posts

USCIS Closed January 9, 2025

Posted on by newyorkvisalawyer_o0id8f

USCIS Offices Closed January 9, 2025

President Biden has declared Thursday, January 9, a National Day of Mourning to remember the life and legacy of James Earl Carter Jr., the 39th president of the United States, and has issued an Executive Order Providing for the Closing of Executive Departments and Agencies of the Federal Government on January 9, 2025.

Accordingly, all USCIS offices will be closed on Thursday, January 9, 2025. The USCIS Contact Center live assistance will also be closed. USCIS will reschedule all naturalization ceremonies, interviews, and appointments set for that day and inform those affected of the new date.

All applicants who have biometric appointments scheduled for January 9 will receive a new appointment notice within three weeks. Applicants can also reschedule their appointment using the biometric services appointment rescheduling tool on their USCIS online account before their scheduled appointment.

If you wish to reschedule your appointment you can contact USCIS by calling or using the online tools and resources. Additional information is available on the USCIS Contact Us page.

USCIS UPDATES POLICY MANUAL RE CASE ASSISTANCE & EMERGENCIES/UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES

Posted on by Joseph Caraccio

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is updating the USCIS Policy Manual to clarify flexibilities that may be available to benefit requestors/applicants during and after an emergency or unforeseen circumstance.

The update explains that during certain emergencies or unforeseen circumstances that may present unanticipated challenges to immigration benefit requestors, USCIS may use its discretion to implement certain flexibilities relating to requests for extension of stay and change of status, applications for employment authorization, requests for document replacement, abandonment or failure to respond to requests for evidence, fee waivers, expedited processing, and satisfactory departure.

▸ Emergencies and unforeseen circumstances may include;

▸ Natural disasters (for example, hurricanes, wildfires, or other severe weather);

▸ National emergencies (for example, public health emergencies);

▸ Conflicts abroad; or

▸ Other unforeseen circumstances (for example, terrorist attacks, mass shootings, or cyber attacks) that may present unanticipated challenges to benefit requestors.

The details are explained in the Policy Advisory, Emergencies or Unforeseen Circumstances. The changes will be seen in the Policy Manual at Volume 1, Part H – Emergencies or Unforeseen Circumstances.

The policy update provides that during or after an emergency or unforeseen circumstance USCIS may decide to exercise discretion in various ways in order to avoid cases being negatively impacted by the situation. Some of the actions they may take include:

Domestically, USCIS may apply flexibilities, as appropriate, to individuals affected by natural catastrophes who live in a location that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has identified as a disaster area for purposes of public assistance. See FEMA’s Disasters & Assistance and How a Disaster Gets Declared webpages for more information.

DHS may exercise discretion to defer requirements associated with Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) generally found in INA 274A.

The Secretary of Homeland Security, after consultation with appropriate federal agencies, may designate a foreign state (or any part of such foreign state) for temporary protected status if the conditions in the foreign state fall into one, or more, of the three statutory bases for designation: armed conflict, environmental disasters, or extraordinary and temporary conditions. See INA 244(b)(1).

ICE may allow designated school officials to authorize a reduced course load for students. See 8 CFR 214.2(f)(6)(iii). ICE or USCIS may authorize a temporary change to employment requirements for students. See INA 101(a)(15)(F)(i). See 8 CFR 214.2(f). See Volume 2, Nonimmigrants, Part F, Students (F, M) [2 USCIS-PM F].

USCIS, as well as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), may authorize deferred action as a discretionary act of administrative convenience to delay or decline to exercise immigration enforcement authority on a case-by-case basis. See Section 442(c) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296 (PDF), 116 Stat. 2135, 2194 (November 25, 2002). See Delegation to the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services​, Delegation 0150.1, signed June 5, 2003 (effective March 1, 2003) (delegating authority to grant deferred action).

The President of the United States may authorize deferred enforced departure for a designated group of noncitizens as an exercise of the President’s power to conduct foreign relations.

