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., and Laura Lorenzo, Esq., practicing attorneys at The Law Office of James Montana PLLC, an immigration-focused law firm located in Arlington, Virginia. The legal information given here is general in nature. If you want legal advice, contact us for an appointment.

We are delighted to share the big news with our readers at ARLnow: we opened a new office in Falls Church! And we’re hiring! And we’re having a party to celebrate opening the new office.

Time for a quick Q&A plus some sweet, sweet amateur photography.

Q: What’s your new address?

A: 306 N. Washington Street, Falls Church VA 22046.

Q: Pix or it didn’t happen!

A: We are here to satisfy reader expectations.

Q: Did you close your old office at 5233 Wilson Boulevard?

A: Yes. We keep prices low for immigrants. This isn’t about building a real estate empire.

Q: Why did you move?

A: Have you ever tried to pack three lawyers into 400 square feet? It’s rough! We have 2000 square feet now, plus another 1200 square feet to sublet. We’re so happy.

Q: Will you keep advertising on ARLnow?

A: Yes! ARLnow covers Falls Church. Plus, we still love local journalism and want to support it.

Q: You’re hiring? I’d like to ask a softball question so you can provide more details. What’s your favorite color?

A: Glad you asked: Blue. Also, we’re looking to hire a new immigration lawyer! Recent law grads are welcome to apply. Midcareer lawyers who want to try a new field are welcome to apply. We pay well and offer generous benefits. Email [email protected]. He does the hiring.

Q: Are you looking for summer law associates?

A: Yes, that too. And we’ll pay them. Email [email protected].

(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., and Laura Lorenzo, Esq., practicing attorneys at The Law Office of James Montana PLLC, an immigration-focused law firm located in Arlington, Virginia. The legal information given here is general in nature. If you want legal advice, contact us for an appointment.

On June 15, 2012, the Obama administration created Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.

Congress had passed no law — indeed, the Obama Administration argued that DACA was an attempt to fix a situation where Congress had refused to act — and so DACA did not have the same permanence as ordinary legislation. The Trump Administration attempted to rescind DACA, and only failed to do so due to technical errors. (There are technical errors, and then there are technical errors that quietly enrage Justice Roberts. These were the latter kind.)

Until this week, DACA remained a purely executive action. This week — finally — the Department of Homeland Security published a Final Regulation codifying DACA.

Does this make a difference? The correct answer is: We’ll see. Explaining why requires a bit of background on modern American legislative practice.

“I’m Just a Bill” sets out the platonic form of legislation. (A classic, by the way, and if you can get away with it at work, watch it again. Try not to smile.)

The New Deal greatly expanded the role of the Federal government in American life. New federal agencies regulated prices, built infrastructure and set regulatory standards in ways which were previously the province of state and local governments. After World War II, Congress, in reaction to the vast quasi-legislative power of New Deal agencies, passed the Administration Procedure Act, which established standard processes for promulgating and evaluating federal regulations.

In our current system, regulations have the force of law. You can be arrested, fined and jailed for regulatory violations. Other than a bit of (relatively mild) judicial scrutiny, regulations are coequal in dignity to I’m Just a Bill.

Executive Actions — or Presidential Proclamations, or Executive Orders, all of which are subtly different — are neither laws nor regulation. Instead, these steps announce policies which — in the opinion of the Executive — the Executive has the Constitutional authority to enact without either a legislative act or regulatory promulgation.

DACA was an Executive Action. As of this week, the exact standards of DACA have been promulgated, via the ordinary processes, as a regulation.

Meanwhile, litigation over the Constitutionality of DACA continues in the federal courts. Plaintiff states — led by Texas — still seek to have DACA declared unlawful, on the grounds that DACA was — among other things — improperly promulgated as an Executive Action, when it should have gone through the ordinary regulatory process.

By issuing these regulations, the Biden Administration has removed that argument from play. However, the plaintiffs can (and, in our judgment, probably will) continue to argue that the new DACA regulation violates the Constitutional separation of powers, and, perhaps, the Supreme Court’s latest addition to American constitutional law, the Major Questions Doctrine.

We’re here to answer all questions, major and minor. Ask them in the comments. We’d love to hear from you.

