Time: 149:10
Senator Durbin on NSEERS, DHS Oversight Hearing, April 25, 2012http://www.senate.gov/fplayers/jw57/commMP4Player.cfm?fn=judiciary042512&st=1320
NSEERS MEMO
Apr 26, 2012
Profiling, as in NYPD Muslim probe, does not improve security
Published: Friday, April 20, 2012, 8:26 AM Updated: Wednesday, April 25, 2012, 1:45 AM
By Star-Ledger Guest Columnist
Getty ImagesDespite the uproar by politicians, most New Jersey voters believe the NYPD was doing "what is necessary to combat terrorism" when officers documented the activity of Muslim residents in the Garden State, a new poll has found.
By Engy Abdelkader
In 2002, our federal government implemented the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, which required males 17 and older to register with U.S. immigration authorities. The requirement applied only to natives of predominantly Muslim countries.
After reporting to registration, many of the men and boys never returned home. Rather, they were detained and deported, often without any notice to remaining family members in the United States, who were left wondering about their whereabouts.
In response, I organized a human rights monitoring campaign outside of the Immigration and Naturalization Service offices in Manhattan. About 90 Americans volunteered to work three-hour shifts beginning as early as 5 a.m. and ending as late as midnight.
Donning bright yellow shirts with the words "Human Rights Monitor," the volunteers tracked the compliant men who entered and exited the building. In the event someone did not leave, we contacted their family and provided legal and other resources.
One of the things that struck me about the volunteers is that they were, for the most part, not Muslim. In other words, they were not members of the very religious, racial and ethnic groups singled out by NSEERS, which has since been terminated.
As an American and Muslim, that resonated positively with me. And I have carried that experience forward. So I was disappointed to read recently that 70 percent of surveyed New Jerseyans approved of the New York City Police Department’s profiling of the American-Muslim, Arab-American and South Asian communities.
Over six months, the Associated Press has cataloged widespread warrantless surveillance of average, law-abiding American Muslims without any indication of criminal wrongdoing and in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments.
The NYPD has monitored Muslims’ daily life in bookstores, cafes, bars and nightclubs; gathered intelligence on cab drivers and food cart vendors hailing from particular countries and regions; photographed restaurants and grocery stores frequented by Muslims; built databases showing where Muslims shopped, got their hair cut and prayed; and used university records to identify and spy on students.
Studies dating to the 1990s have shown that police officers who engage in profiling were less likely to find contraband in searches of their targets than they were in their searches of whites.
In other words, profiling does not work.
In June 2003, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a policy guidance regarding racial and ethnic profiling by federal law enforcement agencies stating: "Racial profiling in law enforcement is not merely wrong, but also ineffective. The DOJ orders federal agencies not to use race or ethnicity, alone or in conjunction with other factors, as an indicator of suspicion in routine law enforcement activities.
While law enforcement use of religious profiling became more visible after 9/11, the DOJ guidance remains woefully silent on the subject. Indeed, it should be amended to reflect that the effects of religious profiling are equally as pernicious and ineffective as its racial and ethnic twins.
Existing research highlights this best: Terrorists who claim to be inspired by religion are not likely to be found at mosques, nor do they exhibit signs of devout religiosity. Further, a highly respected social scientist’s review of 500 cases found evidence that "a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalization."
Since the DOJ guidance regulates only federal agencies, Congress should finally pass the End Racial Profiling Act, which prohibits law enforcement agencies from engaging in religious, ethnic and racial profiling.
We need to protect our homeland from those who would harm us, but we can only do that by using lawful policies and tactics that work and preserve who we strive to be. I hope New Jerseyans can see that, just as those 90 human rights volunteers did.
Engy Abdelkader is a legal fellow with the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, a think tank based in Washington.
http://blog.nj.com/njv_guest_blog/2012/04/profiling_as_in_nypd_muslim_pr.html
By Star-Ledger Guest Columnist
Getty ImagesDespite the uproar by politicians, most New Jersey voters believe the NYPD was doing "what is necessary to combat terrorism" when officers documented the activity of Muslim residents in the Garden State, a new poll has found.
By Engy Abdelkader
In 2002, our federal government implemented the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, which required males 17 and older to register with U.S. immigration authorities. The requirement applied only to natives of predominantly Muslim countries.
After reporting to registration, many of the men and boys never returned home. Rather, they were detained and deported, often without any notice to remaining family members in the United States, who were left wondering about their whereabouts.
In response, I organized a human rights monitoring campaign outside of the Immigration and Naturalization Service offices in Manhattan. About 90 Americans volunteered to work three-hour shifts beginning as early as 5 a.m. and ending as late as midnight.
Donning bright yellow shirts with the words "Human Rights Monitor," the volunteers tracked the compliant men who entered and exited the building. In the event someone did not leave, we contacted their family and provided legal and other resources.
One of the things that struck me about the volunteers is that they were, for the most part, not Muslim. In other words, they were not members of the very religious, racial and ethnic groups singled out by NSEERS, which has since been terminated.
As an American and Muslim, that resonated positively with me. And I have carried that experience forward. So I was disappointed to read recently that 70 percent of surveyed New Jerseyans approved of the New York City Police Department’s profiling of the American-Muslim, Arab-American and South Asian communities.
Over six months, the Associated Press has cataloged widespread warrantless surveillance of average, law-abiding American Muslims without any indication of criminal wrongdoing and in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments.
The NYPD has monitored Muslims’ daily life in bookstores, cafes, bars and nightclubs; gathered intelligence on cab drivers and food cart vendors hailing from particular countries and regions; photographed restaurants and grocery stores frequented by Muslims; built databases showing where Muslims shopped, got their hair cut and prayed; and used university records to identify and spy on students.
Studies dating to the 1990s have shown that police officers who engage in profiling were less likely to find contraband in searches of their targets than they were in their searches of whites.
In other words, profiling does not work.
In June 2003, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a policy guidance regarding racial and ethnic profiling by federal law enforcement agencies stating: "Racial profiling in law enforcement is not merely wrong, but also ineffective. The DOJ orders federal agencies not to use race or ethnicity, alone or in conjunction with other factors, as an indicator of suspicion in routine law enforcement activities.
While law enforcement use of religious profiling became more visible after 9/11, the DOJ guidance remains woefully silent on the subject. Indeed, it should be amended to reflect that the effects of religious profiling are equally as pernicious and ineffective as its racial and ethnic twins.
Existing research highlights this best: Terrorists who claim to be inspired by religion are not likely to be found at mosques, nor do they exhibit signs of devout religiosity. Further, a highly respected social scientist’s review of 500 cases found evidence that "a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalization."
Since the DOJ guidance regulates only federal agencies, Congress should finally pass the End Racial Profiling Act, which prohibits law enforcement agencies from engaging in religious, ethnic and racial profiling.
We need to protect our homeland from those who would harm us, but we can only do that by using lawful policies and tactics that work and preserve who we strive to be. I hope New Jerseyans can see that, just as those 90 human rights volunteers did.
Engy Abdelkader is a legal fellow with the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, a think tank based in Washington.
http://blog.nj.com/njv_guest_blog/2012/04/profiling_as_in_nypd_muslim_pr.html
Apr 18, 2012
Long Time Coming: Trayvon's Law
For the first time in a decade, Congress holds a hearing on anti-profiling legislation
By Jefferson Morley
Source: http://www.salon.com/2012/04/18/long_time_coming_trayvons_law/singleton/
The name of Trayvon Martin was invoked early and often at a Capitol Hill hearing on federal anti-profiling laws Tuesday as supporters hope the furor over the shooting of Florida teenage will prompt Congress take up a legislation that has languished since 2001.
“The senseless death of this innocent young man should be a wake up call,” said Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, a co-sponsor of legislation which would expand current federal law enforcement guidelines against profiling and mandate training on racial profiling at all federal law enforcement agencies.
“He was profiled, followed, chased, and murdered,” said Federica Wilson, the cowboy hat-wearing congresswoman from Miami where Trayvon lived with his father. “This case has captured international attention and will go down in history as a textbook example of racial profiling.”
More than 225 organizations submitted testimony for the hearing which included testimony by five Congressmen, civil liberties advocates, and two police officials. Five senators attended, including Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina. Most of the speakers favored the legislation, sponsored by Maryland Democrat Ben Cardin, which would also forbid law enforcement officers from using race, ethnicity or religion as a factor in routine policing decisions.
The profiling issue exploded into national consciousness earlier this year with intense media coverage of the story of the boy who came home from a convenience store with a snack for his brother only be shot dead by a volunteer neighborhood security guard. Last week, Florida investigators concluded that George Zimmerman had “profiled” Martin as he passed through a residential neighborhood in Sanford, Florida on February 26, resulting in an altercation in which Zimmerman shot Martin. Zimmerman has been charged with second-degree murder.
The standing room-only crowd in the Dirksen Senate Office Building demonstrated how the social media campaign to demanding “Justice for Trayvon” had revived the profiling issue in Washington. The last time Congress held hearings on anti-profiling legislation was the summer of 2001, when revelations about the profiling practices of the New Jersey and Maryland state troopers had prompted a broad-based sentiment that using race and ethnicity to make traffic stops was fundamentally wrong and unfair. Profiling is “wrong and we will end it in America,” said President George W. Bush in Feb. 2001.
