Statutes of Liberty

This sponsored column is by Law Office of James Montana PLLC. All questions about it should be directed to James Montana, Esq., Doran Shemin, Esq., Janice Chen, Esq., and Austen Soare, Esq., practicing attorneys at The Law Office of James Montana PLLC, an immigration-focused law firm located in Falls Church, Virginia. The legal information given here is general in nature. If you want legal advice, contact us for an appointment.

What’s going to happen in the world of immigration law this year? We’re here with our predictions — and here to eat humble pie about how wrong we were last year the last time we tried our hand at prognostication.

Without further ado, here are our predictions for this year.

Prediction 1: Congress will pass a Border/Ukraine stopgap bill which slightly, theoretically tightens the process for applying for asylum; the new law will have little practical effect.

According to well-sourced immigration reporters at The Washington Times and The New York Post, the framework currently under discussion includes the following provisions:

• Capped border flows at a relatively high level (5,000 entrants per day = just under 2M per year), after which enhanced expulsion powers would come into effect.
• Government-funded representation for unaccompanied minors in removal proceedings.
• The “credible fear” standard for initial interviews of asylum seekers at the border will be replaced by a higher “reasonable possibility” standard.

We are extremely skeptical that such a bill will become law in its current form. Why?

• When was the last time you saw a federally-funded expansion of the right to counsel — which, as we’ve previously pointed out, immigration court defendants currently do not have — for indigent defendants?
• The proposed caps on border flows are remarkably high. The caps, as best we can tell, would only apply to those who approach border crossing points to seek a credible fear interview, and not to those who attempt to enter without inspection. (To be clear: this is speculation based on leaks: the text of the proposed legislation hasn’t been made public, and the drafters deny that it is accurate.)
• In a sample month last year — September 2023 — only about 50,000 encounters happened at border crossing points; that’s less than 2,000 per day. If our interpretation of the data is correct, capping entries at 5,000 per day is like sensibly limiting yourself to eight drumsticks at Thanksgiving. Immigration hawks aren’t fools.

Instead, we predict that a much less ambitious bill will become law.

• We predict that the “credible fear” standard will be replaced by the “reasonable possibility” standard. In theory, this would lead to asylum seekers being denied the right to a hearing if a border official finds that the asylum seeker has a 49% chance (or less) of prevailing on the merits. In practice… well, read on.
• We predict that the President’s authority to exercise parole will be capped in some way — perhaps an annual cap on total admissions. The Biden Administration’s vigorous use of parole to admit nationals of particular countries would thereby be curtailed.
• We predict that DHS will get more funding. DHS funding is the cowbell of immigration legislation. If the American voter wants more cowbell, we should probably give him more cowbell!

Prediction 2: Net flows will remain high.

If we’re right about the shape of proposed legislation, there should be very little change in actual flows. It’s one thing for Congress to make pronouncements about “reasonable possibility” rather than “credible fear,” but it’s quite another thing for actual human beings — in this case, CBP officials — to enforce the new policy. CBP is in the unenviable position of adjudicating thousands of asylum claims per day using non-attorney staff in a constantly shifting legal and physical landscape. It is unreasonable to expect technical changes at the top to filter down quickly or clearly.

Prediction 3: There is a Presidential Election in November.

After the compromise passes — as we hope it will, in some form, to support Ukraine’s fight for independence — there won’t be any serious changes to immigration policy until 2025, because there’s a presidential election in November, and that tends to freeze all serious discussion in Congress.

Should you trust our predictions? The evidence suggests… maybe!

In January 2022, we made three big predictions.

• USCIS will raise its fees. Boy, were we wrong! USCIS didn’t raise its fees in 2022 or But this year — this year it’s going to happen!
• Immigration Courts will be open for business post-COVID. We were right about that, but, in fairness to us, that was an easy call.
• Asylum Backlogs will get worse. We were right about that, too — but that was an even easier call.

Don’t trust our political insight. Do trust our legal advice. If you need an immigration attorney, be in touch and we’ll do our very best for you!

As always, we welcome your comments and will do our best to respond.

This sponsored column is by Law Office of James Montana PLLC. All questions about it should be directed to James Montana, Esq., Doran Shemin, Esq., Janice Chen, Esq., and Austen Soare, Esq., practicing attorneys at The Law Office of James Montana PLLC, an immigration-focused law firm located in Falls Church, Virginia. The legal information given here is general in nature. If you want legal advice, contact us for an appointment.