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 Laura Lorenzo, Esq., practicing attorneys at The Law Office of James Montana PLLC, an immigration-focused law firm located in Arlington, Virginia. The legal information given here is general in nature. If you want legal advice, contact us for an appointment.

Back in 1952, Congress determined how the total number of immigrant visas (green cards) would be allocated into different categories, both in family and employment-based cases.

Those visas were further allocated based on the applicant’s country of birth. This is where the “wait in line” part of immigration comes in.

For example, Indian nationals who are applying for a green card under employment-based category two, which is for professionals with an advanced degree or individuals of exceptional ability, are waiting approximately ten years to actually be able to apply for the green card because a visa is not available. Currently, only Indian nationals in this category who had a petition filed on their behalf on or before February 15, 2012, are eligible to receive a green card.

Congress also dictated that if any family-based visas went unused, those visas could be pushed over to employment-based categories. This was done to ensure that all available visas are used during each fiscal year.

Just like everything else, COVID-19 had a major impact on U.S. embassies and consulates, resulting in very few visa interviews and approvals. Additionally, USCIS did not use 66,781 visas by the end of fiscal year 2021; thus, number of employment-based visas for fiscal year 2022 has been bumped up to approximately 280,000.

Now, the two agencies are rushing to issue as many visas as possible before the end of the fiscal year, which ends on September 30. As of June 30, the two agencies had only issued 176,281 visas, leaving approximately 103,719 visas unaccounted for.

USCIS cites a number of reasons why more visas have not been used thus far, even with the fiscal year end quickly approaching. First, USCIS has had issues with its capacity to adjudicate cases generally, partially due to the pandemic along with resource constraints during the prior administration.

(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., and Laura Lorenzo, Esq., practicing attorneys at The Law Office of James Montana PLLC, an immigration-focused law firm located in Arlington, Virginia. The legal information given here is general in nature. If you want legal advice, contact us for an appointment.

The Biden administration has pledged to ‘shorten from years to months‘ the timeline for processing asylum claims.

As part of this big push, Customs and Border Protection is now placing asylum seekers directly in immigration court. There’s just one problem: CBP is forgetting to actually file the charging document, so, when the immigrant shows up to court, the Immigration Judge has no alternative but to dismiss the case.

You may recall that not long ago, the Supreme Court determined that for DHS to issue a statutorily-compliant immigration charging document, or NTA, which initiates deportation proceedings against a noncitizen, DHS must include the date and time of the hearing on the NTA itself. For years, DHS had only included that the hearing would occur on a “date and time to be set,” and let the immigration court schedule the eventual hearing. However, the Supreme Court said that DHS must actually schedule the hearing with the immigration court and include the hearing place, date and time for the NTA to be statutorily compliant.

Recently, DHS has been following this rule, particularly in cases involving noncitizens who enter through the U.S. southern land border. Great, right? Well, only partially.

The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (“TRAC”) at Syracuse University issued a report on July 29, 2022 that describes how DHS is actually timely-filing very few charging documents, which is resulting, and will result, in mass dismissals of cases against noncitizens.

Here’s what appears to be happening: noncitizens arriving at various ports of entry and through the land borders encounter DHS Customs and Border Protection (CBP). CBP decides that it would be appropriate to initiate deportation proceedings against the noncitizen. CBP then enters the immigration court scheduling system, and finds an open date and time for a hearing. CBP issues the NTA with that date and time, and then gives the NTA to the noncitizen. The noncitizen then leaves CBP custody, under the impression that he or she will have a hearing on the date and time listed on the NTA.

However, CBP is, frequently, not following through on filing the NTA with the appropriate immigration court, meaning the immigration court does not have the document that actually initiates the deportation proceedings against the noncitizen.

Thus, the noncitizen shows up to the court on the date and time in the NTA only to discover that the immigration court has no idea who she is. The court then “dismisses” the case because the case never actually existed within the court system.

(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., and Laura Lorenzo, Esq., practicing attorneys at The Law Office of James Montana PLLC, an immigration-focused law firm located in Arlington, Virginia. The legal information given here is general in nature. If you want legal advice, contact us for an appointment.