Then came September 11. Profiling gained legitimacy as a national security tool. The Bush administration explicitly used racial profiling to contact non-citizens from Muslim countries under a program the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) set up by Kris Kobach, then an attorney in the Bush Justice Department, now an immigration adviser to Mitt Romney. More than 82,000 people from 25 countries, (24 of them predominantly Muslim) were contacted, fingerprinted and interrogated. More than 12,000 were deported. The Bush Justice Department did issue a ban on racial profiling in 2003 but the DOJ guidelines allowed the use of religion and national origin as a law enforcement criteria.
After the failure of Bush and Congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform in 2007, profling Mexicans and Central Americans became more common. With the federal government unable to control the flow of people into the country, Arizona, Alabama, and Georgia passed laws requiring police to check status of anyone for whom there is a “reasonable suspicion” of being undocumented. “There is no way to enforce the laws ‘show me your papers’ provisions without engaging in stereotypes based on race and ethnicity,” Anthony Romero of the ACLU, told the hearing
Yet as profiling has become entrenched in drug enforcement, counterterrorism, and immigration control, said criminologist David Harris, research shows it is an ineffective law enforcement tool. “In many contexts, in many types of police agencies, the results all fall in the same direction: when racial or ethnic profiling is used, police are less likely, not more likely, to catch bad guys,” Harris said.
Ron Davis, police chief in East Palo Alto, California, said his experience as as a cop on the streets confirmed that finding. Admitting that he himself had engaged in profiling, he called profiling “an ineffective tactic that wastes scares law enforcement resources and it harms our relations with communities whose cooperation we need. ”
Davis said passage of S. 1670 would help police nationwide.
“Without the legislation and updated Department of Justice guidance we will continue business as usual and only respond to this issue when it surfaces through high-profile tragedies such as Oscar Grant case in Oakland California and the Trayvon Martin case in Sanford Florida, ” he said.
But the remarks of Frank Gale, a 23 year veteran of the Denver police force and the vice president of the Fraternal Order of Police, illustrated one of the biggest obstacles facing supporters of a profiling ban: police unions.
Calling the bill “highly offensive,” Gale voiced the FOP’s “strong opposition” to S. 1670. The measure, he said, “provides a ‘solution’ to a problem that doe not exist, unless one believes that the problem to be solved is that our nation’s law enforcement officers are racist.”
“We can and must restore the bonds of trust between law enforcement and minorities,” Gale said but argued a profiling ban would only generate more mistrust “because it is written with the presumption that racist tactics are common tool of our nation’s police departments.”
The clashing views of Davis and Gale, two veteran African-American cops, “reflects the complexity of the issue,” Davis told me. For Davis, the profiling ban is simply the implementation of best practices while for Gale it is the institutionalization of second-guessing officers on the street who have to make difficult and dangerous decisions. “We don’t have to be afraid of being held accountable,” Davis said.
Yet the Obama administration seems reluctant to act. Two years ago Attorney General Eric Holder told profiling critics he would review the 2003 DOJ guidelines, and reconsider the use of religion and national origin in national security and immigration enforcement. Holder has yet to act.
Republican support for legislation supported by Muslim-Americans and opposed by police unions seems unlikely, especially in an election year. Lindsey Graham, the only Republican in attendance, voiced general support for the bill while expressing the belief that profiling Muslims might still be necessary in national security investigations. He said he hoped for “something more bipartisan.” (Cardin’s bill currently has 12 co-sponsors, all Democrats. A companion House bill has 52 co-sponsors, all Democrats.)
A true end to profiling will require cultural, as well as political, change. The resonance of the Trayvon Martin story is a sign of cultural change that enhances the legislation’s prospects. But these things can take a long time in Washington. The murders of Matthew Shepard, a gay teenager in Wyoming, and James Byrd, a black man in Texas, in 1998 galvanized a movement to establish a federal hate crime law. But the Sheppard-Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act wasn’t enacted until President Obama signed it in 2009.
The time may come for Trayvon’s Law but it probably won’t be this year.
Jefferson Morley is a staff writer for Salon in Washington and author of the forthcoming book, Snow-Storm in August: Washington City, Francis Scott Key, and the Forgotten Race Riot of 1835 (Nan Talese/Doubleday).More Jefferson Morley
Webcast: “Ending Racial Profiling in America” Senate Judiciary CommitteeSubcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=cbe9d491fb674660dfb1774bdef05358
By Jefferson Morley
Source: http://www.salon.com/2012/04/18/long_time_coming_trayvons_law/singleton/
The name of Trayvon Martin was invoked early and often at a Capitol Hill hearing on federal anti-profiling laws Tuesday as supporters hope the furor over the shooting of Florida teenage will prompt Congress take up a legislation that has languished since 2001.
“The senseless death of this innocent young man should be a wake up call,” said Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, a co-sponsor of legislation which would expand current federal law enforcement guidelines against profiling and mandate training on racial profiling at all federal law enforcement agencies.
“He was profiled, followed, chased, and murdered,” said Federica Wilson, the cowboy hat-wearing congresswoman from Miami where Trayvon lived with his father. “This case has captured international attention and will go down in history as a textbook example of racial profiling.”
More than 225 organizations submitted testimony for the hearing which included testimony by five Congressmen, civil liberties advocates, and two police officials. Five senators attended, including Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina. Most of the speakers favored the legislation, sponsored by Maryland Democrat Ben Cardin, which would also forbid law enforcement officers from using race, ethnicity or religion as a factor in routine policing decisions.
The profiling issue exploded into national consciousness earlier this year with intense media coverage of the story of the boy who came home from a convenience store with a snack for his brother only be shot dead by a volunteer neighborhood security guard. Last week, Florida investigators concluded that George Zimmerman had “profiled” Martin as he passed through a residential neighborhood in Sanford, Florida on February 26, resulting in an altercation in which Zimmerman shot Martin. Zimmerman has been charged with second-degree murder.
The standing room-only crowd in the Dirksen Senate Office Building demonstrated how the social media campaign to demanding “Justice for Trayvon” had revived the profiling issue in Washington. The last time Congress held hearings on anti-profiling legislation was the summer of 2001, when revelations about the profiling practices of the New Jersey and Maryland state troopers had prompted a broad-based sentiment that using race and ethnicity to make traffic stops was fundamentally wrong and unfair. Profiling is “wrong and we will end it in America,” said President George W. Bush in Feb. 2001.
Then came September 11. Profiling gained legitimacy as a national security tool. The Bush administration explicitly used racial profiling to contact non-citizens from Muslim countries under a program the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) set up by Kris Kobach, then an attorney in the Bush Justice Department, now an immigration adviser to Mitt Romney. More than 82,000 people from 25 countries, (24 of them predominantly Muslim) were contacted, fingerprinted and interrogated. More than 12,000 were deported. The Bush Justice Department did issue a ban on racial profiling in 2003 but the DOJ guidelines allowed the use of religion and national origin as a law enforcement criteria.
After the failure of Bush and Congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform in 2007, profling Mexicans and Central Americans became more common. With the federal government unable to control the flow of people into the country, Arizona, Alabama, and Georgia passed laws requiring police to check status of anyone for whom there is a “reasonable suspicion” of being undocumented. “There is no way to enforce the laws ‘show me your papers’ provisions without engaging in stereotypes based on race and ethnicity,” Anthony Romero of the ACLU, told the hearing
Yet as profiling has become entrenched in drug enforcement, counterterrorism, and immigration control, said criminologist David Harris, research shows it is an ineffective law enforcement tool. “In many contexts, in many types of police agencies, the results all fall in the same direction: when racial or ethnic profiling is used, police are less likely, not more likely, to catch bad guys,” Harris said.
Ron Davis, police chief in East Palo Alto, California, said his experience as as a cop on the streets confirmed that finding. Admitting that he himself had engaged in profiling, he called profiling “an ineffective tactic that wastes scares law enforcement resources and it harms our relations with communities whose cooperation we need. ”
Davis said passage of S. 1670 would help police nationwide.
“Without the legislation and updated Department of Justice guidance we will continue business as usual and only respond to this issue when it surfaces through high-profile tragedies such as Oscar Grant case in Oakland California and the Trayvon Martin case in Sanford Florida, ” he said.
But the remarks of Frank Gale, a 23 year veteran of the Denver police force and the vice president of the Fraternal Order of Police, illustrated one of the biggest obstacles facing supporters of a profiling ban: police unions.
Calling the bill “highly offensive,” Gale voiced the FOP’s “strong opposition” to S. 1670. The measure, he said, “provides a ‘solution’ to a problem that doe not exist, unless one believes that the problem to be solved is that our nation’s law enforcement officers are racist.”
“We can and must restore the bonds of trust between law enforcement and minorities,” Gale said but argued a profiling ban would only generate more mistrust “because it is written with the presumption that racist tactics are common tool of our nation’s police departments.”
The clashing views of Davis and Gale, two veteran African-American cops, “reflects the complexity of the issue,” Davis told me. For Davis, the profiling ban is simply the implementation of best practices while for Gale it is the institutionalization of second-guessing officers on the street who have to make difficult and dangerous decisions. “We don’t have to be afraid of being held accountable,” Davis said.
Yet the Obama administration seems reluctant to act. Two years ago Attorney General Eric Holder told profiling critics he would review the 2003 DOJ guidelines, and reconsider the use of religion and national origin in national security and immigration enforcement. Holder has yet to act.