USCIS may extend the stay of nonimmigrants present on an expiring visa. See Volume 2, Nonimmigrants, Part A, Nonimmigrant Policies and Procedures, Chapter 4, Extension of Stay, Change of Status, and Extension of Petition Validity [2 USCIS-PM A.4].

USCIS may accept untimely filed applications.  see Volume 2, Nonimmigrants, Part A, Nonimmigrant Policies and Procedures, Chapter 4, Extension of Stay, Change of Status, and Extension of Petition Validity [2 USCIS-PM A.4]. For a discussion of how approved untimely requests could impact a subsequent adjustment of status application, see Volume 7, Adjustment of Status, Part B, 245(a) Adjustment, Chapter 4, Status and Nonimmigrant Visa Violations (INA 245(c)(2) and INA 245(c)(8)) [7 USCIS-PM B.4].

DHS may grant an individual parole or extend the period of time the parole is valid. See INA 212(d)(5)(A). For more information on parole, see the Humanitarian or Significant Public Benefit Parole for Noncitizens Outside the United States webpage.  See 8 CFR 212.5(d). 

USCIS may expedite the processing and production of travel documents or other benefit requests. For general policy on expedite requests related to travel documents, see Part A, Public Services, Chapter 5, Expedite Requests [1 USCIS-PM A.5]. For information on how to make an expedite request, see the Expedite Requests webpage. For information about the criteria for evaluating such requests see Part A, Public Services, Chapter 5, Expedite Requests, Section A, Expedite Criteria or Circumstances [1 USCIS-PM A.5(A)]. For information on emergency issuance of certain travel documents, see the Emergency Travel webpage. For filing requirements, see instructions for Form I-131.

USCIS may extend the time provided for applicants to respond to a Request for Evidence (RFE) or Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) or accept late-filed responses or late-filed Motions to Reopen/Reconsider. See 8 CFR 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(2) and 8 CFR 103.5(a)(1)(iii). Only a motion to reopen may be excused as late. However, the appellate period for a revocation on notice is generally 15 days, so an appeal filed after 15 days could be treated as a motion. See 8 CFR 205.2. See Part B, Submission of Benefit Requests, Chapter 4, Fee Waivers and Fee Exemptions, Section E, Emergent Circumstance [1 USCIS-PM B.4(E)]. See USCIS’ Immigration Relief in Emergencies or Unforeseen Circumstances webpage and the Frequently Asked Questions on the USCIS Fee Rule webpage.

USCIS could waive filing fees. See Part B, Submission of Benefit Requests, Chapter 4, Fee Waivers and Fee Exemptions, Section E, Emergent Circumstance [1 USCIS-PM B.4(E)]. See USCIS’ Immigration Relief in Emergencies or Unforeseen Circumstances webpage and the Frequently Asked Questions on the USCIS Fee Rule webpage.

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Affected Section: Volume 1, General Policies and Procedures Adds new Part H (Emergencies or Unforeseen Circumstances).
USCIS may also make other minor technical, stylistic, and conforming changes consistent with this update.

Citation
Volume 1: General Policies and Procedures, Part H, Emergencies or Unforeseen Circumstances [1 USCIS-PM H] (Chapters 1-3).

CASE ASSISTANCE

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is updating guidance in Volume 1, Part A, of the USCIS Policy Manual to include current case assistance and feedback avenues.

The Policy Manual update:

  • Recommends that stakeholders submit a change of address through the self-service change of address tool in their USCIS online account as soon as possible;
  • Updates how USCIS resolves address discrepancies;
  • Updates information on our case assistance tools and resources to reflect the expansion of online tools and resources;
  • Replaces program-specific case assistance information with a link to our Contact Us webpage, where stakeholders can find detailed, program-specific assistance information;
  • Updates our response time goals for service requests from 15 calendar days to 15 business days, which is current USCIS practice. It also removes the timeframe for processing priority requests but retains priority processing for certain categories; and
  • Updates and clarifies information on providing feedback to USCIS. 

CITATION
Volume 1: General Policies and Procedures, Part A, Public Services [1 USCIS-PM A] (Chapters 1- 4, 7, 9, and 10).

