Law Blog

Law BlogLegal Blog on immigration, bankruptcy, family law (divorce, annulment and legal separation), personal injury, real estate, wills and estate matters.enWed, 29 Apr 2026 23:48:46 -04006334Jeffrey B. PeltzImmigrationDACA UPDATEOn September 5, 2017, President Trump announced that he would in 6 months end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA), which was established by a directive of President Obama in 2012.Tue, 28 Nov 2017 00:00:00 -0500 On September 5, 2017, President Trump <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/us/politics/trump-daca-dreamers-immigration.html">announced</a> that he would in 6 months end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA), which was established by a <a href="http://immigrationimpact.com/2012/06/19/president-obama-issued-a-memo-not-an-executive-order/">directive</a> of President Obama in 2012. President Trump also stated that he would like Congress to step in to pass legislation to continue the DACA program. Trump stated that he didn’t think that a president had the authority to decide on not deporting the group protected by DACA, known as “Dreamers” and that only legislation passed by Congress could do that. President Trump has in the past has made <a href="http://time.com/4927100/donald-trump-daca-past-statements/">inconsistent statements</a> on DACA and Dreamers. Although the President has stated that he didn’t think that DACA was legal, DACA hasn’t been found to be illegal by the Courts. Attorney General <a href="https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-schneiderman-files-lawsuit-protect-dreamers-and-preserve-daca">Erick Schneiderman</a> of New York is leading a legal challenge to President Trump’s ending of DACA. Unfortunately, I don’t believe that Mr. Schneiderman will be successful. Just as President Obama had the discretion to make a directive that Dreamers shouldn’t be deported, President Trump has the discretion to cancel that directive. Shortly after President Trump announced the termination of DACA he met with Senators Schumer and Pelosi. Senators Schumer and Pelosi then stated that they had come to an <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/09/13/trump-top-democrats-agree-to-work-on-deal-to-save-daca/?utm_term=.4780d6cccba5">agreement</a> with President Trump to introduce legislation that would protect Dreamers. The next day President Trump stated that he had made no such agreement. This leaves the matter squarely in the hands of <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/09/07/this-is-why-congress-will-have-a-hard-time-legalizing-daca/?utm_term=.cd11fde8c21b">Congress.</a> Congress now has until March 5, 2018 to protect Dreamers from deportation. No doubt, the issue of protecting the Dreamers will be coming up much sooner than that. That is because <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress-confronts-jam-packed-december-with-shutdown-deadline-looming/2017/11/26/2828d8ec-d2b0-11e7-95bf-df7c19270879_story.html?utm_term=.bca7f9514062">funding for the U.S. Government</a> will run out on December 8th unless a budget is approved before then. The Democrats are sure to make protection of the Dreamers a condition of approving a budget. Since the Democrats are in the minority in both the House and Senate this is the best chance that they have to protect the approximate 800,000 Dreamers in risk of deportation. Some Republicans have supported the protection of Dreamers, so hopefully Congress will actually pass legislation to protect them. However, this isn’t so simple. Many Republicans want to use this opportunity to make it easier to deport the parents of the Dreamers. Many Dreamers have stated that they don’t want the protection of legislation that will be responsible for the <a href="https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/09/14/pass-dream-act-dont-sacrifice-parents">deportation of their parents.</a> At this point it is impossible to know the fate of the Dreamers. What this nation needs is comprehensive immigration legislation that legalizes the estimated <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/08/517561046/how-americas-idea-of-illegal-immigration-doesnt-always-match-reality">11 million people living in the U.S. without legal status</a>, that gives them a path to citizenship. We need reform of our immigration system and policies. Further, we need real enforcement of our immigration laws. You would think that this seems commonsense, however commonsense is something that is sorely lacking in Congress and currently in our President and his administration.2164Jeffrey B. PeltzImmigrationFamily LawHow to Protect Yourself and Your Family If You Are In The U.S. IllegallyAlthough some in the media may tell you otherwise, if you are in the United States illegally you are protected by U.S. laws, including the Constitution. This is true whether you have entered illegally or have overstayed your visa. Especially now, it is important you know your legal rights....Fri, 24 Mar 2017 00:00:00 -0400Although some in the media may tell you otherwise, if you are in the United States illegally you are <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/255281-yes-illegal-aliens-have-constitutional-rights" target="_blank">protected</a> by U.S. laws, including the Constitution. This is true whether you have entered illegally or have overstayed your visa. Especially now, it is important you <a href="https://www.aclu.org/feature/know-your-rights-discrimination-against-immigrants-and-muslims"></a><a href="https://www.aclu.org/feature/know-your-rights-discrimination-against-immigrants-and-muslims" target="_blank">know your