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

We think it is important to understand the big picture before we make strategy about individual cases. Thanks to the statistics released by the Department of Homeland Security, we can get an idea of who are entering the United States as Asylees in recent years. Then, with the data from Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, we are also able to know which court is relatively asylee-friendly, namely, which court is more likely to grant foreigners asylum. We hope our clients could thus make better decisions about their filing for asylum.      
    
Recent years have witnessed a slight increase of asylum approvals by the immigration court, especially in affirmative cases. (Whether this continues remains to be seen.)

​As shown in Chart 1, the government’s grants of approval for asylees are 25,151(2013), 23,374 (2014) and 26,124 (2015). Compared to year 2013, though there is small drop in the number of asylees in 2014, the government still increases its approval by 4% in 2015. More importantly, despite the fluctuations of the overall number of approval, there is a consistent decrease of numbers of individuals getting their asylum defensively. This trend naturally brings more importance to the affirmative asylums.   

​​

Then, we dig into these numbers to get an idea who are getting the asylum approvals these years. Chart 2 first gives us a broad picture of where these asylees come from. In 2013 and 2014, we can see that people from Asia and Africa account for the majority of those who are granted with asylums. In 2015, in addition to these two continents, there is a sharp increase of people from North America who get their asylee status. Chart 3 offers us more details about where these asylees come from. During the year of 2013 and 2014, the Asia proportion can be explained by the fact that more people from Syria (5%), Iran (4%) and China (27%) are granted with asylum. The Africa proportion mainly compose of people from Egypt (20%). In 2015, however, there is a huge increase of asylees coming from Honduras (6%), Guatemala (10%), and El Salvador (10%).

​

In addition, we are also able to identify the most asylum-friendly immigration court for the past 6 years. Based on Chart 3, these courts are in New York (23.1%), Los Angeles (11.2%), San Francisco (9.4%), Boston (4.6%) and Arlington (4.2%).

Chart 3: Asylum Grant Rate in Immigration Courts Year 2011-2016:

​

Thanks to the available data, we can tell the slight increase of asylum approvals granted by the court and the growing importance of affirmative cases. We are now also aware that more people from Central America are getting their asylums, probably from those asylum-friendly states that we are able to identify. We hope this information will be of some use to relevant lawyers and clients.

Huirong Jia
HMA Legal Intern

On November 1, 2017, Trump tweeted:

"I have just ordered Homeland Security to step up our already Extreme Vetting Program. Being politically correct is fine, but not for this!"

"The terrorist came into our country through what is called the "Diversity Visa Lottery Program," a Chuck Schumer beauty. I want merit based."

"We are fighting hard for Merit Based immigration, no more Democrat Lottery Systems. We must get MUCH tougher (and smarter). Fox & Friends"

Here are the assumptions underlying these tweets:

1. My "Extreme Vetting" works. The vetting done before didn't.

It appears 45 is running out of superlatives. His most recent Muslim Ban (EO-3) called it "enhanced vetting." EO-3 basically outsourced information sharing to the country. And for certain countries, asking more questions of the visa applicant.

Either way, it's bad policy. Information-sharing isn't static: it's continuously improving. If it cannot be immediately verified by the United States, the applicant won't get the visa, or will get one after a lengthy delay. Asking an applicant to provide information? News flash: criminals lie. Taking in irrelevant information only reduces the chances that truly dangerous intel is lost.

Never ask a question you don't already know the answer to. "Extreme vetting" - stepped up or not - is a soundbite, a word of Newspeak.

2. 45 has accepted political correctness in the past.

When has he ever said being PC was fine?

3. The DV Lottery was the reason a terrorist came. If we remove that program, terrorists won't be able to come anymore.

This same stupidity after San Bernardino when the focus was Tashfeen Malik's K-1 fiancée visa. It's not the visa program. It's the actions of the applicants. No visa program - whether K-1, B-2, H-1B, immigrant, Visa Waiver, or DV - does NOT have a counterterrorism and security check screening. Millions of visas issue every year, and even more entries/exits are administered.

