Immigration Law and Procedure in a Nutshell
Authors:
Weissbrodt, David / Danielson, Laura / Myers III, Howard S. / Peterson, Sarah K. / Brenes, Sarah
Edition:
8th
Copyright Date:
2023
25 chapters
have results for immigration law
Chapter 15. Conclusion 3 results
- In conclusion, immigration law is a field that is constantly changing and directly impacts so many, as well as U.S. economic interests. The practical know-how to navigate the various different government agencies is as important as the statute and regulations. We continue to witness the expanding interplay between state laws and federal immigration laws, reminding practitioners that immigration lawyers no longer work in the silo of immigration law—but rather, we work in a rich, constantly evolving landscape of immigration law and procedure.
- The immigration laws and administrative structure and procedures described in this Nutshell have changed significantly since the first publication. Beyond landmark legislation like IRCA (1986), the 1990 Act, AEDPA (1996), IIRIRA (1996), and the Homeland Security Act (2002), the immigration agencies 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: USCIS, CBP, and ICE. Then, most recently, the concurrence of the Trump Administration and the COVID-19 pandemic effectuated sweeping changes to our immigration system—including legal immigration, policies at our borders, and policies in our courts—unlike anything most practitioners have...
- The contemporary interplay between smart immigration policy and labor market shortages must be addressed, although it is difficult to envision positive immigration reform in our highly polarized Congress. Immigration Lawyers, as such, work in a field that is highly influenced by Presidential Administrations and political undercurrents, given that Congress has not enacted meaningful reform in over two decades. This should excite students and new immigration lawyers because this landscape provides the opportunity to engage meaningfully, not only in zealously representing clients in our constantly changing immigration process, but to also actively pursue smart policy reform
- Open Chapter
Chapter 8. Removal Proceedings and Relief from Removal 106 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.
- A few provisions of the INA allow local law enforcement agencies to participate more directly in immigration enforcement. Section 103(a)(8) allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to delegate any immigration powers he or she deems necessary to local law enforcement in the event of a “mass influx of aliens.” Section 103(c) authorizes the Secretary (formerly the Attorney General) to enter cooperative agreements with state and local agencies to enforce immigration laws. INA § 287(g)(1) further authorizes the Secretary to enter written agreements with any state or local officer or employee qualified to perform the functions of an immigration officer.
- 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.
- , not to initiate proceedings against an individual) have been modified numerous times and can be an important tool for the administration in power to address unanswered demands for Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform laws. Given the nation’s polarized views on immigration, these enforcement priorities, often issued as Executive Orders or Agency Memos frequently face challenges in court.
- Open Chapter
Preface to the Eighth Edition 12 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The first 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.
- 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 course books 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 course books.
- While most of this volume focuses on the broad structures, norms, and procedures of immigration law developed over decades, former President Donald Trump’s administration brought particular attention to several aspects of immigration law enforcement and administration, making immigration law and policy a focal point of his campaign. This continued throughout his administration and thereafter. His policies resulted in delays in adjudications, historically high backlogs in removal hearings, and considerable federal court litigation.
- The 8th edition attempts to update its immigration law discussion with as many references to current immigration law and policies as feasible given publication limitations.
- As the 8th edition goes to press, the delay, anxiety, confusion, and legal disputes continue well into the Biden administration. They are likely to continue, altering the administration of immigration laws and enforcement, unless Congress steps in. As of this writing, Congress has been unable to agree on specific immigration reforms.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 2. The Federal Power to Regulate Immigration and Naturalization 83 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.
- (Sup.Ct.1976), 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 (M.D. Pa.2007). 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 through licensing for violations of federal immigration law, states and localities cannot use licensing sanctions to punish violations of non-federal immigration laws.
- . The Act, however, allows for judicial review of factual and discretionary decisions that prompt constitutional claims or questions of law. taken divergent approaches in determining which immigration decisions raise “questions of law.” For example, the Second Circuit in (2d Cir.2006) refused to review the decision of an immigration judge that a petitioner’s untimely application for asylum was not excused. The court held that to be a “question of law,” the issue must be more than a “quarrel” over the fact-finding and discretionary determinations of immigration authorities. In contrast, the Ninth Circuit in (9th Cir.2007) asserted that it could review an immigration official’s decision regarding whether an untimely asylum application was excusable because “the application of law to fact” constitutes a question of law under the court’s jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has yet to weigh in and offer a definitive ruling determining which immigration decisions raise “questions of law.”
