District Court issues FOIA Ruling

DOS on EB-1 and EB-2 Visa Availability

Thousands of Deportation Cases Closed under Prosecutorial Discretion

The National Journal reported that a federal initiative that asked immigration authorities to focus their attention on immigrants convicted of crimes has resulted in the closure of more than 2,500 immigration cases nationwide between August and the end of March, according to a recent analysis of federal records. Last August, the White House asked the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice to prioritize which immigration cases to prosecute, focusing on people who had been convicted of a crime, rather than going forward with deportation proceedings against those living in the country illegally but posing little threat to public or national safety, like illegal immigrants brought to the country as children and the spouses of active military personnel. On Friday, the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University released a report showing that of the 2,609 cases closed, some 650 were terminated by a judge. In these cases, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agreed, via an exercise of prosecutorial discretion, that the government did not have valid grounds to deport the individual. The remaining three quarters, 1,959 cases, were administratively closed by a judge. These administrative closures effectively placed the cases on hold without a final resolution, allowing individuals to stay in the country at least temporarily, according to TRAC. The immigration court in Baltimore closed the most cases -- 230 since August. Courts in Los Angeles and New York City followed, closing 218 and 207 cases respectively. Among courts with a significant backlog of cases, the immigration court in Detroit closed the greatest share of cases under the initiative. Nearly 6 percent of the 2,815 backlogged cases were closed, the report said. The immigration court in Portland, Ore., followed, closing nearly 5 percent of its backlog of 2,151 cases by the end of March.

Groups Push for Naturalization Ahead of November Election

Fox News Latino reported that a number of groups hope to add thousands of new U.S. citizens to the voter rolls in several key states ahead of November's presidential election. The national push comes after Democratic President Barack Obama has failed to deliver on promised immigration reforms in his first years in office and his likely opponent, Mitt Romney, adopted harsh rhetoric on illegal immigration to win support from conservatives while campaigning for the GOP nomination. The Department of Homeland Security says an estimated 12.6 million people were holding so-called green cards given to legal permanent U.S. residents in 2010, including 8.1 million people who already qualify for naturalization but have not applied for citizenship. Latinos, considered a Democratic-leaning constituency, account for the largest immigrant community. Immigrants and other minority voters helped Obama to a comfortable win over Republican John McCain in the 2008 presidential election. "The fastest growing segment of the American electorate is the Latino vote, and within Latinos, we are seeing very rapid growth of immigrant voters," said Matt Barreto, a political science professor at the University of Washington. "In the 2012 election there is no doubt that the immigrant community will be incredibly relevant." The "Become a Citizen Now!" campaign began in March, hoping to help 5,000 immigrants complete the daunting application process to become citizens and register to vote. It is targeting foreign-born residents who have been in the country long enough to qualify for naturalization in Massachusetts, New York, California, Florida, Maryland, Oregon, Colorado, Washington, Tennessee, Illinois, Wisconsin and New Hampshire. Nearly 500 citizenship applications have been completed so far. Yenith Berrio, a 40-year-old Colombian citizen who has spent half of her life living in the United States, is preparing for her naturalization test and looks forward to becoming a U.S. citizen and registered voter. The Boston resident said the right to vote allows her to participate in a process that affects her and her family. She said the U.S. is a better place for her and her children who "are happier right here and could get much better education here." It typically takes just over five months to acquire citizenship. "Those immigrants that apply for their citizenship before the end of April are likely to be able to vote in this election in November," said Josh Hoyt, a co-chair of the National Partnership for New Americans. A separate push by the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization, seeks to register 180,000 Latinos to vote nationwide. Organizers say the initiative already has registered more than 10,000 voters. The group is conducting the campaign in Florida, Nevada, Colorado, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, California, Texas, North Carolina and online. When immigrants register, they generally show up to vote. More than 89 percent of registered foreign-born Americans cast ballots in 2008, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. And their share among voters is growing. Among all voters who cast ballots in the 1996 presidential election, 4.1 percent were foreign-born, according to Pew. Eight years later in 2008, the percentage rose to 6.3. While Immigrants have historically supported candidates in both major political parties, there's been a recent shift towards Democrats, said Manuel Pastor, director of the Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration at the University of Southern California. "There has been sort of a noticeable spin in the last couple of elections toward the Democratic party — but it seems mostly because of the way most of the Republican Party has moved right on immigration and the impact that has on the perception of new immigrant voters." Pastor said. Romney has staked out a tough stance on immigration. He favors a U.S.-Mexico border fence, opposes education benefits to illegal immigrants and says he would veto the Dream Act, which would allow some illegal immigrant youths to earn permanent residency and eventually citizenship if they attend college or serve in the military. Obama had promised during his 2008 campaign to press for a comprehensive immigration policy overhaul that would include providing a path to legalization for millions of illegal immigrants. Yet, more than three years into his term, he has failed to deliver, blaming fiercely divided congressional Republicans who he says are unwilling to work on the issue.

