Kamila Rivas is one of our outgoing Spring 2018 Interns and researched this piece on a very important topic. Earlier today, the Supreme Court of the United States granted the government's request to vacate an injunction permitting Jane Doe, a noncitizen minor, to obtain an abortion. (See Azar v. Garza, 584 U. S. ____ (2018)) While litigation will continue, the Supreme Court's decision does not bode well for the fight for reproductive rights.

This past Friday, Ireland voted decisively to repeal one of the world’s more restrictive abortion bans. The vote repealed the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution — a measure that conferred equal rights to the fetus and the mother, and banned abortion under almost all circumstances. Despite this victory for women’s reproductive rights, there are still five countries in the world where abortion, or the deliberate interruption of a pregnancy, is criminalized under all circumstances: El Salvador, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic, Malta and the Holy See. Even in the case of rape, incest, the non-viability of the fetus or when the mother's life is at risk, women in these countries have to take their pregnancies to term. Otherwise, they can face up to 50 years in prison.

In El Salvador, for example, according to the Penal Code all forms of abortion are punishable by up to ten years’ imprisonment. However, prosecutors in this country charge women whose pregnancies exceed 20 weeks of gestation with aggravated homicide. An offense punishable by thirty to fifty years of imprisonment.  Today, there over 20 women in El Salvador serving prison sentences of up to 40 years for having interrupted their pregnancies. Most of these women claim they had a miscarriage. Some, allege not even knowing they were pregnant. These laws disproportionately punish poor and uneducated women. Meanwhile, other women are able to get around the law by going to private clinics or to a neighboring country where this practice is permitted and performed safely, and have abortions in secret. Poor women simply do not have this option.

Sweden was the first country in the world to grant asylum to a woman fleeing criminal prosecution for having an alleged abortion. María Teresa Rivera was arrested in El Salvador, accused of having an abortion and sentenced to 40 years in prison on the charge of aggravated homicide. She claims having had a miscarriage and not knowing she was pregnant. Sweden granted her asylum on the basis of persecution on the account of political opinion. The Swedish Migration Agency declared that the nature of the treatment Maria Teresa suffered—specifically the time she served in prison, the sentence she was given, and the dangers she would experience if she returned to El Salvador—were “severe enough to qualify as persecution.” It also ruled that there was no “good reason to assume that the treatment she endured in the past will not be repeated.”

In the United States, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1965 in section 101(a)(42) defines refugees as those individuals who are outside their country of nationality and are unable or unwilling to return to that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on the account of race, religion, nationality, membership to a particular social group (PSG) or political opinion.

From this definition we could say that women like Maria Teresa - from El Salvador or from any of the other countries with an absolute ban on abortion - could be granted asylum in the U.S. on the basis of political opinion, or on the basis of their membership to the following PSGs: (1) (insert nationality) pregnant women who are forced to bring their pregnancies to term when this implies a risk to their own lives and (2) (insert nationality) women facing criminal prosecution for ending their pregnancy.

Briefly, to establish the existence of a PSG we would need to show that the group in question is i) immutable, or that the group possesses a characteristic that cannot be changed or is intrinsic to the identity of the group, ii) particular, in so that it is clear who belongs to it and who does not, and iii) socially distinct, or in other words that society views it as a group.


If and once these PSGs are established, women would have to prove that belonging to either one of these groups made them have a credible and well-founded fear of persecution. The source of this fear could be having been a victim of persecution in the past or proving that there are strong indications that they would be victims of it in the future. In other words, women would have to show what has happened or is happening to women in their same situation, how that amounts to or constitutes persecution and why they, specifically, believe they would undoubtedly be victims of such persecution.

For the first group, past persecution can be demonstrated by the fact that a woman is “forced” to take her pregnancy to term even when this implied a severe - and potentially absolute - risk to her own life. By the State not giving her a choice or the tools and resources to at least try to save her life, one could say the State forced the woman to sacrifice her own life. For the second group, and similar to the case in Sweden, persecution could materialize itself in a criminal charge for abortion (or aggravated homicide resulting from an abortion) and imminent jail sentencing. In both cases, it would be important to prove that there is no indication that such treatments would cease in the future, and that thereby the persecution is on-going and inevitable.

