What You Really Want To Know | Episode #4 | Can I apply for asylum if I have been in the U.S. for more than 1 year?

Transcript: Hi, I am Attorney Shaffer. Today on “What You Really Want To Know,” we answer the question, “Can I still apply for asylum if I have been in the U.S. for more than 1 year?”

Yes, you can apply for asylum, however if you do not meet one of the narrow exceptions to the 1-year filing deadline, you will not be eligible for asylum. The good news is that you may still be eligible for Withholding of Removal or Withholding under the convention against torture, known as CAT. Even better news, you get to apply for all 3 forms of relief with one application- known as Form I-589, and you do not even have to choose what you are applying for.

Regardless of your eligibility for asylum, the process is going to begin the same. You are going to submit the I-589 to USCIS. You are then going to receive a receipt notice, a notice to go get your fingerprints done, and eventually you are going to have an interview with an asylum officer.

If you applied within one year of entry into the U.S., if you are found credible at your interview if you meet the statutory requirements for asylum, and the asylum officer decides that your case warrants a favorable exercise of discretion, right then and there they can grant you asylum or shortly thereafter.

But this is where it changes if did not file within 1 year of your entry. Even if you meet 1 of the exceptions to the 1-year filing deadline, the asylum officer does not have the authority to make that determination, nor does that officer have the authority to decide on your applications for withholding of removal and withholding under CAT. What will happen at your interview is, the interview will be the same, but then after the interview if you are out of status, the asylum officer is going to refer you to the immigration court. You are going to be issued a notice to appear and you are going to be placed in removal proceedings where you will be given a court date and eventually you present your case to the Immigration Court. The same will be true though if you applied within a year of your entry, but the asylum officer decides not to grant your application. Remember, asylum is discretionary, meaning that the asylum officer is under no obligation to grant it even if you meet all of the requirements if they think that you are a bad person, they do not have to grant it. If that is the case, you will also be referred to the immigration court where you will be given a chance to prove your eligibility for all 3 forms of relief.

Asylum, Withholding of Removal and Withholding under CAT seek to protect a person who is afraid to return to his or her country of citizenship or nationality due to a fear of persecution on account of a Particular Social Group. There are some very important distinctions between these 3 types of relief that I will talk about in another post. The most important thing that everyone wants to know is asylum will help you get a green card, you cannot get a green card with Withholding of Removal and Withholding under CAT.

That is all for this episode of “what you really want to know,” thanks for watching!

*If are afraid to return to your country of nationality or citizenship or have questions about filing an asylum claim, contact an experienced immigration attorney at The Shapiro Law Firm today for help.*

#ImmigrationWatch2017 | Topic #3: Immigration Attorney Opinion: A Muslim Registry such as NSEERS should not be reinstated. What is NSEERS? Why was is created? Did it work? Did it stop terrorism? These answers and more.

Throughout his campaign, President-Elect Trump repeatedly pledged to institute a Muslim Registry and/ or a ban on immigration from terror-prone regions. Other then this general statement, Trump has not provided much for information regarding what such a registry will look like or how it will be enforced. Since the election, the uncertainty of Trump’s proposal has understandably caused Muslim people all over the world, particularly those who are currently inside the United States to live in a constant state of fear and anxiety.

Without knowing the details of Mr. Trump’s plans, we have struggled to provide our Muslim clients with advice on how to prepare for the incoming administration, and it has been even harder to provide concrete reassurances to our Muslim clients that they will not face bars to entry or selective prosecution regarding being placed into removal/ deportation proceedings.

Last week, President-Elect Trump met with Kris Kobach, to discuss appointing Mr. Kobach as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). At the meeting, Mr. Kobach was photographed holding a document outlining his plans for the first 365 days of his potential cabinet appointment. The blown up photograph reveals some of the contents that Mr. Kobach discussed with Mr. Trump at the meeting, all of which appears to be in line with Mr. Trump’s campaign promises regarding a Muslim Registry. Notably, the first line of the document called for reinstating the NSEERS program.

