On February 20, 2017, the Department of Homeland Security issued two memos, one of which is “Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest” (“2017 Enforcement memo”). This memorandum serves to implement the Executive Order President Trump issued on January 25, 2017 titled “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.”

The 2017 Enforcement Memo addresses a number of issues but the focus of this post will be the enforcement priorities and prosecutorial discretion.

On November 20, 2014, the Department of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson issued a memorandum titled “Policies for the Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants” (2014 Memo). The 2014 memo set forth the priorities for enforcement for the Department of Homeland Security. The priorities were those who posed a threat to national security; border security; and public safety; those who had multiple misdemeanor convictions, including driving while under the influence; those who had entered after January 1, 2014; those who had abused a visa or the visa waiver program; and those who had been issued a final order of removal after January 1, 2014. The 2014 provided clear guidance to DHS’ employees and implemented, it permitted individuals to obtain administrative closure of their case in the immigration court or stays of removal, if they had a final order of removal.

The 2017 Enforcement Memo says that the Department is no longer going to exempt from enforcement categories of individuals, as supposedly the 2014 did, and casts a much wider net. Under this memo, those who criminal convictions or have admitted to committing crimes, those who present a threat to national security, those who committed fraud or misrepresented to immigration in the course of requesting an immigration benefit or entry into the United States, and those who are arriving into the United States.

Similar to the 2014 memo, the 2014 Enforcement Memo prioritizes those who have been convicted of a criminal offense. However, it departs from it in significant respects because those who have been charged with any criminal offense are a priority for enforcement, even if the criminal matter has not yet been resolved. This memo also adds to the list of enforcement priorities those who have committed fraud or misrepresented in relation to any matter before a government official, not just immigration matters, and those who have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits.

Under the 2014 memo, DHS’ employees had clearer guidance about how to exercise their prosecutorial discretion. While the 2017 memo maintains prosecutorial discretion and permits its exercise on a case-by-case basis, in practice DHS’ employees are exercising it less and less and in extreme circumstances. The result is the disruptions if the lives of many families.

~Anielka S. Godinez

On March 6, 2017, President Trump issued an executive order entitled “Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States” in which he ordered a “temporary pause on the entry of nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, subject to categorical exceptions and case-by-case waivers.” The March 6 executive order was careful to carve out exceptions for certain travelers, including lawful permanent resident of the United States, foreign nationals with certain non-visa documents (for example, advance parole or boarding foils), dual nationals traveling on a passport from a country not listed in the executive order, diplomats, and those granted asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture.

The March 6 executive order was issued after the President’s January 27, 2017 executive order temporarily banning entry into the United States of citizens from seven countries was stopped by a temporary restraining order that was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. While the March 6 order rescinded and replaced Trump’s previous January executive order on travel, the March 6 executive order was quickly stopped when a Federal court in Hawaii (later joined by Maryland) issued a nationwide temporary restraining order, which puts the implementation of the executive order on hold while a court determines its legality.

The temporary restraining order decision issued by a Federal district court judge in Hawaii went as far as to note “a reasonable, objective observer . . .would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion[.]” Attorneys for the Department of Justice, who are arguing in support of the executive order, state that the purpose of the order is national security reasons, well within the purview of the President.  It’s the government’s position that the six countries mentioned in the executive order are state sponsors of terrorism.

While the executive order itself does not state that the travel ban is based on religious grounds, courts can and did look back in time to Trump as a candidate in order to give context to the executive order and the policy behind it. The temporary restraining order decision in Hawaii notes previous interviews that Trump gave as a candidate (In March 2016, Mr. Trump said, during an interview, “I think Islam hates us,” and later stated, “The Muslim ban is something that in some form has morphed into a[n] extreme vetting from certain areas of the world.” When asked to clarify whether “the Muslim ban still stands,” Mr. Trump said, ‘It’s called extreme vetting.’”). Because such a policy would violate the Constitution’s Establishment clause (often referred to as the separation of religion and state), the executive order would therefore be unconstitutional.  The Hawaiian Federal court determined that, while the  constitutionality of the executive order is determine, that its implementation is put on hold due to the damage it may cause until the court determines whether the order is constitutional.

What does the executive order mean for citizens from the six countries listed for the temporary pause on travel? For now, until a Federal court determines the legality of the executive order, the travel ban will not be implemented and citizens from all countries with valid visas should be able to board planes and enter the United States.

It’s unclear whether the Trump administration will continue to fight for this executive order in Court, or whether it will continue to refine its attempted travel ban through further executive orders. Until there is a decision on the merits of the constitutionality of the March 6 executive order, which is expected in the coming weeks, the travel ban has itself been banned by Federal courts, nationwide.

~Brian M. Doyle

There is a literal alphabet soup of employment-based visas that professionals may consider in order to live and work in the United States.  Today I’d like to discuss L1-A and L1-B visas, which are a great option for foreign national professionals.  L1 visas are specifically designed for foreign nationals who have developed professional experience as either a manager or an executive (L1-A) or in a specialized field (L1-B) such as engineering or finance, and who would like to transfer jobs within their company to a U.S. office.  They allow L1 beneficiaries to live and work in the United States, and for businesses to transfer much-needed expertise to U.S. branches, or even to open a new office in the U.S.

L1 visas can be processed more quickly using premium processing, and they allow the beneficiary to have dual intent.  Allowing dual intent means that although L1 visas are classified as nonimmigrant visas, an L1 beneficiary is eligible to apply for adjustment of status to permanent residence.  One thing to keep in mind for companies setting up new offices in the U.S. is that “new office” L1 petitions may face higher scrutiny as USCIS wants to ensure that an office is not being set up merely for immigration purposes.  In a “new office” situation, we can work with clients to showcase the business plan for the U.S. office, in terms of its marketing initiatives, upcoming contracts with customers, and potential for expansion within the U.S. market.thanks

Joyce & Associates has represented many individuals throughout the L1 process, from assistance with contracts drafting and/or corporate formation to compiling the L1-A package to highlight the beneficiary’s qualifications and the foreign entity’s business needs and ability to pay the beneficiary’s wage, and then to preparing the client for consular processing and for filing future applications for L1 extensions and/or adjustment of status.

If you are interested in discussing your eligibility for an L1 petition, or for employment-based visas generally, contact us for a consultation to discuss your options.

~Christina M. Elder