An interesting comparison could be made with the cases involving Chinese women who were granted asylum in the United States on the basis of political opinion for having been forced to terminate a pregnancy or undergo involuntary sterilization in China. In fact, in 1996 the definition of refugee was expanded to include the following paragraph:  

For purposes of determinations under this chapter, a person who has been forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization, or who has been persecuted for failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure or for other resistance to a coercive population control program, shall be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion, and a person who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to undergo such a procedure or subject to persecution for such failure, refusal, or resistance shall be deemed to have a well founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion.

The expression “coercive population control program” is the key here. U.S. Case Law has not yet defined this, and therefore one could hypothetically argue that countries that criminalize all forms of pregnancy terminations employ a population control program, and by strictly enforce these laws they make it coercive. Applying the same logic than in In re J-H-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 196 (BIA 2007), women would have to 1) prove that there is a “family planning policy” prohibiting all pregnancy interruptions, 2) prove that they in fact violated said “policy” by terminating a pregnancy (voluntarily or involuntarily), via medical records, for example and 3) prove that such violation would be punished in a way that would give rise to objective fear (to the levels of persecution which could be physical or mental coercion). If they can do that, persecution would be established, and potentially, asylum could be granted.

​

Maria Nasir is a Spring 2018 Legal Intern and shares her thoughts on her own immigrant experience and how the right to petition our government for grievances is a quintessential part of her American dream.


“Are you American?” I always struggled with this one, even though my cousins in Pakistan declared early on that since I had the accent, I was in. That, and of course, the much sought-after green card. I always thought it was my Western clothing style or my appreciation for good ‘ole country music.

My dad arrived in the Lone Star State in the hot summer of ’93 with nothing but a green Pakistani passport, my mother, baby me, and a small suitcase all topped with big dreams for a bright future in medicine. Raised in a spacious Midland home while making summer trips back to Karachi, my siblings and I picked up the beautiful Urdu language and an intense love for our culture and faith. But we also got a front-row seat to poverty, without ever having to experience it. We picked up terms like first-world and third-world, justice, and freedom. My cousins would playfully brag about their country as if it were not mine and I would brag about America.

When the Twin Towers tragically collapsed, my classmates told me that I was in some way associated with the terrorists involved. As if I was the culprit, my cheeks flushed with shame and uncertainty. Islam was not only questioned by the world, but by a frustrated 9-year old me at the dinner table for many nights after. The much bigger world was opening up before my eyes and I, at times, found myself conflicted with where I belonged on its vast map.

Moving north to Missouri a year later and excited to have a fresh start, we took to exploring the neighborhood on our bikes and recruiting comrades for our upcoming missions. Our chosen comrades had no specific criteria; they could be of any gender, race, color, background, or faith. No questions were asked except whether or not they were ready to fight against the unknown dark forces. And, of course, the youth came prepared with curiosity, courage, and all the best equipment necessary for a sturdy fort. We faced adventures together in our basement as underdogs who come out on top in the greatest journey known to mankind. The stories we shared at imaginary camps under dark, yet starlit ceilings are all we needed to escape a reality we did not understand. I did not realize I would have to leave my shelter behind so soon.                                   
                                                                    
My father’s work moved us back to a Texas I was no longer familiar with, and I was starting high school with no friends and no confidence to start over again. I began to question what my parents got from leaving behind their motherland, family, and friends. Depression kicked in and my patriotism hit a new low. During this time though, our family of five huddled so close that we would look back fondly on these days. With them as my new comrades, I learned the importance of being able to maneuver the school hallways on my own. President Obama taking his seat in office as the first black president answered my previous doubts about my parents’ dreams for the priceless gift of freedom. The underdogs were rising as the face of the most powerful nation and I not only felt a strong sense of empowerment, but a warm sense of nostalgia.