The document Kansas secretary of state Kris Kobach is holding during a photo-op with President-elect Donald Trump on Sunday, November 21, 2016, in Bedminster, NJ. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

It is impossible and ill-advised to wildly speculate as to whether or not Trump with fulfill his campaign promise, but it does appear that if he chooses to follow through with a Muslim Registry, NSEERS will be a guide, as it already exists in the law, has been cited by his campaign and transition team advisors and now appears to be at the top of the list of the potential next Secretary of DHS. Accordingly, my goal here is to explain what NSEERS is, why it became law in the first place, and why reinstating NSEERS or a similar program is redundant, ineffective and contradictory to fundamental American principles that prohibit overt and covert discrimination alike.

What is NSEERS?

NSEERS, created in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, stands for the ‘National Security Entry-Exit Registration System.’ NSEERS is also referred to as “Special Registration.”

Under NSEERS, all nonimmigrant males, 16 years or older, from countries that the Attorney General identified as presenting elevated national security concerns were required to report to the INS, (*in 2003 INS changed to USCIS), for registration, fingerprinting, and photographing. See, 8 C.F.R. § 264.1(f)(4); see also, Nat’l Council of La Raza v. Dep’t of Justice, 411 F.3d 350, 353 (2d Cir. 2005). In addition to tracking entries and exits, there was a domestic component of NSEERS that required over 80,000 males present in the Untied States on nonimmigrant visas from Muslim-majority nations to appear at local immigration offices and register in accordance with the program. At these appointments, NSEERS program compliers would be subject to fingerprinting, photographs, document review and extensive questioning.

What law created NSEERS?

There is not one specific piece of legislation that provides the authority for NSEERS.

One of the main statutes cited by the courts and the Department of Justice, (DOJ), as authority to create NSEERS is found in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 236, which contains a specific provision on the registration of certain groups. Under the INA, the Attorney General is permitted to require registration for several classes of non-immigrants including (1) alien crewmen, (2) holders of border-crossing identification cards, (3) aliens confined in institutions, (4) aliens under order of removal, (5) aliens who are or have been on criminal probation or criminal parole within the United States, and (6) aliens of any other class not lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence.

The rationale for establishing NSEERS is set forth in the Federal Register as follows:

Recent terrorist incidents have underscored the need to broaden the special registration requirements for nonimmigrant aliens from certain designated countries, and other nonimmigrant aliens whose presence in the United States requires closer monitoring, to require that they provide specific information at regular intervals to ensure their compliance with the terms of their visas and admission, and to ensure that they depart the United States at the end of their authorized stay. On June 13, 2002, the Department published a proposed rule to modify the regulations to require certain nonimmigrant aliens to make specific reports to the Immigration and Naturalization Service; upon arrival, approximately 30 days after arrival; every twelve months after arrival; upon certain events, such as a change of address, employment, or school; and at the time they leave the United States. This final rule adopts the proposed rule without substantial change.

Registration and Monitoring of Certain Nonimmigrants, 67 Fed.Reg. 52584 (Aug. 12, 2002).

In 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft also explained that NSEERS was created to comply with the mandate by Congress that DOJ build an entry-exit system to track all nonimmigrants who come to the United States. Ashcroft further explained that NSEERS was the first crucial phase in this endeavor. In 2003, DHS took over this role and eventually the US-VISIT system was ready to track all nonimmigrants and NSEERS was suspended, yet still remained on the books. In 2011, DHS ended the NSEERS program. The notice released in conjunction with the end of the NSEERS program can be found here.

The constitutionality of NSEERS is outside the scope of this post, but it should be noted that the Federal Circuit Courts, the highest courts to have addressed this issue, have not found NSEERS to be unconstitutional. However, it is also important to point out that the court cases that have challenged the constitutionality of NSEERS generally dealt with aliens placed into removal proceedings after voluntarily complying with NSEERS, who were unlawfully present in the United States. The independent ground for removability precluded most courts from ever getting to the issue of whether or not NSEERS exceeded the broad discretionary power of the Attorney General. See, Zerrei v. Gonzales, 471 F. 3d 342 (2nd Cir. 2006). Courts that have reached the issue have upheld the constitutionality of NSEERS by claiming that there is a rational basis between special registration and national security. See, Kandamar v. Gonzales, 464 F. 3d 65 (1st Cir. 2006).

