Connect with us

Un

Appeals Court Strikes Down Trump Administration’s Asylum Ban

Published

on

LOS ANGELES — A federal appeals court on Monday struck down President Trump’s policy that barred most migrants from seeking asylum in the United States if they had passed through another country, concluding that the government did “virtually nothing” to make sure that another country is “a safe option” for those fleeing persecution. A three-judge,

LOS ANGELES — A federal appeals court on Monday struck down President Trump’s policy that barred most migrants from seeking asylum in the United States if they had passed through another country, concluding that the government did “virtually nothing” to make sure that another country is “a safe option” for those fleeing persecution.

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco affirmed the decision of a federal judge who ruled last year that the so-called third-country transit rule was unlawful, with one judge calling it “perhaps the most significant change to American asylum in a generation.”

The ruling was an interim but important step. In September, the Supreme Court had allowed the Trump administration’s rule forbidding most Central American migrants from seeking asylum in the United States to take effect while the appeals courts deliberated its legality.

That stay remains in place until the Supreme Court takes up the case or the Trump administration abandons the policy. In the meantime, nearly all asylum seekers have been temporarily blocked from entering the country under a separate administration directive, issued as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, that closed the border to all but United States citizens and lawful permanent residents.

Still, Monday’s opinion was an important legal milestone, a 66-page opinion that found serious legal deficiencies in one of the administration’s signature immigration policies.

“The Trump administration is sure to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor of immigration at Cornell Law School.

The transit rule was issued jointly by the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security in July 2019, when thousands of migrant families were pushing toward the southwestern border, many of them seeking asylum from violence in Central America. Countering decades of law and policy, under which the United States had long provided refuge in such cases, it declared that any migrant who passed through another country en route to the border would be ineligible for asylum, with few exceptions.

The policy required migrants traveling over land from El Salvador, Honduras or other countries to apply for and be denied asylum by Mexico, Guatemala or another country through which they traveled before they could be eligible to make a claim for protection in the United States.

If they did not, those who managed to reach the United States would be automatically considered to lack a credible fear of persecution in their home countries.

The appeals court said there was evidence that contradicted the administration’s assertion that migrants could obtain safe protection in Mexico and other countries.

It also said the administration had not justified its assumption that a person who failed to apply for asylum in a third country was unlikely to have a meritorious claim.

Judge William A. Fletcher, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, wrote the opinion for the panel, which also included Judge Eric D. Miller, who was appointed by President Trump this year, and Judge Richard R. Clifton, appointed by former President George W. Bush.

Judge Miller concurred in part and dissented in part, writing that the federal agencies’ “deficient” justification for the transit rule was “particularly troubling because the rule represents such a major change to policy — perhaps the most significant change to American asylum in a generation.”

The main opinion said there was “no evidence in the record” to support the rule’s assumption that migrants who do not apply for asylum in Guatemala or Mexico en route from, say, El Salvador or Honduras, can be assumed to lack a credible fear of persecution in their home country.

“This ruling says very simply that Congress is in control of asylum, and the administration cannot act unilaterally to destroy our asylum system,” said Lee Gelernt, the lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union who argued the appeal on behalf of several groups challenging the rule.

Neither the Justice Department nor the Department of Homeland Security had any immediate comment on the decision.

In a related case this month, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the administration had illegally put into place the transit rule by not allowing public comment first.

That decision resulted in a suspension of the transit ban on more narrow grounds.

The order that effectively closed the border to asylum seekers, using the coronavirus pandemic as justification, is being challenged in a federal court in Washington.

 

Supreme Court Limits Failed Asylum Seekers’ Rights to Appeal

 

Source: Appeals Court Strikes Down Trump Administration’s Asylum Ban

,

Continue Reading

Un

SWA Job Order California: What is an EDD Number?

Published

on

By

What is an EDD Number? An EDD Number is technically the state unemployment insurance identification number that the Employment Development Department of California issues a company. Here’s a visual example from the UI Online FAQ: How do I register for an EDD Number? To register for an EDD Number (in California) use this link:  https://www.edd.ca.gov/payroll_taxes/e-Services_for_Business.htm,

What is an EDD Number?

An EDD Number is technically the state unemployment insurance identification number that the Employment Development Department of California issues a company.

Here’s a visual example from the UI Online FAQ:

How do I register for an EDD Number?

