As CNMI Transitional Worker Program Draws Down, USCIS Announces Cap for Final Three Fiscal Years

As CNMI Transitional Worker Program Draws Down, USCIS Announces Cap for Final Three Fiscal Years

November 22, 2017 by no comments

As CNMI Transitional Worker Program Draws Down, USCIS Announces Cap for Final Three Fiscal Years
Release Date:

WASHINGTON— Today, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced the number of visas the agency will grant for the last three fiscal years (FYs) of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)-Only Transitional Worker (CW-1) program. Congress previously mandated that USCIS end the program by reducing the number of workers in the program to zero by Dec. 31, 2019.

Under the CW-1 program, employers in the CNMI can apply for permission to employ foreign workers who are ineligible to work in the territory under other nonimmigrant worker categories. The intent of phasing out this foreign worker program is to encourage the territory’s transition into the U.S. immigration system, as well as to bolster recruitment of U.S. workers in the CNMI.

The table below provides the cap for FY 2018, FY 2019 and FY 2020 until the end of the program:

Fiscal Year (FY) Cap
FY 2018 9,998
FY 2019 4,999
FY 2020 (until Dec. 31, 2019) 2,499

USCIS announced in May that the agency received a sufficient number of petitions to reach the maximum possible CW-1 cap for FY 2018. April 11, 2017, was the last day that USCIS accepted FY 2018 CW-1 petitions requesting an employment start date before Oct. 1, 2018. USCIS encourages employers to file petitions for CW-1 workers as early as possible within 6 months of the requested employment start date. Please note, however, that USCIS will reject a petition if it is filed more than six months in advance.

For more information about the CW-1 worker program, visit the CW-1: CNMI-Only Transitional Worker page or call the National Customer Service Center at 1-800-375-5283.

USCIS Guidance on DACA Renewal Requests Affected by Mail Service Issues

November 16, 2017 by no comments

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has received reports that the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) has identified USPS mail service delays that affected a number of DACA renewal requests. Because the DACA policy has been rescinded and individuals can no longer request deferred action under DACA, and in light of the mail service delays identified by USPS, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine Duke has directed USCIS to accept DACA renewal requests from individuals who resubmit their DACA renewal request with individualized proof that the request was originally mailed in a timely manner and that the cause for receipt after the Oct. 5, 2017, deadline was the result of USPS mail service error. Affected DACA requestors who do not have such proof may contact USPS, which will review the cases on an individual basis and provide a letter if appropriate. USCIS will not accept requests that do not include individualized proof that the request was originally mailed in a timely manner to be received by the October 5 deadline, and that the cause for receipt after the Oct. 5, 2017, deadline was the result of USPS mail service error.

In addition, USCIS had discovered certain cases in which the DACA requests were received at the designated filing location (e.g., at the applicable P.O. Box) by the filing deadline, but were rejected. USCIS will proactively reach out to those DACA requestors to inform them that they may resubmit their DACA request. If a DACA requestor does not receive such a notification and believes that his or her DACA request was received at the designated filing location by the filing deadline, he or she may resubmit his or her DACA request with proof that the request was previously received at the designated filing location on or before the filing deadline.

Additional guidance is forthcoming.

Last Reviewed/Updated:

Status of the Central American Minors Program

November 15, 2017 by no comments

On Nov. 9, 2017, the Department of State stopped accepting new applications for the Central American Minors (CAM) refugee program. USCIS will stop interviewing CAM cases on Jan. 31, 2018. After that date, individuals with pending applications who have not been interviewed will receive a notice with further instructions.

The decision to terminate the CAM refugee program was made as part of the U.S. government review of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for FY 2018.

The CAM program was established in 2014 to provide certain minors in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras the opportunity to be considered, while still in their home country, for refugee resettlement in the United States. Individuals who were determined to be ineligible for refugee status were then considered by USCIS for the possibility of entering the United States under parole. The parole portion of the CAM program was terminated in August 2017.

Please visit the Department of State’s website for more information.

Last Reviewed/Updated:

USCIS warns of Common Scams

November 15, 2017 by no comments

The wrong help can hurt. Use this information to avoid common immigration scams.

Form I-9 and Email Scams

USCIS has learned that employers have received scam emails requesting Form I-9 information that appear to come from USCIS. Employers are not required to submit Forms I-9 to USCIS. Employers must have a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, for every person on their payroll who is required to complete Form I-9. All of these forms must be retained for a certain period of time. Visit I-9 Central to learn more about retention, storage and inspections for Form I-9.