What was the purpose of NSEERS?

As explained in the Federal Register excerpt above, the purpose of NSEERS was to prevent terrorism and to keep track of nonimmigrants entering and exiting the United States. NSEERS was the precursor program to the electronic exit-entry system that we now have in place that keeps track of all non-immigrants entering and exiting the country. This program used to be known as US-VISIT (United States Visitor and Immigration Status Indicator Technology) and and in 2013 it became known as OBIM (The Office of Biometric Identity Management).

So did NSEERS stop any terrorists?

This question is harder to answer due to the lack of transparency of the program, the lack of statistics kept on the program, and the fact that suspected terrorists did not have to be charged with terrorist-related crimes to be removed from the country. In fact, many people who voluntarily complied with the program who were inside the United States ended up being placed in deportation proceedings due to the fact that their wholly independent immigration violation (for example, overstaying their visa) came to light as a result of Special Registration compliance. This independent ground for removability complicates the attempts to analyze the effectiveness of NSEERS because DHS did not need to bring about terrorism-related to charges in order to place aliens into removal proceedings and prove removability by clear and convincing evidence. DHS did their job if they proved that an alien was removable based on the visa overstay and did not have a requirement to push terrorism-related grounds of removability, a charge which presumably would be a lot harder to prove.

Opponents of NSEERS argues that terrorists inside the United States simply would not comply with the program and hope to remain undetected by the government. Many nonimmigrants, whether here legally or not, failed to comply with the special registration for this very reason, they were afraid that they would be detained or deported if they attempted to comply. DHS has refused to provide Congress with any statistics concerning the number of suspected terrorists identified with this program, stating that this information is classified. Experts that have studied this program, however, have found that too much data was collected as a result of the program to prove useful, and that the aim of casting a wide net to detect potential terrorists based on no actual suspicion, even if some terrorists were in fact caught, was a waste of resources that could be better spent elsewhere.

What we do know though, is that information obtained through NSEERS did NOT result in one terrorism-related criminal conviction. It also destroyed relationships with friendly countries who had worked with the United States to stop terrorism within their borders prior to the institution of the program. Reinstating such a controversial program is certainly likely to reignite tension with Muslim-majority countries and further strain ties with multiple countries around the world.

Bottom Line

Muslims inside the United Staters, legally or not, do have a legitimate reason to be concerned about such a registry being reinstated when President-Elect Trump takes office on January 20, 2017. Whether you agree with such a registration or not, there is legislative and judicial authority that will allow NSEERS or a similar program to be reinstated. The best advice I can give nonimmigrants in the United States right now is to contact an immigration lawyer immediately to see if there is a path to a green card out there for you. If there is a path, get started on this process BEFORE January 20, 2017, to decrease any potential negative impact that such a Special Registration may have on your case.

*Please note that the contents of this post and any content that you see on The Shapiro Law Firm, LLC website should not be construed as legal advice, nor does anything on this website constitute the formation of an attorney-client relationship. If you are seeking help with a legal matter, please contact us directly for assistance.*

#ImmigrationWatch2017 | Topic #2: Immigration Attorney Opinion: A Presidential Pardon is NOT going to protect illegal immigrants from a Trump administration.

By Transition 2017 - https///www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVzJBEYtFKU, CC BY 4.0, https///commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=53071112

Lately, there has been a lot of talk that President Obama may issue a pardon for certain immigrants present in the U.S. illegally before he leaves office to protect them from deportation. Much of this talk has centered around DACA recipients and other undocumented immigrants who have no criminal history and other positive good moral character traits. The idea is to protect these people from deportation at the hands of the incoming Presidential administration, an action of which is promised by President-Elect Trump, although it is unclear as to what extent he will carry out deportations when he takes office next year.

A presidential pardon can forgive an individual accused or convicted of committing certain federal criminal offenses. Can the President forgive violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), a civil statute? If yes, is it constitutional issue such a broad pardon?

For argument’s sake, let’s assume that a presidential pardon of immigrants illegally present in the United States is Constitutional (an issue outside the scope of this post, and as this author will explain, an issue that need not be addressed at all). What really matters here, is will Obama be able to protect illegal immigrants from being kicked out of the United States by pardoning certain immigration violations?

