Every year, many students from all around the world seek student visas in order to enter and study in the United States for a designated period of time.
In an effort to lure foreign students who they “believed were trying to stay in the country illegally,” the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) set up a fake university in Michigan called the University of Farmington.
The fake university admitted students and collected hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, in tuition but never held actual classes. In order to maintain valid student status and keep their visas, foreign students must remain enrolled in their programs while in the United States.
ICE recruited hundreds of these students to their fake university in Michigan and then arrested them for being enrolled in a fake university.
According to the Detroit Free Press, “About 600 students, mostly from India, were enrolled at the university in Farmington Hills, a majority of them in master’s degree programs in engineering or computer-related fields. The students had arrived in the U.S. legally through approved student visas and didn’t have criminal records.”
DHS argues that the students it lured had an objective of committing immigration fraud and that students should have realized no classes were actually held. The problem with this argument is that many students were apprehensive and tried to contact the university and figure out what was happening. They, however, were not told the truth by the school administrators, who were in fact undercover government agents.
As of November 2019, about 250 students have been arrested for immigration violations by ICE. Many of these students were placed in removal proceedings and granted voluntary departure.
To date, we are not aware of any lawsuits filed against the U.S. government for collecting the money or entrapping the students.
Unfortunately, many con artists make phone calls in which they impersonate officials from U.S. government agencies such as Social Security, the IRS, or the Department of Homeland Security. In these scam calls, the person on the phone usually falsely claims that you are in trouble for something, such as non-payment of taxes, or a problem with your Social Security number, or a threat that you are going to be deported from the United States.
These scam artists often try to get you to disclose highly personal and sensitive information, such as your Social Security number, and they also often try to get you to send them money, gifts cards, or other things of value.
Here are a few things to remember:
- If you receive an unexpected phone call from a person who claims to be from the IRS, Social Security, or the Department of Homeland Security, the caller is very likely to be a scam artist. You should simply hang up the phone immediately. If you are able to identify the caller’s phone number, you should block that number.
- Don’t ever give out personal information to someone you do not know. U.S. government officials would never ask you to tell them sensitive information over the phone.
- Don’t give any money or any other thing of value to someone who claims that you need to pay them to clear up your problem.
Here are a few online articles about how to avoid scams:
- Investopedia: The Most Common Social Security Scams and How to Avoid Them
- The Motley Fool: How to Avoid Social Security Scams
- Department of Homeland Security: Common Scams
Con artists make their living by scaring people and making them believe that they need to provide information and money in order to get out of trouble. Don’t let them get away with it!
On November 14, 2019, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a proposed rule in the Federal Register that instructs United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to raise filing fees for numerous applications for immigration benefits. A 30-day period to allow for public comment begins on November 14, 2019.
USCIS is one of the few federal agencies that are funded by customers’ application fees. USCIS states that “federal law requires USCIS to conduct biennial fee reviews and recommend necessary fee adjustments to ensure recovery of the full cost of administering the nation’s immigration laws.”
Unfortunately, this proposed plan to increase USCIS filing fees comes as no surprise given the Trump administration’s efforts to severely limit immigration. The plan includes numerous spikes in fees that will undoubtedly make it more difficult for individuals to apply for immigration benefits in the future.
For example, the cost to apply for U.S. citizenship will increase from $725 to $1,170. According to the Los Angeles Times, the new fee for naturalization “totals about a month’s worth of gross income for an immigrant making the federal minimum wage.”
While there is currently a process in place for individuals to request a fee waiver if they cannot afford the USCIS filing fees, the proposed plan “would eliminate a reduced-fee option for applications from families with income between 150% and 200% of the poverty level and almost completely eliminate waivers for everyone else.”
There is no doubt that this plan aims to reduce the amount of individuals applying for naturalization who, if approved, would gain the right to vote. Studies have shown that previous fee increases lowered naturalization rates and disproportionately affected lower income and Latino immigrants.
Under the current USCIS fee schedule, individuals applying to adjust status or become lawful permanent residents (“green card holders”) must file Form I-485, which costs $1,140, along with an $85 biometrics fee for most applicants, for a total of $1,225. Currently, applicants may also file Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, and Form I-131, Application for Travel Document, may file them along with the I-485 at no additional cost.
