Sometimes small changes in immigration regulations can have huge consequences for the success of a green card application. The recent change of the “30/60 day” rule to a 90-day rule shows how important it is to work with a qualified immigration attorney and keep up to date on the issues.
The Trump Administration recently announced the upcoming end of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Sudan. Before that, it was Haiti. Will 300,000 people in the U.S. lose protection? If so, where will they go?
A bipartisan effort in the U.S. Senate has led to introduction of the DREAM Act of 2017. This bill, if it becomes law, will protect those who currently hold DACA and provide a path to citizenship for millions of people brought to the U.S. as children. Of course, efforts like this have failed before. We explore what the new bill actually says, and why people should be careful in listening to advice about how immigration law is changing.
Each year, thousands of people brave unspeakable hardship to reach the U.S. border and request asylum. Some will be granted asylum, while many more will not. Under U.S. and international law, each one has the right to ask and have his or her case considered. However, a recent lawsuit alleges that Customs & Border Patrol (CBP) agents are systematically denying people the right to even ask for asylum. We look at this claim and how it affects the asylum process.
In a 16-page decision today, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed a version of the Trump travel ban on 6 majority-Muslim countries to go into effect. Here are the important points: 1. The ban will not apply to people who can show a “credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” For a person, this means a “close familial relationship.” For an entity, this means the relationship is “formal, documented, and formed in the usual course.” Examples would be students at universities or workers for U.S. companies. 2. The same standard applies to refugees. The 120-day ban on refugees goes into effect, but not for people who can meet the standards above. 3. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the full case in October, but it hinted that it may find that the case is “moot” because the 90-day order will have expired […]
The Supreme Court decided that the rules for passing citizenship to children born to U.S. citizens outside the United States have to be gender-neutral, and treat the children of U.S. citizen fathers the same as the children of U.S. citizen mothers. However, to reach this goal, the Supreme Court voided the rule that made it easier for children of U.S. citizen mothers to claim citizenship. By doing so, the Supreme Court made the law equal, but at the same time issued a ruling that will keep many people from claiming U.S. citizenship in the future. What does it cost to make the law fair?