Opinion: L.A. police put new piece in immigration policy patchwork


http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_22176482/opinion-l-police-put-new-piece-immigration-policy?source=rss

Posted: 12/12/2012 10:00:08 AM PST
December 12, 2012 6:15 PM GMTUpdated: 12/12/2012 10:15:02 AM PST


Los Angeles has new details today about the police department's shrinking participation in the Secure Communities program, under which local cops share arrestees' fingerprints with federal immigration authorities.

Chief Charlie Beck had announced in October that the LAPD would stop honoring federal requests to detain illegal immigrants arrested for other crimes -- at least those nabbed for non-serious offenses -- for 48 hours until U.S. agents come and get them. L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca followed up with a similar change in his department's policy last week. That sparked an editorial here today.
California Attorney General Kamala Harris issued new guidelines last week that made participation in Secure Communities voluntary.
The editorial board believes questions about what to do with suspected illegal immigrants should be settled not by individual law-enforcement agencies but by lawmakers on the state level and -- better sooner than later -- in Congress.
In fact, a new bill regarding Secure Communities has been introduced in the California Assembly.
Tuesday, the L.A. Police Commission acted on Beck's request and set a policy to no longer honor detention requests for arrestees assigned bail of less than $5,000. The policy is to take effect in January and its effect examined after six months.
Details of the sheriff's new policy are to come.
State and federal lawmakers must work urgently to replace this patchwork of immigration policies with a cohesive plan.  
-- Opinion staff

 

 

Baca shifts course on compliance with deportation program


latimes.com/news/local/la-me-baca-immigration-20121206,0,6431789.story


The L.A. County Sheriff's Department will not detain suspected illegal immigrants arrested in low-level crimes. The state attorney general's directive is cited as the reason.

By Cindy Chang, Los Angeles Times
December 6, 2012

Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca has reversed his support for a controversial deportation program, announcing Wednesday that he will not comply with federal requests to detain suspected illegal immigrants arrested in low-level crimes.

The sheriff's dramatic turnaround came a day after California Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris issued a legal directive advising that compliance with the requests is discretionary, not mandatory.

Until then, Baca had insisted that he would honor the requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hold some defendants for up to 48 hours. He was an outspoken opponent of the Trust Act, which would have required California law enforcement officials to disregard the requests in many cases, declaring that he would defy the measure if it passed.

Baca has also been sued by the American Civil Liberties Union for allegedly denying bail to immigration detainees.

Now, he appears ready to do more or less what was proposed in the Trust Act, which was vetoed by Gov. Jerry Brown in September.

The change of heart from Baca, a Republican in a heavily Democratic county, comes as GOP leaders are warming to immigration reform in an effort to counteract dismal support from Latino voters. Last month, Baca closed the 1,100-bed Mira Loma immigration detention center, which earned his agency up to $154 a day for each detainee, after contract negotiations with ICE broke down.

None of those considerations were at play, a Baca spokesman said. The sheriff's reversal was prompted solely by Harris' opinion, which contradicted advice from Los Angeles County attorneys that the requests were mandatory, said the spokesman, Steve Whitmore.

Baca joins Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck, who announced a similar policy in October. San Francisco and Santa Clara counties also decline to honor some types of ICE holds.

The change may not take effect until early next year. Baca's staff must first flesh out the details of the new policy, which would apply only to those arrested in misdemeanors who do not have significant criminal records. The department would still honor federal detention requests for those accused of serious or violent crimes.

Under the federal Secure Communities program, all arrestees' fingerprints are sent to immigration officials, who flag suspected illegal immigrants and request that they be held for up to 48 hours until transfer to federal custody.

Secure Communities has come under fire for ensnaring minor offenders when its stated purpose is to deport dangerous criminals and repeat immigration violators. According to federal statistics, fewer than half of those deported in Los Angeles County since the program's inception in 2008 have committed felonies or multiple misdemeanors. Critics say immigrants have become fearful of cooperating with police.

"The last thing we want is victims to be frightened to come forward," Whitmore said.

ICE officials said Baca's new policy is in line with federal priorities and will affect only a "very small number" of cases.

"The identification and removal of criminal offenders and other public safety threats is U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's highest enforcement priority," the agency said in a statement.

Immigrant rights advocates called Baca's announcement a long overdue breakthrough.

"This will send a very strong message nationwide that in ... the most multicultural city in the nation, the sheriff is there to protect and to serve, not to deport," said Jorge-Mario Cabrera, communications director for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles.

Supporters of the Trust Act, which was reintroduced in modified form by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) earlier this week, said it is still necessary because detention policies should not vary by jurisdiction.

"It's imperative that California have a uniform statewide policy. It's essential that people not receive different treatment under the law as they're driving up and down the 5," said Chris Newman, legal director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network.

Baca has not taken a position on the new Trust Act, which is likely to evolve during the legislative process, Whitmore said.