We’ve previously addressed how to apply for a green card, and how it can take a very long time to get one. Most people permanently immigrate to the United States in one of two ways. The first way is by having a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident (green card holder) relative. The second way is through a U.S. employer seeking to hire a foreign national.

For many people, getting a green card is a “hurry up and wait” situation. Why does it take so long? In this article, we’re here to explain why.

In the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, Congress created various categories of green cards for both family and employment green card cases. This classification system lives on, with modifications, to this day. In family cases, the categories are broken down by the U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident’s familial relationship with the immigrant. In employment cases, the categories are broken down by employment type or qualifications required for the job.

In the family context, there are four categories: (1) unmarried adult children of U.S. citizens; (2) spouses and unmarried children (both adults and minors) of lawful permanent residents; (3) married adult children of U.S. citizens; and (4) siblings of U.S. citizens.

In the employment context, there are five categories: (1) priority workers who are of extraordinary ability, a.k.a. geniuses or movie stars; (2) members of a profession holding advanced degrees or persons of exceptional ability; (3) skilled workers, professionals, and other workers; (4) special immigrants, which includes religious workers, juveniles who have been abused, abandoned, or neglected by one or both parents, and international organization retirees; and finally (5) investors.

In both family and employment cases, there are only a certain number of visas available in each category every fiscal year. On top of that, those visas are further allocated depending on the immigrant’s country of birth. The countries are broken down as follows: (1) mainland-born Chinese (including Hong Kong); (2) India; (3) Mexico; (4) Philippines; and (5) all other countries.

Because Congress has not increased the number of visas available in any given category over 30 years, there is a horrendous backlog for both family and employment-based cases. Sometimes we hear that people should just “wait in line” to immigrate. But how long is the wait, exactly?

The wait time depends on your so-called “priority date.” When either an employment or family petition is filed on behalf of an immigrant, the immigrant receives a priority date. That is the date that the U.S. government received the petition or other relevant documents in that person’s case. The priority date saves the immigrant’s place in the line for a green card.

Once armed with the priority date, we can look at the Visa Bulletin. The Department of State issues the visa bulletin every month to advise prospective immigrants about where they are “in the line” for green cards in any given category. The visa bulletin is broken down into two charts: the dates for filing chart and the final action dates chart.

The dates for filing chart tells us when an immigrant can submit her green card application and accompanying documents. The visa bulletin must list a date that is the same or later than the immigrant’s priority date for the immigrant to be eligible to submit her application. The final action dates chart tells us which immigrants are actually eligible to have their application adjudicated and/or be issued a green card. Again, the priority date has to be the same or later than the immigrant’s priority date.

Let’s illustrate with an example using the January 2024 visa bulletin. Mary was born in the Philippines. She is 30 years of age and unmarried. Her mother is a lawful permanent resident. Mary’s mother filed a family petition on Mary’s behalf on September 18, 2019. Therefore, Mary’s priority date is September 18, 2019. Because Mary is the adult unmarried child of a permanent resident, she is waiting in line in the family-based second preference category, or F2B.

As of January 2024, only adult unmarried children of permanent residents who were born in the Philippines can file for their green card if their priority date is August 1, 2004 or earlier. Also, the Department of State is only adjudicating applications for people whose priority date is October 3, 2003 or earlier.

Therefore, Mary needs to wait approximately 16 years before she will even be eligible to file her green card application with the Department of State.

Let’s also give an employment-based example. Justin Bieber, who was born in Canada, filed an employment-based petition as an international pop star and requested a green card under the employment-based first category. He filed on March 21, 2023.

Great news, Beliebers! According to the January 2024 dates for filing chart, Justin can file his application now because the Department of State is “current,” or up-to-date, with first-preference cases for people who were born anywhere other than China, India, Mexico or the Philippines. The Department of State is also current when it comes to adjudications.

An important note for our readers: the above dates for filing/final action dates explanation is applicable to cases for immigrants who are applying for their green cards abroad at a U.S. embassy or consulate. If the immigrant is already in the United States, she should look and see which chart U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is using each month so that she files her application at the appropriate time.

As always, we welcome your comments and will do our best to respond.

