Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Report: Immigrants in Detention Subjected to Punitive and Long-Term Solitary Confinement and Denial of Due Process

Heartland Alliance's National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) and Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) have conducted an investigation of more than a dozen immigration detention facilities and county jails that partner with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to detain immigrants awaiting removal from the United States.  

They discovered the existence of "egregious human rights violations" resulting from the Obama administration's widespread and arbitrary use of solitary confinement as a punitive measure against immigrant detainees.  They further found that immigrant detainees in solitary confinement are regularly subjected to excessive force, harassment, and/or abuse by corrections officers.

The following is from the summary of the report:
Investigators found that solitary confinement in immigration detention facilities is often arbitrarily applied, significantly overused, harmful to detainees’ health, and inadequately monitored. Some people give up and stop fighting their immigration cases so they will not have to spend another day in “the hole.” 
These individuals are then deported to countries they may not remember, or worse, to countries where they have been persecuted or tortured. In short, the use of solitary confinement within the immigration detention system places enormous pressure on immigrants attempting to stay in the United States to abandon their options for legal relief, their families, their communities, and often the only country they have ever known.
This isn't the first report that has been issued condemning the current administration for abusing immigrant detainees.  The administration has known about the occurrences of abuse in immigration detention for years, but has done virtually nothing to correct the problem.

Click here to read the full report.

Immigrants DREAM on: Neither Obama nor Romney will help you

Monday, September 24, 2012

Rep. Luis Gutierrez: No Promises from Obama to Move Quickly on Immigration Reform if Reelected in November

The Hill reports that the esteemed Congressman from Illinois, Luis Gutierrez (D), has indicated that he has received no assurances from the White House that if President Obama is reelected that he will "move quickly" to address comprehensive immigration reform.

So what?  The President isn't willing to fall into the same trap that he did last time he was campaigning by making MORE promises that he can't keep.  He is learning from his mistakes.  I call that "Change."
No quick movement from the White House on immigration reform.  Got it.

But the President must AT LEAST have a vision for what immigration reform will EVENTUALLY look like in his last four years?  He's got a plan waiting in the wings, RIGHT?  

The Hill reports an "emphatic" "NO" from Congressman Gutierrez.

No immigration reform strategy has been communicated to the leading pro-immigration reform voice in the Congress by the White House, and we are less than two months away from the Presidential election.
Ok, for those keeping score, let's get this straight: (1) no promises to work quickly on immigration reform, and (2) no strategy in the works.


This latest disappointment comes on the heels of the President (pandering) on Univision where he stated that immigration reform was his biggest failure.

So Mr. President, let me ask you this: if immigration reform is in fact your "biggest failure" why isn't it even listed as an important issue on your campaign website?

Ohhh right... your website is in English.

The immigration reform message is only meant for Spanish speaking voters.

Regardless, Congressman Gutierrez is "positive" that we will see immigration reform in term two, but astoundingly, it is because THE REPUBLICANS are going to lead on the issue.  


The Republicans?

Yup, you heard it right.  The Republicans are going to lead on the issue.  Not President Obama.  The Republicans.

Gutierrez points to Republicans like Jeb Bush, and Marco Rubio who will take the lead on immigration reform, and will introduce their own reform legislation: “because the Republicans are going to take such a beating in this election that they’re going to propose [their own plan].”

So it appears that Obama's immigration reform strategy is to win soundly in November, garnering the Hispanic vote in the process, but once in office provide no leadership by doing nothing, and solve the problem by allowing THE REPUBLICANS to take the lead through the introduction of their own immigration reform legislation.

I guess I just don't know what to say to that.
Well, what about Mitt Romney?  Did he also talk immigration on Univision?

You betcha.

Just like the President, Romney didn't offer any solutions, but appears to have reversed his tone on his previous "self-deportation" plan stating that if elected: “We’re not going to round up people around the country and deport them.” 

Well, at this point, I guess we just need to take what we can get.