Copyright © 2012, Los Angeles Times

 

Caught in the current of reverse migration



Thousands of U.S.-born children now live throughout Mexico as a result of deportation of a family member. Disoriented, they struggle in a society that views them with a mix of envy and pity.


By Richard Marosi, Los Angeles Times
October 21, 2012

CUATRO MILPAS, MEXICO— In this hardscrabble farming village, an American teenager like Luis Martinez was bound to stand out.

Raised on Little Caesars pizzas and Big Gulps, Luis, 13, was portly. The village kids, subsisting on bowls of chicken broth, were all bones and elbows.

Luis wore Air Jordan high-tops. The kids wore sandals made of rubber tires.



He shot at birds with his BB gun and pedaled around on a Mongoose bike. They scurried up mango trees and chased iguanas.

He seemed like many visitors from America, with new clothes and good health, and the quiet confidence of someone who knew he wouldn't have to endure this place very long.

Then one day Luis and his step-grandfather, Juan Leyva, started standing up sheets of scrap metal on a treeless patch of dirt. They covered the jagged edges with cardboard, straightened the frame and slid corrugated metal sheets atop the walls, fastening it all together with electrical wire.



The teenager they had treated like a rich American cousin was going to live with his family in a shack, next to a chicken coop.

That summer night in 2010, Luis fell asleep on a squeaky mattress next to his baby sister and his dog-eared Harry Potter book, one of the treasured possessions from his days at James Madison Elementary School in Ogden, Utah.

"He was a very good kid," said Daniel Ibarra, 43, who had watched Luis patch together the shanty on that summer day. "But he was poor — poorer than the poorest person here."

Luis never imagined living a peasant's life in Sinaloa. But like other children whose parents or other family members were deported, he was swept into the current of reverse migration. Thousands of U.S.-born children of former illegal immigrants now live in cities and towns across Mexico. Disoriented by cultural differences and often unable to speak the language, they often struggle, clinging to one another in a society that views them with a mix of envy and pity.

Luis' life spiraled further than most. After Leyva, the breadwinner of the family, was deported in 2010, the family languished in Ogden. Eventually, Dominga Leyva, 49, the boy's maternal grandmother and a U.S. citizen, packed her grandson and his 3-month-old sister, Amor, into their Oldsmobile Alero and drove to the Mexican border town of Nogales.

Juan Leyva got in, and they began the 500-mile drive to the western Mexican state of Sinaloa, passing endless rows of vegetable fields to a one-road village where shirts hung from barbed-wire clotheslines, stray dogs feasted on corn husks and boys playfully swung machetes at stick fences.

"Dónde está Ooo-tah?" the students asked the chubby-cheeked norteamericano with the gringo accent. Where is Utah?

Luis told them of days ice fishing and snowboarding, of falling asleep on the couch watching horror movies. Back there, he had five video game players, indoor plumbing and shelves full of comics.

It seemed far-fetched; many of the children at the two-room schoolhouse considered them tall tales. When they asked why he came to Mexico, he told them that Leyva had been deported for driving without a license. "They called him a dummy," Luis said.

But Luis could never blame Leyva. His U.S.-born mother, who struggled with drugs, was in prison, and he never knew his biological father. Luis loved his step-grandfather — he called him Dad. Leyva, a wiry man with an easy smile, told everyone that Luis was his son.

In Utah, Leyva had supported the family by working on construction crews, a roofer for all seasons who drew curious stares from passers-by when he pounded shingles in snowstorms. "A man in a car called him 'crazy Mexican,'" Luis recalled proudly.

In Sinaloa, Leyva, 39, toiled even harder, but snow wasn't the problem.

He picked vegetables in the torrid plains inland from the Sea of Cortez, where his family had worked for generations. His light skin would shrivel and turn red, earning him the nickname Ciruela, or prune.

At school, Luis ducked behind torn textbooks, a teenager unable to read Spanish in lessons aimed at 7-year-olds. He soon dropped out, hoping to boost the family's finances by joining Leyva and his grandmother in the jalapeño fields. He got sunstroke the first day and his skin blistered and turned red. The villagers started calling him, Ciruelita, little prune.

On many days, Luis picked vegetables alongside the same children who had envied him when they first met. Now they felt sorry for him, urging him to cloak his skin in a flannel shirt and a hoodie. But Luis withered in the intense heat.

One day a crop-duster zipped low over the tomato fields. Everyone ducked, except him. He was sprayed with a pesticide that coated his arms in an orange liquid. He scrubbed it off in the irrigation canal, but it did not stop the itch.

Luis returned to the fields, this time wearing the tool belt of a chanatero, a human scarecrow tasked with ridding tomato fields of chanates — blackbirds. Up and down the rows he walked, rattling rock-filled bottles, firing off bottle rockets with a flame-tipped stick that he wielded like a wand.