The power to bring about change in my community started at George Mason University, a home that boasts its diversity as a strong asset. Through the deepest friendships, I now have a home in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Dubai, France, Sweden, Germany, Israel, Japan, Korea, and even India. The world’s vast map became much more accessible and suddenly, instead of searching for where I belonged, I wanted to explore it all.

Marches, demonstrations, spoken word poetry, and revolutionary art became my landscape for five years. Finding my own voice through the art of the written word, I joined the relentless resistance in the powerful Washington D.C. area as a Muslim, as a Pakistani minority, as a woman, and most importantly, as a fellow American. It did not take our naturalization last year to seal that deal. I realized that being American has nothing to do with the paperwork or the accent, but it has everything to do with the heart.

What naturalization has given me is easier access to both worlds. In fact, it has opened up the whole world to me in many ways I did not consider before. Personally, the greatest liberty of all is my right to vote and stir change. Having the chance to be on both sides of the spectrum when it comes to immigration, I am able to better understand why people continue to go through the process despite the uncertainty, long paperwork and waiting time.

What exactly makes the American dream a reality for people? It is the access we have to practicing the rights we have been granted and the chance to challenge the law where it might be weak or just downright broken, while also paving the way for empowerment for others. This is what America preaches. This is why I am proud to be American.
​
To reclaim our narratives, we must be willing to continuously stand up for justice again and again. We must make changes. As understanding makes way for change, the fort made with comrades from around the world will be a much more solid structure of peace than one touched by a single tribe.

One of the easiest ways for someone to lose legal permanent residency status (or a green card) is through abandonment, either intentionally or unintentionally. While the process of becoming a Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) can be a long and tiring process, the process of losing it can be a simple mistake.

One of those mistakes is staying outside of the US for too long. LPRs are allowed travel internationally and return to the US with their green card and passport. However, they must be careful with how much time they are spending outside of the US. If an LPR spends more than a year continuously outside of the US, their green card will automatically become invalid and USCIS will consider that they have abandoned their US residency. If an LPR travels for more than six months but less than a year, US immigration officers may question them on the reason for their trip and ask them to prove ties in the US. One way to avoid unintentionally abandoning their United States residency is by receiving a re-entry permit.

A re-entry permit allows LPR to lawfully travel internationally for up to two years, and eliminates the need to obtain a returning resident visa. While the permit does not stop all suspicion that a person has abandoned their residency, it can be used as proof that they did not intend to do so. The re-entry permit is also recommended for residents that cannot or wish not to get a passport from their home country and need to travel outside of the US. It is recognized by many other countries as a recognized travel document, but one should always check each country’s documentation requirements first before traveling.

To apply for a re-entry permit, an applicant must fill out Form I-131 and must it while in the United States and 60 days before traveling. USCIS does not require individuals to remain in the US while their application is pending, but it is strongly recommended that an individual does. If the USCIS requests the applicant to complete their biometrics (fingerprints and photos), the applicant will have to complete them in the US. Once the biometrics process is complete, the applicant will be allowed to travel outside of the US and request that if their permit is approved to be sent to a US embassy, consulate, or a Department of Homeland Security office in the country they are in. Permits are only valid for 2 years after the date of issue, and cannot be extended or reissued. LPR can apply for a new one. However, if their current permit is still valid, the permit will need to be turned in to USCIS before applying for a new one. LPR that have to leave the US for an extended period of time for employment purpose can fill out Form N-470. This form allows LPR to preserve their status for naturalization purpose, but there are restrictions on the types of employment USCIS will accept.

Obtaining a re-entry permit can lessen the suspicion that LPR have abandoned their residency, yet it does not protect them from the other ways they might lose their status. LPR should follow these six recommendations:

1. First, LPR should avoid becoming legal residents in another country. If they do, USCIS may consider that the immigrant has abandoned their legal status in the US.
2. Second, LPR should try to remain in the US for extended periods of time between each period outside of the US and keep stays in other countries temporary.
3. Third, LPR should develop and maintain ties in the US. This can be done through family, employment, financial, or property. Documentations of ties should be kept, such as: income tax returns, valid US driver’s license, registration and attendance at a US school, and evidence of ownership or lease of a property. Failure to filing income tax can raise a huge red flag to USCIS.
4. Fourth and equally as important, LPR should minimize their ties in other countries. They should avoid owning property internationally, being employed abroad, or getting involved in politics in other countries.
5. Fifth, while returning back to the US, LPR should be prepared to explain the reason for the trip and the length of their trip.
6. Lastly, LPR should never sign Form I-407 - even if they are pressured to do so by border officials. This form is used to abandon one’s lawful permanent resident status, and once signed can be very difficult to prove that someone had no intention to abandon their residency.