These scam emails come from a fraudulent email address: [email protected]. This is not a USCIS email address. The body of the email may contain USCIS and Office of the Inspector General labels, your address and a fraudulent download button that links to a non-government web address (uscis-online.org). Do not respond to these emails or click the links in them.

If you believe that you received a scam email requesting Form I-9 information from USCIS, report it to the Federal Trade Commission. If you are not sure if it is a scam, forward the suspicious email to the USCIS webmaster. USCIS will review the emails received and share with law enforcement agencies as appropriate.

“Notarios Públicos”

In many Latin American countries, the term “notario publico” (which is Spanish for “notary public”) means something very different than what it means in the United States. In many Spanish-speaking nations, “notarios” are powerful attorneys with special legal credentials. In the U.S., however, notary publics are people appointed by state governments to witness the signing of important documents and administer oaths. A notario publico is not authorized to provide you with any legal services related to immigration. Only an attorney or an accredited representative working for a Department of Justice (DOJ)-recognized organization can give you legal advice. For more information, go to the Recognition & Accreditation Program page on DOJ’s website.

Payments by Phone or Email

USCIS will never ask you to transfer money to an individual. We do not accept Western Union or PayPal as payment for immigration fees. In addition, we will never ask you to pay fees to a person on the phone or by email. You can pay some immigration fees online only if you use myUSCIS.

Remember:

  • When you send your application by mail, pay your immigration fees with a check or money order. Write “Department of Homeland Security” on the “Pay to the Order of” line.
  • Applying for U.S. citizenship? You can now pay fees for Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, with a credit card. To pay Form N-400 fees with a credit card, you will need G-1450, Authorization for Credit Card Transaction
  • You can also pay with a credit card in any domestic field office that accepts payments. You can learn more on our Paying Immigration Fees Web page

Winning the Visa Lottery

The U.S. Department of State (State Department) manages the Diversity Visa Program, also known as the Lottery Visa or Green Card Visa.

The State Department will never email you about being selected in the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program.

Go to the State Department’s website to read more about how they notify selectees.

Scam Websites

Some websites claim to be affiliated with USCIS and offer step-by-step guidance on completing a USCIS application or petition. Make sure your information is from uscis.gov or is affiliated with uscis.gov. Make sure your information is from uscis.gov or is affiliated with uscis.gov.
Make sure the website address ends with .gov.

Please remember that we will never ask you to pay to download USCIS forms. Our forms are always free on our website. You can also get forms at your local USCIS office or by calling 800-870-3676 and order forms over the phone. To order forms by mail, follow these instructions in English or Spanish

Job Offers

Beware of companies offering a job from overseas or by email. If you receive a suspicious job offer by email before you leave your country to come to the U.S., it may be a scam, especially if you are asked to pay money to receive a job offer.

Even if a job offer is legitimate, you are not allowed to work in the United States unless you have a permanent resident card (Green Card), an Employment Authorization Document (work permit) or an employment-related visa which allows you to work for a particular employer. Read the Working in the U.S. page.

If you are already in the United States on a student visa, talk with your foreign student advisor (designated school official) at your school before you take any job. If you are about to graduate and are applying for Optional Practical Training (OPT), read the instructions on the Working in the U.S. page.

Scams Targeting Students

If you are an international student outside of the U.S. and want to come to the U.S. for education, make sure you are applying to an accredited college or university. Look for your school on the Council for Higher Education web page.

You must have a Form I-20, Certificate of Eligibility for Nonimmigrant Student Status, to travel. After you are accepted into a Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP)-certified school, a designated school official will either give you:

  • Form I-20, Certificate of Eligibility for Nonimmigrant (F-1) Student Status –For Academic and Language Students, or
  • Form I-20, Certificate of Eligibility for Nonimmigrant (M-1) Student Status –For Vocational Students

Schools that are not accredited cannot sponsor you for an F-1 student visa.

Additional information on the Form I-20 is available on DHS’ website studyinthestates.dhs.gov or on our website on the Students and Employmentpage.

If you receive a suspicious email, forward it to us at [email protected].

Last Reviewed/Updated:

Source: https://www.uscis.gov/avoid-scams/common-scams

Announcement on Temporary Protected Status for Nicaragua And Honduras

November 7, 2017 by no comments

Acting Secretary Elaine Duke Announcement on Temporary Protected Status for Nicaragua And Honduras

Release Date:
November 6, 2017

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
Contact: 202-282-8010

WASHINGTON— Today, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine Duke announced her decision to terminate the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation for Nicaragua with a delayed effective date of 12 months to allow for an orderly transition before the designation terminates on January 5, 2019. She also determined that additional information is necessary regarding the TPS designation for Honduras, and therefore has made no determination regarding Honduras at this time. As a result of the inability to make a determination, the TPS designation for Honduras will be automatically extended for six months from the current January 5, 2018 date of expiration to the new expiration date of July 5, 2018.