This sponsored column is by Law Office of James Montana PLLC. All questions about it should be directed to James Montana, Esq., Doran Shemin, Esq., Janice Chen, Esq., and Austen Soare, Esq., practicing attorneys at The Law Office of James Montana PLLC, an immigration-focused law firm located in Falls Church, Virginia. The legal information given here is general in nature. If you want legal advice, contact us for an appointment.

Dear ARLnow Readers,

Every year, we are reminded — in our own particular ways, by our own particular traditions, and, if we’re fortunate, in the company of our own families — that there is more to life than the law.

So, in this last column before Christmas, we are not going to talk about the law.

Instead, we are going to share this heartwarming story of how Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington opened its doors to the neediest for Christmas dinner. May we all be animated by the spirit of charity and human kindness this holiday season.

Thank you for reading our advertorials over the course of this year, and for your thoughtful questions and comments.

As always, we welcome your comments and will do our best to respond.

This sponsored column is by Law Office of James Montana PLLC. All questions about it should be directed to James Montana, Esq., Doran Shemin, Esq., Janice Chen, Esq., and Austen Soare, Esq., practicing attorneys at The Law Office of James Montana PLLC, an immigration-focused law firm located in Falls Church, Virginia. The legal information given here is general in nature. If you want legal advice, contact us for an appointment.

Anyone who has ever had to file paperwork with a state or federal agency knows that it can be confusing. Where am I sending this application? Who has the power to approve my request? Why does this office handle my application and not the other office?

Immigration is no different. Various federal agencies come into play when it comes to immigration petitions and applications. As always, we are here to help! Here is a breakdown and brief explanation of the agencies (and sub-agencies! And then sub-offices!) that immigration lawyers and immigrants interact with.

First, there is the Department of Homeland Security. The three major sub-agencies within the Department of Homeland Security that we deal with are (1) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; (2) Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and (3) Customs and Border Protection.

(1) S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, or USCIS, is a benefit-processing sub-agency. USCIS accepts and adjudicates all types of immigration applications, including work permit applications, green card applications, and naturalization applications. USCIS is not an enforcement agency. USCIS also houses asylum offices, which only adjudicate asylum applications. There are many field offices and asylum offices around the country that conduct applicant interviews. In Virginia, we have two field offices: the Washington Field Office in Fairfax and the Norfolk Field Office. Virginia also has one asylum office in Arlington. The other local USCIS field office close by is located in Baltimore.

(2) Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, is exactly what it says in the name — an enforcement branch of the Department of Homeland Security. We generally deal with two sub-offices within ICE. First, there is the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, or OPLA. They are the immigration prosecutors that appear in court and represent the Department of Homeland Security’s position in removal or deportation proceedings.

Second, there is Enforcement and Removal Operations, or ERO. Again, the name basically explains it all. ERO is like the immigration police. They enforce deportation and removal orders and conduct check-ins with people who have been conditionally released from immigration detention. The Virginia ERO office is located in Chantilly. The Maryland ERO office is in Baltimore.

(3) Customs and Border Protection, or CBP, are the border police. They are the agents that review passports at ports of entry, like airports and seaports, to make sure that a person has the correct documents to enter the United States. They also can arrest people that have entered the United States unlawfully if those people are found within a certain distance from a land or sea border. Finally, they also review luggage and shipments to ensure that people are not bringing illegal or problematic items, like counterfeit goods, into the United States.

(more…)

This sponsored column is by Law Office of James Montana PLLC. All questions about it should be directed to James Montana, Esq., Doran Shemin, Esq., Janice Chen, Esq., and Austen Soare, Esq., practicing attorneys at The Law Office of James Montana PLLC, an immigration-focused law firm located in Falls Church, Virginia. The legal information given here is general in nature. If you want legal advice, contact us for an appointment.

[This is the third installment in our new series here at Statutes of Liberty, in which we interview professionals in our field to provide our readers with varying perspectives on what it is like to work in the immigration system.]

Q: Who are you and where do you work?

A: My name is Katie Fourmy, and I work at Just Neighbors, a nonprofit that offers very low-cost legal services.

Q: Did you once work for James Montana as an intern?

A: What is the first rule of Fight Club?

Q: Touché. Next serious question: You work at an immigration nonprofit. You defend people and charge low fees. But ‘low’ is more than ‘free.’ Why don’t immigrants just go to the public defender?

A: I wish! Immigrants have a right to an immigration attorney in court, but that means that they have a right to hire one, not a right to have one if they can’t afford it. That means that they have to save up money and either hire someone from the private bar or a low-cost nonprofit provider like Just Neighbors.

