During this week, to raise awareness about consumer protection issues, the Herman Legal Group reminds consumers that they are at risk now more than ever from a spike in unauthorized takeover of their bank accounts, through check and electronic payments fraud. There is an alarming trend of U.S. financial institutions refusing to protect and reimburse victims of bank account fraud.
To protect the consumers in her state, New York Attorney General Letitia James recently filed a lawsuit to hold Citibank accountable for failing to protect its customers and require the company to pay back defrauded New Yorkers with interest, pay penalties, and adopt enhanced anti-fraud defenses to prevent scammers from stealing consumer funds (People of the State of New York vs. Citibank, Case No. 24 CIV 0659, US District Court, S. District of New York, January 30, 2024).
Fifth Third fails to protect victims of identity theft
In an effort to raise awareness of this issue, Attorney Richard Herman, the founder and president of the Herman Legal Group, has contacted Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, to initate a Congressional investigation into Ohio-based Fifth Third Bank, and other financial institutions on their practices to protect account holders from unauthorized takers, and to reimburse for losses due to fraud.
An account holder with Fifth Third for over 20 years, the Herman Legal Group filed complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Case No: 240222-13394653), the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (Case No: CS0312485), and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (Case No: 169865531) on February 22, 2024 claiming the following:
* From June, 2023 until December 2023, the firm’s checking account was repeatedly breached by an unauthorized account takeover through a forged check scheme (which included altering the payor name, and forging the signature)
* The firm timely notified the bank of the breaches of the account.
* Fifth Third failed to secure the account from initial and on-going theft.
* Fifth Third refused to reimburse the law firm for its losses.
The complaints allege that Fifth Third Bank misleads victims of fraud and illegally denies reimbursements.
“All banking customers must be vigilant. They should ask their bank what steps are being taken to secure their hard-earned funds, and whether the bank reimburses victimes of fraud. They may be surprised at what they discover.”
— Richard T. Herman, Esq.
On august 24, 2022, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas today announced that the Department has issued a final rule that will preserve and fortify the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy for certain eligible noncitizens who arrived in the United States as children, deferring their removal and allowing them an opportunity to access a renewable, two-year work permit.
What is DACA?
The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is a policy put in place in 2012 by the Obama administration. It aims at deferring actions toward those who for any reason found themselves in the U.S. unlawfully because they were brought into the country while they were still a child.
The DACA which is based on a simple memo defers the deportation of those individuals also called dreamers allowing them to apply for a renewable two years work permit.
The DACA in a difficult situation
Since the end of the Obama administration, several anti-immigrants had attacked the DACA intending to strike it down. This brought the Trump administration to put an end to it. The Supreme Court overturned that termination on June 18th, 2021 on the ground that it was done in an appropriate manner.
The court estimated that the Trump administration, by terminating the DACA, violated the Administration Procedure Act.
This meant that the Dreamers who previously had DACA could continue applying for a renewal. Also, the other happy people were first-time applicants who from then on could now apply for DACA.
However, voices are continuously being raised against the DACA. Republicans are more prone to striking it down while Democrats are striving for it to be maintained.
The DHS’s decision to fortify and secure DACA
Referred to as the Final Rule, the 450 – pages document issued by the Department of Homeland Security will become effective on October 31st, 2022. It expresses the effort of the Biden administration to strengthen the DACA in order to reinforce the protection of the so-called Dreamers.
Though it does not allow new DACA applications, the document does protect the over 600,000 people enrolled in the program. President Biden even clearly states that the Final Rule is part of his administration’s will to strengthen DACA in order to offer more protections such as work authorization in order for them to live more freely and contribute to the development of their communities in the United States.
Since the creation of that program by president Obama’s administration, at least 800,000 people had benefited from it because not only they were not deported but they are allowed to apply for work permits.
If today the dreamers can rejoice in this milestone reached, anything can still happen before October 31st. Neither the current legal challenges nor those which may come up before the due date can be mitigated by the Final Rule. It is also to be noticed that even if the rule enters into effect, the court can still overturn it as unlawful.