His newfound ability to paint the sky black with flocks of startled birds delighted a boy who enjoyed the fantasy tales of Harry Potter. Alone in the maze of tomato plants, he could raise a ruckus, set off explosions, shout at the top of his lungs.

"It was like yelling out your anger," Luis said. "I liked that part."

The harvest season ended. Luis took to walking up and down the canals and railroad tracks, scavenging for tuna cans and metal scraps. His clothes turned to rags, his weight loss accelerated. He looked like a scarecrow.

"The poor boy. He lived a precarious existence," said bodega owner Jesus Alfredo Gaxiola, who often gave the teenager and his sister crackers and Coca-Cola. "I would ask him, 'What are you doing here? You have [U.S. citizenship]. You're only suffering here.'"

After a year earning only $10 per day in the fields, Leyva and Dominga were almost broke. Even the money they got selling the Alero was gone. One morning in May 2011, Leyva and Luis woke up and started taking down the walls of their home. They reduced the shack to a pile of scrap within a couple of hours. A recycler gave them $40 — enough money, along with some borrowed funds, to buy four bus tickets to the border.

At the border crossing station in Nogales, Ariz., the U.S. Customs officer eyed Luis' creased birth certificate. According to the document, the youngster was born in El Paso. But was this scrawny boy in front of him the same Luis Martinez listed on the paper?

Luis watched the plump people in clean clothes walking through the turnstile into Arizona, hoping and praying he would soon be following them down shop-lined North Grand Avenue. But agents at the Nogales port of entry were on guard against one of the oldest smuggling tricks: American women attempting to pass off illegal immigrant children as their own grandkids. They were also on the lookout for child abductions in disputed custody cases.

Dominga Leyva didn't share the children's last names. Nor could she show proof of custody. With her Utah driver's license and birth certificate, she was free to enter the U.S., the officer said, but not the children — at least not until she provided a power of attorney document, signed by the boy's biological mother. But Dominga's daughter was in prison in Utah.

Dominga grabbed the documents and turned back, crying. Luis walked past the long line of people waiting to cross. The looks of pity angered him. "I felt really bad, like I was being betrayed by my own country," Luis said. "I wanted to yell, 'I'm an American!'"

Sinaloa had been harsh. The Mexican border city of Nogales was harsher.

The family slept on park benches next to a four-lane highway. They scoured the streets for aluminum cans. On good days, they earned enough for a loaf of bread and some slices of ham. On many days, they went hungry. Once, workers at a migrant shelter took pity on the bedraggled American family and let them dine with deported illegal immigrants.

Luis dropped to 115 pounds, 50 pounds lighter than his Utah days. Dominga had to re-stitch his nylon basketball shorts so they wouldn't fall to his ankles. Leyva sought day labor work, waving at passing cars to no avail. The guilt of seeing his family suffering weighed on him.
"If I'm hungry, I can endure, but the children can't," Leyva said.

Leyva hatched a desperate plan. He found smugglers willing to guide Dominga, Luis and Amor through the high desert. The smugglers wondered: Was it even illegal to smuggle U.S. citizens into their own country? The risks would be lower — they just needed to get the family to Nogales, not through the checkpoints farther inland. They offered a discounted fee: $500.
Much of the money for the trip came from a most unexpected source.

Every day in late spring of 2011, giant construction cranes rose above the border. Hard-hatted U.S. government contractors were tearing down the border fence to make way for a taller barrier. Every day, they flung pieces of the old fence into Mexico, where frenzied mobs vied for the scraps.

Some people used the metal panels to build shanties. Luis and Leyva had other ideas. Scrap was selling for two pesos per kilo, so each 80-pound sheet could fetch about $8 from recyclers. It would take a small mountain of scrap, but they could start.

Each day they awoke at 2 a.m. and walked into the hills toward the construction site. When they came upon a fence panel, each would grab a jagged end and haul it to a waiting recycling truck. Then they would scramble back into the unruly line for a chance at another piece.

Three miles of fencing was replaced. Luis and Leyva shadowed the crews almost the entire way.

The two smugglers kept a fast pace through the canyons of the Pajarito Mountains. Luis struggled to keep up, his arms sagging under the weight of his 20-month-old sister. He looked back and saw his grandmother illuminated under the crescent moon, her labored breathing drowned out by the rustling of mesquite bushes. She was hobbling on her arthritic knee, clutching her purse, which contained their birth certificates.

Leyva had stayed behind, holding back tears as he watched them get into the smugglers' van. He would try some other day, he promised.

The men kept their flashlight beams low. Luis remembered their instructions: Don't talk, don't look at anyone on the trail and, if U.S. Border Patrol agents appear, claim to be lost hikers.
For nearly two days, they walked under craggy ridges and limestone bluffs. Luis never slept, fearing the smugglers would abandon them. At times, Amor's cries pierced the silence. Luis would play with her to calm her down under the impatient stares of the smugglers.

