Connect with us

Courts / Judicial

State Department Rule All But Kills Ban on Foreign-Worker Admissions

Published

on

No, ’tis not so deep as a well nor so wide as a church-door, but ’tis enough, ’twill serve. — Romeo and Juliet Like the wound suffered by Shakespeare’s Mercutio, the State Department’s August 12 ruling regarding exceptions to the recently announced ban on foreign worker admissions will be a fatal one (except in a,

No, ’tis not so deep as a well nor so wide as a church-door, but ’tis enough, ’twill serve.

Romeo and Juliet

Like the wound suffered by Shakespeare’s Mercutio, the State Department’s August 12 ruling regarding exceptions to the recently announced ban on foreign worker admissions will be a fatal one (except in a handful of cases). For an account of the earlier order, dated June 22, see here.

By my count, the newly announced exceptions will cover eight different classes of foreign workers under a myriad of different kinds of exceptions (or excuses) listed in seven pages of single-line text, which is 3,101 words long.

According to an immigration lawyer, quoted by Law 360:

[T]he new exemptions will likely still keep entry-level hires blocked from entering the U.S. on new visas, but will allow more essential and experienced employees to take jobs in the U.S.

“It feels like a real unraveling of the proclamation,” she said. “I think this looks like the government bending to pressure from the private sector.”

My colleague John Miano, also a lawyer, makes a broader statement: “If you go through them you will find that everyone is exempted.”

The classes of foreign workers excepted, under a variety of different circumstances, include H-1B (“highly skilled” workers), H-2B (non skilled, non-ag workers), H-4 (spouses, usually, of H-1Bs), J-1 (exchange students and scholars), J-2 (the latter’s spouses and children), L-1A and L-1B (employees of multi-national corporations), and L-2 (their spouses and children). H-2A farmworkers were exempted under earlier rulings.

Every one of these aliens is entitled to work in the United States once they secure the needed visa.

The circumstances under which a waiver can be granted (by a U.S. consular officers) include:

  • Those “seeking to resume ongoing employment in the United States in the same position with the same employer and visa classification”;
  • Individuals “whose travel would be in the national interest, as determined by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or their respective designees”; and
  • “National interest exceptions … for those who will accompany or follow to join a principal applicant who is a spouse or parent and who has been granted a national interest exception to P.P. 10052.”

None of these exceptions are needed by foreign workers already in the country, just those on the outside seeking to return or to take up new jobs.

So what do we have left of the earlier order? It would appear that some new hires among foreign workers who are currently outside of the nation will not get visas. Those returning from abroad will have to get permission from our already overworked consular officers, which will mean delayed returns for some to many. Then there is an anomaly in the State Department’s new policy statement — I did not see any provision for granting renewed visas to F visa holders who have those subsidized Optional Practical Training jobs. Most probably are not out of the country and do not need them.

And, of course, this is another indication that the Trump administration seems not to want to inconvenience the private sector by seriously reducing the foreign worker population.

Source: State Department Rule All But Kills Ban on Foreign-Worker Admissions

,

Continue Reading

BREAKING

DOL And DHS Interim Final Rules Halted By Court Order

Published

on

By

Supreme court of california main court house

As noted on Mondaq.com, written by Cheryl J. Gardner , Jason Burritt and Michelle Gergerian  of Seyfarth Shaw LLP

and on this direct link: https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/employee-rights-labour-relations/1012618/court-order-halts-dol-and-dhs-interim-final-rules

On December 1, 2020, a U.S. Federal District Court in California set aside the two Interim Final Rules announced in October by the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) and the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”).

The DOL rule, which took effect on October 8, 2020, significantly increased prevailing wage levels for H-1B, H-1B1 and E-3 programs and the permanent labor certification (PERM) program.

The DHS rule was scheduled to take effect on December 7, 2020 and would have placed further restrictions on the H-1B program, including in particular narrowing the definition of “specialty occupation.”

The Court Order, effective immediately, found that the agencies did not show good cause in bypassing the notice and comment period, required by the Administrative Procedures Act.

For more information, again here’s the direct link:  https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/employee-rights-labour-relations/1012618/court-order-halts-dol-and-dhs-interim-final-rules

Continue Reading

Courts / Judicial

Federal appeals court overturns ban against immigration arrests at Massachusetts courthouses

Published

on

By

second asylum ban ends

A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Tuesday overturned a ban prohibiting US immigration authorities from arresting undocumented immigrants at courthouses in Massachusetts. In 2018, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) formalized a policy of attempting to arrest undocumented immigrants when they appeared at state courthouses for judicial,

 

A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Tuesday overturned a ban prohibiting US immigration authorities from arresting undocumented immigrants at courthouses in Massachusetts.

