This information is courtesy of the American Immigration Council
The Trump administration is successfully using the COVID-19 pandemic as a pretext to alter the U.S. system of legal immigration. New government data makes clear that these changes will significantly increase employment-based immigration at the expense of people in the family categories—and without any involvement by Congress.
On March 20, the administration suspended routine visa services at all U.S. embassies and consulates abroad. And on April 22, the president signed the COVID-19 immigrant visa ban that targets our family-based and diversity categories with precision.
The immediate combined impact of both changes has been evident for months. The total number of visas–both immigrant and nonimmigrant–issued to noncitizens abroad declined by nearly 95% between January and May of this year. But the long-term impact has only recently been made clear by the end of the fiscal year (FY) and the Department of State’s October visa bulletin.
The COVID-19 Immigrant Visa Ban
The COVID-19 immigrant visa ban relies on the same authority President Trump used to implement the Muslim Ban and its subsequent expansion.
While the prior bans were implemented on national security grounds, the COVID-19 immigrant visa ban was implemented with the stated purpose of preserving employment opportunities for Americans negatively impacted by the recent economic downturn – albeit without any meaningful economic analysis of its purported impact.
And while the ban appears to apply to a combination of noncitizens in the family, diversity, and employment categories, it was drafted in a manner that creates the greatest consequences for those in the family and diversity categories while leaving noncitizen workers seeking to become permanent residents largely untouched.
That is because the ban only suspends the issuance of new immigrant visas to people outside of the U.S., and not those who obtain green cards from inside the country through adjustment of status. The Department of Homeland Security’s own data from FY 2018 (the most recent year available) confirms that over 94% of noncitizens who obtained permanent residency through family ties did so from abroad, while 80% of those who applied for green cards through the employment-based categories did so from within the United States through adjustment of status.
Collectively, this means that the consequences of the COVID-19 immigrant visa ban and the suspension of routine visa services abroad have sharply reduced the number of people who have obtained green cards through close family ties and the diversity category. And under current law, this reduction will result in a significant increase in employment-based immigration in FY 2021.
The October Visa Bulletin Shows the Impact the COVID-19 Immigrant Visa Ban
The allocation of immigrant visas under current law is complex. In general, the U.S. may grant up to 675,000 permanent immigrant visas each year. 480,000 are typically reserved for the family preference categories, 140,000 for the employment-based immigrants, and nearly 55,000 (up from 50,000 in past years) for people in the diversity category.
Under current law, any unused visas in the family preference categories become available on the employment-based side in the next fiscal year, and vice versa. But the demand for immigrant visas from much of the world typically exceeds the supply, so this spillover is rarely significant. The COVID-19 immigrant visa ban has created a major exception.
The Department of State’s October visa bulletin and related announcement from USCIS confirm that thousands of immigrant workers will be able to move forward with the last step in their green card process–adjustment of status. The visa bulletin notes that there will be 261,000 immigrant visas available for immigrant workers in FY 2021–nearly double the annual allocation, and a historically high number.
And while this is certainly welcome news for many immigrant workers and their U.S. employers – including some who have been stuck in visa backlogs for years–this movement has only been made possible due to the sharp reduction in the issuance of visas to immigrant families who will either be subjected to further delays in obtaining permanent residency or lose the ability to do so altogether.
Relief is certainly necessary for people stuck in the years or decades-long waiting lines in our legal immigration system. But the policies that have led to these changes are a cynical attempt to bypass Congress and to implement the president’s long-held immigration priorities through executive fiat.
Cutting the visa numbers in some categories to boost others by presidential proclamation does not address the fundamental problem with our immigration system. We must make immigration to the U.S. more accessible and realistic by boosting the overall visa numbers–not by pitting groups of immigrants against each other.
Posted by Melissa Cruz | Sep 10, 2020 | Demographics, Elections, Immigration 101
Courtesy of the American Immigration Council
Hundreds of thousands of immigrants might be prevented from voting in the 2020 election—even though they are just one step away from becoming new Americans.
Years of fiscal mismanagement at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)—coupled with a series of policy changes under the Trump administration—have led to an enormous backlog of citizenship applications at the immigration benefits agency.
Now, an estimated 300,000 people will not be able to take the citizenship oath—the final step in the naturalization process—by the October 13 voter registration deadline.
The backlog of citizenship applications at USCIS has skyrocketed under the Trump administration. A myriad of changes has contributed to this problem, including increased vetting of applicants and conducting more interviews with fewer USCIS staff members.
The wait time between filing a naturalization application and taking the citizenship oath has increased to an average of nearly nine months. And in some cases, becoming a naturalized citizen can now take up to three years. This is a substantial increase from 2016, when the wait time was just over five months.
The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated this problem. Temporary USCIS office closures brought citizenship interviews and naturalization swearing-in ceremonies to a halt for months.
USCIS did manage to work through the backlog of 110,000 applications that got delayed due to the pandemic. Agency staff conducted drive-thru citizenship ceremonies to help close the gap.
But unfortunately, that did very little for the thousands of people already stuck in a bureaucratic limbo before COVID-19 hit the United States.
Newly naturalized U.S. citizens are one of the fastest growing voting blocs in the country. But the number of new immigrant voters are not on track to match up with previous years.
In February, the Pew Research Center found that over 23 million naturalized citizens would be eligible to vote in the upcoming presidential election. It was estimated they would make up 10% of the entire electorate, the highest percentage ever recorded.
The majority would be voting in five states—California, New York, Florida, Texas, and New Jersey. Notably, both Florida and Texas are battleground states in this year’s election.
But given the backlog of naturalizations, the composition of the electorate may change. Over 15% of those who would have been able to vote in the election if not for the delays are from Mexico. Another 13% come from the Caribbean, while over 9% are South American.
Preventing these would-be voters from participating in the 2020 election makes the electorate less diverse—and less representative of what the United States actually looks like.
USCIS needs to prioritize completing these oath ceremonies by the October voter registration deadline. Aspiring Americans should not miss their chance to help decide the future of the country they have made their home.
Posted by Royce Murray | Sep 14, 2020 | Federal Courts/Jurisdiction, Humanitarian Protection, Temporary Protected Status
Courtesy of the American Immigration Council
In a split decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Trump administration’s termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for four countries can proceed. The fate of nearly 250,000 people from El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Sudan—and their families—is at stake.
The case, Ramos v. Nielsen, was filed in federal district court after the Secretary of Homeland Security agreed to terminate the TPS designations in late 2017 and early 2018. The plaintiffs in the case argued that the Trump administration changed the way it evaluated whether to extend or terminate TPS—yet the public was not given any notice of the change.
That change allowed the administration to take an unreasonably narrow approach to how it assessed a TPS-designated country’s conditions. Now, the government no longer reviews how current conditions impact whether a country is, in fact, a safe place to which a person can return. It only looks at whether the problems in a country at the time TPS was designated still exist.
The plaintiffs also presented evidence that the terminations were motivated by racial animus, including President Trump’s reference to “shithole countries.”
Although the district court had granted a preliminary injunction, the Ninth Circuit overturned that decision on September 14, 2020. The court ruled that the decision to designate, extend, or terminate TPS is not subject to judicial review.
The judges made clear that they did not see the evidence of racism or hostility by the administration toward nationals of certain foreign countries as sufficiently connected to the decision to terminate these TPS designations.
TPS terminations for two other countries, Honduras and Nepal, were made at a later time and challenged in a separate lawsuit, Bhattarai v. Nielsen. That case remains pending but the decision in Ramos could open the door to terminations for those countries.
Due to the pending litigation and the preliminary injunction, the terminations have been on hold since they were announced nearly three years ago. TPS holders remained protected from deportation and could renew their work permits—the two main benefits of this status.