US Supreme Court to Hear Case on Arizona Immigration Law

Deportations Down Under New Obama Immigration Policy

The New American reported that President Obama’s efforts to tighten the leash on U.S. immigration enforcement have caused a sharp drop in the number of deportations, according to a report by the Syracuse University Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. In the last three months of 2011, following the administration’s directive to curb deportations of illegal immigrants without criminal records or who came to the United States as a child or student (among other discretionary factors), deportations have plummeted. The number of deportation proceedings instituted from October to December 2011 by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) plunged to 39,331, a 33-percent decline from the 58,639 filings documented the previous quarter. "Filings are typically lower at this time of year, but even adjusting for this seasonal drop-off and for late reporting," the report noted, "there appear to have been over 10,000 fewer deportation filings than would have been expected last quarter." The chief priority of the administration’s June 17, 2011 directive was to restrict most deportations to those immigrants with criminal records. "It makes no sense to spend our enforcement resources on these low-priority cases when they could be used with more impact on others, including individuals who have been convicted of serious crimes," Cecilia Muñoz, Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, wrote last August in a White House blog post. "This means more immigration enforcement pressure where it counts the most, and less where it doesn’t," she added. "That’s the smartest way to follow the law while we stay focused on working with the Congress to fix it." However, according to Syracuse University researchers, there is "little evidence" that immigrants with criminal records are representing a higher ratio of overall deportations. In fact, during the purported timeframe, only 1,300, or 3.3 percent, were to be deported as alleged "aggravated felons." Conversely, from July to September 2011, 3.8 percent were alleged "aggravated felons," while six months ago the proportion was 4 percent. The researchers added: An additional 4,193 were charged by ICE for other alleged criminal activity last quarter. When considered together with alleged "aggravated felons," the proportion of filings in the last quarter seeking deportation on grounds of any alleged criminal activity was still less than one out of seven (14%). And even this small slice is continuing to decline. Two years ago, slightly more than one of six (17.3 percent) were alleged to have engaged in criminal activity as the grounds ICE cited for seeking removal. "People have heard about these policy changes but largely haven’t seen any difference," asserted  Frank Sharry, executive director of immigration advocacy group America’s Voice. Many critics have alleged that President Obama’s June 2011 directive was largely political, particularly considering deportations have reached record levels, averaging 400,000 per year, under the current administration. Astoundingly, that’s double the annual average during President Bush’s first term and 30 percent higher than the average when Bush left office. Due to those record numbers, along with Obama’s failure to implement so-called "comprehensive immigration reform," there has been an ignition of criticism among the Hispanic community — a growing portion of the Democratic voter base. "Latino immigrant voters know that the Alabama and Arizona laws didn’t come about from Democrats. They’re aware the Obama administration is fighting those laws. They know that Republicans blocked the DREAM Act. They know that Mitt Romney is talking about massive self-deportation," Sharry said. "And they’re angry and disappointed that the Obama administration promised a legislative breakthrough, didn’t deliver it, but has delivered on record deportations." In response, the President has embarked on a political campaign to recover previous support from this pivotal sector of the American electorate. "What we’ve been able to do is, administratively, we’ve said — let’s reemphasize our focus when it comes to enforcement on criminals and at the borders, and let’s not be focusing our attention on hard-working families who are just trying to make ends meet," Obama said in an interview last week. "We’ve administratively proposed to reform the ‘three and 10" program so that families aren’t separated when they’re applying to stay here in this country." In emphasizing his newly coined "five more years" campaign slogan, the President assured a Hispanic audience that he would use his second term to push immigration reform. "My presidency is not over," Obama indicated, responding to a question about his failure to actualize an immigration bill. "I’ve got another five years coming up. We’re going to get this done." Moreover, the President rejected the notion that he broke a campaign promise, while passing the blame to Republicans who were unwilling to embrace any "sensible solutions" on the issue. "So far, we haven’t seen any of the Republican candidates even support immigration reform," Obama charged, targeting his potential opponents in the upcoming presidential contest. Political analysts and commentators have predicted that the Hispanic vote will be critical for Obama’s reelection bid, as the minority’s rising population has become an increasingly chief component of the American electorate. While many Hispanics who supported Obama in 2008 may refrain from voting Republican, their disappointment over Obama’s immigration efforts may deter them from even voting at all come November 6. Considering the persistently stale economy — which has led to a sharp drop in Obama’s approval ratings — the President will rely heavily on minority voting groups, observers predict. As the Los Angeles Times reported last October, the President has commenced an "all-out push to rebuild his popularity" with Hispanics, which has been "diminished by the weak economy and a lack of progress toward revamping the nation’s immigration system." "The excitement isn't there like it was," asserted Ana Canales, a volunteer and the county chairwoman for the Democratic Party of Bernalillo County in New Mexico, where the Obama campaign has accelerated efforts to recruit Hispanic voters. "There are a lot of people who are saying, 'We're not going to vote.' We have a lot of work on our hands … to make sure those Latinos understand that he [Obama] is working for us."  http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/10999-deportations-plummet-under-obamas-new-immigration-policy