Republican support for legislation supported by Muslim-Americans and opposed by police unions seems unlikely, especially in an election year. Lindsey Graham, the only Republican in attendance, voiced general support for the bill while expressing the belief that profiling Muslims might still be necessary in national security investigations. He said he hoped for “something more bipartisan.” (Cardin’s bill currently has 12 co-sponsors, all Democrats. A companion House bill has 52 co-sponsors, all Democrats.)
A true end to profiling will require cultural, as well as political, change. The resonance of the Trayvon Martin story is a sign of cultural change that enhances the legislation’s prospects. But these things can take a long time in Washington. The murders of Matthew Shepard, a gay teenager in Wyoming, and James Byrd, a black man in Texas, in 1998 galvanized a movement to establish a federal hate crime law. But the Sheppard-Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act wasn’t enacted until President Obama signed it in 2009.
The time may come for Trayvon’s Law but it probably won’t be this year.
Jefferson Morley is a staff writer for Salon in Washington and author of the forthcoming book, Snow-Storm in August: Washington City, Francis Scott Key, and the Forgotten Race Riot of 1835 (Nan Talese/Doubleday).More Jefferson Morley
Webcast: “Ending Racial Profiling in America” Senate Judiciary CommitteeSubcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=cbe9d491fb674660dfb1774bdef05358
Mar 22, 2012
CNN: New Jersey church 'safe haven' for Indonesian immigrant
By Mary Snow
March 20, 2012
http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/20/new-jersey-church-safe-haven-for-indonesian-immigrant/A bed, space heater and a place to put his clothes are all Saul Timisela have in a room he calls home. But his new refuge inside New Jersey’s Reformed Church of Highland Park is the only thing that stands between him and deportation.
"I feel safe," says Timisela, who moved into a Sunday school classroom on March 1, when he defied an order to return to his native Indonesia. His wife has since joined him. "All the members are so welcoming,” adds Timisela, who says he’s prepared to stay in the church until his case is solved.
When and if that happens is a question mark. In the eyes of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Timisela is an "immigration fugitive" who was "ordered removed" from the U.S. in 2006 but failed to leave. He says he was unaware of that 2006 order. He’s now inside a church, and it’s unlikely that immigration officials would raid it."As a matter of policy," ICE spokesman Harold Ort says, ICE "does not conduct enforcement actions at sensitive locations, including places of worship, without prior approval from ICE headquarters or unless the action involves a national security matter, imminent risk of violence or physical harm, pursuit of a dangerous felon or the imminent destruction of evidence in an ongoing criminal case."
As Timisela waits it out, he relies on Pastor Seth Kaper-Dale, who opened the church as a sanctuary. Kaper-Dale has personally taken up Timisela’s cause along with roughly 80 other Indonesians in his community facing deportation. He sees his church on the front lines of the battle over immigration reform."We have seen, in recent years, states taking immigration matters into their own hands due to the federal failures to make sense of immigration policy," Kaper-Dale says. "I think our church actions are like those state actions."Kaper-Dale questions the Obama administration’s immigration policy in light of a memo issued last June directing the use of "prosecutorial discretion." It seeks to prioritize immigration enforcement, "to target criminal aliens and those who put public safely at risk, as well as those who threaten border security or the integrity of the immigration system," according to a statement from ICE’s office in Newark, New Jersey.Kaper-Dale says his community doesn’t fit that bill.Many Indonesians in his community, including Timisela, came to the U.S. on a tourist visa in the late 1990s. They left the predominantly Muslim country because, at that time, Christians were being persecuted. After arriving in the U.S., they had a year to apply for asylum, but many say they weren’t aware of that. Their visas expired, and they lived here illegally.And they came forward after the September 11 terrorist attacks because of a program called the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, or NSEERS, which was discontinued last year.Under it, foreign visitors, mostly from predominantly Muslim countries, were told to register with the government. Because Indonesia was on the list, the men came forward. Some, like Timisela, believed they were on a path to legalization.That didn't happen. Instead, they put themselves on the radar of immigration enforcement.
Kaper-Dale says he got involved after raids were carried out and deportation orders followed. Eventually, he and ICE worked out an agreement to allow undocumented Indonesians with no criminal record to live and work in the U.S. if they checked in regularly."To say now that they are a deportation priority, " Kaper-Dale says, "is for ICE to betray the Indonesian community and their American citizen advocates.”But that's not the way ICE sees it. Immigration officials say it was made clear that the agreement wasn't an "amnesty-type program" and that it was done to give people a final chance to reopen their immigration cases. They say ICE has extended stays and continues to do that in some cases, with factors like strong family and community ties taken into consideration.
Kaper-Dale says he's thankful that nearly half of the roughly 80 people facing deportation have been given stays of "somewhere between five and 12 months." But he says he’s not satisfied, adding that "there is nobody in our group who should be a deport priority for the U.S. government."But immigration officials say they consider immigration fugitives an enforcement priority. And they put Saul Timisela in that category.On a recent night at the church where he now lives, Timisela met with Kaper-Dale and about a dozen other Indonesians. More than half of them had electronic ankle monitors strapped to their left leg.Kaper-Dale reviewed their status and went over checklists, one of which had a reminder to write to lawmakers. Kaper-Dale has been fighting to get a law passed in Congress that would give the Indonesians a second chance to apply for citizenship if certain requirements are met. But there's little appetite on Capitol Hill to take it on. Since that meeting, Kaper-Dale says, one of the men has been deported.With deadlines approaching for other members of his community to leave the country, Kaper-Dale says "we will keep sanctuary as a real possibility" if warranted.In the meantime, Timisela holds on to his faith. "I just keep praying," he says. "I just keep praying."
By Mary Snow
March 20, 2012
http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/20/new-jersey-church-safe-haven-for-indonesian-immigrant/A bed, space heater and a place to put his clothes are all Saul Timisela have in a room he calls home. But his new refuge inside New Jersey’s Reformed Church of Highland Park is the only thing that stands between him and deportation.
"I feel safe," says Timisela, who moved into a Sunday school classroom on March 1, when he defied an order to return to his native Indonesia. His wife has since joined him. "All the members are so welcoming,” adds Timisela, who says he’s prepared to stay in the church until his case is solved.
When and if that happens is a question mark. In the eyes of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Timisela is an "immigration fugitive" who was "ordered removed" from the U.S. in 2006 but failed to leave. He says he was unaware of that 2006 order. He’s now inside a church, and it’s unlikely that immigration officials would raid it."As a matter of policy," ICE spokesman Harold Ort says, ICE "does not conduct enforcement actions at sensitive locations, including places of worship, without prior approval from ICE headquarters or unless the action involves a national security matter, imminent risk of violence or physical harm, pursuit of a dangerous felon or the imminent destruction of evidence in an ongoing criminal case."
As Timisela waits it out, he relies on Pastor Seth Kaper-Dale, who opened the church as a sanctuary. Kaper-Dale has personally taken up Timisela’s cause along with roughly 80 other Indonesians in his community facing deportation. He sees his church on the front lines of the battle over immigration reform."We have seen, in recent years, states taking immigration matters into their own hands due to the federal failures to make sense of immigration policy," Kaper-Dale says. "I think our church actions are like those state actions."Kaper-Dale questions the Obama administration’s immigration policy in light of a memo issued last June directing the use of "prosecutorial discretion." It seeks to prioritize immigration enforcement, "to target criminal aliens and those who put public safely at risk, as well as those who threaten border security or the integrity of the immigration system," according to a statement from ICE’s office in Newark, New Jersey.Kaper-Dale says his community doesn’t fit that bill.Many Indonesians in his community, including Timisela, came to the U.S. on a tourist visa in the late 1990s. They left the predominantly Muslim country because, at that time, Christians were being persecuted. After arriving in the U.S., they had a year to apply for asylum, but many say they weren’t aware of that. Their visas expired, and they lived here illegally.And they came forward after the September 11 terrorist attacks because of a program called the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, or NSEERS, which was discontinued last year.Under it, foreign visitors, mostly from predominantly Muslim countries, were told to register with the government. Because Indonesia was on the list, the men came forward. Some, like Timisela, believed they were on a path to legalization.That didn't happen. Instead, they put themselves on the radar of immigration enforcement.
Kaper-Dale says he got involved after raids were carried out and deportation orders followed. Eventually, he and ICE worked out an agreement to allow undocumented Indonesians with no criminal record to live and work in the U.S. if they checked in regularly."To say now that they are a deportation priority, " Kaper-Dale says, "is for ICE to betray the Indonesian community and their American citizen advocates.”But that's not the way ICE sees it. Immigration officials say it was made clear that the agreement wasn't an "amnesty-type program" and that it was done to give people a final chance to reopen their immigration cases. They say ICE has extended stays and continues to do that in some cases, with factors like strong family and community ties taken into consideration.
Kaper-Dale says he's thankful that nearly half of the roughly 80 people facing deportation have been given stays of "somewhere between five and 12 months." But he says he’s not satisfied, adding that "there is nobody in our group who should be a deport priority for the U.S. government."But immigration officials say they consider immigration fugitives an enforcement priority. And they put Saul Timisela in that category.On a recent night at the church where he now lives, Timisela met with Kaper-Dale and about a dozen other Indonesians. More than half of them had electronic ankle monitors strapped to their left leg.Kaper-Dale reviewed their status and went over checklists, one of which had a reminder to write to lawmakers. Kaper-Dale has been fighting to get a law passed in Congress that would give the Indonesians a second chance to apply for citizenship if certain requirements are met. But there's little appetite on Capitol Hill to take it on. Since that meeting, Kaper-Dale says, one of the men has been deported.With deadlines approaching for other members of his community to leave the country, Kaper-Dale says "we will keep sanctuary as a real possibility" if warranted.In the meantime, Timisela holds on to his faith. "I just keep praying," he says. "I just keep praying."