CAN TRUMP MAKE NEW YORK ABANDON ITS SANCTUARY CITY POLICIES & PROTECTIONS?

Posted on by newyorkvisalawyer_o0id8f

President Elect Trump has promised mass deportations, massive new immigration detention facilities, immigration enforcement officers patrolling all the cities, and [more] AI drones in the skies over the southern border as part of his plan to deport the 12-30 million undocumented immigrants in the US along with their US citizen children and certain legal immigrants…it has gone off the rails and he hasn’t even taken office yet. So can Trump actually enact any of his batshit crazy plans?

Donald Trump has repeatedly promised that on his first day in office he will begin the largest deportation of immigrants in US history, further stating in several interviews that he will take unprecedented steps to identify, apprehend, and remove immigrants in the US without immigration status, stating that he intends to use the US military to execute his mass-deportations. In light of the threats from president-elect Trump, the immigrant communities have been wondering how far Trump can legally in furtherance of his goals. One question people have been asking is whether Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents will be sent to patrol the streets of New York City or if ICE agents will be able to raid NYC shelters currently housing thousands of migrants.

Most people are aware that NYC is considered “a sanctuary city” but it isn’t entirely clear what that means. If you ask different people you will get different answers. My understanding is that a sanctuary city is a city that has policies in place that protect undocumented immigrants from federal immigration enforcement and that does not assist federal immigration authorities by providing information or detaining people at the request of ICE. These policies are limited by laws that require cooperation in certain situations of course and most sanctuary cities have exceptions to their own policies for individuals that pose a danger to the community. New York has a number of policies going back decades that defend immigrant rights and protect immigrants from federal enforcement.

For instance, NYC has a policy stating that ICE cannot carryout arrests at sensitive locations including shelters, schools, church’s and hospitals without a judicial warrant signed by a judge..The Governor of NY has made herself clear on the issue. Despite her rather liberal positions on many social issues and the States adoption of many socially liberal policies since she has been Governor, she is jumping on the ‘blame the immigrants’ bandwagon. As a politician she probably can’t turn down the opportunity to shift any anger or blame for the current economic conditions and the brief rise in crime in NY around the time of COVID. Hochul recently said, “Someone breaks the law, I’ll be the first one to call up ICE and say, ‘Get them out of here,’” when asked how she would respond to Trump’s plans for mass deportations and whether New York would be a sanctuary state under her leadership. She went on to say, “When those are identified, I’ll be the first one to help get rid of them.” She did clarify that “those who come here legally, we want to get them jobs.” A popular sentiment shared by many who don’t understand that for the majority of the world there is no way to “come here legally.” Hochul has also said “get them all and send them back”.

The current Mayor of NYC, Eric Adams ran for his office claiming to be a modern day MLK and defender of immigrants rights only a few years ago. However, ever since he was charged with several counts of fraud & corruption and the news broke of his extensive corruption and involvement in criminal activity, he has become a sudden Trump supporter. It seems he is unaware that the President will not be able to pardon him for State charges, or he simply wishes to avoid an additional Federal investigation. Since Trump’s victory he has expressed a willingness to work with the new (old) administration and their promised mass deportations. Adams has stated he even wants to collaborate with the new head of ICE. It is even being said that Adams may be working with the Trump administration to rewrite NYC’s laws relating to immigration status and ICE collaboration.

Recently, Adams again stated that he wants to go above the New York City Council’s authority to roll back NYC’s sanctuary city laws. He does not have the legal authority to change the laws, as those changes would have to go through the legislative process. The Mayor cannot unilaterally change the law but he can certainly issue executive orders that change policies or possibly go even further to make things easier for ICE and more difficult for the people of NY, regardless of whether or not that would be legal. Any major oversteps would eventually go to court but could still do damage. In the past Adams used an emergency executive order to circumvent a new law that banned the use of solitary confinement in NY, which has resulted in a lawsuit.