If you still have any questions about how not to unintentionally abandon one’s lawful permanent resident status or green card, please consult with an attorney who will be able to evaluate your individual circumstance and provide you with individual answers and recommendations.

​-Sydney Wilson
HMA Legal Intern, Spring 2018

As spring graduation approaches, many international undergraduate students may begin to wonder what their next steps are. Those that are looking for employment in the United States may run into a big roadblock, the H-1B visa application deadline is before most graduations. The H-1B Visa is a non-immigrant visa that authorizes foreign workers in specialty occupations to be sponsored by an employer to work in the US temporarily. H-1B applicants must have a bachelor’s degree or an equivalent at the time of their visa filing. It does not matter if the applicant is graduating in June and will began their employment in September. This roadblock is not only unique to spring graduates, but also winter graduates whose diplomas are not ready until after the H-1B April filing date.

Undergraduate students applying for the H-1B applications have a few options. The F-1 student visa allows students to work up to 12 months in a field related to their major area of study. This is called Optional Practical Training (OPT). Students are allowed to apply for pre-completion OPT after they have been enrolled as a full time student for one academic year, and work 20 hours or less during regular academic semesters or terms and full time during academic breaks. Post-completion OPT allows students to work after they have completed their degree, and work either part time or full time. Students are only allowed to work a combination of 12 months, for example if a student worked 5 months before completing their degree under OPT, they will only be able to work 7 months under OPT after the completion of their degree.

If a foreign student is planning on working in the US after graduation and is aware that they will not be able to complete their degree requirements until after the H-1B deadline, they should consider using all or most of their OPT after they have completed their degree.This will allow them to remain and work in the United States before and after their diploma is ready and to apply for the H-1B the following April for the next fiscal year. Students that are earning or have earned a degree in either science, technology, engineering, or math should keep in mind that they are now able to apply for a 24-month extension to their post-completion OPT.

Applicants that have completed all their degree requirements, but will not graduated or received their diploma before the H-1B April filing date may be able to receive a H-1B degree certification letter from the university. The letter would be provided by the university’s registrar office. The letter would confirm that the applicant has completed all their degree requirements for graduation and the degree the applicant will be receiving. However, if a student is currently enrolled in a requirement needed for their degree, their university will not be able to issue a degree certification letter for them. This may be an option for many winter graduates, who have completed their degree but their diploma is not ready before the H-1B application deadline.

Applicants considering graduate school should be aware that USCIS exempts a certain number of applicants with a US master’s degree from the H-1B visa cap. Foreign students considering graduate school should evaluate their options and decided whether applying for the H-1B after completing graduate school may be a better option for them. Applicants should also look at their individual criminstances and speak to a lawyer to evaluate if are any other avenues for them to receive a visa and work authorization in the United States after graduation.

Sydney Wilson
​HMA Legal Intern, Spring 2018
​

As an immigrant to the United States, I am all too familiar with the feeling of helplessness that surrounds a language barrier. If I had a dime for every time I asked someone to repeat their words more simply and slowly, I’m confident I could live in luxury for the rest of my life. Unfortunately, life isn’t that easy -- in order to fully thrive in American society, command of English is crucial. I had the good fortune of coming to the States when I was very young, so learning a new language wasn’t as formidable a task as it is for older immigrants, like my parents. My skills certainly helped me a lot with the English language requirement of the naturalization exams. But people who simply do not have the time or energy to learn the English language do not need to despair  -- the United States has created a system that permits specific immigrants to obtain citizenship without being good at English.