Vote Gary Johnson for President in 2012.


Thursday, September 20, 2012

Obama Administration Forcibly Removed a Combined 928,000 People from the United States in 2011

Here is the statistical breakdown from the report:

• CBP found 212,000 foreign nationals inadmissible for entry into the United States.
• DHS made 642,000 apprehensions of foreign nationals; 76 percent were natives of Mexico.
• ICE detained approximately 429,000 foreign nationals, an all-time high.
• DHS returned 324,000 foreign nationals to their home countries without a removal order.
• DHS removed 392,000 foreign nationals from the United States.
• Reinstatements of final orders accounted for 130,000, or 33 percent, of all removals.
• Expedited removals accounted for 123,000, or 31 percent, of all removals.
• The highest targeted countries of nationality  for removal being Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.
• 32% of all people found to be inadmissible from the United States were citizens of Mexico.
• Mexican nationals accounted for 67 percent of total detainees.
• Mexicans accounted for 83 percent of expedited removals.
• 82% of all reinstatement of removals were against citizens of Mexico

In total, if you combine the number of people found indamissible (212,000), with the number of people officially removed (392,000), and the people that were returned to their native countres without a removal order (324,000), we are talking about a total of 928,000 people that the current administration forcibly returned to their native country in 2011, a disproportionately large percentage of which being Hispanic.

So folks, those are the numbers.  As you can see the Obama administration's deportation grinder continues to relentlessly destroy families in this country through deportation, with no foreseeable end in sight.

Here is the cold harsh reality: this President is waging an aggressive war against immigrant communities, and the statistics show that you should be particularly concerned if you are Hispanic.

Realizing Liberty: The Use of International Human Rights Law to Realign Immigration Detention in the United States

Professor Denise Gilman of the University of Texas School of Law has written an issue paper on the U.S. immigration detention system from a human rights perspective.  It is entitled "Realizing Liberty: The Use of International Human Rights Law to Realign Immigration Detention in the United States."

Here is the abstract:
This article takes a comprehensive look at the extensive U.S. immigration detention system from a human rights perspective. The article represents a first effort to synthesize and present recently-developed international human rights standards and apply those rules to the U.S. immigration detention system. It engages in an in-depth analysis to identify the changes necessary to realign U.S. law and scale back immigration detention in accord with international human rights law. The article proposes that U.S. courts should effect those changes through the interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions in light of the international human rights law standards. This use of the human rights standards is appropriate, because the standards represent binding obligations for the United States as a matter of international law and closely track U.S. constitutional law principles relating to civil detention in contexts less contentious than immigration. The article demonstrates how the application of international human rights law standards can bring rationality and humanity to U.S. immigration detention by revitalizing the right to liberty, which constitutes a core conception in both international human rights law and U.S. constitutional law.
The paper is 72 pages, and can be downloaded in its entirety here.

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Federal Court to Obama Administration: Stop Deporting Defense Witnesses

It looks like you can add defense witnesses to the list of immigrants that are a deportation priority of the Obama administration.  Sandra Hernandez of the L.A. Times has reported that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stern warning to the federal government, who apparently has made a habit of deporting witnesses that are able to provide material testimony that would assist in the defense of defendants in criminal proceedings.

The case involves an individual that was ultimately convicted of the crime of alien smuggling under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(iii).  There were four immigrants that were willing to be potential witnesses.  The three immigrants that were willing to testify in a way that was favorable to the prosecution were permitted to remain in the United States.  The one immigrant that gave statements on multiple occasions exonerating the defendant was deported.