The Ninth Circuit ruling does not take effect immediately. New deadlines for the termination of TPS vary by country. For nationals of Haiti, Nicaragua, and Sudan, the soonest TPS could end is March 5, 2021; for nationals of El Salvador, the earliest is November 5, 2021. A separate lawsuit in New York challenging the Haiti designation alone, Saget v. Trump, has also blocked Haiti’s TPS designation and could afford those TPS holders more time.
Ahilan Arulanantham of the ACLU of San Diego, who argued the case in court, noted that they plan to ask a full panel of Ninth Circuit judges to review the case, as opposed to the three-judge panel who issued this ruling. This appeal could result in further extension of these deadlines.
The path forward for TPS holders could be impacted by all three branches of government. An uncertain appeals process leaves the timing and outcome of judicial decision-making up in the air. The outcome of the November presidential election would impact whether TPS—or a similar form of relief known as Deferred Enforced Departure—is provided or ended permanently.
But neither the judicial or executive branch can offer what TPS holders and their families need most: a permanent solution.
The vast majority of TPS holders have lived in the United States for 20 years and have built their lives here. Approximately 275,000 U.S. citizen children have a parent with TPS. And TPS holders are integral to our communities. 130,000 TPS holders are essential workers helping us all endure and recover from the COVID-19 pandemic.
It will take congressional action to ensure that TPS holders and families don’t face the impossible pain of separation. The House passed H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019, but it stalled in the Senate. Now is the time for Congress to find the political will and compassion to support—and not separate—these families once and for all.
Posted by Claudia Valenzuela | Aug 27, 2020 | Detention, Due Process & the Courts, Right to Counsel
Courtesy of the American Immigration Council
Communication with the outside world is crucial for people in jail. This includes individuals facing deportation while detained in immigration detention centers, who do not have the right to court-appointed counsel.
Having the ability to make a phone call in a detention center is essential for a variety of reasons. Individuals need to secure legal representation or advice, gather evidence to support their defenses against deportation, and receive needed emotional support from family and friends.
Despite the importance of phone access for detained immigrants, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has routinely failed to ensure reliable and accessible phone calls in its facilities for decades.
Hurdles to phone access for detained immigrants, which mirror those for incarcerated individuals in every U.S. jail system, include:
During the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person visits have been largely discontinued at immigration detention facilities. Phone access is more important now than ever before.
Advocates have long challenged poor phone access at ICE facilities. A California lawsuit resulted in a 2016 settlement agreement that made improvements at designated facilities in Northern California.
The fight for phone access continues. A recent challenge in Southern California resulted in a court-issued order that required ICE to provide free, unmonitored, unrecorded legal calls to detained individuals—reflecting the importance of phone access during the pandemic. And advocates filed a preliminary injunction to secure adequate phone access at a New Mexico jail on August 26.
Unfortunately, there is another complicating factor to securing proper phone access in detention centers. ICE frequently contracts with a private, prison telecommunications firm that manages and monitors its phone lines.
This set-up—highly lucrative for companies and fraught with troubling concerns about incentivizing further detention and data harvesting—means that ICE routinely evades accountability for an acceptable phone system in its jails. Local counties also profit from this arrangement.
ICE would do well to follow the recent example in San Francisco, which joined New York in making all phone calls from jails free, in addition to ending nearly all commissions based on phone charges. These challenges will likely and justifiably continue until ICE provides universally free, confidential, and unmonitored phone access to individuals in its custody.
Carranza et al. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement et al., District Court for the District of New Mexico, Case No. 20-CV-00424
This article is courtesy of the American Immigration Council
ICE implemented policies that deny or restrict detainees ability to make telephone calls at the El Paso Processing Center and the Otero County Processing Center. These policies and practices interfere with individuals’ ability to access counsel, to gather evidence and information, and to prepare for removal proceedings—problems only exacerbated by the current national health crisis brought on by COVID-19.
The American Immigration Council joined Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP joined this lawsuit to stop Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from denying detainees the ability to contact their lawyers and the outside world by phone.
The Council’s partners on the ground in detention centers have also reported that these phone access issues have made it extremely difficult to represent detained individuals because in-person visits are impossible due to COVID-19.
By allowing these problems to persist, ICE is violating its own legal standards
By Jorge Loweree, Aaron Reichlin-Melnick and Walter Ewing, Ph.D.
May 27, 2020
Courtesy of the American Immigration Council
The COVID-19 (the novel coronavirus) pandemic, and the federal government’s response, has disrupted virtually every aspect of the U.S. immigration system. Visa processing overseas by the Department of State, as well as the processing of some immigration benefits within the country by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), have come to a near standstill. Entry into the United States along the Mexican and Canadian borders, including by asylum seekers, has been severely restricted. Immigration enforcement actions in the interior of the country have been curtailed, although they have not stopped entirely. Tens of thousands of people remain in immigration detention despite the high risk of COVID-19 transmission in crowded jails, prisons, and detention centers that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) uses to hold noncitizens. The pandemic led to the suspension of almost all immigration court hearings and limited the functioning of those few courts which remain open.
This report seeks to provide a comprehensive overview of COVID-19-related disruptions throughout the immigration system and identifies recommendations for adjustments and improvements to the federal response. Given that the landscape of immigration policy is changing rapidly in the face of the pandemic, this report will be updated as needed.
The COVID-19 pandemic profoundly impacted the ability of foreign nationals to travel to the United States in any status. Beginning in February 2020, the Trump administration has imposed four separate travel restrictions on individuals who had been present in certain countries where COVID-19 epidemics were occurring. As the pandemic spread, on March 20, 2020 the Department of State suspended “routine visa services” at all embassies and consulates worldwide, including cancelling all “immigrant and nonimmigrant visa appointments.” This suspension encompasses applicants for both employment-based and family-based immigrant visas, including the relatives of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (LPRs), as well as applicants for nonimmigrant visas for visitors, students, and skilled workers. However, the State Department has continued to process all H-2 visa cases, which includes temporary agricultural workers, and allows for emergency visa appointments.
The pandemic has also led to new barriers on legal immigration. The Trump administration implemented a proclamation, effective April 24, 2020, that suspends the entry of certain immigrants, with the stated purpose of preserving employment opportunities for U.S. citizens affected by the economic impact of the pandemic.
Analysis and Recommendations:
The United States should work to remove the red tape that makes it difficult for many medical professionals to move to the United States and contribute their talents. In addition, the ban on most new immigrants should be terminated, as it is a thinly veiled attempt to implement drastic changes to our system of family-based immigration and not a genuine attempt to help American workers.
On March 20, 2020, the United States reached joint agreements with the governments of Canada and Mexico to suspend “non-essential” travel through ports of entry on each border. On the same day, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued an emergency regulation which permits the Director of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to “prohibit … the introduction” of individuals when the Director believes that “there is serious danger of the introduction of [a communicable] disease into the United States.” Citing the new CDC authority, the Border Patrol began “expelling” individuals who arrive at the U.S.-Mexico border, without giving them the opportunity to seek asylum. Over 20,000 people have since been “expelled” at the southern border.
Analysis and Recommendations:
Suspending all processing of asylum seekers in this manner is likely a violation of international and domestic law. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) should immediately develop plans to administer appropriate screenings at the border for asylum seekers and unaccompanied children, allowing for the safe processing of all individuals in a way that protects the vulnerable, while preventing the spread of the coronavirus.
As of April 24, 2020, USCIS suspended all in-person services at its offices through at least June 4, 2020. As a result, interviews for all immigration benefit applications and asylum applications are postponed and will be rescheduled when normal operations resume. USCIS also “temporarily suspended” all biometrics appointments, meaning that new fingerprints cannot be taken. The agency suspended naturalization oath ceremonies, although a very limited number of small ceremonies have taken place in some jurisdictions. This has unnecessarily delayed the ability of tens of thousands of immigrants to become U.S. citizens. The agency has also made a number of technical changes to the H-2A and H-2B processes which make it easier for noncitizens who are working to keep the nation’s food supply stable to remain in the United States for the duration of the national emergency.