4. The DV Lottery is not merit-based.

Actually, one has to have finished high school in order to qualify for a diversity visa. There are strict reporting requirements for family members. There are robust security checks.

5. Merit-based immigration is good!

This is a blatant attempt to shore up political points for the RAISE Act. They call it immigration reform. But it's immigration deformed.

The RAISE Act is a nativist dream come true. If you assume immigration is a drain - as nativists do - it makes perfect sense to shut off a family's ability to immigrate together (what they're pejoratively calling "chain migration"), slash refugees and diversity immigrants, and only open the door to an elite. Let's not mince words: the merit based system will allow only those who were privileged enough to earn advanced degrees and mastered English at a young age. All other immigrants are cast as undesirable. If you support this, or think it's not that bad, know that you are enabling policies that white nationalists find warm and cozy. You believe non-Americans have nothing to offer if they don't have money. You ignore the jobs they create and cultural contributions they make. You refuse to see the value in family unity. You're turning your back on the world's most vulnerable, adding to their anguish. You refuse to see the good in people you might not know. And you're shooting yourself in the foot: People who would have qualified under the current system would be locked out, and will take their talents and contributions elsewhere. This, 45 reasons, will MAGA us.

6. The DV Lottery is a Democrat system.
​
Soundbite. Trumpaganda. And false.

7. Extreme vetting, Muslim bans, and rigorous enforcement is the only way to go for immigration.

Rigorous enforcement is what caused Rosamaria Hernandez, a 10 year old with cerebral palsy, to be detained by CBP. It's how they tried to prevent Jane Doe from exercising her constitutionally protected reproductive freedom. It's how they deported my client Ella, too traumatized to talk about her persecution even when I was speaking for her.



Trump's tweetstorm following the horrific scene in New York yesterday was a disgusting and cheap politicization. Don't tell yourself it's just Trump being Trump. The assumptions underlying his tweetstorm can be traced back to anti-immigrant organizations who have been calling to ban entire nations, painting entire religions as incompatible with some version of America that never existed, and reduce legal immigration. This tells me he's being fed all this nonsense for years. He can't see a positive side to immigration: it's nothing more than a punching bag to score points with his nativist base. Gubernatorial candidates like Gillespie here in Virginia towing this line is despicable.

Don't let it become normal. Use your vote, EVERY TIME.

What do you do if you've endured persecution and torture so horrible you can't talk about it, but the law requires you to talk about it?

Now let's say you have a lawyer willing to talk for you. That would be a good thing, right?

Our government doesn't think so. In fact, the government's top lawyer, Jeff Sessions, thinks the system's rampant with fraud, and people claiming fear of return is just an "easy ticket" into the United States. Read on to see exactly how wrong he is.

In late August, I got a call to investigate the case of a woman from Uganda detained at Dulles Airport, denied entry on a valid student visa. In talking to her cousin in the US, I learned she intended to apply for asylum. She had been through so much persecution that she couldn't talk about it, and the cousin was afraid she would "just shut down and cry." And she didn't talk. She couldn't.

So I spoke for her. I entered my appearance on the proper form, and wrote that my client was traumatized, couldn't articulate the fear of return, and demanded she either be scheduled for a hearing on her fear of return (the first step in asylum) or at least I be permitted to talk to her. I needed all of 5 seconds to advise her of her rights.

Every single one of my requests was denied.

She got deported the next morning. I thought it was game over. Her flight stopped in Dubai en route to Kampala, Uganda. But when she landed in the airport in Dubai, she ran. She hid herself in the airport with Emirates personnel and airport security looking for her. I had tracked her flight online and for the first time, connected with her as she hid in Terminal 3. And learned her story.