Mar 20, 2012
We Applaud the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) recommendation to fully terminate controversial National Security Entry Exit Registration System (NSEERS)
By Aadika Singh and Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia
The NSEERS program, which begun as a response to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, required certain non-immigrants to register at ports of entry and local immigration offices. Registrants were fingerprinted, photographed, and often subjected to lengthy questioning. The most controversial component of NSEERS which required males from mainly Muslim-majority countries to register, was a clear example of racial profiling, and was found both by the 9/11 Commission and DHS itself, to be ineffective and inconvenient.
In its report entitled “Information Sharing on Foreign Nationals: Border Security,”, the OIG determined that the NSEERS database is unreliable, that the program remains excessively onerous for registrants who continue to be subjected to lengthy questioning and multiple data checks, and that it makes for an inefficient use of government resources and detracts DHS agents from conducting more targeted homeland security efforts. DHS has estimated that the program, at its height, cost American taxpayers more than $10 million annually.
Until April 2011, the NSEERS program required non-immigrants from predominantly Arab and Muslim countries to register under the NSEERS program each time they arrived in or departed from the United States, or had to obtain a waiver of these requirements. In April 2011, DHS took an important step by publishing a Notice in the Federal Register delisting the countries whose nationals were required to register under the NSEERS program. Unfortunately, the April Notice did not address the many individuals and families who continue to be impacted by the NSEERS program because they did not register when the Federal Register told them to do so, or because an immigration violation was discovered following their compliance with the NSEERS program. Ten years later, the reach of NSEERS touches men who are married to United States citizen spouses or the fathers of United States citizen children among others.
The OIG has notably concluded that there is “no longer a value in the NSEERS program” and noted concerns that the program remains in existence, providing “The NSEERS program for special registration of certain categories of aliens from predominantly Arab and Muslim countries, and the database that supports this program, is obsolete and should be terminated. … Leaving the regulatory structure of the NSEERS program in place provides no discernable public benefit. Deficiencies we identified in the NSEERS program were not related to the composition of the list of subject nationalities, but rather to the insufficient value of the NSEERS data.”
DHS sent an important message to communities and stakeholders in April 2011 when it conceded that NSEERS was an ill-conceived program and removed the countries whose nationals and citizens were stung by the program. However, since the inception of NSEERS, our position has been that the program should remove the penalties for individuals affected by the NSEERS program in the absence of egregious adverse factors, and remove the regulatory framework in its entirety.
For additional resources, please see:
Race Matters Blog on NSEERS
NSEERS: The Consequences of America’s Efforts to Secure Its Borders, American Anti-Discrimination Committee and Pennsylvania State University Dickinson School of Law Center for Immigrants’ Rights, March 31, 2009.
Center for Immigrants’ Rights
Rights Working Group
By Aadika Singh and Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia
The NSEERS program, which begun as a response to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, required certain non-immigrants to register at ports of entry and local immigration offices. Registrants were fingerprinted, photographed, and often subjected to lengthy questioning. The most controversial component of NSEERS which required males from mainly Muslim-majority countries to register, was a clear example of racial profiling, and was found both by the 9/11 Commission and DHS itself, to be ineffective and inconvenient.
In its report entitled “Information Sharing on Foreign Nationals: Border Security,”, the OIG determined that the NSEERS database is unreliable, that the program remains excessively onerous for registrants who continue to be subjected to lengthy questioning and multiple data checks, and that it makes for an inefficient use of government resources and detracts DHS agents from conducting more targeted homeland security efforts. DHS has estimated that the program, at its height, cost American taxpayers more than $10 million annually.
Until April 2011, the NSEERS program required non-immigrants from predominantly Arab and Muslim countries to register under the NSEERS program each time they arrived in or departed from the United States, or had to obtain a waiver of these requirements. In April 2011, DHS took an important step by publishing a Notice in the Federal Register delisting the countries whose nationals were required to register under the NSEERS program. Unfortunately, the April Notice did not address the many individuals and families who continue to be impacted by the NSEERS program because they did not register when the Federal Register told them to do so, or because an immigration violation was discovered following their compliance with the NSEERS program. Ten years later, the reach of NSEERS touches men who are married to United States citizen spouses or the fathers of United States citizen children among others.
The OIG has notably concluded that there is “no longer a value in the NSEERS program” and noted concerns that the program remains in existence, providing “The NSEERS program for special registration of certain categories of aliens from predominantly Arab and Muslim countries, and the database that supports this program, is obsolete and should be terminated. … Leaving the regulatory structure of the NSEERS program in place provides no discernable public benefit. Deficiencies we identified in the NSEERS program were not related to the composition of the list of subject nationalities, but rather to the insufficient value of the NSEERS data.”
DHS sent an important message to communities and stakeholders in April 2011 when it conceded that NSEERS was an ill-conceived program and removed the countries whose nationals and citizens were stung by the program. However, since the inception of NSEERS, our position has been that the program should remove the penalties for individuals affected by the NSEERS program in the absence of egregious adverse factors, and remove the regulatory framework in its entirety.
For additional resources, please see:
Race Matters Blog on NSEERS
NSEERS: The Consequences of America’s Efforts to Secure Its Borders, American Anti-Discrimination Committee and Pennsylvania State University Dickinson School of Law Center for Immigrants’ Rights, March 31, 2009.
Center for Immigrants’ Rights
Rights Working Group
Mar 16, 2012
November 7, 2011 PM-602-0050
Policy Memorandum
SUBJECT: Revised Guidance for the Referral of Cases and Issuance of Notices to Appear (NTAs) in Cases Involving Inadmissible and Removable Aliens
Purpose
This Policy Memorandum (PM) establishes new USCIS guidelines for referring cases and issuing Notices to Appear (NTAs) in a manner that promotes the sound use of the resources of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice to enhance national security, public safety, and the integrity of the immigration system. This PM supersedes Policy Memorandum No. 110, Disposition of Cases Involving Removable Aliens, dated July 11, 2006.
Scope
This PM applies to and is binding on all USCIS employees unless otherwise specifically provided in this PM.
Authority
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sections 101(a)(43), 103(a), 239, 240 and 318; Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations (8 CFR) parts/sections 2.1, 103, 204, 207.9, 208, 216.3(a), 216.6(a)(5), 236.14(c), and 239; Adjudicator’s Field Manual Chapter 10.11(a).
Background
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has authority, under the immigration laws, see, e.g., INA §§ 103(a), 239; 8 CFR §§ 2.1, 239.1, to issue Form I-862, Notice to Appear, to initiate removal proceedings.1 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) also have authority to issue NTAs. Accordingly, USCIS must ensure that its issuance of NTAs fits within and supports the Government’s overall removal priorities, while also ensuring that its NTA policies promote national security and the integrity of the nation’s immigration system. To those ends, this PM identifies the circumstances under which USCIS will issue an NTA, or will refer the case to ICE for NTA issuance, in order to effectively handle cases that involve public safety threats, criminals, and aliens engaged in fraud.
1 Delegation by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, Delegation Number 0150.1; Paragraph 2(N). However, international District Directors and officers are not authorized to issue NTAs.
AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11110830. (Posted 11/8/11)
Page 2
Policy
I. National Security Cases
This PM does not affect the handling of cases involving national security concerns.2 Guidance from the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS)3 will continue to govern the definition of these cases and the procedures for resolution and NTA issuance.
II. NTA Issuance Required by Statute or Regulation
USCIS will issue an NTA in the following circumstances:4
A.
Termination of Conditional Permanent Resident Status and Denials of Form I-751, Petition to Remove the Conditions of Residence (8 CFR 216.3, 216.4, 216.5)5
B.
Denials of Form I-829, Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions (8 CFR 216.6)
C.
Termination of refugee status by the District Director (8 CFR 207.9)
D.
Denials of NACARA 202 and HRIFA adjustments
1.
NACARA 202 adjustment denials (8 CFR 245.13(m));
2.
HRIFA adjustment denials (8 CFR 245.15(r)(2)(i)).
E.
Asylum6, NACARA 203, and Credible Fear cases:7
1.
Asylum referrals (8 CFR 208.14(c)(1));
2.
Termination of asylum or termination of withholding of removal or deportation (8 CFR 208.24(e));8
3.
Positive credible fear findings (8 CFR 208.30(f));
4.
NACARA 203 cases where suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal is not granted, and the applicant does not have asylum status, or lawful immigrant or non-immigrant status (8 CFR 240.70(d)).
This PM does not apply to, or change, NTA or notification procedures for Temporary Protected Status cases.9 Further, Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant, processed under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), should continue to
2 National Security Cases include cases involving Terrorist Related Grounds of Inadmissibility (TRIG) pursuant to sections 212(a)(3)(B) and 212(a)(3)(F) of the INA.
3 See, e.g., Policy for Vetting and Adjudicating Cases with National Security Concerns (April 11, 2008).
4 If any Form I-751 or I-829 cases are also Egregious Public Safety cases, they will be referred to ICE in accordance with Section IV.A.1 of this PM.