In this Immigration Attorney’s opinion, probably not. The problem is, even if President Obama can issue pardons to specific undocumented individuals in accordance with his constitutionally delegated powers, he does not have the authority to grant anyone legal status without Congress passing legislation, and The White House has repeatedly stated that it will not violate the Constitution in this respect. So why will this not work without Congress?

Let’s break down the definition of an “illegal immigrant” in order to better understand the issues at play here. There are two main aspects to legal status in the United States: the entry and the period of authorized stay.

To enter the United States legally as a non-citizen, one must present a valid travel document at the border (generally in the form of a visa). Every nonimmigrant or immigrant admitted to the United States is given a specific period of time that he or she can legally remain in the country before he or she must depart.

Depending on the type of visa, the period of authorized stay will be based on time and/ or compliance with certain terms (for example, a person who enters the U.S. with a F-1 student visa will be authorized to remain in the U.S. for the duration of status (D/S), as long as he or she complies with the terms of the F-1 visa, he or she will be in status without respect to how long he or she is here. While a person who enters the U.S. with a B-1/B-2 Visitor Visa is given a specific date to depart the U.S. on (usually 6 months from entry).

With that in mind, here is an example of how such a pardon would play out in the real world:

Person X, a non-U.S. Citizen, illegally crossed the U.S. border without authorization in 2002;
Entering the United States Without Inspection (EWI) means that X can be found in violation of Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 212(a)(6)(A), for being present in the United States without admission or parole;
President Obama issues a presidential pardon for anyone who entered the United States in 2002 and is removable from the United States under INA § 212(a)(6)(A);
So X’s EWI is now forgiven by the presidential pardon.
But what does this actually mean for X, specifically X’s immigration status in the United States?
It means nothing. Such a pardon does not confer any lawful status on X, nor does it prevent a future administration from placing X into deportation on some other grounds, and arguably even the same ground, because even with the pardon, technically everyday that X remains in the United States, he is continuously violating U.S. immigration law.

There are other issues with granting a Presidential Pardon to illegal immigrants, but the other issues need not be addressed at this time, because it is irrelevant in light of the fact that such a pardon would not be able to accomplish the underlying goal of protecting illegal immigrants from deportation and/ or grant them legal immigration status.

Immigrant advocates should place their emphasis on alternative protections.

*If you need help remaining in the United States or obtaining lawful status, contact us today to find out if we can help.*

Case Status Updates: 10-Year Green Card & Work Permit Approval

10-Year Green Card Approved:

Today we received another approval on a petition to remove conditions on permanent residence (Form I-751) for a client who is a native and citizen of of Mali, (hereinafter, “X”). X’s case was challenging because he and his U.S. Citizen wife were divorced, so he had to request a waiver of the joint filing requirement on the basis that he entered into his marriage in good faith but ended in divorce. X got married in February of 2013 to his U.S. Citizen wife who subsequently filed a marriage petition on his behalf. X’s marriage, however, was troubled from the start. A few months after the wedding, X and his wife began to fight a lot because X worked the night shift and his wife was feeling neglected. The fighting persisted, and eventually X asked her to move out for a little so they both could calm down. The couple was separated for only a few months when X and his wife decided that they would try to make the relationship work and she moved back in with him. Unfortunately, not long after that, X learned that his wife was pregnant with another man’s baby and that she was keeping the baby. Heartbroken and betrayed, X told his wife that he had to end the relationship. X filed for divorce and the divorce was granted last September. X, however, still needed to file to remove the conditions on his residence, but since he was no longer with the filing spouse, he had to request a waiver of the joint filing requirement based on a marriage that was entered into in good faith but terminated through divorce.

Cases that require a waiver to the joint filing requirement are particularly tricky due to the short lifespan of the marriage. Essentially, this means that in approximately 2 years, the following occurred: a couple got married, separated, filed for divorce (in New York you must wait at least 6 months to file a no-fault divorce), and received a final judgment of divorce (in New York this can take 3-6 months for a divorce to be processed from start to finish). As a result, there is often not much documentary evidence that exists to prove that the marriage was real.