However, the agency has resisted calls to grant automatic status extensions or otherwise make changes which would prevent foreign nationals from inadvertently losing status during the current national emergency declared by the president on March 13, 2020.
Analysis and Recommendations: Despite the extraordinary set of circumstances presented by the pandemic, USCIS has not issued broad policy changes that would enable noncitizens to focus on their well-being rather than their immigration paperwork. USCIS should suspend all filing deadlines and extend all nonimmigrant statuses for at least 90 days beyond the duration of the COVID-19 national emergency. The agency should also administer oath ceremonies online to approved naturalization candidates.
The arrival of the coronavirus in the United States posed an immediate threat to detained individuals and individuals working in detention facilities. Unlike people living outside of detention centers, those in detention centers cannot socially distance from others, as they are locked inside facilities with hundreds of other people. People in detention have limited access to soap and often must pay for hand sanitizer. Face masks are difficult to obtain or simply not distributed at all. The risk of the virus spreading to additional ICE detention centers is exacerbated by the agency’s practice of routinely transferring people from one detention center to another, often multiple times. At least three people have died after contracting COVID-19 while detained.
In response to the coronavirus pandemic, ICE limited its enforcement actions throughout the United States. While the agency did not fully suspend arrests, it promised to “temporarily adjust its enforcement posture” beginning on March 18, 2020, by “focus[ing] enforcement on public safety risks and individuals subject to mandatory detention based on criminal grounds.” The effect of ICE’s limited enforcement became quickly apparent, with the agency sending fewer people to ICE detention centers in the weeks after the change in policy.
Analysis and Recommendations: ICE should use its broad authority to parole people and release them on alternatives to detention to the widest extent possible while their immigration court proceedings continue. For those who remain detained, telephonic access to one’s attorneys and family members should be robust. In addition, despite a drop in immigration enforcement inside the United States, ICE has continued to deport people to countries around the world, even though this threatens to further spread the coronavirus. ICE should limit enforcement actions that put communities at heightened risk due to COVID-19 by implementing meaningful enforcement priorities.
As the pandemic spread throughout the United States, the immigration court system responded slowly. It was not until March 16 that the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) postponed large “master calendar hearings” nationwide. Despite suspending all non-detained immigration court hearings, EOIR has not suspended all other hearings. Hearings continue for all immigrants held in detention, as well as for unaccompanied children held in shelters by the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement.
Analysis and Recommendations: Requiring detained immigrants and unaccompanied children to gather in close proximity for court hearings risks furthering the spread of COVID-19. EOIR should suspend all in-person immigration court hearings and utilize remote technology until COVID-19 is under control.
In response to the economic downturn, Congress passed several stimulus measures intended to provide financial support to individuals, businesses, and governments across the country—while also increasing the availability of medical testing and treatment.
The “Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security” Act, or CARES Act, directs the expenditure of approximately $2 trillion in new spending to provide emergency assistance—including direct payments—for individuals, families, and businesses impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, many immigrants and their families have been left out. Noncitizens who lack Social Security numbers but nevertheless file federal income tax returns using Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs)—including millions of lawfully-present noncitizens and their families—are deemed ineligible for recovery rebates and emergency grants. Even American citizens who file their taxes jointly with someone using an ITIN are denied eligibility.
Analysis and Recommendations: These bills largely failed to provide meaningful support to millions of immigrants and mixed status families throughout the United States. Congress should provide support to mixed status families and take proactive steps to protect immigrants whose status is at risk due to COVID-19.
The COVID-19 (the novel coronavirus) pandemic, and the federal government’s response, has disrupted virtually every aspect of the U.S. immigration system. Visa processing overseas by the Department of State, as well as the processing of some immigration benefits within the country by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), have come to a near standstill. Entry into the United States along the Mexican and Canadian borders, including by asylum seekers, has been severely restricted. Immigration enforcement actions in the interior of the country have been curtailed, although they have not stopped entirely. Tens of thousands of people remain in immigration detention despite the high risk of COVID-19 transmission in crowded jails, prisons, and detention centers that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) uses to hold noncitizens. The pandemic led to the suspension of almost all immigration court hearings and limited the functioning of those few courts which remain open.
This report seeks to provide a comprehensive overview of COVID-19-related disruptions throughout the immigration system and identifies recommendations for adjustments and improvements to the federal response. Given that the landscape of immigration policy is changing rapidly in the face of the pandemic, this report will be updated as needed.
The Effect of COVID-19 on Immigrants and Nonimmigrants Abroad
Citizens of foreign countries who wish to travel to the United States must generally obtain a visa to enter the country. Exceptions exist for citizens and nationals of 39 countries that participate in the Visa Waiver Program. The interviews and processing associated with the issuance of U.S. visas are handled by a network of U.S. Department of State (DOS) embassies and consulates around the world.
The COVID-19 pandemic profoundly impacted the ability of foreign nationals to travel to the United States as both immigrants (people granted permission to permanently reside in the United States) and non-immigrants (people who come to the United States on a temporary basis for work, study, business, or tourism). Much of this is due to changes to routine operations at U.S. consulates which are intended to reduce the rate of infection and protect U.S. personnel abroad. The Trump administration has also prevented nationals of specific countries with high rates of COVID-19 infection from traveling to the United States during the pandemic. Further, the Trump administration issued a proclamation effective April 24, 2020, that suspended the entry of certain immigrants. The stated purpose of the proclamation was preserving employment opportunities for U.S. citizens affected by the economic impact associated with the pandemic. The collective impact of the limitations on visa processing and availability sharply curtailed immigration to the United States for immigrants and non-immigrants alike.
On February 2, 2020, President Trump issued a proclamation imposing restrictions on entry into the United States of noncitizens traveling from China. On March 2, similar restrictions followed regarding noncitizens traveling from Iran. On March 13, the administration issued restrictions on travel from the 26 European nations of the Schengen Area: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland. On May 24, similar restrictions were imposed on travel from Brazil. The proclamations prevent entry into the United States, as either immigrants or nonimmigrants, of any noncitizens who were physically present within the designated countries “during the 14-day period preceding their entry or attempted entry into the United States.”
However, none of the proclamations fully ban travel to the United States. These restrictions do not apply to any noncitizen who is:
These proclamations have no end date. On the first and fifteenth day of each month, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is required to recommend whether the President “continue, modify, or terminate” each proclamation.
On March 20, the DOS suspended “routine visa services” at all embassies and consulates worldwide. All “immigrant and nonimmigrant visa appointments” were cancelled as of that date. This suspension encompasses applicants for both employment- and family-based immigrant visas, including the relatives of U.S. citizens and LPRs. The suspension also halted the processing of applications for nonimmigrant visas for visitors, students, and skilled workers. However, consulates remain open for “emergency” visa appointments.
The suspension of consular services does not affect services to U.S. citizens or anyone traveling under the Visa Waiver Program who are not required to visit an embassy or consulate to obtain permission to travel to the United States. However, because many Visa Waiver Program countries are in Europe, and people who have recently spent time in the region are subject to restrictions in traveling to the United States, most Visa Waiver Program entrants would be unable to enter the United States without first spending at least 14 days outside of their home country. In addition, the DOS continues to process all H-2 visa cases, which includes temporary agricultural workers, given the importance of that visa category “to the economy and food security of the United States.”
The suspension of visa services temporarily halted the J-1 Exchange Visitor Program, which brings thousands of foreign doctors to the United States. However, medical professionals with an approved visa petition or certificate of eligibility in an approved exchange visitor program can seek an emergency visa appointment at the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate. Given the uncertainty involved in seeking emergency visa appointments, this measure may not meet the need for foreign medical professionals to work in COVID-19 hot spots. As a result, the suspension of visa services at consulates overseas could seriously restrict the ability of medical professionals to get visas. For those that do manage to enter the United States, closures of USCIS offices jeopardize their ability to remain in status once here.