- Executive Action in the realm of immigration became a regular occurrence during the Trump Administration. Between January 2017 and July 2002, the Trump administration took over 400 executive actions which reconstructed and dismantled all aspects of U.S. immigration law.
- 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
Preface: Immigration in the Absence of Congressional Reform 11 results (showing 5 best matches)
- It is difficult to predict how immigration law will change because of successive future presidential administrations and Congresses. It will be necessary for immigration laws to not only reflect national security considerations, but the reality that America’s labor market requires a continued influx of labor and expertise, whether that occurs by birthrates or additions to our productive population through immigration.
- existing immigration structures, norms, and procedures of immigration law developed over decades. However, since its last publication, the U.S. immigration landscape has witnessed changes never before anticipated by seasoned practitioners. President Donald Trump’s administration put restrictive immigration policy at the center of its agenda in a way never before seen by any administration, effectively altering almost every aspect of U.S. immigration law. Through Executive Actions, policy guidance, and regulatory changes, the Trump administration—without Congressional action or approval—altered almost every aspect of the U.S. immigration system.
- The process that President Trump used requires careful study by immigration advocates and practitioners. While the U.S. Congress has not passed meaningful, comprehensive immigration reform in over 20 years, President Trump meticulously used every mechanism at his disposal to re-write significant portions of the U.S. immigration system. President Trump issued more than 400 executive actions on immigration during his four-year term in office. The changes are too vast to detail here because what can be created by an executive order can be eliminated the same way. During his first year in office, President Biden issued 296 Executive Actions on immigration compared to President Trump’s 86 during that same amount of time. Two years into the Biden administration is too early to tell whether this was the Biden administration’s effort to correct the immigration law changes of the Trump administration, or reflects a larger trend to craft immigration policy through executive action.
- Congress has been ineffective in achieving any immigration reform, let alone comprehensive immigration reform. As soon as the 115th Congress convened, legislative activity began to change the immigration system. As of this writing, there were more than 100 immigration-related bills introduced in the early days of the 115th Congress. Some actions would overrule or refuse to fund President Trump’s Executive Order banning the entry of certain individuals from the United States; reforming the H-1B, H-1A, and L nonimmigrant visa classifications; modifying the treatment of unaccompanied children who are in federal custody because of their immigration status; punishing so-called “Sanctuary jurisdictions” by limiting federal funding, deploying enhanced technology along the Southern border with Mexico, reducing the overall numbers of entrants by one-half reductions in family immigration, cutting the number of entering refugees in half, and eliminating the Diversity Visa Lottery, while...
- undocumented migrants to removing those persons with criminal records, the reality was that millions of immigrants faced uncertain futures in a Trump presidency. President Trump’s Executive Order 13767 also permitted state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce immigration laws, to 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. During both the Trump and Biden presidencies, the backlog of removal cases pending before immigration courts has increased.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 1. History of U.S. Immigration Law and Policy 104 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA) consolidated previous piecemeal immigration laws into one comprehensive statute. As amended, the 1952 Act provided the foundation for immigration law in effect today.
- 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 the U.S. 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...
- 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.
- 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.
- The arguments against open immigration—that is, for maintaining a restrictive immigration policy—have figured prominently in the history of U.S. immigration law. These reasons are often based upon a fear that increased immigration will compromise the U.S. standard of living. Some argue that the very reason immigrants have historically been attracted to the United States—
- Open Chapter
Chapter 16. Bibliography 46 results (showing 5 best matches)
- This chapter provides 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.
