The U visa: primarily for crime victims who have been helpful to law enforcement reaches its numerical limit of 10,000 for 2010. Read on http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=5d5d58a734cd9210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD
Temporary Protected Status has been extended for nationals of El Salvador or those without nationality who last habitually resided in El Salvador from the current expiration date of September 9 2010 to March 9 2012. There is also an automatic extension of Employment Authorization Documentation for El Salvadorian TPS beneficiaries. Read the details in the Federal Registerhttp://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/fedreg/2010_2011/fr09jul10.pdf
In Matter of Luis Felipe Garcia Arreola, 25 I&N Dec.267 (BIA 2010), the BIA departed from Matter of Saysana, 24 I&N Dec.602 (BIA 2008) on the issue of mandatory detention as provided under INA § 236(c). The BIA held that ”section 236 (c) of the Act requires mandatory detention of a criminal alien only if he or she is released from non-DHS custody after the expiration of the TPCR and (italics mine) only where there has been a post-TPCR release that is directly tied to the basis for detention under sections 236(c)(1)(A)-(D) of the Act”.
This decision should hopefully bring some certainty to an area where some circuits and the BIA have gone in different directions. Read the full decision here www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol25/3685.pdf
1. An application for asylum must be filed within 1 year of an applicant’s arrival to the United States to be considered properly filed and be adjudicated (very limited exceptions to this rule).
2. The spouse and unmarried children under 21 years of age can benefit from an approved asylum application, thus they can join the principal asylee here in the United States.
3. An asylum applicant can apply for emplyment authorization after 150 days of a pending, properly filed application. However, such employment authorization would not be granted until at least 180 days i.e 30 days after the 150 days.
4. The spouse and unmarried children under 21 years of age are also employment eligible pursuant to anapproved asylum application.
5. Asylum status is for an indefinite but temporary period. This basically means that an asylee may have his/her status revoked if for instance there are changed circumstances in his/her country making the basis of the original grant non existent.
6. Although an asylee is not required by law to adjust status to that of a lawful permanent resident, (LPR), because of 5 above, it may be beneficial so to do. Eligibility to adjust status accrues to the asylee after one year of the grant of asylum.
7. During the pendency of the application, an asylum applicant can only travel with proper authorization or he/she would be deemed to have abandoned the application.
8. Where the asylum applicant travels to the country of feared persecution during the pendency of the application, he/she is also presumed to have abandoned the application unless if there were compelling reasons for such travel.
9. Upon grant of asylum, an asylee should be wary of travelling to the country of feared persecution as such travel may become a basis for revocation especially where the asylee has reavailed himself/herself of the protection of the said country of persecution.
10. Conviction for an aggravated felony or any other very serious crime (amongst others) would render one ineligible for asylum.
Padilla was facing deportation after pleading guilty to drug distribution charges in Kentucky. He had been a Lawful Permanent Resident for over 40 years. Padilla argued that his counsel failed to advise him of the consequence of deportation before he entered his guilty plea. Counsel told him not to worry about deportation since he had lived in the U.S. for so long. Padilla argued he would have gone to trial had he known otherwise.
The Supreme Court held that changes to U.S. immigration law have made accurate and competent legal advice for non citizens accused of crime very paramount. The sixth amendment’s guarantee of effective assistance of counsel was therefore violated as Padilla was wrongly advised as to the consequences of his guilty plea. Read the full text; http://www.supremecourt.gov/Opinions/09pdf/08-651.pdf
The recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals of the Ninth circuit in Retuta v Holder is instructive. The court held that the word “conviction” as used in the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a) (48) does not include a criminal judgement whose only consequence is a suspended fine. Full text;www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/01/07/04-74855.pdf