The smugglers were edgy for good reason. A few months earlier, bandits had ambushed a squad of U.S. Border Patrol agents, killing one. The smugglers had already stumbled upon one standoff between groups of Mexicans. They kept their cool and led the family down the trail, away from trouble.

When the group emerged from Peña Blanca Canyon in the predawn darkness, a car was waiting for them near a small lake. They jumped in and sped out of the wilderness, passing a sign on the twisting road: "Smuggling and illegal immigration may be encountered in this area."

The smugglers dropped the family at a Food City supermarket in Nogales, Ariz. Luis watched his grandmother count out 75 pennies from her pocket, all they had left for food.

A year later, she is still counting her pennies. The family lives in a creaky single-wide trailer on the edge of Nogales, the rent partly covered by disability benefits Dominga received since her arthritic knee gave out.

Earning money at a car wash on North Grand Avenue, Luis regained weight eating fast-food burgers and pizza. He was baptized into a local Mormon church, where volunteers had provided food and clothing after the family's desert journey. Last month, he entered Nogales High School in Arizona. He has his high school identification card and birth certificate to identify him as a U.S. citizen.

Twice a week, he crosses the border to Mexico, clutching grocery bags filled with fresh meat and vegetables. Waiting for him on one such visit was Leyva, wearing a crumpled cap and a weary smile. Only a few days had passed since Luis last saw Leyva, but he looked even skinnier.
His step-grandfather still couldn't find steady work, even after passing his sixth-grade equivalency test, which he incorrectly believed would make him eligible for a job in a factory assembling goods for export into the U.S.

The American teenager and the Mexican peasant walked through downtown, up a steep dirt path to the hillside shack where Leyva lived. Leyva fired up the oven top, grilled the meat and stuffed it into a tortilla. He gave the first one to Luis and prepared another for him.

"No. Save the food for yourself," Luis remembers telling Leyva.

Luis and Leyva talked about school, and about Dominga and Amor, as the sun dipped over the shanties. After a while, they walked quietly down the hill and said their brief goodbyes at the border fence. Then Leyva turned and climbed back up the hillside, and Luis walked down North Grand Avenue into Arizona.

Read from from The Times series: Without a Country
richard.marosi@latimes.com

Copyright © 2012, Los Angeles Times
 

Obama Work Permits Granted, Arizona Undocumented Immigrant is One of First


 

TUCSON, Ariz. - – One of the first undocumented immigrants in the country to get a work permit under president Obama's deferred action program lives right here in Arizona, in Tucson.

It's a controversial program -- allowing qualified persons to receive a two-year work permit that can be renewed without fear of deportation.

We met one of the first people to qualify. He came to the United States from Mexico when he was nine years old.

Carlos Martínez had an all-American childhood. High school sports star, on to the University of Arizona.

He got undergraduate and graduate degrees in computer engineering. But once the diplomas went up on the wall, Carlos slipped into the shadows, where's he's lived the last seven years.

"I worked in cleaning yards, landscaping… basically jobs they give to illegals that do not require show me your papers or your social number and all that."

"You have to be the most overqualified landscaper in Arizona. Nobody knows you are an engineer?" we asked.

"No when I am working out there they just think I am another illegal trying to make a living."

Then came the order from the Obama white house, giving people like Carlos an opportunity to get work permits. Carlos thanks the president.

"Oh completely grateful. Better late than never -- he is the only president who has given me the opportunity to work," says Carlos.

But work permits are a temporary fix. And Carlos will be watching November's election returns more closely than most.

If Barack Obama is reelected, Carlos stays and works in his field. If Mitt Romney wins, all bets are off.

Carlos will look for jobs as a computer software engineer.

He's still awaiting passage of the Dream Act. The Dream Act would provide a path to citizenship to 1.7 million young people brought to the U.S. illegally. But so far it has failed to pass in congress.

Read more: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/09/21/arizona-man-one-first-to-get-obama-work-permit/#ixzz277fWHG00


 

Quick Start to Program Offering Immigrants a Reprieve



New York Times 
September 11, 2012
By JULIA PRESTON

One month after the Obama administration started a program to suspend deportations of young illegal immigrants, more than 72,000 of them have applied for the temporary reprieve, senior immigration officials said on Tuesday, and this week the first approvals have been granted.

The figures for applications received so far — the first results the administration has released since a federal agency began receiving the documents on Aug. 15 — show that large numbers of young immigrants are ready to take the risk of coming forward, administration officials and immigrant advocates said, and that the agency in charge has been able to manage the rush of paperwork.

The immigrants requesting two-year deportation deferrals do not reach the high estimates of 250,000 that officials had said they were prepared to handle in the first month of the program, which is President Obama’s most significant immigration initiative.

But at the current rate, at least 200,000 young immigrants could have applications in the pipeline by the time of the presidential election on Nov. 6, and many thousands will probably have received deferrals and the work permits that go along with them. Officials originally predicted that it could take several months for the immigration agency, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, to issue the first deferrals.