Judge Alex Kozinski issued the following decision:
May the government deport an illegal alien who can provide exculpatory evidence for a criminal defendant before counsel for that defendant has even been appointed? We believe the answer is self-evident, as the government recognized in an earlier case where it moved to vacate a conviction after it deported witnesses whose testimony would have exculpated defendant.
This is not the first time that the government admitted to deporting defense witnesses.
We had assumed... that the government would refrain from putting aliens who could provide exculpatory evidence beyond the reach of the court and defense counsel. But whatever wisdom the United States Attorney for the Southern District of California gained in Ramirez-Lopez appears to have applied to that case and that defendant only. We change that today.
Needless to say the 9th reversed the conviction, and remanded the case back to the lower Court to decide whether to dismiss charges with prejudice as a consequence of the Government's (mis)conduct.

This is not the first time I have seen deportation used as a weapon against defense witnesses.  In one of my own cases a Special Agent from ICE testified under oath that he threatened my defense witness with deportation if he wasn't willing to testify for the Government.

Apparently, the government has forgotten that their duty is not to win at any cost, but to ensure that justice is done.

Thankfully, we have the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to remind them.

Click here to read the full opinion of the Court.

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

USCIS Issues Guidance on Whether or Not to Disclose Fraudulent Use of a Social Security Number on Employment Authorization Application

On September 14, 2012, USCIS issued an update to their Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) frequently asked questions page. One of the updates is of significant importance, as it answers the big question that we have all been asking: should a DACA applicant disclose ALL social security numbers used, real or otherwise, on the Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization.

I'm specifically referring to Question 9 on the I-765 that asks the applicant to provide your social security number and then followed in parentheses states: "include all numbers you have ever used. If any."
Many of us have voiced concerned about this question because the DACA FAQ also contains the following warning:

"USCIS is committed to safeguarding the integrity of the immigration process. If individuals knowingly make a misrepresentation, or knowingly fail to disclose facts, in an effort to have their case deferred or obtain work authorization through this process, they will be treated as an immigration enforcement priority to the fullest extent permitted by law, and be subject to criminal prosecution and/or removal from the United States." [Emphasis added]

The updated FAQ adresses these concerns by issuing guidance relating to the disclosure of social security numbers:

"New - Q9. How should I fill out question nine (9) on the Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization? 

A9. When you are filing a Form I-765 as part of a Deferred Action Childhood Arrivals request, question nine (9) is asking you to list those Social Security numbers that were officially issued to you by the Social Security Administration."

Here are my first glance concerns.  

The USCIS FAQ does not have the full force of law, is unsigned by any USCIS official, and is subject to change at any time.  Equitable estoppel does not generally apply in the immigration context, and as a result if an individual detrimentally relies on the current guidance, and if that guidance is later revoked or altered, it is feasible that a future administration may negatively interpret any failure to disclose "all social security numbers used." 

There is an entire line of case law that specifically deals with failure to disclose material facts. Generally, if the concealment of material facts constitutes a misrepresentation it may subject an individual to deportation.
I'm not saying that a change in the current interpretation of Question 9 is imminent, or even likely to occur, but I do see the red flag, so I am mentioning it for consideration.

The bottom line is that I would feel a whole lot more comfortable if USCIS amended the actual Form I-765 rather than just the FAQ.  In a perfect world the question would read: "include all social security numbers ever used that have been assigned to you by the Social Security Administration."

Unfortunately, the world of immigration law is anything BUT perfect.

Friday, September 14, 2012

Obama Engages in Revisionist History, Claims He Did Not Promise to Complete Immigration Reform in His First Term.

Yesterday, the Deporter in Chief was interviewed by a Spanish news agency where he said that he didn't promise to enact comprehensive immigration reform during his first term in office, and merely stated that he would start the process, but that it would require more than one term to complete the job.

Here is his direct quote from the interview courtesy of Fox News Latino: "there are some things, like comprehensive immigration reform, that we have not got done yet. But in 2008 I didn't promise that I would have everything completed by the end of the first term. I said that we would begin work on all these things."

Ummm... yeah ya did:

"We can't wait 20 years from now to do it, we can't 10 years from now to do it, we need to do it by the end of my first term as president of the United States of America." Then Senator Barack Obama.

