Our January 2017 Client of the Month is part of our ongoing series of: “Dreamers that Trump can’t touch!” Danieca Bugarin landed in San Francisco, CA on December 30, 2016, presented her immigrant visa, and was admitted to the U.S. as a permanent resident. Her admission to the U.S. as a permanent resident looked so improbable for the past two years because Danieca was snake-bit when it came to immigration.
Looking back on what turned out to be a disappointing 2013 for the lack of progress on meaningful immigration reform and on the continuing pace of removals, we have tried to figure out what articles and stories most appealed to our readers. Turns out that our readers were not as interested in the minute-by-minute accounts of progress, but rather came to Lifted Lamp for information about developments in the law that had a real impact upon their lives.
Tomorrow, December 10, 2013, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Mayorkas v. Cuellar de Osorio, reviewing the 9th circuit decision that reversed the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision in Matter of Wang that rejected the applicability of the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) to a large number of immigrants. If the Supreme Court upholds the decision of the 9th Circuit, many aged-out young adults will be immediately eligible to apply for residence.
Despite being on leave from Benach Collopy to study for the California bar, Prerna Lal continues to provide valuable insight on the status of the de Osorio case. De Osorio is the 9th Circuit case in which the court held that the Board of Immigration Appeals and the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Service had interpreted the Child Status Protection Act wrongly in a way that excluded thousands of young people from the opportunity to obtain status with their families.
On the same day that the immigration world was abuzz with news that the President would unveil his immigration reform plan next week, the administration filed a brief to preserve the unnecessary family separation caused by its cramped understanding of the Child Status Protection Act reflected in the Board of Immigration Appeals decision in Matter of Wang. The juxtaposition of the prospect of common sense immigration reform with the wholly unnecessary appeal of the U.S.
The Obama administration has until tomorrow January 25, 2013 to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court to seek review of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit decision in Cuellar de Osorio v. Mayorkas, which provided a humane and reasonable interpretation of the Child Status Protection Act. If the government does not seek review in the Supreme Court, the decision of the 9th Circuit becomes law nationwide and thousands of people will be eligible to apply for adjustment of status using their old priority dates.
The publication of the rule allowing for processing of provisional waivers for unlawful presence in the United States was another act of administrative rule-making that the President has undertaken to make the immigration laws more humane. Over the past year, the effort at prosecutorial discretion, the introduction of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), and the provisional waiver have created a much improved immigration system that attempts to solve real immigration problems for families.
As ideas for immigration reform take shape, there is one thing that the administration could do without lifting a finger that would help thousands of immigrants. This benefit would actually require the government to refrain from doing something. If the government decides not to appeal the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in Cuellar de Osorio v. Mayorkas, the Court’s decision would stand and thousands of young immigrants would be able to apply to adjust their status after waiting years for that opportunity.
Since we wrote about the landmark victory for undocumented youth in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in Cuellar de Osorio, we have been inundated by the following question: I think this covers me, should I apply for adjustment of status now? The answer, like so many legal answers, is the perpetually unsatisfying “it depends.” We have prepared this information to help you understand the issues and make a decision about whether applying is appropriate for you.