Archive for the ‘Immigration, General’ Category.

The Agents of [Operation] S.H.I.E.L.D.

Photographs of the Byron G. Rogers Federal Building and U. S. Courthouse in Denver, Colorado. Carol  M. Highsmith, Llibrary of Congress

Photograph of the Byron G. Rogers Federal Building and U. S. Courthouse in Denver, Colorado. Carol M. Highsmith, Library of Congress

The Federal Protective Service has a heavy responsibility.  Their mission is to keep federal properties safe and secure for employees, officials and visitors, alike.  One such property is the newly renovated Byron G. Rodgers Federal Building in downtown Denver.  Among other tenants in this otherwise public building, sits the Denver Immigration Court where the fates of many immigrants and their families are determined.

Last week, under the banner of “Operation Shield” more than a dozen armed FPS personnel descended on the building’s entrance lobby.   The operation sought to restrict public access to numerous federal offices housed in that building, temporarily detaining and subjecting unsuspecting visitors to full criminal background investigations if they could not—or would not—produce valid US-government issued ID.

Predictably, immigrants, their family members, even witnesses and attorneys seeking to attend court proceedings were caught in this flash op.  Many immigrants—even those who are in the process of legalizing their status—rely on passports or foreign-issued identity documents until their case is resolved.  No matter that all visitors to the building pass through an almost airport-level of security screening, ensuring no weapons or other hazardous materials can be brought within.   No matter that immigration officials have already conducted background checks in conjunction with the applications of immigrants attending hearing.

Was this bristling display of law enforcement prowess calibrated to respond to a credible threat of terrorism?  No.  Was there a security breach, concerns about a potential insider attack, or a bomb threat?  Nope.  Was the operation hoping to detect “unauthorized persons” or potentially disruptive or dangerous activities?  Hardly.

What it did accomplish was to draw the attention and ire of many, including attorneys with the Colorado Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, who in response filed a federal lawsuit requesting a temporary restraining order to stop these intimidating practices. The lawsuit requests a federal judge to intervene and issue an injunction to immediately stop the abuse.  Today, the government has agreed to end these practices while a review of security measures takes place.

“Homeland Security” cannot be magic words that make us forget we have a Constitution.  Overbearing and intimidating practices such as these have no place in a country built on liberty and access to justice.

Written by Laura Lichter, AILA Immediate Past President and Member, AILA Colorado Chapter

Governor O’Malley Moves Baltimore City Away from Secure Communities

shutterstock_176840825At a time when Federal stalemate and local hostility prevents us from giving practical help to the 11 million souls in our midst without a country, I am proud to live and practice law in a state led by a governor who practices what his faith preaches.

Governor Martin O’Malley took a strong stand on behalf of the undocumented when he advocated and signed into law in Maryland a bill guaranteeing in-state tuition for undocumented students.  Now he has come forward again, and announced an end to the use of the ironically-named “Secure Communities” program at the Baltimore City Jail.

If I were to criticize Governor O’Malley at all in this context, it would be for taking so long to take this step in the first instance. This program is anything but secure for communities.  It separates children from their parents, forcing state and local governments to step in and spend time and resources doing the parents’ work at the expense of other families.  It has led to the deportation of individuals who offer no threat to our national interest at all, and who have violated little more than traffic laws.  Even worse, it has led to the under-reporting of far more serious, even violent, crimes, from fear of being accidentally caught in a deportation system whose own resources are so overwhelmed that it can no longer adequately discriminate between those who deserve mercy and those who do not.

But, rather than focus on criticism, it is more appropriate, especially at this time of year, to focus on praise.  As Christians celebrate Easter, and Jews observe Passover, it’s worth noting that both faiths support the struggle for freedom, and the good to be found in sheltering those among us who are strangers and sojourners.   In ending the “Secure Communities” program in Baltimore, Governor O’Malley has honored his faith as a Catholic, and upheld his belief in America as a promised land for everyone.

Written by Cynthia Rosenberg, Chair, AILA D.C. Chapter

Could Religion Be the Common Ground for Immigration Reform?

The Catholic Church is no stranger to the headlines.  As a Catholic I am often disappointed by its focus in the media and its presentation and stance on many issues.

