Visa Lawyer Blog: New USCIS Policy Seeks to Intimidate Immigrants Applying for Green Cards by Threatening Deportation Proceedings


Until this month, if your family member was in the U.S. legally, you could file an I-130 on their behalf, and they could remain in the U.S. while it was being processed. In a devious underhanded move to increase their deportation numbers, the Trump regime intends to start deporting family members whose visas have expired while their I-130 filings are being processed.


On August 1st the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced new policies that could make immigrants applying for green cards through family-based petitions more vulnerable to deportation.

The changes appear in various updates to USCIS’ Policy Manual which states that immigration officials can begin removal proceedings for immigrants who lack legal status and apply to become permanent residents through family-based petitions.

According to the Policy Manual, “if USCIS determines the alien beneficiary is removeable and amenable to removal from the United States, USCIS may issue a Notice to Appear (NTA) [in immigration court] placing the beneficiary in removal proceedings. Petitioners and alien beneficiaries should be aware that a family-based petition accords no immigration status nor does it bar removal.”

The new policy went into effect immediately and applies to pending requests for a green card, and those filed on or after August 1st.

While the practical impact of this policy is yet to be seen, it provides immigration officials with more discretion to initiate removal proceedings even where a green card application is pending with USCIS, for those who entered the U.S. illegally, overstayed a U.S. visa, or otherwise failed to maintain their legal status.

These policy changes underscore the importance of maintaining underlying legal status throughout the green card process. Those who lack legal status or who lost their status during the green card process may be most at risk.

This shift is troubling because under previous administrations, green card applicants were not placed in removal proceedings while their green card applications were pending, except for cases involving serious criminal offenses.

USCIS has defended these policies stating that, “Fraudulent, frivolous, or otherwise non-meritorious family-based immigrant visa petitions erode confidence in family-based pathways to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status and undermine the immigration system in the United States. USCIS must ensure that qualifying marriages and family relationships are genuine, verifiable, and compliant with all applicable laws.”

Overtime, USCIS has become increasingly cooperative with agencies like DHS and ICE—moving from an administrative agency to an immigration enforcement agency placing a growing number of immigrants at risk of deportation.

These policies send a clear anti-immigrant message intended to intimidate and drive undocumented immigrants to self-deport. Green card applicants must not fall into this trap and instead seek legal counsel to fully understand their rights.

Tampa Free Press: Colorado Judge Rebukes AG [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi, Sides With Immigrant Family Over Paperwork Rule 

Appeals Court Vacates Immigration Ruling, Finds Agency Erred on Signature Requirement

In a decision concerning immigration procedures, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Colorado has vacated a ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The court’s ruling, filed on Tuesday, in the case of Cortez v. United States Attorney General Pam [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi, determined that the BIA was incorrect to reject an appeal from a Salvadoran mother and son based on a technicality regarding a signature.

Ana Sofia Cortez and her minor son, M.Y.A.C., who are natives of El Salvador, had their initial application for relief from removal denied by an immigration judge.

Their attorney subsequently filed an appeal with the BIA using the Electronic Courts and Appeals System (ECAS). The BIA, however, rejected the filing, stating that the proof-of-service section on the form was not signed.

The court’s opinion, authored by Judge Hartz, found that the BIA’s requirement for a signature on this section constituted a legal error.

The court highlighted the instructions on the BIA’s own form, which stated that a signature for the proof of service was required “if applicable.” Since the attorney filed electronically through ECAS, the system automatically served the opposing party, making a separate service and, therefore, a signature on that section, unnecessary.

The government, represented by the Office of Immigration Litigation, had argued that the petitioners’ challenge to the rejection was untimely. However, the Tenth Circuit chose not to consider this argument, noting that the BIA had not relied on that specific ground in its decision.

“The BIA’s rejection of Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was predicated on an error of law and must be set aside,” the court stated in its opinion.

As a result, the court has vacated and remanded the case back to the BIA for further proceedings. This decision allows the petitioners a renewed opportunity to have the merits of their appeal considered. The ruling underscores the importance of agencies adhering to the clear language of their own procedural instructions and forms.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/colorado-judge-rebukes-ag-bondi-sides-with-immigrant-family-over-paperwork-rule/ar-AA1JXQk8