- Major U.S. Immigration Laws, 1790–Present
- 8 U.S.C.—Aliens and Nationality (Codification of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Pub. L. 414, ch. 477, 66 Stat. 163, June 27, 1952; and its subsequent amendments. This title is the basic source of immigration law).*
- Immigration Act of 1990
- Kurzban, Ira J., Kurzban’s Immigration Law Sourcebook (184th ed., Washington, DC: American Immigration Lawyers Assoc., 202214, published every two years).*
- Open Chapter
Chapter 14. Ethical Dimensions of Immigration Practice 18 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Immigration lawyers are confronted by ethical issues. Some non-citizens may try to suggest or pursue courses of conduct from their culture that—while common practice in their home country—might be unethical for a lawyer in the U.S. 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.
- Immigration practitioners should also consult the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s (AILA) “The AILA Ethics Compendium: Modern Legal Ethics for Immigration Lawyers” (the compendium). . Because an Immigration Lawyer’s practice contains unique ethical dilemmas, due to the complex interaction of state ethics rules and federal laws and regulations, including numerous different federal agencies, the compendium provides targeted ethical insights.
- A situation that may confront the immigration lawyer is when the attorney becomes aware, through discussions with the client or other outside sources, that the client is not complying with their immigration status. 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?
- This chapter analyzes three typical ethical problems encountered by the immigration lawyer from the perspective of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MR) and the relevant provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). This Chapter deals with three common situations faced by immigration lawyers While we examine each problem in detail, this chapter does not attempt to provide definitive answers given the fluid nature of ethical issues. This chapter incorporates two sources of ethical constraint on the immigration lawyer. The first is the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MR) adopted by the American Bar Association (ABA) in 1983. The Model Rules have now been adopted, either completely or with modification, in all fifty states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. The second are the regulations governing the conduct of lawyers who appear before the Department of Homeland Security. In 1996, the ...the immigration lawyer, some of which overlap...immigration
- Problem 1: The non-citizen is in violation of their immigration status or has fraudulently married to gain permanent resident status. Must the lawyer report their client to the immigration authorities?
- Open Chapter
Chapter 4. The Congressional Role in the Immigration Process 23 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The most obvious responsibility of Congress in the immigration arena is considering and enacting 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.
- In 1952, Congress passed, over President Truman’s veto, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952 (also known as the Walter-McCarran Act). This legislation consolidated and revised many earlier immigration statutes. To this day, the INA remains the foundation of U.S. immigration law.
- 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.
- 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 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...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 3. Administrative Structure of Immigration Law 37 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency is responsible for enforcement of immigration laws. It is divided into two operational divisions: Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). ERO aims to “identify, arrest, and remove aliens who present a danger to national security or are a risk to public safety, as well as those who enter the United States illegally or otherwise undermine the integrity of our immigration laws and our border control efforts.” HSI targets “criminal organizations illegally exploiting America’s travel, trade, financial and immigration systems. The Office of the Principle Legal Advisor (OPLA) is the largest legal program in DHS and represents the government regarding exclusion, deportation, removal, and other immigration cases involving terrorism, criminal noncitizens and human rights abusers. OPLA also helps ICE with customs, worksite enforcement, ethics, employment law, and administrative law.
- Until 2003, the Department of Justice was responsible for most immigration functions. The legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), an agency of the Department of Justice, handled immigration and citizenship services and enforced immigration laws. Most of these functions have been transferred to the Department of Homeland Security under which the CBP, the USCIS, and ICE exercise authority over border, benefits, and enforcement functions, respectively. The Department of Justice has, however, retained authority over the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).
- The HSA transferred most of the immigration functions originally delegated to the Attorney General by the Immigration and Nationality Act ( ) to the Secretary of Homeland Security. The functions of enforcing immigration law and administering immigration and citizenship benefits are now principally handled by the three subdivisions of the Department of Homeland Security: the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the U.S. Immigration
- 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 four major entities reporting to the Director: the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, which includes a headquarters staff and all Immigration Courts located through the U.S.; the Board of Immigration Appeals; and the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer; and the Office of the Associate Director. The EOIR is an administrative body, not a court under Article I or III of the Constitution.
- In November 2002, Congress passed the Homeland Security Act, 116 Stat. 2135, which abolished the Immigration and Naturalization Service and transferred most immigration functions to the Department of Homeland Security. This chapter describes immigration administration after the Homeland Security Act (HSA).