The new rule will require applicants who want to concurrently file the I-765 and I-131 to pay an additional $1,075. As a result, the total cost for an I-485, I-765, and I-131 package will increase from $1,225 to $2,195, a 79 percent price hike.
The new proposed rule is likely to draw widespread rebuke from immigration attorneys and advocates throughout the country as it is clearly another targeted ploy by the current administration to hinder legal immigration.
The current presidential administration has been engaged in an unprecedented assault on the right to apply for asylum and to have adequate procedures to handle asylum claims. One particularly painful example is the decision of Attorney General William Barr in a case called Matter of L-E-A-. In this case, the Attorney General overturned the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and issued his own decision to replace it.
The Attorney General’s decision makes it more difficult for certain people to apply for asylum. Asylum applicants must show that the persecution they suffered in the past, or that they fear in the future, is because of one or more of the following five reasons:
- political opinion
- membership in a particular social group
The reason of “membership in a particular social group” is complicated. One such group is family. For example, a person might be targeted by her country’s government or by gangs or rebel groups in her country because of her connection to her family. Perhaps the person’s father is involved in politics, and the government targeted her to retaliate against her father’s political activities. For years, the BIA and numerous federal courts of appeals concluded that a person like this woman is a member of the particular social group consisting of her immediate family. In other words, she would be eligible to seek asylum because she was targeted for being her father’s daughter.
In Matter of L-E-A-, the Attorney General just made it considerably more difficult for a person like this to seek asylum. The Attorney General indicated in the new opinion that if a person claims family as a particular social group, that group would be established for the asylum claim only if the group is “distinct in the society.” It is not enough, according to the Attorney General, that the family is “set apart in the eye of the persecutor.” The family must be perceived as distinct within the society. The Attorney General says that the “average family … is unlikely” to be “recognizable by society at large.”
If, at this point, you are scratching your head and wondering what the Attorney General means, you are not alone. In my view, the Attorney General is trying to close the door on many people who otherwise would have valid asylum claims.
On October 22, 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice published a proposed rule in the Federal Register that would amend regulations to require DNA sampling from hundreds of thousands of noncitizens. Specifically, this rule would require DNA collection from “individuals who are arrested, facing charges, or convicted, and from non-United States persons who are detained under the authority of the United States.”
Legal permanent residents and other immigrants entering the country legally will not be subject to this rule. Attorney General William Barr issued the rule “with the expectation that federal authorities will gather DNA information on about 748,000 immigrants annually, including asylum-seekers presenting themselves at legal ports of entries.”
Immigrant advocates fear that this rule will have implications for U.S. family members of individuals whose fingerprints are taken. Naureen Shah, senior advocacy and policy counsel at the ACLU, said that DNA collection is “the most intimate information that you can take from someone. It is information you can use to find their family members, to know their histories. And we’re going to be taking it from people against their will.”
The Justice Department hopes to send the DNA collected from noncitizens to an FBI database that contains the DNA of individuals who have been convicted of crimes in an attempt to lead to more crimes being solved. This goal has been denounced by immigrant advocates who point to studies demonstrating that the increased flow of undocumented immigrants to the United States does not lead to a spike in crime.
This rule is subject to a 20-day comment period that is likely to see rebuke from immigrant advocates. The Trump Administration’s efforts to harm immigrants is as active as ever, and this rule is just one of the many examples of this onslaught.
Enacted as a result of the attacks on September 11, 2001, and later approved by Congress in 2005, the REAL ID law was made to establish standards in the issuance of driver’s licenses in the United States.
The objective is to eliminate terrorism in air travel by increasing requirements to obtain official documents in order to board airplanes and to enter federal offices.
State offices that issue licenses and identification cards, such as the Secretary of State (SOS), are requiring more and more documents to prove residency. In addition, new licenses will have more security features to prevent them from being falsified.
It has taken the federal government approximately 15 years to fully implement the law because each state has different rules. However, all states must comply with these requirements by October 1, 2020.