X came to The Shapiro Law Firm to help him with the Request For Evidence sent by USCIS after he submitted the petition to remove conditions on his residence. The attorneys at The Shapiro Law Firm helped guide X in determining what evidence USCIS was looking for to make their determination. We also helped X explain his situation by asking him non-leading questions about the circumstances leading up to his marriage and subsequent breakup.

Yesterday, I attended the interview with X at USCIS. X was nervous but I told him that since he clearly entered into his marriage in good faith, he had nothing to worry about, and I was right! It only took 15 minutes for the immigration officer to inform X that his case was approved! X will be receiving his 10-Year Green Card in 2-3 weeks.

There were 2 keys to X’s case: (1) Providing USCIS with an honest account of what happened during the course of X’s relationship from the day that he met his wife until the day that he filed for divorce, and; (2) Providing sufficient evidence that the couple shared a residence and a life together by submitting physical documents and photographs.

When can X file for his citizenship? Although X obtained his Green Card based on marriage to a U.S. Citizen, because he is no longer married and living with his former spouse, he will have to wait the full 5 years before is eligible for naturalization.

Work Permit Renewal Approval: Today we received an approval notice for employment authorization for a client, (hereinafter, “Y”), who is a native and citizen of Indonesia. Y’s employment authorization is based on her pending asylum application. As an asylum applicant, Y was required to renew her work permit every year prior to expiration, but her new work permit is valid for 2-years in accordance with the new USCIS rule!

(*please note that all identification information has been removed in order to protect our clients’ privacy and in order to fully comply with attorney advertising rules and regulations*)

What You Really Want to Know | Episode #2 | "What is a Master Calendar Hearing?

Transcript: Hi this is Attorney Aaron Shapiro and this is “What You Really Want to Know” about the Immigration Removal Proceedings Process. Today we are going to discuss the Master Calendar Hearing. I am going to explain the “nitty gritty” not all of the boring stuff on the immigration websites. Here we go. An immigration removal proceeding is 2 parts- we have a master calendar hearing and an individual hearing. What happens is you get served with a Notice to Appear in Immigration Court and on the Notice to Appear it is going to list a number of charges of removability and we are going to go through those charges and we are going to explain to the court and to the Department of Homeland Security’s trial attorney your position on those charges. We are going to explain whether or not you are going to designate a country of removability. We are going to explain whether or not you need a translator. We are going to address the relief that we are going to be seeking, and we are going to explain a little bit about the case. At this hearing, the judge is going to give us a date for the next hearing, we’re going to explain to the court how long we expect the individual hearing to take and we are going to schedule that next hearing. This is a really good opportunity to start your case, you do not really have any alternative, so make the most of it. If you have any questions or if you have been served with a notice to appear, call us: (212) 444-8064. Thanks.

Case Status Updates: Green Card for Asylee, and Cancellation of Removal

Case Status Update | The Shapiro Law Firm, LLC

Asylee Green Card Approval: The Shapiro Law Firm would like to congratulate 1 of our clients, (hereinafter, “Client X”), who was approved to adjust his status from an Asylee to a Permanent Resident! X is a native and citizen of Cote d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast). X came to the U.S. in July of 2010 on a B1/B2 Visitor Visa and timely filed for Asylum (within a year of his entry.). Prior to coming to the United States, X and his father where members of the RDR Political Party (“Rassemblement Des Republicains”) in Cote d’Ivoire. X also worked as a Publicist. In 2008, X was nominated as the Secretary of the local branch of the RDR.

In 2005, X’s father was arrested by the the government forces of President Laurent Gbagbo for being an activist and was taken to jail where he was beaten, tortured and killed.

X, himself, was arrested on 4 separate occasions for peacefully protesting (in 2003, 2004, 2008 and 2009). 3 of the 4 times, X was detained for long periods of time and was beaten, tortured, interrogated and subject to deplorable living conditions. After spending about a week in detention, X was released as a result of pressure from NGO and human rights groups. At that point, he and his family decided that it was no longer safe for X in Cote d’Ivoire, so X applied for and obtained a Visitor Visa to come to the United States.