The good news is that the City Council does not seem to be onboard with Adams in the changing of these policies. Adrienne Eadie Adams, the Speaker of the NYC Council, defended the city’s sanctuary policies earlier this year, saying the policies “foster trust and cooperation between immigrant communities and local authorities which is critical to public safety.”

Trump and the Republican controlled Congress may take steps to force NYS and even NYC to cooperate with their mass deportations. Trump made promises on the campaign trail to “outlaw sanctuary cities” which of course they cannot do. But a bill already passed the House “No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities” that seeks to limit federal funding to “sanctuary cities.” The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, which many claim is a blueprint for Trump’s second term outlines the withholding of FEMA money for emergencies, federal money for highways and other important infrastructure, and would basically force NY’s hand since they cannot lose that funding.

The really crazy shit like trying to deport US citizens, he won’t be able to do that. He will be able to try and make people’s lives miserable. It is going to be a difficult time for the immigrant community and his efforts will absolutely devastate the US economy as well.

KEEPING FAMILIES TOGETHER PAROLE-IN-PLACE ENDS BY

Posted on by newyorkvisalawyer_o0id8f

On August 19, 2024, the US Department of Homeland Security began accepting applications for a new program they announced called “Keeping Families Together” which was a process for certain noncitizen spouses and noncitizen stepchildren of U.S. citizens to request parole-in-place. This program was implemented using existing statutory authority that allowed for parole-in-place in other circumstances such as parents and spouses of members of the U.S. armed forces.

Immediately after the programs debut on August 19, 2024, several US States filed a lawsuit challenging the program as unlawful and seeking an injunction to block its implementation. A temporary injunction was put in place preventing USCIS from adjudicating or approving any of the applications that were filed during the three days that the program was open.

The program is dead now after this Court’s decision. I don’t think anyone was really holding out hope for the program to continue after the election results came in but now it is official and there is yet another AILA webpage easter egg to stumble onto one day and wonder what could have been (they also have a page explaining the Court’s decision and that the program is donezo now).

If you don’t know what, “the program is dead and gone forever” means and you still have questions then you can visit the USCIS frequently asked questions about Keeping Families Together page. On the top of the page it explains that the program has ended per the Court’s Order, so go away (paraphrasing).

Courthouse Blocks Biden Immigration Program to give Parole in Place to Spouses

SOME OF THE DETAILS OF THE LAWSUIT FOR THOSE WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED

The states challenged DHS’s policy on multiple grounds, alleging that 1) it was not granting this benefit on a case-by-case basis but issuing a blanket authorization for a class of individuals; 2) it was not for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit; 3) it contradicted the INA’s language, which referred to paroling people “into” the U.S. rather than granting parole when someone was already in the country, and only covered a temporary parole; 4) it violated the INA by circumventing the federal immigration system (whatever that means); 5) it violated the APA because it was arbitrary and capricious; 6) it was created without requisite notice-and-comment and information collection procedures; and 7) it violated the constitutional requirement that the president “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

On November 7, 2024, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in State of Texas v. Department of Homeland Security, Case Number 24-cv-306 (E.D.T.X. Nov. 7, 2024) issued a final judgment vacating the Keeping Families Together (KFT) parole process, published at 89 Fed. Reg. 67,459 (Aug. 20, 2024). If you want to know the reasoning for the judgement then you probably want to read the full finding of facts and conclusions of law.

As for the second ground, the Court found that parole “into” the US meant that when interpreting whether the parole was for humanitarian reasons or to confer some public benefit they should look to the person’s presence in the US pursuant to the parole not the new legal status afforded to the person as a result of the parole. This doesn’t make much sense to me though since parole-in-place is for people who are already physically present in the US that is what distinguishes it from regular parole.

“As the court has rejected the Rule’s reading of parole “into the United States,” it also concludes that the Rule focuses on the wrong thing in identifying “significant public benefits”— the benefits of aliens’ new legal status, rather than their presence in this country. The Rule exceeds statutory authority and is not in accordance with law for this reason as well.”