This law has begun to be more restrictive for undocumented immigrants or other immigrants who cannot prove their legal stay in the country, or lack a Social Security number to obtain standard driver’s licenses. The new standards might most affect noncitizens from certain states that previously did not require a Social Security number to obtain driver licenses, such as California, Washington, Nevada, among others.
If you do not comply with the REAL ID Act before the deadline of your state, you must show an alternative form of identification to board a domestic flight. Your best option might be a valid passport. Contact the nearest consulate of your country for more information on how to obtain your passport.
NOTE: Federal court orders have temporarily blocked the implementation of this rule. We will need to stay tuned to find out how the courts resolve the issue.
The Trump Administration recently announced a “presidential proclamation” that will take effect on November 3, 2019. The proclamation requires certain people to show that they will obtain health insurance within 30 days of entering the United States, or that they have enough money to cover their health care costs. The new requirement only affects certain persons who are applying for immigrant visas at U.S. consulates outside the United States. Persons who obtain immigrant visas then become permanent residents upon admission to the United States.
Who is not subject to the new rule?
First, let’s talk about the persons who will not be affected by this new requirement. The proclamation does not affect:
- persons under age 18, unless they are accompanying a parent who is also applying for an immigrant visa and who is subject to the proclamation
- children of U.S. citizens
- persons adopted by U.S. citizens
- parents of U.S. citizens, provided that the “sponsor demonstrates to the satisfaction of the consular officer” that his or her healthcare “will not impose a substantial burden” on the U.S. healthcare system
- persons who are not applying for immigrant visas.
How do applicants meet the new requirement?
Applicants for immigrant visas who are subject to the new rule must convince the consular officer that they meet the healthcare requirement. It is unclear whether the U.S. Department of State will establish standards based on the proclamation.
In order to meet the rule, applicants will need to show either (a) they will be covered by an approved health insurance policy within 30 days of entering the United States, or (b) they have enough money to pay for “reasonably foreseeable medical costs.”
The proclamation lists a variety of healthcare plans that would qualify, including:
- an employer-sponsored plan
- a family member’s plan
- an unsubsidized plan from the individual marketplace
- a short-term policy that is effective for at least 364 days
- a catastrophic plan
- a plan offered by the U.S. Armed Forces
- a plan under the Medicare Program
- any other plan that provides “adequate coverage” as determined by U.S. officials
We will need to wait and see how the U.S. consulates handle this new rule, beginning November 3, 2019.
In a previous blog post published on our website, we discussed the Remain in Mexico policy, formally known as the “Migrant Protection Protocols.” This policy forces immigrants seeking asylum at the southern border to wait in Mexico until an asylum hearing is scheduled before an Immigration Judge.
The Texas Observer reports that “as of mid-September, more than 45,000 migrants have been returned to Mexico to await their court proceedings” pursuant to the Remain in Mexico Policy.
As an expansion of this policy, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has built what have come to be known as “tent court facilities” along several ports of entry at the southern border including in Laredo, Texas and Brownsville, Texas. Immigration hearings are being held in these tents even though immigration judges are not physically present. Instead, immigration judges appear via teleconference from immigration courts miles away.
This process has caused confusion among immigrants at the southern border as well as for immigration attorneys. Lisa Koop, a lawyer at the National Immigration Justice Center, described her experience representing immigrants at these courts. According to CNN.com, “Koop and her clients were able to briefly meet in small, air-conditioned rooms before the hearings, which began at 8:30 a.m. During the hearings, Koop described how migrants saw the immigration judge on a screen, but not the Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorneys, adding that it was ‘often hard to hear’ them.”
Currently, approximately 19 judges from three immigration courts are holding hearings via teleconference. They can be seen on video. Although immigration courts are supposed to be open to the public, access to these tent facilities has become difficult because they are within Customs and Border Patrol property. Entry is allowed on a case-by-case basis, and attorneys must file proper documentation in order to enter the facility. If an individual is denied access to the tent facilities, they must appear at the immigration court where the immigration judge is conducting the teleconference from in order to observe hearings.
