Senators Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) are promoting the Bar Removal of Individuals who Dream and Grow our Economy, or the BRIDGE Act. The proposed legislation would protect deportation reprieves and at least 740,000 young immigrants who received work permits as low priority removal candidates with no criminal record, under the Obama administration, allowing DACA recipients to keep those benefits for three additional years. Senators Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) are also supporting the bill. It is unclear how much support the bill will have in the Republican-controlled Senate.

Many welcomed the introduction of the bill, noting that the United States has invested in educating young immigrants who were brought here as children, and three-quarters of a million of them have come forward to pursue higher education and become tax-paying members of society.

The young immigrants who qualify for Obama’s deferred action initiative are often referred to as DREAMers because they constitute most of the individuals who meet the requirements of the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, a legislative proposal that has so far failed to pass Congress.

Thus the 43rd and 44th President of USA did what was fair and just despite opposition from both parties. Pres. Obama, you are my President, you always shall be.

For more information contact Banerjee& Associates 

1. The Employee applies.
2. The Citizenship and Immigration Service takes a long time to adjudicate the application
3. The Employment Authorization Document expires
4. The Employee cannot work legally after this day, and loses the job.

I have had individuals leave the country on this issue. There is no way to expedite this, and although Citizenship and Immigration Service is required, by regulation to adjudicate the card within 90 days, sometimes that does not happen.  Understandably, the Citizenship and Immigration Service is inundated by large volumes of Employment Authorization Document Extensions.  Nationals from India and China have long wait lines before they get their Green Card (Permanent Resident Card), so they need to renew their cards frequently.  The same is true for DACA, TPS etc.

This problem has been solved by the recently enacted changes to the Immigration code.  Enacted on November 18, 20165, it goes into effect on January 17, 2017, 8 CFR § 274a. 12 (c) (35-36) states that due to “compelling circumstances” Employment Authorization Document will be extended for 180 days if:

1. The individual files a request to renew his Employment Authorization Document prior to the expiration date
2. The individual is requesting an extension under the same category as before, for example DACA, I-485 pending, TPS, Dependent visas, like H-4, L-2, or J2.
3. However, the underlying status needs to be valid. This means for example if someone is divorced and does not have the H-4 or L-2 status anymore, then this provision does not apply

The receipt notice of the Employment Authorization Document serves as proof of such extension for 180 days

Hopefully the Citizenship and Immigration Service will adjudicate these cases by 180 days

Please call Banerjee & Associates for more information

In November of 2014, President issued another Executive order granting the same benefit to DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans). He also extended the DACA to include individuals who came before 2010, and under the age of 31. However that executive action also had other provisions, which both Democrats and Republicans relating to Business Immigration. Most notably H-4 spouses of H-1B holders who has an approved I-140 can apply for work permit. Other Business Immigration visas adjudications would standardize adjudication by Citizenship and Immigration Service memorandum. Please note that these Business Immigration provisions are in place and both Democrats and Republicans agree on these provisions.
State of Texas sued on grounds that DAPA and DACA exceeded the President’s authority. The Supreme was deadlocked 4/4 on the case in June of 2016. The Obama administration filed for another certiorari, but SCOTUS has refused to hear it this coming year when the new Justice is presumably appointed.
The SCOTUS did not give any reason for this refusal. Maybe the SCOTUS thinks that President Obama will not be in office, any Executive Actions he could have taken would be moot. Maybe the Court wants Congress to tackle Comprehensive Immigration Reform. Whatever the case might be, we will be left with people driving without a license or insurance, people falling sick with no health insurance, and people earning without paying taxes. Yes, it makes no sense. This is not a Green Card (Permanent Resident Card), it’s just a work permit so that undocumented aliens can pay their fair share for living in our midst.
For more information contact Banerjee and Associates

The Court ruled that “…The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court..”  With these 9 words, the Court split 4 to 4, and without a 9th and deciding Justice, permitted an injunction against implementing these programs imposed by a Texas District Court and upheld by the Fifth Circuit to stand.

As background, in November, 2014, and arising out frustration with Congressional inaction  on comprehensive immigration legislation, President Obama and his Administration created two executive actions programs: Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Permanent Residents (“DAPA”) and an expanded program for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”), an earlier executive action program to benefit certain children who accompanied their parents into the United States at an early age.  The programs if implemented would shield certain parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents from removal, and certain young people from removal based on enforcement priorities, and would expand who could qualify for DACA.  Texas and 25 other states sued the federal government alleging overreach of the powers of the executive branch in taking these steps.

There has been no trial on the merits, only appeals on the propriety of the injunction decision itself up to the Supreme Court.  The case now goes back to the District Court to be tried.  Procedurally, the Administration could request a rehearing before the full Court.  Whether it does so remains to be seen.

The CRS report points out that states and localities often have an interest in how the federal government enforces immigration law regarding undocumented immigrants. On the one hand, some cities have implemented policies to limit cooperation with federal enforcement efforts. On the other, states with large populations of undocumented immigrants have sued the federal government, unsuccessfully, seeking stronger enforcement measures through local law.

More recently, states have challenged the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative of the Obama Administration and a similar program, known as DAPA, for undocumented immigrants who are parents of certain lawful permanent residents or of U.S. citizen children. In this litigation, Texas v. United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the programs violate the Administrative Procedure Act. The U.S. Supreme Court granted the federal government’s request for certiorari on January 19, 2016, and the high court indicated that when it considers the case later in the year, it will also consider the plaintiffs’ claims that DACA and DAPA violate the Take Care clause of the Constitution.

The CRS report concluded by stating that even if the decisions of the lower courts withstand appeal, the ability of states to challenge alleged “failures” of the federal government to enforce immigration laws is limited.