5 See the October 9, 2009 internal memo, Adjudication of Form I-751, Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence Where the CPR Has a Final Order of Removal, Is in Removal Proceedings, or Has Filed an Unexcused Untimely Petition or Multiple Petitions. See also the April 3, 2009 memo, I-751 Filed Prior to Termination of Marriage.
6 USCIS may issue an NTA when an asylum applicant withdraws his or her asylum application.
7 This memo does not apply to the Asylum Division’s issuance of Form I-863, Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge, to certain stowaways, crewmembers, and VWP individuals who are requesting asylum or withholding of removal; reasonable fear screenings and negative credible fear screenings.
8 See also section 208(c)(3) of the INA describing removal when asylum is terminated.
9 See the September 12, 2003 internal memo, Service Center Issuance of Notice to Appear (Form I-862).
AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11110830. (Posted 11/8/11)
Page 3
be processed under existing protocols. If the VAWA applicant’s Form I-485 is denied, this memorandum is applicable in terms of NTA issuance.10
III. Fraud Cases with a Statement of Findings Substantiating Fraud
To protect the integrity of the immigration system and address fraud, USCIS will issue NTAs when a Statement of Findings (SOF) substantiating fraud is part of the record.11 An NTA will be issued upon final adjudicative action on the petition and/or application or other appropriate eligibility determination.12 NTAs will be issued even if the petition and/or application is denied for a ground other than fraud, such as lack of prosecution or abandonment, is terminated based on a withdrawal by the petitioner/applicant, or where an approval is revoked, so long as an SOF substantiating fraud is in the record.
The NTA should include the charge of fraud or misrepresentation, if possible. The appropriate charge(s) will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Consultation with local USCIS counsel to determine the appropriate charge(s) is recommended.
IV. Cases to be Referred to ICE for a Decision on NTA Issuance
A.
Criminal Cases: Criminal aliens are a top immigration enforcement priority for the government. The following guidance recognizes the prioritization and requires USCIS to refer criminals to ICE for action or issue an NTA in accordance with this PM.
1.
Egregious Public Safety (EPS) Cases
USCIS will refer all EPS cases, including cases with pending N-400s, to ICE prior to adjudicating the case even if USCIS can deny the petition and/or application on its merits. An EPS case is defined by USCIS and ICE as a case where information indicates the alien is under investigation for, has been arrested for (without disposition), or has been convicted of, any of the following:
a. Murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor as defined in section 101(a)(43)(A) of the INA.
b. Illicit trafficking in firearms or destructive devices as defined in section 101(a)(43)(C) of the INA.
c. Offenses relating to explosive materials or firearms as defined in section 101(a)(43)(E) of the INA.
10 When making determinations, employees must keep in mind USCIS’s obligations under 8 USC § 1367, which prohibits the release of any information, outside of DHS, relating to aliens who are seeking or have been approved for immigration benefit(s) under the provisions for battered spouses, children, and parents in the Violence Against Women Act.
11 Alternatively, ICE will determine whether to issue the NTA if a criminal investigation is conducted, fraud is found, and the investigation results in criminal prosecution.
12 This includes, but is not limited to, aliens that were granted asylum status by USCIS, adjusted to Lawful Permanent Resident status, presented fraud indicators, were subject to the Post Adjustment Eligibility Review (PAER) process in an Asylum Office, and met the PAER criteria for NTA issuance.
AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11110830. (Posted 11/8/11)
Page 4
d. Crimes of violence for which the term of imprisonment imposed, or where the penalty for a pending case, is at least one year as defined in section 101(a)(43)(F) of the INA.
e. An offense relating to the demand for, or receipt of, ransom as defined in section 101(a)(43)(H) of the INA.
f. An offense relating to child pornography as defined in section 101(a)(43)(I) of the INA.
g. An offense relating to peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, and trafficking in persons as defined in section 101(a)(43)(K)(iii) of the INA.
h. An offense relating to alien smuggling as described in section 101(a)(43)(N) of the INA
i. Human Rights Violators, known or suspected street gang members, or Interpol hits.
j. Re-entry after an order of exclusion, deportation or removal subsequent to conviction for a felony where a Form I-212, Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the U.S. after Deportation or Removal, has not been approved.
All EPS cases must be referred to ICE using the procedures outlined below. The case will be referred as soon as it is identified. ICE will have an opportunity to decide if, when, and how to issue an NTA and/or detain the alien. USCIS will not issue an NTA in these cases if ICE declines to issue an NTA. If some other basis unrelated to the EPS concern becomes apparent during the course of adjudication, an NTA may be issued in accordance with this memo.
Referral Process
This referral process is utilized in order to give ICE the opportunity to determine the appropriate course of action before USCIS adjudicates the case. A decision to issue an NTA may directly affect the processing of the pending petition and/or application. Upon issuing the Referral to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (RTI), USCIS will suspend adjudication for 60 days, or until ICE provides notification of its action on the case, whichever is earlier.
In response to the RTI –
1.
ICE may issue an NTA. ICE’s issuance of an NTA allows USCIS to proceed with adjudication (unless jurisdiction transfers to EOIR or the pending application is an N-400), taking into account the basis for the NTA.
2.
If ICE does not issue an NTA or otherwise provide notification of its action on the case within 60 days of the RTI, USCIS may resume its adjudication of the case, taking into account the referral grounds.
AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11110830. (Posted 11/8/11)
Page 5
a.
If the case is approvable, USCIS will consult with ICE prior to adjudication.
b.
Once adjudicated, regardless of the decision, USCIS will notify ICE of the result by sending a copy of the original RTI to ICE with a cover memorandum advising of the outcome of the case.
EPS cases referred to ICE prior to adjudication should be called up and reviewed no later than 60 days after referral. Normally, the case should be adjudicated by USCIS. However, USCIS retains discretion to place the case on hold for more than 60 days if ICE requests additional time to conduct an investigation.13
Office-Specific Processes
1.
Cases to be adjudicated by Service Centers and the National Benefits Center. Adjudication will be suspended and the case will immediately be sent to the appropriate Service Center Background Check Unit (BCU). The BCU will refer the case to the ICE Benefit Fraud Unit (BFU) via an RTI. A hard copy of the RTI will be placed in the A-file and/or receipt file. The BCU will retain the file unless ICE requests it or the 60 days expire.
2.
Cases to be adjudicated by Field Offices. The Immigration Services Officer (ISO) will suspend adjudication and the case will immediately be referred to the local ICE Special Agent in Charge (SAC) via an RTI. A hard copy of the RTI will be placed in the A-file and/or receipt file. A copy of the RTI must also be sent to the ICE BFU. USCIS will retain the file unless ICE requests the file for their review.
An RTI should include any relevant attachments that USCIS has at the time, such as a copy of the RAP sheet and a copy of the petition and/or application.
2.
Non-Egregious Public Safety Criminal Cases
If it appears that the alien is inadmissible or removable for a criminal offense not included on the EPS list, USCIS will complete the adjudication and then refer the case to ICE. This section applies to N-400 cases if the N-400 has been denied on good moral character (GMC) grounds based on the criminal offense.14 ICE will decide if, and how, it will institute removal proceedings and whether or not it will detain the alien. USCIS will not issue an NTA if ICE declines to issue an NTA.
13 Pursuant to 8 CFR 274a.13(d), USCIS must complete processing of an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) within 90 days or issue an interim EAD card valid up to 240 days. Officers should be mindful of this regulatory timeframe when cases with a pending Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, are referred to ICE.
14 See Section V of this memo addressing N-400 cases.
AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11110830. (Posted 11/8/11)
Page 6
If some other basis unrelated to the criminal offense becomes apparent upon return of the case to USCIS, an NTA may be issued in accordance with this memo.
Referral Process
The referral process is used to allow ICE to make a determination whether to issue an NTA, based on the totality of circumstances and its priorities. ICE will determine the appropriate grounds for removal if an NTA is issued.
Once adjudication is complete, USCIS will send an RTI to ICE. USCIS will concurrently transmit a copy of the RTI to ICE Headquarters (HQ) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) Criminal Alien Division for statistical monitoring purposes. If there is any confusion or uncertainty about classifying a case as egregious versus non-egregious, the USCIS ISO should refer the matter as an EPS case using the process described above.
The accompanying A-file will be referred to ICE with the RTI, if the file is in the possession of the referring USCIS office or center. If the file is not at the referring USCIS office or center, the RTI should include any relevant attachments that USCIS has, such as a copy of the RAP sheet and a copy of the petition and/or application. Where USCIS obtained certified conviction records through normal processing of the case, USCIS will include the records with the RTI, but it will not hold the RTI on a completed case solely to obtain disposition records. Instead ICE will decide whether, and how, it will obtain such records as part of its decision to issue an NTA.
Office-Specific Processes
1. Cases adjudicated by Service Centers and the National Benefits Center. Once adjudication is completed, if the alien is removable on a criminal charge, regardless of the reason for the denial, the file will be referred to the BCU. The BCU will refer the case, along with the A-file and/or receipt file, to the appropriate ERO Field Office Director (FOD) via an RTI.
2. Cases adjudicated by Field Offices. Once adjudication is completed, if the alien is removable on a criminal charge, regardless of the reason for the denial, USCIS will prepare an RTI and refer the case, along with the A-file and/or receipt file, to the local ERO FOD.
B.
National Security Entry Exit Registration System (NSEERS) Violator Cases
USCIS will refer all cases in which an application is denied based on an NSEERS violation to ICE for possible NTA issuance.
AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11110830. (Posted 11/8/11)
Page 7
V. Cases Involving Form N-400, Application for Naturalization
The following guidance applies to the issuance of NTAs in cases in which applicants for naturalization are removable. There are two primary situations in which NTAs may be issued in connection with a filed Form N-400. If the N-400 case involves fraud (documented in the SOF) the procedures found in this section must be followed, rather than the procedures found in Section III (Fraud Cases with a Statement of Findings Substantiating Fraud). However, the below guidance does not apply to EPS cases. EPS cases must be referred in accordance with Section IV.A.1 (Egregious Public Safety Cases) of this memo. Additionally, the below guidance does not apply to non-EPS criminal cases when the N-400 can be denied on GMC grounds based on the criminal act. These cases must be denied and referred in accordance with Section IV.A.2 (Non-Egregious Public Safety Criminal Cases).
A.
The first situation occurs when the applicant may be eligible to naturalize but is also deportable under section 237 of the INA. Examples include applicants convicted of aggravated felonies prior to November 29, 1990, or applicants convicted of deportable offenses after obtaining Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) status that do not fall within the GMC period. The ISO should:
1.
Make a written recommendation on the issuance of an NTA through a review of the totality of the circumstances to include factors such as: severity of crime, time since crime committed, other criminal conduct, reformation, immigration history including method of entry, length of presence in the U.S., and prior immigration violations, and contributions to society to include the pursuit of education and military service.15
2.
Once the ISO has made a recommendation on whether or not to issue an NTA, the case should be forwarded to the N-400 NTA Review Panel (Review Panel), along with the written recommendation. A Review Panel must be formed in each Field Office and include a local Supervisory Immigration Services Officer (SISO), a local USCIS Office of Chief Counsel attorney, and a district representative. An attorney from ICE’s local Office of Chief Counsel will be invited to participate and will have an advisory role on the panel. The Review Panel will make the final determination on NTA issuance. If consensus cannot be reached by the Review Panel, the case will be elevated to the District Director, through the district representative, for a final decision.
3.
If the Review Panel decides to issue an NTA, place the N-400 on hold until removal proceedings have concluded. Once proceedings have concluded, or if the Review Panel declines to issue an NTA, adjudicate the case appropriately.
15 Additional factors to be taken under consideration can be found in the June 17, 2011 ICE memo, Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Consistent with the Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities of the Agency for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens.
AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11110830. (Posted 11/8/11)
Page 8
B.
The second situation occurs when it is determined that the applicant was inadmissible at the time of adjustment or admission to the United States, thus deportable under section 237 of the INA and not eligible for naturalization under section 318 of the INA.16 The ISO should:
1.
Make a written recommendation on the issuance of an NTA through a review of the totality of the circumstances to include factors such as: willfulness of actions, fraud factors, length of LPR status, criminal history, and officer error at time of adjustment.
2.
Once the ISO has made a recommendation on the issuance of the NTA, the case should be forwarded to the Review Panel (see Section V.A.2), along with the written recommendation. The Review Panel will make the final determination on NTA issuance. If consensus cannot be reached by the Review Panel, the case will be elevated to the District Director, through the district representative, for a final decision.
3.
If the Review Panel decides to issue an NTA, place the N-400 on hold until removal proceedings have concluded. Once removal proceedings have concluded, adjudicate the case appropriately. If the Review Panel declines to issue an NTA, deny the case under section 318 of the INA.
VI. Other Cases
A. An alien may request NTA issuance to renew an application for adjustment or in certain cases with a denied N-400. The request must be made in writing.17
B. An asylum applicant issued an NTA may request NTA issuance for family members not included on the asylum application as dependents for family unification purposes. The request must be made in writing.18
VII. Exceptions
Exceptions to the guidance in this PM require concurrence from Regional or Center Directors, who will consult with ICE before issuing an NTA.
16 In the Third Circuit only (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the U.S. Virgin Islands), based on the holding in Garcia v. Att’y Gen., 553 F.3d 724 (3d Cir. 2009), if the alien has been an LPR for at least five years, the alien cannot be placed in removal proceedings for fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact at time of adjustment, if USCIS could have learned of the fraud or misrepresentation through reasonable diligence before the five year rescission period expired. Please consult with USCIS counsel if there are questions regarding the applicability of this precedent.
17 USCIS retains discretion to deny a request. USCIS should consider ICE actions and determinations when making an NTA issuance decision under this section.
18 USCIS retains discretion to deny a request.
AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11110830. (Posted 11/8/11)
PM-602-0050: Revised Guidance for the Referral of Cases and Issuance of NTAs in Cases
Involving Inadmissible and Removable Aliens
Page 9
VIII.
Coordination with ICE
According to the June 2011 ICE memo regarding the exercise of prosecutorial discretion consistent with priorities,19 USCIS will receive notice before an ICE attorney exercises prosecutorial discretion and dismisses, suspends, or closes a case. The local N-400 NTA Review Panel will work with ICE to come to a resolution if USCIS does not agree with ICE’s use of prosecutorial discretion in a particular case. If concurrence cannot be reached, the case should be elevated to the USCIS Office of Chief Counsel in headquarters.
Implementation
Each field office must form an N-400 NTA Review Panel and create a process to complete RTIs and refer EPS and non-EPS criminal cases to ICE. A written list enumerating the members of the Review Panel and a document outlining the process of referral must be sent to the appropriate district office within 30 days of the issuance of this memorandum.
This PM is intended solely for the guidance of USCIS personnel in the performance of their official duties. It is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law, or by any individual or other party in removal proceedings, in litigation with the United States, or in any other form or manner.
Contact Information: Questions or suggestions regarding this PM should be addressed through appropriate channels to the Field Operations Directorate, Service Center Operations Directorate, or the Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations Directorate.
19 Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Consistent with the Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities of the Agency for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens, signed June 17, 2011. AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11110830. (Posted 11/8/11)
Policy Memorandum
SUBJECT: Revised Guidance for the Referral of Cases and Issuance of Notices to Appear (NTAs) in Cases Involving Inadmissible and Removable Aliens
Purpose
This Policy Memorandum (PM) establishes new USCIS guidelines for referring cases and issuing Notices to Appear (NTAs) in a manner that promotes the sound use of the resources of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice to enhance national security, public safety, and the integrity of the immigration system. This PM supersedes Policy Memorandum No. 110, Disposition of Cases Involving Removable Aliens, dated July 11, 2006.
Scope
This PM applies to and is binding on all USCIS employees unless otherwise specifically provided in this PM.
Authority
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sections 101(a)(43), 103(a), 239, 240 and 318; Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations (8 CFR) parts/sections 2.1, 103, 204, 207.9, 208, 216.3(a), 216.6(a)(5), 236.14(c), and 239; Adjudicator’s Field Manual Chapter 10.11(a).
Background
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has authority, under the immigration laws, see, e.g., INA §§ 103(a), 239; 8 CFR §§ 2.1, 239.1, to issue Form I-862, Notice to Appear, to initiate removal proceedings.1 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) also have authority to issue NTAs. Accordingly, USCIS must ensure that its issuance of NTAs fits within and supports the Government’s overall removal priorities, while also ensuring that its NTA policies promote national security and the integrity of the nation’s immigration system. To those ends, this PM identifies the circumstances under which USCIS will issue an NTA, or will refer the case to ICE for NTA issuance, in order to effectively handle cases that involve public safety threats, criminals, and aliens engaged in fraud.
1 Delegation by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, Delegation Number 0150.1; Paragraph 2(N). However, international District Directors and officers are not authorized to issue NTAs.
AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11110830. (Posted 11/8/11)
Page 2
Policy
I. National Security Cases
This PM does not affect the handling of cases involving national security concerns.2 Guidance from the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS)3 will continue to govern the definition of these cases and the procedures for resolution and NTA issuance.
II. NTA Issuance Required by Statute or Regulation
USCIS will issue an NTA in the following circumstances:4
A.
Termination of Conditional Permanent Resident Status and Denials of Form I-751, Petition to Remove the Conditions of Residence (8 CFR 216.3, 216.4, 216.5)5
B.
Denials of Form I-829, Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions (8 CFR 216.6)
C.
Termination of refugee status by the District Director (8 CFR 207.9)
D.
Denials of NACARA 202 and HRIFA adjustments
1.
NACARA 202 adjustment denials (8 CFR 245.13(m));
2.
HRIFA adjustment denials (8 CFR 245.15(r)(2)(i)).
E.
Asylum6, NACARA 203, and Credible Fear cases:7
1.
Asylum referrals (8 CFR 208.14(c)(1));
2.
Termination of asylum or termination of withholding of removal or deportation (8 CFR 208.24(e));8
3.
Positive credible fear findings (8 CFR 208.30(f));
4.
NACARA 203 cases where suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal is not granted, and the applicant does not have asylum status, or lawful immigrant or non-immigrant status (8 CFR 240.70(d)).
This PM does not apply to, or change, NTA or notification procedures for Temporary Protected Status cases.9 Further, Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant, processed under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), should continue to
2 National Security Cases include cases involving Terrorist Related Grounds of Inadmissibility (TRIG) pursuant to sections 212(a)(3)(B) and 212(a)(3)(F) of the INA.
3 See, e.g., Policy for Vetting and Adjudicating Cases with National Security Concerns (April 11, 2008).
4 If any Form I-751 or I-829 cases are also Egregious Public Safety cases, they will be referred to ICE in accordance with Section IV.A.1 of this PM.