In 2018, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) formalized a policy of attempting to arrest undocumented immigrants when they appeared at state courthouses for judicial proceedings. Two Massachusetts district attorneys, the public defender’s office and a non-profit immigrant advocacy organization filed a lawsuit against ICE and asked for a preliminary injunction against the practice. They claimed that ICE was in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and lacked authority to make civil arrests at courts. The district court agreed, and granted an injunction last year.

At issue is a claim that the INA implicitly incorporates a common law privilege that protects those attending court from being subject to civil arrest. While nothing in the text of the INA prohibits these types of courthouse arrests, the plaintiffs argued that the law must be read in light of the nonderogation canon, a method of statutory construction that holds that courts must assume Congress is aware of long-standing common law principles and, absent express language to the contrary, intends to keep them.

Judge Bruce Selya wrote Tuesday that “the nonderogation canon does not give courts carte blanche to read a grab bag of common law rules into federal statutes simply to effectuate what those courts may perceive as good policy.” The circuit court held that the nonderogation canon applies if the facts of the common law rule and the statute in question are sufficiently analogous. The common law prohibited civil arrests at court by private litigants, while here the arrests are being carried out by a government agency. The panel vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the matter back to the district court.

Rachael Rollins, district attorney for Suffolk County and one of the plaintiffs in the case, said in a statement that “this fight is far from over” and that the plaintiffs “are absolutely on the right side of justice here.”

The post Federal appeals court overturns ban against immigration arrests at Massachusetts courthouses appeared first on JURIST – News – Legal News & Commentary.

Source: Federal appeals court overturns ban against immigration arrests at Massachusetts courthouses

,

Continue Reading

Courts / Judicial

Searching for Hope Among the Ruins of Our Asylum System

Published

on

By

IMMIGRATION REFORM NEWS ASYLUM IMMIGRANT CARAVAN

If you feel our asylum laws have been gutted, that our nation’s protections for those fleeing persecution and violence have been systematically dismantled, and that the administration is using the façade of health concerns during a pandemic to make it worse, you are not alone. You are not alone in your dread of the next,

If you feel our asylum laws have been gutted, that our nation’s protections for those fleeing persecution and violence have been systematically dismantled, and that the administration is using the façade of health concerns during a pandemic to make it worse, you are not alone.

You are not alone in your dread of the next case certified to the Attorney General, the next BIA published decision, the next proposed rule, the next executive order, the next policy change…and the ensuing scramble to understand how it impacts your clients who have been waiting in the backlog for months or years. You are not alone in feeling like you just can’t keep up with it all.

You are not alone in the justified outrage at how children and families have been treated by the administration. You are not alone in feeling ashamed by the way this country now treats those seeking protection at our borders.

You are not alone in feeling like every immigration court hearing is like pushing back against an ocean of injustice; there is no due process, no fundamental fairness for asylum seekers anymore.

You are not alone in sometimes, perhaps even often, feeling hopeless.

But, you are not alone. There are thousands of others working on these issues, fighting for what’s right. We are a regiment of seasoned asylum practitioners who know the ins and outs of this complex area of law and how to practice it effectively. We are the newcomers to asylum law who may feel uncertain but who know deep in our souls that fighting these battles is what we are called to do. We are the lawyers who take on pro bono asylum cases even when that requires preparing witnesses for their testimony while simultaneously entertaining our toddlers because our offices are now our dining room tables.

We are in this together, and that is what makes me feel inspired and determined, rather than hopeless.

Serving as chair of the upcoming AILA Virtual Asylum Conference and planning the program is one way that I’ve been reminded that we’re not alone, that we are part of a community of talented, passionate attorneys still fighting to keep asylum alive.  Join me as we lay out the sweeping policy changes to the U.S. asylum system and the ever higher hurdles for asylum seekers and their advocates that the administration has implemented. Join me as we work through where litigation and advocacy efforts to combat the administration’s changes stand. Join me in fighting for asylum seekers in this country (and supporting each other in those efforts!). I promise you that you will leave this virtual conference with a solid understanding of where things stand and what that means for your clients, as well as expert guidance on new strategies to employ at the border and in the immigration courts as we continue to fight for asylum seekers and the soul of our nation.

I know this is a tough fight to keep up. I know you feel tired. But we can lift each other up, help each other succeed, and save our clients’ lives.

Source: Searching for Hope Among the Ruins of Our Asylum System

Photo by Adam Smotkin on Unsplash

,

Continue Reading

PERM Recruitment Advertising

PA-250-300

Immigration Impact

Immigration Links

Trending

Copyright © 2020 IMMIGRATION REFORM NEWS