However, since the selection and inauguration of Pope Francis, much of the conversation in and around the Catholic Church has changed.  Last month, when the Pontiff met with President Obama, immigration became the latest issue to make international headlines from the self proclaimed “Pope of the Poor”.  Pope Francis highlighted the struggles of migrants and the often inhumane U.S. immigration policies and laws.  A ten year old girl from Los Angeles, who was able to speak to the Pope, shared the story of her father who had been in detention and who she hadn’t seen for two years.  Shortly after the story broke, her father was released from detention.  USCIS claimed the two events were unrelated – perhaps it was the Pope’s first miracle?

To me, this time the Catholic Church is on the right side of the debate.  Other recent efforts by the Church to draw attention to the need for reform include the Mass held at the border on April 1, led by Cardinal Sean O’Malley, which brought together family members on both sides of the border fence to remember those who had died trying to cross the border into the U.S.

Across the country, many Catholic leaders are repeatedly and publicly enjoining their congregations to see immigrants as people first, as human beings who are imperfect, as we all are, most of them just trying to build a better life for themselves and their families and calling for immigration reform.

These Catholic voices are joined by thousands of others of varying faiths.

They are joined by Jewish leaders who recognize the relevance immigration has played in their religion’s histories, teachings, and U.S. experiences. They are joined by Methodists who see the destruction that our current broken system brings to communities.  They are joined by Muslim faith leaders who underscore the dignity of the human life and experience and the need for laws that respect that dignity.

In one recent multi-denominational vigil in Los Angeles, all of those faiths and more were represented, all calling for immigration reform and the change necessary to keep families and communities together.

Faith leaders, who may disagree on the finer details of dogma, agree that immigration is a moral issue and one that impacts those of all faiths.  This has not gone unnoticed by President Obama who on April 15 met with faith leaders to discuss immigration with the hope of reaching consensus across party lines.

People of faith, like Pope Francis, see the universality of the human condition. He calls on all of us to show compassion for our fellow man. Immigration reform done right would reflect that compassion.  Perhaps religion, which we too often see as a source of division, can this time serve as a bridge to unite us and serve as a basis and foundation for immigration reform.

Written by Anastasia Tonello, AILA Secretary

America’s April Fools’ Lottery Is No Laughing Matter

shutterstock_180736661Today thousands of U.S. employers large and small are buying lottery tickets hoping they will win the right to employ a highly skilled, well-educated professional.

This is not an April Fools’ joke.

Unfortunately, this is the system under which the nation that sees itself as the world’s leading economy allows its businesses to hire the best and the brightest from around the world: the H-1B visa “lottery.”

Under a law that hasn’t been touched by legislators in years, there are only 65,000 new slots available for employers to hire university-educated foreign professionals, plus another 20,000 for employers hiring foreign nationals who have graduated from U.S. advanced degree programs. In years when our economy was at its worst, this annual limit was no problem.  However, as the economy slowly recovers and employers increase hiring, the allotment of H-1B’s has been exhausted earlier and earlier within each Fiscal Year, and last year, over 130,000 H-1B applications were filed by employers for 85,000 slots on the very first day of filing—April 1—resulting in the now infamous lottery.

According to all forecasts, this is likely to be repeated in the current year, a cruel April Fools’ joke visited upon U.S. employers as a result of outdated laws.

What is truly foolish here? It is foolish to place artificial limits on the number of smart and highly educated professionals who can come here to work for U.S. employers, when it is obvious that the number of H-1B applications filed each year is well regulated by market demand.

It is foolish to prevent foreign talent from coming to the U.S. when it has been consistently shown that these individuals create jobs for U.S. workers. It is foolish to perpetuate a system that stymies U.S. business, prevents growth and drives foreign investment to other countries.

Sadly, until Congress does its job and updates our antiquated immigration laws so that American businesses can remain competitive in the global marketplace of the 21st century, the joke is on all of us.

And that’s no laughing matter.

Written by Eleanor Pelta, AILA Past President

Shifting Pressure, Shifting Strategies – Whose Move Will Be Checkmate?

shutterstock_55028839Chess is a two-player strategy game. Each player begins with 16 pieces: A king, a queen, two rooks, two knights, two bishops, and eight pawns. Pieces are used to attack and capture, with the objective to ‘checkmate’ the opponent’s king by inescapably trapping him. Strategy, however, is the key to each move.

Just like politics.