legal rights</a>. The following is a very brief outline of some of your legal rights. As with any laws, there are often exceptions to laws described below. Use the links in this blog to learn more about your rights and those exceptions. If it wasn’t bad enough, that you had to beware of authorities, you also need to be aware of scammers. They have been <a href="http://time.com/4672588/new-york-attorney-general-schneiderman-fraud-alert-ice-immigration-scams/"></a><a href="http://time.com/4672588/new-york-attorney-general-schneiderman-fraud-alert-ice-immigration-scams/" target="_blank">reports</a>of people posing as ICE officers and demanding money from people or telling them that they would arrest them. As New York Attorney General <a href="https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-schneiderman-issues-urgent-fraud-alert-ice-immigration-scams"></a><a href="https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-schneiderman-issues-urgent-fraud-alert-ice-immigration-scams" target="_blank">Eric Schneiderman</a>has said (ICE) agents will never ask you for money or threaten detainment or deportation if you do not pay them. Real ICE agents, or for that matter the police, don’t have the legal authority to force their way into you home without a search warrant signed by a judge. The U.S. Constitution provides you <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment" target="_blank">the right against unreasonable searches</a>. Don’t let them into your home. If you do let them in, they can look around and take you or others into custody. There is an excellent short outline of <a href="https://www.aclu.org/files/kyr/MKG17-KYR-PoliceImmigrationFBI-OnePager-English-v01.pdf"></a><a href="https://www.aclu.org/files/kyr/MKG17-KYR-PoliceImmigrationFBI-OnePager-English-v01.pdf" target="_blank">your rights</a>that is provided by the ACLU. I suggest you read and print it. In addition to not letting ICE agents or police in, unless they show you a search warrant signed by a judge, you should not say anything. The U.S. Constitution give you <a href="https://www.justia.com/criminal/procedure/miranda-rights/right-to-silence/" target="_blank">the right to be silent.</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/UNITEDWEDREAM/status/830147650259410944"></a><a href="https://twitter.com/UNITEDWEDREAM/status/830147650259410944" target="_blank">Make a record</a>of what is going on. If you have a cell phone, take a video of what is going on. Try to get the names of the people. Take photos. Write down details, especially if you don’t have a cell phone. If you get arrested, contact an <a href="http://www.aaalawyer.com/Area-of-law/Immigration.aspx" target="_blank">experienced immigration lawyer</a> to represent you with your <a href="http://www.aaalawyer.com/Area-of-law/Immigration/Deportation.aspx" target="_blank">deportation.</a> You have rights and will need someone who can fight for you. It’s a good idea to line up such a lawyer before you find yourself in such a situation. <a href="http://immigration.lawyers.com/deportation/immigrants-prepare-for-worse-case-deportation.html"></a><a href="http://immigration.lawyers.com/deportation/immigrants-prepare-for-worse-case-deportation.html" target="_blank">Make a plan</a>of what your family will do if you are arrested. Your spouse, significant other, or close friends should know who you work for so they can inform your employer and collect any wages owed you. You should choose who will care for your child. Be sure that the school knows who that person is and you have provided written authorization. You should also provide your banking information. Even better, you should put someone else on your bank account so that he or she has access to the money in the account if needed. If you are arrested by ICE you may not be able to easily contact your family or friends. They need to know how to look for you if you are taken by ICE. There is a <a href="https://locator.ice.gov/odls/homePage.do"></a><a href="https://locator.ice.gov/odls/homePage.do" target="_blank">website</a>provided by ICE that can be searched to look for you. These are difficult times for you. By being familiar with your legal rights and taking the time and effort to make a detailed written plan you can help protect yourself and your family.2188Jeffrey B. PeltzArea of LawImmigrationTrump's Muslim Ban Version 2.0After a bit of uncertainty regarding the prognosis of President Donald J. Trump’s second take at a proposed travel ban on six majority Muslim countries—Syria, Iran, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, and Somalia—a federal judge from the State of Hawaii has issued an immediate injunction yesterday evening mere...Fri, 17 Mar 2017 00:00:00 -0400After a bit of uncertainty regarding the prognosis of President Donald J. Trump’s second take at a proposed travel ban on six majority Muslim countries—Syria, Iran, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, and Somalia—a federal judge from the State of Hawaii has issued <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/trump-revised-travel-ban-judge-hearing-236086" target="_blank">an immediate injunction yesterday evening</a> mere hours before President Trump’s executive order was to go into effect. The proposed travel ban was a revised version of an executive order President Trump had issued earlier in the year, shortly after being sworn into the Oval Office. The initial executive action had been in effect for only a short while before a federal judge in Seattle ruled against it and brought the ban to an end. The judge took issues with provisions in the executive order that, in essence, imposed a veiled <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/trump-travel-ban.html?