CBP "Self-Deportation" Program Ends After Only Two Months

A U.S. pilot program, operated by Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") designed to deport illegal immigrants by flying them to Mexico City will operate for only two months this year and involve 20 flights, a significant scaling-back of what was billed as a humanitarian effort to avoid deporting people to violent border regions, or the Romney "Self-Deportation" Plan.

The first flight, which carried 131 immigrants, on October 2012, landed in Mexico City, six months after the originally scheduled start date of the program. Slated to run from April through November, the Interior Repatriation Initiative will operate only in October and November.

When the program was announced in February, Mexico's interior secretary, Alejandro Poire, said the flights would improve border security and make it easier for illegal immigrants to return to their hometowns by taking buses from the capital.

Deportees also would no longer be "systematically placed at the mercy of criminal groups in border areas," Poire said in a statement. The flights serve U.S. interests by making it harder for deportees to cross back into the U.S.

Under terms of the agreement, the U.S. pays for the flights, which depart from El Paso, and the Mexican government provides bus fares for the migrants' trips home.

U.S. and Mexican officials did not give specific reasons for the initiative's delay and limited duration.

"Given the complexities and logistics involved with this initiative, the length of time needed to launch the inaugural flight was not unreasonable," the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement.

The Mexican Interior Ministry confirmed the arrival of the first flight at Mexico City's international airport in October, and said the program would continue through Nov. 29, transporting more than 2,400 people.

"Once in national territory, they will be given food and ground transportation to their communities of origin and-or residence in Mexico," the ministry and the National Migration Institute said in a statement. It said the arriving Mexicans would be given a list of social services available to them and allowed to request medical attention, as well as a phone call to their families.

If there are outstanding criminal charges in Mexico against any of the passengers, they will be investigated for possible prosecution, the ministry said.

Repatriating illegal immigrants has become problematic in recent years as deportations reach record highs and besieged border areas struggle to provide security and housing for people who often arrive penniless and without any contacts.

In the northeastern state of Tamaulipas, where deportations have surged fivefold in recent years, criminals prey on deportees, sometimes abducting them from streets, bus stations and migrant shelters. Many are held for ransom, and others are recruited into criminal networks that have seized control of much of the region.

Settled Foreign Worker LCA Complaint Against Former Employer

I recently negotiated a nice settlement agreement for a foreign employee based upon an alleged violation of his employer’s Labor Condition Agreement submitted on behalf of his I-129 application for H-1B status under the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 101(a)(15)(H). In the Labor Condition Application (LCA) Form ETA-9035 submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor, the petitioning employer certifies that they will pay the prevailing wage for the specialty occupation until they achieve a bona fide termination, which includes three elements as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Administrative Law Judges. To effect a "bona fide" termination of an H-1B employee, the employer must: (1) properly terminate the employee under state law; (2) offer the employee return transportation costs home; and (3) notify the USCIS of the H-1B termination. In my complaint, the specialty worker alleged that he was not notified of his termination until he received actual notice of his H-1B status termination, thus Step 1 was never accomplished. The foreign national was assigned to a remote work site and was not notified that his status was being terminated until he was mailed the termination notification from USCIS. This case was very similar to another LCA violation claim that I prevailed in during our administrative hearing in front of the ALJ in the San Francisco Office. This case is presently on appeal to the ARB in Washington DC, but I fully expect to prevail on appeal. The ALJ’s decision can be found here.

Origin of the Term "Immigrant" In American Public Discourse

After the recent presidential election, the question of immigration reform has become one of the top issues that seems to have any likelihood of achieving legislative success. I personally hope there is some consensus reached between the parties that can achieve a favorable outcome.

This discussion however, started me thinking about how these terms originated, such as "immigrant." It seems that at the time of the founding of the United States, the more common words to describe recent entrants were words such as "alien," "foreigner," and "newcomer."

The Oxford English Dictionary reports that the pioneering American historian Jeremy Belknap was one of the first to use "immigrant" and its cognates in print. In his History of New Hampshire (1792), vol. 3, preface, 6, Belknap wrote, "There is another deviation from the strict letter of the English which is found extremely convenient in our discourses on population . . . The verb immigrate and the nouns immigrant and immigration are used without scruple in some parts of this volume."

