New Look to Green Cards & EAD Cards  

USCIS will start issuing redesigned cards with enhanced graphics to applicants.  The new cards will start being issued on May 1, 2017.

These redesigns use enhanced graphics and fraud-resistant security features to create cards that are highly secure and more tamper-resistant to prevent document tampering, counterfeiting and fraud; than the ones currently in use.

The Redesigned Cards

The new Green Cards and EADs will:

  • Display the individual’s photos on both sides;
  • Show a unique graphic image and color palette:
  • Green Cards will have an image of the Statue of Liberty and a predominately green palette;
  • EAD cards will have an image of a bald eagle and a predominately red palette;
  • Have embedded holographic images; and
  • No longer display the individual’s signature.

Also, Green Cards will no longer have an optical stripe on the back.

How To Tell If Your Card Is Valid

Some Green Cards and EADs issued after May 1, 2017, may still display the existing design format as USCIS will continue using existing card stock until current supplies are depleted. Both the existing and the new Green Cards and EADs will remain valid until the expiration date shown on the card.

Certain EADs held by individuals with Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and other designated categories have been automatically extended beyond the validity date on the card.

Employers, please note that both the older version and the new cards are acceptable for Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, E-Verify, and Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE).

Some older Green Cards do not have an expiration date.  These older Green Cards without an expiration date remain valid.

Individuals who have Green Cards without an expiration date may want to consider applying for a replacement card bearing an expiration date. Obtaining the replacement card will reduce the likelihood of fraud or tampering if the card is ever lost or stolen.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA ▪ nsm@mlolaw.us ▪ Office: 314.932.7111 & 314.402.2024

Disclaimer:  Not meant as legal advice! For information purposes only.

 

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

A Second Look at Comprehensive Immigration Reform

In February, I wrote about why comprehensive immigration reform has a chance to pass this year; now, it’s time to discuss how immigration reform can strengthen the US as a whole.

Immigration reform has heavy bipartisan support, spearheaded by President Obama and Republican Sen. Marco Rubio (FL). Sen. Rubio is a member of the “Gang of Eight”, the four Democrat and four Republican Senators who have introduced new immigration legislation to Congress — Rubio has also assumed the role of spokesperson for the pending bill in the Senate. The House is also sponsoring several other bills on immigration.

There are security and economic reasons for the US to reform its immigration policy, both of which will have a major impact on the US economy.

The Security Side and the Impact on Employers

Immigration reform is not going to happen without enhanced border security and metrics to measure the levels of security reached. Another measure of security to guarantee a legal workforce is to make both E-verify and Form I-9 compliance mandatory for all employers.  Senate has already earmarked $110 million dollars to these programs — employers should see new compliance regulations soon after a new immigration bill has passed.

In addition, electronic checking of departures by CBP will ensure that non-immigrants depart on the date their authorized stay expires, according to their Form I-94 record. Departures are currently recorded with a paper I-94, which is surrendered upon exiting the US. The new electronic I-94 will record departures from passenger manifests issued by airlines. Entries are currently recorded, but exits from the US are not recorded uniformly at all ports. In addition, the new bill will mandate that all passports be electronically read, which would reduce human error.

It is a misconception that highly skilled visa holders somehow depress US wages. On the contrary, where certain technical skills are in short supply, employers pay top dollar wages for visa holders and high fees to the federal government, as well as jump through legal hurdles to employ these workers. The cost of employing a foreign worker is more expensive than a domestic worker.

The Economic Side

Granting legal status to more immigrants will relieve our labor shortages in both high-skill and low-skill arenas. The educational background of native-born Americans typically includes high school and college education — few are without high school diplomas, and hardly any have Ph.D.s in science, technology, engineering or mathematics (STEM). The educational background of immigrants, on the other hand, is quite different: while many lack high school education, others hold Ph.D.s in STEM fields.

Most of the debate on immigration reform has focused on giving legal status to undocumented immigrants, upon the condition that they pay fees and back taxes. This will certainly have positive effects on our economy; however, we have more to gain from immigrants, both young and old, who, after gaining legal status, decide to further their careers in the US. Once these immigrants feel reassured about their future in the US, they will be more willing to invest in their careers.