_r=1" target="_blank">“religious test for travelers”</a> and migrants coming to the United States. Amongst the questionable provisions was one that allowed for Christian travelers from the original seven majority Muslim countries to enter and exit the United States freely, thus explicitly discriminating only against travelers practicing the Islamic faith. After the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Seattle judge’s ruling, President Trump removed language suggesting preferential treatment for Christian travelers, allowed for green card and visa holders from the listed nations to enter and exit the US, removed Iraq from the original list of countries, and then reissued the travel ban to take into effect midnight last night, March 16, 2017. However, much to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2017/mar/16/trump-travel-ban-blocked-nationwide-hawaii-court-live" target="_blank">President Trump’s expressed fury</a>, the judiciary has once again blocked it, essentially listing the same concerns cited in the previous injunction. Even before Federal <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/16/politics/derrick-watson-5-things-to-know/" target="_blank">Judge Derrick K. Watson</a> of Hawaii issued his ruling, attorneys general from the states of Maryland, Washington, New York, and Massachusetts had expressed intent to sue on grounds that it unfairly discriminated against Muslims and was an unprecedented overreach of executive power. Judge Watson particularly cited the case of the plaintiff that had filed the case in conjunction with the state of Hawaii as an example of how the ban would bring “concrete injuries” to Muslim nationals and “their immediate families.” The plaintiff, Doctor Ismail Elshikh, was a Muslim American citizen for ten years, emigrating from Egypt, and was married to a woman from Syria. Thus, the ban directly impacted the ability for him and his family to visit each other freely. In his <a href="http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015a-d421-db68-a97b-d5e934210000" target="_blank">written decision</a>, Judge Watson also cited prejudicial statements that President Trump had made against Muslims while campaigning as "significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus driving the promulgation of the Executive Order and its related predecessor." While this may bring an immediate sigh of relief for Muslim travelers from the nations listed in the ban, President Trump has doubled down in his support of his executive order. In a scathing rebuke of the judiciary, President Trump has expressed considerable frustration with his inability to enact (what he calls) a “watered down” version of his original ban, and has accused the judicial branch of <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-calls-hawaii-judges-ruling-revised-travel-ban/story?id=46142441" target="_blank">acting beyond the scope of its constitutional powers</a><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-calls-hawaii-judges-ruling-revised-travel-ban/story?id=46142441" target="_blank">.</a> The White House’s argument in favor of the ban states national security issues, stating that intel received from the previous administration was the basis for the executive order. “The danger is clear, the law is clear, the need for my executive order is clear,” lamented President Trump in response to last night’s ruling, firmly vowing to bring the issue to the Supreme Court if necessary. I predict that this case will eventually get to the U.S. Supreme Court, either by first going to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and be decided in favor of the lower court or go straight to the U.S. Supreme Court and be then decided 4/4. Such a decision would uphold the lower court’s decision, which means that the executive order would not be allowed to go into effect.2192Jeffrey B. PeltzArea of LawImmigrationSupreme Court Deadlocked on DAPA Resulting in No Relief for MillionsA Supreme Court ruling this past Thursday resulted in a rare 4-4 tie—a deadlock in a case that would have decided the status of over five million undocumented immigrants who are parents of citizens and/or lawful residents of the United States. The case, United States v. Texas, reviewed President...Tue, 28 Jun 2016 00:00:00 -0400A Supreme Court ruling this past Thursday resulted in a rare 4-4 tie—a deadlock in a case that would have decided the status of over <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/24/us/supreme-court-immigration-obama-dapa.html?_r=0">five million undocumented immigrants</a> who are parents of citizens and/or lawful residents of the United States. The case, United States v. Texas, reviewed President Obama’s 2014 Executive Order known as DAPA—Deferred Action for Parents of Americans. The Executive Order was an ambitious immigration plan that allowed for undocumented immigrants with children that were lawful citizens or residents of the United States to be able to legally live in the United States and apply for and receive work permits. The work permits would last three years and be renewable. The plan did not, however, grant citizenship or full legal status. It only allowed granted temporary work permits. The Executive Order also protected the parents from deportation and allowed them to <a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/2/16/8025691/immigration-lawsuit-obama">apply for driver’s licenses and State ID cards.</a> President Obama initially gave the Executive Order <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/24/us/supreme-court-immigration-obama-dapa.html?