The combined impact of international travel restrictions related to slowing the spread of COVID-19 caused the U.S. refugee resettlement program to grind to a halt as well. On March 17, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Organization for Migration, who facilitate the processing and travel of refugees abroad, temporarily suspended travel by refugees to their country of resettlement.
On April 20, 2020, five weeks after the European travel restrictions were issued, President Trump declared that he intended to sign an executive order that would “temporarily suspend immigration into the United States.”
On April 22, 2020, President Trump signed Proclamation 10014 (the COVID-19 immigration ban), suspending the entry of certain immigrants into the United States for an initial period of 60 days, beginning on April 24. The proclamation relies on authority granted to the President under section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to suspend the “entry” of noncitizens whose entry the President has deemed to be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” This is the same statutory basis that the president invoked in 2017 when implementing bans on the entry of immigrants and nonimmigrants from a number of Muslim-majority and other countries.
The stated justification for the new immigration ban varies from previous orders. The president justified the Travel Ban (or Muslim Ban) on national security grounds, with the stated purpose of further increasing the scrutiny of individual immigrants and nonimmigrants as well as increasing information-sharing between the United States and other nations. Unlike the Travel Ban, the COVID-19 immigration ban suspends the entry of immigrants based on their purported negative impact on the U.S. labor market, not on national security grounds. The proclamation does not include any analysis supporting the claim that suspending the entry of certain immigrants will help native-born workers recover from the economic downturn associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.
The COVID-19 immigration ban primarily targets a unique combination of noncitizens who seek to come to the United States based on their close familial relationships to U.S. citizens or LPRs. As of April 24, 2020, the proclamation suspends the issuance of all new immigrant visas to people outside the U.S. with some exceptions.
1, Applicants submit asylum statements that either are too long or too general. Often times, they do not have the evidence to substantiate their claims.
2. Applicants often make the mistake of preparing forms on their own which leads to mistakes and/or inconsistencies.
3. Failing to disclose past arrests either because they are too "old" or because the case was sealed or expunged.
Contact our law firm and let us help you get your application on the right track to offer you the best chance for success. We are located in Miami, Florida
Datos cortesia de American Immigration Council
Cada año, miles de personas que llegan a nuestra frontera o ya en los Estados Unidos solicitan asilo, o protección contra la persecución. Los solicitantes de asilo deben navegar por un proceso difícil y complejo que puede involucrar a múltiples agencias gubernamentales. Aquellos que reciben asilo pueden solicitar vivir en los Estados Unidos permanentemente y obtener un camino a la ciudadanía y también pueden solicitar que su cónyuge e hijos se unan a ellos en los Estados Unidos. Esta hoja informativa ofrece una visión general del sistema de asilo en los Estados Unidos, incluyendo cómo se define el asilo, los requisitos de elegibilidad y el proceso de solicitud.
¿Qué es el asilo?
El asilo es una protección concedida a los extranjeros que ya están en los Estados Unidos o que llegan a la frontera y que cumplen con la definición de derecho internacional de "refugiado". La Convención de las Naciones Unidas de 1951 y el Protocolo de 1967 definen a un refugiado como una persona que no puede o no está dispuesta a regresar a su país de origen, y no puede obtener protección en ese país, debido a una persecución pasada o a un temor fundado de ser perseguido en el futuro "debido a la raza, religión, nacionalidad, pertenencia a un grupo social en particular u opinión política". El Congreso incorporó esta definición a la ley de inmigración de los Estados Unidos en la Ley de Refugiados de 1980.
Como signatario del Protocolo de 1967, y a través de la ley de inmigración de los Estados Unidos, los Estados Unidos tienen obligaciones legales para proporcionar protección a aquellos que califican como refugiados. La Ley de Refugiados estableció dos caminos para obtener el estatus de refugiado, ya sea del extranjero como refugiado reasentado o en los Estados Unidos como solicitante de asilo.
¿Cómo ayuda el asilo a las personas que huyen de la persecución?
Un asilado, o una persona a la que se le concede asilo, está protegido de ser devuelto a su país de origen, está autorizado a trabajar en los Estados Unidos, puede solicitar una tarjeta de Seguro Social, puede solicitar permiso para viajar al extranjero y puede solicitar traer a los miembros de la familia a los Estados Unidos. Los asirios también pueden ser elegibles para ciertos programas gubernamentales, como Medicaid o Asistencia Médica para Refugiados.
Después de un año, un asilado puede solicitar el estatus de residente permanente legal (es decir, una tarjeta verde). Una vez que la persona se convierte en residente permanente, debe esperar cuatro años para solicitar la ciudadanía.
¿Qué es el proceso de solicitud de asilo?
Hay dos formas principales en las que una persona puede solicitar asilo en los Estados Unidos: el proceso afirmativo y el proceso defensivo.
1. Asilo Afirmativo: Una persona que no está en proceso de remoción puede solicitar asilo afirmativamente a través de los Servicios de Ciudadanía e Inmigración de los Estados Unidos (USCIS, por sus cuentas, por sus datos). Si el oficial de asilo de USCIS no concede la solicitud de asilo y el solicitante no tiene un estatus migratorio legal, él o ella es remitido a la corte de inmigración para los procedimientos de expulsión, donde él o ella puede renovar la solicitud de asilo a través del proceso defensivo y presentarse ante un juez de inmigración.
2. Asilo Defensivo: Una persona que está en proceso de expulsión puede solicitar asilo defensivamente presentando la solicitud ante un juez de inmigración en la Oficina Ejecutiva para la Revisión de Inmigración (EOIR) en el Departamento de Justicia. En otras palabras, se solicita asilo como defensa contra la expulsión de los Estados Unidos. A diferencia del sistema judicial penal, EOIR no proporciona un abogado designado para las personas en la corte de inmigración, incluso si no pueden retener a un abogado por su cuenta.
Los solicitantes de asilo que llegan a un puerto de entrada de los Estados Unidos o ingresan a los Estados Unidos sin inspección generalmente deben solicitarlo a través del proceso de asilo defensivo. Ambos procesos de solicitud requieren que el solicitante de asilo esté físicamente presente en los Estados Unidos.
Con o sin abogado, un solicitante de asilo tiene la carga de probar que cumple con la definición de refugiado. Los solicitantes de asilo a menudo proporcionan pruebas sustanciales a lo largo de los procesos afirmativos y defensivos que demuestran la persecución pasada o que tienen un "temor fundado" de futuras persecuciones en su país de origen. Sin embargo, el propio testimonio de la persona suele ser crítico para su determinación de asilo.
Ciertos factores impiden a las personas del asilo. Con excepciones limitadas, las personas que no soliciten asilo en el plazo de un año después de entrar en los Estados Unidos serán excluidas de recibir asilo. Del mismo modo, los solicitantes que se encuentran en peligro para los Estados Unidos están excluidos del asilo.
¿Existe una fecha límite para las solicitudes de asilo?
Una persona generalmente debe solicitar asilo dentro de un año de su más reciente llegada a los Estados Unidos. En 2018, un tribunal federal de distrito determinó que el DHS está obligado a notificar a los solicitantes de asilo de este plazo en una demanda colectiva que impugnó el hecho de que el gobierno no proporcionara a los solicitantes de asilo una notificación adecuada del plazo de un año y un procedimiento uniforme para presentar solicitudes oportunas.
Los solicitantes de asilo en los procesos afirmativos y defensivos se enfrentan a muchos obstáculos para cumplir el plazo de un año. Algunas personas enfrentan repercusiones traumáticas desde su tiempo de detención o viaje a los Estados Unidos y tal vez nunca sepan que existe una fecha límite. Incluso aquellos que son conscientes de la fecha límite se encuentran con barreras sistémicas, como largos atrasos, que pueden hacer imposible presentar su solicitud de manera oportuna. En muchos casos, no perder el plazo de un añoes la única razón por la que el gobierno niega una solicitud de asilo.
¿Qué sucede con los solicitantes de asilo que llegan a la frontera de EE. UU.?
