The Department of Justice has filed a petition for a rehearing with the Supreme Court on the United States v. Texas case. This is the DACA/DAPA case that was decided with a 4-4 deadlock last month. That tie rendered the DACA plus and DAPA programs unable to go into effect. The decision left the ruling of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in effect. The Fifth Circuit had upheld the decision of the district court in Texas, in which the federal judge had ruled the programs could not go into effect. The reason was that the Obama Administration had not followed the procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act for promulgating and implementing rules with President Obama’s executive actions for DACA plus and DAPA programs.

The reason that there were eight Supreme Court justices ruling on the case instead of the traditional nine is because Justice Antonin Scalia died during the term and a replacement has not yet been voted on and approved by the Senate. The Department of Justice is petitioning for a nine member court to hear its case on behalf of DACA plus and DAPA. It states in its petition, “[t]his Court therefore should grant rehearing to provide for a decision by the Court when it has a full complement of Members, rather than allow a nonprecedential affirmance by an equally divided Court to leave in place a nationwide in-junction of such significance.”

The post DOJ Petitions for DACA Plus and DAPA appeared first on Wood Immigration Law.

Immigration reform looked imminent in 2013. The 2012 elections demonstrated yet another discrepancy in the Latino electorate voting for Democrats, much like 2008. President Obama had issued executive orders to implement the DACA program in 2012 as a stop gap measure before comprehensive immigration reform emerged. Republicans were amenable to working with Democrats on comprehensive immigration reform, meaning a bill that covered business immigration, border enforcement, family immigration, and pathways to citizenship to certain individuals without status.

The driving force was the Gang of 8 – a bipartisan group of senators that pushed for immigration reform. They were partly successful. The Senate voted to pass a bill for comprehensive immigration reform. The House refused to pass the bill and comprehensive immigration reform has remained elusive since.

Immigration has become a hot topic once again over the past year, taking center stage in the presidential election. The Gang of 8 was heralded in 2013 as the cooler heads prevailing amongst the hotter temperaments. If the Gang of 8 is revived after the 2016 election, it will most likely have to resist a vitriolic and divided atmosphere. The status of DACA plus and DAPA and dormancy of comprehensive immigration reform show that immigration reform has been nonexistent since 2013. In the vacuum, states have passed their own immigration laws.

The post Gang of 8 Is Back? appeared first on Wood Immigration Law.

Governor Jerry Brown of California has signed SB10, which allows for some undocumented migrants in the state to have access to health care through the Affordable Care Act. The federal government does not allow for undocumented migrants to receive health care under the Affordable Care Act. California is the first state to pass and sign legislation of this sort. The law would work by having the state negotiate a waiver with the federal government, so that individuals can purchase insurance on the state’s exchange. The point is to expand health insurance coverage and also to lower premiums for everyone.

California is the most populous state in the Union. 7% of its population is constituted of undocumented migrants (approximately 2.6 million – which is also over 20% of all undocumented migrants in the United States). California is the sole state to offer this kind of health insurance access. States are vastly different in various issues that affect their undocumented residents – in state tuition, drivers licenses, insurance.

The post CA Allowing Undocumented Migrants to Purchase Insurance appeared first on Wood Immigration Law.

Valedictorian Reveals Status in Tweet

Mayte Lara Ibarra did not reveal her undocumented immigrant status in her valedictorian speech to her Texas high school. However, she sent a Tweet that announced herself as undocumented. Her Tweet celebrated her academic success: GPA, APs, honorariums, and full scholarship to the University of Texas (and a mention of her physical beauty).

She has received a social media avalanche – an outpouring of support and congratulations and vitriol and hatred. The University of Texas does not discriminate by resident status, so her academic scholarship remains in tack.

The Supreme Court is expected to decide the DACA/DAPA case (U.S. v. Texas) by the end of the month. Its ruling will have ramifications for millions of undocumented individuals in the United States.

The post Undocumented Valedictorian appeared first on Wood Immigration Law.

TX Valedictorian Reveals Undocumented Status During Speech

Larissa Martinez graduated from her Texas high school with a 4.95 GPA, 17 AP classes, and is receiving a full scholarship to Yale. During her valedictorian speech, she revealed that she is an undocumented immigrant. Her mother escaped with Larissa and her sister to the United States to escape her abusive alcoholic father. You can watch her speech here.

“I am one of the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the shadows of the United States,” said Larissa Martinez, the valedictorian at McKinney Boyd High School in McKinney, Texas during her June 3rd address to the 2016 graduating class. “I decided to stand before you today and reveal these unexpected realities, because this might be my only chance to convey the truth to all of you that undocumented immigrants are people too.”

The Supreme Court is expected to decide the DAPA/DACA case (U.S. v. Texas) by the end of the month. Its ruling will have serious ramifications for millions of undocumented individuals in the United States.

The post Undocumented Valedictorian appeared first on Wood Immigration Law.

Many applications that we are filing have a receipt number that begins with the letter string – YSC. Whenever you file an application with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, you are issued a Receipt Notice with a case-specific receipt number.