Note: In this Guest Essay, our anonymous friend, Prof. Erasmus, explains his rather unusual thoughts about U.S. asylum law, which — of course — we do not endorse or even pretend to understand. If you like Prof. Erasmus’s work, stay tuned, because he intends to make this a regular feature. We’ll see if he intends to pay our advertising bill.

I, Professor Erasmus, am here to further educate you on how American immigration law works. Remember the rule: We do not judge law by what it purports to do, but by what it actually does.

Today, I would like to remind you about the Old Way that the United States used to do immigration — what I will call the Ellis Island system. The rules at Ellis Island, circa 1910, were simple and clear:

• No passport or visa was required. Immigration officers checked your name against the ship’s manifest to determine whether your identity could be verified. Fraud was frequent.
• A government doctor would examine you to determine physical and mental fitness. About ten percent of people were held for further examination — heart trouble, mental instability and inability to do physical labor were all reasons for detention. (Think little Vito Andolini from The Godfather Part II.)
• Brief questioning from officials, aimed at determining whether you were a dangerous anarchist, led to a tiny fraction of migrants being detained and then deported.

98% of applicants for admission made it in. 98%!

Upon admission, immigrants received no paperwork of any kind — no summons demanding a court appearance, no green card, no work permit, no identification. Do you think that the Ellis Island system differs from our current system? It does not. If you think it does, you’re a fool, a lawyer, or quite possibly both.

In my next essay, I will explain to you how our current immigration system is, in fact, just like Ellis Island in every particular. Every border crossing station is a miniature Ellis Island. Lawyers, judges and bureaucrats pretend otherwise; let them pretend. Here, we tell the truth.

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 Laura Lorenzo, Esq., practicing attorneys at The Law Office of James Montana PLLC, an immigration-focused law firm located in Arlington, Virginia. The legal information given here is general in nature. If you want legal advice, contact us for an appointment.

Loyal Statutes of Liberty reader(s) know that we at the Law Office of James Montana PLLC are not always pleased with how the various immigration agencies interpret the law.

For example, we recently talked about the bonkers way that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) dealt with certain immigrants who return to the United States after a brief trip abroad with a travel permit.

But we write with great news! USCIS has finally decided to reinterpret not only one, but TWO important pieces of the law, both in favor of our clients!

First, let’s start with the previously discussed travel permit issue. Under an administrative decision called Matter of Z-R-Z-C-, USCIS began to reject lawful entries using a travel permit for certain green card applicants who have Temporary Protected Status (TPS).

Many TPS beneficiaries originally entered the United States illegally to flee horrendous conditions in their home country. Thus, even after the TPS holder traveled with a permit and reentered the United States legally using a travel permit, USCIS said that the TPS holder was “reverted back” to their prior status at their original entry.

This meant that despite the more recent lawful entry, the TPS holder was still considered to have last entered the country unlawfully, which ruined their chances of applying for a green card.

But this position has now been totally reversed! USCIS announced that it has rescinded Matter of Z-R-Z-C-. Now, if a TPS holder travels and reenters with a valid travel permit, that person will be considered to have last entered the United States lawfully.

This is a huge win for TPS holders, many of whom have lived in the United States for at least 20 years. Many of them now have U.S. citizen family members or U.S. employers who wish to help them get green cards. We favor this interpretation. The law is now more reasonable (or, if you prefer, less bonkers). If the government ‘inspects’ you on entry, it will no longer claim that you entered without inspection, depending on whether or not you entered before Z-R-Z-C.

The second major update needs some prefatory legal explanation. For an immigrant to be eligible for a visa or a green card, the immigrant must be admissible to the United States. There are many reasons an immigrant may be inadmissible, or barred, from receiving a visa, green card, or entering the United States. The two bars at issue here are referred to as the three- and ten-year unlawful presence bars.

[Author’s note: This article and the new USCIS update do not apply to the third unlawful presence bar called the permanent bar. We may address that bar at a later date.]

(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., and Laura Lorenzo, Esq., practicing attorneys at The Law Office of James Montana PLLC, an immigration-focused law firm located in Arlington, Virginia. The legal information given here is general in nature. If you want legal advice, contact us for an appointment.

