Business Immigration Insights

On January 13, 2020, the Trump administration filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court to lift a nationwide temporary injunction on the DHS “public charge” rule that was upheld by the Court of Appeals (2^nd Circuit) last week.  The public charge rule, published in August 2019, expands the grounds on which the government can deny immigration benefits to various applicants seeking permanent residence (green card) status or work authorization to include those who have received certain public benefits, such as Medicaid, CHIP, and SNAP (see article, “DHS Reinterprets Public Charge”).  The rule gives the government broad discretion to deny an applicant if “at any time”, the applicant would “likely” become a public charge.  A medical condition alone could be enough for an immigration officer to exercise discretion to deny the application.

On December 4, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two orders that allow the Presidential Proclamation of September 24, 2017, otherwise known as the “Travel Ban,” to go into effect while appeals continue in the lower courts.  The practical effect of SCOTUS’s actions is to reinstate this version of the Travel Ban fully.  See our earlier blog entry, New Presidential Proclamation Modifies Travel Ban; SCOTUS Reacts, for a full explanation of which countries are targeted in the revised Ban and which citizens of those countries are subject to U.S. travel restrictions under the Ban.

On Sunday, September 24, 2017, the White House identified eight countries as inadequately managing identity and security risk information for their citizens who seek admission to the United States or other U.S. immigration benefits and established the following restrictions for those countries:

• North Korea / Syria:  All immigrant and nonimmigrant visas are suspended.
• Chad / Libya / Yemen:  All immigrant visas and all B-1 business and B-2 tourist visas are suspended.
• Iran:  All immigrant visas are suspended, as well as all nonimmigrant visas except F and M student visas and J exchange ...

Following the Supreme Court’s recent decision to allow the partial implementation of Executive Order 13780, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States” (“EO”), the State Department issued a cable to all diplomatic and consular posts instructing them how to implement the EO, which begins tonight at 8:00 PM EDT.  The ban applies to aliens from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.  Consular officers are instructed to first determine if a visa applicant meets the general visa issuance requirements without regard to the EO and, if so ...

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the Trump administration two victories in connection with Executive Order No. 13780, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” commonly known as the “Travel Ban.”

The Ninth Circuit has just issued a unanimous opinion upholding the Temporary Restraining Order against the Trump Administration’s Executive Order known as the “Travel Ban.” The 3-judge panel unanimously recognized that without the TRO, the states of Minnesota and Washington were likely to be harmed as parens patriae (i.e., legal protector) for their citizens, and also by damage inflicted on “operations and missions of their public universities and other institutions of higher learning,” and their “operations, tax bases, and public funds.”

The Supreme Court's docket for its 2009-10 term includes two key immigration cases that will affect immigrants' access to legal counsel and the federal court system.  In Padilla v. Kentucky, which is set for October 13, the Court will decide whether a criminal defense attorney must advise a foreign-born client on how a criminal case will affect the client's immigration status, and what remedies the client may seek if an attorney gives incorrect advice.  In Kucana v. Holder, which is set for November 10, the Court will decide whether federal appeals courts have jurisdiction to review ...