Moreover, if it is not stricken down and President Biden fails to be reelected in 2024, the republican can still take it down but they will have to go through the perilous national rulemaking procedure. Unless the program ends up in federal laws nothing is one hundred percent sure as anti-immigrants can still attack it and try to rule it over.
According to the executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, Mrs. Marielena Hincapié, strengthening DACA that way is a step towards the ultimate goal which is “congressional action”.
The Final Rule is meant to replace the policy guidance in the memo known as the legal basis for DACA since 2012. It confirms the eligibility criteria and the process for applicants to get work permits, and considers Dreamers as “lawfully present” on the U.S. territory. On that ground, they will not be prioritized for deportation.
The Democrat-led Senate unanimously passed the Inflation Reduction Act, a flagship bill containing a streamlined version of President Biden’s “Build Back Better “reform agenda. Provisions in the bill, which is expected to be introduced in the House of Representatives this week, aim to reduce the deficit, lower prices for prescription drugs and address the climate crisis, but it contains no immigration measures.
The bill contains no measures to address visa shortages, improve processing, legalize unauthorized persons, reform immigration courts or hold Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) accountable for corruption and abuse.
Why is Immigration Reform not Included in President Biden’s Election Agenda?
A year ago, the Build Back Better (BBB) project was gaining momentum, even though it was only an agenda for Democrats. On 9. in August, Senate Democrats unveiled a 3.5 trillion package, which included billion 107 billion for immigration reform.
To be passed, the bill would not only have to have the support of all 50 Democrats, but also satisfy the “Byrd rule” to be passed as part of the budget regulations. After several rounds, the Senate parliamentarian removed most of the immigration provisions.
The failure of the Byrd rule was fatal because it meant that the immigration regulations would have to have 60 votes to pass-an impossible number to achieve with an evenly divided Senate.
Should we rejoice when the bill so clearly excludes immigration?
In December, intra-party disagreements brought the BBB to its knees, and in particular leading moderate Democrats Joe Manchin (WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) were not on the bandwagon.
Negotiations were suspended. There were virtually no visible moves until late July, when Senator Manchin and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced an agreement.
There is no doubt that ruling out any positive immigration reform is a major failure for the Democrats. For a party and a president who have long highlighted the crucial role that immigrants have played in the growth and success of the country, as well as in the recovery from the pandemic, the exclusion of immigration is a blatant failure. It is also a capitulation to political pressure for Democrats to be accused of being weak on the issue of border enforcement.
The Democrats’ refusal to promote immigration reform in the bill cannot be attributed solely to the Byrd rule. In 2021, the MEP expressed no opinion on the Byrd rule on the reform package, which would have restored and improved the processing of family visas based on employment and diversity. This left the door open for Senators Manchin and Schumer to include it in their agreement.
But with the November elections fast approaching, many moderate Democrats were simply willing to vote for legalization and other immigration reforms. It is true that many Republicans were expected to demand votes on controversial amendments that would exclude and scapegoat refugees, asylum seekers, and other immigrants.
When the inflation reduction bill went to debate, it seemed almost inevitable that some of the 60 or so immigration-damaging amendments to the bill would pass. A handful of Democrats had already joined Senator Lankford and other Republicans on a bill aimed at stopping President Biden’s attempt to overturn Trump’s policy of banning and deporting asylum seekers, known as Section 42. As many other Democrats expressed concern, CNN called it a rebellion against Biden.
To reinforce the threat, it was announced on the first day of the debate that Senator Lankford’s amendment to Section 42 would require only 50 votes to pass, even though it clearly violated the Byrd rule and should have required 60 votes.
Many Democratic senators had called for a general party pact to vote against any amendment, and Senators Menendez and Padilla called for the party to protect immigrants from being used as “political pawns.” Interestingly, all 50 senators voted against the amendment.
The fact that Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) submitted a similar amendment to Section 42, which required 60 votes to pass, helped ensure that moderate Democrats, who are vulnerable in the next election, could vote for this amendment knowing that it would not get 60 votes and vote against Lankford’s amendment.
This caused a stir-Senator Lankford, in a speech on the Senate floor, accused Democrats of using a procedural trick to reject his amendment-“that’s why people are so angry with Washington DC.”