The intense activity around the program in immigrant communities, especially among Latinos, has already yielded some political benefits to Mr. Obama, with Democrats repeatedly highlighting the initiative during their convention last week, to cheers from the floor. Initiated by an executive action, the program grants deportation deferrals that must be renewed after two years, and it does not provide any legal immigration status.

Pressure is increasing on Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate, to clarify his position on the program. He has not said whether he would continue it if he is elected, although he has said he would prefer “a more permanent solution” for young illegal immigrants.

The surge of applicants has not been greater, lawyers and advocates said, because of difficulties many young immigrants have encountered in gathering the documents they need to meet the program’s requirements and in mustering the $465 application fee, a hefty sum for many. Since the program has no filing deadline, eligible young people are taking time to consult with their families, weighing the benefits for them against possible risks for parents and siblings here illegally who are not eligible.

“There has been huge interest in community programs where people can get information,” said Laura Lichter, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, who practices in Denver. “But these applications are not something you would be ready to go with in one day. They take a fair amount of work. And we have to be sure people understand the risks they are taking.”

To qualify, illegal immigrants must be under 31 years old and have come to the United States before they were 16. They must show that they have lived here continuously since June 15, 2007, and be currently in school or have earned a high school diploma or have been honorably discharged from the military. They must pass a background check to show they do not have any significant criminal record or pose a threat to national security.

The program posed a test for the immigration agency, known as U.S.C.I.S., which has not been known for brisk efficiency. According to the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research group, as many as 1.2 million illegal immigrants could be immediately eligible for the program.

Given only two months to prepare, Alejandro Mayorkas, the director of the agency, worked to rally its 18,000 employees, including some 11,000 federal workers, to rise to the task. The applications — sheaves of school transcripts, utility and other bills, rental contracts or other documents immigrants can find to track their daily lives over the past five years — have to be submitted by mail.

Operating in the bureaucratic equivalent of a blitz, the agency has been issuing receipts for applications within 48 hours after they were logged in, Mr. Mayorkas said. Fingerprints and photographs are taken for background checks, generally within three weeks after an application is received.

The first applicants gave their fingerprints last Thursday, Mr. Mayorkas said, and the checks were completed by Monday. The agency is equipped to perform the criminal checks, Department of Homeland Security officials said, because those are required for most visas the agency routinely issues.

Completed applications first reached the decision-making officers on Monday. By that afternoon the first few approvals were issued, Mr. Mayorkas said, with several dozen more on Tuesday. Some immigrants were notified immediately by text message.

“If somebody submits documents that show by the preponderance of the evidence that they meet the guidelines, we are poised to move the cases as quickly as possible,” Mr. Mayorkas said.

Mr. Mayorkas said he expected the first work permits, which are approved in a separate but parallel process, to be issued in coming weeks.

Administration officials have said the program will be paid for by fees, with no taxpayer money invested. California is leading in applications, not surprisingly, followed by Texas, New York, Florida and New Jersey. By far the largest number of applicants was born in Mexico. But officials said a surprisingly large number of applications came from South Koreans, a much smaller population of immigrants.

As the deferral program expands, resistance to it has grown among Republicans in Congress, who say it is undermining the administration’s broader enforcement against illegal immigration and making it difficult for immigration agents to do their jobs.

In a letter on Tuesday to John Morton, the director of the agency in charge of enforcement, Senator Jeff Sessions, a Republican from Alabama, wrote, “There is no question that the administration’s unilaterally decreed policy is contrary to codified federal law and places our law enforcement officers in an untenable position.”

Flurry of immigration bills will test Gov. Jerry Brown




California lawmakers are pushing this week to pass four bills that would make life easier for immigrants living and working here illegally, but all require the support of a governor who chooses his immigration causes carefully.

Gov. Jerry Brown won praise last fall from Latinos and immigrant communities when he signed a law giving illegal immigrant college students access to state financial aid, but this season he must sift through a more complicated set of measures that opponents view as defying federal prerogatives.

The flurry comes in the last days of the 2012 legislative session and tests the compassion and political future of Brown, who supports a path to citizenship for California's more than 2 million illegal immigrants but has repeatedly said the solution must come from the federal government.

Already on Brown's desk is the Trust Act, which would partially pull California out of an immigration dragnet that has deported about 80,000 people from the state since Brown, as attorney general, signed a federal-state partnership in 2009.

"It's a lottery" whether Brown will sign or veto the Trust Act, said the bill's author, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco. The bill went to the governor's desk Friday after a 48-26 vote in the Assembly and earlier approval in the state Senate.

Ammiano's bill would restrict jails from holding immigrants for deportation unless they committed a serious or violent felony. It is meant to counter the Secure Communities fingerprints program that alerts U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement whenever local police jail a deportable immigrant.