According to USCIS, an applicant is “exempt from the English language requirement but is still required to meet the civics requirement” if they fit under two categories:

1. The applicant is age 50 or older at the time of filing for naturalization and has lived as a lawful permanent resident (LPR, or alternatively ‘green card holder’) in the U.S. for at least 20 years, or
2. The applicant is age 55 or older at the time of filing for naturalization and has lived as an LPR in the U.S. for at least 15 years.

These rules are commonly referred to as the 50/20 and 55/15 exceptions. Both these categories still require the civics test, but applicants who qualify for English exemption can take the civics test in their language of choice with an interpreter. For more information about these exemptions, check out this link.   

But what if you want to attempt the English test? USCIS requires naturalization applicants to demonstrate an ability to read, write, speak, and understand words in “ordinary usage.” Ordinary usage means comprehensible communication through simple vocabulary and grammar, which may include “errors in pronouncing, constructing, spelling, and understanding completely certain words, phrases, and sentences.” Yes, you read that right -- USCIS claims that an applicant can make “some errors in pronunciation, spelling, and grammar and still meet the English requirement for naturalization.” However, don’t rely on this leniency! If you choose to take the English test, make sure to prepare in advance and keep track of any mistakes during the exam. There is a variety of courses tailored for immigrants trying to study English, such as “English Innovations,” “CAL Solutions,” and “Carlos Rosario International School” and much more.

There is one more facet of the English test that someone may not know. For some people, it might simply be better, regardless of their skills in the English language, to file the N-400 (the Application for Naturalization). We can’t express how many people in the United States suffer unnecessarily because they are afraid of the English tests. You might not think you need citizenship, but naturalization opens up a new world of opportunities to an immigrant. Additionally, legal issues are different to an immigrant -- they can face possible deportation for a very light crime (read more about these important issues here). Thus, that is why various immigration lawyers will push you to apply for naturalization if it’s feasible. Also, one tip that many immigrants are unaware of is it’s possible to pass the English test via repetition.

Never give up on your American Dream because of the language barrier. The United States rewards perseverance and commitment.  

Keun Won "Brian" Lee
HMA Legal Intern, Spring 2018
​

By now, you've probably heard one of the latest buzzwords in the immigration debate: chain migration. You'll hear it constantly now. Some horrendous threat that must end in order to move on the #DreamAct. (Plus a wall.)

But how new is it? And what does it actually mean? Humza Kazmi and I investigated.

First, the term "chain migration" exists nowhere in the immigration law. Not in the Immigration & Nationality Act, the CFR, field manuals, memos, or FAQ's. The term for individuals sponsoring their family members is called (surprisingly): family-based immigration. Our immigration laws only allow spouses, parents, children, and siblings to be petitioned for. You must be a permanent resident or US citizen in order to do it. Sometimes the wait is 1 year or so. Other times, decades. There's no direct way to sponsor an uncle, grandparent, etc.

​The term "chain migration" has no basis in the law. It is a made-up term. But made up by whom?

 Interestingly, the concept was known in Nazi Germany. Propaganda posters showed the multitude of babies born to "inferior" races - and the charts look eerily similar to the ones used by the White House to warn o the dangers of multiplying immigrants.

The idea behind chain migration is much older.

In 2006, CIS (Center for Immigration Studies), in an article by James Edwards, Jr. (of the Hudson Institute) cited Roy Beck and began using the term "chain migration." CIS, of course, is an alter ego of NumbersUSA and both are tied to FAIR and ultimately their founder, Dr. Tanton, whose private papers I am seeking to unseal in a FOIA lawsuit I filed against the University of Michigan.

CIS began to use the term in more and more and more papers, pushing this #CampOfTheSaints myth that immigrants were just going to take over the world. Terms like chain migration suited the concept very well.

A Google Trends search on the term shows about when Trump first picked it up in November. Now, all of a sudden, it's a national emergency.

The term chain migration belongs in the same dustbin as illegal immigrant, criminal alien, and anchor baby.

IT IS A SLUR. A dehumanizing slur. Do not accept the framing. A lot of thought went into creating this term, and it goes back a long time.