5 See the October 9, 2009 internal memo, Adjudication of Form I-751, Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence Where the CPR Has a Final Order of Removal, Is in Removal Proceedings, or Has Filed an Unexcused Untimely Petition or Multiple Petitions. See also the April 3, 2009 memo, I-751 Filed Prior to Termination of Marriage.
6 USCIS may issue an NTA when an asylum applicant withdraws his or her asylum application.
7 This memo does not apply to the Asylum Division’s issuance of Form I-863, Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge, to certain stowaways, crewmembers, and VWP individuals who are requesting asylum or withholding of removal; reasonable fear screenings and negative credible fear screenings.
8 See also section 208(c)(3) of the INA describing removal when asylum is terminated.
9 See the September 12, 2003 internal memo, Service Center Issuance of Notice to Appear (Form I-862).
AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11110830. (Posted 11/8/11)
Page 3
be processed under existing protocols. If the VAWA applicant’s Form I-485 is denied, this memorandum is applicable in terms of NTA issuance.10
III. Fraud Cases with a Statement of Findings Substantiating Fraud
To protect the integrity of the immigration system and address fraud, USCIS will issue NTAs when a Statement of Findings (SOF) substantiating fraud is part of the record.11 An NTA will be issued upon final adjudicative action on the petition and/or application or other appropriate eligibility determination.12 NTAs will be issued even if the petition and/or application is denied for a ground other than fraud, such as lack of prosecution or abandonment, is terminated based on a withdrawal by the petitioner/applicant, or where an approval is revoked, so long as an SOF substantiating fraud is in the record.
The NTA should include the charge of fraud or misrepresentation, if possible. The appropriate charge(s) will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Consultation with local USCIS counsel to determine the appropriate charge(s) is recommended.
IV. Cases to be Referred to ICE for a Decision on NTA Issuance
A.
Criminal Cases: Criminal aliens are a top immigration enforcement priority for the government. The following guidance recognizes the prioritization and requires USCIS to refer criminals to ICE for action or issue an NTA in accordance with this PM.
1.
Egregious Public Safety (EPS) Cases
USCIS will refer all EPS cases, including cases with pending N-400s, to ICE prior to adjudicating the case even if USCIS can deny the petition and/or application on its merits. An EPS case is defined by USCIS and ICE as a case where information indicates the alien is under investigation for, has been arrested for (without disposition), or has been convicted of, any of the following:
a. Murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor as defined in section 101(a)(43)(A) of the INA.
b. Illicit trafficking in firearms or destructive devices as defined in section 101(a)(43)(C) of the INA.
c. Offenses relating to explosive materials or firearms as defined in section 101(a)(43)(E) of the INA.
10 When making determinations, employees must keep in mind USCIS’s obligations under 8 USC § 1367, which prohibits the release of any information, outside of DHS, relating to aliens who are seeking or have been approved for immigration benefit(s) under the provisions for battered spouses, children, and parents in the Violence Against Women Act.
11 Alternatively, ICE will determine whether to issue the NTA if a criminal investigation is conducted, fraud is found, and the investigation results in criminal prosecution.
12 This includes, but is not limited to, aliens that were granted asylum status by USCIS, adjusted to Lawful Permanent Resident status, presented fraud indicators, were subject to the Post Adjustment Eligibility Review (PAER) process in an Asylum Office, and met the PAER criteria for NTA issuance.
AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11110830. (Posted 11/8/11)
Page 4
d. Crimes of violence for which the term of imprisonment imposed, or where the penalty for a pending case, is at least one year as defined in section 101(a)(43)(F) of the INA.
e. An offense relating to the demand for, or receipt of, ransom as defined in section 101(a)(43)(H) of the INA.
f. An offense relating to child pornography as defined in section 101(a)(43)(I) of the INA.
g. An offense relating to peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, and trafficking in persons as defined in section 101(a)(43)(K)(iii) of the INA.
h. An offense relating to alien smuggling as described in section 101(a)(43)(N) of the INA
i. Human Rights Violators, known or suspected street gang members, or Interpol hits.
j. Re-entry after an order of exclusion, deportation or removal subsequent to conviction for a felony where a Form I-212, Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the U.S. after Deportation or Removal, has not been approved.
All EPS cases must be referred to ICE using the procedures outlined below. The case will be referred as soon as it is identified. ICE will have an opportunity to decide if, when, and how to issue an NTA and/or detain the alien. USCIS will not issue an NTA in these cases if ICE declines to issue an NTA. If some other basis unrelated to the EPS concern becomes apparent during the course of adjudication, an NTA may be issued in accordance with this memo.
Referral Process
This referral process is utilized in order to give ICE the opportunity to determine the appropriate course of action before USCIS adjudicates the case. A decision to issue an NTA may directly affect the processing of the pending petition and/or application. Upon issuing the Referral to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (RTI), USCIS will suspend adjudication for 60 days, or until ICE provides notification of its action on the case, whichever is earlier.
In response to the RTI –
1.
ICE may issue an NTA. ICE’s issuance of an NTA allows USCIS to proceed with adjudication (unless jurisdiction transfers to EOIR or the pending application is an N-400), taking into account the basis for the NTA.
2.
If ICE does not issue an NTA or otherwise provide notification of its action on the case within 60 days of the RTI, USCIS may resume its adjudication of the case, taking into account the referral grounds.
AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11110830. (Posted 11/8/11)
Page 5
a.
If the case is approvable, USCIS will consult with ICE prior to adjudication.
b.
Once adjudicated, regardless of the decision, USCIS will notify ICE of the result by sending a copy of the original RTI to ICE with a cover memorandum advising of the outcome of the case.
EPS cases referred to ICE prior to adjudication should be called up and reviewed no later than 60 days after referral. Normally, the case should be adjudicated by USCIS. However, USCIS retains discretion to place the case on hold for more than 60 days if ICE requests additional time to conduct an investigation.13
Office-Specific Processes
1.
Cases to be adjudicated by Service Centers and the National Benefits Center. Adjudication will be suspended and the case will immediately be sent to the appropriate Service Center Background Check Unit (BCU). The BCU will refer the case to the ICE Benefit Fraud Unit (BFU) via an RTI. A hard copy of the RTI will be placed in the A-file and/or receipt file. The BCU will retain the file unless ICE requests it or the 60 days expire.
2.
Cases to be adjudicated by Field Offices. The Immigration Services Officer (ISO) will suspend adjudication and the case will immediately be referred to the local ICE Special Agent in Charge (SAC) via an RTI. A hard copy of the RTI will be placed in the A-file and/or receipt file. A copy of the RTI must also be sent to the ICE BFU. USCIS will retain the file unless ICE requests the file for their review.
An RTI should include any relevant attachments that USCIS has at the time, such as a copy of the RAP sheet and a copy of the petition and/or application.
2.
Non-Egregious Public Safety Criminal Cases
If it appears that the alien is inadmissible or removable for a criminal offense not included on the EPS list, USCIS will complete the adjudication and then refer the case to ICE. This section applies to N-400 cases if the N-400 has been denied on good moral character (GMC) grounds based on the criminal offense.14 ICE will decide if, and how, it will institute removal proceedings and whether or not it will detain the alien. USCIS will not issue an NTA if ICE declines to issue an NTA.
13 Pursuant to 8 CFR 274a.13(d), USCIS must complete processing of an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) within 90 days or issue an interim EAD card valid up to 240 days. Officers should be mindful of this regulatory timeframe when cases with a pending Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, are referred to ICE.
14 See Section V of this memo addressing N-400 cases.
AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11110830. (Posted 11/8/11)
Page 6
If some other basis unrelated to the criminal offense becomes apparent upon return of the case to USCIS, an NTA may be issued in accordance with this memo.
Referral Process
The referral process is used to allow ICE to make a determination whether to issue an NTA, based on the totality of circumstances and its priorities. ICE will determine the appropriate grounds for removal if an NTA is issued.
Once adjudication is complete, USCIS will send an RTI to ICE. USCIS will concurrently transmit a copy of the RTI to ICE Headquarters (HQ) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) Criminal Alien Division for statistical monitoring purposes. If there is any confusion or uncertainty about classifying a case as egregious versus non-egregious, the USCIS ISO should refer the matter as an EPS case using the process described above.
The accompanying A-file will be referred to ICE with the RTI, if the file is in the possession of the referring USCIS office or center. If the file is not at the referring USCIS office or center, the RTI should include any relevant attachments that USCIS has, such as a copy of the RAP sheet and a copy of the petition and/or application. Where USCIS obtained certified conviction records through normal processing of the case, USCIS will include the records with the RTI, but it will not hold the RTI on a completed case solely to obtain disposition records. Instead ICE will decide whether, and how, it will obtain such records as part of its decision to issue an NTA.
Office-Specific Processes
1. Cases adjudicated by Service Centers and the National Benefits Center. Once adjudication is completed, if the alien is removable on a criminal charge, regardless of the reason for the denial, the file will be referred to the BCU. The BCU will refer the case, along with the A-file and/or receipt file, to the appropriate ERO Field Office Director (FOD) via an RTI.
2. Cases adjudicated by Field Offices. Once adjudication is completed, if the alien is removable on a criminal charge, regardless of the reason for the denial, USCIS will prepare an RTI and refer the case, along with the A-file and/or receipt file, to the local ERO FOD.
B.