One of our current problems is that many skill workers have trouble gaining a foothold onto the path to citizenship. Foreign entrepreneurs and technologists who study in the US are often denied works visas and return to their home country to find success. This issue is both stunting economic growth and causing a brain drain in America.

The number of available temporary visas is rarely revised and is still dependent upon caps and quotas. Our economic conditions have not been taken into consideration. Increasing visas both for high skilled workers, and lower skilled entrants in agriculture and forestry, could have a positive effect on wages and reduce the number of illegal entrants and overstays.

Immigrants also bolster our productivity growth. According to the Wall Street Journal, foreign scientists and engineers, who came to the US with an H1B visa, contributed 10-20% of the yearly productivity growth in the US from 1990-2010. Attracting innovators to our country will undoubtedly create more jobs, as more innovation means more labs, universities and companies doing research. Yet, the US’s H1B visa program only creates 65,000 visas per year for highly skilled workers. That amount has proved to be insufficient, as H1B visas quotas fill very quickly as in the last cap.

There are clear economic and security needs for streamlined and comprehensive immigration reform, and lawmakers and politicians must take action. Congress is set to vote on immigration reform before the July 4 congressional recess.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney
Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC
St. Louis, Missouri

The information is not meant to create a client-attorney relationship. This blog is for informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for legal advice. Situations may differ based on the facts.

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2013. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Mandatory E-Verify Bill

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has proposed a new bill to the Senate, The Accountability Through Electronic Verification Act of 2013, that would obligate US employers to utilize E-Verify within 12 months of the bill’s passing. Sen. Grassley is the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which supervises the Senate’s immigration policy, and is also a member of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security. Grassley’s bill was cosponsored by 10 other Republican Senators.

Details of the Proposed Bill

In addition to requiring E-Verify for all American employers, Sen. Grassley’s legislation would:

  • Increases penalties for employers who don’t use the system or illegally hire undocumented workers;
  • Reduces the liability that employers face if they participate in E-Verify when it involves the wrongful termination of an individual;
  • Allows employers to use E-Verify before a person is hired, if the applicant consents;
  • Requires employers to check the status of existing employees within 3 years;
  • Requires employers to re-verify a person’s status if their employment authorization is due to expire;
  • Requires employers to terminate the employment of those found unauthorized to work due to a check through E-Verify; and
  • Helps ensure that the Social Security Administration catches multiple use of Social Security numbers by requiring them to develop algorithms to detect anomalies.

For Employers

In addition to the various labor and employment laws mandated by the States and the Federal Government, mandatory E-verify would impose a larger burden on companies. Perhaps we should address what causes employers to use workers who are not authorized to work, and why these undocumented individuals exist in the workforce despite efforts to root them out!

The Takeaway

Let us emulate Canada, which imports low skilled workers every year — who return to their home countries every winter season. The US needs to increase the number of work visas for both the low skilled, agricultural, hospitality and construction workers. Most of them would like to work legally (less stress) and return. This will reduce ‘coyote’ activity at the border: why would a person risk crossing illegally when they can enter through the border, and return to their homes without the fear of being caught and living in the shadows.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney
Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC
St. Louis, Missouri

The information is not meant to create a client-attorney relationship. This blog is for informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for legal advice. Situations may differ based on the facts.

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2013. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Why Comprehensive Immigration Reform Has a Chance to Pass This Year

Since President Obama was inaugurated for his second term, he has made Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) a key policy initiative for his administration. Interest groups from the left and right, and even some Republicans, such as Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, are also in support of a comprehensive overhaul of US immigration laws.

Condoleezza Rice (former Secretary of State in the Bush Administration), Henry Cisneros (former Housing and Urban Development Secretary) and Haley Barbour (former Mississippi Governor) are three of 4 leaders spearheading a high profile group by the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington D.C. The group’s aim is to act as a sounding board, and to assist and shepherd the initiative into law by the summer of 2013.