The used of "immigrant" appears to have become frequent only after the heavy transatlantic movements of people to North America. After the onset of mass immigration to the United States, which began in the 1840s, the term became routine.

Interesting Question - Can Someone With an Approved U visa and I-192, But also Married to USC, Adjust Their Status Under INA 245(a)?

We have had several U-Visa Holders, who initially entered the US without inspection (EWI), but have been an approved I-918 and I-192, with an I-94 showing their admission date and they are married to United States citizen spouses who have filed and have approved I-130 Immediate Relative Visa Petitions, but have been denied adjustment of status.

There is seemingly some confusion about this issue of adjustment under INA section 245(a) as our USCIS denial letters quote the alien's ineligibly under 245(i). There is no question that after three years the U-Visa holder can adjust under 245(m), but then they must wait another 5 years before becoming eligible for naturalization.

However, there are valid legal arguments to support a 245(a) adjustment for an immediate relative, as the 245(c) & 245(k) bars are waived for immediate relatives.

I think the issue is not something that the Vermont Service Center has exclusive jurisdiction to decide, as it is their sole determination that no U-Visa holder can adjust under 245(a). As some U visa grantees first entered EWI, however the regulations state that they were lawfully admitted to the United States on the date the U visa is granted. This is aside from other inadmissibility issues that may arise.

I focus this response on an EWI granted U visa status that has not left the United States after the initial EWI. I'm in the 9th Circuit and we have Garcia-Quintero v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2006), where the 9th Circuit held that the family unity grant rendered Garcia-Quintero admitted for calculation of the seven years for cancellation of removal for legal permanent residents. "Our decision focused on the aliens’ acceptance into the Family Unity Program”. Id. at 1015. As part of that acceptance, we looked at Garcia-Quintero’s enrollment in the program, specifically noting that it provided protection from deportation and that FUP beneficiaries “shall be inspected and admitted in the same immigration status as the alien had at the time of departure.” Id. at 1017-18. A U visa grantee received employment authorization, is protected from deportation and the language of the regulation states that they are lawfully admitted. Same benefits as that received by a family unity beneficiary. We deal with legal fictions all the time.

Los Angeles City Council OK's Service ID Cards for Undocumented Aliens

According to a LA Times Report, a plan to provide official photo identification cards for illegal immigrants in Los Angeles appears to be winning wide support. This plan would help the many residents of the city in obtaining services and access to governmental agencies, such as the school district or in opening a bank account.

A Los Angeles City Council committee Tuesday approved the concept after hearing from a wide array of supporters who said it was a practical way to incorporate into civic life the area's large undocumented population.

Opposition to the so-called City Services Card is inevitable because it touches on the hot-button issue of illegal immigration, Councilman Ed Reyes said. But in the end "cooler heads will prevail and understand the humanity of the suggestion," he said.

The committee voted unanimously to begin soliciting proposals from potential vendors who would implement the program, backed by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Councilman Richard Alarcon. That won't happen, however, until a draft proposal is brought before the full council in about three weeks, officials said.

Although no one opposed to the ID cards spoke at Tuesday's committee hearing, the Granada Hills North Neighborhood Council sent a letter stating that it had voted against the proposal.

Reyes, a member of the Arts, Parks, Health and Aging Committee, said it's "about time" that Los Angeles residents, regardless of immigration status, have the ability to easily open bank accounts and access city services.

Los Angeles is a cosmopolitan city with an international economy, Reyes said, and "this card allows people who have been living in the shadows to be out in the light of day." The photo ID would include the user's name, address, date of birth and possibly other identifying information. It could be used by any resident who lacks acceptable documentation to open a bank account or access city services, such as libraries or work-training programs, officials said.

Besides undocumented immigrants, seniors who no longer drive, the homeless and transgender people would also benefit, officials said, because they often lack official ID as well. City staff said the program won't cost taxpayers anything because the third-party vendor would charge from $10 to $20 per card, and would also charge a few dollars a month if an applicant chooses to activate a debit card feature.

Holders would be able to load the card with money, pay bills, make reservations and make purchases via debit transaction at ATM locations, city staff said. San Francisco, Oakland and Richmond are among 10 cities nationwide that already offer such a card or are getting ready to roll one out, said Larry Frank, the mayor's deputy chief of staff.

It would be up to Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck to decide whether patrol officers would accept it as an acceptable form of ID.