Note: In this Guest Essay, our anonymous friend, Prof. Erasmus, explains his rather unusual thoughts about U.S. asylum law, which — of course — we do not endorse or even pretend to understand. If you like Prof. Erasmus’s work, stay tuned, because he intends to make this a regular feature. We’ll see if he intends to pay our advertising bill.

I, Professor Erasmus, read your newspapers, your books, even your advertising features, and I have noticed a disturbing trend: everyone hates American immigration law. One side says that U.S. immigration law is far too permissive; the other side says that it is far too restrictive. Both sides say that U.S. immigration law is “broken,” Both sides are completely mistaken. I am here, in all Christian mildness, to correct that. I am here in praise of folly.

Let us begin by explaining the rules of the game. Law should not be judged by what it says it does, but by what it actually does. What does U.S. immigration law actually do? Here is what it does: it permits certain kinds of people to enter the United States, where they are (usually) happier, more productive and richer than they were before.

Who gets to enter? Three kinds of people:

• People Who Actually Qualify As a Matter of Law

U.S. immigration law pretends that this is the only category of people permitted to enter. Tripe! People who qualify are of course permitted to enter, but they aren’t the only ones.

• People Who Do Not Qualify, But Fool Consular Officials

A common way to immigrate to the United States is to fool a consular official at a visa interview. This is not easy, because most consular officials are not fools. To fool a consular official, you have to be able to tell a story about how you intend to come temporarily to the United States. That story may be false, but it must be consistent, credible and persuasive. Telling such a story requires being smart and resourceful.

• People Who Do Not Qualify, But Fool Border Officials

Another common way to immigrate to the United States is to fool a border official at a credible fear interview. The ostensible purpose of a credible fear interview is to determine whether there is a “significant possibility” that the applicant will someday qualify for asylum under U.S. law.

Passing a credible fear interview is easier for some and harder for others. If you present yourself at the U.S. border with Canada and state that you fear Justin Trudeau’s spelunking habit, you will be denied entry. But if you present a story that is consistent, credible and persuasive, your odds of being admitted are actually quite high. Telling such a story requires being smart and resourceful.

So far, I have demonstrated that a certain kind of person is permitted to enter the United States. That person is either (a) actually qualified as a matter of law, or (b) smart and resourceful. In my next article, I will explain how the law intends to treat people in category (b), and how, in practice, the legal system operates to their advantage.

Questions? Ask, if you like. I have no confidence that the legal commentariat will understand me, but I expect slightly better things from ARLnoow readers. Try not to disappoint me.

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 Laura Lorenzo, Esq., practicing attorneys at The Law Office of James Montana PLLC, an immigration-focused law firm located in Arlington, Virginia. The legal information given here is general in nature. If you want legal advice, contact us for an appointment.

In immigration law, the government sometimes doesn’t mean what it says it meant, or mean what it meant to say.

Imagine being a (highly documented) immigrant in the United States. You have a work permit under the TPS program, valid for two years, and you’ve been renewing it since 1992.

Your children are United States citizens. You know, because you are a loyal reader of Statutes of Liberty, that you can’t just travel without permission. So, you apply to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for permission to leave the United States — for a travel permit, technically termed “advance parole” — and you receive your permit in the mail. You leave the United States, visit family for two weeks in your country of origin, and then fly back to Dulles. You present your travel permit to CBP. The CBP inspector smiles and says, “Welcome home!”

Now, a quiz question: Were you “admitted” to the United States by the government?

Answer: No!

The answer No is new, consequential, newsworthy and extremely in-the-weeds, so it’s right in our wheelhouse here at Statutes of Liberty. Here’s how it works:

Under our immigration laws, there are two broad categories of people who enter the United States — people who enter with inspection, and people who enter without inspection. “With inspection” means that you present yourself at a port of entry and ask to enter; “without inspection” means that you crossed the border illegally.

In order to apply for a green card in the U.S., you have to — with rare exceptions — prove that you were admitted with inspection. That means that, for most people who cross the border illegally, it is quite difficult to apply for a green card. (It also means that people who enter with inspection, via a visitor’s visa, and overstay are treated quite differently from border-crossers, but that is a subject for another day.)