De 2004 a 2019, el DHS sometó a casi todos los no ciudadanos que fueron encontrados por un funcionario estado unidense en un puerto de entrada o cerca de la frontera, a un proceso acelerado que autoriza al DHS a realizar una rápida eliminación de ciertas personas.
Para ayudar a garantizar que los Estados Unidos no violen las leyes internacionales y nacionales al devolver a las personas a países donde su vida o su libertad pueden estar en riesgo, los solicitantes de asilo en procesos de expulsión acelerados tienen al riesgo el miedo creíble y los procesos de detección razonables de miedos. Es importante destacar que, si bien el proceso descrito a continuación es la forma en que los solicitantes de asilo deben ser procesados bajo la ley, a veces los oficiales de la CBP no siguen adecuadamente este proceso. Además, los oficiales de la CBP a veces someten a los solicitantes de asilo a varias nuevas políticas creadas por la administración Trump en 2019 y 2020 que se describen con más detalle a continuación.
Miedo creíble
Las personas que se colocan en procedimientos de expulsión acelerado y que le dicen a un funcionario de Aduanas y Protección Fronteriza (CBP) que temen ser perseguidos, torturados o regresar a su país o que desean solicitar asilo deben ser remitidos a una entrevista de detección de miedo creíble realizada por un oficial de asilo.
Si el oficial de asilo determina que el solicitante de asilo tiene un temor creíble a la persecución o tortura, significa que la persona ha demostrado que tiene una "posibilidad significativa" de establecer la elegibilidad para el asilo u otra protección en virtud de la Convención contra la Tortura. El individuo será remitido a la corte de inmigración para continuar con el proceso de solicitud de asilo defensivo.
Si el oficial de asilo determina que la persona no tiene un temor creíble, se ordena la expulsión del individuo. Antes de la remoción, el individuo puede apelar la decisión de miedo creíble negativo persiguiendo un proceso de revisión truncada ante un juez de inmigración. Si el juez de inmigración anula una constatación negativa de miedo creíble, el individuo es colocado en un nuevo proceso de expulsión a través del cual el individuo puede solicitar protección contra la expulsión, incluido el asilo. Si el juez de inmigración confirma la conclusión negativa del oficial de asilo, el individuo será removido de los Estados Unidos.
· En el Año Fiscal (ejercicio fiscal) 2019, USCIS encontró que 75,252 individuos tienen miedo creíble. Estas personas, muchas de las cuales fueron detenidas durante este proceso de selección, tendrán la oportunidad de solicitar asilo defensivamente y establecer que cumplen con la definición de refugiado.
· El número de casos de miedo creíbles se ha disparado desde que se implementó el procedimiento: en el año fiscal 2009, USCIS completó 5.523 casos. Las terminaciones de casos alcanzaron un máximo histórico en el ejercicio 2019 con 102.204.
Miedo razonable
Las personas que vuelven a entrar ilegalmente en los Estados Unidos después de una orden de expulsión previa y los no ciudadanos condenados por ciertos delitos están sujetos a un proceso de remoción acelerado diferente llamado restablecimiento de la remoción. Para proteger a los solicitantes de asilo de la expulsión sumaria antes de que se escuche su solicitud de asilo, a los que restablecen los procedimientos de expulsión que expresan el temor de regresar a su país se les concede una entrevista de "miedo razonable" con un oficial de asilo.
Para demostrar un temor razonable, el individuo debe demostrar que existe una "posibilidad razonable" de que sea torturado en el país de expulsión o perseguido por motivos de raza, religión, nacionalidad, opinión política o pertenencia a un grupo social en particular. Si bien las determinaciones de miedo creíbles y razonables evalúan la probabilidad de persecución o tortura de una persona si se elimina, el estándar de miedo razonable es mayor.
Si el oficial de asilo descubre que la persona tiene un temor razonable a ser buscada o torturada, será remitida a un tribunal de inmigración. La persona tiene la oportunidad de demostrar a un juez de inmigración que es elegible para "retención de la remoción" o "aplazamiento de la remoción", protección contra futuras persecuciones o torturas. Si bien la retención de la expulsión es similar al asilo, algunos de los requisitos son más difíciles de cumplir y el alivio que proporciona es más estrecho. Significativamente, y a diferencia del asilo, no proporciona un camino a la residencia permanente legal o la ciudadanía.
Si el oficial de asilo determina que la persona no tiene un temor razonable de persecución o tortura futura, el individuo puede apelar la decisión negativa a un juez de inmigración. Si el juez confirma la determinación negativa del oficial de asilo, el individuo es entregado a los oficiales de la ley de inmigración para su remoción. Sin embargo, si el juez de inmigración anula la conclusión negativa del oficial de asilo, el individuo se coloca en un proceso de expulsión a través del cual el individuo puede perseguir la protección contra la expulsión.
· En el año 2019, USCIS encontró que 3.306 personas tenían un temor razonable.
Cambios en el proceso de asilo en la frontera durante la administración Trump
En abril de 2018, la administración Trump emitió una guía que formalizaba una política previa de rechazar a los solicitantes de asilo en la frontera con Estados Unidos. Bajo "medida", se les dice a los solicitantes de asilo que esperen en México, por lo general colocando sus nombres en una lista, hasta que los oficiales de la CBP determinen que un puerto de entrada determinado tiene capacidad para procesarlos. A través de la medición, se impide a los solicitantes de asilo acceder al proceso de asilo cuando llegan a la frontera con Estados Unidos. Luego, en enero de 2019, el DHS comenzó a implementar una serie de nuevos programas que han alterado significativamente los procesos tradicionales de miedo creíble y razonable una vez que un solicitante de asilo finalmente puede acceder a esos procesos.
El primero de estos programas, conocidos como Los Protocolos de Protección al Migrante (MPP, por susten, por susten, por susten, por susten, por sus datos, por sus manos),obliga a los solicitantes de asilo a ser enviados de vuelta a México, donde están obligados a esperar la fecha de sus audiencias judiciales de inmigración celebradas en cuatro lugares diferentes de Estados Unidos al otro lado de la frontera. Las personas que pasan por MPP no pasan por el proceso creíble de detección de miedo o miedo razonable, sino que son puestos directamente en procedimientos judiciales que permiten a los funcionarios estadounidenses enviarlos de vuelta a México para esperar sus audiencias judiciales subsiguientes. Aunque MPP fue derribado por el Noveno Circuito como una violación de la ley, la decisión fue puesta en espera por la Corte Suprema y permanece en el proceso de apelaciones. Hasta abril de 2020, más de 65.000 personas habían sido puestas en MPP.
En julio de 2019, el DHS emitió una nueva norma que prohibía el asilo a todas las personas que transitaron por un tercer país antes de llegar a los Estados Unidos sin haber solicitado asilo en ese país. Bajo esa regla, casi todas las personas que llegaron a la frontera entre Estados Unidos y México por primera vez después del 16 de julio de 2019, no son elegibles para asilo, a menos que hubieran sido sometidas a medición antes de esa fecha. Aquellos que están sujetos a la regla son examinados en la frontera bajo el nivel de "miedo razonable" elevado y todavía pueden solicitar la retención de la expulsión o protección en virtud de la Convención contra la Tortura. Esta regla también fue anulada por el Noveno Circuito, y esa decisión también fue puesta en espera por el Tribunal Supremo y permanece en el proceso de apelación.
En noviembre de 2019, el DHS comenzó a implementar un "Acuerdo de Cooperativa de Asilo" con Guatemala. En virtud de este tipo de acuerdo, que también se conoce como un acuerdo de "Tercer País Seguro", las personas que solicitan asilo en los Estados Unidos son enviadas a un tercer país y deben solicitar asilo allí. Las personas sujetas a estos acuerdos no pueden solicitar asilo ni ninguna otra protección, incluida la retención de la expulsión, en los Estados Unidos. Un acuerdo similar con Honduras entró en vigor en mayo de 2020. La legalidad de estos acuerdos está actualmente en proceso de impugnación.