Representatives of labor, banks, business groups and librarians uniformly expressed support for the ID cards at Tuesday's council committee hearing.

Jesse Torres, chief executive of Pan American Bank in East Los Angeles, said the card would bring security and "peace of mind" to undocumented residents who are forced to carry large amounts of cash on them because they don't have an account.

He said some workers have no choice but to pay up to $1,000 a year in fees to check cashers and payday lenders. Antonio Bernabe, who organizes day laborers, said his workers deal with those issues on a daily basis.

"They are afraid to go into a bank to deposit money," he said. "They are afraid to go into a city building."

Betty Hung, of the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, said an ID would bring psychological as well as practical benefits to hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants who live in the shadows because they're fearful of deportation.

"It sends the message that we are one city," she said. "We are all Angelenos."

LAPD Chief Says Illegal Immigrants Arrested In Petty Crimes Won't Be Placed on ICE Holds

LAPD Police Chief, Charlie Beck, on Thursday unveiled plans to stop handing over undocumented immigrants arrested for low-level offenses to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for potential deportation. The move by Chief Beck represented a victory for immigrant rights activists just days after California Governor Jerry Brown vetoed the TRUST ACT bill that would have extended statewide an approach similar to what Beck is proposing. Under a federal program launched in 2008 called Secure Communities, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials work in partnership with local law enforcement agencies to deport undocumented immigrants arrested for crimes. The program helped the federal government to deport a record high of about 400,000 undocumented immigrants last year. Beck told reporters he does not believe federal detentions under the program should apply to undocumented immigrants arrested for "low-grade misdemeanor offenses" and similar crimes. "The LAPD is proposing to no longer grant an ICE hold requests without first reviewing the seriousness of the offense for which the person is being held, as well as their prior arrest history and gang involvement," Beck said. Beck said he believes in some cases the detention of illegal immigrants has unnecessarily split up families. "Community trust is extremely important," he said. "It's my intent that we gain that trust back." Beck said his department arrests about 105,000 people per year and receives ICE holds for about 3,400 of them. About half of those requests are for misdemeanor crimes, which include everything from vandalism to driving offenses, and Beck said he believes about 400 of those requests would be denied by his department if his proposed policy goes into effect. Beck said his department would still honor ICE detention requests on all felonies, which include crimes of violence such as murder and assault, and that his goal was to implement the new protocols by Jan. 1. The proposal, which has the support of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, will have to be presented to the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners for their review. The law vetoed by Brown on Sunday would have made California the first state to bar local authorities from honoring federal detention requests on undocumented immigrants, unless those individuals were charged or convicted of a serious or violent felony. Brown faulted the bill for not exempting individuals who had committed crimes such as child abuse, drug trafficking and selling weapons. Law enforcement officials had opposed the bill, including Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca.

ICE Director John Morton Kills California's TRUST Act

In a report issued today by the Immigrant Youth Coalition, IYC accused ICE Director John Morton of single-handedly sabotaging the efforts of the California Legislature to mitigate the harsh effects of the "Secure Communities" by the passage of the TRUST Act. In order to stop the California TRUST Act which had gained widespread support, Immigration Customs Enforcement's Director John Morton went as far as to blackmail the Governor of California into vetoing the TRUST Act. When advocates asked the governors office why Brown vetoed the bill, the staff responded that they had received a call from John Morton Director of ICE saying that if Brown doesn't veto the TRUST Act that California would essentially go back to the old days in reference to immigration raids and more overt enforcement. California would have been the first state in which the impact of "Secure Communities" would be significantly reduced by not honoring immigration detainers. California holds one of the largest undocumented immigrant population in the nation, and deports about 80,000 undocumented immigrants about one fourth of the yearly quota for deportations that the Department of homeland security set in 2010. John Morton could not allow for the TRUST Act to pass, with the Deferred Action for Childhood arrivals now being implemented the pool of deportable immigrants shrunk by almost a million. ICE needed to make sure they meet their 400,000 a year quota for deportations and so they intervened in state politics to ensure the survival of "Secure Communities" If the "Prosecutorial Discretion" memo were actually implemented, laws like the TRUST Act wouldn't be necessary. The TRUST Act would ensure that people with minor or no offenses would be let go without any immigration consequences; it was California's way of holding the Federal Government accountable.