The decision to terminate TPS for Nicaragua was made after a review of the conditions upon which the country’s original 1999 designation were based and whether those substantial but temporary conditions prevented Nicaragua from adequately handling the return of their nationals, as required by statute. There was also no request made by the Nicaraguan government to extend the current TPS status. Based on all available information, including recommendations received as part of an inter-agency consultation process, Acting Secretary Duke determined that those substantial but temporary conditions caused in Nicaragua by Hurricane Mitch no longer exist, and thus, under the applicable statute, the current TPS designation must be terminated.

To allow for an orderly transition, the effective date of the termination of TPS for Nicaragua will be delayed 12 months.  This will provide time for individuals with TPS to seek an alternative lawful immigration status in the United States, if eligible, or, if necessary, arrange for their departure. It will also provide time for Nicaragua to prepare for the return and reintegration of their citizens. TPS for Nicaragua will terminate on January 5, 2019.

Regarding Honduras, Acting Secretary Duke concluded that despite receiving input from a broad spectrum of sources, additional time is necessary to obtain and assess supplemental information pertaining to country conditions in Honduras in order to make an appropriately deliberative TPS designation determination.  Based on the lack of definitive information regarding conditions on the ground compared to pre-Hurricane Mitch, the Acting Secretary has not made a determination at this time, thereby automatically extending the current TPS designation for Honduras for six months – through July 5, 2018.

However, given the information currently available to the Acting Secretary, it is possible that the TPS designation for Honduras will be terminated at the end of the six-month automatic extension with an appropriate delay.

Recognizing the difficulty facing citizens of Nicaragua – and potentially citizens of other countries – who have received TPS designation for close to two decades, Acting Secretary Duke calls on Congress to enact a permanent solution for this inherently temporary program.

Nicaraguans and Hondurans with TPS will be required to reapply for Employment Authorization Documents in order to legally work in the United States until the end of the respective termination or extension periods.  Further details about this renewal for TPS will appear in a Federal Register notice.

Signed Memos:

Nicaragua
Honduras

# # #

Topics:
Last Published Date: November 6, 2017

Passports and International Megan’s Law

November 3, 2017 by no comments

Passports and International Megan’s Law

OCTOBER 30, 2017

On February 8, 2016, Congress enacted the International Megan’s Law to Prevent Child Exploitation and Other Sexual Crimes Through Advanced Notification of Traveling Sex Offenders (IML) (Public Law 114-119).

The IML prohibits the Department of State from issuing a passport to a covered sex offender without a unique identifier, and it allows for the revocation of passports previously issued to these individuals that do not contain the identifier (22 USC 212b).

The identifier is a passport endorsement, currently printed inside the back cover of the passport book, which reads: “The bearer was convicted of a sex offense against a minor, and is a covered sex offender pursuant to 22 United States Code Section 212b(c)(l).”  Since endorsements cannot be printed on passport cards, covered sex offenders cannot be issued passport cards.

Only the DHS/ICE Angel Watch Center (AWC) can certify an individual as a “covered sex offender.” Therefore, any questions by the applicant about such status must be directed to and resolved by AWC.

Applicants who have questions for AWC regarding their status or believe they have been wrongly identified as a covered sex offender as defined in Title 22 United States Code 212b(c)(1) should contact AWC at [email protected].

Source: https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/news/passports-international-megans-law.html

USCIS Social Media Policy

November 2, 2017 by no comments

Social Media Policy

We use social media technologies and websites to provide you with information in more places and more ways. This page outlines all our official communication channels and resources and why we use them. We are providing the following links to our presence on third-party sites for your reference. We do not endorse any non-government websites, companies or applications.

USCIS on Instagram
Official Instagram page of USCIS. Privacy and comment policy: https://www.instagram.com/about/legal/privacy

USCIS on Facebook
Official Facebook page of USCIS. Privacy and comment policy: http://www.dhs.gov/xutil/facebook.shtm

USCIS on Twitter
Follow @USCIS on Twitter for daily citizenship and immigration updates. Twitter is a microblogging platform that allows users to post short text messages (up to 140 characters in length) and converse with other users via their phone or web browsers.  Tweets are also available in Spanish. http://twitter.com/privacy

USCIS YouTube Videos
YouTube is a social media website that allows the sharing of information to the public using videos. http://www.youtube.com/t/privacy_at_youtube

USCIS Email Updates
Email updates provide information directly in your inbox. We never send unsolicited emails, and you can choose which updates you want to receive. Email updates are provided by a third-party company, GovDelivery.