Q: When you say low-cost, what do you mean? What does Just Neighbors charge?

A: We charge a one-time $100 fee.

Q: Say what?

A: Well, $100 for an individual, $200 for a family. That’s the fee for the whole case.

Q: [Sound of shattering glass, as your friendly local immigration lawyer contemplates financial dystopia.] How on earth does Just Neighbors stay afloat?

A: We are very fortunate to benefit from the generosity of faith communities, individuals, and local jurisdictions, which provide us with funding. We also receive support from foundations. We don’t have enough money, and indeed, we don’t have enough lawyers.

Q: How many lawyers are we talking about?

A: Ten lawyers, currently.

Q: What geographic range does Just Neighbors cover?

A: Maryland, D.C., Northern Virginia, and swaths of rural Virginia — that’s five attorneys covering Northern Virginia, including Prince William and Loudoun.

Q: Do you represent people in detention?

A: We do not. We refer them to CAIR Coalition. CAIR Coalition is the only nonprofit in the area that does detained immigrant defense. KIND and Ayuda will sometimes take cases for detained children.

Q: Children? That reminds me. Do children have the right to counsel in immigration court?

A: Nope, neither children nor adults have the right to appointed counsel.

(more…)

This sponsored column is by Law Office of James Montana PLLC. All questions about it should be directed to James Montana, Esq., Doran Shemin, Esq., Janice Chen, Esq., and Austen Soare, Esq., practicing attorneys at The Law Office of James Montana PLLC, an immigration-focused law firm located in Falls Church, Virginia. The legal information given here is general in nature. If you want legal advice, contact us for an appointment.

[We intend to continue our Meet Your Immigration Professional series soon, with new and interesting characters, but the next interview slot falls after today’s article, so we’re providing a direct legal advertisement in this space rather than indirectly advertising our law office via cogent analysis of recent developments in immigration law. (“Was that saying the quiet part out loud?” – Yes, yes, it was.] 

In our advertorials on ARLnow, we offer news summaries, news analyses, legal predictions, and (sometimes) mildly goofy photographs of our lawyers. This time, the Bean Counter in Chief our principal attorney, James Montana, has demanded that we do something new and unexpected: advertise our services. 

Therefore, here is a brief summary of what we do, what we (presently) charge, and how we approach our financial relationship with our clients. Keep in mind, as you read this, that all of our fees are set by agreement, in writing, with the client, and that no sensible lawyer guarantees success. This article lays out the landscape for our services and fees, but prospective clients should understand that fee agreements are individual and case-specific. Please also understand that these fees do not include the fees charged by USCIS or other government agencies, which can be substantial.

Consultations

We charge $200 for a consultation with one of our lawyers. In our consultation, we explore, thoroughly and carefully, whether the prospective client has any possibilities for immigration relief and discuss the best approach to obtaining relief. Consultations at our office frequently run more than an hour.

If the client subsequently signs a Representation Agreement, we subtract the consultation fee previously paid from the bill.

Green cards

Green cards come in many flavors – employment based green card applications, family-based green card applications, green card applications based on prior grants of asylum or refugee status, and many, many more. 

Our most common kind of green card application is based on marriage, either to a United States Citizen or a Lawful Permanent Resident. 

We charge $3900, flat fee, to apply for a green card under those circumstances. That assumes many things about the prospective client – for example, that there is no ongoing case in immigration court, and that no waiver is necessary. Fees can be considerably higher.

Work permits

Fees for work permit application preparation and legal representation vary widely at our office. To take a common example: We charge $400 to renew TPS or DACA, which includes both a renewal application for that benefit and includes the concurrent work authorization request. 

A warning: Frequently, work permits are (1) not available, for a given client, (2) much more expensive than you’d think, and (3) an adjunct to another application. Rare, rare is the day on which an immigrant applies for a work permit without another application attached. 

Asylum

Fees for asylum applications vary at our office depending on whether the applicant is applying affirmatively, before the asylum office, or defensively, before the immigration court. Typically, our fees for asylum defense range from $4000 to $6500.

Naturalization

Our fee for naturalization applications is $750. We’re happy to admit that this is a loss leader for us – we love making new U.S. citizens!

Pro Bono Cases

We do as much pro bono work as we can. Our pro bono cases tend to be referrals from our friends and colleagues at Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington, or from the Borromeo Legal Project., Inc.

