Possible Loophole in deferred action? Read

Most is what we already know but there were some sections that were interesting. Please read and comment


http://www.laprensatoledo.com/Storie...12/dreamer.htm

6 Things every DREAMer must know about Deferred Action

By Philip Eichorn, Esq.

Given the recent announcement by the DHS regarding Deferred Action for DREAMers, we must remember that Deferred Action does not provide permanent legal status or a path to citizenship (except as noted below). It is a stay of issuance of proceedings (or execution of a final order) against individuals who qualify, based on their age, lack of criminal history and their educational background. Deferred Action will be granted in two year increments and will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Foreign nationals granted this benefit of deferred action will receive work authorization which then allows them to obtain a drivers license and social security number.

To qualify:

• A person must have entered the US before they turned 16;

• not be above the age of thirty (30);

• must be in school, have graduated from high school, have a general education development certificate (GED), or honorably discharged veterans of the Armed Services or Coast Guard;

• have not been convicted of certain crimes (felonies, “significant misdemeanors,” and/or three or more misdemeanors in total) or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety; and _have continuously resided in the U.S. for at least five years dating back from June 15, 2012.

The idea and rationale is that a person who was brought across the border at a young age and has done the right things within the society and not sat on their rights should not be punished for the unlawful entry into the United States (or visa overstay) by their parent(s).

As with any policy change, memorandum or announcement by DHS, candidates should be mindful of the unspoken issues and potential pitfalls.

In this article, we’ll cover six of those issues:

Notario Fraud and Unauthorized Practice of Law: Notarios and other unscrupulous people will sell DREAM Deferred Action announcement as a “new law” and a “path to status” in order to take advantage of those desperate for legal status. The undocumented are an extremely vulnerable community. Notarios prey on unsophisticated people desperate for status. We, as lawyers and accredited representatives, must guard against an increase in predatory practices with this announcement. We must bridge the knowledge gap and protect the vulnerable.

We know this is not a “new law.” We must educate people that Deferred Action is not a path to lawful status (except in certain limited circumstances). It is not a path to a “green card.” It is not a path to citizenship. Deferred Action is a temporary shield against deportation. For DREAMers, Deferred Action allows people who were brought here at a young age to live and work in the U.S. for a period of years.

Stay of Unlawful Presence: An issue arises with this new Deferred Action policy as to when the stay of unlawful presence begins. There is nothing in the memorandum issued on June 15, 2012 that indicates unlawful presence accrual would be stayed from the date of the memorandum. This leads me to believe that USCIS (and Department of State in the future) may indicate ULP is stayed upon receipt of the filing (which would be consistent with the filing of an I-485) or upon the date of the grant. Certainly we want to lobby for the June 15, 2012 date for all filings made within a reasonable time hereafter, but if that does not work we want to encourage CIS and DOS to stay the accrual as of the date of filing.

Presidential Change: This policy was enacted by the Democratic Executive Branch. This is not a law and therefore if a new president takes office it can be lifted quite easily, as it does not need to be repealed. While the initial grants would be in place for two years, what happens if Mitt Romney becomes President and lifts this memorandum? Those who have filed and supplied DHS with their biographical information are now on the radar screen for removal. It’s doubtful that ICE would allocate many resources to searching for DREAMers. This is a policy and it is subject to change without warning (just like it was issued). We must proceed with caution when filing and advise our clients appropriately.

International Travel: A question arises about international travel for certain DREAMers. There is no indication USCIS will issue an advanced parole for those granted Deferred Action. If USCIS did issue advanced parole as a collateral benefit, it would likely be issued under INA 212(d)(5)(A). This would not permit adjustment of status after departure and reentry but issuance under this section would also not be considered a departure for purposes of triggering the ULP bars. See Matter of Arabally and Yarabally, 25 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012).

“Significant Misdemeanor”: This is a new area of law that USCIS created. USCIS lists a few of the misdemeanor convictions it considers “significant” and therefore disqualifying. However, questions arise as to how USCIS will analyze this new standard. What legal procedure will be applied to determining if the conviction is “significant?” Will this be done by non-lawyer adjudicating officers? Are all crimes involving moral turpitude significant? Or just those that are at the highest level of the punishment scheme in each state? Will the petty offense exception provide an out for those convicted of one CMT? Will the categorical and modified categorical approaches be used? How about Silva-Trevino? Will USCIS rely on BIA decisions? Will USCIS subjectively determine what is “significant?”

An argument exists that if a person is convicted of a crime that does not subject them to removal, then it is not “significant.” For example, USCIS lists “domestic violence” as a disqualifying crime. In Ohio, for example, the first degree misdemeanor statute (the highest level misdemeanor) has been determined to not categorically subject someone to removal by all three immigration judges in Cleveland.

We must tread carefully when filing cases with any criminal conviction as there are no standards in place (yet) for evaluating the significance of the crime.

Path to Status: There is one potential path to status that Deferred Action may provide. Any child under 18 years old who is granted Deferred Action will not accrue unlawful presence after they turn 18. They will be able to go to college, obtain their bachelor’s degree and hopefully employment. Their degree or other training may lead them to “specialty occupation” employment for which they can now obtain an H-1B, then depart, consular process and return without a waiver (as they have no ULP bar).

This would be great for younger dreamers!!! a chance to be legal!!!

Honestly,I think this is the most important set of information.There seems to be quite a few who have DUIs or Driving without a license issues here and I think it might be wise to hold off on applying until there is further clarification.

I have to say that would be a true loophole and significant benefit for those under 18 technically.Thumbs up for a good find and information.

I would understand the whole DUI thing because no matter how you spin it, it's a criminal offense.

What is your opinion on a "non-criminal infraction" that most undocumented immigrants get in CA when driving without a license? State law says it's a misdemeanor but it's common practice to just get it charged as an infraction.. You get a fine and you're out the door. I know somebody that got 1 and then another close to 5 years later. And they were charged as infractions and not misdemeanors.

I think that the DWLicense issue will get resolved before the final procedures are announced. Guitierrez was very vocal about it right after the announcement. I would not worry too much about it.

I've done some digging and it is still being "ironed out" the definition of "significant misdemeanor" , take a look at below immigration attorney at about 7:50 min mark.



http://www.immigration-professor.com/

++

Good infor for those under 18, hope they make good use of this channel.

What's retarded is that not one organization has yet attempted to challenge the IIRIRA 1996 provision(s) which makes underage EWIs unable to adjust later on, despite the fact that Supreme Court ruled in Plyler v. Doe (1982) that lack of status was "legal characteristic over which children can have little control".

I just wish it will change our unlawful precence and remove the bars so we can take our own route to citizenship.

Yes, I agree, I wish they could take the 10 year ban off. Many of us could get work sponsorship if that was the case.

sigh*

Well, at least our younger sibilings could possibly adjust in the future!

You typically don't get a 10 year ban if you leave before you are 18 and 1/2, right? I turn 19 in October... Ugh!