_r=0">“after years of frustration with Republicans in Congress”</a> that refused to support the Senate’s bipartisan immigration plan. The President took unilateral action to circumvent partisan gridlock in a set of Executive Orders—<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/us/obama-immigration-speech.html">citing precedent of past presidents</a> taking similar actions concerning immigration as a defense for his own. Immediately afterwards, Texas and 26 other states filed suit against the plan and challenged it on grounds that it was an overreach of presidential power and that it <a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/2/16/8025691/immigration-lawsuit-obama">brought financial harm to the States</a>. DAPA suffered early setbacks as lower courts sided with the State’s and blocked President Obama’s plan from being implemented. After the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled against President Obama’s plan, the case was taken to the Supreme Court for a clear decision either way. Instead, as a result of the Supreme Court lacking a decisive 9th member following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court made no ruling and voted in a 4-4 tie. When a tie occurs in the United States Supreme Court, the <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2004/11/what_happens_in_ascotus_tie.html">decision of the lower court remains in effect.</a> While President Obama can petition to have the court rehear the case, it is unlikely that the court will agree. The decision leaves the lives of millions of undocumented immigrants and their families in limbo. While it does not mean that the parents will necessarily nor immediately face deportation, it does mean that they still face the threat of deportation. The Deferred Action for Parents of Americans immigration plan would have helped ease undocumented immigrants into American society and would have prevented hardworking parents from being separated from their children. It appears that there is no immediate relief for the people suffering from an outdated immigration policy. President Obama’s plan was meant to help but was unfortunately unable to overcome high partisan gridlock. The courts blocked the President’s well intentioned efforts, denying relief to millions of undocumented immigrants and Congress has routinely refused to address the issue of immigration. Comprehensive immigration reform will instead require congressional action. Judging by the continuous congressional gridlock, this, sadly, seems unlikely as well.2194Jeffrey B. PeltzArea of LawImmigrationU.S. Supreme Court Hears Argument on DAPAOn April 18th, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the matter of Texas v. United States. This is the legal action in which Texas and 25 other states joined to challenge President Obama’s executive order known as DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans). DAPA would stop the...Wed, 27 Apr 2016 00:00:00 -0400On April 18th, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the matter of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Texas">Texas v. United States.</a> This is the legal action in which Texas and 25 other states joined to challenge President Obama’s executive order known as <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/immigrationaction">DAPA</a> (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans). DAPA would stop the deportation of people in the U.S. without legal authorization and who arrived here prior to 2010, have no criminal convictions, and are parents of children who are either American citizens or permanent residents. Although DAPA would not confer legal status to the people who meet these requirements, it would allow them to live and work legally in the U.S. This would allow them to “come out of the shadows” and to become productive tax paying members of society. Texas and its companion states argued that they have a right to challenge DAPA, because DAPA would cost the states money, since, for example, Texas subsidizes the cost of issuing drivers’ licenses. They also argued that <a href="http://www.salon.com/2015/02/19/the_conservative_case_for_daca_the_intriguing_legal_theory_you_wont_hear_on_fox_news/">the President exceeded his executive authority</a> with DAPA, because the large number of people that would be protected represents a substantial change in the law. The states also complained that the President issued the order without giving them notice and an opportunity to make comments. Further, they argued that the President is obliged to carry out laws and lacks the power to change them; only Congress may change laws. The Obama Administration argued that it is within the <a href="http://www.epi.org/blog/presidents-legal-authority-expand-deferred/">President’s authority to prioritize</a> who should be deported from the U.S. President Obama argued that the millions of people who meet the DAPA criteria are not threats to the security of the U.S. and that resources should be spent on deporting only those who pose a threat, such as those with a criminal background. President Obama pointed out that he is not the first president to choose who to deport and not to deport. In fact, some critics of President Obama have pointed out that the Obama Administration has <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/02/u-s-deportations-of-immigrants-reach-record-high-in-2013/">deported more people</a> than any other administration. Texas and the other states challenged the Obama Administration in the federal district court in Texas and was granted a <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/398741/federal-judge-blocks-implementation-obamas-executive-amnesty-now-patrick-brennan">restraining order</a> against implementing DAPA. The Obama Administration appealed the restraining order to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, where it requested that the restraining order be lifted. The Fifth Circuit Court refused to remove the restraining order. The Obama Administration then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for a decision on DAPA. The Supreme Court is expected to decide this case by the end of its current term, which is on June 30th. The Court is currently down to eight members from its usual nine due to the recent death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Many experienced observers of the Court are of the opinion that the Justices are evenly divided on the issues presented by this case based in part on their comments during the oral argument. If the Court decides this matter with four in favor and four against, the decision of the lower court will remain in effect. This will result in the federal district court decision against DAPA being the final word on this matter. If the Court decides in favor of the Obama Administration, the Court will likely remand the case back to the district court with instructions to vacate its restraining order, which will allow DAPA to proceed. However, the next president may decide to abandon DAPA, since DAPA is an executive order. This would be likely if a Republican wins in November. However, if a Democrat wins, it is likely that DAPA would remain in effect.2197Jeffrey B. PeltzArea of LawImmigrationSupreme Court to Decide on DAPAIn November of 2014, after Congress refused to pass any immigration reform, President Obama issued an executive order to help those that didn’t have legal status in the United States and had children that were born in the U.S. The program was called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, or...Wed, 27 Jan 2016 00:00:00 -0500In November of 2014, after Congress refused to pass any immigration reform, President Obama issued an <a href="http://www.aaalawyer.com/New-York-Lawyer-Blog/ArticleID/53/President-Obama%E2%80%99s-2014-Immigration-Executive-Order.aspx" target="_blank">executive order</a> to help those that didn’t have legal status in the United States and had children that were born in the U.S. The program was called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, or DAPA. To qualify for <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/19/your-complete-guide-to-obamas-immigration-order/#order" target="_blank">DAPA</a>, the applicant needed to pass a criminal background test, be in the United States for at least the past 5 consecutive years, and pay taxes. If the applicant was approved under <a href="http://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/consideration-deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-daca" target="_blank">DAPA</a>, he or she would be allowed to work and would not be subject to deportation. DAPA would not provide a green card or citizenship. President Obama said that, under <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wejt939QXko" target="_blank">DAPA</a>, he was merely using his constitutional discretion to decide who should be deported. He said that the government could not possibly deport all of the estimated 11 million people living in the United States illegally and wanted to focus on deporting criminals instead of breaking up law abiding families, though here without legal status are not posing a threat to the public. Texas and 25 other states joined in a legal action, entitled Texas v. United States, in which they challenged DAPA’s validity. The lower court judge decided in favor of the challengers to the law and issued a <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/398741/federal-judge-blocks-implementation-obamas-executive-amnesty-now-patrick-brennan" target="_blank">restraining order</a> to keep DAPA from going into effect pending the Obama Administration’s appeal. The Obama Administration appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and asked that the restraining order be lifted while the appeal was pending. <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/398741/federal-judge-blocks-implementation-obamas-executive-amnesty-now-patrick-brennan" target="_blank">The Fifth Circuit refused</a> to remove the restraining order. The Obama Administration then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. On January 19, <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/01/court-will-review-obama-administrations-immigration-policy-in-plain-english/" target="_blank">the Supreme Court</a> agreed to hear the matter this term, which will end in June. The Supreme Court will consider <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-texas/" target="_blank">four issues</a>: 1) Do Texas and the other 25 states have the legal authority, called standing, to challenge DAPA? To have standing, the parties bringing the action need to show that they would be harmed by DAPA. 2) Does President Obama have the legal right to use his discretion to decide who is to be deported? 3) Does the Department of Homeland Security need to notify the public about DAPA and give the public the opportunity to make comments before DAPA is implemented? 