It completely removes - mock, even - the idea of family unity. Even die-hard alt-right types know it's hard to sell "End Family-Based Immigration!" So - like "death taxes" - they came up with a much more convenient label. Never mind that it doesn't exist in the law. (Yet.)

It creates the false impression that an immigrant can immediately bring not only nuclear family members, but extended family members. A US citizen bringing a sibling takes 13+ years. A parent for an adult child may take 10 years or more. The only "quick" ones are spouses, children under 21, and parents of US citizens - they take just over 1 year. Of course, this assumes no delays caused by other reasons, such as the CARRP program for Muslims, lost files, or visa refusals.

I've heard Democrats use this term, and this fact has been thrown at me as proof that a) it's not a racist term, or b) Democrats are racist.

I don't care who uses it. It's a racist term, cooked up by those who've been clamoring for Muslim bans and ICE raids for decades. Ones who crippled the immigration law, turning it into a lumbering sloth that works neither in the national interest nor, as it stands, by common sense. And we're supposed to swallow some vague notion of "security" before being graced with an audience to talk immigration reform.

Sorry not sorry. Not buying the white sheet framing. Security comes from prosperity on either side of the border - walls don't help do that. Don't say things like "chain migration is what American immigration has always been about." It's not. It always centered around families. The least we can do is to honor that and not use a dehumanizing term. Dehumanization, after all, was a necessary precursor to near every genocide in history.

Labels matter. They create frames of thought. Repeating terms like "chain migration" reinforce that frame, limiting discourse to dangerously dehumanizing terms. Break free of the limits imposed by groups like CIS, FAIR, and NumbersUSA when talking about immigration. And learn a thing or two about the actual immigration system and how it (doesn't) work before opining on what you think immigrants should do.

A HYPOTHETICAL CASE STUDY

Let's take the example of a 35 year old Dreamer, #DACA expiring Mar 2018. He came to US with his parents at age 4. He has no criminal record, and has never left the US. He goes to see an immigration lawyer his family has been working with for years.

First: Our Dreamer is privileged, because many cannot afford counsel. Though they're maligned as "lawbreakers," the government doesn't provide them lawyers.

OK. Let's figure out how to help our Dreamer!


​
"Leave and come back legally."

Leaving will trigger a 10 year bar to reentry. A waiver (forgiveness) exists, but our Dreamer doesn't qualify. He has no parents or spouse who are US citizens or green card holders. An uncle is, but that doesn't help. Let's say he has US citizen kids. Well - to qualify for this waiver, hardship to kids doesn't count. He's out of luck.

"Afraid to go back? File for asylum!"

General fear of return is insufficient to win asylum. It must be on very particular grounds. Despite being federal, asylum law doesn't operate the same in all states. Failure to win asylum results in being placed in removal proceedings. And that's if Dreamer had no prior contact with ICE. If he has, he likely has an in absentia order of deportation. That means he would be barred from applying for asylum, unless he can show conditions in his country of origin have changed to create a new type of fear he didn't have before. Filing such a motion, if denied, would put him on the radar for deportation. 

"Just wait for the law to change."

Probably the best advice so far; "best" being relative. In the meantime, can't go to school, work legally, or drive. The #DreamAct has failed for 17 years and counting.

"Get married!"

And set down deeper roots into a country refusing to let him stay?

Even if he did, he still needs to win a waiver and return home to reenter. That waiver wasn't allowed to be filed inside the US until 2013. And still need to show hardship to USC spouse. Hardship to our Dreamer is legally irrelevant.

"Don't you have TPS or something?"

Only some Dreamers do; depends on their country. The largest proportion of Dreamers are Mexican and Mexico has never been designated for TPS. (And probably never will.) But this is being taken away by the administration, country by country, determined to leave #dedocumented as many immigrants as possible.

"Go talk to immigration."

In other words, serve yourself up to ICE. Not a good idea. They're not there to help. You're not setting up a payment plan with the IRS. Walk in, and you're on your own, buddy. No lawyer either.

"Ever been a crime victim? Maybe you can get a U Visa."

