Our firm is proud to announce yet another approval for an individual who entered the United States of America prior to the age of sixteen as a grant of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. This individual arrived after turning 15 years of age but lacked sufficient proof to establish residency in the U.S. She was not in school. She had barely worked. She didn’t know too many people when she had first entered the United States of America. She came to our office with little evidence and even less hope.

“Do you really think this will work for me? Do you think that I will be granted Deferred Action?” she asked with fear, nervousness and a sense of defeat already in her voice. We assured her of her eligibility and qualifications; the biggest obstacle to overcome was determining what documentation we would have available to submit. Our client did not have much to show her years living in the United States. A common issue we see with our clients applying for deferred action is the ability to show, through proper documentation that they have been in the United States prior to the age of sixteen and before June 15th, 2007.

She came to our office with photographs of her at the local mall during the holiday season and was able to recall the year of the photograph. With a little bit of investigative work, we were able to contact the mall’s holiday decorators. We wanted to prove her presence in the United States by affirmatively showing, with the assistance of the mall decorators, that the decorations on the Christmas tree in the background of her photograph were of the same year required to prove that she had entered the U.S. before the age of sixteen.

With Deferred Action for a Childhood Arrival, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services place a great burden of proof of the Applicant to prove their residency in the U.S. prior to the age of sixteen. Obtaining affidavits (formal statements) can be a form of proof but is a last-ditch effort. Along with our proof of her presence at that specific mall, at that specific time of year but the specific decorator, we affirmatively proved our client was without a doubt, in the U.S. and therefore was eligible to be granted Deferred Action.

Unfortunately, the mall decorators were unable to determine who set up the tree that specific year. But it didn't matter: we were able to show that we did our due diligence.

Our firm prepared a strong Memorandum of Law with our filing to U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services along with all of the affidavits of due diligence and other proof of her presence in the United States.

We are proud to welcome our newest Grantee of Deferred Action with three years of valid employment authorization and he ability to live in the United States of America without the fear of deportation hanging over her head at every turn. 

Do you think you are eligible for Deferred Action for a Childhood Arrival? Contact our office today to see if you qualify!

[Editor's Note: Despite Judge Hanen's ruling of February 16, 2015, people that qualified under the first DACA announcement in June 2012 are NOT affected and still able to file. They must meet the original requirements, not the "expanded DACA" requirements.]

Faisal Khan

What makes an undocumented alien "undocumented?" Most people would think, correctly, that it means being present in the United States without permission. It follows, then, that an alien who has permission to be here is "documented." You don't need to be an immigration lawyer (and I am one) to understand this.

Sounds simple enough, right? Apparently not.

On Dec. 2, 2014 Delegate David I. Ramadan (R-Loudoun) introduced a bill (HB 1356) to deny in-state tuition to, as the Post reported on Jan. 2, "some undocumented immigrants." But the bill itself, as also reported by the Post, denies in-state tuition to holders of temporary protected status (TPS) and deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA.) Senator Richard Black's (R-Loudoun) nearly identical bill (SB 722) would have further denied in-state tuition to grantees of the Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) program which isn't even effective yet (though we are hopeful a preliminary injunction halting it will be eventually lifted.) Thankfully, Sen. Black's bill was defeated by the Senate on January 20, 2015.

TPS and DACA grantees are not undocumented. They have the right to be here, and to work here. They do not accrue unlawful presence. Their immigration benefit, while temporary, is also indefinite. They have the right to apply for a work permit, known officially as an "employment authorization document." TPS, DACA and DAPA are humanitarian and family unification benefits. Authority has existed for years as part of the federal immigration law.

TPS is granted to nationals of those countries the Secretary of Homeland Security designates as unsafe for return. Countries with TPS designations include El Salvador, Honduras, Somalia, Syria, and most recently, Ebola-stricken Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone.

DACA is granted to those aliens who entered the US before the age of 16 who meet other continuity of presence and educational requirements. Both require relatively clean criminal records, with forgiveness for only one misdemeanor.

So let me put this into perspective. The new bill would deny in-state tuition to a Salvadorean teen who's been in the United States lawfully since the age of 4. Or a Syrian college student who was forced to flee her country for daring take part in an anti-government demonstration. Or a Somali youth who refused to join the Al Shabab terrorist group. All who would be in the United States with the blessing of the federal government, working legally, and paying taxes with their own valid social security number. Yet they would be locked out of a fair chance to pursue education and contribute to Virginia.

Let me repeat: TPS and DACA grantees are NOT undocumented!

Our immigration law at its core protects the vulnerable, upholds the great welcoming tradition of America, and values family unity - despite Judge Hanen's abhorrent ruling agreeing with certain states that immigration policy used to be "profamily."

Del. Ramadan and Sen. Black apparently believe their constituents spoke in a clear voice that they wanted a ban on in-state tuition. My simple question to these lawmakers is: If the existing Virginia law already pretermits an undocumented immigrant from receiving in-state tuition, why are you targeting two of the most vulnerable groups of documented immigrants?


Hassan M. Ahmad, Esq.