USCIS RSS Feeds
RSS (Really Simple Syndication) data feeds automatically provide updated information as soon as it becomes available. You will need an RSS reader to receive RSS feeds. To begin receiving USCIS RSS feeds, please follow instructions on the USCIS RSS page.

DHS Social Hub
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Social Hub features live social media conversations from all DHS components.       

Social Media Privacy Policy

We do not collect or retain any privacy information from our use of third-party web 2.0 applications. We do, however, retain a copy of all comments posted to our sites as required by our records retention policy and will only be releasing them when required by federal law.

When you comment on one of our posts, we ask that you do not provide any personally identifiable information such as a case number, Social Security number, or any other information you do not want the general public to know. We will attempt to remove any personally identifiable information from these sites, but may not be able to do so until after it has been made publically available. If you choose to post personally identifiable information on any public site, you do so at your own risk. We will not be held liable for any loss or damage resulting from any comments posted on these applications. The privacy policies of all third-party sites apply when collecting and distributing user data. We encourage you to read the privacy policies before registering or posting to any application.

USCIS employees or those acting on behalf of USCIS cannot alter official imagery, except using photographic techniques common to traditional darkrooms and digital imaging stations such as:

  • Dodging;
  • Burning;
  • Color balancing;
  • Spotting; and
  • Contrast adjustments that are used to achieve the accurate recording of an event or object.

The obvious masking of portions of a photographic image in support of specific security, privacy or legal requirements is authorized. The use of cropping, editing or enlargement to selectively isolate, link or display a portion of a photographic or video image is not considered alteration. Cropping, editing or image enlargement that has the effect of misrepresenting the facts or circumstances of the event or object as originally recorded is prohibited.

Photographic and video post-production enhancement, including animation; digital simulation; graphics and special effects used for dramatic or narrative effect in education; training illustrations; publications; or productions, is authorized under either of the conditions below:

  1. The enhancement does not misrepresent the subject of the original image; or,
  2. It is clearly and readily apparent from the context or from the content of the image or accompanying text that the enhanced image is not intended to be an accurate representation of any actual event.

Note: All photos on these social media accounts were taken at public events or with the express permission of the subjects in the photos.

We reserve the right to remove any comments containing:

  • Profanity;
  • Personal attacks of any kind;
  • Spam;
  • Names of federal civil service employees;
  • Offensive terms that target specific ethnic or racial groups;
  • Threats (which we will forward to appropriate law enforcement agencies);

AND content that:

  • Promotes commercial products;
  • Is geared toward the success or failure of a partisan political party, group or candidate;
  • Incites hate; or
  • Is the subject to an infringement claim, that is deemed to be an infringement of intellectual property, or that is otherwise objectionable.

Any opinions expressed by commentators on the USCIS social media pages, except as specifically noted, are solely those of the individual offering commentary, and does not reflect any USCIS policy, endorsement or action.

Last Reviewed/Updated:

USCIS Cambia los Procedimientos de Adjudicación para Ciertas Peticiones de Extensiones de Visas de Empleo de No Inmigrantes

October 25, 2017 by no comments

USCIS Cambia los Procedimientos de Adjudicación para Ciertas Peticiones de Extensiones de Visas de Empleo de No Inmigrantes
Fecha de Publicación:

WASHINGTON — Bajo ciertas guías de políticas (PDF, 97 KB) actualizadas, el Servicio de Ciudadanía e Inmigración de Estados Unidos (USCIS, por sus siglas en inglés) está instruyendo a sus oficiales para implementar el mismo nivel de escrutinio tanto a las peticiones iniciales como a peticiones de extensión para ciertas categorías de visas de no inmigrante. Las reglas aplican a casi todas las clasificaciones de no inmigrante presentadas por medio del Formulario I-129, Petición de Trabajador No Inmigrante.

“Los oficiales de USCIS están en primera fila de los esfuerzos de administración para mejorar la integridad del Sistema de inmigración”, dijo el director de USCIS, L. Francis Cissna. “Estas guías actualizadas proveen una dirección clara para ayudar a avanzar las políticas que protegen los intereses de los trabajadores estadounidenses”.