As to the third ground, that the parole must be temporary, the Court agreed that this new program conferred a permanent status which was not inline with the original authority. This too seems wrong as the parole is temporary. The temporary parole makes these particular individuals eligible to apply for a permanent immigration benefit but the parole itself does not confer a permanent benefit. This seems very obvious so I must be missing something.

Plaintiffs next claim that the KFT Rule exceeds statutory authority because the statute allows an alien’s parole into the United States only “temporarily,” until “the purposes of such parole shall . . . have been served.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A). The gravamen of this claim, however, is that the statute does not allow paroling aliens for the purpose of removing a barrier to permanent resident status. Doc. 1 at 40 (complaining that the Rule’s “explicitly stated intent” is allowing beneficiaries to remain permanently in the United States). That essentially repeats the claim for relief just discussed, so the court does not see the need to resolve this claim separately.

You can find the Court’s Full Decision here. They granted it based on the first three grounds only, which are addressed above. The Court didn’t not go into the other grounds in detail.

Full Court Decision

The USCIS website now states that effective immediately, USCIS is taking the following steps to comply with the Court’s Order:

  • Pending Form I-131F applications will not be adjudicated and intake of new Form I-131F applications will cease.
  • Anyone with a future Application Support Center appointment in support of a filed Form I-131F should consider that appointment cancelled immediately. Anyone who appears for such an appointment will be turned away.
  • External engagements on the KFT parole process are cancelled.

UPDATES TO THE POST APPROVAL I-130 ROUTING PROCEDURES

Posted on by newyorkvisalawyer_o0id8f

The I-130 petition, a crucial step in family-based immigration, can often feel like navigating a complex maze. One common frustration arises when, after the elation of receiving an approval notice, you discover that USCIS has sent your I-130 to the National Visa Center (NVC) when you intended to adjust status in the U.S. Conversely, if you planned to consular process abroad (perhaps due to the need for an I-601A waiver), you may find USCIS has incorrectly retained your I-130 because they saw your address was in the US so they assumed you’d be adjusting status.

These errors often stem from confusing wording and inadequate instructions on the form itself, leading to petitioners providing unclear or conflicting responses. When USCIS incorrectly retains an I-130 meant for consular processing, the petitioner is forced to file Form I-824, Application for Action on an Approved Application or Petition, to redirect the petition to the NVC. This adds a significant financial burden ($590 filing fee) and a processing delay of 6 to 17 months – a considerable setback, both in USD and precious time, especially for those consular process because they have to file an I-601A waiver, which currently has a 3-4 year processing time.

In May of 2024 USCIS made changes to the post-approval I-130 touting procedures in an attempt to reduce the number of I-824’s that need to be filed due to approved I-130’s being sent to the wrong location. Now, USCIS no longer retains Form I-130 petitions based solely on blank or conflicting responses to the designated questions. Instead, if the petitioner does not provide a clear response, USCIS considers additional information, such as the beneficiary’s location, to determine where to route the approved petition. The CIS Ombudsman Office put out a statement about this change stating that it reflects the practices that have already been in place since 2022, making it not much of a change at all.

How USCIS Determines Where to Send Form I-130 After Approval?

USCIS primarily uses two questions in Part 4 of Form I-130 to determine where to send an approved Form I-130. As shown below, question 61 asks the petitioner to specify a city and state if their relative (the beneficiary) plans to apply for adjustment of status. Question 62 asks the petitioner to specify a city, province, and country of the U.S. embassy or consulate where the beneficiary intends to apply for an immigrant visa abroad.

  • Question 61: Asks for the city and state where your relative (the beneficiary) will apply for adjustment of status, if they plan to do so in the U.S.
  • Question 62: Asks for the city, province, and country of the U.S. embassy or consulate where the beneficiary will apply for an immigrant visa abroad.

Ideally, answering only Question 61 signals a U.S.-based adjustment of status, leading USCIS to retain the petition. Answering only Question 62 indicates consular processing abroad, prompting USCIS to forward the petition to the NVC. However, confusion arises when:

  • Both questions are answered: This creates conflicting information, leaving USCIS to interpret the petitioner’s intent.
  • Both questions are left blank: This provides no clear guidance, again forcing USCIS to make assumptions.

