News From the Courts

Posted on: August 21st, 2019
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on Google+Pin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponShare on TumblrShare on RedditShare on LinkedInPrint this page

Matter of H-G-G-, Adopted Decision on TPS

The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) decision in Matter of H-G-G- affects Temporary Protected Status (TPS) beneficiaries and their eligibility to adjust their status under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, reaffirming the position held by the Department of Homeland Security that TPS recipients are considered as being in and maintaining lawful nonimmigrant status exclusively throughout the period of time that TPS is in effect. Granting TPS does neither confers an admission nor cures or otherwise affects any previous failure to maintain continuously a lawful status. Furthermore, Matter of H-G-G- also states that the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 6th and 9th Circuits’ holding that a grant of TPS supplies the requisite admission for purposes of adjustment justifies USCIS to follow those directives only in these respective jurisdictions and pertaining to that specific issue. USCIS will universally apply the holding in Matter H-G-G- when dealing with the question of whether a grant of TPS absolves a prior unlawful status.

For more information, view the Matter of H-G-G-.

***

Thirteen States File Lawsuit Against DHS Over ‘Public Charge’ Rule

Co-led by Washington Attorney General Robert Ferguson and Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, a group of thirteen states filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) over the Trump Administration’s recently published “public charge rule.” The rule, set to take effect on October 15, 2019, expands government authority to deny green cards to legal immigrants based upon their utilization of public services. In addition to the Attorneys General from Washington and Virginia, those from Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, and Rhode Island also filed the suit.

Ferguson questioned the legality of the rule in the 169-page complaint, calling the rule “arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.” Furthermore, Ferguson asserted the rule violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by fundamentally augmenting the definition of the term “public charge.”

For more information, view the article from The Hill.

Back | Index | Next

Disclaimer: This newsletter is provided as a public service and not intended to establish an attorney client relationship. Any reliance on information contained herein is taken at your own risk.