- Open Chapter
Index 79 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 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
- See also Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), U.S.; Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S.; Department of Homeland Security; Executive Office for Immigration Review; Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)
- 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.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 12. The Rights of Non-Citizens in the United States 81 results (showing 5 best matches)
- 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 drive without licenses, and that many non-citizens will be subjected to great...
- 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 purposes of immigration and other laws affecting non-citizens, there are four broad classes of non-citizens: (1) persons seeking admission to the United States; (2) persons admitted as immigrants or lawful permanent residents; (3) persons admitted as nonimmigrants or temporary visitors; and (4) undocumented persons who are present in the country without the official knowledge or permission of the federal government.
- Any rule of constitutional law that would inhibit the flexibility of the political branches of government to respond to changing world conditions should be adopted only with the greatest caution. The reasons that preclude judicial review of political questions also dictate a narrow standard of review of decisions made by the Congress or the President in the area of immigration and naturalization.
- 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.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 7. Grounds of Inadmissibility and Removal 52 results (showing 5 best matches)
- , 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.
- Inadmissibility for Violations of Immigration Law or Procedure
- 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.
- Relatively minor crimes that could result in inadmissibility might not come to the attention of immigration authorities until a permanent resident returns to the U.S. after traveling abroad, at which time he or she could be denied entry. Permanent residents who have criminal records should therefore exercise caution in making any trip abroad, seeking new immigration benefits, or applying for citizenship.
- . If the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services determines that an applicant for naturalization was inadmissible at the time he or she became a permanent resident, it may not only deny citizenship but may also initiate removal proceedings. Frequently, a person’s inadmissibility or removability only comes to the attention of immigration authorities when he or she applies for one of these immigration benefits.
- Open Chapter
Title Page 6 results (showing 5 best matches)
- SPS Immigration PLLC Adjunct Professor of LawUniversity of Minnesota Law School
- Immigration Law and Procedure
- Late Regents Professor of Law and Fredrikson & Byron Professor of LawUniversity of Minnesota Law School
- Former Adjunct Professor of LawUniversity of Minnesota Law School
- Adjunct Professor of LawUniversity of Minnesota Law School
- Open Chapter
Chapter 13. Criminal Aspects of Immigration 44 results (showing 5 best matches)
- 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.
- INA § 287(b) 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.
- Criminal prosecutions have become a significant 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. Prosecutions peaked in 2018 at 108,667, before dipping dramatically, largely due to the COVID-19 implementation of Title 42 expulsions at the border. Most 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...
- 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 to the nonresident involved in the fraudulent marriage. , for a discussion of the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986.
- 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.” ...United States. If the nonimmigrants remain in the U.S., they must report to an immigration office thirty days after arrival and annually thereafter to confirm compliance with the terms...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 9. Refugees and Asylum 36 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.
- An asylum seeker who lacks an immigration status can still affirmatively apply for asylum with the Asylum Office. Even if an asylum applicant has no lawful status or if their nonimmigrant status has expired at the time their asylum claim is adjudicated, immigration authorities can grant asylum status. Even if asylum is not granted, removal proceedings will be initiated. The application for asylum is considered “referred” to an immigration judge for de novo consideration. If the asylum claim is not granted, but the asylum applicant is in a valid non-immigrant status (i.e. Temporary Protected Status or F-1 student status), the Asylum Officer will issue a Notice of Intent to Deny and provide the applicant with an opportunity to provide a written response. If the grounds for denial are not overcome, the officer will deny the asylum claim without prejudice.
- Courts use a “substantial evidence” standard for reviewing asylum or withholding of removal. Before applying the substantial evidence standard, the court must first determine whether it reviews the immigration judge’s or BIA’s decision. If the BIA conducts a (9th Cir.1997). If the BIA reviews the immigration judge’s decision for an abuse of discretion and simply adopts the immigration judge’s findings and reasoning, the court will review the immigration judge’s decision to determine if it was supported by substantial evidence.
- , the Ninth Circuit held that the INS had to advise Salvadorans seeking entry of their rights in English and Spanish. Immigration authorities must tell detainees that they are being detained for an immigration violation, that they will be given written notice of their rights prior to deciding whether to return voluntarily to El Salvador, and that they will have to acknowledge that they received the written notice of their rights (called an “ advisal”). In 2007, a district court refused to lift the injunction requiring immigration officials to provide notice to Salvadorans of their right to apply for asylum.
