handing over all its information to ICE, it is foreseeable that, if President Trump chooses to revoke DACA, a removal effort to deport DACA deferred action status recipients may follow. In addition, DACA recipients, even if not removed from the United States, may lose work permits gained through deferral under DACA. It is not certain whether President Trump will prioritize the repeal of President Obama’s executive actions in the early months of his presidency. Thousands of futures await the next step from the President who promised to remove immigration law achieved in recent years.
- Shortly after his election in November 2016, President Trump acted on his promises to remove millions of immigrants currently residing in the United States. In the early days of his campaign, President Trump promised to remove nearly 11 million undocumented migrants residing in the United States. Although President Trump shifted his messaging and goals—at least in rhetoric—away from his harsh promise to deport undocumented migrants to removing those persons with criminal records, the reality is that millions of immigrants face uncertain futures in a Trump presidency. This issue was also addressed in President Trump’s Executive Order on Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements, along with using state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce immigration laws, criminally prosecuting offenses having a nexus to the southern border, and using the expedited removal authority more aggressively to remove undocumented immigrants at the border.
- In 2016, the U.S. Court for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court decision enjoining the administration of DAPA and an extended DACA that lifted upper age requirements uncertain and beneficiaries of the programs faced uncertain futures. was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on November 9, 2015, and then affirmed by an equally divided U.S. Supreme Court on June 23, 2016. DHS may rescind compliance with President Obama’s Executive Order. DACA currently protects more than 700,000 undocumented migrants who came to the United States as children. Those individuals who qualified for DACA had to prove they were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012, and came to the United States before age 16, lived in the United States continuously for at least five years, attended or graduated from high school or college, and have no criminal convictions. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), under the directive of the DHS, holds all the information DACA...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 5 Immigrants 102 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Immigration officials will check the information contained in an immigrant’s application against the security databases and watch lists of several government agencies. The security procedures for immigrant applicants are similar to the security procedures for nonimmigrants detailed in § 6–1, . In addition to a background and security check, immigrant applicants must pass a medical examination.
- Individuals who want to immigrate are ordinarily expected to remain outside the United States until an immigrant visa is available. Nonetheless, many people are admitted to this country as nonimmigrants and then apply to adjust status to permanent residence. . In recent years, adjustments of status have accounted for around one-half to two-thirds of all persons granted permanent residence. The procedures for the underlying immigrant petitions and labor certificates are precisely the same for immigrants in or outside the U.S. Persons in numerically-limited preference categories must obtain a visa number, even though they are already in the U.S. and do not need an immigrant visa, because they are counted against the worldwide immigration quotas. The wait to obtain a visa number is the same whether an applicant adjusts status or immigrates from outside the United States. Processing of adjustment of status applications, however, typically takes longer than consular processing of
- In general, immigrants within each preference category are issued visa numbers in the order in which their applications are received. Some countries with high immigration rates may become “oversubscribed” if the number of otherwise qualified applicants in a particular category exceeds the number of people who can immigrate within the per-country limits. To prevent an oversubscribed country’s immigration quota being entirely filled by immigrants in one preference category, the State Department prorates that country’s visa numbers so that the number of people allowed to immigrate in each category is proportional to the worldwide level of immigration in that category. This proration typically results in a longer wait for immigrants in some popular categories. The State Department publishes a monthly bulletin that summarizes the availability of visa numbers, and lists any countries that are oversubscribed.
- Immigration in the family-sponsored and employment-based categories is also subject to per-country numerical caps. . The INA’s numerical cap is equal to 7 percent of the total number of family-sponsored and employment-based preference categories. Practically, the per-country ceiling is at least 25,620—or 7 percent of the 226,000 persons in the family-sponsored category plus 140,000 persons in the employment based category. The limit does not count immigration by immediate relatives. In an attempt to ease the backlog of second preference admissions (spouses and minor children of permanent residents), particularly from Mexico, the 1990 Act exempted 75% of the second preference limitation from the per-country limits. In addition, if the quota for employment-based immigration exceeds the demand in that category in any calendar quarter, any remaining openings may be filled without regard to the per-country limits. INA § 202(a)(5)
- Once the immigrant actually arrives in the U.S., an immigration officer at the border briefly examines the immigrant’s eligibility for permanent residence. If the inspecting immigration officer finds the immigrant to be inadmissible, the officer may commence removal of the immigrant, in spite of the visa. INA § 221(h) . In that case, the immigrant may be temporarily detained, either aboard the vessel of arrival or in the U.S. while further determination is made. . If the immigration officer finds the visa to be in order and the immigrant to be admissible, the visa is retained by the CIS as a permanent record of admission. INA § 221(e) . The immigrant is then issued a Form I-551 (green card) and becomes a permanent resident alien. “Green cards” (which are no longer green) must be renewed every ten years.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 1 History of U.S. Immigration Law and Policy 146 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Immigration has traditionally been controlled solely by the federal government. States and cities have, however, taken a more active role in regulating and enforcing immigration policies. In 2007, 1,562 pieces of legislation were introduced in all 50 states aimed at deterring undocumented immigration with 240 of the bills passing in 41 states. By 2013, 437 bills and resolutions passed in 45 states; that number decreased slightly in 2014. The number of immigration bills introduced in 2007 represented a five-fold increase from 2005. Many of these laws attempted to tighten citizenship verification and eligibility for employment, state benefits, and state licenses. . The federal government has in some cases asserted its dominance of the field. In others, it has employed states and state entities in enforcing federal immigration law.