No, thank God. So no visa for me?

Nope.

Wait...I remember one time my work permit and valid SSN were stolen. I spent months fixing it. Does that count?

No. Not a qualifying crime. Sorry.

"Get your employer to sponsor you."

You're not eligible for a green card inside the US if you have more than 6 months of unlawful presence. So your employer could start the process but you couldn't file for the green card, so what's the point in starting? Also, you can't leave and come back because of 10 year bar. By the way, your employer has to test labor market first and give job to qualified US workers first.

"I'm from El Salvador. I've saved up $120k. Can't I invest and create a business that'll hire US workers?"

No. El Salvador isn't on the treaty investor country list.

"I'm from Honduras. Can I?"

No. Honduras is on the list but unlawful presence prevents you from getting a visa.

"What about the 10 years law?"

No such thing. Please don't listen to rumors on the street or what you read on the Internet. There is no law that prevents you from deportation if you've been here for more than 10 years. One of the dangers lurking for Dreamers and people like them is the bad advice floating around. One of the most persistent rumors is the "10 year law" - that if you're here for 10 years (and, in some versions, have kids here) then you cannot be deported. No such law ever existed.

"What if I serve in the military?"

There was a program called MAVNI that allowed getting citizenship for certain noncitizens with certain skills. But It expired in 2016. The current administration has failed to renew it. So, you can't serve.

"Can't I change status to a student visa?"

No. Unlawful presence requires you to leave. And once you do, you trigger the 10 year bar to reentry. You can't switch to ANY other status, actually. All for the same reason.

"Good news! I found out my grandpa became a US citizen and filed for all of us back in May 2001! I'm good now, right?"

So close, but no. Unlawful presence makes it impossible to qualify for a green card even though you have an approved petition. If it was filed before 4.30.01 you might have been ok under an old law that was never renewed. But May is too late.

"Ok my brother was born here. He can file for me, right?"

Yes, he can file a petition, but no, it won't lead to a green card. You still have to leave. And when you do, you trigger the 10 year bar. You can't get a green card inside the US. Besides, sibling petitions take 13+ years to become current. Filing a petition, then, gives ICE 13 years to find you.

I could go on and on. Immigration lawyers reading this will identify with a lot.

Remember: This isn't your granddaddy's immigration system. It is usually impossible to comply with. It is full of legal pitfalls. One mistake and boom! You're in immigration court fighting to stay.

So before you judge the 800,000-some Dreamers, or the rest of the 11 million plus undocumented population, or the forcibly dedocumented, or the ones currently in legal status struggling to remain so, ask yourself: "Were they given a fair chance to fix their status?"

I've always advocated for clients to become US citizens as soon as possible.
Sometimes I get asked, "So once I'm a citizen, I'm good, right?" And I say, "Yes, generally. There is always a chance of denaturalization (revoking citizenship) but that is relatively rare."

Enter Operation Janus. I will not be alarmist, but I can no longer give such advice.

On September 8, 2016, the Office of Inspector General reported that 858 people had been granted US citizenship based on incomplete fingerprint records. Normally, fingerprints are checked against both immigration and FBI digital databases, but neither of these databases included all older, paper records. So some people's fingerprints may have matched older records but because they were not in either database, it failed to generate a positive hit, and was therefore never investigated.

Another 148,000 records were identified by ICE as not having been digitized (and hence not in the databases normally checked). These were of people who were fugitives, had criminal records, orders of deportation, or were otherwise potentially ineligible for citizenship. Some of those, perhaps, tried to (and maybe became) citizens.

On January 5, 2018 the first casualty of Operation Janus lost his citizenship: Baljinder Singh (aka Davinder Singh) of India. Two other Operation Janus cases (Parvez Manzoor Khan and Rashid Mahmood, both of Pakistan) in September apparently remain pending.

The DOJ is investigating 315,000 cases in which people were granted citizenship without the proper fingerprint data available. USCIS intends to refer approximately another 1,600 for denaturalization prosecution. It remains to be seen how they will decide which cases to pursue - most of these 315,000 may have been granted citizenship on incomplete data, but now the data will be checked and perhaps nothing will turn up. If there is any irregularity, however, prosecution becomes possible, and if there is a hint of fraud, it becomes likely.

