NEW BOOK ON FIANCÉ AND MARRIAGE VISAS

GPI LAW attorney Amien Kacou recently served as editor for the 9th edition of NOLO's Fiancé and Marriage Visas: A Couple's Guide to U.S. Immigration, a popular self-help legal book by award-winning author Ilona Bray, J.D.

DAPA AND EXPANDED DACA ON ORAL ARGUMENT AT THE SUPREME COURT

On April 18, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a preliminary injunction suit brought by 26 states (led by Texas) against the Obama administration's 2014 DAPA and expanded DACA initiatives. These initiatives would offer approximately 4 out of 11 million unauthorized immigrants temporary relief from removal (protection from deportation) as well as temporary eligibility for employment authorization documents. More specifically, DAPA could benefit about 3.7 million parents of U.S. citizens and residents, while expanded DACA could benefit about 300,000 individuals who arrived in the U.S. as children -- in addition to the 1.2 million already eligible under the current DACA program.

Texas does not contest the President's claim that Congress has failed to allocate enough resources to deport 11 million people. Nor does it claim that the President, with record annual deportation numbers (around 400,000) achieved under his watch, has failed to properly use or exhaust allocated immigration enforcement resources. There is no challenge to the President's authority to re-organize those resources by prioritizing some immigration law violators over others (for example, serious criminals over DAPA-eligible violators), so that designated low-priority violators can be made officially immune from removal for a limited period of time (three years under the proposed initiatives).

Texas' core challenge to DAPA and expanded DACA is narrower: it claims that these initiatives would create, without Congress' authorization, brand new categories of "lawful status," as demonstrated by the issuance of employment authorization documents.

WHEN CAN REFUGEES BE KEPT OUT OF THE U.S. ON SECURITY AND OTHER GROUNDS?

A number of misconceptions have marred recent public debates on the prospect of admitting more Syrian refugees to the United States in light of the current Syrian refugee crisis. In particular, concerns over the potential terrorist threat posed by this population have been exaggerated. For one thing, the so-called Islamic State has been far more interested in bringing foreign fighters into Syria and Iraq to pursue palpable territorial stakes than in sending out operatives on improbable Al-Qaeda-style missions to the U.S. (Note that Islamic State-inspired attacks in Paris, France and in Garland, Texas were both perpetrated by homegrown -- respectively, French-born and U.S.-born -- terrorists.)

More importantly, the long and scrupulous U.S. refugees admissions process clearly presents the least efficient, least likely infiltration route for terrorist plotters. (It has been perceptively pointed out, for example, that it would be "far easier for terrorists to enter as tourists—or via smuggling networks.")

From a legal perspective, part of what makes this resettlement process (whether via U.N. referral or via family reunification) so arduous, besides its procedural and substantive complexities, is that it is particularly amenable to a patient and multilayered application (both formally by U.S. government agencies and informally by UNHCR and/or established voluntary organizations) of inadmissibility grounds (i.e., legal bases for keeping people out of U.S. soil). In the Syrian context, in particular, we can expect an especially strict application of the otherwise-overbroad inadmissibility ground of association with terrorism.

Nonetheless, waivers of inadmissibility might be available in limited cases. For more information on this and related legal issues, read my article on NOLO.COM.

GPI LAW IN THE NEWS

GPI Law attorney Amien Kacou's NOLO Q&A on using DACA advance parole to allow for adjustment of status in cases of illegal entry was quoted in a February 16 Epoch Times article.  You can read the article here.

ARTICLES ON SOMALI MIGRANTS

GPI LAW attorney Amien Kacou has a third piece published in the Georgetown Journal of International Affairs Online. The article focuses on the special difficulties faced by Somali migrants due to the unavailability of reliable official documents in their country.

Related articles published on NOLO.COM include the following:

• How do I prove I'm from Somalia so as to claim refugee status in the U.S.? (available here)
• Proving Foreign Marriage When Official Documents Are Unavailable (available here)
• Migrating to the U.S. From a Country With No U.S. Embassy or Consulate (available here)
• When Religious or Traditional Marriage Ceremonies Are Valid for Immigration Purposes (available here)