AILA position
AILA urged senators to oppose the Section 42 amendment. In recent weeks, AILA has urged its members and the public to take action, resulting in more than 8,000 messages to Congress alone on this issue.
In general, we have called on Congress to” not harm ” immigrants. We worked with coalition partners to stop an amendment that would have stopped the hiring of IRS agents until 18,000 additional border guards were hired-an absurd proposal given reports of corruption and abuse in the border guards and the severe difficulties DHS is having in hiring qualified agents.
Equally ludicrous were two amendments, which were also rejected and would have shifted 500 million from the bill intended to ameliorate climate disasters, to the unnecessary construction of a border wall and interior law enforcement-none of which was supported by a justification for the need.
In the end, all the anti-immigrant proposals put to a vote were blocked. Thanks to all the senators who defended their positions and protected immigrants from these disgusting and hateful policies.
After two decades of defending the rights of immigrants and refugees, I cannot remember another time when immigrants were exposed to such grave risks and came out unscathed. At a time in U.S. history when xenophobia is unacceptably high, we should celebrate the passage of this bill without harming immigration.
This notice provides an overview of the number of immigrant numbers available in September in terms of: “dates of final measures “and” dates of application,” indicating the dates when applicants for immigrant visas should be advised to collect and submit the necessary documents to the National Visa Center.
Procedures for Setting Dates
Consular officers must notify the Department of State of visa applicants whose number of qualified documents is limited; USCIS notifies applicants of adjustment of status.
The fiscal year limit for family-sponsored preferential immigrants established in accordance with Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is set. The limit for immigrants for a fiscal year is based on employment preference and is calculated in accordance with INA 201.
Section 202 states that the land limit for preferential immigrants is set at 7 percent of the total annual limits for employment-based preferential immigrants. The limit for dependent territories is set at 2%.
There are also visas issued under the Dvlottery, whose fee per person is 100 rubles. country and criteria may vary from year to year.
Visa Section and Application
Section 203 (e) of the INA provides that preferential family and work visas are issued to eligible immigrants in the order in which an application is made on behalf of each individual.
Section 203 (d) states that spouses and children of preferential immigrants are entitled to the same status and order if they accompany or accompany the main person. The visa allocation provisions of Section 202 (e) apply to quotas for a foreign state or dependent territory if the visa application crosses a national border.
Section 203 (a) of the INA establishes family sponsorship preference classes for family-sponsored immigrant visas in 4 options
- 1: (F1) unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens: a given number plus a number not required for the fourth preference.
- 2: spouses and sons and unmarried sons and daughters of permanent residents: a certain number plus the number (if any) by which the total level of family preferences reaches a certain threshold, plus a possible unused number of first preferences, of which F2A spouses and sons of permanent residents with a certain percentage of the total limit of the second preference, the land border, or F2B unmarried sons and daughters (age 21 and older) of permanent resident aliens with 23% of the total limit of the second preference.
- 3: (F3) married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens: a number plus the number not required by the first and second preference.
- 4: (F4) brothers and sisters of adult U. S. citizens: a certain number plus the number not required in the first three preferences.
Applicants for immigration visas with a priority date before the application date listed in the table below may collect and submit the necessary documents for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ National Visa Center upon receipt of a notice from the National Visa Center with detailed instructions.
The application date for an oversubscribed category is the priority date for the first applicant who cannot submit documents to the National Visa Center for an immigrant visa. If a category is designated as “current,” all applicants in that category may submit applications, regardless of the priority date.
Section 203(b) of the INA establishes the following classes of preference for the issuance of employment-based immigrant visas based on employment-based preferences
- First: priority workers: 28.6 percent of the total level of employment-based preferences, plus the number not required for the fourth and fifth preferences.
- Second: professionals with higher education or exceptional skills: 28.6 percent of the total level of employment-based preferences, plus the number not required in the first preference.
- Third: skilled, qualified and other workers: 28.6 percent of the total level, plus the number not required under the first and second preference, of which no more than 10,000 can be allocated to “other workers.”
- Fourth, some special immigrants: 7.1% of the world level.
- Fifth, job creation: 7.1% of the total level, of which at least 3,000 are reserved for investors in a targeted rural area or an area with high unemployment, and 3,000 are reserved for investors in regional centers according to § 610 of Pub. L. 102-395.