- Despite these limits, over 5.2 million immigrants arrived in the 1880s, making relatively uncontrolled immigration a perceived threat to the U.S. economy. As a result, Congress began expanding the list of “undesirable classes,” hoping both to upgrade the type of immigrants and to limit overall entry. An 1891 law added the “diseased,” “paupers,” and “polygamists” to the list of excludable persons. The law also forbade advertising in foreign countries that encouraged immigration to America. In addition, it required immigrants to take medical examinations to determine whether they were “diseased.” A few years later, special boards were established to decide other questions of admissibility under the “quality” restrictions. The 1891 law established the Bureau of Immigration, the forerunner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) (now the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection). The...
- Congress responded to anti-immigration sentiment in the 1990s with three new acts, each signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996. The first act was the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA); the second was the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (Welfare Act); and the third was the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). While the Welfare Act’s main objective was to remove many federal services for non-citizens, AEDPA and IIRIRA focused on enforcement of immigration laws by, for example, increasing Border Patrol staffing, adding new grounds of inadmissibility and removal, modifying the procedures for exclusion and removal, and limiting judicial review of immigration decisions. The AEDPA and IIRIRA also increased the number of criminal acts making a non-citizen removable and eliminated nearly all forms of relief for non-citizens with criminal convictions. One result of the 1996 statute was a dramatic increase
- After World War I, immigration began to grow again. The U.S. favored an isolationist policy in an effort to protect its own labor force from the postwar flood of European refugees. Enacted as a temporary measure, the 1921 Quota Law marked a major shift in the U.S. approach to immigration control. The law limited immigration from each nation to 3% of the number of foreign-born persons of that nationality residing in the U.S. as of the 1910 census. The resulting total quota was 357,000, but because fewer foreign-born persons from the South and East of Europe lived in the U.S. in 1910, that region’s total quota was 45,000 less than that from the North and West of Europe. The quota allotments effectively restricted immigration from the disfavored regions while the northern and western countries of Europe did not even fill their quotas. Concurrently, Congress established certain “non-quota” exceptions. For example, the law permitted admission of an immigrant if the individual had lived
- The most visible feature of IMMACT 90 was the increase in the numerical limitation system, or overall immigration allowed, by approximately 35%. IMMACT 90 established an annual limit for worldwide immigration of 700,000 for three years; the limit decreased to 675,000 thereafter. Other provisions of the 1990 Act allowed immigration of groups not counted in the 700,000, and a separate law permitted admission of as many as 125,000 refugees, so the actual worldwide immigration limit was closer to 800,000.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 14 Criminal Aspects of Immigration 91 results (showing 5 best matches)
- These registration requirements have been part of immigration law since the Alien Registration Act of 1940, but for many decades they were not enforced. The INS routinely waived the fingerprinting requirements, and nonimmigrants received no registration card other than the Form I-94 Arrival-Departure record. (Permanent residents receive a Permanent Resident Card after admission to the U.S.) In 2002, however, the immigration authorities, acting under the authority of § 262(a), implemented special registration requirements for nonimmigrants from certain countries, principally in the Middle East. These requirements were intended to improve the ability of immigration authorities to monitor nonimmigrants whom it believes “present a heightened risk of involvement in terrorist or criminal activity.” . Nonimmigrants subject to the special registration procedure (as identified by notices in the Federal Register) are fingerprinted and photographed upon arrival in the United States. If the...
- Criminal prosecutions have become a signification part of immigration law. According to latest-available data, criminal prosecutions for immigration offenses rose dramatically from 17,100 prosecutions in 2000 to 85,458 prosecutions in 2012. Moreover, prosecutions for immigration offenses accounted for forty-six percent of all federal criminal cases in 2012. The vast majority of these prosecutions are for unlawful entry or reentry, and roughly ninety percent of immigration cases are brought in the five federal districts located along the United States-Mexico border. While at one time individuals usually faced just the possibility of removal for such immigration offenses, violations will result in both criminal prosecution and removal. Those persons convicted for unlawful entry or reentry serve an average sentence of less than six months before facing removal. The consequence of a conviction is significant as criminal conduct constitutes a ground for inadmissibility that could prevent an
- In addition to the harsh consequence of removal, non-citizens may face criminal penalties for misconduct related to immigration. Both the Immigration and Nationality Act and portions of the U.S. Criminal Code provide for criminal sanctions related to immigration. This chapter describes immigration-related conduct that may result in criminal penalties for both citizens and non-citizens, including unlawful entry, bringing non-citizens into the U.S. without inspection, transporting or concealing a non-citizen who entered unlawfully, encouraging non-citizens to enter unlawfully, misrepresentation or fraud in obtaining immigration status, failure to comply with removal regulations, and employment of unauthorized workers. The chapter also discusses the immigration consequences of a non-citizen’s criminal activity, including denial of asylum, inadmissibility, and removal.
- contains the Immigration and Nationality Act’s perjury provision. INA § 287(b) empowers immigration officers and employees to administer oaths, and imposes criminal penalties on anyone who knowingly makes a false statement after taking an oath administered by an immigration officer.