About a month after X came to the Untied States, government forces went to his home looking for him and when X was not there, they destroyed his home and threatened and beat his wife, who subsequently suffered a miscarriage from the beating.

Although X timely applied for Asylum, he had to prove his case in Immigration Court because the U.S. Department of Homeland Security claimed that since Laurent Gbagbo lost the 2011 election to Alassane Ouattara, X no longer had a fear of future persecution, as his political party was now allegedly in power. In actuality, Gbagbo infamously refused to give up power and the two political parties had a roe of violent clashes before Gbagbo was forcefully removed from the Presidency. Even after Gbagbo was removed from power, his supporters continued to attack the members of X’s political party.

Laurent Gbagbo became the first head of state to be indicted and tried by the International Criminal Court in January 2016 for human rights violations and war crimes that resulted in over 3,000 deaths. Gbagbo’s trial is set to conclude any day, and he has been detained pending the outcome of the trial.

After a trial on the merits, the Immigration Judge found X to be credible and granted his claim for asylum.

What is next for X? X’s wife and children, still in Cote d’Ivoire, have approved Asylee Relative Petitions and are looking forward to finally being able to join X safely in the United States. In addition, since X’s Green Card was based on his status as an Asylee, X only has to wait 4 years to apply for his citizenship (instead of the normal 5 years).

Green Card Approval based on Approved Cancellation of Removal: The Shapiro Law Firm would also like to congratulate 1 of our clients, (hereinafter, “Client Y”), who received a Green Card based on her approved Cancellation of Removal application. Y is a native and citizen of Indonesia who entered the U.S. in March of 2001 as a B1/B2 Visa Holder.

Y applied for asylum in 2011. Although it was more than a year after her entry into the United States, Y argued that she was entitled to the 1-year exception to the filing requirement due to changed country conditions. Like many other Chinese Christian Indonesians, Y fled her native country after the 1998 riots. When she arrived safely in the United States, she was too afraid to apply for any protection from the government. Since she failed to file within a year of entry, Y’s case was sent to the Immigration Court.

Since Y has been in the U.S., she has gotten married and has given birth to two U.S. Citizen children. When Y came to our office, we explained that although she has suffered past persecution and the new country conditions may excuse her untimely filing, it would be a tough hill to climb. However, Y had been physically present in the U.S. at that point for over 10 years and had good moral character. In addition, her U.S. Citizen daughter suffers from autism and sever pas PlanoValgus bilateral feet with abnormality of Gait. Based on this information, we concluded that Y presented a strong case for cancellation of removal, since her daughter’s medical conditions could not be properly treated in Indonesia, and thus Y’s U.S. Citizen daughter would suffer an extreme hardship in the event that Y was ordered removed.

Y had her Individual Hearing in Immigration Court in November of 2014, but since only 4,000 cancellation applications can be approved each year, Y did not receive a decision until this past September when she finally learned that her cancellation of removal application was approved. Cancellation applicants must file their adjustment of status applications concurrently, and thus her status was automatically changed to a Permanent Resident.

What is next for Y and her family? Y and her family are happily living together in Brooklyn, New York. Y can now file a marriage petition for her husband so that he may become a Permanent Resident as well.

(*please note that all identification information has been removed in order to protect our clients’ privacy and in order to fully comply with attorney advertising rules and regulations*)

Immigration Attorney Opinion: The mass deportation of 11 million illegal immigrants will likely result in human rights abuses.

What does the mass deportation of 11 million people actually look like?

Prison Cell

Previously, I explained the astronomical economic cost of Donald Trump’s plan to mass deport 11 million undocumented immigrants if he is elected President (approximately $100-$300 billion).

While this fact alone provides strong support against the plan, the reality is, this proposal is likely to create an inviting environment for repeated human rights abuses. How? To understand the real danger behind this plan, it is helpful to picture what steps the government must take in order to carry out this feat.

How will Immigration and Customs & Enforcement (ICE) enforce this? ICE will likely first target the approximate 925,000 undocumented immigrants who have final orders of removal/ deportation but have failed to depart the United States. In accordance with standard ICE operating procedures, focus will likely shift to criminal illegal aliens already in removal/ deportation proceedings. ICE will face the least number of legal hurdles in removing these two groups of illegal aliens, and thus should be effectuated relatively quick compared to the remaining undocumented immigrants.