Bipartisan support continues, as Senators from both parties have also offered Obama a framework of principles that they hope will be included in CIR. This bipartisan group consists of eight senators, four Democrats and four Republicans: Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.).

A Round Up of Ideas Offered by Proponents

The draft of the Senators’ proposed bill, entitled the “Immigration Innovation Act”, increases available H1B visas from 65,000 to 115,000 visas every year. It will create a market-based H1B escalator, which will allow for additional visas if the cap is hit early during the filing season, with a ceiling of 300,000 visas. The visas will be adjusted based on market demands.

The 20,000 H1B visa cap for US Masters and PhD students will also be abolished, allowing the US employer to employ foreign students of US universities with advanced degrees without limit.

This bill will provide the ‘plug and play’ workers needed by all sectors of industry, whether it be healthcare or hospitality; workers who are ready to hit the ground running, and keep services for the American consumer consistently available.

In addition, there is a proposal to allow dependents of H1B visas to work on their H4 visas.  Of course, there will be an increase in the filing fee, dedicated to worker re-training at the state level in technical fields.

The senators’ framework stipulates that, before illegal US immigrants can attain “probationary legal status”, they must pass a background check, as well as pay fines and back taxes. Illegal immigrants with serious criminal backgrounds will not be eligible for legal status. Additionally, the framework states that illegal immigrants will not be granted work authorization until the government increases enforcement, such as expanded border surveillance, to protect and secure the nation’s borders.

The President’s Plan Is Not So Differrent

Obama’s proposal for immigration reform comes in four parts:

  1. Strengthen our borders;
  2. crack down on companies that hire undocumented workers;
  3. hold undocumented immigrants accountable before they can earn their citizenship; and
  4. streamline the legal immigration system for families, workers and employers.

Earned Citizenship

Almost 11 million undocumented immigrants live in the US. Obama proposes to give undocumented immigrants the legal means necessary to earn citizenship, which will also persuade them to come out from hiding and pay their taxes and adhere to the rules. Illegal immigrants will be held accountable: before they can obtain citizenship, they must pass national security and criminal background checks, pay back taxes and penalties, learn English, and go to the back of the line. Young people will also have the chance to gain citizenship faster if they seek higher education or serve in the military.

Mandatory E-verify

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa has introduced a mandatory E-Verify bill, which will require all employers to verify the authorized work status of their US workers. Today, the E-Verify system is voluntary; however, Sen. Grassley’s bill requires all employers to comply within 1 year of enactment. The bill will reduce employer’s liability for wrongful termination, and use E-verify to screen an applicant with his/her consent. The bill also imposes a mandate on the Social Security Administration to develop algorithms to detect multiple users of single Social Security numbers.

How will CIR help our economy?

Our economy demands legal immigration that is simple and adept, so that it encourages the best and the brightest to remain in the USA. A shorter wait for permanent resident status for the highly educated immigrants will boost the economy — if it is easier for STEM graduates to stay in the US, they will bolster and create industries, therefore creating jobs.

University education in the US will get a boost from the revenues generated by foreign students and their families; estimates put the revenue generated by foreign students at about $20 to $40 billion dollars every year. Often, American universities spend several hundreds of thousands of dollars educating these students, only to lose them to Canada, Australia, UK and Europe, or the students’ home countries. A chance for these students to remain in the US and pursue their academic and entrepreneurial dreams will add to the economy.

The taxes collected from the highly educated will help ensure that our Social Security and Medicare budgets are met. This revenue stream will be enhanced by offering a chance for a legalized workforce to pay employment-based taxes. These taxes will reduce the strain on American social systems, such as hospitals and schools. A legal workforce will be paid the mandated prevailing wage. Without a Social Security Number, a worker cannot open a bank account, buy car insurance, obtain a driver’s license, or attend school or college. Hence, a legalized workforce will provide a boost to the insurance, banking and finance industries, and increase wages for all, as employers will now pay the legal minimum wage.

The proposals all call for supplemental visas so that foreign entrepreneurs wanting to begin startups, and foreign graduate students with STEM degrees, will either come to the US to work or remain in the US post-graduation. We want, and need, the best and brightest minds for the US to flourish.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney
Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC
St. Louis, Missouri

The information is not meant to create a client-attorney relationship. This blog is for informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for legal advice. Situations may differ based on the facts.