Her nickname is Ella. Caught with her girlfriend in their hometown, the couple was paraded naked in the streets and tied up. The mob poured paraffin wax over them. While they searched for car tires to light, the police arrived, stopped the vigilantism, but arrested the couple. On release, they moved to Kampala. But Ella's family was not happy at being "shamed." Her own father sent a man to "cure" her by raping her, and rape her he did. She tried to go to the police, only to be rearrested on charges lodged by her own family of "recruiting young girls into homosexuality." Ella tried to kill herself with pain pills even as she faithfully reported to the police every Thursday. Her cousin counseled her out of her attempted suicide. Eventually she was able to obtain that student visa - only to have all her hopes of escape denied by an agent who knew she was traumatized, but *refused* to accept my representation as her lawyer.

It was now 3 am and I had been receiving this story via WhatsApp for nearly 2 hours. I was sitting in my family room, totally clueless on how I could stop her forcible removal to Uganda. On a whim, I called UNHCR in Dubai. And they responded. Three amazing officers took my client's case, and worked with the airport to allow her to stay there - in legal limbo - for the next month. Along the way we assembled a rockstar team of lawyers - our own Humza Kazmi, Sirine Shebaya, and Mariko Hirose from IRAP (think #MuslimBan challengers!), among others. We obtained documentary proof - some of it had to be obtained by secret nighttime visits to hiding places to avoid suspicion - of the rape, torture, and abuse. She is now in Kenya - still in a dangerous situation, but at least away from her family.

Despite Sessions saying it's an easy ticket, the law is not on our side. If CBP wanted to, they could parole her back into the US, admit they should have sent her for a credible fear interview, and let us handle her asylum claim. We've submitted all the evidence, including a statement from Dr. Saba Maroof Hamzavi, psychiatrist, that she likely suffers from extreme PTSD.

They said no. Expedited removal order was legally proper.

I don't have a happy ending here - at least not yet. We're going to keep fighting to find a safe place for Ella. Her case shows the need for access to counsel: I needed only 5 seconds to advise her. It shows the ease with which an officer can deny this so-called "easy ticket" to the most vulnerable. It shows what gay people have to endure around the world. It shows how wrong Sessions & Co. is.

But it also shows something else. It shows the humanity of strangers from Uganda, Kenya, the UAE, DC, Michigan, New York, and Seattle coming together over WhatsApp and conference calls to help this woman they didn't know. It shows the indefatigable human spirit overcoming tribulation.

​Perhaps most of all, it shows the very human need to protect and be protected.

​#BringEllaBack

#MuslimBan 3.0 is out. I'm very concerned, because I think it's legal.

I hope I'm wrong. And that doesn't mean don't resist. But this ban is different than the two prior ones.

First - the affected countries are Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. Each country has their own restrictions - but no new immigrant visas for any of these countries except Venezuela. For other nonimmigrant visas, it varies - see this fact sheet for details.
​
Second - Nationals from affected countries who are in the US already, or have a visa already, have a green card, or are granted asylee status, or are admitted refugees are NOT affected by the new ban.
Third - there are much more express guidelines for waivers of the travel restrictions if one is subject to the ban. And you'll need a waiver: unlike before, EO-3 travel restrictions are indefinite.
Fourth - the administration makes much ado about how it has created a vetting procedure that was the first of its kind in US history. That's a load of horsecrap. You don't put new tires on a car and claim you invented the automobile.
So here's why I'm worried. Since this whole #MuslimBan saga began - back when Trump called for a "total and complete shutdown on Muslim immigration" - there has been an unbroken chain of religious animus. Trump himself kept sinking his own travel bans with his ridiculous tweets and posturing. Coupled with incompetence in implementation and crudity of the actual Executive Orders, it was short work for most courts in this country to ban the bans.
While I have no doubt the same religious animus flows into EO-3, this one is different.