Como antes, los adjudicadores deben revisar exhaustivamente las peticiones y documentos de evidencia para determinar la elegibilidad a los beneficios que se buscan. Las guías actualizadas instruyen a los oficiales aplicar el mismo nivel de escrutinio al momento de revisar peticiones de extensión de visas de no inmigrante, aun cuando el peticionario, beneficiario y factores base no han cambiado de una petición original. Mientras los adjudicadores pueden ultimadamente llegar a la misma conclusión que en la petición previa, ellos no están obligados a hacerlo como condición base para establecer la elegibilidad a un beneficio de inmigración, ya que el peso de la prueba para establecer elegibilidad siempre recae en el peticionario.

La política previa instruía a los oficiales a hacer referencia a las peticiones aprobadas previamente, siempre y cuando los elementos clave no hubiesen cambiado y no hubiese evidencia de un error material o fraude relacionado a l determinación previa. La política actualizada rescinde la política anterior.

Bajo la ley, el peso de establecer prueba de elegibilidad a una extensión de visa de no inmigrante recae en el peticionario, sin importar si USCIS aprobó la petición previamente. La determinación del adjudicador está basada en los méritos de cada caso, y los oficiales pueden solicitar evidencia adicional si el peticionario no ha presentado suficiente evidencia para establecer elegibilidad.

Los memorándums interinos y finales sobre políticas (en inglés) son documentos oficiales de las políticas de USCIS y están vigentes a partir de la fecha de aprobación del memorándum.

Aprenda más acerca de nuestra iniciativa Compre Productos Estadounidenses, Contrate Estadounidenses.

Para más información acerca de USCIS y sus programas, por favor visite www.uscis.gov/es o síganos en Twitter (@uscis_es), YouTube (/uscis), Facebook (/uscis.es), e Instagram (@uscis_es).

Última Revisión/Actualización:

Fuente: https://www.uscis.gov/es/noticias/uscis-cambia-los-procedimientos-de-adjudicacion-para-ciertas-peticiones-de-extensiones-de-visas-de-empleo-de-no-inmigrantes

Rescission of Guidance Regarding Deference to Prior Determinations of Eligibility in the Adjudication of Petitions for Extension of Nonimmigrant Status

October 24, 2017 by no comments

October 23, 2017 PM-602-0151

Policy Memorandum

SUBJECT: Rescission of Guidance Regarding Deference to Prior Determinations of Eligibility in the Adjudication of Petitions for Extension of Nonimmigrant Status

Purpose

This policy memorandum (PM) supersedes and rescinds the April 23, 2004 memorandum titled “The Significance of a Prior CIS Approval of a Nonimmigrant Petition in the Context of a Subsequent Determination Regarding Eligibility for Extension of Petition Validity” and section VII of the August 17, 2015 policy memorandum titled “L-1B Adjudications Policy.”

Scope

This PM applies to, and is binding on, all U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) employees. The updated guidance is effective immediately.

Authority

  • Section 291 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), Title 8, United States Code, section 1361.
  • Title 8 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), sections 103.2(b)(1) and 214.1(c)(5). PolicyOn April 23, 2004, USCIS issued a memorandum titled “The Significance of a Prior CIS Approval of a Nonimmigrant Petition in the Context of a Subsequent Determination Regarding Eligibility for Extension of Petition Validity.” This memorandum directed adjudicators, when adjudicating petition extensions involving the same parties and underlying facts as the initial petition, to defer to prior determinations of eligibility, except in certain, limited circumstances.1 On August 17, 2015, USCIS issued a policy memorandum titled “L-1B Adjudications Policy” which directed USCIS adjudicators, in the context of L-1B petition extensions, to give deference to the prior determinations of eligibility by USCIS, except in certain, limited circumstances.2

For the reasons detailed below, USCIS is rescinding the policy of requiring officers to defer to prior determinations in petitions for extension of nonimmigrant status as articulated in the above memoranda. USCIS is also providing updated guidance that is both more consistent with the agency’s current priorities and also advances policies that protect the interests of U.S. workers.

In adjudicating petitions for immigration benefits, including nonimmigrant petition extensions, adjudicators must, in all cases, thoroughly review the petition and supporting evidence to determine eligibility for the benefit sought.3 The burden of proof in establishing eligibility is, at all times, on the petitioner.4 The fundamental issue with the April 23, 2004 memorandum is that it appeared to place the burden on USCIS to obtain and review a separate record of proceeding to assess whether the underlying facts in the current proceeding have, in fact, remained the same. Not only did this improperly shift the burden of proof to the agency contrary to INA § 291, but it was also impractical and costly to properly implement, especially when adjudicating premium processing requests.