Immigrant advocates say the federal program deports too many noncriminals and low-level offenders, while most sheriffs support the ICE partnership and want Brown to veto the Trust Act.

Brown and his aides declined to comment on any pending legislation, but he has supported Secure Communities since he was attorney general.

"Every person arrested, their fingerprints are taken and they're sent to my office, and I now send them to the immigration office," Brown boasted in a 2010 election debate with his Republican challenger Meg Whitman. "If they're found to be here illegally, they're made subject to deportation."

Ammiano is hoping for a change of heart by Brown and others who the lawmaker says were misled into believing the program was focused on deporting criminals. Brown "signed a boilerplate memorandum of understanding ... based on a number of lies, not by him, but by ICE," Ammiano said.

Also coming soon to Brown's desk may be a measure by Assemblyman Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, who has until the end of the week to usher through the Legislature a bill that would grant driver's licenses to young illegal immigrants who get work permits from the Obama administration.

Two other bills were introduced Friday, just one week before the Legislature adjourns for the year on Aug. 31. One surprise proposal known as a "safe harbor" bill seeks to protect most of the state's undocumented residents by allowing them to work and live in the state if they've been here since 2008, have no felony convictions and meet other conditions. Its proponent, Assemblyman Felipe Fuentes, D-Sylmar, introduced the last-minute bill by "gutting and amending" another one focused on vehicle pollution.

The fourth bill, the only one with Republican support, is a mostly symbolic measure to consider work permits for undocumented farm and service workers. Unlike his original version, however, the watered-down bill by Assemblyman Manuel Pérez, D-Coachella, would not actually grant state work permits, but rather would set up a working group to develop the idea.

See the entire article at http://www.mercurynews.com/rss/ci_21411277?source=rss

Immigration Lawsuit Stirs Up Congressional, Presidential Politics


By Niels Lesniewski
Roll Call Staff
Aug. 23, 2012, 2:19 p.m.

Republicans have stepped up their criticism of an Obama administration policy to defer enforcement of select immigration violations.

The move by Congressional Republicans comes at the same time as a lawsuit filed by nine Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officers against the Obama administration's deferred action policy for some immigration violations.

President Barack Obama's plan to not seek to deport illegal immigrants who would have be eligible for the DREAM Act, if it were ever to become law, has drawn accolades from Democrats and Hispanic groups but has been panned by Republicans, who say the administration is undermining immigration enforcement.

House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said that easing immigration enforcement in a weak economy hinders the ability of American citizens and legal immigrants to find jobs.
"The Obama administration's amnesty program not only rewards lawbreakers, it also forces ICE agents to violate federal law. ICE agents should enforce our immigration laws and apprehend illegal immigrants," Smith said in a statement. "But the Obama administration makes it impossible for ICE agents to do their jobs."'

Chris Crane, the president of the National ICE Council, is the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, which was filed today in federal district court in Dallas, Texas.

The council is the American Federation of Government Employees union that represents agents and other employees of ICE. The plaintiffs are represented by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, an adviser to presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney and an immigration hard-liner and architect of the GOP platform committee's enforcement-heavy immigration plank.

The lawsuit contends that the administration's directive "unconstitutionally usurps and encroaches upon the legislative powers of Congress."

Crane appeared last month at a news conference with several GOP Senators critical of the Obama administration policy, including Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.).

"America was poised to make great progress on immigration enforcement - after Congress was forced into action by the American public - but the president's unilateral pursuit of far-reaching amnesty has not only undermined this progress but reversed it," Sessions said in a statement. "The men and women who swore an oath to uphold the law and protect the public safety are now forced to ignore the law if they are to remain secure in their jobs."

Several other Republicans also chimed in with statements of support today, including Sens. John Boozman (Ark.) and David Vitter (La.)

"We must hold those who are breaking the law accountable and allow law enforcement the ability to do their job. Instead, this is a back door path to amnesty. We are a nation of laws but the president is stepping beyond his authority by determining what laws must be enforced," Boozman said. "Americans deserve immigration reform, secure borders and improved workplace verification to hold employers accountable for hiring illegal workers."

The White House and the Department of Homeland Security devised the deferred action policy when it was abundantly clear that Congress would not act on the DREAM Act this year.

That legislation, championed by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), would provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who came to the country as children, provided they attend college or join the military. Durbin first introduced the DREAM Act more than 11 years ago, a point which he highlights during his regular appearances on the Senate floor.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) had planned to unveil a Republican alternative version of the DREAM Act, but he said that became unnecessary when the Obama administration took the unilateral action to focus enforcement resources on dangerous immigrants.

The administration plan has the backing of Hispanic groups, which are a key constituency in Obama's re-election bid and Democratic efforts to hold on to control of the Senate.

Democrats highlighted the plan last week when a process began to allow eligible individuals to apply for work permits after paying a $465 fee.