• EO-1/2 weren't based on specific factfinding. EO-3 is.
• EO-1 wasn't tailored. EO-2 was somewhat tailored. EO-3 is much more narrowly tailored.
• EO-3 includes two token non-Muslim majority countries: Venezuela and North Korea. Legally, this makes it much more difficult to prove religious animus, despite Venezuela's ban only affecting national leadership and their families, and North Korea - well, no one's coming from North Korea anyway.
• There was a crude waiver process in EO-2, but a more detailed one in EO-3. Legally, this makes it harder to challenge since a court could find no right to bring challenge until the waiver process was completed.

A few months ago the 4th Circuit decided to keep EO-2 banned, but it was a fractured decision across 13 judges. The one that worried me the most was Judge Niemeyer. He dissented (meaning he would have upheld EO-2) but his reasoning was not unsound. I can see 5 Supreme Court justices siding with him: his position gave ample reason to not even get to the question of religious animus. That means the judicial spotlight remains dim, which increases the likelihood a court will not find a reason to strike EO-3. Add that to the fact that EO-3 does not suffer from many of the same deficiencies as its predecessors, and you've got a recipe for success.
The courts banning of EO-1 and EO-2 was heartwarming. But most folks don't know the number of things that had to go wrong for the administration in order for those bans to be banned. The law of the land is, and has been, that the President does have sweeping (though not unbridled) authority to ban entry of noncitizens. While that's eroded somewhat in recent years, it's still very solid law.
I hate to say it. But EO-3 is what a legal Muslim ban would look like. Again - I hope I'm wrong.
Resisting EO-3 will look different. Like EO-2, it won't be fought in the airports, but at consulates. We are going to have to create resources to navigate through the waiver process, backed up with federal court action at the hint of delay. Those with the know-how from the State Dept can weigh in on how to shed light on verifying that the administration did what it said: talked to every country to determine whether vetting procedures were sufficient.

​I'm concerned that a legal challenge to EO-3 - if not successful - may either embolden the administration, create bad law, or both.

Some legal options for Dreamers to start thinking about during #DACApolypse.

I preface this by saying don't let up advocacy and working with allies on the ground, and in the halls of Congress. Ultimately we need our leaders to act. But I'm a lawyer, and so I'm going to talk about legal options that can help at least some people. These are NOT exhaustive options and are meant to shed light on options that MAY exist. Nothing can substitute for the targeted advice of a lawyer, and every case is different. But this way you can collect the information a lawyer may need to fashion a way for you to stay.



Broadly, Dreamers fall into three categories:

1. Kids who entered legally and overstayed or otherwise fell out of status.

2. Kids who entered illegally and were not caught.

3. Kids who entered illegally, were caught, and now have final orders of removal for various reasons.

For (1), options such as bona fide marriage to a US citizen spouse may work. Be sure it's a real marriage with intent to live together and establish a life together! And if DACA was obtained before age 18 years 6 months, or if some other status like TPS exists, employment-based immigration options may work, though this has to be very carefully planned and will require consular processing instead of green card filing inside the US.

It may also work for those in category (2) if the DACA holder has left the US and re-entered on advance parole (travel document/permiso para viajar)

Otherwise, those in all categories need to (while they still can) talk to a lawyer about potential asylum claims. By definition, if they have DACA, they will have been here for more than 1 year, which usually bars asylum - unless one can show changed country conditions or personal circumstances or other extraordinary reasons why asylum wasn't filed within 1 year of entry.

That means finding out what's going on with your family back home.

• Have any family members been threatened or targeted by a criminal gang?
• Did your religion change?
• Did you come out as gay, lesbian, bisexual?
• Did you take part in political activities or make any statements your home country's government would harm you for?
• Did any of your family members make such statements, write a song, publish something?
• Do you belong to an ethnic or religious minority and your home country has begun targeting other members of your group?
• Do you have tattoos that might be misinterpreted by the police or a gang in your home country?
• Did you survive something terrible in your home country and couldn't file asylum because you couldn't bring yourself to talk about it?
• Do you have any family members who held any jobs or positions that a gang, extremist group, criminal enterprise, or the government itself might not like?
• Is there a new war or conflict going on that might affect you or your family/community/tribe?