1 The April 23, 2004 memo provided in part:

In matters relating to an extension of nonimmigrant petition validity involving the same parties (petitioner and beneficiary) and the same underlying facts, a prior determination by an adjudicator that the alien is eligible for the particular nonimmigrant classification sought should be given deference. A case where a prior approval of the petition need not be given deference includes where: (1) it is determined that there was a material error with regard to the previous petition approval; (2) a substantial change in circumstances has taken place; or (3) there is new material information that adversely impacts the petitioner’s or beneficiary’s eligibility. [Footnote omitted]

2 The August 17, 2015 memo provided in part:

In matters relating to an extension of L-1B status involving the same parties (i.e., the same petitioner and beneficiary employee) and the same underlying facts, USCIS officers should give deference to the prior determination by USCIS approving L-1B classification. In such cases, USCIS officers should re-examine a finding of L-1B eligibility only where it is determined that: (1) there was a material error with regard to the previous approval for L-1B classification; (2) there has been a substantial change in circumstances since that approval; or (3) there is new material information that adversely impacts the petitioner’s or beneficiary’s eligibility. [Footnotes omitted]

3 Adjudicator’s Field Manual, Chapter 10.3(a). 4 INA § 291.

Accordingly, this memorandum makes it clear that the burden of proof remains on the petitioner, even where an extension of nonimmigrant status is sought.5 While the April 23, 2004 memorandum explicitly acknowledged that USCIS has the authority to review prior adjudicative decisions and deny certain requests for extensions of status, the memorandum unduly limited adjudicators’ inherent fact-finding authority in certain cases.6

An adjudicator’s fact-finding authority, as was the case prior to April 23, 2004, should not be constrained by any prior petition approval, but instead, should be based on the merits of each case. In this regard, USCIS acknowledges that the regulations in certain instances do not require supporting documents to be submitted as initial evidence when an employer files a petition extension without change on behalf of the same alien.7 However, although these regulatory provisions govern what is required to be submitted at the time of filing the petition extension, they do not limit, and, in fact, reiterate, USCIS’ authority to request additional evidence. While adjudicators should be aware of these regulatory provisions, they should not feel constrained in requesting additional documentation in the course of adjudicating a petition extension, consistent with existing USCIS policy regarding requests for evidence, notices of intent to deny, and the adjudication of petitions for nonimmigrant benefits.

Further, because it was viewed as a default position upon beginning review of a filing, the deference policy may, in some cases, have had the effect of limiting the ability of adjudicators to conduct a thorough review of the facts and assessment of eligibility in each case. In addition, that policy likely had the unintended consequence of officers not discovering material errors in prior adjudications. While adjudicators may, of course, reach the same conclusion as in a prior decision, they are not compelled to do so as a default starting point.

In accordance with the foregoing, the above-referenced April 23, 2004 memorandum and section VII of the August 17, 2015 memorandum articulating a default policy of deference are therefore rescinded.

5 See 8 CFR § 103.2(b)(1) (“An applicant or petitioner must establish that he or she is eligible for the requested benefit at the time of filing the benefit request and must continue to be eligible through adjudication); 8 CFR § 214.1(c)(5) (“Where an applicant or petitioner demonstrates eligibility for a requested extension, it may be granted at the discretion of the Service.”)

6 The following guidance from the April 23, 2004 memo is preserved and hereby incorporated:

[US]CIS has the authority to question prior determinations. Adjudicators are not bound to approve subsequent petitions or applications seeking immigration benefits where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of a prior approval which may have been erroneous. Matter of Church Scientology Intl, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Commissioner 1988). Each matter must be decided according to the evidence of record on a case-by-case basis. See 8 CFR § 103.8(d) [(2011)].

7 See, e.g., 8 CFR §§ 214.2(h)(14), (l)(14)(i), (o)(11), and (p)(13).

Use

This memorandum is intended solely for the training and guidance of USCIS personnel in performing their duties relative to the adjudication of applications and petitions. It is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or by any individual or other party in removal proceedings, in litigation with the United States, or in any other form or manner.

Contact Information

If USCIS officers have questions or suggestions regarding this PM, they should direct them through their appropriate chains of command to the Office of Policy and Strategy.

Source: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2017/2017-10-23Rescission-of-Deference-PM6020151.pdf

Attorney General Jeff Sessions Delivers Remarks About Carrying Out the President’s Immigration Priorities

October 21, 2017 by no comments

Austin, TX ~ Friday, October 20, 2017

Remarks as prepared for delivery

Thank you for that kind introduction Richard. You’ve been a crime fighter here in this office for over three decades.  Thank you for your dedicated service.