Obama Says He has 5 More Years to Fix Immigration

The USA Today reported that President Obama predicted re-election in an interview this week with Univision Radio, telling a largely Hispanic audience he will use a second term to push comprehensive immigration overhaul. "My presidency is not over," Obama said when asked about the failure to come up with an immigration bill. "I've got another five years coming up. We're going to get this done." Obama rejected suggestions that the lack of an immigration bill is a broken campaign promise, saying "we're going to need help from Congress" and Republicans have blocked legislation. The re-election candidate said his Republican candidates oppose comprehensive immigration overhaul, which involves tighter border enforcement as well as a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who are already here. Obama also made what appeared to be a reference to Republican candidate Mitt Romney, who opposes legislation that would offer potential citizenship to illegal immigrants who attend college or join the military. "So far, have we haven't seen any of the Republican candidates even support immigration reform," Obama said. "In fact, their leading candidate said he would veto even the Dream Act, much less comprehensive immigration reform." Obama taped the Univision interview a day before traveling to Florida, where the growing Hispanic vote is considered essential. Some observers see the national Hispanic vote as the key to the entire election. When it comes to immigration, Hispanics should also examine who they support for House and Senate seats, Obama said. The president also said, "I would have only broken my promise if I hadn't tried" to get an immigration reform bill. "But, ultimately, I'm one man," he said. "You know, we live in a democracy. We don't live in a monarchy. I'm not the king. I'm the president. And so, I can only implement those laws that are passed through Congress."  http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/02/obama-ive-got-five-years-to-do-immigration-reform/1?csp=34news#.T0a_jYcgef4

