Major changes are pending to the method in which waivers of inadmissibility based on extreme hardship to a U.S. citizen are processed (I-601 applications under INA §212(a)(9)(B)), announced January 6, 2012 by the Department of Homeland Security.  If you have been unlawfully present in the United States for a period greater than six months, and are thus subject to the three or ten-year bar to admission if you leave the country, and you have a spouse or child that is a U.S. citizen, this directly impacts you.

The new rule significantly changes the government’s method of processing and approving I-601 waiver applications, allowing the Department of Homeland Security in the United States to accept and issue provisional approval of I-601 waivers on grounds of unlawful presence while the applicant remains in the United States.  Upon provisional approval by DHS, the applicant could then apply for the immigrant visa at a U.S. consulate abroad without an eternal wait for the waiver.

To be sure, the ‘provisional’ qualifier likely adds an extra layer of review at the U.S. consulate to ensure all immigrant visa qualifications are met (including, importantly, the primary requirement that the U.S. citizen relative would suffer ‘extreme hardship’ due to separation), but the difference in waiting time would likely be weeks compared to years.  Current practice is for the applicant for an I-601 waiver of inadmissibility, if otherwise qualified for permanent residence through a qualifying immediate family relationship, to leave the United States for often two years or more to wait for processing of the waiver by USCIS, and then further review and delay at the U.S. consulate in their home country.

Continue reading »

By implication from the volume of arrests, the number of illegal border-crossers entering the United States through the southwestern border has plummeted to levels not seen for nearly forty years.  According to figures released last week by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), 327,577 persons were arrested along the U.S.-Mexico border during fiscal year 2011, a drop in 25% from the prior year and a pittance of the 1.6 million persons arrested in 2000.  This trend, coupled with Immigration and Custom Enforcement’s (ICE) removal of nearly 400,000 individuals from the country in fiscal year 2011 – the largest number of removals in the agency’s history – bodes favorably for the immigration reform debate, given the frequent caveat by tepid proponents of immigration reform that the border must be secured before comprehensive changes to immigration laws are implemented.  Since 2004, the number of Border Patrol agents has been doubled and physical barriers improved, along with technological advances in security measures, such as the use of cameras, sensors and Predator drones (yes, Predator drones).  Will a precipitous drop in illegal migration change the political environment for comprehensive immigration reform? Stay tuned.

In a surprise ruling that further empowers states’ rights to control immigration, U.S. District Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn left intact most provisions of a Alabama law that goes further than federal law in restricting access to public benefits and providing grounds for the arrest and detention of suspected illegal immigrants by local law enforcement officers.  A challenge to the recently-passed law was brought by the Department of Justice and a coalition of civil rights groups.  While striking down some provisions, such as the proposed restriction of access to public universities, Judge  Lovelace Blackburn upheld most other provisions, including making application for a driver’s license or vehicle registration by illegal immigrants a felony; requiring schools to check the immigration status of children; allowing for the arrest and detention of suspected illegal immigrants by local law enforcement; and nullifying private contracts (such as leases) knowingly entered into with illegal aliens.  This judicial development creates further conflict between the federal immigration system and increasingly assertive states’ rights, a growing schism likely headed to SCOTUS for resolution.  From The Huntsville Times.