I would also like to thank and recognize our selfless and dedicated law enforcement here who put their lives on the line every and who run toward danger for the benefit of us all.

On behalf of President Trump, it is an honor to be here with you all – with the selfless and courageous men and women of law enforcement.  President Trump and this Department of Justice understand your mission.  The President has directed us to support that mission and support you.  And we are committed to doing that.

Donald Trump ran for office as a law-and-order candidate and now he is governing as a law-and-order President.  Under his strong leadership, we are finally getting serious about crime and the rule of law.  And we are finally getting serious about illegal immigration.

We have the most generous immigration laws in the world.  And for decades we have always pulled back from effective enforcement.

But earlier this month, the President released his principles for fixing our immigration system.  Let me just say: they are a breath of fresh air.  For decades, the American people have been begging and pleading with our elected officials for an immigration system that is lawful and that serves our national interest.  Now we have a President who leads.

The principles he laid out deal with every aspect of our immigration problems—everything from border security to interior enforcement to closing loopholes in our asylum program.  It’s the kind of bold agenda that the American people have been waiting for.  It is reasonable and it will work.  And this is a critical point: this is not hopeless; it can be done!

First of all, the President is determined to finally build a wall at our Southern border.  This will make it harder for illegal aliens to break into this country.  For many, they will decide not to come illegally.  But more importantly, the wall will send a message to the world that we enforce our laws.  It sends a message: finally we mean it.

And to better do that, President Trump has proposed hiring more than 10,000 new ICE officers, 1,000 new ICE attorneys, 300 new prosecutors, and nearly 400 new immigration judges.  He has proposed switching to a more merit-based system of immigration like they have in Canada.  That means welcoming the best and the brightest but turning away gang members, fraudsters, drunk drivers, and child abusers.  This merit-based system would better serve our national interest because it would benefit the American people.  That’s what this agenda is all about.  We can’t accept everybody—only people who will flourish.

And that’s why the President supports mandating the use of the E-verify system, which is an internet based system that allows employers to verify that those they hire are authorized to work in the United States.

Under the President’s plan, it would be illegal to discriminate against American workers in favor of foreign workers.

We need this agenda.  And Texans know that better than just about anybody.

I’m sure everyone in this room remembers Houston police officer Kevin Will.  An illegal alien who had been deported twice drove drunk and hit Officer Will at about 90 miles per hour.  Officer Will’s last words were telling someone to get out of the way of the car.  He died protecting innocent people.  And when he died, his wife was pregnant with their first child.

The open-borders lobby talks a lot about kids—those who are here unlawfully.  But open-borders policies aren’t even in their interest either.  After the previous administration announced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals—or DACA—policy in 2012, the number of unaccompanied children coming here nearly doubled in one year.  The next year, it doubled again.

I doubt that was a coincidence.  DACA encouraged potentially tens of thousands of vulnerable children to make the dangerous journey North.  That had terrible humanitarian consequences—and Texans know that firsthand.

Earlier this month, Border Patrol arrested two young men who had benefitted from DACA, for allegedly attempting to smuggle illegal aliens into Laredo.

Just a few days later, another beneficiary of DACA was charged with the murder of an 18-year old girl.  In total, 2,000 DACA recipients have had their status withdrawn.

The President wants to stop the incentives for vulnerable children to come here illegally.   He began to do that last month when he ended the DACA policy.

The President has also laid out a plan to close loopholes that are being exploited in our asylum program.

Under the previous Administration, the federal government began releasing illegal aliens who claimed to be too afraid to return home.  Unsurprisingly, the number of these claims skyrocketed nearly 20-fold in eight years from 5,000 in 2009 to 94,000 now.  And after their release, many of these people simply disappeared.

It’s too easy to defraud our system right now—and President Trump is going to fix that.  The President’s plan to close the loopholes will stop the incentive for false asylum claims.

President Trump is also confronting the state and local jurisdictions that have undertaken to undo our immigration laws through so-called “sanctuary policies.”

Such policies undermine the moral authority of law and undermine the safety of the jurisdictions that adopt them.  Police are forced to release criminal aliens back into the community—no matter what their crimes.  Think about that: Police may be forced to release pedophiles, rapists, murderers, drug dealers, and arsonists back into the communities where they had no right to be in the first place.  They should—according to law and common sense—be processed and deported.

These policies hinder the work of federal law enforcement; they’re contrary to the rule of law, and they have serious consequences for the law-abiding Texans.