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2013. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Negotiating I-9 Fines

In my previous blog, I wrote about OCAHO negotiating I-9 fines. To negotiate fines either with ICE or OCAHO, the employer must be willing to file a brief with OCAHO to request a hearing, and then ICE may be willing to ‘come to the table’.

Prior to the hearing, the employer and counsel must analyse each count against the company, either to accept or refute and prepare a brief accordingly. Both ICE and OCAHO consider the 5 factor test before negotiating a fine:

  1. The size of the employer’s business,
  2. The employer’s good faith,
  3. The severity of the violation(s),
  4. Whether individuals involved were unauthorized aliens, and
  5. A history of former violations by the employer.

Employers must be careful to tender only Forms I-9, which are for current employees, and refrain from tendering purged documents.

Methodical analysis of the NIF (Notice of Intent to Fine), counts and legal basis is a must in order to be ready to negotiate with ICE and, if necessary, to request a hearing from OCAHO.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney
Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC
St. Louis, Missouri

The information is not meant to create a client-attorney relationship. This blog is for informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for legal advice. Situations may differ based on the facts.

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2013. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Recent I-9 Fines Reduced by OCAHO

Recently, the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) has shown a trend of leniency towards companies that are found to be noncompliant with ICE‘s Form I-9 rules and regulations. ICE, on the other hand, isn’t always as forgiving as OCAHO, which can be expressly seen in ICE’s cases against March Construction, Inc., Forsch Polymer Corp., BKR Restaurants (DBA Burger King) and Barnett Taylor (DBA Burger King).

In order to determine a baseline fine for companies, ICE surveys five factors:

  1. The size of the employer‘s business,
  2. The employer’s good faith,
  3. The severity of the violation(s),
  4. Whether individuals involved were unauthorized aliens, and
  5. A history of former violations by the employer.

March Construction, Inc.

The construction company, March Construction, was found liable for a total of 103 violations after assessments made by both ICE and OCAHO. For March Construction, ICE determined a baseline fine of $770, but increased the baseline by 15% due to March Construction’s supposed lack of good faith, severity of violations and employment of undocumented workers. ICE requested $885.50 per violation for a total of $86,933.

OCAHO agreed with ICE on the severity of the violations, however found that ICE had no evidence that March Construction was actually employing undocumented workers. Also, the company’s ability to pay the fines is a major factor. OCAHO ultimately asked for a reduced sum of $17,120.

Forsch Polymer, Corp.

In June 2010, ICE issued a Notice of Inspection (NOI) to Forsch Polymer, asking for Forms 1-9 for all employees from the past year. The company sent ICE only 12 completed I-9s, and was consequently charged with 11 violations of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), among the violations were failing to properly complete an entire Form I-9 and certain sections of Form I-9. ICE requested a fine of $11,827.75.

However, OCAHO found ICE in error: OCAHO discovered that three of Forsch’s employees did not complete an I-9 within three days of being hired. OCAHO determined that this was the fault of ICE — ICE should have issued a notice and provided ample time for Forsch Polymer to correct these mistakes. OCAHO dismissed the allegations of the company’s failure to complete Forms I-9, but found ICE correct in finding fault with the employer for backdating several Forms I-9.

ICE sought a baseline fine of $935 per violation, aggravating the baseline penalties 5-15% for each violation due to the severity of violations, lack of good faith and employment of four unauthorized aliens. OCAHO ultimately asked for a reduced sum of $4,600.

Burger King

BKR Restaurants and Barnett Taylor both do business as Burger King restaurants, and were both issued NOIs on the same day in December 2007. BKR Restaurants was found liable for a total of 87 violations of IRCA for not having Forms I-9 ready for 22 employees, and improperly completing Forms I-9 for 65 employees. Barnett Taylor was issued similar charges for not having Forms I-9 ready for 74 employees, and improperly completing Forms I-9 for nine employees.