Alabama Immigration Law Could Cost State Billions

Bloomberg.com reported tht Alabama’s harsh immigration law has stirred controversy since it went into effect in September. The statute, which among other things requires police to question people they suspect of being in the U.S. illegally, has prompted thousands of immigrants to flee the state. The law’s backers believed out-of-work Alabamians would snap up the jobs those immigrants once held. It hasn’t turned out that way. A new study details the economic impact of harsh immigration laws such as those passed by Alabama and five other states. Published by the Center for Business & Economic Research at the University of Alabama, it’s the first economic cost-benefit analysis of the state’s immigration statute. Dr. Samuel Addy, an economist and director of the Center, found that the law, known as HB 56, will annually shrink Alabama’s economy by at least $2.3 billion and will cost the state not less than 70,000 jobs . Most of the damage will come from reduced demand for goods and services provided by Alabama businesses patronized by immigrants. Addy projects that 40,000 to 80,000 immigrants will vacate their jobs. (It’s not possible to know exactly how many will leave; his calculation is derived, he says, from a combination of state labor-force data and data from the Pew Center on the States.) Those positions support other jobs, leading to a net employment loss of 70,000 to 140,000. As a result, Addy estimates, the state’s gross domestic product will decline by $2.3 billion to $10.8 billion for every year the law is in effect and will cost $56.7 million to $264.5 million in tax revenue. “The economy can still grow, but it will be on a lower growth path than would have been the case without the law,” Addy concludes. Many Alabamans have rejected hard, dirty, low-paying jobs that immigrants once performed: picking tomatoes, working in chicken plants, and gutting catfish. Now employers struggle to fill those positions. Despite the state’s 8.1 percent jobless rate, the four job categories that once hired most of the state’s immigrants—agriculture, construction, food service, and hospitality—employ fewer people than they did before the law went into effect. www.businessweek.com/top-news/alabamas-immigration-law-could-cost-billions-annually-02142012.html

Research Shows High Denial Rate of H and L Visas

Forbes.com reported that analysis of new data obtained from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) reveals the agency has dramatically increased denials of L-1 and H-1B petitions over the past four years, harming the competitiveness of U.S. employers and encouraging companies to keep more jobs and resources outside the United States. (Find the National Foundation for American Policy report here.) Data indicate much of the increase in denials involves Indian-born professionals and researchers. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services adjudicators have demonstrated a great capacity to keep skilled foreign nationals out of the United States by significantly increasing denials, along with often time-consuming Requests for Evidence (RFE), despite no change in the law or relevant regulations between 2008 and 2011. Attorneys provide numerous examples of superfluous Requests for Evidence. Employers say delaying applications for months effectively kills applications for people working on time-sensitive projects. L-1B petitions are used to transfer employees already working abroad for the company with “specialized knowledge” into the United States, while employers use H-1B petitions so that international students or skilled foreign nationals from abroad can work in the United States. Since obtaining a green card (for permanent residence) can take years or potentially decades, denying applications for L-1 or H-1B temporary status, in effect, prevents highly skilled foreign nationals from working in the United States. Some say that creates more opportunities for Americans but that wrongly assumes the number of jobs in America is fixed, that skilled foreign nationals don’t create complementary jobs and that companies will not transfer more work out of the country if prohibited from hiring or transferring in the people they need for projects, servicing customers or product development. The evidence indicates adjudicators or others at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services changed the standard for approving L-1B and other petitions in recent years, beginning in FY 2008 and FY 2009. If one considers that in FY 2011 63 percent of all L-1B petitions received a Request for Evidence and 27 percent were issued a denial, that means U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services adjudicators denied or delayed between 63 percent to 90 percent of all L-1B petitions in 2011. In comparison, in FY 2004, only 2 percent of L-1B petitions for employees with specialized knowledge involved a Request for Evidence. The high denial rates belie the notion adjudications have become more lenient. Employers report the time lost due to the increase in denials and Requests for Evidence are costing them millions of dollars in project delays and contract penalties, while aiding competitors that operate exclusively outside the United States. Given the resources involved, employers are selective about who they sponsor. The high rate of denials (and Requests for Evidence) is from a pool of applicants selected by employers because they believe the foreign nationals meet the standard for approval. In short, the United States is being deprived of talented people who help create jobs and innovations, particularly when able to work alongside their American counterparts. Country specific data on new (initial) L-1B petitions indicate U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is more likely to deny a petition from an Indian-born professional than nationals of other countries. The denial rate for Indian-born applicants for new L-1B petitions rose from 2.8 percent in Fiscal Year 2008 to 22.5 percent in FY 2009. In comparison, the denial rate for new L-1B petitions for Canadians rose from 2.0 percent in FY 2008 to only 2.9 percent in FY 2009. Overall, denial rates for H-1B petitions increased from 11 percent in FY 2007 to 29 percent in FY 2009. For H-1B petitions, the Request for Evidence rate rose from 4 percent in FY 2004, to a high of 35 percent in FY 2009, according to USCIS. The dramatic increase in denial rates and Requests for Evidence for employment petitions without any change in the law or regulations raises questions about the training, supervision and procedures of the career bureaucracy that adjudicates petitions. It also raises questions about the U.S. government’s commitment to maintaining a stable business climate for companies competing in the global economy. http://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2012/02/12/new-research-finds-soaring-denial-rates-for-high-skill-professionals/