An immigration judge has criticized the presence of these tent courts. Ashley Tabaddor, an immigration judge in California and president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, states, “We’ve seen a number of issues. One has to do with the sheer volume of cases that judges are being assigned, just [an] unsustainable demand to handle two, three times the cases that they would otherwise be assigned.” She further adds, “The other big issue has to do with the logistical challenges that the respondents have in trying to secure counsel, which means the judges have to bear the brunt of that shortfall.”
It is clear that the creation of these tent courts by DHS poses many problems for immigrants, immigration attorneys, and immigrations judges alike. This is yet another way in which the current administration has targeted asylum seekers in an effort to deter immigration to the United States. Immigrants who are seeking asylum at the southern border are being forced to face more hurdles than the many obstacles that already exist solely because they fear return to their home countries. For how long the Remain in Mexico policy will remain in effect is unknown, but for the time being, it will continue to cause difficulty for asylum seekers and those attorneys wishing to represent them.
It is no longer possible to apply for DACA if you have not already been granted DACA. You can, however, apply to renew your DACA status if you have been granted DACA in the past. Even if you currently have DACA, and even if your current DACA status is valid until late 2020, you should consider applying to renew DACA now.
The Trump Administration has been trying to end the DACA program. DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, was begun by President Obama in 2012 as a way to provide protection against removal, and employment authorization, for certain people who entered the United States before age 16 and who either have a high school degree or are studying for a high school or GED degree.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in case that will decide whether the DACA program survives, or whether it is ended completely. The case is scheduled to be argued at the Supreme Court on November 12, 2019. After the argument, the Supreme Court will consider the case, and eventually will issue a decision. We don’t know when the Supreme Court will issue the decision, but we are almost certain that the decision will be announced between December 2019 and June 2020.
We don’t know how the Supreme Court will rule on the case. We believe, however, that there is a significant possibility that the Supreme Court’s decision will end the DACA program.
If the Supreme Court’s decision ends the DACA program, the next question is: What happens to the people who currently have DACA? The answer is, We don’t know. But we hope that the U.S. government will allow those who currently have DACA to keep their DACA status until the expiration of their employment authorization cards.
So, what is the point of applying now to renew DACA?
If you apply now to renew DACA, before the Supreme Court issues a decision that could end the DACA program, then your application might be approved, and we hope that you would at least be able to have your renewed DACA status through the expiration of your new employment authorization card.
In other words, applying now to renew DACA might give you the opportunity to have DACA status for a bit more time.
Again, we don’t know what the Supreme Court’s decision will be, and we don’t know how the Supreme Court’s decision will affect persons who currently have DACA. But we think it’s a good idea for you to consider applying to renew DACA now, while you still can.
In recent months we have been posting about the many ways that the Trump Administration is changing policies to make life more difficult for immigrants. It seems like every week, and even every day, there is a new announcement of a change for the worse. Some recent examples include many changes that are making it increasingly difficult to seek asylum, making financial support requirements more difficult for applicants for permanent resident status, the end of a humanitarian program to allow persons to be here to receive medical treatment, and the expansion of the use of “expedited removal.”
The continuous announcements of new and different ways to hurt immigrants can be exhausting and demoralizing. If you are feeling this way, we understand. We are in the middle of a challenging time for immigrants, not only in the United States, but in many countries around the world. Anti-immigrant propaganda appears to be on the rise everywhere.
At our office, our commitment to you is that we will work hard with you to do whatever we can to help you in your fight. We will never sugar-coat our assessment of your situation. We always give you an honest assessment of your situation, and how we might be able to help. Sometimes there is a way forward. And, unfortunately, sometimes we need to explain that in some cases there is not a way to help you. Our policy is to listen carefully to you, ask you questions and seek documents to get a complete and realistic view of your situation, and then explain to you how we might be able to help. Then, we get to work to provide you with the best legal services that we can.
Although things are tough at this time, we are hopeful that the future will be brighter.
Whether your case involves an application for permanent residence, a waiver, removal of conditions on permanent residence, naturalization, asylum, removal proceedings in Immigration Court, a BIA appeal, a federal court appeal, a habeas corpus petition, or other federal court action, please understand that we are here for you.