Cambios en el Proceso de Asilo debido a COVID-19
En marzo de 2020, en respuesta a la pandemia COVID-19 (coronavirus), los Centros para el Control de Enfermedades emitieron una orden por la que suspendía la "introducción" de las personas que habían estado en "Zonas afectadas por coronavirus". Citando esta autoridad, la Patrulla Fronteriza comenzó a "expulsar" a las personas que llegan a la frontera entre Estados Unidos y México sin darles la oportunidad de solicitar asilo, incluso si expresan temor de persecución. Hasta abril de 2020, la CBP informó que había expulsado a casi 21.000 personas como resultado de esta nueva política. En el momento de la publicación, la orden se había prorrogado indefinidamente.
Además, en respuesta a la pandemia, todas las audiencias del MPP en la frontera se suspendieron al menos hasta el 22 de junio de 2020, y se suspendieron los acuerdos de cooperación en materia de asilo. Como resultado, el proceso de asilo ha sido completamente bloqueado para las personas que llegan a la frontera entre Estados Unidos y México durante COVID-19, con la excepción de algunas pocas personas que no pueden ser "expulsadas" por razones logísticas.
¿Cuánto tiempo dura el proceso de asilo?
En general, el proceso de asilo puede tardar años en concluirse. En algunos casos, una persona puede presentar su solicitud o aprobar una prueba de miedo creíble o razonable y recibir una audiencia o entrevista con fecha de años en el futuro.
· En septiembre de 2019, había 339.836 solicitudes de asilo afirmativas pendientes con USCIS. El gobierno no estima el tiempo que tomará programar una entrevista inicial para estos solicitantes de asilo, aunque históricamente el retraso podría llegar a cuatro años.
· El atraso en los tribunales de inmigración de Estados Unidos alcanzó un máximo histórico en abril de 2020, con más de 1,17 millones de casos de remoción abierta. En promedio, estos casos habían estado pendientes durante 734 días y seguían sin resolverse.
· Las personas con un caso judicial de inmigración que finalmente recibieron alivio, como asilo, en febrero de 2020 esperaron más de 930 días en promedio para ese resultado. Illinois y Virginia tuvieron los tiempos de espera más largos, promediando 1,300 días hasta que se concedió el alivio en el caso de inmigración.
Los solicitantes de asilo, y cualquier miembro de la familia que espera unirse a ellos, quedan en el limbo mientras su caso está pendiente. Los atrasos y retrasos pueden causar una separación prolongada de las familias refugiadas, dejar a los familiares en el extranjero en situaciones peligrosas y dificultar la retención de los abogados pro bono que puedan comprometerse con los servicios jurídicos durante un período prolongado durante un período prolongado mientras dure el caso del solicitante de asilo.
Aunque los solicitantes de asilo pueden solicitar autorización de trabajo después de que su caso haya estado pendiente durante 150 días (o más en algunas circunstancias), la incertidumbre de su futuro impide el empleo, la educación y las oportunidades de recuperación de traumas.
¿Qué sucede con los solicitantes de asilo mientras se procesa su solicitud?
Entre los solicitantes de asilo se encuentran algunos de los miembros más vulnerables de la sociedad: niños, madres solteras, víctimas de violencia doméstica o tortura, y otras personas que han sufrido persecución y trauma. Si bien la ley estadounidense establece a los solicitantes de asilo que llegan el derecho a permanecer en los Estados Unidos mientras su solicitud de protección está pendiente, el gobierno ha argumentado que tiene el derecho de detener a esas personas, en lugar de liberarlos en la comunidad. Algunos tribunales han rechazado esta interpretación y han declarado que los solicitantes de asilo que cumplen determinados criterios tienen derecho a una audiencia de fianzas. Los defensores han impugnado la práctica de detener a los solicitantes de asilo sin proporcionar una oportunidad significativa para solicitar la libertad condicional, incluidas las demandas colectivas que documentan la detención prolongada —a veces años duraderos— de personas con miedo creíble a la espera de la adjudicación de su solicitud de asilo.
La detención agrava los desafíos a los que ya se enfrentan los solicitantes de asilo y puede afectar negativamente a la solicitud de asilo de una persona. Los niños y las familias detenidassufren problemas de salud mental y física, como depresión, trastorno de estrés postraumático e infecciones frecuentes. Los estudios han encontrado que las personas detenidas en los procedimientos de expulsión tienen casi cinco veces menos probabilidades de obtener asesoramiento jurídico que las que no estándetenidas. Esta disparidad puede afectar significativamente el caso de una persona, ya que es más probable que aquellos con representación soliciten protección en primer lugar y obtengan con éxito el alivio solicitado.
El abogado Luis Mariano Garcia se especializa en casos de asilo político y en ayudar a familias permanecer en los Estados Unidos. Cada caso de asilo político es único y diferente, por lo tanto es importante que cada solicitante se reúna con el abogado para que el le pueda ofrecer la mejor solución para su caso particular.
Florida has long been home to a large number of immigrants, many of whom hail from the Caribbean. One in five residents in the state was born in another country. Together, immigrants make up more than a quarter of Florida’s labor force. As neighbors, business owners, taxpayers, and workers, immigrants are an integral part of Florida’s diverse and thriving communities and make extensive contributions that benefit all.
More than one in five Florida residents is an immigrant, while one in eight residents are native-born U.S. citizens with at least one immigrant parent.
More than half of all immigrants in Florida are naturalized U.S. citizens.
Information courtesy of the American Immigration Council
Data courtesy of the American Immigration Council
Data courtesy of the American Immigration Council
Data courtesy of the American Immigration Council
Industry
Number of Immigrant Workers
Health Care and Social Assistance
417,067
Retail Trade
347,298
Construction
305,888
Accommodation and Food Services
290,074
Administrative & Support; Waste Management; and Remediation Services
221,268
Source: Analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2018 American Community Survey 1-year PUMS data by the American Immigration Council.
As consumers, immigrants add nearly one-hundred billion dollars to Florida’s economy.
Immigrant entrepreneurs in Florida generate billions of dollars in business revenue.
Data courtesy of the American Immigration Council
Luis Mariano Garcia was born and raised in Miami, Florida. Mr. Garcia has represented clients with problems ranging from immigration issues to deportation proceedings. He has helped detained people, has represented individuals in visa and immigration court, and has filed appeals and petitions for his satisfied clients. Luis Mariano Garcia is an immigration lawyer who is proud to serve his hometown, and put his eclectic legal experience to use for you.
Trust in Attorney Luis Mariano Garcia to work closely alongside you for the duration of your case, as well as throughout your courtroom proceedings.
Schedule your consultation with Luis Mariano Garcia, Esq. today by calling (305) 598-6097.
The first step is for us to work with you and come up with a plan to get the results you need. Through our understanding of the law and your understanding of the circumstances, we will craft a path to success.
Don't wait! Contact us for a consultation and let us help you figure out what your best next steps are. The sooner you have a plan of action, the better your chances of taking the correct steps to get the results you want.
Fecha de Publicación: 13 de diciembre de 2019
WASHINGTON—Hoy, el Servicio de Ciudadanía e Inmigración de Estados Unidos (USCIS, por sus siglas en inglés) amplió su guía de políticas (PDF, 290 KB) con respecto a los actos ilegales que podrían impedir que un solicitante cumpla con el requisito de buen carácter moral para la naturalización. Cometer un acto ilegal, así como ser condenado o encarcelado por un acto ilegal durante el período reglamentario para la naturalización, podría hacer que un solicitante resulte inelegible para la naturalización si se determina que dicho acto afecta adversamente el carácter moral.