In June of 2012 President Obama sent shockwaves from Pennsylvania Avenue, to Capitol Hill, and across the nation by announcing he would defer the deportation of young undocumented immigrants through a process later termed Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). A few months later the President was re-elected with the overwhelming support of the Latino community and the conversation about immigration began to shift. Republicans and Democrats were both talking about when, not whether, immigration reform would become a reality.

One year later, the Senate passed bipartisan comprehensive immigration legislation. Suddenly immigration reform had real momentum. DREAMers, immigration advocates, and pundits called upon the House of Representatives to finish the job the Senate had started and send an immigration reform bill to the President for signature.

But then it all seemed to hit a brick wall.

While both parties have taken a few steps forward, whether it’s the House Republican Standards for Immigration Reform, or the Democrats presenting H.R. 15, no real fixes to our broken immigration system have been implemented. It has been over 200 days since the Senate passed a thorough immigration reform bill and more than 45 days since those House GOP standards were released, yet the prospect of any positive bills making it out of the 113th Congress are looking increasingly bleak.

Politics have taken over the rhetoric with all sides throwing accusations and shifting blame for inaction.  Conservatives argue they cannot trust the current administration to enforce the laws.  Yet they ignore the fact that the current administration has deported more immigrants than the two previous administrations combined.

Advocates feel frustrated that the House is unwilling to reach across the table to work in a bipartisan manner to finish the job the Senate started.  Yet they also fear that if they make a radical move reform will die a slow, painful, disheartening death on the steps of the Capitol.

As if engaged in a game of chess, many, who started mobilizing their pieces with pressure on the House to take action, are now shifting their rooks to pressure President Obama to stop deportations.  We’ve seen field activists at work, fasting for reform and holding protests which has upped the media coverage and drawn attention to blatant violations of human rights and defiance of the dysfunctional immigration laws that continue to separate families.

How far do the American people have to go for their leaders to listen?  Poll after poll highlights that the American people want reform of our immigration laws, that the majority favor a fair and just avenue for the 11 million to fully integrate into our economic and social fabric.  Study after study demonstrates the economic and prosperity benefits of immigration reform and report after report shows that we need smarter enforcement, not necessarily more money thrown at the border.

Yet despite the strong public support for reform, no floor votes on immigration have yet been scheduled. Advocates are shifting pressure and tactics to see who will make the next move – will Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) have the courage to listen to the American public and not the extremists in the House? Will President Obama take further administrative measures to protect American families from being torn apart while the House delays acting on immigration reform?

Meanwhile, American families are feeling the pain and anguish and businesses are losing millions in revenue. But unlike the game of chess, there is no “King” to checkmate. The only inescapable threat of capture lies with the American people being held hostage by the politics of the game. So the question is: what bold move must be taken to get reform back on track?

The President’s directive to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the summer of 2012 to establish DACA was reasonable, humane, and smart enforcement. Every agency holds discretion in enforcement to ensure the security of our communities and to maximize their limited resources.

This month’s call by the President on Jeh Johnson, the newly appointed head of DHS, to look for ways to “more humanely” enforce immigration laws seems promising. A move welcomed by advocates and an opportunity for the agency to embrace our American values of due process, liberty and humanity. The agency’s use of prosecutorial discretion and the administration’s encouragement to find ways to ease the disheartening effects of the current system while our leaders continue to move three pawns, shift two knights and glide one bishop across the board toward a bipartisan reform bill is not only the right move, but one that acknowledges our family values and can ease the economic losses of our businesses while maintaining the security of our communities.

Written by Annaluisa Padilla, AILA Treasurer

Top Ten Similarities Between March Madness and the U.S. Immigration System

shutterstock_71304997As a native Hoosier and Indiana University graduate, I have always loved March Madness – the idea that any team could find a place and then potentially win or, at the very least, upset, the tournament is exciting and inspiring.  Additionally, I love lists.  Competition and the fast pace of both the games and the eliminations make March Madness a unique and inclusive sporting experience.  That said, this year was disappointing for Indiana basketball, and without my team participating, I have not been as involved.  With a bit of perspective, and inspired by another Hoosier, David Letterman, I have been pondering the top ten similarities between March Madness and U.S. immigration.  Drum roll please…

10. Competition – In March Madness, 12th seeded Harvard can eliminate 5th seeded Cincinnati; in the immigration March Madness (aka H-1B filing season), an Art History graduate from an unranked regional college could beat out a Nuclear Engineer from MIT.