Low-Bono and Pro Bono Referrals

We are always happy to refer prospective clients who can’t afford our fees to local non-profit agencies. (Here is an article which provides a nationwide list, including agencies in both Virginia and Maryland.) Local non-profit agencies are, lamentably, extremely capacity-constrained. We need more low-cost providers of services in our profession. In two upcoming interviews, we’ll be introducing a legal aid attorney and a large nonprofit administrator, and asking them detailed questions about that problem.

As always, we welcome your comments and will do our best to respond.

This sponsored column is by Law Office of James Montana PLLC. All questions about it should be directed to James Montana, Esq., Doran Shemin, Esq., Janice Chen, Esq., and Austen Soare, Esq., practicing attorneys at The Law Office of James Montana PLLC, an immigration-focused law firm located in Falls Church, Virginia. The legal information given here is general in nature. If you want legal advice, contact us for an appointment.

[This is the second installment in our new series here at Statutes of Liberty, in which we interview professionals in our field to provide our readers with varying perspectives on what it is like to work in the immigration system.]

For our second installment — Meet Your Asylum Officer — we are pleased to introduce Jennifer Bibby-Gerth, Esq., a former asylum officer and current Senior Managing Attorney at Catholic Charities Immigration Legal Services, Archdiocese of Washington.

A Q&A between Ms. Bibby-Gerth and James Montana follows here.

Montana: Jennifer, let’s introduce you to the readers. When were you an asylum officer, and for how long?

Bibby-Gerth: I worked as an asylum officer for about six years, from about December 2007 to September 2013. I was a line officer first, and then a Quality Assurance Trainer; in the latter role, I reviewed the work of supervisory asylum officers.

Montana: Let’s get to the heart of the matter: the backlog. We all know that the asylum office is backed up. There are, by the admission of the Asylum Directorate, ONE MILLION pending cases. How many interviews is each officer supposed to do per week?

Bibby-Gerth: When I worked at the Arlington Asylum Office, officers would conduct two interviews per day, four days per week. Sometimes there would be one additional interview per week, for a total of 16-18 interviews every two weeks.

Montana: So, that’s how many interviews get done. How many decisions get made in the same period?

Bibby-Gerth: Approximately the same number. At the asylum office, an asylum officer writes her recommendation, and then the case is forwarded for Supervisory review by a Supervisory Asylum Officer (SAO). A few cases also are sent to headquarters for a review of the recommendation to grant asylum or refer to immigration court. In addition, background checks have to be completed.

Montana: Do grant rates vary widely between asylum officers?

Bibby-Gerth: Yes.

Montana: Why?

Bibby-Gerth: People are different.

Montana: Do SAOs (supervisory asylum officers) have significant influence over the decisions of line officers?

Bibby-Gerth: The SAO is supposed to check for legal sufficiency in the decision. Some SAOs insert themselves to a greater degree.

Montana: Why do I have cases that have been pending for years post-interview?

Bibby-Gerth: Headquarters review is usually the bottleneck. After an initial recommendation is made, the supervisory asylum officer sometimes forwards the case to Quality Assurance, then Quality Assurance forwards the case to a Headquarters Asylum Officer. There are very few Asylum Officers at headquarters.

Montana: Why?

Bibby-Gerth: Cases that require Headquarters review often are complex. They also might require multiple layers of headquarters review. For example, they might need to be reviewed by a team that makes decisions regarding issuing exemptions to the Terrorist Related Inadmissibility Grounds when a person (may or may not) have given support to a terrorist organization under duress.

Montana: How are working conditions at the Arlington Asylum Office?

Bibby-Gerth: They’re fine. Sometimes the number of interviews per two week period got to be too much.

Montana: Is the workforce unionized?

Bibby-Gerth: Yes.

Montana: How much power does the union have?

Bibby-Gerth: Substantial power. If an asylum officer has a conflict with management, say a Supervisory Asylum Officer, the union represents the interests of the asylum officer.

Montana: Is the current LIFO system a good idea? (Attorney note: Last In, First Out — the newest cases get heard first, then the most recent ones, then the older ones, then the oldest ones)

Bibby-Gerth: They’re not doing LIFO.

Montana: What?

Bibby-Gerth: They say that they’re doing LIFO, but that’s not what’s actually happening at the asylum office. They’re mainly doing Credible Fear interviews and interviewing paroled Afghan asylum applicants.