National Security Entry Exit Registration System (NSEERS) Violator Cases
USCIS will refer all cases in which an application is denied based on an NSEERS violation to ICE for possible NTA issuance.
AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11110830. (Posted 11/8/11)
Page 7
V. Cases Involving Form N-400, Application for Naturalization
The following guidance applies to the issuance of NTAs in cases in which applicants for naturalization are removable. There are two primary situations in which NTAs may be issued in connection with a filed Form N-400. If the N-400 case involves fraud (documented in the SOF) the procedures found in this section must be followed, rather than the procedures found in Section III (Fraud Cases with a Statement of Findings Substantiating Fraud). However, the below guidance does not apply to EPS cases. EPS cases must be referred in accordance with Section IV.A.1 (Egregious Public Safety Cases) of this memo. Additionally, the below guidance does not apply to non-EPS criminal cases when the N-400 can be denied on GMC grounds based on the criminal act. These cases must be denied and referred in accordance with Section IV.A.2 (Non-Egregious Public Safety Criminal Cases).
A.
The first situation occurs when the applicant may be eligible to naturalize but is also deportable under section 237 of the INA. Examples include applicants convicted of aggravated felonies prior to November 29, 1990, or applicants convicted of deportable offenses after obtaining Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) status that do not fall within the GMC period. The ISO should:
1.
Make a written recommendation on the issuance of an NTA through a review of the totality of the circumstances to include factors such as: severity of crime, time since crime committed, other criminal conduct, reformation, immigration history including method of entry, length of presence in the U.S., and prior immigration violations, and contributions to society to include the pursuit of education and military service.15
2.
Once the ISO has made a recommendation on whether or not to issue an NTA, the case should be forwarded to the N-400 NTA Review Panel (Review Panel), along with the written recommendation. A Review Panel must be formed in each Field Office and include a local Supervisory Immigration Services Officer (SISO), a local USCIS Office of Chief Counsel attorney, and a district representative. An attorney from ICE’s local Office of Chief Counsel will be invited to participate and will have an advisory role on the panel. The Review Panel will make the final determination on NTA issuance. If consensus cannot be reached by the Review Panel, the case will be elevated to the District Director, through the district representative, for a final decision.
3.
If the Review Panel decides to issue an NTA, place the N-400 on hold until removal proceedings have concluded. Once proceedings have concluded, or if the Review Panel declines to issue an NTA, adjudicate the case appropriately.
15 Additional factors to be taken under consideration can be found in the June 17, 2011 ICE memo, Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Consistent with the Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities of the Agency for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens.
AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11110830. (Posted 11/8/11)
Page 8
B.
The second situation occurs when it is determined that the applicant was inadmissible at the time of adjustment or admission to the United States, thus deportable under section 237 of the INA and not eligible for naturalization under section 318 of the INA.16 The ISO should:
1.
Make a written recommendation on the issuance of an NTA through a review of the totality of the circumstances to include factors such as: willfulness of actions, fraud factors, length of LPR status, criminal history, and officer error at time of adjustment.
2.
Once the ISO has made a recommendation on the issuance of the NTA, the case should be forwarded to the Review Panel (see Section V.A.2), along with the written recommendation. The Review Panel will make the final determination on NTA issuance. If consensus cannot be reached by the Review Panel, the case will be elevated to the District Director, through the district representative, for a final decision.
3.
If the Review Panel decides to issue an NTA, place the N-400 on hold until removal proceedings have concluded. Once removal proceedings have concluded, adjudicate the case appropriately. If the Review Panel declines to issue an NTA, deny the case under section 318 of the INA.
VI. Other Cases
A. An alien may request NTA issuance to renew an application for adjustment or in certain cases with a denied N-400. The request must be made in writing.17
B. An asylum applicant issued an NTA may request NTA issuance for family members not included on the asylum application as dependents for family unification purposes. The request must be made in writing.18
VII. Exceptions
Exceptions to the guidance in this PM require concurrence from Regional or Center Directors, who will consult with ICE before issuing an NTA.
16 In the Third Circuit only (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the U.S. Virgin Islands), based on the holding in Garcia v. Att’y Gen., 553 F.3d 724 (3d Cir. 2009), if the alien has been an LPR for at least five years, the alien cannot be placed in removal proceedings for fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact at time of adjustment, if USCIS could have learned of the fraud or misrepresentation through reasonable diligence before the five year rescission period expired. Please consult with USCIS counsel if there are questions regarding the applicability of this precedent.
17 USCIS retains discretion to deny a request. USCIS should consider ICE actions and determinations when making an NTA issuance decision under this section.
18 USCIS retains discretion to deny a request.
AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11110830. (Posted 11/8/11)
PM-602-0050: Revised Guidance for the Referral of Cases and Issuance of NTAs in Cases
Involving Inadmissible and Removable Aliens
Page 9
VIII.
Coordination with ICE
According to the June 2011 ICE memo regarding the exercise of prosecutorial discretion consistent with priorities,19 USCIS will receive notice before an ICE attorney exercises prosecutorial discretion and dismisses, suspends, or closes a case. The local N-400 NTA Review Panel will work with ICE to come to a resolution if USCIS does not agree with ICE’s use of prosecutorial discretion in a particular case. If concurrence cannot be reached, the case should be elevated to the USCIS Office of Chief Counsel in headquarters.
Implementation
Each field office must form an N-400 NTA Review Panel and create a process to complete RTIs and refer EPS and non-EPS criminal cases to ICE. A written list enumerating the members of the Review Panel and a document outlining the process of referral must be sent to the appropriate district office within 30 days of the issuance of this memorandum.
This PM is intended solely for the guidance of USCIS personnel in the performance of their official duties. It is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law, or by any individual or other party in removal proceedings, in litigation with the United States, or in any other form or manner.
Contact Information: Questions or suggestions regarding this PM should be addressed through appropriate channels to the Field Operations Directorate, Service Center Operations Directorate, or the Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations Directorate.
19 Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Consistent with the Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities of the Agency for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens, signed June 17, 2011. AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11110830. (Posted 11/8/11)
AILA Calls USCIS Guidance a Positive Step
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11110809 (posted Nov. 8, 2011)"
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:Tuesday, November 8, 2011CONTACTS:Jenny Werwa / Amanda Walkins202-507-7628 202-507-7618jwerwa@aila.org awalkins@aila.org
WASHINGTON, DC – The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) commends U. S. Citizenship and Immigrations Services (USCIS) for today’s field guidance that moves the agency back in the direction of the original intent behind its formation--it is the service arm of Department of Homeland Security (DHS), charged with fairly adjudicating immigration petitions and applications.
“This guidance lets officers focus solely on the job at hand, referring most enforcement actions to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency formed for that purpose,” said AILA President Eleanor Pelta. “The memo still outlines situations in which USCIS officers should institute removal proceedings. However, it realigns the agency’s goals to better reflect its original and intended purpose.”
“AILA also is encouraged by the structures that USCIS is putting into place with respect to naturalization cases,” continued Pelta. “Citizenship is precious, and the steps outlined in the guidance should help to avoid some of the miscarriages of justice that we sometimes see when long-time legal residents seek citizenship only to find themselves instead thrown out of the country over a technicality.”
AILA congratulates USCIS on this act of reasoned government, but is dismayed by the guidance’s perpetuation of the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) program. “DHS eliminated the ongoing application of this program some time ago, but has never corrected the injustices created by its complex and confusing rules. Rather than saying that it will refer for possible removal people who are not registered under this largely-abandoned program, USCIS should simply cease to apply these rules,” concluded Pelta.
###The American Immigration Lawyers Association is the national association of immigration lawyers established to promote justice, advocate for fair and reasonable immigration law and policy, advance the quality of immigration and nationality law and practice, and enhance the professional development of its members.
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11110809 (posted Nov. 8, 2011)"
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:Tuesday, November 8, 2011CONTACTS:Jenny Werwa / Amanda Walkins202-507-7628 202-507-7618jwerwa@aila.org awalkins@aila.org
WASHINGTON, DC – The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) commends U. S. Citizenship and Immigrations Services (USCIS) for today’s field guidance that moves the agency back in the direction of the original intent behind its formation--it is the service arm of Department of Homeland Security (DHS), charged with fairly adjudicating immigration petitions and applications.
“This guidance lets officers focus solely on the job at hand, referring most enforcement actions to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency formed for that purpose,” said AILA President Eleanor Pelta. “The memo still outlines situations in which USCIS officers should institute removal proceedings. However, it realigns the agency’s goals to better reflect its original and intended purpose.”
“AILA also is encouraged by the structures that USCIS is putting into place with respect to naturalization cases,” continued Pelta. “Citizenship is precious, and the steps outlined in the guidance should help to avoid some of the miscarriages of justice that we sometimes see when long-time legal residents seek citizenship only to find themselves instead thrown out of the country over a technicality.”
AILA congratulates USCIS on this act of reasoned government, but is dismayed by the guidance’s perpetuation of the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) program. “DHS eliminated the ongoing application of this program some time ago, but has never corrected the injustices created by its complex and confusing rules. Rather than saying that it will refer for possible removal people who are not registered under this largely-abandoned program, USCIS should simply cease to apply these rules,” concluded Pelta.
###The American Immigration Lawyers Association is the national association of immigration lawyers established to promote justice, advocate for fair and reasonable immigration law and policy, advance the quality of immigration and nationality law and practice, and enhance the professional development of its members.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)