- Asylum may be terminated under certain circumstances. An immigration judge or a USCIS asylum officer may reopen proceedings to terminate a grant of asylum. The immigration officer seeking to terminate the grant of asylum must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that conditions have changed in the asylee’s country of origin, that the asylee was guilty of fraud in the application process, or that the asylee had committed an act that would have been grounds for denial. An immigration judge may terminate asylum at any time after the non-citizen has been provided a notice of intent to terminate. The termination may occur in conjunction with a removal proceeding.
- Open Chapter
Explanatory Notes 1 result
- 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.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 10. International Law Issues Related to Immigration 17 results (showing 5 best matches)
- 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 ), however, asylum seekers (people who meet the definition of refugee and are already present in the U.S. or are seeking admission at a U.S. port of entry) 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)
- 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.
- (Eu.Ct.H.R.2002). The ability to deny entry to non-citizens is based on the theory of sovereignty. Both Blackstone and Vattel recognized the right of every nation to exclude non-citizens, or to place upon their entrance whatever restrictions the nation may want. Most nations place great restrictions on immigration. Nations regularly admit non-citizens for a limited period if there is a treaty of commerce, establishment, and navigation between the non-citizen’s home state and the admitting state. Parties to these treaties usually retain the right to exclude individuals deemed physically, medically, morally, or socially
- 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
- 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.
- Open Chapter
Outline 42 results (showing 5 best matches)
Chapter 5. Immigrants 40 results (showing 5 best matches)
- 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 pro-rates 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 pro-ration typically results in a longer wait for immigrants in certain categories.
- The 1990 Act authorized the immigration of up to 480,000 immediate relatives and persons in family-sponsored preference categories each year. The quota . Regardless of the actual result of this computation, the Act mandates that the family-sponsored immigration quota must be at least 226,000. Due to high levels of immigration by immediate relatives, the quota only rarely exceeds the statutory minimum. Immigration by immediate relatives is not limited, and the overall number of persons immigrating on the basis of family relationships each year, therefore, is usually far more than 480,000.
- . There is no limit to the number of immediate relatives who can immigrate each year. Immigration by immediate relatives, however, reduces the annual quota for other family-sponsored immigration categories. INA § 201(c) . The number of admitted immediate relatives has increased in recent, although the COVID pandemic saw significant decline in family-based immigration including immediate relatives due to the lack of international travel and closures of Consulates globally. Consider that in 2019, there were 505,765 immediate relative petitions approved whereas in 2020 and 2021, there were 321,148 and 385,396, respectively, which caused a residual effect on the employment-based immigration numbers.
- The Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986 attempted to deter immigration-related marriage fraud. The Fraud Amendments impose a two-year conditional residency requirement on non-citizen spouses and their “sons and daughters” before they may obtain permanent resident status on the basis of a “qualifying marriage” to a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. The requirement only applies if the marriage is less than two years old at the time the non-citizen seeks permanent resident status. To remove the conditional status, the couple must file a petition within the last ninety days of the conditional status period. An immigration officer will remove the condition based on the couple’s documentation. Alternatively, an immigration officer may interview the couple. The purpose of the interview is to ascertain that (a) the “qualifying marriage” was not entered into “for the purpose of procuring an alien’s admission as an immigrant;” (b) the marriage has not been judicially annulled or...
- Immigration authorities must also terminate the non-citizen spouse’s conditional resident status if the couple fails to file the petition or to appear at the interview, unless the non-citizen qualifies for a waiver. INA § 216(c) ), so that non-citizens would not have to remain in abusive relationships in order to maintain their immigration status. Immigration regulations, which were intended to prevent fraudulent abuse claims, state that non-citizens should support the waiver petition with evidence such as police reports or professional evaluations. . Immigration authorities must nonetheless consider any credible evidence of abuse presented by petitioners. INA § 216(c)(4)
- Open Chapter
Chapter 6. Nonimmigrant and Temporary Workers 35 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The Legal Immigration Family Equity (LIFE) Act of 2000 created a new V nonimmigrant status for a very limited and now obsolete number of relatives of lawful permanent residents who were waiting for an immigration petition to be approved. 114 Stat. 2763.