Mr. President, do you think we are stupid? Why do you insult our intelligence by lying to our faces about your failed immigration reform record as your agency CONTINUES to deport more people than any administration in history, while withholding complete deportation statistics in a blatantly obvious attempt to cover-up the true number of deportations that continue to climb on your watch.

Do you think your revisionist history will cover-up the fact that you are gaming the actual deportation numbers by denying immigrants their right to due process, and depriving them of the ability to seek administrative relief from deportation before an immigration judge.

Are you hoping that we won't notice that you are packing already over burdened immigration courts with more cases than can feasibly be handled, while imposing a hiring freeze on new immigration judges and trial attorneys?

Will you also walk-back last June's policy memorandum that has had virtually no impact on stemming the flow of deportations in practice?

Do you think that we overlooked the fact that you waited until the 11th hour of your first term to do exactly what you spent the first 3.5 years of your Presidency saying you do not have the legal authority to do.  And incidentally, why no executive order?  You know, something that ICE can't IGNORE in the exercise of discretion.

Mr. President, we AREN'T stupid.  We know when we are being lied to.  We would have more respect for your failures if you acknowledged them, rather than pulling a Mitt Romney by walking back proclamations that four years later appear to be solely motivated by political expediency to win election.

We respect honesty Mr. President.

Maybe in your second term you can give that a try. 

Thursday, September 13, 2012

DACA Approvals Being Mailed... But How Many?

On September 10, the Wall Street Journal reported that USCIS only received 40,000 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) applications out of a pool of an estimated 1.7 million potential applicants.
Yesterday (September 11, 2012), the Associated Press reported that USCIS received 72,000 DACA applications and that a "small group" have been approved.  DHS has not released the actual statistics on DACA approvals.
This report of approvals has been confirmed by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). AILA was contacted directly by DHS who indicated that electronic notifications of approval of DACA applications are being sent, and that grants should start "trickling out in the coming days." AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 12091150 (posted Sep. 11, 2012).
So the question becomes: have there been 40,000, or 72,000 DACA applications received, and moreover, where are these statistics coming from if DHS isn't releasing the actual numbers?
The cynic in me can't help to think that the ambiguity in reporting is politically motivated, as there is no other viable reason for the most transparent administration in history to be tight-lipped about the number of DACA approvals... unless the actual numbers are exponetially lower than what is expected. Kinda like when the Morton memo only resulted in 1.9% of all reviewed cases receiving a favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion.
So that being said, here are the questions that I, and an estimated 1.7 million potential DACA applicants, would like some hard answers to:
  1. How many DACA applications have actually been received by USCIS?
  2. How many DACA applications have been approved by USCIS?
  3. How many DACA approval notices have already been mailed?
  4. How many DACA applications have been denied by USCIS?
  5. What was the basis for the denial (i.e., fraud in the application, serious misdemeanor, ineligibility, etc.)?
  6. How many DACA applications have received requests for additional information?
  7. How many DACA applications are awaiting adjudication in the pipeline?
  8. And most importantly... How many denials, if any, have resulted in a referral to ICE for the institution of removal proceedings.
Maybe I'm being a stickler for details, but if you are going to use the lives of undocumented immigrants as a political football it is only fair to put all of the facts on the table.
I'm not holding my breath.

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

At least 39,426 People Deported in May 2012... that we know of.

Syracuse University's TRAC immigration has determined that the Obama administration deported a total of 39,426 individuals in May 2012. They also determined that ICE is doing an end-around the immigration courts by utilizing the expedited removal process in one-third of all cases (11,735).

Another 13,697 people were sent back home by ICE through the reinstatement of a previous removal order. This happens in cases where a person was previously deported, left the U.S. and then returned illegally. Only one-quarter (approximately 10,000 people) were ordered deported by an immigration judge.