9.  Randomness – In March Madness, just because you made it out of the first round, don’t expect to make it to the final four.  In immigration, just because you got picked in the H-1B lottery doesn’t mean you’ll survive adjudication.

8.  Seeds/Preferences – March Madness organizes the 68 participating teams into regions and seeds; the highest ranked teams play the lowest ranked teams giving the teams with the best records the best chance to make it to the final four.  Immigration has preferences and chargeability; some preferences move faster than others, and chargeability means that some nationalities “beat” others by virtue of lower demand.

7. Cinderella stories – Dayton defeats Ohio State!  DREAMers – those brought to the U.S. as children can apply for work permits under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)!

6.  Athletes are the stars – in March Madness the players and coaches make the magic happen.  In immigration, athletes and most well known artists, actors and musicians get access to O or P visas–not subject to the same numerical limitations or delays as H-1Bs.

5.  Politics run high – no matter what IU’s seed is or chance of advancing, I could never pick Michigan or Purdue to beat my alma mater.  Just like some members of Congress don’t want to hand others the “win” on immigration reform.

4.  The President weighs in – Barack-etology had Duke and Ohio State advancing.  He didn’t make that happen. President Obama’s views on immigration reform legislation are simply not authoritative because he isn’t in Congress.

3.  The cards are unfairly stacked – Consider the chances of 16th seeded Weber State beating #1 seeded Arizona.  Sure, it’s possible, but very difficult.  For a foreign national to get through the labor certification process, an employer must show that no U.S. worker is available, qualified and willing to take the job.

2.  Uniquely American – college sports played at this level with the amount of marketing and revenue only happens in America – and we’re also the only country with this mismatched patchwork of laws and policies masquerading as an immigration system.

1.  Even if you aren’t interested, you can’t escape either one – office bracket pools, televised games showing everywhere, social networking blasts with comments and commentary – How could you not have heard that Duke was upset by Mercer?  Same with immigration – articles, blogs, social commentary – our immigration system is constantly the subject of media attention.

At least with March Madness, on April 7, 2014, we will have a national champion.  With immigration – the madness isn’t contained to one month.  Without action by Congress, U.S. immigration madness will continue.

Written by Anastasia Tonello, AILA Secretary

Another Kind of March Madness

shutterstock_9560890For many immigration practitioners, no matter how devout a college basketball fan they may be, another type of March Madness overtakes their lives to the exclusion of all else:  H-1B season.  We’re in the midst of it right now and it’s going to be a brutal year; experts in the field expect the 85,000 visa cap to be reached immediately upon acceptance of H-1B visa petitions on April 1.

This kind of extraordinarily high demand for H-1B visas, a category set aside for skilled workers, demonstrates yet another fault in current American immigration policy.  It is clear that American businesses depend heavily on skilled foreign workers and our current system just doesn’t permit these workers to enter the American economy without jumping through hoops and being lucky enough to be picked out of a hat for one of the H-1B slots available.

Let’s talk numbers: approximately 124,000 visa petitions were filed during the first week of April 2013, and experts are predicting well over 150,000 petitions to be filed in the first days of H-1B visa petition acceptance this year.  Said otherwise, up to half or more of all eligible skilled workers who already have a job offer in hand from a U.S. company will have their petitions denied for lack of available visas.

The 85,000 H-1B cap isn’t established using a set of economic indicators, combined with local and regional workforce needs, but instead was set arbitrarily and implemented in 2003 when the previous cap of 195,000 was drastically reduced.  But this sort of capriciousness with caps and limits is status quo when it comes to our nation’s immigration laws across the board.

Those who defend the cap as a way to protect U.S. workers are short-sighted.  As the American Immigration Council’s Executive Director Ben Johnson described during a House Judiciary Committee hearing, “Highly skilled immigrants complement their native-born peers; they do not substitute for them. This is true throughout all high-skilled occupations, but is particularly true in STEM fields.  Arguments that immigrants are depressing wages or freezing out native-born workers belie the available evidence.”

The H-1B March Madness keeps me and many of my colleagues busy and employed, which I appreciate.  But as an American, who cares deeply for this country, knowing that yet another facet of our immigration laws doesn’t reflect the needs of our nation, or its founding values, is disheartening.