Both BKR Restaurants and Barnett Taylor gave reasons for their failure in properly completing and retaining Forms I-9 for their employees; however, neither restaurant had convincing evidence bolstering their claims. Although OCAHO has supported a trend of reducing penalty amounts, OCAHO still requires companies to provide adequate evidence  against ICE’s allegations. None of the companies’ explanations created a defense of impossibility, which can only be established if the Forms I-9 has been completed but then lost or destroyed in a burglary or fire.

No final penalties were brought upon either restaurant; instead, OCAHO gave both restaurants 30 days to make additional filings — allowing the companies to right their wrongs.

Lesson Learnt

Initiating, processing, maintaining and auditing procedures for companies and employers are absolutely vital to the health of a company. Such procedures will assist in minimizing and quantifying employer liability, and more importantly will assist and enable the counsel for the employer to craft a defense in the event of audit.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney
Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC
St. Louis, Missouri

The information is not meant to create a client-attorney relationship. This blog is for informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for legal advice. Situations may differ based on the facts.

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2013. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Employment Practices that Could Lead to Immigration Discrimination

In order to help employers, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) sometimes answers immigration-related questions about unfair employment practices, such as an employee presenting either invalid or fraudulent documents.

When an employee provides fraudulent documents, an employer is allowed to request the employee to present a different document. However, the employer’s concern may be that the employee could be committing a felony; and that if the employer asks for more documentation, the employee might commit an additional felony.

The employer needs to remember that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) disallows four types of unlawful conduct. The employer is not allowed to discriminate on the basis of:

1. citizenship or immigration status discrimination;
2. national origin discrimination
3. unfair documentary practices during the employment eligibility verification (Form 1-9) process (“document abuse”); and
4 retaliation for filing a charge or asserting rights under the anti-discrimination provision.

(source)

An employer might be in violation of USCIS policy 8 U.S.C. § 1324a, which makes employment of unauthorized aliens unlawful if the employer is aware that a document is fraudulent but accepts it. If an employer rejects a document that seems to be invalid, then the employer is allowed to ask the employee to present a different document from the Lists of Acceptable Documents from Form I-9. In order to steer clear of violating anti-discrimination laws, employers should examine documents equally for all employees.

Company Policy

Another issue pertains to whether a company policy can fire anyone that presents fraudulent documents, and regard such individuals as unqualified for rehire. It is illegal for an employer to ‘knowingly’ hire an individual who is not authorized to work in the US. The statue 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(1) states, “Employers determined to have knowingly hired or continued to employ unauthorized workers…will be required to cease the unlawful activity, may be fined, and in certain situations may be criminally prosecuted.” If an employee’s document is genuine but the employer deems it to be fraudulent, then the employee can bring charges under the anti-discrimination provision, or INA. During such a case, OSC’s investigation would concentrate on the employer’s objective.

Sometimes an employer can have a company policy of regarding individuals who provide invalid documents as unqualified for rehire. An employee can file charges under the anti-discrimination policy if the employer disallows a work-authorized employee from employment, based on the individual’s previously undocumented status. This sort of “dishonest policy” would be investigated by OSC, wherein OSC would focus on whether the policy is consistently applied, without observance of citizenship status or supposed national origin. OSC will also determine if the employee was terminated based on citizenship status discrimination. However, a consistent treatment of a “dishonesty policy” would not be a violation of the anti-discrimination provision.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney
Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC
St. Louis, Missouri

The information is not meant to create a client-attorney relationship. This blog is for informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for legal advice. Situations may differ based on the facts.

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Employers Could Admit to ‘Knowingly’ Hiring

Young immigrants applying to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) must prove that they have lived in the US for at least five years, and one way to obtain evidence is to ask employers to supply proof of job status. However, employers who consent might also be admitting that they ‘knowingly’ hired an unauthorized worker, which violates federal law.

Low Figures

There are an estimated 1.2 million young immigrants who are eligible for DACA, but since Aug. 15, when US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) began accepting applications, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has only received over 82,000 applications. Figures are lower than predicted, partly because of unforeseen drawbacks in DACA guidelines.