These numbers do not include expedited removals issued by Customs and Border Protection, so there is no way of knowing how many people were actually deported in May 2012. TRAC requested the data, but so far the Obama administration hasn't released it.

ICE also refuses to release complete records for months before May 2012, and continues to withhold statistics relating to court-ordered deportations versus administrative agency summary removals.

What we do know is that there is a growing trend of the Obama administration of depriving individuals of their day in court.

Here is what TRAC has determined:
ICE deportations increasingly appear to be bypassing the Immigration Courts. For example, during fiscal year 2010, the ratio of monthly Immigration Court deportation orders issued to monthly ICE-reported deportations was 42 percent. During fiscal year 2011, this ratio fell to 40 percent, and during the first eight months of fiscal year 2012 it had declined to 33 percent. 
So basically the Obama administration has dealt with the shortfall of immigration judges, and the increasing backlog of immigration cases by simply depriving people of their right to counsel, and full panoply of due process protections by preventing people from having a full immigration hearing, and merely deporting them through an administrative process.

In short... Deportation by Star Chamber.

But the Democrats let a DREAMer speak for two minutes at the DNC, so I guess it's all good.

Visa Bulletin for October 2012

Number 49
Volume IX
Washington, D.C.
1. This bulletin summarizes the availability of immigrant numbers during October. Consular officers are required to report to the Department of State documentarily qualified applicants for numerically limited visas; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Department of Homeland Security reports applicants for adjustment of status.  Allocations were made, to the extent possible, in chronological order of reported priority dates, for demand received by September10th. If not all demand could be satisfied, the category or foreign state in which demand was excessive was deemed oversubscribed.  The cut-off date for an oversubscribed category is the priority date of the first applicant who could not be reached within the numerical limits.  Only applicants who have a priority dateearlier than the cut-off date may be allotted a number. If it becomes necessary during the monthly allocation process to retrogress a cut-off date, supplemental requests for numbers will be honored only if the priority date falls within the new cut-off date announced in this bulletin.

2. Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000.  The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000.  Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620.  The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320.
3.  INA Section 203(e) provides that family-sponsored and employment-based preference visas be issued to eligible immigrants in the order in which a petition in behalf of each has been filed.  Section 203(d) provides that spouses and children of preference immigrants are entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration, if accompanying or following to join the principal.  The visa prorating provisions of Section 202(e) apply to allocations for a foreign state or dependent area when visa demand exceeds the per-country limit.  These provisions apply at present to the following oversubscribed chargeability areas:  CHINA-mainland born, INDIA, MEXICO, and PHILIPPINES.
4.  Section 203(a) of the INA prescribes preference classes for allotment of Family-sponsored immigrant visas as follows:                                        
First:  (F1) Unmarried Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens:  23,400 plus any numbers not required for fourth preference.
Second:  Spouses and Children, and Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Permanent Residents:  114,200, plus the number (if any) by which the worldwide family preference level exceeds 226,000, plus any unused first preference numbers:
A. (F2A) Spouses and Children of Permanent Residents:  77% of the overall second preference limitation, of which 75% are exempt from the per-country limit;
B. (F2B) Unmarried Sons and Daughters (21 years of age or older) of Permanent Residents:  23% of the overall second preference limitation.
Third:  (F3) Married Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens:  23,400, plus any numbers not required by first and second preferences.
Fourth:  (F4) Brothers and Sisters of Adult U.S. Citizens:  65,000, plus any numbers not required by first three preferences.
On the chart below, the listing of a date for any class indicates that the class is oversubscribed (see paragraph 1); "C" means current, i.e., numbers are available for all qualified applicants; and "U" means unavailable, i.e., no numbers are available.  (NOTE:  Numbers are available only for applicants whose priority date is earlier than the cut-off date listed below.)
Family-SponsoredAll Charge-ability Areas Except Those ListedCHINA- mainland bornINDIAMEXICOPHILIPPINES
F2A01JUN1001JUN1001JUN1015MAY10 01JUN10
*NOTE:  For October, F2A numbers EXEMPT from per-country limit are available to applicants from all countries with priority dates earlier than 15MAY10.  F2A numbers SUBJECT to per-country limit are available to applicants chargeable to all countries EXCEPT MEXICO with priority dates beginning 15MAY10 and earlier than 01JUN10.  (All F2A numbers provided for MEXICO are exempt from the per-country limit; there are no F2A numbers for MEXICO subject to per-country limit.)
5. Section 203(b) of the INA prescribes preference classes for allotment of Employment-based immigrant visas as follows:         
First: Priority Workers:  28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required for fourth and fifth preferences.
Second: Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Persons of Exceptional Ability:  28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required by first preference.      
Third: Skilled Workers, Professionals, and Other Workers:  28.6% of the worldwide level, plus any numbers not required by first and second preferences, not more than 10,000 of which to "*Other Workers".
Fourth: Certain Special Immigrants:  7.1% of the worldwide level.
Fifth: Employment Creation:  7.1% of the worldwide level, not less than 3,000 of which reserved for investors in a targeted rural or high-unemployment area, and 3,000 set aside for investors in regional centers by Sec. 610 of Pub. L. 102-395.
On the chart below, the listing of a date for any class indicates that the class is oversubscribed (see paragraph 1); "C" means current, i.e., numbers are available for all qualified applicants; and "U" means unavailable, i.e., no numbers are available.  (NOTE:  Numbers are available only for applicants whose priority date is earlier than the cut-off date listed below.)
Employment- Based
All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed
Other Workers22OCT0622JUN0315OCT0222OCT0601AUG06
Certain Religious WorkersUUUUU
Regional Centers
5th Pilot Programs
*Employment Third Preference Other Workers Category:  Section 203(e) of the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) passed by Congress in November 1997, as amended by Section 1(e) of Pub. L. 105-139, provides that once the Employment Third Preference Other Worker (EW) cut-off date has reached the priority date of the latest EW petition approved prior to November 19, 1997, the 10,000 EW numbers available for a fiscal year are to be reduced by up to 5,000 annually beginning in the following fiscal year.  This reduction is to be made for as long as necessary to offset adjustments under the NACARA program.  Since the EW cut-off date reached November 19, 1997 during Fiscal Year 2001, the reduction in the EW annual limit to 5,000 began in Fiscal Year 2002.
6.  The Department of State has a recorded message with visa availability information which can be heard at:  (202) 663-1541.  This recording is updated on or about the tenth of each month with information on cut-off dates for the following month.
Section 203(c) of the INA provides up to 55,000 immigrant visas each fiscal year to permit additional immigration opportunities for persons from countries with low admissions during the previous five years.  The NACARA stipulates that beginning with DV-99, and for as long as necessary, up to 5,000 of the 55,000 annually-allocated diversity visas will be made available for use under the NACARA program.  This resulted in reduction of the DV-2013 annual limit to 50,000.  DV visas are divided among six geographic regions.  No one country can receive more than seven percent of the available diversity visas in any one year.
For October, immigrant numbers in the DV category are available to qualified
DV-2013 applicants chargeable to all regions/eligible countries as follows. When an allocation cut-off number is shown, visas are available only for applicants with DV regional lottery rank numbers BELOW the specified allocation cut-off number:
RegionAll DV Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed Separately
Except: Egypt 5,500
Ethiopia 5,500
Nigeria 5,500
Entitlement to immigrant status in the DV category lasts only through the end of the fiscal (visa) year for which the applicant is selected in the lottery.  The year of entitlement for all applicants registered for the DV-2013 program ends as of September 30, 2013.  DV visas may not be issued to DV-2013 applicants after that date.  Similarly, spouses and children accompanying or following  to join DV-2013 principals are only entitled to derivative DV status until September 30, 2013.  DV visa availability through the very end of FY-2013 cannot be taken for granted.  Numbers could be exhausted prior to September 30.
For November, immigrant numbers in the DV category are available to qualified DV-2013 applicants chargeable to all regions/eligible countries as follows. When an allocation cut-off number is shown, visas are available only for applicants with DV regional lottery rank numbers BELOW the specified allocation cut-off number:
RegionAll DV Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed Separately
AFRICA13,900Except:  Egypt 6,600
Ethiopia 9,100
Nigeria 8,500