These are the types of questions I'd want to ask you if you came to my office. Again - not exhaustive. Just something to start thinking about.

If you have an order of removal, collect all evidence from when you came into the US. If you don't have it, it may be possible (and even necessary, though risky) to file a Freedom of Information Act request (FOIA) to get copies of your immigration paperwork. A lawyer can then determine whether there were any legal deficiencies with that paperwork that might entitle you to have your deportation case reopened, cancelling the deportation order, which means ICE would not be able to just pick you up and deport you.

If you have *any* pending criminal charges, get an immigration lawyer in addition to your defense attorney. It will be that much more important for the immigration consequences of the case to be considered.

If nothing works, it's time to think about options to lessen the chance that ICE picks you up.

Bottom line: *now* is the time to explore your options. You might not qualify right now for anything, but you might make yourself qualify by, say, finding an employer or learning something about new dangers back home. It's a lot harder to do this from inside a detention center. Right now you have your freedom, so use it. I meant what I said earlier: fear kills your intelligence and your courage, and you'll need both to get through this. But you're not alone.

We are with you.
Estamos con todos Uds.
Nous sommes avec vous.
ہم آپ کے ساتھ ہیں۔
نحن معکم۔
हम आपके साथ हैं 
ਅਸੀਂ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਨਾਲ ਹਾਂ
我们与你同在！

Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the end of #DACA today. Here is what that means (based on info we have now):

1. If you have never filed for DACA, it's too late, as of today. You'll have to find another way to stay. There may be options depending on your particular history, so seek counsel.
2. If you are filing for renewal of DACA, you have until Oct 5 to get your application in. You can only renew if your DACA expires on/before Mar 5, 2018. If your DACA expires after that, you will not be able to renew.
3. There is a new standard: even DACA renewals accepted by USCIS will be adjudicated on a "case by case" basis. I expect this to mean more arbitrary denials. Just because you file it correctly doesn't mean you'll get the renewal.
4. If granted, renewals will be for the full 2 year period.
5. No more advance parole for DACA holders. This closes the ability to travel, reenter, and apply for a green card (for those familiar: no more "DACAbally." This applies to advance parole requests that are pending as of today, 5 Sep 2017.
6. If you have DACA, and it's approved, it may not be terminated based on today's announcements, but it still can be terminated for any other reason.

If you're a Dreamer - please do not despair. We've been getting the weeping phone calls today. But fear kills your intelligence and courage, and you'll need both. There are thousands of people - lawyers, advocates, elected officials - with you on this. You're not alone.

On policy:

This is every bit the narrative expected from the likes of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III. Trump delegated the task of rescinding DACA to his AG, who isn't supposed to dictate policy. And his presser was filled with omissions and falsehoods that belie the real impetus for today's shameful action.

1. Sessions again repeated the white nationalist battle cry that immigrants are to be feared, and "we can't admit everybody" and those we do admit should "assimilate" (as opposed to integrate) - a clear nod to the ill-conceived RAISE Act. Yet he supposedly is waiting for Congress to do something to admit the 800,000 Dreamers anyway.​
2. Just like he did in his confirmation hearing, Sessions said the law must be enforced. But the law itself gives wide discretion to immigration officers. The ramped up deportations without regard to criminal history is testament to this. I suspect this is what he meant when he said his officers are now "inspired." Apparently the slow death of DACA is the "compassionate" way to do things - the new buzzword being an "orderly winding down" of a supposedly illegal program. The 6 month period will make it more difficult to obtain an injunction halting the rescission - but let's hope I'm wrong about that.
3. Separation of powers: It is frightening that the head of the US Department of Justice does not understand our system of government. He says the President (Obama) had no authority to temporarily shield whole classes of immigrants from deportation. Yet President (Trump) has unbridled authority to ban classes of immigrants and deport them. Sessions can't have it both ways. If he had a problem with the way DACA was rolled out, then roll it out properly instead of rescinding it. If DACA is illegal no matter how it was rolled out, then *so is the travel ban.*
4. The 5th Circuit did indeed rule that DAPA (which was similar to DACA) was probably an excess. But let me say this clearly: the Supreme Court has *never* ruled that DAPA was unconstitutional. Let's also remember that a lawsuit to shut down DACA would go before the very same judge Hanen who shut down DAPA in the first place. Hanen is far from a neutral arbiter, and I don't make that statement lightly.
5. The supposed legislative fix. Sessions conveniently left out something that should have been made very clear: Congress has had since 2001 to find a solution for Dreamers and have failed. Now, they're supposed to get their act together in the next 6 months. The implication - and perhaps expectation - is that nothing will happen, and all Dreamers will lose their ability to work, be arbitrarily labeled a "public threat" under Trump's March 6 executive order, and be put in line for deportation.
6. Lest it be forgotten, this is textbook bad faith. Coax immigrants to come out of the shadows with promises of a work permit and no deportation, get their information, and then use it against them. I am not blaming Obama's administration for DACA - but it was always meant to be a stop-gap measure. And the very same Congressmen now clamoring for the "rule of law" are the ones who stonewalled every single attempted legislative fix.