Something needs to be done.  And while much of the debate over Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) centers around family unity and bringing the undocumented out of the shadows, it is easy to overlook how CIR could impact American businesses and help our economy flourish.  But the Senate-passed bipartisan bill last June contained changes to employment-based immigration as part of a comprehensive approach.

By raising the H-1B cap and creating easier access to jobs for foreign-born, educated individuals, CIR will help the economy continue to grow by allowing our businesses to grow and advance in a competitive global economy.  Without reform, we risk getting behind in the global marketplace, losing skilled workers to other developed nations and economies.

Reform to our immigration quotas for temporary and permanent workers is vital to our economy.  Providing additional visa options to temporary unskilled seasonal workers for our agricultural industry and long-term skilled workers to America’s businesses are important changes that should be implemented.  The current arbitrary limits on visas don’t help anyone.

Recently an open letter to Speaker Boehner was signed by 636 business leaders, calling for immigration reform.  Companies ranging from Microsoft and Google to Caterpillar and Hormel Foods understand the need for America to stay competitive in the global marketplace.  Without immigration reform, we risk losing major bases of operations to foreign shores, and that would hurt our economy.  Having lost so many manufacturing jobs to global outsourcing, America cannot afford to lose our tech sector and other corporations requiring skilled workers as well.

The need for immigration reform is obvious.  America’s businesses need reasonable, legal avenues to bring educated and skilled foreign workers here, to help boost our economy.

This type of March Madness has to stop.

Written by Bryon M. Large, Esq., Chair, AILA Colorado Chapter

The Long-Awaited and Vitally Important PREA Rule is Imminent

shutterstock_172161761We heard today that the long-awaited and vitally important Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) final regulations will likely be issued next week by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The importance of these regulations cannot be overstated. The PREA Commission found that immigrant detainees are particularly vulnerable to abuse which is why implementation of these regulations is so important.  No one should be subjected to sexual assault or any form of abuse while in government custody.

I’m encouraged, and I know that my fellow AILA members are as well, that the rule’s release is imminent.  It has been nearly two full years since we submitted testimony to the House of Representatives calling for DHS to apply PREA regulations to immigration detention facilities.

The immigrants held in these detention centers have waited far too long for this protection.  It is incredibly important that DHS now moves as quickly as possible to ensure that the new rule covers all facilities – including local jails that contract with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).  Those local jails hold about half of all ICE detainees on any given day so it is imperative that they also be covered by these regulations.

I know that when it is released, AILA staff will be reviewing the final rule.  It is my sincere hope that the changes to detention policy will lessen the fear of abuse that too many immigrant detainees face.

More next week!

Written by AILA President, Doug Stump

No, It’s Not Over

shutterstock_147492446Last week I came to Washington and met with House leaders about immigration reform.  I heard a lot of pessimism and I certainly understand where it’s coming from.  After the high of the Senate bill passage, during AILA’s Annual Conference of course, we’ve descended into the lows of inaction.

There was a glimmer when the House Republican leadership released their standards for immigration reform but then the appearance of backtracking immediately thereafter resulted in a fizzle, rather than an explosion of forward momentum.

But let’s be honest, it was never going to be easy.  But we’ve kept up the fight.

And what’s impressive to me, and keeps me optimistic about our chances, is the fact that immigration reform is turning into an issue that is uniting more and more Americans rather than pulling them apart.

What do I mean?  Well, we’ve got poll after poll that points to an acceptance of the need for reform that helps the undocumented get on the road to citizenship.  We’ve got poll after poll that emphasizes the acceptance of DREAMers as the incredibly deserving group of kids that they are.  We’ve seen a shift in public perception from an emphasis on security and enforcement at all costs towards welcoming and understanding and wanting to DO something about our broken immigration system.

So while Washington, DC may be at a standstill, while Capitol Hill may not be moving, the rest of the country is.

And what that means is that we need to keep up the advocacy, keep up the push, and keep up the hard work in our communities, in our states, and in DC.

Which is why I’m asking you for your time.  Make a visit in February or March to your senator or representative.  Talk to them or their staff about why immigration reform is important.  Offer yourself as a resource, a person they can turn to for solid information about what bills have been brought up in committee, what they would mean for your community, and why this issue is so important.

Tell them about what you’ve witnessed.  Bring along a client and their family if they’re willing.  Share the impact that reform would have on a family facing deportation, local businesses, agriculture, high-tech, what have you.

