Legalization

DOL Agrees to Reopen BEC Cases

The LAC's credible threat to sue the U.S. Department of Labor has caused the DOL to agree to reopen Backlog Elimination Center (BEC) cases erroneously closed for alleged failure to respond to a 45-day letter. 30- DAY DEADLINE FOR RESPONDING!

Under AILF's Threat to Sue, DOL Agrees to Reopen BEC Cases

30- DAY DEADLINE FOR RESPONDING!**

AILF's credible threat to sue the U.S. Department of Labor has caused the DOL to agree to reopen Backlog Elimination Center (BEC) cases erroneously closed for alleged failure to respond to a 45-day letter. This agreement includes cases where the employer or attorney never received the 45-day letter and also where they received the 45-day letter and timely responded, but the case was nonetheless closed.

Background:

In March 2005, DOL adopted a new system for filing applications for labor certifications, known as the Program Electronic Review Management (PERM). The new system only applies to applications filed on or after March 28, 2005. When it adopted this new system, DOL already had pending before it over 300,000 labor certification applications that had been filed under the old system but had not yet been decided. This backlog of pre-PERM cases is not being handled under the new PERM system.

DOL set up two BECs to handle all of the backlogged cases - one in Dallas and one in Philadelphia. Throughout 2005, DOL shipped the 300,000 plus backlogged cases from around the entire country to these two BECs.

The BECs began sending a "45-day" letter to the employer/attorney in every one of the backlogged cases. These letters request that the employer/attorney check a box on an enclosed form if they want to proceed with the case. If the employer/attorney fails to respond to the letter within 45 days, BEC closes the case.

There were serious problems with the BECs' management of the 45-day letter process. The two primary problems were:Read more...

Prosecutorial Discretion: How to Advocate for Your Client

This Practice Advisory explains what prosecutorial discretion is, who has authority to exercise it, and how it is exercised most often in immigration cases. It also suggests ways that attorneys can influence the favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion by ICE and USCIS officers.

Published On: Friday, June 24, 2011 | Download File

Litigation Clearinghouse Newsletter Vol. 2, No. 8

This issue covers Matter of Blake litigation, naturalization delay litigation, and BIA oral arguments in June and July.

Published On: Thursday, June 28, 2007 | Download File

U.S. agriculture a balancing act

Published on Sun, May 29, 2011

A piecemeal approach to immigration reform is the politically easy option, but there will be unintended negative consequences unless Congress addresses the whole problem.

An effective system to verify a job applicant's eligibility to work in the United States is an essential part of immigration reform. So are tough employer sanctions for those who hire the undocumented.

But if Congress just mandates the use of the employee-screening E-Verify system without dealing with labor demands, the job magnet will remain and the economy will suffer.

The agriculture industry is forthright in saying that up to 70 percent of its workforce is undocumented. There are no Americans to take those jobs.

"Are you raising your child to be a farmworker?" asks Tom Nassif, president of the Western Growers Association, which represents growers in California and Arizona. He says his industry has been trying to educate Congress about the simple fact that making E-Verify mandatory without addressing labor needs "wipes out agriculture."

John McClung, president of the Texas Produce Association, says E-Verify in isolation would be "the death knell" of agriculture in the United States . Without workers, farmers would move their cropland to where the labor is: Mexico and Central America. Nassif says two to three non-farm jobs are created for every farm job, so the result would be widespread job losses in the United States.

The other likely result, as Joe Sigg of the Arizona Farm Bureau points out, would be "under-the-table and off-the-books" employment.

Research bears this out. The nonpartisan Immigration Policy Center study, "Deeper Into the Shadows," found workers who lost their jobs because of enforcement tended to return to work - often at the same job - on a cash-only basis. They were generally paid less and became more vulnerable to exploitation.

E-Verify alone will create problems because it does not deal with the need for labor.Read more...

Published in the Arizona Republic

Heather Conn Explores the Art of Being an American through Cinema

May, 2008

The Exchange Visitor Program is pleased to announce Heather Conn as May's Exchange Visitor of the Month. Each month, we select an exchange visitor who has made an effort to get involved in his/her community and explore American Culture. Read more...

Court Finds Tax Crimes Are Aggravated Felonies

Kawashima v. Holder, 565 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 1166 (2012).

In a 6-3 decision written by Justice Thomas, the Supreme Court affirmed a Ninth Circuit decision holding that convictions for committing and aiding tax evasion in which the Government’s loss exceeds $10,000 qualify as aggravated felonies under INA § 101(a)(43)(M)(i) and therefore, are deportable offenses. In so holding, the Court resolved a circuit split between the Third and Ninth Circuits in favor of the latter. Compare Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 218 (3d Cir. 2004) with Kawashima v. Holder, 615 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2010).

The Court began its analysis by stating that it will employ the categorical approach by looking to the statutory definition of the crime rather than the specific facts of the case. See Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183, 186 (2007). First, the Court found that the elements of the tax crimes at issue, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) and (2), clearly establish that commission of the crimes involves fraud or deceit. Second, the Court addressed the Petitioners’ argument that INA § 101(a)(43)(M)(i) must be read in conjunction with INA § 101(a)(43)(M)(ii), and because clause (ii) references a specific tax crime (not at issue here), Congress did not intend clause (i) to cover tax crimes as well. The Court rejected that argument, concluding that the two clauses are not mutually exclusive and thus tax crimes are not excluded from clause (i).

Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justices Breyer and Kagan, issued a dissent in which she challenged the Court’s “dubious” statutory interpretation.

Making Immigration Come Alive

Making Immigration Come Alive is designed to make the study of immigration a meaningful experience for students and highlights the importance of immigrant contributions to our country and culture.

HALTing the DREAM

Published on Mon, Aug 01, 2011

Every now and then a piece of legislation comes around with a terribly creative acronym. The USA PATRIOT Act back in 2001 was one example. But rarely do two bills on the same issue appear in Congress with such diametrically opposed names and policy goals as the DREAM and HALT Acts.

Published in the The Nation

Litigation Clearinghouse Newsletter Vol. 4, No. 11

This issue highlights Supreme Court cases that will be argued this fall, judicial review of denied adjustment of status applications, challenges to the use of detainers, and updates from the LAC, including a recent victory in a naturalization delay case and favorable developments in a BIA case involving portability/Matter of Perez Vargas.

Published On: Friday, October 2, 2009 | Download File

Motions to Reopen from Outside the Country

The LAC, working with the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, has repeatedly challenged the “departure bar,” a regulation that precludes noncitizens from filing a motion to reopen or reconsider a removal case after they have left the United States. The departure bar not only precludes reopening or reconsideration based on new evidence or arguments that may affect the outcome of a case, but also deprives immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals of authority to adjudicate motions to remedy deportations wrongfully executed, whether intentionally or inadvertently, by DHS. We argue that the regulation conflicts with the statutory right to pursue reopening and, as interpreted by the government, is an impermissible restriction of congressionally granted authority to adjudicate immigration cases.

CASES | ADVOCACY I RESOURCES

CASES

FIRST CIRCUIT

Perez Santana v. Holder, No. 12-2270 (1st Cir. amicus brief submitted Jan. 4, 2013)
Pena-Muriel v. Keisler, 489 F.3d 438 (1st Cir. 2007) (amicus brief in support of rehearing filed Sept. 25, 2007). The court issued a precedent decision on October 24, 2007, denying the petition for rehearing, but clarifying that whether the departure bar conflicts with the motion to reopen statute is an open issue in the circuit. Pena-Muriel v. Gonzales, 510 F.3d 350 (1st Cir. 2007).

SECOND CIRCUITRead more...