Business Immigration Insights

Recent court decision continues trend of US making significant improvements in allowing the accompanying spouses of foreign workers to lawfully work in the United States.

For the second time in the past ten years, the Supreme Court has upheld the doctrine of consular non-reviewability of visa decisions and denied relief to the U.S. citizen spouse seeking to challenge the denial of a visa to a spouse. 

On January 13, 2020, the Trump administration filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court to lift a nationwide temporary injunction on the DHS “public charge” rule that was upheld by the Court of Appeals (2^nd Circuit) last week.  The public charge rule, published in August 2019, expands the grounds on which the government can deny immigration benefits to various applicants seeking permanent residence (green card) status or work authorization to include those who have received certain public benefits, such as Medicaid, CHIP, and SNAP (see article, “DHS Reinterprets Public Charge”).  The rule gives the government broad discretion to deny an applicant if “at any time”, the applicant would “likely” become a public charge.  A medical condition alone could be enough for an immigration officer to exercise discretion to deny the application.

In 2018, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that it will terminate the temporary protected status (TPS) program for nationals of El Salvador on September 9, 2019.  Employment authorization documents (EADs) held by qualifying individuals that expired on March 9, 2018, were automatically extended through September 5, 2018, providing applicants time to apply for new EADs valid through the termination date.  However, in late 2018, a federal court judge in California issued a preliminary injunction preventing the administration from ending the TPS program for El ...

On December 4, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two orders that allow the Presidential Proclamation of September 24, 2017, otherwise known as the “Travel Ban,” to go into effect while appeals continue in the lower courts.  The practical effect of SCOTUS’s actions is to reinstate this version of the Travel Ban fully.  See our earlier blog entry, New Presidential Proclamation Modifies Travel Ban; SCOTUS Reacts, for a full explanation of which countries are targeted in the revised Ban and which citizens of those countries are subject to U.S. travel restrictions under the Ban.

Following the Supreme Court’s recent decision to allow the partial implementation of Executive Order 13780, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States” (“EO”), the State Department issued a cable to all diplomatic and consular posts instructing them how to implement the EO, which begins tonight at 8:00 PM EDT.  The ban applies to aliens from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.  Consular officers are instructed to first determine if a visa applicant meets the general visa issuance requirements without regard to the EO and, if so ...

It’s been a week since the Ninth Circuit unanimously upheld the temporary restraining order against the Trump administration’s Executive Order known as the “Travel Ban”.   Shortly after the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, President Trump said that new security measures were imminent, however, no new executive orders have been issued.  While waiting for the next attempt at a legal travel ban or a way to revive the prior one, those born in one of the countries mentioned in the original ban (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen) and those from other predominantly Muslim ...

The Ninth Circuit has just issued a unanimous opinion upholding the Temporary Restraining Order against the Trump Administration’s Executive Order known as the “Travel Ban.” The 3-judge panel unanimously recognized that without the TRO, the states of Minnesota and Washington were likely to be harmed as parens patriae (i.e., legal protector) for their citizens, and also by damage inflicted on “operations and missions of their public universities and other institutions of higher learning,” and their “operations, tax bases, and public funds.”

On April 15, 2015, the day its previous order was due to expire, the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Florida extended its permission for the Department of Labor to process H-2B wage and labor certification applications for another month, through May 15, 2015.

On March 20, 2015, the U.S. Department of Labor issued new FAQs providing more details on the latest developments in the ongoing federal court case challenging DOL's authority to issue and implement regulations for the H-2B temporary worker program.

On March 17, 2015, the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services announced it will resume H-2B processing, but will continue to suspend premium (expedited) processing until further notice.

As of March 5, 2015, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has temporarily shut down its processing of H-2B petitions and the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has stopped accepting or processing applications for H-2B prevailing wages and temporary labor certifications due to a Florida federal court’s decision in Pérez v. Pérez.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has enjoined the state of Arizona from implementing key provisions of its anti-immigrant law, which is set to take effect at midnight tonight.  Calling it a "substantial likelihood" that the law would lead to "wrongful arrest" of legal resident aliens, Judge Bolton ruled the State may not require police officers to check the immigration status of people they stop for other violations until courts decide whether the provision is permissible.  She also ruled the State may not require immigrants to carry immigration documentation or prohibit ...

The Supreme Court's docket for its 2009-10 term includes two key immigration cases that will affect immigrants' access to legal counsel and the federal court system.  In Padilla v. Kentucky, which is set for October 13, the Court will decide whether a criminal defense attorney must advise a foreign-born client on how a criminal case will affect the client's immigration status, and what remedies the client may seek if an attorney gives incorrect advice.  In Kucana v. Holder, which is set for November 10, the Court will decide whether federal appeals courts have jurisdiction to review ...