To register for an EDD Number (in California) use this link:  https://www.edd.ca.gov/payroll_taxes/e-Services_for_Business.htm

The EDD Number form will look like this when you receive it. (see below image)

It’s on a form known as DE-5614. Click here for a PDF sample:  https://www.edd.ca.gov/pdf_pub_ctr/de5614.pdf

DE 5614 EDD NUMBER PERM RECRUITMENT PERM ADS

How do I find my company’s EDD Number?

Per the EDD do as follows:

All Unemployment Insurance customers who file a new claim will automatically receive their Employment Development Department (EDD) Customer Account Number (DE 5614) letter within 10 business days of filing.

If you have lost, misplaced, or never received your EDD Customer Account Number, contact the EDD:

Online: Go to Ask EDD and select the category Unemployment Insurance Benefits, the sub category UI Online, and the topic EDD Customer Account Number. Select Continue at the bottom of the page to begin the process of submitting your message.

By Phone: Call 1-800-300-5616 from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. (Pacific time), seven days a week.

Why do I need an EDD Number for PERM Recruitment?

What else can I use my EDD Number for?

UI Online

UI Online FAQ

Register for UI Online

CalJobs Registration

,

Continue Reading

Enforcement / ICE / DHS

USCIS Allows I-765 NOA Approval Receipt Notice to Establish I-9 Employment Verification

Published

on

By

We have great news for our readers. On August 19, 2020, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued an important announcement for applicants whose Form I-765 Application for Employment Authorization has been approved, but who have not yet received their employment authorization document (EAD card) by mail. What’s this all about Since the,

We have great news for our readers. On August 19, 2020, the

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

(USCIS) issued an important announcement for applicants whose Form I-765 Application for Employment Authorization has been approved, but who have not yet received their employment authorization document (EAD card) by mail.


What’s this all about

Since the emergence of the Coronavirus outbreak, there has been significant delays affecting the production of certain Employment Authorization Documents also known as EAD cards, which permit an applicant to obtain lawful employment in the United States, a driver’s license, and other important documentation such as a Social Security number.

These delays have caused hardships for applicants and created additional obstacles to finding employment during an already difficult economic time.

The good news is that USCIS is providing temporary relief for applicants who have received an approval notice, but have not yet received an employment authorization document (EAD card) in the mail.

Due to the unprecedented and extraordinary circumstances caused by COVID-19, USCIS will allow foreign nationals to temporarily use their Form I-797 Notice of Action, with a notice date on or after December 1, 2019 through August 20, 2020, informing the applicant of the approval of their I-765 Application for Employment Authorization, as evidence of Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.

In other words, individuals can now provide employers with the I-797 Notice of Action, receipt of approval of the Form I-765 Application for Employment Authorization, in order to qualify for lawful employment.

Pursuant to the announcement, the Notice of Action is now considered a List C #7 approved document that establishes employment authorization issued by the Department of Homeland Security, even though the Notice states that it is not evidence of employment authorization.

Accordingly, employees can present Form I-797 Notice of Action showing approval of their I-765 application as a list C document for Form I-9 compliance until December 1, 2020.

For I-9 completion, employees who present a Form I-797 Notice of Action described above for new employment must also present their employer with an acceptable List B document that establishes identity. The Lists of Acceptable Documents is on Form I-9.  Current employees who require reverification can present Form I-797 Notice of Action as proof of employment authorization under List C.

We believe this is a step in the right direction and hope that USCIS can quickly and efficiently resolve the EAD backlogs as soon as possible.

For more information on acceptable documentation for verifying employment authorization and identity please click here.


 

Source: USCIS Allows I-765 NOA Approval Receipt Notice to Establish I-9 Employment Verification

,

Continue Reading

Un

The Employment Situation of Immigrants and Natives in June 2020

Published

on

By

Download a PDF of this Backgrounder. Steven A. Camarota is the director of research and Karen Zeigler is a demographer at the Center. Jason Richwine, PhD, is a public policy analyst based in Washington, D.C., and a contributing writer at National Review. An analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies of public-use data released earlier,

Download a PDF of this Backgrounder.


Steven A. Camarota is the director of research and Karen Zeigler is a demographer at the Center. Jason Richwine, PhD, is a public policy analyst based in Washington, D.C., and a contributing writer at National Review.


An analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies of public-use data released earlier this month by the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that while there was some improvement in the number and share of native-born Americans and immigrants (legal and illegal) out of work, unemployment remains extraordinarily high. The unemployment rate improved slightly more for immigrants than for the native-born between May and June, but native unemployment at 10.7 percent remains a good deal lower than the 13.8 percent for immigrants. Despite the recent improvement, the 18.1 million unemployed immigrants and natives in June is still nearly three times what it was in June last year. While workers of every education level have experienced significant job losses during the Covid-19 shutdown, the situation for workers without a college education is especially bleak. It remains extremely difficult to justify the continued entry of new immigrants on the grounds of any “labor shortage”.

Among the findings:

  • The unemployment rate for native-born Americans (ages 16-plus) was 10.7 percent in June. While lower than the 12.4 percent in May, it is still almost three times what it was before Covid-19 hit. Among immigrants (ages 16-plus), the rate was 13.8 percent in June, compared to 15.8 percent in May. The immigrant rate is still nearly four times what it was before Covid-19. (Figure 1, Table 1B)
  • The number of natives and immigrants unemployed declined by about 12 percent for both groups between May and June. Still, the number of natives and immigrants unemployed stood at 18.1 million, nearly three times what it was in February, before Covid-19 hit. (Figure 2, Table 1A)
  • In addition to the unemployed, there were 45.7 million working-age (16-64) native-born and 9.4 million working-age immigrants entirely out of the labor force — neither working nor looking for work. This is still 1.7 million higher for the native-born and 800,000 higher for immigrants than it was in February. (Table 2A)
  • We estimate the unemployment rate for legal immigrants in June was 13.3 percent, an improvement from the 15.6 percent in May. The rate for illegal immigrants was 15.1 percent, an improvement from 16.4 percent in May. (Our estimates by legal status are approximations only.) (Table 4B)

Among the less-educated:

  • The unemployment rate for the native-born (ages 25-plus) without a bachelor’s degree was 10.8 percent in June, compared to 6.6 percent for those with at least a bachelor’s. Among immigrants (ages 25-plus), 16.3 percent without a bachelor’s degree were unemployed, compared to 8.9 percent with a bachelor’s. (Table 1B)
  • The unemployment rate (combined immigrant and native-born) in many jobs typically performed by the less-educated has improved but remains high. (Table 3C)
    • 28.5 percent for food preparers and servers
    • 21.4 percent for maids and housekeepers
    • 20.1 percent for retail salespersons
    • 15 percent for construction laborers
    • 7.2 percent for health care aides and nursing assistants
  • The Covid-19 shutdown has exacerbated the long-term decline in the labor force participation rate (share working or looking for work) of the less-educated. In June 2020, only 67 percent of working-age (16-64) natives without a bachelor’s degree were in the labor force, down from 72 percent in 2007 and 76 percent in 2000. (Figure 5)
  • Focusing only on men who are of prime working age (25 to 54) still shows a long-term decline in labor force participation. The share of these native-born men without a bachelors in the labor force was 83 percent in June 2020, compared to 88 percent in June 2007 and 90 percent in June 2000. (Figure 6)

Data and Methods

This report uses the Current Population Survey (CPS) to examine the employment situation in the United States as of June 2020, with particular attention paid to differences between immigrants and natives. Based on a monthly survey of 60,000 households, the CPS is the nation’s primary source for the unemployment rate and other labor force statistics. The sample is weighted to reflect the actual size and demographic makeup of the civilian non-institutionalized population. The raw data used in this analysis comes directly from the Census Bureau, which collects the data for the Bureau of Labor Statistics.1

Key Concepts and Terms. The labor force includes all workers, plus non-workers who have actively looked for work in the four weeks prior to the survey. The standard unemployment rate, referred to by the BLS as the U-3 rate, is calculated by dividing the number actively looking for work by the number in the labor force. The labor force participation rate is simply the share of people in the labor force.

Definition of Immigrant. The foreign-born in the CPS are all persons who were not U.S. citizens at birth. They include naturalized citizens, permanent residents (green card holders), temporary visitors, guestworkers, and illegal aliens. We use the term “immigrant” to encompass all of these foreign-born individuals. In Tables 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B we report figures separately for non-citizens and naturalized citizens. Tables 4A, 4B, 5A, and 5B report figures for legal immigrants and illegal immigrants separately.