4) Does DAPA violate the Constitution’s “Take Care Clause,” which requires the president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” It appears that this matter will be argued in April and decided at the end of June. Consequently, if DAPA is upheld, the Obama Administration will have little time to implement it. Since DAPA is an executive order, even if the Supreme Court upholds DAPA, the next president, who will take office on January 20, 2017, can immediately cancel it in whole or in part. Almost certainly Congress will take no action on immigration reform in the foreseeable future. Accordingly, the only hope for the millions who would be helped by DAPA is that the Supreme Court decides in favor of the Obama Administration and that a Democrat is elected president in November.2200Jeffrey B. PeltzArea of LawImmigrationDAPA Still on HoldPresident Obama’s executive order from November 2014 has just received another legal setback. A three judge panel from the Fifth Circuit in Texas v. United States voted 2 to 1 against the Obama Administration. This allows the injunction of a Texas district court, which prevents the executive...Wed, 11 Nov 2015 00:00:00 -0500President Obama’s <a href="http://www.aaalawyer.com/New-York-Lawyer-Blog/ArticleID/53/President-Obama%E2%80%99s-2014-Immigration-Executive-Order.aspx" target="_blank">executive order</a> from November 2014 has just received another legal setback. A<a href="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-40238-CV0.pdf" target="_blank"> three judge panel </a>from the Fifth Circuit in Texas v. United States voted 2 to 1 against the Obama Administration. This allows the injunction of a Texas <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1668197-hanen-opinion.html" target="_blank">district court,</a> which prevents the executive order going into effect remain in place. As you may remember, President Obama’s executive order, known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/19/your-complete-guide-to-obamas-immigration-order/#order" target="_blank">(DAPA</a>), had stated that the administration would use it’s discretion in not deporting certain individuals. By qualifying for DAPA deportation would be merely deferred; no permanent legal status would be granted. In order to qualify for<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Parents_of_Americans" target="_blank"> DAPA </a>a person would need to meet the following requirements: Must have been in the U.S. for at least 5 years; must have at least 1 child who is either a U.S. citizen or a legal resident; must register for the program; pass a criminal background test; and pay taxes. Those who would qualify would be eligible to work. In <a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/wh-confident-power-legal-arguments-defending-dapa" target="_blank">defending DAPA</a>, the Obama Administration said that it was using its legal authority under the law to decide on who to deport. They said that the government should concentrate on deporting dangerous individuals and not those raising children who have legal status and aren’t a danger to society. The administration wanted to make such individuals tax paying members of society. The<a href="http://www.cato.org/blog/good-policy-bad-law-obama-correctly-rejected-again-immigration-reform" target="_blank"> position of Texas </a>and the other 25 states that joined it in Texas v. United States was that if this executive order was carried out that it would cost those states additional money and that the Obama Administration had exceeded its legal authority in DAPA. Since many of the judges in the Fifth Circuit were<a href="http://www.afj.org/reports/the-judges-for-the-united-states-court-of-appeals-for-the-fifth-circuit" target="_blank"> appointed by Republicans </a>the decision of the Fifth Circuit to decide in favor of Texas has widely been expected. The Obama administration has <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-administration-seeks-supreme-court-involvement-in-immigration-case/2015/11/10/ce13d802-87bb-11e5-9a07-453018f9a0ec_story.html" target="_blank">announced</a> that it plans on asking the Supreme Court to take this matter up for consideration and decision. There is not much time to get this before the Supreme Court so that it can be decided during the current term. Even if the <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/fifth-circuit-obama-immigration/415077/" target="_blank">Supreme Court </a>does accept this case and decides in favor of the President it would allow only several months for the executive order to be carried out. If the Supreme Court refuses to accept the case the preliminary injunction would stand and the matter will be then decided in by the full Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. No matter how this matter is decided, due to the delays imposed by the injunction, President’ Obama’s DAPA program will have limited effect on the millions that it was meant to benefit. When the new president is sworn in on January 20, 2017, since DAPA is only an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order" target="_blank">executive order,</a> that president would be under no legal obligation to continue DAPA, even if the courts decide in favor of President Obama.2204Jeffrey B. PeltzImmigrationPresident Obama’s 2014 Immigration Executive OrderOn November 21, 2014, President Obama announced that he would be issuing an executive order that would defer the deportation of millions of people who do not have legal status to be in the United States. To qualify for deferred action under the executive order, a person must meet the following...Fri, 06 Mar 2015 00:00:00 -0500On November 21, 2014, <a href="http://www.c-span.org/video/?322888-1/president-obama-remarks-nevada-immigration" target="_blank">President Obama</a><a href="http://www.c-span.org/video/?322888-1/president-obama-remarks-nevada-immigration"> </a>announced that he would be