"This is a historic humanitarian moment and I personally salute the president for his leadership. This action will give these young immigrants their chance to come out of the shadows and be part of the only country they've ever called home," Durbin said last week.

Durbin told a group of people applying for the new work permits in Chicago that he expected the Obama administration's move would eventually lead to support for a DREAM Act law.

It's an immigration winner


Editorial

The U.S. program allowing young illegal immigrants to apply for work permits is an important move in the right direction. Lawmakers' claims leveled against it are unfounded.

August 19, 2012

Last week featured a rare moment of encouragement in the nation's often tiresome and vindictive immigration debate: Thousands of young undocumented immigrants began applying for temporary permits that will allow them to live and work legally in the United States. The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, the result of a policy shift unveiled by the Obama administration in June, is a small but significant step that could help more than a million immigrant students and military veterans who were brought to this country illegally as children and who have lived in fear of deportation since.

But leave it to anti-immigration zealots to find a cloud in this silver lining. For them, any measure of relief for illegal immigrants is too much. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), for instance, used the week's events to suggest that the program amounted to amnesty and would cost taxpayers millions of dollars to implement.

Neither claim is true.

The program doesn't provide a path to legalization for those young immigrants, as the Dream Act, which failed to win approval in Congress, would have done. Instead, it grants a two-year respite from deportation for those who meet various conditions. They must be under 31, have come to the United States before they turned 16 and lived here for at least five years, and have no serious criminal convictions. They also must be enrolled in school, or have graduated from high school or served in theU.S. military. If their applications are granted, they will not be deported for two years, but they do not receive citizenship.

Nor does the program require taxpayers to foot the bill for the application process or for budget shortfalls. Eligible immigrants are required to pay $465 to cover the costs of processing their applications and the fee waivers granted to those living in foster care or acute poverty. Moreover, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Department of Homeland Security agency administering the program, is funded almost entirely by fees paid by immigrants seeking visas or green cards and employers sponsoring workers. Less than 4% of the agency's budget is funded by taxpayers. Smith and his fellow Republicans know that.

Finally, critics who worry that immigrants will file fraudulent applications should consider that those applying must provide documents provided by U.S. institutions, such as public schools and the military, as evidence. Surely, the Department of Homeland Security can handle that.

Smith is right about one thing, however. This stopgap measure isn't enough to address the country's immigration problems. Only Congress can do that.

See the entire article at latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-applications-deferred-action-20120819,0,2939764.story

Illegal Immigrants Line Up by Thousands for Deportation Deferrals



By JULIA PRESTON
Published: August 15, 2012

CHICAGO — Tens of thousands of young illegal immigrants waited excitedly in lines as long as a mile and thronged to information sessions across the country on Wednesday, the first day that a federal immigration agency began accepting applications for deportation deferrals that include permits to work legally.