Remember
September is a very special month for visas. You need to be informed so that you can do what you need to do and when you need to do it so that you can apply.
Unless otherwise noted on the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) website www.uscis.gov/visabulletininfo, individuals who wish to file applications for adjustment of status with USCIS in the Department of Homeland Security should use the” Final Action Dates ” forms below to determine when they may file such applications.
When USCIS determines that there are more immigration visas available for the fiscal year than there are known applicants for those visas, USCIS will indicate on its Web site that applicants may instead use the “Visa Filing Dates” tables in this bulletin.
Need For Help ?
Schedule a personal consultation with Attorney Richard Herman by calling 1-216-696-6170, or by booking online. Consultations can be conducted by zoom, skype, whatsapp, facetime, or in-office.
The pandemic triggered on a global scale by Covid-19 has opened up troubling questions: about the evolution in itself of the viral contagion, unknown.
To its origins and for which there is still a lack of an effective remedy, but also on the effects-political, economic, social-that we will have to face even after the health emergency is over.
Many argue that in the “world of tomorrow” nothing will be the same as before: we must therefore expect radical transformations, starting with habits related to daily life. Others believe, cynically, that once the ”great fear” has passed, societies will return to their usual rhythms.
The precautions of the USCIS
Before COVID, all signatures on USCIS forms required a “handwritten signature”. This means that the signature must be original and cannot be reproduced by scanning or copying. In response to the current COVID19 pandemic, USCIS announced that it is making the signing policy permanent for the COVID era.
Since the pandemic, USCIS has relaxed its signature policy to accept national orders to receive photocopied, forged and scanned signatures. This means that the forms no longer have to be the original versions, but can be copied versions of the original signatures. This policy, originally a response to a pandemic, has now become permanent.
USCIS still does not accept digital or electronic signatures, so the reproduced signature must be an original signature, but this policy has removed the need for applicants to send original documents from their place of residence to their lawyer’s office by mail.
Please note, however, that this policy does not apply to all applications. Many applications, including applications filed at the border, still require original and wet signatures.
USCIS has also announced that it is extending its policy of postponing the deadline to the 23rd. October 2022. This policy gave applicants an additional 60 days to respond to requests for information and notices of refusal.
USCIS announced that USCIS will make its COVID-19 flexibility permanent to accept all benefit forms and documents with original signatures that have been copied, scanned, or otherwise reproduced for submission purposes. This change applies only to signatures. All other instructions for forms must be followed when filling out a form.
WHO’s Position and Initiatives On the Issue
The World Health Organization (WHO) is using the emergence of the post-vaccination omicron variant of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) to lobby for a “global treaty on pandemics”.
Wednesday, December 1st prompted the world leaders of the WHO to start negotiations to create a binding international agreement on the prevention and management of future pandemics.
The decision to start drafting a global treaty on the pandemic was announced by the World Health Assembly, a forum organized by the WHO executive board. The decision was approved by all the participants of the Assembly after three days of discussions.
The agreement authorized the creation of an “intergovernmental negotiating body” responsible for drafting and negotiating the final wording of the global pandemic treaty. This treaty must be ratified by the WHO member states.
The Ideas of the Authorities on Future Crises
The Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said : countries that commit to negotiating a global agreement “will help protect future generations from the effects of pandemics”.
WHO member states have agreed to create the global pandemic treaty in the context of growing international concerns about the post-vaccine Omicron variant of COVID-19. Among the issues that the treaty should cover are the exchange of research data and genomic sequences of NYE viruses.
The WHO Director-General warned that the creation of a legally binding international agreement to enforce pandemic protocols will make it impossible for people in local or state jurisdictions to hold their elected representatives to account, as they will be replaced by unelected bureaucrats who cannot be held accountable.
The United States supports a global agreement on the pandemic
The agreement on the pandemic is not expected to be finalized to the satisfaction of most WHO member states for several years. However, the United States has already expressed its support for the preparation of the proposal.
“The United States is committed to working with member states to advance the latest recommendations of the Task Force on Preparedness and Response,” White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in a statement.