Anteriormente, el Manual de Políticas de USCIS no incluía información extensa acerca de los actos ilegales. Esta actualización al Manual de Políticas proporciona ejemplos sobre actos ilegales e instrucciones adicionales para asegurar que los adjudicadores de USCIS hagan determinaciones uniformes y justas, e identifica más claramente actos ilegales basados en precedentes judiciales, que pueden afectar el buen carácter moral. Esta actualización no cambia el impacto que tiene un acto ilegal en el análisis que hace USCIS de si un solicitante puede demostrar buen carácter moral. Los adjudicadores de campo reciben una amplia capacitación para aplicar la ley sobre buen carácter moral y la reglamentación sobre actos ilegales. Ellos están conscientes de cuáles actos pueden impedir que un solicitante obtenga la naturalización y no están limitados a los ejemplos listados en el Manual de Políticas.
El 10 de diciembre, USCIS emitió guías de políticas separadas en el Manual de Políticas de USCIS acerca de cómo dos o más condenas por conducir bajo la influencia del alcohol o drogas o cambios posteriores a las sentencias criminales pueden afectar las determinaciones de buen carácter moral.
“En la Ley de Inmigración y Nacionalidad, el Congreso determinó que el buen carácter moral es un requisito para la naturalización”, dijo Mark Koumans, director interino de USCIS. “USCIS está comprometido con administrar fielmente el sistema de inmigración legal de nuestra nación, y esta actualización ayuda a asegurar que los adjudicadores de nuestra agencia tomen decisiones uniformes y justas respecto a la consideración de los actos ilegales en el buen carácter moral al momento de determinar la elegibilidad a la ciudadanía estadounidense”.
Bajo la Ley de Inmigración y Nacionalidad (INA), un solicitante de naturalización debe demostrar buen carácter moral. Aunque la INA no define directamente qué es buen carácter moral, sí describe ciertos actos que impiden demostrar el buen carácter moral de un solicitante. Algunos ejemplos de actos ilegales reconocidos por la jurisprudencia que impiden demostrar buen carácter moral incluyen, pero no se limitan a:
En general, los solicitantes deben demostrar que han sido y siguen siendo personas de buen carácter moral durante el periodo reglamentario previo a solicitar la naturalización y hasta que toman el Juramento de Lealtad. Por lo general, el periodo reglamentario es cinco años para los residentes permanentes de Estados Unidos, tres años para los solicitantes que son cónyuge de ciudadano estadounidense, y un año para algunas personas que solicitan basándose en servicio militar estadounidense cualificado.
Los oficiales de USCIS deben hacer aún un análisis caso por caso para determinar si un acto es ilegal y afecta adversamente el buen carácter moral del solicitante. También, deben determinar si existen circunstancias atenuantes. Una circunstancia atenuante debe estar conectada al acto ilegal y debe preceder o ser contemporánea con la comisión del acto ilegal. Actualizaremos el adiestramiento que reciben los adjudicadores para reflejar esta guía ampliada.
.png/:/cr=t:7.63%25,l:0%25,w:100%25,h:84.75%25/rs=w:600,h:300,cg:true)
WASHINGTON — El Servicio de Ciudadanía e Inmigración de Estados Unidos obtuvo victorias judiciales en fallos judiciales emitidos la semana pasada por el Noveno Circuito, y el lunes por el Cuarto Circuito para suspender los mandatos judiciales preliminares y respetar la autoridad legal conferida a la Administración por el Congreso de Estados Unidos, que requiere que los extranjeros que buscan entrar y permanecer en Estados Unidos sean autosuficientes.
" Las recientes decisiones judiciales motivan a USCIS, ya que son signos positivos de que la implementación de la regla de inadmisibilidad basada en carga pública es posible", dijo la subdirectora en funciones de USCIS, Kathy Nuebel Kovarik. "Esta regla hace cumplir una ley de inmigración que está en vigor desde hace mucho tiempo, que ha estado vigente desde el siglo XIX y que el Congreso no ha cambiado en décadas".
El 5 de diciembre, el Tribunal de Apelaciones de Estados Unidos para el Noveno Circuito emitió un fallo a favor de la moción de DHS para suspender los mandatos preliminares otorgados por los Tribunales de Distrito de Estados Unidos para el Distrito Norte de California y el Distrito Este de Washington. El 9 de diciembre, el Tribunal de Apelaciones de Estados Unidos para el Cuarto Circuito emitió un fallo a favor de la moción de DHS para suspender el mandato judicial preliminar otorgado por el Tribunal de Distrito de Estados Unidos para el Distrito de Maryland.
DHS sigue sujeto a una orden judicial vigente en todo el país en un caso pendiente ante el Tribunal de Distrito de Estados Unidos para el Distrito Sur de Nueva York y una orden judicial limitada al estado de Illinois pendiente ante el Tribunal de Distrito de Estados Unidos para el Distrito Norte de Illinois. Los litigios relacionados continúan ante los Tribunales de Apelaciones de Estados Unidos para el Segundo y Séptimo Circuito.
La regla final, emitida en agosto, dicta cómo DHS determinará si un extranjero es inadmisible en Estados Unidos en función de su probabilidad de convertirse en una carga pública en cualquier momento en el futuro, según lo establecido en la Ley de Inmigración y Nacionalidad.
Para obtener más información sobre USCIS y sus programas, visite uscis.gov/es o síganos en Twitter (@uscis_es)Instagram (/uscis), YouTube (/uscis), Facebook (/uscis.es), and LinkedIn (/uscis).
Fecha de Publicación: 13 de noviembre de 2019
WASHINGTON—El Servicio de Ciudadanía e Inmigración anunció hoy una regla propuesta para evitar que los extranjeros entren ilegalmente a Estados Unidos y para prevenir que presenten solicitudes de asilo que sean frívolas, fraudulentas o no meritorias con el propósito de obtener autorización de empleo.
La regla propuesta permitirá que USCIS extienda mejor las protecciones a aquellos que presentan solicitudes de asilo legítimas. USCIS también busca prevenir que algunos criminales extranjeros obtengan autorizaciones de empleo antes de que se adjudiquen los méritos de sus solicitudes de asilo.
La regla propuesta surge del Memorándum Presidencial sobre Medidas Adicionales para Mejorar la Seguridad en la Frontera y Recobrar la Integridad en Nuestro Sistema de Inmigración del 29 de abril de 2019, que enfatiza que es la política de Estados Unidos gestionar programas de inmigración humanitaria de manera segura y ordenada, y denegar prontamente los beneficios a quienes no cualifican. Nada en esta regla cambia los requisitos de elegibilidad para asilo. En cambio, esta regla fortalece los estándares que permiten que un extranjero trabaje a base de su solicitud de asilo pendiente.
“Nuestro sistema de inmigración está en crisis. Los extranjeros ilegales manipulan nuestro sistema de asilo para una oportunidad económica, lo que debilita la integridad de nuestro sistema de inmigración y demora la ayuda para los solicitantes legítimos de asilo que tienen necesidad de obtener protección humanitaria”, dijo el director interino de USCIS, Ken Cuccinelli. “USCIS debe tomar medidas para abordar los factores de atracción que alientan a los extranjeros a ingresar ilegalmente a Estados Unidos y abusar de nuestra infraestructura de asilo. Estas reformas propuestas están diseñadas para recobrar la integridad del sistema de asilo y disminuir los incentivos de presentar una solicitud de asilo con el propósito principal de obtener una autorización de empleo”.
Según ordena el memorándum presidencial, USCIS propone:
Además, USCIS propone:
Las detenciones no resueltas o cargos pendientes podrían resultar en la denegación de la solicitud de autorización de empleo como una cuestión de discreción.
Each year, thousands of noncitizens arriving at our border or already in the United States apply for asylum, or protection from persecution. Asylum seekers must navigate a difficult and complex process that can involve multiple government agencies. Those granted asylum have the opportunity to apply to live in the United States permanently, receive certain benefits, and be reunited with their family members. This fact sheet provides an overview of the asylum system in the United States, including how asylum is defined, eligibility requirements, and the application process.