- Immigration officials submit the personal information of visa applicants to several security watch lists. The Consular Lookout and Support System (CLASS), for example, allows consular officials to check the names of visa applicants against records compiled by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. Consular Officers also can access the records of previous visa determinations using the Consular Consolidated Database. Other watch lists include the records kept by the Terrorist Screening Center, the TIPOFF database, the National Automated Immigration Lookout System, the Nonimmigrant Information System, and the Terrorist Threat Integration Center.
- Because Immigration Law is Administrative, the policies of each Administration influences how the agencies process immigration benefits. Under the ...as is the standard in the statute. The resulting agency action has gradually increased the time, cost, and evidentiary burdens on employers and visa applicants. Additionally, in October 2017 USCIS issued a memorandum rescinding a previous policy of deferring to prior eligibility determinations for eligibility extension of in extending nonimmigrant visa status (deference policy). This allowed USCIS to issue far more Requests for Evidence (RFE) demanding additional proof when earlier cases were found sufficient. The Biden administration revoked the Buy America Hire American executive order and RFEs for H-1B petitions dropped significantly, as well as re-instituted the deference policy [2 USCIS-PM A.4], illustrating the impact that a particular presidential administration can have on the practical application of U.S. immigration... laws.
- The school may authorize employment for the student if satisfied that the work qualifies as CPT. 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.
- 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 (116 Stat. 543), 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
- Open Chapter
Chapter 11. Citizenship 66 results (showing 5 best matches)
- 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.
- . 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.
- With respect to adultery, the Committee believes that the Immigration Service should not be required to inquire into the sex lives of applicants for naturalization. Such questions clearly represent an invasion of privacy. Furthermore, in testimony before the 96th Congress witnesses concurred in the view that the adultery bar was merely “window dressing” in the law; INS estimated that “7 out of 10 persons today who would admit to that conduct would fall within one or more of the judicial interpretations which excuse that conduct for purposes of naturalization.”
- If the application is initially denied, a new hearing takes place before another immigration officer. INA § 336(a) . The applicant’s attorney may take an active part in this hearing, present evidence, subpoena witnesses, make objections, and conduct cross-examination of the government’s witnesses. The hearing is supposed to be scheduled within 180 days after a request is filed; it is videotaped for purposes of judicial review. Upon consideration of the testimony and review of all documents properly submitted in support or opposition, the immigration officer decides whether the application for naturalization should be granted or denied. If the immigration officer fails to decide the matter within 120 days after the examination, the federal district court may determine the naturalization or remand the matter to the USCIS with instructions. INA § 336(b)
- Despite the potential problems, very few countries prohibit dual citizenship which reflects changes in immigration. Until the late twentieth century, difficulties in travel and communication forced most immigrants to make an absolute break from their country of origin. Today, however, immigration need not result in permanent separation from one’s home country. Immigrants may retain property, provide financial support to family, and remain involved with politics in their homelands. Some immigrants intend to resume residence in their country of origin in the future; others fear the loss of property or inheritance rights that are only available to citizens of their home countries. Consequently, many immigrants may be reluctant to relinquish citizenship in their home countries even though they have acquired the benefits of U.S. citizenship. While the U.S. requires non-citizens to renounce their previous nationality in obtaining naturalization (INA § 337 ...upon the laws of the...
- Open Chapter
WEST ACADEMIC PUBLISHING’S EMERITUS ADVISORY BOARD 14 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Arthur J. Kania Dean and Professor of LawVillanova University Charles Widger School of Law
- Professor of LawUniversity of Houston Law Center
- Dean & Professor of LawUniversity of Maryland Carey School of Law
- Professor of Law, University of Houston Law Center
- Professor of Law, Yale Law School
- Open Chapter
- Publication Date: June 12th, 2023
- ISBN: 9781684676101
- 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 including the Trump administration’s impact on immigration law and the Biden Administration, it is valuable both as a teaching and a practice reference.