If you are trying to track your case number if it begins with YSC, you will encounter an error. Just like with asylum applications, YSC is not available for case status tracking. YSC represents the Potomac Service Center, located in Arlington, Virginia. It was actually opened to process the expected avalanche of DACA and DAPA applications from the president’s executive orders, but as those are tied up in legal battles, the Service Center has been handling some family-based applications. There is no case status tracking feature available and no processing times available.

The post What Is YSC? appeared first on Wood Immigration Law.

The Northwest Immigrants Rights Project and The Advocates for Human Rights, using 3 immigrants as plaintiffs, have filed a class action lawsuit against USCIS. The lawsuit was filed in May 2015 and the organizations filing the lawsuit are seeking immigrants they can include in the lawsuit. The claim in the class action suit is that USCIS is taking longer than 90 days to adjudicate Employment Authorization Cards. Federal regulations dictate that USCIS must decide whether an applicant receives a card within 90 days of receiving the application.  The lawsuit charges USCIS with not adhering to the mandatory 90 days.

Employment Authorization Cards are important for many reasons, chief of which is granting someone the legal authority to work. A person can apply for the card for a variety of reasons. Someone applying for an adjustment of status may want the card while the application is pending. An asylum applicant waiting 2.5 years for the interview can obtain the document and work. A VAWA applicant, qualified H-4 dependent, E-2 dependent, DACA recipient, and host of other categories of foreign nationals in the United States can benefit from the Employment Authorization Card. Not having possession of a valid card can have dire consequences for applicants, who need the card for legal work authorization.

The American Immigration Council has a call out for immigrants who believe they have been affected by late adjudications.

With this in mind, it is crucial to file for your employment authorization card as timely as possible. Most applications require a $380 filing fee, so it is important to file on time, meet the requirements, and plan financially.

The post Employment Authorization Lawsuit appeared first on Wood Immigration Law.

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied an appeal of a preliminary injunction of President Obama’s executive actions for expanding Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (new DACA and DAPA) on November 9. A federal judge in Texas struck down the executive actions in February of this year and the Department of Justice has been litigating against states opposed to the implementation of the executive action programs. The decision was divided, but it means that the executive action programs remain unusable. The Obama Administration is expected to seek an immediate review of the decision by the US Supreme Court.

On November 20, 2014, President Obama delivered a speech and unveiled a series of executive actions to improve the immigration system. New DACA and DAPA received most of the attention because of the effects it was scheduled to have on millions of people living in the United States without status. The programs are not immigration status. Rather, they were supposed to provide temporary protection to accepted applicants and work authorization. It was supposed to benefit individuals without a criminal record and not priorities for removal. The programs were nixed by a federal judge before implementation and the millions counting on the viability of the programs have to continue to wait. The executive actions were a response to Congressional inaction over years in implementing legislative immigration reform.

The post New DACA and DAPA Denied at Fifth Circuit appeared first on Wood Immigration Law.

Immigration reform has probably fizzled out as a possibility, despite looking imminent in 2012 and reaching a crescendo in 2013 with major legislative movement. Here are some recent quotes from Congresspersons on the possibility of immigration reform.

Marco Rubio, Florida Senator and Candidate for President

John McCain, Arizona Senator

Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House

The protections that Marco Rubio mentions are part of the deferred action program (DACA), which has been in effect since June 15, 2012. Mr. Rubio has flatly stated the that DACA program needs to end. An executive action in November 2014 attempted to expand DACA and add relief for parents of Americans (DAPA). The expanded version of it and DAPA were struck down by a federal judge in Texas in February. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has not yet ruled on the matter.

The post Immigration Reform in the News appeared first on Wood Immigration Law.

Earlier this week, we covered the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decision on the expanded DACA and DAPA programs. The court denied the Department of Justice’s request for a stay on the expanded DACA and DAPA programs, which it requested following a federal court’s decision to issue a preliminary injunction. That means that the programs remain unavailable.

The Fifth Circuit will hear arguments on the merits of the actual preliminary injunction in July. The court’s decision this week could be an augur of the decision on the merits. The decision was 2-1 against the executive action programs. The Department of Justice will not appeal that decision to the Supreme Court. Instead, it will wait for the hearing in July to make its case against the preliminary injunction and make the programs available to millions of individuals who are designated as low priorities for removal.

Expanded DACA was set to go into effect in February and it would have provided temporary relief to millions of undocumented migrants. DAPA was planned for May, and it has not been in effect. The original DACA program from 2012 remains in effect, but the class of individuals that qualifies is limited in comparison to the new executive programs.

Expanded DACA and DAPA are not pathways to citizenship. They do not grant permanent residency. They do not even confer real status. They are supposed to serve as temporary measures so that millions of individuals can obtain work authorization. The benefits that DACA recipients and undocumented migrants are eligible for are contested. The DACA and DAPA programs are supposed to provide relief temporarily while Congress passes comprehensive immigration reform. This has been a legislative priority at points over the past ten years, but it has not come to fruition.

The post No DACA / DAPA Appeal appeared first on Wood Immigration Law.