“This includes the development of a new WHO convention or other international instrument and the conclusion of agreements aimed at improving the effectiveness and flexibility of international health regulations.”
The United States takes a stand
A US-led bloc of nations initially opposed the inclusion of language in the future pandemic treaty that would have made the treaty legally binding. But later, the White House issued a statement in which it supported the first draft resolution negotiated by the World Health Assembly.
The international body negotiating the treaty will hold its first meeting no later than January 1. March 2022. The agenda of this meeting will consist of agreeing on a timetable for the preparation of the treaty. The second meeting is held no later than the 1st. august 2022. The agenda for this second meeting will be a discussion on the status of a draft draft treaty.
What we can remember?
The world has changed and we will have to change with it. But the various initiatives to make permanent the measures of the COVID crisis will have to be more seriously debated.
Between these official meetings, WHO and the treaty negotiators will hold public consultations to inform the public of their decisions. A progress report will be officially presented on the 76th. World Health Assembly in 2023. The final agreement will be presented on the 77th. World Health Assembly for the treatment of the 77th World Health Assembly in 2024.
In most countries, it is not very difficult to become a citizen. If a person is born to a father and/or mother who is a citizen of the country, they are considered a citizen.
However, because people are living, breathing, mobile beings, it is often the case that due to work, persecution, political crises, natural environmental disasters, health, family situation, or one of many other factors, they find themselves in a country other than the one of which they are a citizen by birth.
With little or no option to return home or because of their work, the best option they have is to find a way to obtain the citizenship of their host country. In the United States, it is quite complex for a foreigner to become a naturalized citizen.
There is a long and meticulous process that must be followed and it is difficult for any foreigner to master on their own. Fortunately, there is a solution. If you are considering becoming a U.S. citizen, reading the following can save you unnecessary trouble.
Eligibility Requirements
According to the Naturalization Eligibility Worksheet’s instructions, anyone who wishes to apply for U.S. citizenship must be over 18 years old and have a certain number of years of permanent residence in the United States.
In addition, he or she must not be a permanent resident whose spouse died while on active duty in the U.S. military, an employee of a U.S. corporation, research institution, public international organization, or a clergyman.
Other conditions are not directly listed on the worksheet, probably because they are considered criteria for evaluating the application. Legal professionals, other professional associations, and even some individuals may be able to assist applicants in meeting the requirements.
Using the services of an attorney or association specializing in immigration law is an invaluable help.
Approaching the American Immigration Lawyers Association or an immigration attorney is a good solution for you as it will help you avoid making common mistakes. From checking eligibility and requirements to applying, they can walk you through the process to save you time, energy and money in your quest for citizenship.
Your path to naturalization will involve a series of steps. It is advisable to seek the assistance of an immigration lawyer to move your naturalization process forward. An attorney can help you:
- Find out if you are eligible to legally become a U.S. citizen.
- Gather all the information and documents necessary to prove your eligibility.
- Complete Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, with the assistance of an attorney or reputable organization.
- Submit Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, with the assistance of an attorney or reputable organization.
- Make an appointment for biometrics (fingerprints).
- Complete the interview.
- Receive a decision from the USCIS agency on your Form N-400, Application for Naturalization.
- Take the oath of the allegiance to the United States of America and finally,
- Know your rights and responsibilities as an American citizen.
An immigrant who has been recently naturalized
It is often said that those who have been somewhere have done half the work for newcomers. In order to avoid repeating the same mistakes, it is wiser to talk to someone who has been there.
It is true that the U.S. Immigration Services Center is constantly updating information on its website, but there will never be drastic changes overnight. Working with a friend who has just completed the process is always a good idea.
Community Organizations
You’ve probably noticed that many areas that were thought to be the exclusive domain of states or governments have been taken over by civil society organizations. Immigration and related issues, including assistance to people seeking naturalization, should be no exception.
Several civil society organizations have formed and are dedicated to providing valuable information and low-cost assistance to people seeking citizenship. They even organize evening or weekend classes to allow those who are free only after their regular work to enroll. However, you need to make sure that the organization you are applying to is officially recognized for this work.
Becoming a citizen can be difficult, but finding help will mitigate the risk and pave the way to a better outcome. I hope this article has helped you find some clues.
Need for help ?