Montana: Let’s turn to information that asylum seekers should know. What’s the most important part of an asylum application?

Bibby-Gerth: By far, the Declaration. (Montana’s note: The declaration contains a plain-language statement of why the applicant for asylum fears returning home.)

Montana: How long should it be?

Bibby-Gerth: Definitely less than ten pages.

Montana: Do unrepresented clients draft better declarations than attorneys do?

Bibby-Gerth: No, never. Attorneys are better at providing the information that matters.

Montana: What’s the solution to the backlog?

Bibby-Gerth: Amnesty. We’ve been here before. We had a huge backlog of Central American asylum cases in the 1980s. In 1997, Congress passed NACARA, effectively an amnesty for those applicants, and then the asylum system was able to return to a sustainable pace.

Montana: Thank you very much for your time today. (Rummages around in his bag.) Would you like a home-baked loaf of bread for your trouble?

Bibby-Gerth: Thanks, James. I’ll share it with the other lawyers at lunch!

As always, we welcome your comments and will do our best to respond.

This sponsored column is by Law Office of James Montana PLLC. All questions about it should be directed to James Montana, Esq., Doran Shemin, Esq., and Janice Chen, Esq., practicing attorneys at The Law Office of James Montana PLLC, an immigration-focused law firm located in Falls Church, Virginia. The legal information given here is general in nature. If you want legal advice, contact us for an appointment.

Today, we begin a new series here at Statutes of Liberty, in which we interview professionals in our field to provide our readers with varying perspectives on what it is like to work in the immigration system.

For our first installment — Meet Your New Immigration Lawyer — we’re pleased to introduce Austen P. Soare, Esq., the new attorney at The Law Office of James Montana PLLC. A Q&A between Mr. Soare and the pointy-headed boss James Montana follows here.

Montana: Hi, Austen. You have an unusual last name. How do you pronounce it?

Soare: Sir-RAY.

Montana: Did your new boss mispronounce it repeatedly during the interview process and for your first two days on the job?

Soare: I have no regrets about accepting this job offer and am excited to work at the firm.

Montana: Why on earth did you become an immigration lawyer?

Soare: I enjoy helping people from a variety of backgrounds. I find myself learning a great deal from different sorts of people, and enjoy the broad array of cases that immigration law has to offer. I find it fulfilling to help people to pursue their dreams and goals, and finding ways to realize them.

Montana: What makes practicing immigration law different from other specialties?

Soare: I previously worked with criminal defense attorneys when I was a law student. In specialties like criminal defense, you see a lot of similar cases; in immigration law, the variety is endless. For example, every asylum case presents a completely different life story. Telling that story, as part of the process of seeking relief, is an exciting way to practice law.

Montana: Before you came to the lovely premises of The Law Offices of James Montana, what did you do for a living?

Soare: I worked at the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota. There, I dealt mainly with pro bono cases, naturalization, DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and TPS (Temporary Protected Status) cases. It was a wonderful nonprofit to work at, with a strong educational component. I enjoyed it very much, and it led me to continue working in the field.

Montana: If you could tell our intelligent and thoughtful readers one thing about immigration law that they ought to know, what would it be?

Soare: There are many forms of relief, some of which are not always obvious. It’s important to speak to an attorney before concluding that you don’t have any options. Where one avenue appears closed, another may open. There is no substitute for expertise.

Montana: Do you have any advice for law students who are considering becoming immigration lawyers?

Soare: Find volunteer work in the field. Nonprofits are always looking for smart young people who want to volunteer their time. Seek out coursework in immigration law. Stay up to date on the news — DACA litigation just took a turn yesterday! — and learn everything you can. Immigration is a great field to pursue.

Montana: Are you accepting new clients?

Soare: Yes.

Montana: How can they reach you?

Soare [audibly groaning]: I can be reached at [email protected] or by phone at 571-562-5003.

Welcome to the firm, Austen!

As always, we welcome your comments and will do our best to respond.

This sponsored column is by Law Office of James Montana PLLC. All questions about it should be directed to James Montana, Esq., Doran Shemin, Esq., and Janice Chen, Esq., practicing attorneys at The Law Office of James Montana PLLC, an immigration-focused law firm located in Falls Church, Virginia. The legal information given here is general in nature. If you want legal advice, contact us for an appointment.