The question is, how will Trump go about deporting individuals who do not have final removal/ deportation orders? Will their be a flat denial of due process in violation of the U.S. Constitution and with complete disregard to Supreme Court precedent?

While Trump has failed to explain how the mass deportation would actually take place, he intentionally leads a reasonable listener to believe that he will be rounding people up to deport them, all at once or as many as possible at a time. Either Donald Trump really does not understand how the removal/ deportation process works, or he does not care. The fact is, the U.S. cannot just put people on boats and planes and waive goodbye. We rely on the cooperation of other countries to take back their citizens and nationals. However, according to the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee (citing DHS), currently there are 23 countries who are “uncooperative” in this endeavor and cooperation with 62 other countries are “strained.” This has been one of the main reasons why there are close to 1 million illegal aliens still in this country with final orders of removal.

It is thus reasonable to conclude that the mass deportation of 11 million people will be a time-consuming and tedious process. So what will the U.S. government do with all 11 million people while they scramble to figure out each person’s country of origin and secure a travel document there?

I am concerned that many of these people will be placed in ICE detention centers which will spur the opening of numerous large detention centers across the United States. In addition, most likely these immigration detention centers will be privately-run facilities, as the government does not have the budget to otherwise implement such a plan (Congress controls the budget, not the President), and this is where my biggest concern lies.

I have always been against for-profit prisons. These prisons make money like any other for-profit entity, by always looking to cut costs and maintain a steady stream of clientele (i.e., returning customers). In this situation, that means decreasing living conditions to arguably minimal legal standards for prisons, a lack of transparency and public accountability, and an interest in keeping individuals locked up.

The conditions in many of these for-profit prisons are so deplorable in fact, that about 2 months ago the U.S. Justice Department announced that it was terminating contracts with private prisons due to fact that the prisoner conditions were so sub-standard that riots were breaking out in response to this and to the high number of assaults and suspicious deaths that were taking place.

Despite the numerous accounts of the atrocities that have taken place in these for-profit prisons, ICE just announced that it has entered into a contract with one of the worst facilities on this list to house undocumented immigrants and is in the process of making agreements with at least 2 more of these facilities.

We cannot be naive here. For-profit prisons operate to make money and that will not change simply because the detainees are illegal immigrants as oppose to criminal offenders. The same deplorable healthcare and living conditions are certain to continue despite the change in detainee population, inviting the likelihood of severe human rights violations of millions of individuals being held not as criminals, but as immigration violaters.

Case Status Update: Conditions on Permanent Residence removed, 10-Year Green Card Approved!

10-Year Green Card Approved: Today we received another approval on a petition to remove conditions on permanent residence (Form I-751)! Our client. (hereinafter “X”), is a native and citizen of Indonesia. X entered the United States in 2007 on a G-4 nonimmigrant visa as a clerical staff member for the Mission of Tunisia to the United Nations. X subsequently married aU.S. Citizen who was born in Puerto Rico.. X’s husband filed a marriage petition on her behalf, and in November of 2012, she received his green card based on the marriage. Because the couple was married for less than 2 years at the time of the green card interview, X only received a 2-Year Green Card. So, X and her husband had to file a joint petition to remove conditions on his residency within 3 months of the expiration date of his Green Card. X and her husband timely filed the petition in September of 2014, but never received a request for evidence so the joint petition was denied for failure to respond. X and her husband immediately refiled the joint petition upon notice of the denial and explained that they did not receive the request for evidence and during that time period, the couple had just gave birth to their first child. A year later, the petition was finally approved! and it was finally approved! X and her husband are happily living together with their daughter in Queens, and because of how long the I-751 process took, X can already apply for her Citizenship!

Immigration Attorney Fact Check: "Anchor Babies" – Are people crossing the border in droves just to give birth in the U.S.?