- The Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986 intended to deter non-citizens from seeking immigration benefits through a fraudulent marriage to a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. The Fraud Amendments, for example, impose a two-year residency requirement on non-citizen spouses before they may obtain unconditional permanent resident status on the basis of a “qualifying marriage” to a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. The Fraud Amendments also provide a criminal penalty for marriage fraud. INA § 275(c) ] states, an “individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both.” The statute applies to the U.S. citizen or permanent resident and also to the nonresident involved in the fraudulent marriage. See § 5–2.1, , for a discussion of the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 8 Grounds of Inadmissibility and Removal 98 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Several of the inadmissibility grounds in § 212(a) are related to the enforcement of other immigration laws and procedures. Non-citizens who enter the U.S. without being admitted or paroled, those who stay beyond the expiration of their nonimmigrant status, and those who have been removed from the U.S. may all be inadmissible for varying periods.
- First, if the non-citizen is accused of a crime of moral turpitude, or an “aggravated felony,” the lawyer will want to consider pleading to a lesser or different offense that does not involve moral turpitude, has a maximum sentence of less than one year, and/or is not classified as an aggravated felony for immigration. “Misdemeanor” is not an immigration concept and many state misdemeanors are aggravated felonies under immigration law. Some prosecutors and judges were not aware of the severe consequences of criminal convictions for non-citizens who may, in some cases, be the sole supporter of U.S. citizen or permanent resident family members. In many cases, the rehabilitative and punitive purposes of prosecuting and sentencing can be achieved through imposing a stronger sentence for a lesser level crime without causing collateral unwanted immigration consequences.
- The BIA held in
- Before enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) in 1996, the event that determined a person’s status with respect to removal was not admission, but “entry.” Entry refers to physically crossing into United States territory free from restraint. Entry may be achieved after being inspected and authorized by an immigration officer or by evading inspection. Physical presence as a result of parole does not constitute entry. . Under pre-IIRIRA law, individuals who had not yet entered the U.S. were subject to “exclusion” hearings. Those persons who had entered the country, with inspection or without, were subject to “deportation” hearings and were entitled to rights not available in exclusion hearings. Pre-IIRIRA law recognized that some persons may have remained in the U.S. after having entered and thus were entitled to the greater procedural rights offered in a deportation hearing. It was not always easy, however, to determine whether an...
- Inadmissibility for Violations of Immigration Law or Procedure
- Open Chapter
Chapter 2 The Source and Scope of the Federal Power to Regulate Immigration and Naturalization 92 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Lower courts have upheld state and local enforcement of the criminal provisions of federal immigration law. In addition, courts have determined that federal statutes do not preempt state laws authorizing police to arrest non-citizens for violations of federal immigration law. Disputes remain, however, concerning the authority and role of state and local authorities in enforcing the civil provisions of federal immigration policy.
- In 2005, Congress tried to provide such a clear and unambiguous statement with the REAL ID Act, seeking to eliminate habeas jurisdiction of removal orders. INA § 242(a)(5)
- While some localities have sought to make it easier for undocumented immigrants to live in society through “sanctuary” policies, other localities have enacted ordinances that impose burdens on undocumented immigrants to deter their presence. Based on the Supreme Court’s analysis in , federal immigration law preempts these local immigration ordinances if states and cities go too far in seeking to restrict the employment, housing, and benefits of non-citizens. Hazleton, Pennsylvania, for example, passed an ordinance entitled the Illegal Immigration and Reform Act that imposed fines on landlords renting to undocumented immigrants, and suspended or removed the licenses of businesses that hired undocumented workers. The law was struck down in . The federal Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) contains an express preemption clause for state or local laws that create civil or criminal sanctions for immigration offenses. While IRCA allows for states or localities to impose punishments...
- As in other areas of the law, the function of executive agencies in the field of immigration is to enforce the legislation passed by Congress through federal executive agencies. . Once Congress determines which classes of non-citizens will be denied admission or removed, the executive decides who fits within each class. Since the executive has no inherent power over immigration, it must stay within the grant of authority defined by the statute; otherwise the decisions are illegal and the courts may overturn them. The executive’s limited authority to create rules concerning immigration was highlighted in (Sup.Ct.2016). The Court, in a four to four vote, let stand a preliminary injunction granted by a federal district court in Texas, effectively halted two Obama administration regulations simply because the regulations had not been correctly ushered through the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice-and-comment requirements. For further discussion of the regulations, known as DAPA and...
- Second, the power to regulate immigration is essential to the process of national “self-definition,” a process by which a nation’s citizens determine the values espoused by the nation, and hence, formulate the nation’s identity. By determining who will comprise the nation and participate in creating the nation’s identity, immigration laws constitute the process of self-definition itself. Although the process of national self-definition may be characterized as racist, discriminatory against outsiders, and otherwise unjust, it is an essential characteristic of a sovereign nation. These theories of self-preservation and self-definition mandate broad federal powers over immigration.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 9 Removal Proceedings and Relief from Removal 167 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Local law enforcement officials have in the past participated in immigration enforcement activities. In (9th Cir.1983), the court found that the federal power over immigration does not necessarily preclude local enforcement of some provisions of the INA. State and local law agencies usually enforce immigration laws indirectly, however, by reporting persons who are suspected of violating immigration laws to immigration authorities.
- ] was added to the INA in 1996 as part of the IIRIRA, it was not implemented until 2002. As part of its efforts to combat terrorism and undocumented immigration, ICE began entering into § 287(g) agreements with state and local officials that allow state and local law enforcement officers to perform immigration functions. Participating officers, supervised by immigration officials, can interrogate persons suspected of immigration violations, prepare Notices to Appear (which initiate removal proceedings) for signature by authorized immigration officials, and assist in pre- or post-arrest processing of non-citizens. Many local communities have passed ordinances prohibiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities because they feel assistance would undermine their ability to fight crime and enforce state or local laws in immigrant communities.