Identifying Illegal Immigrants. Prior research indicates that most illegal immigrants are included in Census data. To determine which respondents are most likely to be illegal aliens, CIS first excludes immigrant respondents who are almost certainly not illegal aliens — for example, spouses of native-born citizens; veterans; people who have government jobs; Cubans (because of special rules for that country); immigrants who arrived before 1980 (because the 1986 amnesty should have already covered them); people in certain occupations requiring licensing, screening, or a government background check (e.g., doctors, pharmacists, and law enforcement); and people likely to be on student visas.

The remaining candidates are weighted to replicate known characteristics of the illegal population (population size, age, gender, region or country of origin, state of residence, and length of residence in the United States). CIS has previously used the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as the source of those known characteristics; however, DHS data were last published in 2015. For more recent data, we turn to 2018 estimates from the Center for Migration Studies (CMS), including their estimates of educational attainment.2 The resulting illegal population, which consists of a weighted set of CPS respondents, is designed to match CMS on the characteristics listed above. However, we do not adjust the number of illegal immigrants for undercount in the CPS.3 Estimates for legal immigrants are calculated simply by subtracting estimated counts of illegal immigrants from the total immigrant population.

All of our findings that separate immigrants by legal status should be considered rough approximations only. Because we do not have information about the illegal immigrant population in 2020, we are forced to take the known characteristics of illegal aliens from 2018 and apply them to the new labor market data in 2020. The primary weakness of this approach is that it assumes the illegal immigrant population still has the same demographic profile (population size, age, gender, etc.) as it did in 2018.

Matching Published BLS Tables. In this report, all statistics covering the entire population, such as the headline unemployment rate, match those published by the BLS. However, the counts and percentages for sub-populations will in some cases be slightly different. The reason is that the Census Bureau adds “perturbations” to the public-use microdata to protect respondent confidentiality. Fortunately, the Census Bureau states that any differences between published figures and those calculated from the public-use data will be so small that they “fall well within the sampling variability associated with CPS estimates”.4 In other words, there should be no meaningful difference between statistics calculated from the pubic-use data and those published by the BLS.

Finally, the figures in this report are not seasonally adjusted. Unadjusted figures are conceptually simpler and easier for other researchers to replicate.5 Also, the limited number of statistics on the foreign-born published in the BLS monthly “Employment Situation” reports are also not seasonally adjusted.

Potential Problems with the Data. The BLS reports a potential problem with the CPS for March, April, May, and June.6 First, the response rates in all these months were significantly lower than prior months. This increased the sampling error of the surveys for these months. However, “BLS was still able to obtain estimates that met our standards for accuracy and reliability,” according to statement from the bureau. Second, interviewers who administered the survey miscoded some respondents as employed when they were on furlough temporarily laid off, or in similar situations. They should have been considered temporarily laid off and coded as unemployed. The number unemployed and the unemployment rate would be higher in March through June if these individuals were counted as unemployed. Neither the Census Bureau, which collects the data, nor the BLS has altered the data in response to these issues. Our analysis takes the raw CPS data as provided; and our results match published non-seasonally adjusted figures, with the caveats about perturbations in public use data discussed above.

 


End Notes

1 “Basic Monthly CPS”, U.S. Census Bureau, undated.

2 “State-Level Unauthorized Population and Eligible-to-Naturalize Estimates”, Center for Migration Studies, undated.

3 In 2018, CMS estimated a total illegal immigrant population of 10.6 million, which includes an undercount adjustment for those missed in Census Bureau data. Our analysis of the CPS totals to 9.8 million illegal immigrants, reflecting a 7.5 percent undercount.

4 “Monthly Current Population Survey Public Use Microdata Files”, U.S. Census Bureau, undated.

5 “Table A-7. Employment status of the civilian population by nativity and sex, not seasonally adjusted”, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, July 2, 2020.

6 For a brief discussion of the problems with the CPS beginning in March, see the section entitled, “Coronavirus (COVID-19) Impact on June 2020 Establishment and Household Survey Data” at the bottom of the June Employment Situation press release. For a more detailed look at the issues see the statement issued by BLS on the matter for June.

Source: The Employment Situation of Immigrants and Natives in June 2020

,

Continue Reading

PERM Recruitment Advertising

PA-250-300

Immigration Impact

Immigration Links

Trending

Copyright © 2020 IMMIGRATION REFORM NEWS