Cato Institute Report Indicates Immigration is Good for the US Economy

The American Immigration Council reported that the Winter 2012 issue of the Cato Journal is devoted to answering a single question: “Is Immigration Good for America?” In 13 articles, 16 scholars answer with a resounding “Yes!” The consensus is that immigrants provide a net benefit to the U.S. economy and to U.S. workers. There is also a consensus among the authors that the current immigration system with its patchwork of arbitrary numerical caps, needlessly squanders the full economic potential of immigration. The authors call for a thorough revamping of the immigration system to make it more responsive to labor demand, to attract highly skilled professionals and entrepreneurs, and to offer a pathway to legal status for the unauthorized population. Here are highlights from the issue: Daniel T. Griswold former Director of the Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, concludes that “basic economic analysis and numerous empirical studies have confirmed that immigrants boost the productive capacity of the United States through their labor, their human capital, and their entrepreneurial spirit. Instead of competing head-to-head with American workers, immigrants typically complement native-born workers by filling niches in the labor market.” Joel Kotkin Distinguished Presidential Fellow at Chapman University, and Erika Ozuna, Research Fellow at Pepperdine University, say that “the United States should make efforts to keep entrepreneurs and all kinds of skilled workers, whom the country will need, particularly as the Baby Boom generation retires.” The authors warn that “if attitudes harden against immigration, America will sacrifice much of its demographic and cultural uniqueness. We would also suffer the loss of a major source of entrepreneurial growth and innovation.” Stuart Anderson Executive Director of the National Foundation for American Policy, points out that “fixing problems with the U.S. legal immigration system does not involve raising or reducing federal spending, or designing elaborate new agencies or policies. In general, much can be accomplished by simply raising the quotas for temporary visas for both low- and high-skilled workers and increasing the number of green cards available for family and employer-sponsored immigrants.” Pia M. Orrenius Senior Economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, and Madeline Zavodny, Professor of Economics at Agnes Scott College, argue that “it seems virtually inevitable that the United States will conduct a legalization program at some point given the size of the undocumented population.” However, research on the failings of the 1986 legalization demonstrates the “importance of enacting a legalization program only in the context of comprehensive immigration reform designed to reduce future unauthorized inflows as much as possible.” Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda, Founding Director of the North American Integration and Development Center at the University of California, Los Angeles, describes how “legalizing currently unauthorized immigrants and creating flexible legal limits on future immigration in the context of full labor rights would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue—particularly in those sectors of the U.S. economy now characterized by the lowest wages.” In sum, the contributors to this issue of the Cato Journal make a compelling case for the creation of a rational immigration system that offers the greatest benefit to both immigrant and native-born workers, and which adds the greatest value to the U.S. economy. As the authors emphasize, this would be a welcome change from the current dysfunctional system, which has facilitated the growth of an unauthorized population now numbering 11 million.  While the federal government may be unwilling to tackle immigration reform, the status quo is clearly unacceptable—and unsustainable. http://immigrationimpact.com/2012/02/08/cato-institute-analyzes-the-benefits-of-immigration-for-the-united-states-2/

Use the form below to submit
your information and we
will contact you shorty.

Full Name

Email

Message