Denaturalization can be prosecuted whenever citizenship was "unlawfully procured" - it does *not* require there to be fraud. Mistaken grants of permanent residence or citizenship count as "unlawful procurement" of citizenship. So it will be up to the DOJ to decide whether to prosecute. I need not remind you that Jeff Sessions heads the DOJ.

This will seemingly affect mostly people who have been US citizens for decades, where there is an older, non-digital fingerprint record that may not have been checked - until now.

Main takeaways from this story:

1. Old issues can and will come back to haunt you. If you're on the path to citizenship, remember this and remember it well.
2. Citizenship is not truly final. Do not be lulled into a false sense of security.
3. It will be interesting to see the breakdown by country of former nationality of Operation Janus.

Attorney Lily S. Axelrod correctly points out: this is not a reason to panic, and it's certainly not a reason not to file for citizenship. What it does mean is that sound advice is very important. It also means citizenship is not an straightforward as it used to be.

On September 25th, 2017, President trump released Travel Ban 3.0. The list of banned visitors from countries now included Yemen, Chad, together with other five countries. The inclusion of Chad aroused immediate controversy in the media, considering its status as a long-term US ally in fighting against terrorism. 1 In contrast, news did not appear to be surprised by the inclusion of Yemen. The main reason perhaps lies in the well-reported political instability in this country since 2011.

Yemen has gone into a stage of transformation since the Arab spring, where its longtime authoritarian president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, was forced to hand over power to President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, his deputy, in 2011. Hadi then had to juggle among various political and social problems, including attacks by al-Qaeda, the Houthi movement led my Shia Muslim minority, the continuing loyalty of many military officers to Saleh, as well as unemployment and food insecurity. The Iranian-backed Houthi movement was at one time joined by Saleh to fight together against Hadi, who was backed by Saudi Arabia and eight other mostly Sunni Arab states, together with support from the US, UK and France. However, the bondage proved quite fragile between Houthi militia and Saleh and there was soon a rift between these them. On December 2nd, 2017, Saleh appeared on television to show some kind intention towards Saudi Arabia, which, got himself assassinated by a Houthi rebel militia at his home in the capital, Sanaa.

War always imposes tremendous cost at civilians. According to BBC, the ongoing conflict left 20 million people in need of humanitarian assistance and created “the world's largest food security emergency.” Only 45% of the 3,500 health facilities are fully functioning, who have struggled to cope with the world's largest cholera outbreak, which has “resulted in more than 913,000 suspected cases and 2,196 deaths since April 2017.” 2 In addition to these humanitarian catastrophes, what happens in Yemen deeply worries the West. According to BBC, the most dangerous branch of al-Qaeda and the emergence of IS affiliates in Yemen is a serious concern.

Now looking back at President’s Trump decision on banning all people from Yemen, or on travel ban in general, is he right? It is certainly not right if we think humanitarianly. This banning of country residents is not unlike preventing Jewish refugees from coming to America after World War II for fear of Nazis. Just like people now lamented this decision that led to more Jews dying, will this decision in banning Yemen and other countries, let Americans or the world regret forty years later? Yet American history is never lack of these similar foreign policies and lack of institutional constraints against these policies. The active approval of travel ban from the supreme court is not surprising.

We, as an immigration law firm, value national security as much as upholding the American values -- its tolerance and globalism. We also understand these two often come into conflict with each other. The current right-leaning administration chooses to prioritize the former by imposing a simple fix: banning the whole country to increase a sense of security. Yet, we hope we won’t forget the other important values that we also hold. There needs to be a check and balance on values as well.

1 There has been continuous follow-up reports about the reason why Chad is included. Just give a few examples, http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/10/19/trump_put_chad_on_the_travel_ban_because_of_passport_paper.html; https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/18/trump-travel-ban-chad-passport-paper
2 All the statistical facts come from BBC news. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29319423

Huirong Jia
​HMA Legal Intern