Asylum is a protection granted to foreign nationals already in the United States or at the border who meet the international law definition of a “refugee.” The United Nations 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol define a refugee as a person who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her home country, and cannot obtain protection in that country, due to past persecution or a well-founded fear of being persecuted in the future “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Congress incorporated this definition into U.S. immigration law in the Refugee Act of 1980.
As a signatory to the 1967 Protocol, and through U.S. immigration law, the United States has legal obligations to provide protection to those who qualify as refugees. The Refugee Act established two paths to obtain refugee status—either from abroad as a resettled refugee or in the United States as an asylum seeker.
An asylee—or a person granted asylum—is protected from being returned to his or her home country, is authorized to work in the United States, may apply for a Social Security card, may request permission to travel overseas, and can petition to bring family members to the United States. Asylees may also be eligible certain benefits, such as Medicaid or Refugee Medical Assistance.
After one year, an asylee may apply for lawful permanent resident status (i.e., a green card). Once the individual becomes a permanent resident, he or she must wait four years to apply for citizenship.
There are two primary ways in which a person may apply for asylum in the United States: the affirmative process and the defensive process. Asylum seekers who arrive at a U.S. port of entry or enter the United States without inspection generally must apply through the defensive asylum process. Both processes require the asylum seeker to be physically present in the United States.
With or without counsel, an asylum seeker has the burden of proving that he or she meets the definition of a refugee. Asylum seekers often provide substantial evidence throughout the affirmative and defensive processes demonstrating either past persecution or that they have a “well-founded fear” of future persecution in their home country. However, the individual’s own testimony is usually critical to his or her asylum determination.
Certain factors bar individuals from asylum. With limited exceptions, individuals who fail to apply for asylum within one year of entering the United States will be barred from receiving asylum. Similarly, applicants who are found to pose a danger to the United States are barred from asylum.
An individual generally must apply for asylum within one year of arriving in the United States. Whether DHS is obligated to notify asylum seekers of this deadline is the subject of pending litigation. A class-action lawsuit has challenged the government's failure to provide asylum seekers adequate notice of the one-year deadline and a uniform procedure for filing timely applications.
Asylum seekers in the affirmative and defensive processes face many obstacles to meeting the one-year deadline. Some individuals face traumatic repercussions from their time in detention or journeying to the United States and may never know that a deadline exists. Even those who are aware of the deadline encounter systemic barriers, such as lengthy backlogs, that can make it impossible to file their application in a timely manner. In many cases, missing the one-year deadline is the sole reason the government denies an asylum application.
Noncitizens who are encountered by, or present themselves to, a U.S. official at a port of entry or near the border are subject to expedited removal, an accelerated process which authorizes DHS to perform rapid deportations of certain individuals.
To ensure that the United States does not violate international and domestic laws by returning individuals to countries where their life or liberty may be at risk, the credible fear and reasonable fear screening processes are available to asylum seekers in expedited removal processes.
Credible Fear
Individuals who are placed in expedited removal proceedings and who tell a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) official that they fear persecution, torture, or returning to their country or that they wish to apply for asylum should be referred for a credible fear screening interview conducted by an asylum officer.
If the asylum officer determines that the asylum seeker has a credible fear of persecution or torture, it means that the person has proven that he or she has a “significant possibility” of establishing eligibility for asylum or other protection under the Convention Against Torture. The individual will then be referred to immigration court to proceed with the defensive asylum application process.
If the asylum officer determines the person does not have a credible fear, the individual is ordered removed. Before deportation, the individual may appeal the negative credible fear decision by pursuing a truncated review process before an immigration judge. If the immigration judge overturns a negative credible fear finding, the individual is placed in further removal proceedings through which the individual can seek protection from removal. If the immigration judge upholds the negative finding by the asylum officer, the individual will be removed from the United States.
Reasonable Fear
Individuals who re-enter the United States unlawfully after a prior deportation order and noncitizens convicted of certain crimes are subject to a different expedited removal process called reinstatement of removal. To protect asylum seekers from summary removal before their asylum claim is heard, those in reinstatement of removal proceedings who express a fear of returning to their country are afforded a “reasonable fear” interview with an asylum officer.
To demonstrate a reasonable fear, the individual must show that there is a “reasonable possibility” that he or she will be tortured in the country of removal or persecuted on the basis of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. While both credible and reasonable fear determinations evaluate the likelihood of an individual’s persecution or torture if deported, the reasonable fear standard is higher.
If the asylum officer finds that the person has a reasonable fear of persecution or torture, he or she will be referred to immigration court. The person has the opportunity to prove to an immigration judge that he or she is eligible for "withholding of removal" or "deferral of removal"—protection from future persecution or torture. While withholding of removal is similar to asylum, some of the requirements are more difficult to meet and the relief it provides is narrower. Significantly, and unlike asylum, it does not provide a pathway to lawful permanent residence.
If the asylum officer determines the person does not have a reasonable fear of future persecution or torture, the individual may appeal the negative decision to an immigration judge. If the judge upholds the asylum officer’s negative determination, the individual is turned over to immigration enforcement officers for removal. However, if the immigration judge overturns the asylum officer's negative finding, the individual is placed in removal proceedings through which the individual can pursue protection from removal.
Overall, the asylum process can take years to conclude. In some cases, a person may file his or her application and receive a hearing or interview date years in the future.
Asylum seekers, and any family members waiting to join them, are left in limbo while their case is pending. The backlogs and delays can cause prolonged separation of refugee families, leave family members abroad in dangerous situations, and make it more difficult to retain pro bono counsel for the duration of the asylum seeker’s case.
Although asylum seekers may apply for work authorization after their case has been pending for 150 days, the uncertainty of their future impedes employment, education, and trauma recovery opportunities.
Asylum seekers include some of the most vulnerable members of society—children, single mothers, victims of domestic violence or torture, and other individuals who have suffered persecution and trauma. Some of these individuals may live in the United States while their application is processed, yet the government has detained others—including children and families—for some or all of this time.
While U.S. law provides arriving asylum seekers the right to be in the United States while their claim for protection is pending, the government has argued that it has the right to detain such individuals. Some courts have rejected this interpretation and held that asylum seekers meeting certain criteria have a right to a hearing over their detention if they have been held for at least six months. Several lawsuits have challenged the practice of detaining asylum applicants, including class-action suits that document the prolonged detention—sometimes lasting years—of individuals with credible fear awaiting adjudication of their claim for asylum.
Detention exacerbates the challenges asylum seekers already face and can negatively impact a person’s asylum application. Children and families who are detained suffer mental and physical health problems, including depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and frequent infections. Studies have found that detained individuals in removal proceedings are nearly five times less likely to secure legal counsel than those not in detention. This disparity can significantly affect an individual's case, as those with representation are more likely to apply for protection in the first place and successfully obtain the relief sought.
In FY 2016, the most recent year with available data, 20,455 individuals were granted asylum: 11,729 affirmatively and 8,726 defensively (Figure 1). Total annual asylum grants averaged 23,669 between FY 2007 and FY 2016.
The countries of nationality for individuals granted asylum have largely remained the same in this 10-year period (FY 2007-2016), with nationals of China and Egypt making up significant shares of asylees. Other individuals granted asylum in that time period included nationals of Guatemala, Haiti, Venezuela, Iraq, Ethiopia, Iran, Colombia, and Russia.
In FY 2016, Chinese and Salvadoran nationals represented the greatest shares of asylees (accounting for 21.9 and 10.5 percent, respectively, of all individuals granted asylum in FY 2016). Nationals of China, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras combined accounted for half (49.4 percent) of the 20,455 individuals granted asylum—either affirmatively or defensively—in FY 2016. A total of 98 nationalities were represented among all individuals granted asylum in FY 2016.
Source: American Immigration Council analysis of government data. Office of Immigration Statistics, Tables 17 and 19 in 2016 Yearbook of Immigration Statistic (Washington, DC: U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 2018), https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2016.