This is one campaign promise the administration has been able to keep. Rescission of DACA makes no sense economically, and it's certainly the immoral thing to do. No court has ruled it illegal. The only possible explanation: xenophobia. Now structural and government-certified.
What can you do?

Use your citizenship. Please follow these steps:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members

Type in your address. Get your congressmens' contact info. Then CALL them ON THE PHONE and tell them:

1. You want to see them #DefendDACA publicly, and strongly denounce the administration's cruel treatment of 800,000 young immigrants who know no other home. You will use your vote to speak for those who have none.
2. Ask them whether they will support the #DreamAct and a path to citizenship.

If you can't get through, keep calling. If you have no more time to try to get through, visit their webpage and at least send in an email.

Remember - revoking DACA comes from a place of hatred and exclusion, not respect for the law. By advocating for change, you are actually standing up for our Constitution and promoting respect for the law.

When you apply for a green card (permanent residency) from inside the US, you have to show you are admissible as if you were outside the US trying to come in. It's on Form I-485, which used to be 6 pages long and would ask you all kinds of questions about your criminal record, address and work history, immigration history, and whether you intended to spy on the government.

The new version is 18 pages long. Mostly yes/no questions, but a lot more of them.
The new I-485 asks if you have plans to engage in espionage, torture, genocide, narcotrafficking, and if you've committed a crime for which you weren't arrested. Who actually says yes to these?

Obviously very few people. But the length of the I-485 - which we call the "Mother of All Inadmissibility Lists" at our firm - shows something important. There are a lot of traps. Each one of those questions has law behind it.

• Ever claimed to be a US citizen? No? Are you sure? Do you remember every I-9 you ever filled? Did you ever check the box for "citizen"? Or did you accidentally register to vote when you got your first driver's license?
  
• Ever been associated with a group, party, fund, society, or other organization? No? Well, it doesn't just mean you paying dues to some organization. It's actually nearly impossible to answer this question with 100% accuracy.
  
• Ever violated the terms of your nonimmigrant status? Don't be too sure. It's not just overstaying. Delivering pizzas on an F-1? Violation. Cash payment on a B-2? Violation. H-1B but on the bench? Violation.
  
• Ever benefited from a crime committed by your spouse or parent? Yes, this can cause denial, even if you didn't specifically intend to benefit.
  
• There are open and ill-defined terms like "potential serious adverse foreign policy consequences," or "endangering the safety, welfare, or security of the U.S." - terms which could mean very different things to different people.

So bottom line: all immigration forms are going through a massive expansion, and more and more information is being collected on every form. Each one of these questions has law and purpose behind it.
Don't think of these forms as boilerplate. You have to put some thought into each question and really think, "Could the answer to one of these questions be yes?" because if the immigration agency thinks so, you'll have a very nasty problem.