No one should envy the Biden Administration. Like Presidential Administrations before it, the Biden Administration is caught on the horns of a dilemma: rigorous border enforcement leads to federal injunctions, because enforcement frequently infringes on the legal rights of asylum applicants; rigorous protection for asylum applicants leads to increased border crossing rates, with real consequences for border towns and distant cities alike.

The Biden Administration has dealt with this dilemma with a carrot and stick approach. First, the Administration has worked to create alternative pathways which do not require presenting yourself at the border; and, in addition, the Biden Administration has made increasing use of humanitarian parole to permit asylum seekers to apply for asylum from deep in the interior of the U.S.; those policies are the carrot. (We wrote about those alternative pathways, in these pages, here.)

Second, the Administration attempted to force asylum seekers to apply for protection using a kludge-driven machine: the CBP One App. (We wrote about the CBP App in these pages, here.) Failure to use the CBP One App would, in the new policy, be punished with ineligibility for asylum; that’s the stick.

On July 25, Federal Judge John S. Tigar enjoined the stick. His reasoning was simple. U.S. law permits asylum applicants to apply for asylum, no matter how they entered the United States, and no matter where they entered the United States, politics be damned. If Congress wants to change that, let it do so.

Earlier this year, Federal Judge T. Kent Wetherell entered a Temporary Restraining Order against the carrot. His reasoning was simple. Under federal law, parole is a benefit to be granted sparingly, on a case-by-case basis, and the Biden administration has been using parole wholesale to deal with large migrant flows. If Congress wants to allow that, let it do so.

Both of these policies are kludges, and poor replacements for Congressional action. The Biden Administration, like the Trump Administration and the Obama Administration before it, has attempted to work around Congress via Executive Action, and the Biden Administration — like the Trump Administration and the Obama Administration before it — is losing in court repeatedly. That’s predictable, because U.S. federal law offers both generous procedural rights to asylum seekers and severely limits the discretion of the Executive to parole large groups of noncitizens into the United States.

Eventually, Congress will respond to the increasing pressure within the system, and enact real policy change. We hope that happens soon.

As always, we welcome your comments and will do our best to respond.

This sponsored column is by Law Office of James Montana PLLC. All questions about it should be directed to James Montana, Esq., Doran Shemin, Esq., and Janice Chen, Esq., practicing attorneys at The Law Office of James Montana PLLC, an immigration-focused law firm located in Falls Church, Virginia. The legal information given here is general in nature. If you want legal advice, contact us for an appointment.

Just married! There’s just one hitch: no proper immigration papers. What should you do now?

Everyone says that your new bride (or groom) should get a green card without any difficulty. But you’re worried. You’ve looked at the forms — oh, those forms! — and they look… difficult. You’re worried about making a mistake. What should you do now?

The sensible answer is to call a lawyer, but I’m going to point you in the direction of the appropriate forms so you can DIY this if you really, really want to. Please call a lawyer, though. It’s in your own financial interest. Lawyers get paid by the hour — except for our firm, which has helpful flat fees. Whether you pay flat fees or by the hour, it takes many delightfully lucrative hours to get you out of trouble after you finish your DIY Document Demolition Derby.

I enjoy crushing beer cans against my forehead, so obviously I don’t want a lawyer. What should I do now?

Assuming you are eligible, you file a long ton of paperwork and supporting documentation. The foreign spouse will be fingerprinted. Six to eight months later, as a matter of current practice, the foreign spouse should receive a work permit. Twelve to eighteen months later, you will both be interviewed by a government official. If that interview goes well, you’ll get a green card. If it doesn’t… well, you’re headed to Immigration Court, which is worse than Double Secret Probation and a heck of lot more expensive.

If you make a paperwork mistake or forget to enclose a supporting document, the government will helpfully remind you of this with a written Request for Evidence. Even if you respond instantly, a Request for Evidence may delay adjudication of your case by two to three months.

If you mess up your response to a Request for Evidence, the government may (or may not) send you another Request for Evidence. Uncle Sam is fully within his rights to keep your application fee — a cool $1,760 — and tell you to try again. You should have hired a lawyer the first time.

I don’t care! I think this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture on somebody’s part! Let’s do it!

If you’re going to DIY this, you should read these forms (and their accompanying instructions) very carefully. Any immigration lawyer you speak to should be able to tell you what these forms are, in coma-inducing detail, without opening his laptop. If he can’t, enjoy the free coffee and walk away.