Now, consider our (highly documented) immigrant from our initial story. He applied for, and received, Temporary Protected Status in 1992, and has dutifully renewed it since that time. But before that, he entered the United States without inspection, by crossing the border in 1989. This places him in an interesting position for future travel. When he leaves the United States with his advance parole travel permit, granted by the United States government, and then re-enters, did he “enter with inspection” on his readmission, or not?

(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., and Laura Lorenzo, Esq., practicing attorneys at The Law Office of James Montana PLLC, an immigration-focused law firm located in Arlington, Virginia. The legal information given here is general in nature. If you want legal advice, contact us for an appointment.

Everyone wants to be able to work, but not everyone can work legally.

For most non-citizens, proving that you have the right to work legally means producing a work permit. There’s the rub: getting a work permit can take years, even if you’re eligible for one today. We’ve previously explained the ways that USCIS handles work permit applications; the answer is slowly. But, in a rare bit of good news, USCIS has finally done something to assist applicants in the endless queue.

Previously, USCIS issued an automatic 180-day extension if the applicant was filing her work permit renewal application under certain categories as long as the applicant applied to renew before the current work permit expired. Most applicants can file the renewal application at least 180 days before the expiration of the current work permit.

However, USCIS has not been capable of processing a work permit renewal in 180 days, let alone 360 days. For example, the California Service Center is currently taking 20 months to issue a work permit based on a pending green card application.

USCIS has finally acknowledged that it cannot process work permit renewal applications in a timely manner, and that this harms not only the immigrants waiting for their new work permits, but it also harms U.S. businesses who cannot maintain their workforce due to a lapse in employees’ work authorization.

To keep applicants from experiencing that lapse, USCIS has decided to issue 540-day automatic extensions for certain applicants. Now, as long as an immigrant presents the current work permit and a receipt notice showing that a renewal under the same category was timely filed, the immigrant will be authorized to work an additional 540 days after the expiration on the face of the work permit.

But the question is: is this solution a good one or just a band aid on a bigger problem? We say it’s a band-aid on a total hemorrhage.

USCIS has long struggled to process work permit renewal applications, despite each application only taking about 12 minutes to adjudicate. This rule is meant to be temporary while USCIS tries to reorganize and create more efficient workflows; USCIS hopes to meet that goal by October 27, 2023. However, we believe that the rule will be extended past that date. USCIS not only struggles to adjudicate these applications in a timely manner, but also cannot adjudicate almost every other application in a reasonable amount of time.

For example, as of today, May 12, 2022, the USCIS Potomac Service Center is taking around 11.5 months to issue a renewed green card. The form used to request a renewed green card is only seven pages long, and most applicants pay $540.00 for the application. The same service center is taking 30 months to issue a decision on a family petition filed by a permanent resident on behalf of a spouse or child.

The USCIS Nebraska Service Center is also taking 11.5 months to issue refugee travel documents, an application which is filed on a five-page form and costs most applicants $220.00.

Don’t get us wrong — this temporary extension is excellent for our clients and we are glad that USCIS has done something to alleviate the pressure on work permit applicants. We have had many clients lose jobs due to a lapse in work authorization.

However, we do not foresee any major improvements from USCIS between now and October 2023. Inefficiency and slowness have been issues at USCIS for a long time — certainly for as long as any of the lawyers in our office have been in practice. We hope for the best, but we expect the status quo to continue.

As always, we welcome any thoughts or questions 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 Laura Lorenzo, Esq., practicing attorneys at The Law Office of James Montana PLLC, an immigration-focused law firm located in Arlington, Virginia. The legal information given here is general in nature. If you want legal advice, contact us for an appointment.

Note: this column was written by James Montana, who owns our little law practice. The opinions expressed therein are his own.

Your local lawyer, on the phone, either asking for a loan or making his next appointment for Guy Fieri-style frosted tips. Photo via Doran M. Shemin.

Whenever I walk into a business, I find myself musing, like Admiral Stockdale: Who am I? Why am I here? After I vault those philosophical hurdles, though, I usually find myself wondering: Am I getting a good deal? That is an important question, and the purpose of this column is to answer that question for you. Doing so, I hope, will give you a little insight into the finances of a local law practice.