Schedule a personal consultation with Attorney Richard Herman by calling 1-216-696-6170, or by booking online. Consultations can be conducted by zoom, skype, whatsapp, facetime, or in-office.
The DOJ has issued a memo on Internet hearings and sets forth guidelines to be applied to such hearings in immigration courts in the future. EOIR anticipates that hearings using Webex or other similar platforms will remain important to EOIR operations in the future. The memo is effective immediately.
Hearings before immigration judges may be held both in person and with one or more participants appearing via video or telephone from various locations outside the court. By following the guidelines and the questions most often asked, you will know exactly what to do or the process to follow.
The guidelines for internet hearings are as follows.
- The decision to have the immigration judge appear in court or remotely is up to the court and is made in accordance with agency policy and operational needs.
- The decision to have the defendant and his or her counsel appear in court or remotely is also the court’s decision.
The decision to have the respondent and his or her counsel appear in court or remotely is also a decision of the court, but the immigration judge must grant the respondent’s request to appear in court or remotely when appropriate and possible. For example
- When the respondent is represented, the immigration judge should generally grant requests for court or remote appearance by the respondent, the respondent’s attorney, or both.
- The court will not order an unrepresented defendant to appear remotely.
However, an unrepresented defendant may request to do so, and the immigration judge must generally grant that request.
- An immigration judge must grant a witness’s request to appear remotely when such a request is reasonable.
- A request to appear remotely or in person must be made in writing fifteen days before the hearing, unless waived by the immigration judge.
- If a defendant and counsel are both appearing remotely, they may appear together or from different locations. It is not necessary for the respondent and counsel to appear together from the attorney’s office.
- An immigration judge conducting an Internet hearing must confirm that all persons appearing at a distance are clearly visible on the screen and that all participants, whether at a distance or in the same location as the judge, can clearly hear everything that is said.
Frequently Asked Questions
Consistent with the advice of public health officials, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) has practices in place to protect all persons working at or visiting EOIR facilities nationwide.
We remain committed to practices that provide this essential information to all employees and visitors.
Q) What are the protocols for wearing masks?
A) In accordance with the new CDC guidelines, EOIR will regularly monitor county-level data to determine if masking is required for employees and visitors.
EOIR will use this data to determine the COVID-19 community level for a given EOIR building by looking at the COVID-19 community level for that building.
Q) Can an attorney file a motion to appear via Webex when the defendant plans to appear in person?
A) A party may file a motion for the respondent or representative to appear at a VTC hearing via Webex without affecting the other party’s in-person appearance. Please note that the Immigration Judge has the discretion to require an in-person or VTC appearance.
Q) Will the video recording of the Webex hearing be available for review?
A) EOIR does not video record hearings, including those conducted via Webex. Hearings (with the exception of bond review hearings) are recorded, in audio only, using the Digital Recording System (DAR). Recordings of hearings may be played by the parties upon prior agreement with immigration court staff.
Parties and the general public may also obtain copies of the DAR through the following means.
July 28, 2022
USCIS is currently experiencing delays in issuing receipts for Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal. Due to these delays, you may not receive a receipt notice in a timely manner after you properly file your Form I-589.
Form I-589 is a form that non-U.S. citizens who find themselves in the United States can file in order to apply for asylum and withholding of removal. The United States Center for Immigration Services stated recently on their website that they are currently experiencing delays which may cause applicants not to receive their receipt on time after they submit their application.
The institution also assured applicants that their filing date will be considered rather than when their file is processed in order for them not to be penalized during a certain number of operations or circumstances.
For example, when scheduling affirmative asylum interviews or when asylum seekers are requesting employment eligibility documents the filing date will be considered. Also the asylum one year filing deadline will be calculation by taking into consideration, not the date when their files are processed but their filing date.
Applicants however have to watch their steps and be very cautious while filing their applications as their files might be rejected if they fail to meet any of the requirements.
USCIS stated that they would take time to inform any applicants whose file is rejected of the reason for that. They can make appropriate corrections and resubmit their application. Submitting the same application many time is not a good idea either. The sole submission is enough. The institution advised applicants to be patient and calmly wait for their receipt after their application is filed.