And then commit to doing the visits again, in DC, as part of AILA’s National Day of Action on April 10.

I’m not giving up.  I’m going to keep meeting, educating, and sharing.  I’m going to keep my voice loud but respectful.  I’m going to make sure that both sides of the aisle know where I stand, and I encourage all of you to do the same.

You can sign up for the National Day of Action online.  It’s free, it’s important, and I hope to see you there.

Written by Doug Stump, AILA President

Advance Parole Rules Need Review

shutterstock_151420769On Friday, I received a difficult phone call many immigration lawyers face on occasion.  While it is fortunately a rare occasion, demographics and statistics assure us that these calls will continue.  My client’s derivative adjustment application has been pending since 2007, she is working based upon an EAD, and her father is dying in India.  The family expects his death will come any moment, certainly within a couple of days.  She didn’t have an advance parole.

My first step was to call the local Field Office Director (FOD) and I immediately found an individual at USCIS with both the compassion to understand the need for the advance parole, and the commitment to help.  The FOD suggested I file the I-131 online, and get her the receipt as soon as possible.  Within an hour, we had electronically filed the application, including the supporting documentation from the doctor, and the FOD spent the rest of Friday afternoon seeking the technical ability and legal authority to issue the travel document.  Unfortunately, she wasn’t able to issue the document before the weekend notwithstanding what I am certain was a dedicated effort.  After a very long weekend for my client, the FOD returned to work on Monday morning to continue the effort. Fortunately, the advance parole document was issued first thing Monday and my client was able to travel immediately.  Before that could happen, however, our office spent an entire day working with her, and the FOD spent most of the same day working on the effort, as did many other local office and service center staff, and other personnel within USCIS.   A great deal of effort by all parties was required, during which my client spent a few very difficult days with a lot of stress and anxiety concerning her ability to be with family at the time of her father’s death.

This experience led me to think about the rule that requires the issuance of advance parole, and more specifically, the reason that the document must be issued before the applicant departs from the United States.  The regulation imposes the rule that departure before the document is issued constitutes an abandonment of the adjustment application.  8 CFR §245.23(j).  There is no statute that mandates this rule.  The regulation was written when adjustment applications took 30 to 60 days to adjudicate, and the need to travel during this brief interim period was rare.  The predominant theory suggested that an individual applying for adjustment wanted to live permanently in the U.S., had just submitted an application for this benefit, and absent extraordinary circumstances, there should be no immediate need to travel.  By 1992, the processing times were slightly longer, and Associate Commissioner James Puleo issued a memorandum with instructions to grant advance parole upon request unless the need to travel was contrary to law or public policy.  He explained this new standard as follows:

This instruction was clearly meant to accommodate the legitimate travel of persons inconvenienced by visa numbers becoming unavailable after they filed adjustment applications. Construction of the term ‘bona fide business or personal reason’ to require a showing of emergent or extreme need to travel is inappropriate. Accordingly, travel for a bona fide business or personal reason should be considered as travel for any reason which is not contrary to law or public policy. 

Adjudicator’s Field Manual, Chap. 54.3(b), quoting from the 1992 Puleo Memo (emphasis in the original).

In July 2007, at the same time 325,000 adjustment applications were filed, many of which are still pending today, USCIS published a new fee schedule that became effective on July 30, 2007.  This notice increased the filing fee for adjustment applications to $985 (plus $85 for biometrics) but included applications for employment authorization and advance parole for every adjustment applicant, irrespective of the need to travel.  From 1992 to 2007, we moved from a standard that required “emergent or humanitarian considerations” to a new standard that makes the advance parole application a routine part of every adjustment application.

The only reason advance parole is required before travel is because the regulation imposes this requirement.  8 CFR §245.23(j).  But if this is not required by the statute, only by the regulation, what is the policy imperative behind this rule?  I suggest that today, there is no good reason for this rule.  The nature of the adjustment application and the routine advance parole applications that are now a part of every single application, suggest that an applicant’s travel before the document is issued no longer justifies the abandonment of the underlying adjustment application.  By eliminating this rule, clients with an emergent need can travel, and make arrangements to have the approved document sent to them overseas once it has been approved.  This would eliminate the stress, time, money, and attention of the applicants and USCIS personnel to expedite a process that is required only by an obsolete rule.

Written by Rob Cohen, Vice Chair, AILA’s USCIS Liaison Committee