Employment Fourth Preference Certain Religious Workers (SR): Pursuant to Section 568(a)(1) of Public Law 111-83, the non-minister special immigrant program expires on September 30, 2012.  No SR visas may be issued overseas, or final action taken on adjustment of status cases, after September 30, 2012. Visas issued prior to this date will only be issued with a validity date of September 30, 2012, and all individuals seeking admission as a non-minister special immigrant must be admitted (repeat, admitted) into the U.S. no later than midnight September 30, 2012.
Employment Fifth Preference Pilot Categories (I5 and R5): Section 548 of Public Law 111-83 extended this immigrant investor pilot program through September 30, 2012. The I5 and R5 visas may be issued until close of business on September 30, 2012, and may be issued for the full validity period. No I5 or R5 visas may be issued overseas, or final action taken on adjustment of status cases, after September 30, 2012.
The cut-off dates for the categories mentioned above have been listed as “Unavailable” for October.  Congress is currently considering an extension of the SR, I5 and R5 visa categories, but there is no certainty when such legislative action may occur.  If there is legislative action extending one or both of these categories for FY-2013, those cut-off dates would immediately become “Current” for October.
The Department of State's Bureau of Consular Affairs publishes the monthly Visa Bulletin on their website at under the Visas section. Alternatively, visitors may access the Visa Bulletin directly by going to:
To be placed on the Department of State’s E-mail subscription list for the “Visa Bulletin”, please send an E-mail to the following E-mail address:
and in the message body type:
Subscribe Visa-Bulletin First name/Last name
(example: Subscribe Visa-Bulletin Sally Doe)
To be removed from the Department of State’s E-mail subscription list for the “Visa Bulletin”, send an e-mail message to the following E-mail address:
and in the message body type: Signoff Visa-Bulletin
The Department of State also has available a recorded message with visa cut-off dates which can be heard at: (202) 663-1541. The recording is normally updated by the middle of each month with information on cut-off dates for the following month.
Readers may submit questions regarding Visa Bulletin related items by E-mail at the following address:
(This address cannot be used to subscribe to the Visa Bulletin.)
Department of State Publication 9514
CA/VO:  September 10, 2012

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

Ten Undocumented Immigrants Arrested Protesting President Obama's Deportation Record at the DNC

Yesterday afternoon ten undocumented immigrants were arrested in Charlotte after shutting down an intersection, and refusing police orders to dispurse.  At the time of their arrest they were protesting President Obama's deportation record that has resulted in the destruction of more families than at any time in history.

In total, 50 people traveled from Phoenix to Charlotte on the "Undocubus" in an effort to draw attention to the harm that is being caused by this administration's immigration enforcement policies.  According to the Applied Research Center, in the first half of 2011, 22% of all individuals deported by the current administartion have U.S. citizen children.  

Click here to read the original source of this story.

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Award Winning ICE Agent Sues Janet Napolitano for Discrimination

Looks like another law suit has been filed against DHS Secretary Napolitano.  It has been reported that Sunil Waila, an award winning ICE agent, is seeking $2.5 million in damages after being reassigned from his post at JFK airport where he was responsible for interviewing suspicious passengers.  

Waila claims that he was reassigned after filing two discrimination complaints against Napolitano.  His reassignment, he claims, cost him a position on the prestigious Joint Terrorism Task Force, which as a prerequisite requires at least two years employment in your current assignment.

ICE isn't commenting on the case.

Click here for the original source of the story.