If young immigrants receive eligibility for DACA, they receive deferred action and legal work permits; but they do not receive legal immigration status. While DACA does not lead to a ‘green card’, in most states, applicants are eligible for a driver’s license, a huge benefit.

‘Knowingly’ Hiring and New DACA Guidelines

In order to be eligible, young immigrants must be enrolled in school or have a high school diploma, which may present a dilemma for employers and applicants alike. Many employers rely on low-wage labor in order to run their businesses, and many employees are young immigrants who must work in order to pay for university, or who were forced to drop out because they couldn’t afford university costs. It is estimated that 740,000 working immigrants are eligible for DACA.

USCIS, a division of DHS, made addendums to the DACA guidelines, confirming that employers can help verify DACA applicants. Evidence of knowingly hiring unauthorized workers will not be revealed, “unless there is evidence of egregious violations of criminal statutes or widespread abuses,” the guidelines state. All DHS enforcement resources are being directed towards threats on public safety.  However, the term ‘egregious violations’, has not been defined in the guidance.

DACA guidelines ask applicants to provide any Social Security numbers (SSN) they have previously used. Falsification of SSNs, whether they are fake numbers or real numbers belonging to someone else, is a common occurrence and can be seen as evidence of fraud or identity theft. However, the new guidelines state that the form is only inquiring about numbers, “that were officially issued to you by the Social Security Administration.”  Hence no disclosure of social security numbers is required if the number was not specifically applied for by the applicant. This is a huge relief for E-verify employers, who may reduce the possibility of facing social security mismatches and tentative non-confirmation messages from the Social Security Administration.

The bottom line is that no DACA applicant will be given immunity, but DHS is not interested in using the application as a means to discover individuals who may have abused federal law in an employee-employer relationship.

(NYTimes, “Deportation Deferrals Put Employers of Immigrants in a Bind”, 9/26/2012)

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney
Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC
St. Louis, Missouri

The information is not meant to create a client-attorney relationship. This blog is for informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for legal advice. Situations may differ based on the facts.

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Deferred Status for Dreamers

In the last few months, there has been many reports on Obama’s new Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Memorandum, a form of prosecutorial discretion. The memorandum states that children who entered before June 15 2012, and before they turn 15 years old, could be granted authority to work and lawful status for a period of two years. There are a lot of misunderstandings about the benefits offered, and not enough understanding about the dangers and caveats of filing this application.

Radio Stations Report Incorrect Facts about Deferred Status
Even reputable radio stations get the facts wrong. KMOX and NPR both erroneously reported the incorrect age of eligibility. The eligibility starts at age 15 and ends at age 31, not 30 as these stations reported.

No Path to Citizenship
Deferred action does not confer any lawful immigration status, such as the status enjoyed while waiting for an adjustment of status. Deferred action also does not change the current immigration status, such as a grant of a visa, or lead to US citizenship.

What deferred status provides is a period of authorized stay. In other words, the person in deferred status is allowed to stay in the US with the permission of the government. Any unlawful status before deferred action is granted, or after deferred action status ends, will still be unlawful (source). Immigration can review and/or withdraw the deferred action status at any time.

Presence in the US
In order to apply, individuals must be between the ages of 15 to 31 as of June 15, 2012. They must also have lived in the US continuously from June 15th 2007 to the present, and should have been physically present in the US on June 15th, 2012. Presence in the US is also required when filing an application.

Inspection at the border is not required; individuals could have ‘snuck’ over the border or have overstayed their visa.

Proving Presence in the US
It is fine to have left for a few days to Mexico or the Caribbean; this will not interrupt continuous physical presence. Documentation of stay could include medical and school records, or utility bills and tax filings. The evidence is weighed by USCIS using a ‘totality of circumstances’ standard to prove circumstantially that there is the required presence in the US. In addition, presence could be proved by evidence of stay in the US before and after June 15th, 2012.