- Courts may permit an exception to the requirement of exhausting all administrative remedies if an administrative appeal would be futile because the BIA is absolutely bound by immigration regulations and could not help but render the same decision as the immigration court. . The plaintiffs in sought review of an immigration judge’s decision not to reopen proceedings and permit them to apply for asylum. They did not appeal the decision to the BIA, claiming that it would be bound by immigration regulations to reach the same decision. In their case, the court found that the BIA had discretion to overturn the judge’s decision and denied the appeal. Another potential exception to the exhaustion requirement is an allegation of “a wholesale, carefully orchestrated program of constitutional violations.” . In 4,000 Haitians claimed they had been denied due process and equal protection by accelerated removal procedures instituted to achieve the mass removal of Haitian nationals seeking...
- At the outset of the hearing, the immigration judge must advise the non-citizen of his or her rights during the hearing and inquire as to whether he or she waives any of those rights, place the non-citizen under oath, read and explain the allegations of the Notice to Appear, enter the notice as an exhibit in the official record, and ask the non-citizen to plead to the allegations in the Notice to Appear.
- In the past, the immigration judge was called an “inquiry officer,” and served as investigator, prosecutor, and judge. The judicial function was separated from the investigation and prosecution functions in a 1983 reorganization. Immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals are part of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), an office within the Department of Justice.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 3 Administrative Structure of Immigration Law 44 results (showing 5 best matches)
- While due process arguments failed, the desire for professionalism and the need for more predictable, rational adjudication resulted in changes. Beginning in 1956, the INS required immigration judges to have law degrees. In 1962, the INS began to employ a staff of trial attorneys to present the government’s case. It is now standard practice for a trial attorney (now “Service Counsel” under the authority of ICE) to appear in deportation and exclusion proceedings (now “removal proceedings”). In 2006, the EOIR developed new measures to improve the quality of the immigration courts, including new examinations and performance evaluations for immigration judges and BIA members. Additionally, the EOIR produced the
- Until 2003, the Department of Justice was responsible for most immigration functions. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), an agency of the Department of Justice, handled immigration and citizenship services and enforced immigration laws. These functions have now been transferred to the Department of Homeland Security. The Department of Justice has, however, retained authority over the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).
- Until 1983, immigration judges were a part of the INS. The immigration judges were senior immigration officers who, in addition to their judicial hearing duties, held enforcement responsibilities. Concerns about the neutrality of judges with enforcement responsibilities prompted due process challenges to these hearings. In 1950, the Supreme Court ruled that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) demands a separation of functions between immigration judges and enforcement officials. . Shortly thereafter, Congress passed a provision exempting immigration adjudications from the APA separation-of-functions requirements. Two years later, under the INA, Congress again expressly provided that immigration judges could also serve as enforcement officials. INA § 242(b)
- The Homeland Security Act transferred most of the immigration functions originally delegated to the Attorney General by the Immigration and Nationality Act ( INA § 103(a) ) to the Secretary of Homeland Security. The functions of enforcing immigration law and administering immigration and citizenship benefits are now principally handled by three subdivisions of the Department of Homeland Security: the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
- The Department of Justice placed immigration judges under the supervision of the Associate Attorney General when it created the EOIR in 1983. 8 C.F.R. § 3. Between 1983 and 2002, the Associate Attorney General directly supervised immigration judges working in the EOIR. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 placed the EOIR under the control of the Attorney General. HSA § 1101 . The EOIR is charged with interpreting and administering federal immigration laws. The EOIR consists of three components: the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge; the Board of Immigration Appeals; and the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer. The EOIR is an administrative body, not a court under Article I or III of the Constitution.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 15 Ethical Dimensions of Immigration Practice 36 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Immigration lawyers are confronted by ethical issues more often than the majority of other practitioners. The non-citizen clients of the immigration lawyer are often suspicious about the fairness of United States laws and administrative practices and are usually unfamiliar with them. Some non-citizens may try to suggest or pursue courses of conduct from their culture that might be inappropriate or, perhaps, unethical for a lawyer in the United States. In addition, immigration lawyers frequently face issues of dual representation. Hence, the student of immigration law should be aware of the ethical dimensions of an immigration practice.
- The second source derives from the regulations governing the conduct of lawyers who appear before the Department of Homeland Security. In 1996, the Code of Federal Regulations listed fifteen nonexclusive reasons for suspending or disbarring the immigration lawyer, some of which overlap the Model Rules and some of which are unique to immigration practice. . In 2000, the grounds for suspension or disbarment were moved to . In 2008, the Executive Office for Immigration Review added more grounds for disciplining an immigration lawyer. Many of these additional grounds are similar to grounds for attorney sanction under the Model Rules, such as failing to provide competent representation or failing to maintain communication with a client.
- Under the provisions of the Model Rules, the lawyer appears to face competing mandates concerning whether to report the client. On the one hand, the Model Rules require the attorney not to reveal a confidence except in a limited number of circumstances. Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.6 (2016). In addition, Rule 1.6 prohibits any use of the confidence that disadvantages the client. In the F-1 student example, the information about the student’s employment is a client confidence or secret because the lawyer presumably obtained it in the course of representing the client. Similarly, information regarding a client’s fraudulent marriage received in the course of representing that client is also a client confidence or secret. In the former case, if the attorney informed the immigration authorities of the client’s employment, the client could be deprived of the student visa and possibly removed. Likewise, if the attorney informed the immigration authorities of his or her client...
- A situation that frequently confronts the immigration lawyer is when the attorney becomes aware, through discussions with the client, independent investigation, or other outside sources, that the client is not observing his or her visa conditions. For example, a student-client with an F-1 visa accepts employment outside the educational institution without the requisite permission. Under these circumstances, what is the lawyer’s obligation to (a) report the client’s violation of immigration status to the immigration authorities, and/or (b) advise the client as to the possible consequences of accepting employment?
- The client may not have realized the adverse consequences of his or her decision to accept employment at the time it was made. Therefore, the lawyer’s obligation to his or her client is to inform the client of the negative consequences of violating the visa conditions. The strength of the obligation may depend on whether the lawyer learns of the student’s employment before or after the work commences. If the lawyer learns of the student’s intention before the employment begins, the duty to act is stronger because the lawyer can prevent the adverse consequences by rendering the correct legal advice. If the lawyer learns afterwards, the duty to act is not as great because the legal consequences (loss of visa, removal, and ineligibility to adjust status in the United States) would have already become applicable. Nonetheless, a lawyer might advise the client against continued employment because the immigration authorities might take more severe enforcement action against a client who...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 13 The Rights of Non-Citizens in the United States 166 results (showing 5 best matches)
- In 2010, the Arizona legislature passed the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, which mandates state and local officials to verify the immigration status of anyone with whom they come in contact. One week later, the legislature passed an amendment, which limited investigation of status to a “lawful stop, detention or arrest.” Legal challenges, including one by the federal government, raised extensive questions about the power of states to supplement what they see as a broken federal immigration system. The United States Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona asking that the law be declared invalid because it interfered with the immigration regulations “exclusively vested in the federal government.” On June 25, 2012, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case . The Court agreed with the Department of Justice and determined by a 5–3 majority that federal law preempted certain sections of the Arizona law. The preempted sections made it
- For many non-citizens, a driver’s license is a necessity, without which they cannot get to work or school or carry out many other everyday activities. Since September 11, 2001, however, many state governments have proposed or enacted laws that restrict non-citizens’ access to driver’s licenses. Proponents of restrictive driver’s license laws argue that driver’s licenses facilitated the activities of the terrorists responsible for the September 11th attacks, and that linking driver’s licenses to immigration status will enable state and local law enforcement officers making routine traffic stops to identify persons who are in the country illegally. Opponents of the laws argue that state driver’s license agencies lack the expertise required to determine a non-citizen’s immigration status and the authority to enforce immigration laws, that the laws will jeopardize highway safety by encouraging non-citizens to ..., and that many non-citizens will be subjected to great...
- In addition to conducting the interviews, the Department of Justice has targeted Muslim and Arab non-citizens for selective enforcement of immigration laws. In February 2002, the Department announced its “Absconder Apprehension Initiative,” designed to locate and arrest individuals who have remained in the U.S. although subject to a final removal order. Some 300,000 individuals subject to a final removal order are currently believed to be in the U.S. The INS began entering the names of these individuals in the FBI’s National Crime Information Center database, to which state and local law enforcement officers have access. The INS has also begun efforts to locate and apprehend these individuals, starting with persons from the Middle East. In late 2002, the INS instituted new registration requirements for nonimmigrants, again targeting mainly people from Arab and Muslim countries, as well as other “state sponsors of terrorism.” Some individuals were detained for alleged immigration...
- Immigration laws contain hundreds of lawful classifications that set preferences for admittance and establish conditions under which a non-citizen may remain in this country. In characterizing all legislation that burdens non-citizens after they have been admitted as part of an ongoing scheme with foreign policy overtones, the government may simply extend the prejudices expressed in the immigration laws. The U.S. government apparently prefers affluent immigrants who will not need Medicare; immigrants who will seek only private or state civil service employment; who will not request government farm loans, but who will nonetheless pay taxes, contribute to the community, and if necessary, serve in the military. A prospective immigrant could not know the true terms of entry without checking all federal legislation for restrictions to citizenship.
- Non-citizen land ownership law is primarily a state concern, and there are only three principal areas of federal restriction. First, the federal government has been concerned in time of war when enemy non-citizens hold land; second, the federal government is concerned with safeguarding of natural resources for citizens or permanent residents; third, the federal government has an interest in seeing that foreigners are treated equitably and in a manner consistent with national policies regarding immigration and foreign affairs.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 12 Citizenship 226 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The revocation statute also reserves to immigration authorities the power to reopen or vacate naturalization orders. INA § 340(h) . In accordance with this provision, the INS in 1996 instituted a procedure known as “administrative denaturalization.” This procedure, which the Service was later enjoined from using, enabled INS district directors to revoke a person’s citizenship if they had “clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence” that the INS granted the person’s application by mistake or the person concealed or misrepresented a material fact. Immigration regulations required the district director to serve the naturalized citizen with notice of intent to reopen the naturalization proceedings. If the citizen did not request a hearing within sixty days, his or her citizenship was revoked. An individual whose citizenship was revoked could appeal to the INS Office of Examinations, Administrative Appeals Unit and could seek judicial review of an adverse decision from that agency.
- . Until 1981, the list of acts that bar a finding of good moral character included adultery. This provision of the INA created great controversy as immigration authorities struggled to define what constitutes adultery and what extenuating circumstances might excuse it. While the law remained in effect, immigration authorities took the position that anyone who had committed adultery would be ineligible for immigration benefits.
- Although a majority of the justices agreed that § 101(f)(6) contains no materiality requirement, only three of the justices concurred in Justice Scalia’s opinion holding that denaturalization could not be affirmed under that provision. The question whether Kungys’ misrepresentations constituted false testimony for the purpose of obtaining immigration or naturalization benefits cannot be answered without first resolving two issues: (1) whether Kungys’ misrepresentations constituted “testimony” and (2) whether in making the misrepresentations, Kungys possessed the subjective intent to obtain immigration or naturalization benefits. The latter question is one of fact to be resolved by the trier of fact. Because the case had to be remanded in any event, the Court chose not to resolve the former question of law.
- If the application is initially denied, a new hearing takes place before another immigration officer. INA § 336(a)
- is perhaps the most dramatic case in which a citizen’s renunciation was held to be effective. In 1948 Davis, a native-born citizen, voluntarily signed an oath of renunciation before the U.S. Consul in Paris, on the form provided by the Consul. Davis indicated at the time that he wanted to become “a citizen of the world.” He set up a “World Service Authority” and issued himself a passport. The Immigration Service refused to permit Davis to enter the U.S. in 1977 on the ground that he was not a U.S. citizen and lacked a visa to enter as a non-citizen. Even though Davis failed to obtain another citizenship when he renounced his U.S. citizenship, the federal district court sustained the Immigration Service’s decision to exclude Davis from this country.
- Open Chapter
Copyright Page 6 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Nutshell Series, In a Nutshell
- The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or other professional advice, and this publication is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. If you require legal or other expert advice, you should seek the services of a competent attorney or other professional.
- © 2005, 2011 David Weissbrodt and Laura Danielson
- West, West Academic Publishing, and West Academic are trademarks of West Publishing Corporation, used under license.
- Printed in the United States of America
- Open Chapter
Title Page 5 results
- IMMIGRATION LAW AND PROCEDURE
- Immigration Group Chair, Fredrikson & Byron P.A., andAdjunct Professor of LawUniversity of Minnesota Law School
- IN A NUTSHELL
- Myers Thompson P.A., andAdjunct Professor of LawUniversity of Minnesota Law School
- Regents Professor of Law andFredrikson & Byron Professor of LawUniversity of Minnesota Law School
- Open Chapter
Explanatory Notes 3 results
- Immigration law is based considerably upon statutes and regulations. Hence, the text contains frequent references to the principal statutes and regulations, but for reasons of space the citations have been abbreviated in the text. Where both a statute and a regulation appear relevant, only the statute is cited. The Table of Authorities contains fuller references to cases, statutes, regulations, and other relevant material.
- This Nutshell has attempted to follow the format of other Nutshell volumes. Accordingly, cases have been cited only where they represent relatively significant landmarks or where they clarify key issues. The text ordinarily contains only the name of the case, the court of decision, and the date. The student will find the full citation in the Table of Authorities, which follows the Outline. Due to limitations of space and format, some cases are omitted where they would have supported statements in the text and one case is often cited where many others would have been usable authority.
- Because the Nutshell format does not admit footnotes, this volume often omits references to secondary material and other sources, even where such citations clearly exist. The bibliography in the last chapter attempts to redress this problem by listing at least most of the principal sources for the use of the serious student who may want to read more.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 10 Refugees and Asylum 113 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Immigration judges have jurisdiction over all non-citizens in removal proceedings, including applicants for asylum. . Asylum seekers may be placed in removal proceedings in a number of ways: they may be referred to an immigration judge if their affirmative asylum application is not approved by the Asylum Office; they may be arrested at the port of entry, establish credible fear of return, and subsequently be placed in removal proceedings; or they may be arrested by immigration officials for other immigration status violations. Once a Notice to Appear is filed with the immigration court, jurisdiction over the individual rests with the immigration judge, and any claim for asylum or related relief will be adjudicated by the immigration judge.
- The Second Circuit held that when the United States acceded to the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees in 1968, and later adopted the Refugee Act of 1980, it intended to establish a more generous standard in evaluating asylum claims than the “ ‘clear probability’ that an individual will be singled out for persecution” approach used by the Board of Immigration Appeals. The Court of Appeals indicated that the same burden of proof should apply to both the withholding procedure and to affirmative applications for asylum.
- If a non-citizen who lacks an immigration status or a person whose nonimmigrant visa has expired applies for asylum, immigration authorities will become aware that the non-citizen is out of immigration status and if asylum is not granted, removal proceedings will be initiated to force the non-citizen to depart the United States. The application for asylum is considered “referred” to an immigration judge for further consideration. In light of the small percentage of applicants actually granted asylum affirmatively and an increasingly large backlog of asylum cases, individuals should consider carefully whether they wish to apply for asylum because if their application is rejected, they will be subject to removal proceedings. If U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has initiated removal proceedings against a non-citizen, the non-citizen may apply for asylum as a defense to removal if the application is submitted within one year of his or her latest entry to the United States.
- In INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 104 S.Ct. 2489, 81 L.Ed.2d 321 (Sup.Ct.1984)
- The provisions of INA § 241(b)(3)(A)
- Open Chapter
Chapter 6 Nonimmigrant Visitors and Temporary Workers 110 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The US-VISIT (Visitor and Immigration Status Indicator Technology) program has replaced NSEERS registration. 80 Interp.Rel. 690. Under US-VISIT, almost all nonimmigrant visas holders are required to provide a digital finger scan and have their picture taken when entering the country. . In 2009, a DHS rule expanded the application of US-VISIT to virtually all non-citizens, including lawful permanent residents. . US-VISIT biometric entry procedures are in place in airports, seaports, and certain land ports of entry. DHS plans to expand a pilot program requiring biometric exit procedures at certain airports to all air and sea ports of departures. . The proposed rule would require all commercial air carriers and cruise lines to collect fingerprints of all exiting international visitors and transmit them to DHS within twenty-four hours of leaving the United States. Despite these goals, there have been significant delays in implementing biometric exit and the Senate Committee on the...
- Some labor organizations and other groups have expressed concerns regarding H-1B status, chiefly that nonimmigrants take jobs away from U.S. workers, that the availability of foreign workers depresses wages in the U.S., and that nonimmigrants are vulnerable to exploitation by employers who control their immigration status. The 1990 Act addressed the first two concerns by requiring employers petitioning for an H-1B worker to file a Labor Condition Application with the Secretary of Labor. INA § 212(n) . In the application, an employer must assert that the wages will be equal or exceed the prevailing average for the occupation or the employer, whichever is higher; that the position’s working conditions will not have an adverse effect on similarly situated U.S. workers; and that no labor dispute or lockout exists at the place of employment. A copy of the application must be conspicuously posted at the principal place of work for ten business days. Adversely affected parties can challenge an
- The H-2 classification covers anyone coming to the U.S. for work of a temporary nature, including seasonal workers of all types. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) created an “H-2A” nonimmigrant classification for temporary agricultural workers. Perishable crop growers complained that the procedures for obtaining H-2 workers were too slow and unpredictable for their industry. They feared that, because of their dependence upon undocumented workers, implementation of the employer sanction provisions of IRCA would put an end to some of their operations. In response, IRCA provided for expedited procedures for approving grower requests for foreign agricultural workers and for review of denied applications. The employer, however, must first make an effort to recruit domestic workers. INA § 218
- Persons seeking a visa to enter the U.S. as nonimmigrants must apply using the specific procedures for the particular visa sought. Those procedures may be broadly divided into three categories: (1) Applications which require no preliminary petition or approvals (visas A, B, C, D, E, G, and I); (2) applications which require proof of acceptance in an authorized program (visas F, J, and M); and (3) applications which require approved petitions that provide the basis for the non-citizen’s presence in the U.S. (visas H, K, L, O, P, Q, R, and V). A fourth category of applications (visas S and T), which will not be treated in detail here, requires endorsement by a law enforcement agency. Applications for S visas may be filed only by the requesting law enforcement agency. Applications for T status are filed by the nonimmigrant while in the United States.
- In the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001, the admission and monitoring of nonimmigrants in the U.S. came under close scrutiny. In response to security concerns, Congress passed three statutes that affect nonimmigrants: the USA PATRIOT Act [(115 Stat. 272 ]), the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act ]), and the Homeland Security Act [(116 Stat. 2135 ]). The measures mandated by these Acts include implementation of an entry-exit tracking system called for in the IIRIRA; the integration of immigration data systems; a requirement that the State Department issue only machine-readable visas, and that persons seeking entry under the visa waiver program carry machine-readable passports; and enhanced screening of nonimmigrant visa applicants who are nationals of countries that have been designated as state sponsors of international terrorism. The Homeland Security Act gives the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement authority to make further regulations governing...
- Open Chapter
Index 193 results (showing 5 best matches)
- See also Asylum; Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), U.S.; Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA); International Law; Public Assistance; Temporary Protected Status; Withholding of Removal
- See also Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), U.S.; Department of Homeland Security; Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS); Directorate of Border and Transportation Security; Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S.
- See also Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), U.S.; Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S.; Department of Homeland Security; Directorate of Border and Transportation Security; Executive Office for Immigration Review; Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S.
- See also Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act; Department of Homeland Security; Homeland Security Act; Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA); Immigration Act of; Immigration Reform and Control Act; Moral and Policy Issues
- See also Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA); Citizenship; Federal Authority over Immigration; Homeland Security Act; Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of (IIRIRA); Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS); Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA); Inspection
- Open Chapter
Outline 124 results (showing 5 best matches)
Chapter 11 International Law Issues Related to Immigration 72 results (showing 5 best matches)
- It is not in accordance with the law; if the law itself allows for arbitrary practices, or is enforced in an arbitrary way; when it is random or capricious or not accompanied by fair and efficient procedures for its review. It may also be arbitrary if it is disproportionate or indefinite.
- In 2005, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights relied on the principle of in , 2005 Inter-Am.Ct.H.R. (ser.C) No. 130 (Sept. 8, 2005) to determine that the Dominican Republic’s birth registration and nationality laws were in violation of fundamental human rights. The Dominican Republic’s discriminatory laws prevented two girls of Haitian descent who were born and resided in the Dominican Republic from attaining nationality, acquiring birth certificates and other identity documents, as well as attending school. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights ordered the Dominican Republic to develop new procedures to ensure children born within the country, regardless of their parent’s citizenship status, receive birth certificates and have the opportunity to attain citizenship and attend school. The decision affirmed that nations have a responsibility to develop laws and procedures that protect against racial discrimination and reduce the possibility of statelessness.