Since petitioners often complete these questions incorrectly, USCIS has provided guidance to its officers to help select the appropriate destination. Before March 2022, USCIS officers considered factors such as the beneficiary’s location to make this decision.

In March 2022, USCIS changed its approach. Approved petitions with both questions answered or left blank were retained by USCIS. USCIS no longer exercised discretion or considered evidence such as the beneficiary’s physical location to determine the appropriate destination. If USCIS retained the approved petition, but the beneficiary intended to consular process, the petitioner needed to submit Form I-824 to request USCIS transfer the approved petition to the NVC. At the time of implementing this requirement, USCIS applied these procedures to all pending Form I-130 petitions.6 As discussed in further detail below, this change led to more challenges, prompting USCIS to modify its routing procedures once again.

The CIS Ombudsman Office “While as of May 2024, USCIS has reverted to its previous routing procedures, its discontinued March 2022 processing change caused delays in family reunification and increased workloads.9 Evaluating its impact on both USCIS and its customers highlights the challenges and inefficiencies of using policy guidance to address unclear form questions and relying on antiquated applications for administrative processing steps.”

The significant increase in Form I-824 filings while this processing change was in effect reveals the tremendous impact that it had. Before
the processing change, USCIS typically received approximately 3,000 Forms I-824 every 3 months (every quarter). In calendar year 2023, USCIS received approximately 10,500 Form I-824’s every quarter. That is a 250% increase and 80 percent of all Form I-824’s filed in 2023 requested USCIS transfer an approved I-130 petition to the NVC.

whjy don't they follow the "legal path" to immigrate?

IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS WANT TO REOPEN IMMIGRATION OFFICE AT RIKERS ISLAND

Posted on by newyorkvisalawyer_o0id8f

According to an article from the NY POST, some federal immigration bigwigs are calling for the ICE office at the Rikers Island jail complex to reopen. Previously the NY POST had reported how some local lawmakers were asking for the same thing.

ICE New York Field Office Director Kenneth Genalo seems onboard with Trump’s promised mass deportations and has been vocal about how he thinks NY needs to cooperate with the feds to allow these mass deportations to occur. According to him, “Sanctuary policies only protect the criminals…” and “this insanity needs to stop!!” He feels so strongly about this that he took the time to post that sentence on his LinkedIn page.

City Councilman Robert Holden (D-Queens) said the office is needed amid a spike in migrant crime over the past two years — a dynamic he blamed largely on the Big Apple’s immigration “sanctuary city” status according to the NY POST Article.

Rikers needs to close for good. We do not need to reopen anything there. This seems like a bad idea for that reason and it’s a bad idea because we simply don’t need more ICE offices in NY. Crime is not on the rise because of immigrants. It is a talking point that has gotten out of hand because the media is loving the narrative.

Trump’s second term is looking like it is going to be even worse than people may realize. Many are expecting things to go back to how it was during his first term but it looks like things are going to be even worse this time. Plus we now have Democrats calling for an ICE office in NY and for NY to start cooperating with ICE and turning over immigrants with ICE detainers. It seems the entire country and New York has shifted a bit to the right in the last four years and people are much more open to fascism and an all-powerful executive branch now. It doesn’t help that NYC’s current mayor is looking for any reason to get the spotlight off of his crimes and focused on the immigrant population and seems to have suddenly developed a man crush for Trump or hasn’t yet been told that the President can’t pardon him once he’s convicted by the State of NY.

Articles about this story:

ICE Honchos Want to Reopen Rikers Immigration Office

Robert Holden pushes Eric Adams to reopen Rikers ICE office after ‘tough talk’ on ending NYC sanctuary status

REOPEN ICE FIELD OFFICE AT RIKERS ⇠ Best Article on This Topic

The donald v2 beta

WHAT TO EXPECT FROM TRUMP 2.0