issuing an executive order that would defer the deportation of millions of people who do not have legal status to be in the United States. To qualify for deferred action under the executive order, a person must meet the following conditions: 1. Must have been in the U.S. for at least 5 years, 2. Must have at least 1 child who is either a U.S. citizen or a legal resident; 3. Must register; 4. Pass a criminal background test; and 5. Pay taxes. Although the executive order would not provide citizenship or the right to remain in the U.S. permanently, it would<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/19/your-complete-guide-to-obamas-immigration-order/#order" target="_blank">allow approximately four million people here illegally to work, to pay taxes, and to live without fear of deportation</a>. As President Obama stated in his speech, only Congress has the power to grant citizenship or the right to remain permanently. This executive order builds upon President Obama’s 2012 executive order known as <a href="http://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/consideration-deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-daca" target="_blank">DACA</a> (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). As in the present executive order, DACA prevented the deportation of people without legal status to be in the U.S. and arrived here as children. To be eligible for DACA, the applicant had to be younger than 30 years of age. On February 16, 2015, a <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/398741/federal-judge-blocks-implementation-obamas-executive-amnesty-now-patrick-brennan" target="_blank">federal judge in the Southern District of Texas</a> granted an injunction in favor of several attorneys general who are challenging the executive order in federal court. He ruled that there was a reasonable likelihood that they will be able to prove that the executive order is unconstitutional. By his injunction, the judge prevented the president’s order from going into effect. The Obama administration has formally asked the judge to lift the <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/obama-administration-asks-judge-speed-immigration-decision-225542991.html" target="_blank">stay pending appeal</a>. It is expected that the judge will deny this request and that the executive order will be stayed until the matter is decided by an appellate federal court. A comprehensive overhaul of the U.S. immigration laws is needed. The <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/immigration-bill-2013-senate-passes-093530" target="_blank">U.S. Senate actually passed such a bill in 2013</a>. It was widely seen as a balanced compromise to the immigration problem and was voted for by many Democrats and Republicans in the Senate. President Obama was also in favor of the bill. However, the bill was not brought to a vote in the House. Although there appeared to be more than enough votes to pass it in the House, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/11/06/boehner-refuses-to-act-on-immigration-reform/" target="_blank">Speaker Boehner refused to bring it to a vote</a>, because a majority of Republicans were not in favor of the bill. Eventually the courts will decide that President Obama’s 2014 immigration order is constitutional and will allow it to be implemented. However, due to the position of the Republican Party, it is very unlikely that immigration reform will be passed in the foreseeable future. The best chance for immigration reform would be if the Democrats keep the presidency in 2016, win control of the House, and get at least 60 members in the Senate. Unfortunately, this seems very unlikely. Another possibility is that the Republican leadership allows a vote on an immigration bill, such as the bill of 2013. Since I do not expect either scenario to happen, I do not expect any solutions to our immigration problems for a long time to come.2240Jeffrey B. PeltzArea of LawImmigrationMarried Same-Sex Marriage Couples and Immigration UpdateThis past June, the Supreme Court ruled The Defense of Marriage Act, the law preventing the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, unconstitutional. Previously, even with New York and fourteen other states passing laws allowing gay marriage, DOMA had barred the federal government...Thu, 11 Dec 2014 00:00:00 -0500This past June, the Supreme Court ruled The Defense of Marriage Act, the law preventing the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, unconstitutional. Previously, even with New York and fourteen other states passing laws allowing gay marriage, DOMA had barred the federal government from granting permanent residency or citizenship or visas to same sex couples based on their relationship. The Supreme Court decision to overturn DOMA has impacted close to <a href="http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/category/research/immigration/">one million LGBT immigrations, according to a recent study released by the Williams Institute</a>. Of these immigrants, close to 2/3rds are undocumented and were unable to apply for legal status due to DOMA. Since the Supreme Court decision in June of this year, many same-sex couples and their families have had their immigration case reviewed by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (<a href="http://www.uscis.gov/news/alerts/implementation-supreme-court-ruling-defense-marriage-act">USCIS</a>). Several of these families have been granted legal status and are able to enjoy the same rights as opposite sex couples. In New York, one man, <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/vondiaz/out-of-the-dark-one-gay-latino-couples-battle-through-th">Pablo