Earlier this month, an illegal alien in Kansas pled guilty to reckless driving that killed a law enforcement officer conducting a traffic stop.  He tested for a blood alcohol content twice the legal limit.  The officer who was killed—Deputy Brandon Collins—had two young daughters.

The illegal alien who killed Deputy Collins had already been arrested twice for driving-related offenses—including a previous drunk driving conviction.  Clearly, he had been in police custody, but no one turned him over to ICE.

The politicians behind “sanctuary” policies say that forcing police officers to release criminal aliens back onto the streets will somehow increase community trust.

But that does not make sense to me.  Would releasing someone who had been arrested numerous times into your community give you more confidence in law enforcement?

Would learning that a local district attorney actually charges illegal aliens with less serious crimes than Americans to evade federal deportation make you believe they are trying to make your neighborhood safer?  Would forcing federal officers to track down criminal aliens on your street instead of safely in the jails make you believe we value your community?

We all know law enforcement is not the problem.  You risk your lives each day in service of the law and the people you protect.  Cooperation, mutual respect is critical.  Disrespecting our law enforcement officers in their lawful duties in unacceptable.

The problem is the policies that tie your hands.

Yet, rather than reconsider their policies, sanctuary jurisdictions feign outrage when they lose federal funds as a direct result of actions designed to nullify plain federal law.  Some have even decided to go to court so that they can keep receiving taxpayer-funded grants while continuing to impede federal immigration enforcement.  We intent to fight this resolutely.

We cannot continue giving federal grants to cities that actively undermine the safety of federal law officers and intentionally frustrate efforts to reduce crime in their own cities.

These jurisdictions that knowingly, willfully, and purposefully release criminal aliens back into their communities are sacrificing the lives and safety of American citizens in the pursuit of an extreme open borders policy. It’s extreme and open borders because if a jurisdiction won’t deport someone who enters illegally and then commits another crime then who will they deport.

This isn’t just a bad policy. It’s a direct challenge to the laws of the United States.  It places the lives of our fine law enforcement officers at risk and I cannot and will not accept this increased risk because certain politicians want to make a statement.

Our duty is to protect public safety and protect taxpayer dollars and I plan to fulfill those duties.

The vast majority of Americans oppose “sanctuary” policies.  According to one poll, 80 percent of Americans believe that cities should turn over criminal aliens to immigration officials.

The American people are not asking too much, and neither is the Department of Justice.  Federal law enforcement wants to work with our partners at the state and local level.  We want to keep our citizens safe.

Fortunately, in President Trump, we have strong leadership that is making a difference.

Since he took office, border crossings have plummeted by nearly a quarter—even as our economy has been booming.  This past fiscal year, Border Patrol conducted half of the number of arrests as the previous one, and one-fifth of the number of arrests they made a decade ago.

Now, someone might say, that decline is because they’re just not catching people.  But that’s just not true.

Border Patrol’s tactics and their technology have been refined and are only getting better.  The Department of Homeland Security believes that they are catching a greater share of illegal aliens than ever—more than four out of five.

So the data show clearly: President Trump’s leadership is making a difference.  Would-be lawbreakers know that we are restoring the rule of law and enforcing our immigration laws again.

And under President Trump’s immigration principles, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security will stop rewarding sanctuary cities with taxpayer dollars.

If these cities want to receive law enforcement grants, then they should stop impeding federal law enforcement.

In Texas, you have taken a leadership role on this issue.

I want to commend the state legislature for passing Senate Bill Four with strong majorities in both chambers, and thank Governor Abbott for signing it into law.

I am well aware that this law has its critics.  And I am more than familiar with their line of criticism.  But the facts of the case are clearly on Texas’ side.

Earlier this month, the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in this case.  We believe that the outcome is important not just to the state of Texas, but to the national interest.  The integrity of our immigration laws is not a local issue—it is a national issue.

I am confident that Texas will prevail in court.  But I would urge every so-called “sanctuary” jurisdiction to reconsider their policies.  So-called “sanctuary” policies risk the safety of good law enforcement officers and the safety of the neighborhoods that need their protection the most.  There are lives and livelihoods at stake.

If we work together, we can make our country safer for all our residents—native born and lawful immigrant alike.  Working together requires ending “sanctuary” policies.

The Department of Justice is determined to reduce crime.  We will not concede a single block or street corner in the United States to lawlessness.  Nor will we tolerate the loss of innocent life because a handful of jurisdictions believe they are above the law.

And so to all the law enforcement here—federal, state, and local—thank you for all that you do.  President Trump is grateful; I am grateful, and the entire Department of Justice is grateful for your service.  We have your back and you have our thanks.

Thank you, and God bless you.