Need to file an I-589 application? Here are a few things to consider.
Avoid procrastination
As mentioned earlier, the U.S. government gives a one year deadline to anyone who would like to apply for Asylum and for withholding of removal. This may seem a long period and give way to procrastination.
Given that the U.S. immigration officials treat security matters as very sensitive, finding yourself without any legal protection may cost you much more. The risk of deportation becomes very high. Better start earlier!
Avoid lying in your application
As it is with every immigration related matters, U.S. authorities give very careful attention to the processing of I-589. Any inconsistency in your files may lead them to the conclusion that you are lying and you may not only lose the opportunity to be considered an asylum seeker but you will permanently be denied any opportunity to immigrate to the U.S. in the future.
Give as much details as possible. For example, you may give more explanation about a date you can no longer remember. Use supplement B – Form I-589 for that purpose. If you are unsure what to do or how to fill the form you can seek assistance from an immigration legal practitioner.
Need for help?
Schedule a personal consultation with Attorney Richard Herman by calling 1-216-696-6170, or by booking online. Consultations can be conducted by zoom, skype, WhatsApp, facetime, or in-office.
The Trump administration before his departure had issued rules that made it more difficult for asylum seekers to obtain employment authorization or work permits.
These rules required asylum seekers to wait 365 days after applying for asylum before they could apply for a work permit, whereas asylum seekers had to wait until then, only 180 days.
Those thousands of asylum seekers who were not sure if they would qualify for a work permit had no choice but to seek advice from an immigration lawyer.
Thus began a long and complicated legal battle. After winning a legal battle against President Donald Trump’s administration over work authorization, asylum seekers are alarmed by long delays in renewing work permits that threaten to deprive hundreds of people of jobs in the United States. Understand everything in a few lines.
People may apply for asylum in the United States if they have suffered or fear persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in certain social groups.
While their application is pending, they can obtain work authorization from USCIS, valid for two years.
The agency’s regulations allow for an automatic extension of up to 180 days for asylum seekers whose work authorization has expired while their application is pending.
But what is really happening ?
But over the past year, and despite a change in administration, wait times have reached 10 months, according to the proposed class action.
The plaintiffs seek a court order requiring USCIS to adjudicate class members’ work authorization requests within the automatic 180 day extension period.
What types of jobs do the majority of asylum seekers hold?
The jobs held by asylum seekers range from truck drivers, critical to already struggling supply chains, to healthcare positions in high demand in the midst of the pandemic.
These delays will therefore have an impact not only on asylum seekers, but also on the U.S. economy. These delays are comparable to those experienced by spouses of high-skilled visa holders, who lost their jobs due to similar wait times for work documents.
What does the law say about extensions ?
Asylum seekers are eligible for an automatic 180-day extension of their work authorization if U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services does not process the extension requests before the work authorization expires.
But with wait times routinely exceeding six months for asylum seekers, concern over these delays.
What actions are being taken by asylum-seeker advocacy groups ?
Immigration advocates have filed a lawsuit against USCIS over wait times, arguing that delays in processing these routine applications have become unreasonable.
Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco, the lawsuit follows another lawsuit filed by immigration advocates to stop regulations issued by the Trump administration that would have limited the ability of new asylum seekers to obtain initial work authorization in the United States.
Some harms
Delays by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services have slowed benefit turnaround times across the board, according to the plaintiffs, although continued employment is particularly important to asylum seekers, said Emma Winger, an attorney at the U.S. Immigration Council and counsel for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
The total number of work authorization applications received annually from asylum seekers has increased significantly in recent years. During 2014, USCIS received approximately 110,000 initial applications and renewals from these applicants. In FY 2019, the total number received exceeded 556,000, according to data released by the agency. Applicant wait times generally ranged from 2.6 to just under 4 months between FY 2017 and FY 2021.
But in December 2020, wait times to renew work authorization began to exceed six months. Policy changes in recent years have increased the review of various immigration benefits at USCIS, adding to delays across the board, according to claimant advocates.
A Government Accountability Office report released this year found that the agency has not put plans in place or identified resources to deal with the glut of pending cases.
Public commitments
Once work authorization applications receive a final decision, more than 90 percent of them are approved, said David Bier, a Cato Institute researcher.