Garcia</a>, had been living for two decades as an undocumented immigrant. After the ruling, his US citizen and same-sex spouse applied for citizenship on his behalf and he was granted legal status. <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/queens/gay-queens-playwright-green-card-long-battle-article-1.1527149">Another man</a> had previously been tied to one employer as the only visa he could attain was a work visa. After getting married to a same-sex US citizen, his spouse successfully applied for legal status and they are both enjoying legal status as a family. In addition to the <a href="http://www.aaalawyer.com/New-York-Lawyer-Blog/ArticleID/25/Same-Sex-Couples-Now-Have-the-Right-to-Sponsor-a-Spouse.aspx">immigration benefits that we’ve outlined before</a>, same-sex couples can also apply for “Cancellation of Removal” for their same-sex spouse. The applying spouse must be a US Citizen or a legal resident and must prove that deportation of their same-sex spouse would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” if his or her spouse is deported. Prior to the ruling, only opposite-sex couples could apply. Now, both same and opposite-sex marriages have the right to file for Cancellation of Removal in order to obtain legal residency for their spouse. Furthermore, same-sex couples can also apply for legal status of their relatives or step-relatives under family visas. Prior to the ruling, children of same-sex couples were not considered for immigration benefits under family visas. The ruling has since made it possible for all family members of same-sex couples to apply for lawful US residency. Since previous efforts at immigration reform were hampered by <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/06/what-the-doma-decision-means-for-immigration-reform.html">the issue of gay marriage,</a> the ruling has likely made future immigration reform easier to pass. The debate over whether or not to grant same-sex couples the same legal immigration benefits as opposite sex couples has been put to an end and congress can now focus on comprehensive immigration reform. If you are interested in sponsoring your same or opposite sex spouse, call us at (855) 625-0800 and schedule a free consultation.2208Jeffrey B. PeltzArea of LawImmigrationPresident Obama takes action on Immigration when Congress doesn'tOn November 20, 2014, President Obama laid out a sweeping plan to overhaul the nation's immigration system. This plan will drastically alter the lives of many undocumented immigrants living in the country. Although, most people have only heard discussion in the news about the part of the plan that...Sat, 22 Nov 2014 00:00:00 -0500On November 20, 2014, President Obama laid out a sweeping plan to overhaul the nation's immigration system. This plan will drastically alter the lives of many undocumented immigrants living in the country. Although, most people have only heard discussion in the news about the part of the plan that defers deportation for some undocumented immigrants, there are actually three major parts of the plan. First, the plan will add additional resources for our law enforcement personnel in attempt to refocus its enforcement resources toward the southwest border with Mexico. Obama's plan will send more Border Patrol agents, immigration judges and U.S. attorneys to the border to speed up deportations of people caught crossing. The new plan will also change the way the government handles undocumented immigrants living far from the border in the interior part of the country by deporting aliens that commits felons. Second, the plan will make it easier and faster for high-skilled immigrants, graduates and entrepreneurs to stay and contribute to United States’ economy. The new plan makes several changes to allow foreign workers trained in high-tech fields to enter, and stay in, the country. The new plan will allow for so-called "portability", which makes it easier for immigrants to switch jobs when they are in the United States. Third, the plan will take steps to deal responsibly with the millions of undocumented immigrants who already had live in our country. It would create a new program of deferrals for millions undocumented parents of American citizens or legal permanent residents who have been in the country for at least five years. The criteria for the deferral are the following: A) If you’ve with been in America more than five years, B) If you have children who are American citizens or illegal residents, and C) If you register, pass a criminal background check and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes, then you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily without fear of deportation. Deferrals would include authorization to work which would be granted for three years at a time. The immigrant will also be able to travel freely back and forth to their home country. President Obama further expressed what the plan is not. President Obama stated “This deal does not apply to anyone who has come to this country recently. It does not apply to anyone who might come to America illegally in the future. It does not grant citizenship or the right to stay here permanently, or offer the same benefits that citizens receive. Only Congress can do that. All we’re saying is we’re not going to deport you.” <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wejt939QXko" target="_blank">You can see the entire speech here.</a> <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/20/remarks-president-address-nation-immigration" target="_blank">You can read the full transcript of the speech here.</a>