The balance sheet has two sides: revenue and expenses. Revenue is determined by caseload and price. Outside of our corporate immigration work, we charge flat fees, and fees range from $300 for a work permit to $5,000 for deportation defense. The three lawyers here typically carry a caseload of between 100 and 150 cases. Does that mean that, at (say) 100 cases, and (say) $3,000 per case, a lawyer here generates $300,000 per year? Certainly not. Most immigration cases take more than a year to get to the finish line. Court cases sometimes take more than a decade. So, managing our revenue means taking the long view. If we think we can’t carry the load in 2023, 2024, or 2025, we turn down the money today.

Balancing our need for revenue with our professional obligation to keep cases at a manageable level is tricky. We try to keep fees low and client numbers up. Given those commitments, a good rainmaker might generate fees in the very low six figures.

Let’s turn to (perhaps) the more interesting side of the balance sheet: Where does that money go?

The largest expense by far is salaries. I don’t want to disclose lawyer salaries to the entire internet, but you can fairly infer from (1) gross revenue described above, and (2) the expenses described below that (3) we are not chuckling all the way to our third homes in Cancun.

We spend about $20,000 in rent, utilities and maintenance each year. (That’s low — we squeeze three lawyers into 500 square feet, and when we need something fixed, I buy the supplies at Ayers Hardware.)

We spend about $10,000 per year on paper, toner, free coffee for the clients and other office supplies.

We pay about $20,000 per year for a remote reception service. Our friends at Ruby Receptionists answer calls for twelve hours a day, five days per week, in English and Spanish, and are worth even that extraordinary number of pennies. Picking up the phone is an important part of our work.

We spend about $8,000 per year in postage. (13,793 first-class stamps? No, not really. We ship almost all of our correspondence to the government by Priority Mail or Certified Mail because, with all due respect to our friends at USCIS, we trust-but-verify all shipments to the immigration authorities.)

We spend about $12,000 per year on payroll management, workers’ compensation and bookkeeping services, and, when you roll in the cost of our practice management software, business insurance and malpractice insurance, you get to about $20,000.

Health insurance for our three lawyers — we cover 70% of the cost, for both workers and dependents — costs a neat $20,000 per year.

Amidst some other odds and ends, we have a small advertising budget, most of which goes to our friends at ARLnow. No, we won’t tell you how much. But it’s money well spent!

Do you have questions about the economics of law practice? Are you thinking of starting your own law practice? We want more people to work in our field, and we’re happy to mentor anyone who is thinking of giving it a try. And, as always, we welcome comments and will reply to all that we can.

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 Laura Lorenzo, Esq., practicing attorneys at The Law Office of James Montana PLLC, an immigration-focused law firm located in Arlington, Virginia. The legal information given here is general in nature. If you want legal advice, contact us for an appointment.

Despite taking longer than expected, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas finally designated Afghanistan for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) on March 16, 2022.

As we discussed in a recent column, the Secretary of Homeland Security may designate a country for TPS for various reasons.

In Afghanistan’s case, Secretary Mayorkas based the designation due to the ongoing armed conflict and other conditions, such as human rights abuses at the hand of the Taliban, that keep Afghan nationals from returning to Afghanistan safely.

Afghan nationals who have resided in the United States since March 15, 2022 will be eligible to receive temporary relief from removal from the United States and have the opportunity to work legally. Those who arrive after March 15 will not be eligible. TPS for Afghans will be valid for 18 months. We are still waiting on an official Federal Register notice, which outline the procedures for Afghan TPS; therefore, until that happens, no Afghan nationals should attempt to apply for TPS.

Although they will not qualify for TPS, Afghans abroad may still have opportunities to come to the United States. For example, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is still accepting applications for humanitarian parole, which allows a foreign national to come temporarily to the United States for urgent humanitarian reasons.

Importantly, because the U.S. Embassy in Kabul is closed, Afghan nationals must be able to get to a third country for humanitarian parole processing.

Upon arrival in the United States, Afghan nationals may also qualify for asylum. They should speak with a qualified immigration attorney about the strength of their asylum claim, and many local nonprofits and lawyers are assisting Afghan nationals low or pro bono.

Additionally, Afghan nationals who assisted the U.S. government may also speak with an attorney about the viability of a Special Immigrant visa or request assistance with Special Immigrant Visa applications that are already pending.

As always, we welcome comments and will reply to all that we can.