Stay in school! Be “all that you can be.”
Applicants must be enrolled in elementary, secondary, high school or college to be eligible. A GED from a reputable school is fine, and a college education is great. An honorable discharge from the Coast Guards or Armed Forces is fine too. Anecdotally, there are only a few who will benefit from service in the armed forces. Only US citizens and permanent residents can enroll with a few exceptions from ‘those vital to the national interest’, and even then most would be eligible for naturalization and would not need deferred status.

Beware of Crimes
Applicants with significant criminal history need not apply. Those who are subject to removal orders from an immigration judge should apply for prosecutorial discretion. ICE may administratively close cases for individuals who are eligible for deferred action.
But if an individual has remained in the US after a grant of voluntary departure from a judge, then that person is subject to other immigration penalties, such as fines and bars to filing an immigration application for 10 years.

Being a Member of a Gang
Many law enforcement agencies maintain a ‘gang book’ of tattoos and the meaning of gang symbols. If an applicant has a gang tattoo or has been profiled in a ‘gang book,’ then that may be a problem, especially if the applicant is interviewed and the tattoos are revealed.

Traffic Offenses
Generally, traffic offenses are not considered fatal to an application. However, those with outstanding traffic tickets; unpaid parking tickets; accidents and arrest warrants for traffic violations; and accumulation points on a drivers’ license close to suspension of the license, need to exercise caution.

DWIs and Domestic Violence
Increasingly domestic violence and driving under the influence are being targeted as bars to immigration benefits. DWI convictions are already a bar to returning on a non-immigrant visa to the US. DWIs are a bar to applying, regardless of the sentence imposed.

Using a False Social Security Number
Using a false social security number is a federal crime with applicable jail time and fines. The applicant risks USCIS reporting the false document use to ICE, which could end in removal and federal prosecution. Chances are that false claims of US citizenship status have been made on I-9 forms, and taxes have been filed using the same social security number. In addition to all the federal crimes, there could also be immigration law violations due to the possible allegations of identity theft. Filing an application under these circumstances is very risky.

Entering Using False Documents
While a minor may not have a say on if the parents entered using false documents, USCIS can still share that information with ICE, and those facts could pose a problem for the parents and others who entered using false documents. All applicants are fingerprinted and photographed. There will be a background check on all applicants, and USCIS can share information about false documents and criminal history with ICE.

Arizona Decided Not to Issue Drivers’ Licenses
Gov. Brewer recently signed an executive order not to issue drivers licenses to conferees of deferred status on the basis that they were in unlawful status. Perhaps she did not read the relevant statutes. This statute is also called the Real ID Act.

Improved Security for Drivers’ Licenses and Personal Identification Cards

Pub.L. 109-13, Div. B, Title II, §§ 201 to 207, May 11, 2005, 119 Stat. 311, provided that:
“(2) Special requirements.–
“(A) In general.–To meet the requirements of this section [this note], a State shall comply with the minimum standards of this paragraph.
“(B) Evidence of lawful status.–A State shall require, before issuing a driver’s license or identification card to a person, valid documentary evidence that the person–
“(i) is a citizen or national of the United States;
“(ii) is an alien lawfully admitted for permanent or temporary residence in the United States;
“(iii) has conditional permanent resident status in the United States;
“(iv) has an approved application for asylum in the United States or has entered into the United States in refugee status;
“(v) has a valid, unexpired nonimmigrant visa or nonimmigrant visa status for entry into the United States;
“(vi) has a pending application for asylum in the United States;
“(vii) has a pending or approved application for temporary protected status in the United States;
(viii) has approved deferred action status; or
“(ix) has a pending application for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States or conditional permanent resident status in the United States.

The Final Word
Deferred status could be used to keep a person in status while they are waiting for a priority date, in the family context. This status could stall unlawful status for a person shy of their 18th birthday. There is also a lot of discussion about filing for advanced parole after obtaining deferred status to exit and re-enter the US, and then, without filing a waiver, to file for immigrant status based on a relative.

The deferred status application is seemingly simple, but could be extremely complicated and lethal for the applicant and family members (see Arrabally, Yerrabelly). Those matters should be discussed with an immigration attorney before applying. Contact Nalini Mahadevan or Diane Metzger at Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney
Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC
St. Louis, Missouri

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather