Got Immigration? The World’s Best Damn Blog About U.S. Immigration

USCIS recently announced that it will begin issuing new, security-enabled naturalization certificates this week at the District Offices in Atlanta, Denver, and Baltimore, with the rest of the nation transitioning within the next 60 days.  These new certificates sound uber-high-tech, with digitized photos, embedded applicant signatures, color-shifting ink, and a new printing process that renders the certificates less prone to fraud.  USCIS was careful to clarify that all previously-issued certificates remain will remain valid, so all you naturalized citizens, don’t worry about applying for this latest model.  For more on this marvel of immigration technology, click here.

I always enjoy hearing a court call out the government for bad behavior – it happens so much to the private bar, it’s nice for the other side to get some heat too.  The Board of Immigration Appeals issued a decision recently (posted on AILA’s Infonet) dimissing the Department of Homeland Security’s appeal in an asylum case.  After reading the decision, I have to really wonder about the competence of some of the DHS attorneys.  The BIA ripped the DHS’s appeal apart, holding that the Immigration Judge’s credibility determination was not “clearly erroneous” – the applicable legal standard - and that DHS’s contention that the asylum grant was “frivilous” is likewise without merit.  The icing on top of this BIA cake, however, is the last paragraph of the decision, which states “[o]ur review of the record reveals that the DHS attorney exhibited intemperate, disrespectful, and unprofessional behavior towards the Immigration Judge.  Such behavior is unbecoming of DHS counsel.”  Oh, that is sweet – although the vast majority of DHS attorneys are indeed professional and courteous, there are some that are definitely not paragons of good behavior in the courtroom, and I commend the BIA for highlighting what I can only imagine is one egregious example.  The private immigration bar has had somewhat of a tarnished reputation over the years from some high-profile bad apples, but this case shows that said apples can fall on either side of any given tree – something worth remembering the next time a private immigration attorney plays the fool in or out of the courtroom.

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is angry at USCIS.  And he’s letting anyone that will listen know.  Why,  you ask, is Senator Grassley so incensed?  He heard that adjudicators at USCIS’s California Service Center (CSC) are being pressured from their superiors to approve visa applications that appear fraudulent or in which the applicant is otherwise ineligible.  Whatchyou talkin’ about, Grassley?  Anyone who knows how the CSC works will know that such a claim is complete rubbish.  If anything, CSC adjudicators will do the exact opposite of what Senator Grassley asserted – they routinely deny visa applications in which the applicant is unquestionably qualified, fraudulent or not.  Check out this post on AILA’s Leadership blog, which explains quite nicely why Senator Grassley doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

For all those people out there that use Facebook, beware – one of those random people that occasionally asks to be your friend might actually be USCIS’s Fraud Detection and National Security Unit!  According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, among others, USCIS uses social media as means of investigating applicants for various immigration benefits.  Just to be clear, this would probably only happen if an Adjudications Officer referred a case to the Fraud Detection and National Security Unit, which means something is already fishy with the case.  USCIS considers friending someone an unannounced “cyber site-visit” (per an internal memo recently released after a FOIA request), and if you invite that presence into your virtual life, you have no one to blame but yourself for whatever undesirable facts that visit uncovers.  The lesson in all this: don’t friend strangers if you’re applying for an immigration benefit!  Even if your case is legitimate, USCIS might find something that they don’t like, or that gives them cause for doubt.  Be on the safe side – and just say ”ignore.”

An excellent decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) came out today regarding the Child Status Protection Act, or CSPA.  CSPA requires that applicants that ”aged out” of an immigrant visa petition, but who are otherwise eligible for derivative status under the Act, have “sought to acquire” lawful permanent resident status within one year of a visa number becoming available.  The question in the BIA’s case, In Re Jose Jesus Murillo, was what the phrase “sought to acquire” means - does it require that an application for permanent residence be filed, or do steps short of filing an application still satisfy the law?  The BIA came down on the side of the immigrant in this case, saying that Congress would have said “filed” if it meant filed, but instead chose to say “sought to acquire,” which is necessarily broader than specifically filing an application.  The Respondent in this case found an attorney and prepared an application within one year of his visa becoming available.  According to the court, his actions satisfied the statute, enabling the young Respondent to derive permanent residence through his father’s approved petition.  This case got me thinking more generally: why would the government really want to fight this point?  The purpose of CSPA was to unite families; given that, why would our government feel the need to push the child of now-permanent residents out of the country so unceremoniously?  American immigration law has always reflected some larger policy goals - unite families, protect U.S. workers, kick out criminals, terrorists, and persecutors of others, etc.  Does DHS’s appeal in this case really speak to any of those goals?  The answer has to be a resounding NO.  I for one think that our tax dollars could be used pursuing worthier appeals than this.

I have to say, I’m impressed.  USCIS just launched its new online citizenship resource center, which contains a plethora of information for prospective naturalization applicants.  I especially like the way the site breaks down materials for learners (i.e., naturalization applicants), teachers, and organizations – allowing anyone to easily access the information necessary to figure out this often-times opaque process.  For all my criticism of USCIS, I’ll admit that it does a great job of providing people with information.  Well, certain information – sometimes.

According to an article in the L.A. Times today, the Obama Administration has deported a record number of undocumented immigrants for a second straight fiscal year.  The United States deported 392,862 undocumented immigrants in FY2010, 3,000 more than the now-second highest year, 2009.  I think it’s pretty funny that no one seems impressed or happy with this fact – the left is decrying Obama’s apparent focus on enforcement over immigration reform, and the right thinks that 392,862 is nowhere near enough deportations for one fiscal year.  I guess that when it comes to certain issues, Obama just can’t – and won’t – win.

Thanks to the perpetually news-hungry attorney Gloria Allred, Nicki Diaz is now undoubtedly California’s most famous undocumented immigrant.  Allred held a press conference yesterday to announce that – shock of shocks – Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman knew that her former housekeeper was in the country illegally as far back as 2003, when she is alleged to have received a letter from the Social Security Administration regarding an irregularity in Ms. Diaz’s social security number.  The only reason this is news is because Whitman has taken a tough stance on illegal immigration, which really means nothing, since state governors have no control over immigration law or policy.  Allred wants to paint Whitman as a hypocrite, but in the process is putting the unfortunate Ms. Diaz in the public spotlight in a very big way.  I doubt that ICE is going to pick her up now, but Allred had to have known that that was a possibility.  Is it ethical for her to do something like that if the goal was solely to embarrass Meg Whitman?  Why is she even representing Nicky Diaz?  Is there a lawsuit being filed somewhere?  I could care less about Meg Whitman or her Democratic opponent Jerry Brown, but I do care that a hapless undocumented immigrant is being used by forces way beyond her control that might not have her best interests at heart.  Nicky Diaz – I’d be careful if I were you.