- International Labor Organization (ILO) Conventions and recommendations protect the rights of all workers irrespective of citizenship. Several ILO conventions and recommendations, however, specifically protect migrant workers and their families. In 1949, the ILO promulgated Convention No. 97 concerning Migration for Employment and the related Recommendation No. 86 concerning Migration for Employment. These two instruments provide: safeguards against misleading information relating to emigration and immigration; assurance of medical services for migrants; a prohibition against discrimination in regard to conditions of employment, trade union membership, social security, and taxes; a prohibition against returning a migrant to his or her country of origin after he or she was admitted on a permanent basis, but is no longer able to work by reason of illness; and similar protections for migrants.
- There is no general international right to travel between nations. While an individual has a right to leave any nation, the individual does not have a right to enter another nation. Special travel rights are, however, given to stateless persons and to refugees. These groups will be considered in the sections below. Nations do, however, admit non-citizens more readily for temporary travel than for immigration, especially if the nation is a party to a treaty of commerce, establishment, and navigation. The Helsinki Accord, which is a European/North American regional agreement adopted in 1975 at the European Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), provides for freer movement of individuals between the signatories. In particular, the agreement provides for freer movement on the basis of family ties, family reunification, proposed marriages, and personal or professional travel. In addition, further agreements in the CSCE context and changes in Eastern Europe and the...
- The United States’ obligations under Protocol 4 to protect refugees are not respected by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). The expedited removal process (IIRIRA § 302) is inconsistent with the international standards identified in Executive Committee Conclusions of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Executive Committee Conclusions are attained by consensus of the member states. In 1983, the UNHCR Executive Committee concluded that unless an asylum seeker’s claims are “manifestly unfounded or abusive,” full review of a negative decision should be available to unsuccessful applicants. In expedited removal proceedings (IIRIRA § 302 ), however, asylum seekers are required to establish a “credible fear” before being allowed to present claims for asylum to an immigration judge. INA § 235(b)(1)(B)(iii) . IIRIRA’s heightened requirement of a credible fear thus reduces opportunities for review.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 7 Nonimmigrant Students 62 results (showing 5 best matches)
- A student who wishes to study in the U.S. must first gain admission to a school authorized to admit foreign students. Schools that can admit F-1 students include colleges and universities, seminaries, conservatories, academic high schools, private elementary schools, and language schools. Community colleges can accept F-1 students or M-1 students depending on the program of study. Vocational schools accept M-1 students. . The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) approves schools to admit foreign students. Each approved school appoints a Designated School Official (DSO), who handles the administrative aspects of the F-1 and M-1 programs. The DSO provides immigration officials with information about admitted students through the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (“SEVIS”). In the wake of September 11, 2001, the U.S. PATRIOT Act mandated the use of SEVIS. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) uses the system to monitor foreign students while they...
- Included in the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986 was an amendment to INA § 212(a)
- In 2009, ICE began replacing SEVIS with the web-based second generation SEVIS system. Foreign students enter the new SEVIS system by creating user accounts on the system’s website. In creating a user account, a student receives an immigration identification number and creates an electronic signature in order to authenticate electronic forms. A foreign student then may complete and submit the visa application on the SEVIS website. Government officials access a foreign student’s SEVIS account to document decisions concerning the issuance of visas, entry into the U.S., changes in status, and employment authorizations. The new SEVIS system allows a foreign student to monitor his or her visa status through personal user accounts.
- Because of their numbers and the length of time they remain in the U.S., it is difficult for immigration authorities to monitor foreign students. While schools maintain records on all foreign students, until SEVIS there was no central repository for most of this information. The 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center raised serious concerns about the activities of foreign students in the U.S. because one of the perpetrators had been a foreign student. In 1996, Congress mandated the creation of a computerized system to track students. IIRIRA § 641; . The INS subsequently initiated a pilot test of such a system, which was underway when the September 11, 2001 attacks occurred. At least one of the hijackers involved in those attacks entered the U.S. as a student, and two others had applied for student status. Consequently, the USA PATRIOT Act required all schools that admit foreign students to begin using the . The Homeland Security Act made U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE...
- The school may authorize employment for the student if satisfied that the work qualifies as curricular practical training. DSOs must report the curricular practical training authorization in SEVIS and immigration officials receive notice of the training authorization through this process. All other types of off-campus employment require independent authorization from immigration officials. In practice, many DSOs interpret the concept of “internship” liberally to permit foreign students an opportunity to gain work experience. A student who receives one year or more of full-time curricular practical training is ineligible for optional practical training. Consequently, curricular practical training is usually authorized for less than one year.
- Open Chapter
WEST ACADEMIC PUBLISHING’S LAW SCHOOL ADVISORY BOARD 12 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Distinguished University Professor, Frank R. Strong Chair in LawMichael E. Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University
- Professor of Law, Chancellor and Dean Emeritus, University of California, Hastings College of the Law
- Professor of Law and Dean Emeritus,
- Robert A. Sullivan Professor of Law Emeritus,
- Professor of Law Emeritus, University of San Diego Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Michigan
- Open Chapter
Table of Cases 54 results (showing 5 best matches)
Table of Statutes 496 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Publication Date: June 22nd, 2017
- ISBN: 9781683288985
- Subject: Immigration Law
- Series: Nutshells
- Type: Overviews
- Description: This compact, comprehensive title offers a thorough overview of the history, constitutional basis, statutory structure, regulatory provisions, administrative procedure, and ethical principles related to immigration law and practice. Updated to reflect developments since the 2016 Presidential election, it is valuable both as a teaching and a practice reference.