• Form I-130: Petition for Alien Relative
• Form I-130A: Supplemental Information for Spouse Beneficiary
• Form I-131: Application for Travel Document
• Form I-485: Application for Adjustment of Status
• Form I-693: Report of Medical Examination and Vaccination Record
• Form I-765: Application for Employment Authorization
• Form I-864: Affidavit of Support under Section 213A of the INA

I gave my love a cherry that had no stone. Does that prove that we’re married?

The government knows that cherries have stones and chickens have bones. So, how are you going to convince the government that your love story has no end?

Amateurs think that the answer is photographs. It isn’t. Rank amateurs think the answer is boudoir photographs. That really, really isn’t. (You think I’m kidding? Once a year, like clockwork…)

Professionals know that the answer is commingling of finances. Joint monthly bank account statements, joint leases, joint tax returns, life insurance policies, health insurance policies, wills, utility bills, a family cell phone plan. Get it all together. Make a table of contents. Use tabs. Government adjudicators really appreciate tabs.

There were blanks in that gun. I didn’t do anything!

Has your spouse ever committed any crime at all, even one that was not prosecuted, even one where the record was later expunged? Stop and call a lawyer. You can be put into removal proceedings for stealing a candy bar. (Not our client, but we have seen it with our own eyes.)

How did your spouse get here? We treat people who crossed the border very, very differently from people who overstayed visas. If your spouse walked across the border, stop and call a lawyer.

Did your spouse do any side work while on a visitor visa? Did your spouse ever use questionable documents? Ever apply for asylum? Ever have a driver’s license issued under questionable circumstances? You know what to do. Let’s do it!

As always, we welcome your comments and will do our best to respond.

This sponsored column is by Law Office of James Montana PLLC. All questions about it should be directed to James Montana, Esq., Doran Shemin, Esq., and Janice Chen, Esq., practicing attorneys at The Law Office of James Montana PLLC, an immigration-focused law firm located in Falls Church, Virginia. The legal information given here is general in nature. If you want legal advice, contact us for an appointment.

Norway is a lovely country. Just ask former President Trump, who famously contrasted Norway with other, (allegedly) less pleasant countries, and publicly wished for more Norwegian immigrants to the United States.

In one of life’s little ironies, we seem to be getting what he asked for. According to data recently released by the Department of Justice, Norway is… a hotbed of successful asylum claims!

Per this data, in FY2023, U.S. immigration courts adjudicated 462 asylum claims by Norwegians, 293 of which were granted — a fantastic grant rate, at over 63%. This would put Norwegians ahead of North Koreans (13%), Sudanese (41%), Venezuelans (33%), and Afghans (55%).

Gentle reader: Greet these claims with heavy skepticism.

The data set is extraordinary. It contains so many puzzling elements that we have difficulty in interpreting it. Here is the snippet which includes Niger through Pakistan:

Per this data, no one was granted asylum from Nigeria or Niger during the six months examined — but 59 cases from Niger were disposed of via other methods. Per this data, 148 people applied for asylum from North Korea during the six months examined, but North Koreans were twice as likely to lose than to win asylum. Per this data, Norway is one of the most likely countries in the world from which to win asylum. (Only Nepal and Egypt stand out as bigger winners among medium-sized countries.)

It is conceivable that much of this data is accurate. (For example, North Koreans are very likely to have received refugee status in South Korea, thereby making them presumptively ineligible for asylum in the United States, if they later try to claim it.) However, there are too many howlers for us to trust the data set. It’s not just Norway — it’s Sweden (grant rate: 47%) and Slovakia (grant rate: 56%).

We would also like to point out that the Heard and McDonald Islands are not a country at all. It is administered by Australia. Its population is zero, except for seals and seabirds. Why is it on this chart?

Another strange entry: the nation of “Upper Volta” changed its name to Burkina Faso in 1984. (Burkina Faso is listed separately.)

Data sets often contain more truth than fiction even when apparently anomalous. But this data set is too strange to be credited. In addition, EOIR’s reputation for data tracking does not give us reason to credit these apparently surprising results.

We are not the only ones who have noticed these peculiarities. We call on EOIR to release the source data for these materials, correct the data as necessary, and provide background on its sources and methods. This data matters — not just to lawyers and judges, but to asylum applicants, who frequently are in the dark about how long their cases will take and what their odds of success are.

As always, we welcome your comments and will do our best to respond.