The problem is that USCIS is not meeting its public commitments to process these applications within 180 days, he added. Winger, of the American Immigration Council, noted that asylum seekers facing job loss now were approved under the Trump administration two years ago.
Need for help ?
Schedule a personal consultation with Attorney Richard Herman by calling 1-216-696-6170, or by booking online. Consultations can be conducted by zoom, skype, whatsapp, facetime, or in-office.
The fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban in August 2021 has caused tens of thousands of Afghans to flee, often in desperation. Many others seeking exile are still looking for a safe passage out of the country.
Founded in 1946, the American Immigration Lawyers Association is an association of lawyers and law professors who practice and teach immigration law.
AILA calls for the swift passage of the Afghan Adjustment Act to make life easier. It welcomes the introduction of the bipartisan, bicameral Afghan Adjustment Act, which would help Afghans fleeing the Taliban takeover find safety in the United States.
This bill allows the U.S. to keep its promises to Afghans who have served alongside U.S. troops for 20 years.
AILA’s Fight
AILA President Jeremy McKinney said, “We applaud the bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives who have come together to propose legislation to protect the tens of thousands of people who fled Afghanistan after the U.S. departure led to a Taliban takeover.
This includes those already here on humanitarian parole, those seeking special immigrant visas or referenced as P-1 or P-2 under the U.S. refugee admissions program, as well as Afghans who have assisted the U.S. mission and remain at risk in Afghanistan.
Expectations of the legislation
This legislation would be a game changer, allowing attorneys who currently help build complex asylum cases to move to a much more streamlined process, help many more vulnerable people, and ensure that individuals are properly vetted. If this bill does not pass, the already overburdened asylum and immigration court systems will be strained.”AILA Director of Government Relations Shev Dalal-Dheini added, “As we mark the one-year anniversary of the fall of Kabul next week, this bill is frankly overdue.
Afghans who are in the United States on humanitarian parole face a legal vacuum when their parole expires.
Passing the Afghan Adjustment Act is a down payment on what we owe our Afghan allies for the risks they have taken for our country.
This is not an unprecedented action; the U.S. has done the same for others caught up in conflicts or humanitarian crises involving the U.S., such as the Cuban revolution, the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, and U.S. military actions in Iraq.
AILA urges Congress to quickly pass this legislation so that AILA and its members can quickly step up to the plate and help Afghan nationals cross the finish line.”
The Situation of Afghans
Countless Afghans are at risk of being targeted for their past work or association with coalition forces, the former Afghan government, international development programs, media, civil society, and other human rights organizations.
Women and girls and their families, especially those who fear they will no longer be able to work or study, also want to flee the country.
Many fear persecution or reprisals under the Taliban regime and are looking to asylum or other avenues for safe migration abroad. Some Afghans already abroad seek temporary protection or permanent legal status in a host country.
Who was evacuated from Afghanistan ?
In the days following the Taliban takeover in August, a U.S.-supervised multinational airlift helped many international passport holders and Afghans flee on hundreds of hastily coordinated evacuation flights from Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul.
U.S. Pentagon officials said the U.S.-coordinated airlift has evacuated nearly 125,000 people.
Among the Afghans evacuated with their families were those who had been issued visas because of their service with coalition military forces or worked for foreign-funded programs.
A smaller number of Afghans who had applied for visas or asylum out of fear of persecution for their identity were also able to board planes as refugees, as were those with family members living as citizens abroad on the basis of family reunification.
Do Afghans have the right to leave the country ?
Under international human rights law, everyone has the right to leave their own country and everyone lawfully within a country has the right to freedom of movement within that country.
Restrictions on these rights can only be imposed when they are prescribed by law, have a legitimate purpose, and are a proportionate response to a legitimate government objective.
Taliban authorities reportedly stated that they did not want Afghans to leave the country. They assured that Afghan citizens with foreign travel permits could travel, but the implementation of this provision violates the right to freedom of movement.
Need for help ?
Schedule a personal consultation with Attorney Richard Herman by calling 1-216-696-6170, or by booking online. Consultations can be conducted by zoom, skype, whatsapp, facetime, or in-office.