Fact Check - Immigration Edition

What are “anchor babies?” “Anchor Babies” is s term used to describe the situation where a pregnant woman crosses the U.S. border illegally in order to give birth here on the hopes of then being able to obtain lawful status in the United States. It is a derogatory term that is used to tear at the foundation of the 14th amendment which allows U.S. Citizenship, known as a “birth-right,” for any person born within the borders of the U.S.. Many anti-immigration advocates, most notably of late, Mr. Trump, point to the influx of Anchor Babies in the U.S. as evidence that the 14th amendment promotes and encourages illegal immigration.

As an immigration attorney, I have certainly come into contact with individuals illegally present in the U.S. who are under the mistaken belief that his or her U.S. Citizen newborn will put him or her on a fast-track to guaranteed U.S. citizenship. I know it is going to be a rough day when I have to look a parent in his or her eyes and explain that it is not quite that simple.

There are a few important things to understand about this issue. First, regardless of whether or not you enter the U.S. legally, your U.S. Citizen child will not be able to file for you until he or she turns 21 years old. This is true even if you have never been inside the United States.

Next, if you entered the country illegally you will most likely need to leave the country to file for your Green Card and you will definitely need a Waiver of Inadmissibility. Waivers of Inadmissibility are complex and are difficult to get approved. There are different types of waivers depending on the grounds of inadmissibility. The two types of waivers that are most common are for people who e ntered the U.S. without inspection (EWI) and people who entered the U.S. by fraud or misrepresentation (usually by using someone else’s travel document). Both of these waivers require that you prove that a qualifying relative will suffer an extreme hardship in the event that you are forced to leave the United States. These waivers carry a high burden of proof that in many cases can be hard to meet. Also, depending on which waiver you are eligible for, you may first have to leave the country to apply for it and then can wait upwards of a year to find out if the waiver is approved. If it is not, you can try again but you will not be able to re-enter the U.S. and will face additional bars of inadmissibility.

To sum up, here is what the approximate timeline a pregnant lady is looking at if she aims to cross the border to give birth to a U.S. Citizen in hopes of remaining in this country and getting a Green Card:

1. Child is born in the United States- wait 21 years;

2. U.S. Citizen child files an alien relative petition for her – add another 3-4 months;

3. Once Petition is approved, if she is EWI, she will file a Waiver of Inadmissibility and wait another 6 months- 1 year;

4. If the waiver is approved, she will then start consular processing where she will need an affidavit of support and then file an immigrant visa application and submit all required documents – add another 2-3 months to submit the documents and allow the U.S. embassy or consulate abroad to review everything for completeness;

5. Receive interview date abroad, book ticket and depart the U.S. – add another month;

6. Attend the interview at the U.S. Embassy or Consulate abroad, wait for approval of immigrant visa – add 1 – 3 weeks, and;

7. Re-enter the United States a Lawful Permanent Resident– will receive Green Card with 45 days of entry.

Add that all up and someone looking to obtain Permanent Residency this way will end up waiting over 23 years (and that is if there are no delays!) before they have a Green Card. This is also assuming that the individual has no criminal history or any other bars of inadmissibility to deal with.

Now that you know the process a little better and see how tedious and drawn-out obtaining a Green Card through an “anchor baby” actually is, it makes sense then that the number of babies that are being born to illegal immigrants in this country has been on a steady decline since 2007.

Which brings me to the last fact check regarding the number of babies born to illegal immigrants over the past decade that can be seen in this chart (courtesy of the Pew Research Center):

Annual U.S. Births to Unauthorized Immigrants, 1980-2013

As the chart shows, the number continued to increase until 2007 and has been on the decline ever since. For more facts and figures relating to this matter, click on this link to read The Washington Post’s article entitled, “Undocumented immigrants are having fewer babies in the United States.”

If you need help with your immigration case, contact the experienced attorneys at The Shapiro Law Firm, LLC, today to find out how we can help.

What You Really Want to Know | Episode #1| "My child is a U.S. Citizen can he or she get me a Green Card?

Transcript: Today on “What You Really Want to Know,” we answer the question, “My child is a U.S. Citizen, can he or she get me a Green Card?” Good news, yes your U.S. Citizen child can…eventually! You will have to wait until your child turns 21 before he or she can file for you. When that time comes, make sure you contact an attorney at The Shapiro Law Firm, LLC, to help make your filing as smooth as possible. That is all for this episode of “What You Really Want to Know,” thank you for watching!