The public outpouring surprised both federal officials and immigrant advocates, who had expected an enthusiastic response to the Obama administration’s deferral program but were unprepared for the size and intensity of it. At Navy Pier here, young people began lining up on Tuesday evening for a counseling session about the program that was organized by an immigrants’ rights group.
By midmorning Wednesday, the line wound down the long pier, through a park and along an expressway, with young people holding sheafs of documents that they hoped would prove that they qualified for the program. By noon, event organizers said, 11,500 people had attended briefings, and more than 2,000 people had been turned away because there was not enough time or staff to deal with them.
“I know that out there many people are looking for the same thing as I am,” said Reyna Martinez, 19, who has lived in the United States since she was 7. “We are not alone; we stand together as a big crowd.”
Thousands of immigrants also waited in lines outside the offices of immigrants’ groups and flooded churches and law offices in Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Boston and Houston, among other cities.
Many of the young immigrants waiting at Navy Pier were wary — the program does not provide any legal immigration status like a green card, and some would-be applicants worried that there was a risk in coming forward so publicly — but they said any progress toward a legal foothold in the United States would be worth it.
“I know there are a lot of people without documentation who want to continue their school and work and make a better life for their families,” said Darinca Barron, 17, who added that she was brought here by her parents from Mexico when she was 6. “This is just a chance that you have to take.”
Under the program, the federal government will grant a two-year reprieve from deportation to illegal immigrants who are under age 31, have been in this country since they were children and meet other requirements.
President Obama initiated the program on June 15 using his executive authority. He did so after legislation known as the Dream Act — which he supported and which would have given legal status to young immigrants — stalled in Congress. He made broad use of his presidential powers, with as many as 1.7 million immigrants estimated to be eligible for deferrals.
The agency managing the program, Citizenship and Immigration Services, had only 60 days to prepare for the deluge of paperwork. The application form was first published on the Internet on Tuesday afternoon. Officials at the agency said on Wednesday that no major problems had been reported.
Immigrants must mail in the applications, which include a request for the deportation deferral and separate forms for a work permit. Agency officials and immigrant advocates have warned young people that there will be no appeals of applications that are denied, so they should have all their documents in order.
As a result, few applications were submitted on Wednesday. Most immigrants who turned out were seeking guidance about whether they would be eligible and what documents they needed to prove that they met the requirements. At the session at Navy Pier — famous for its Ferris wheel — organizers from the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights set up rows of tables in a ballroom where dozens of lawyers and volunteers offered free individual counseling.
Three prominent Illinois Democrats, all longtime supporters of the Dream Act, gathered at Navy Pier to mingle with the young immigrants and reap some of the political benefits from Mr. Obama’s initiative.
One of them, Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, wrote the original Dream Act bill 11 years ago. Mr. Durbin, the Senate’s second-ranking Democrat, said he was elated to see the huge crowd. “You can’t stop this force,” Mr. Durbin said to applause from the immigrants. “This is a force of people who have grown up in this country and want to be part of its future. They are creating a moral force beyond a legal force.”
Another of the Democrats, Representative Luis Gutierrez, compared the scene at Navy Pier to the immigrants arriving at Ellis Island a century ago. “While they saw New York City then, today they see Chicago,” he said.
The third Democrat, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who was Mr. Obama’s White House chief of staff, announced that the city had raised $275,000 in private donations for a college scholarship fund for immigrants who were granted deferrals. Mr. Emanuel pressed home his political point.
“Don’t let anybody tell you on a day like today that who sits in that Oval Office does not matter,” he said. Obama campaign strategists had hoped that halting the deportations would help the president among Hispanics, whose votes could be pivotal in several states.
Republicans have criticized the deportation deferrals as a form of backdoor amnesty for immigrants who broke the law. They say the effort to give work permits to so many of them is poorly timed, with the unemployment rate at more than 8 percent.
Some states greeted the initiative with less enthusiasm than Illinois. In Arizona, Gov. Jan Brewer, issued an executive order on Wednesday barring immigrants who are granted a reprieve from getting public benefits or obtaining drivers’ licenses.
She instructed state agencies to carry out whatever changes were necessary to safeguard “the intent of Arizona voters and lawmakers,” who have passed laws and approved ballot initiatives that prevent anyone other than legal residents from accessing taxpayer-financed benefits.
In New York, the City Council announced that it had set aside $3 million to provide free legal services to deferral applicants through a network of community organizations.
“The City Council has made this investment because we believe that undocumented immigrants have a right to an education and a safe and productive life here in the U.S.,” Speaker Christine C. Quinn said.

Steven Yaccino contributed reporting from Chicago, Fernanda Santos from Phoenix, and Kirk Semple from New York.
See the entire article at
A version of this article appeared in print on August 16, 2012, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Young Illegal Immigrants Jump at a First Chance.

Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Process


This information is from USCIS at



Over the past three years, this Administration has undertaken an unprecedented effort to transform the immigration enforcement system into one that focuses on public safety, border security and the integrity of the immigration system. As the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) continues to focus its enforcement resources on the removal of individuals who pose a danger to national security or a risk to public safety, including individuals convicted of crimes with particular emphasis on violent criminals, felons, and repeat offenders, DHS will exercise prosecutorial discretion as appropriate to ensure that enforcement resources are not expended on low priority cases, such as individuals who came to the United States as children and meet other key guidelines. Individuals who demonstrate that they meet the guidelines below may request consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals for a period of two years, subject to renewal, and may be eligible for employment authorization.
You may request consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals if you:
  1. Were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012;
  2. Came to the United States before reaching your 16th birthday;
  3. Have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, up to the present time;
  4. Were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making your request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS;
  5. Entered without inspection before June 15, 2012, or your lawful immigration status expired as of June 15, 2012;
  6. Are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general education development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and
  7. Have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.

Individuals may begin to request consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals on August 15, 2012. Please do not file before August 15. If you file early, your request will be rejected. Individuals can call USCIS at 1-800-375-5283 with questions or to request more information on the deferred action for childhood arrivals process or visit www.uscis.gov.

Frequently Asked Questions



About Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals


What is deferred action?
Deferred action is a discretionary determination to defer removal action of an individual as an act of prosecutorial discretion. Deferred action does not confer lawful status upon an individual. In addition, although an individual whose case is deferred will not be considered to be accruing unlawful presence in the United States during the period deferred action is in effect, deferred action does not excuse individuals of any previous or subsequent periods of unlawful presence.
Under existing regulations, an individual whose case has been deferred is eligible to receive employment authorization for the period of deferred action, provided he or she can demonstrate “an economic necessity for employment.” DHS can terminate or renew deferred action at any time at the agency’s discretion.


What is deferred action for childhood arrivals?
On June 15, 2012, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced that certain people who came to the United States as children and meet several key guidelines may request consideration of deferred action for a period of two years, subject to renewal, and would then be eligible for work authorization.

Individuals who can demonstrate through verifiable documentation that they meet these guidelines will be considered for deferred action. Determinations will be made on a case-by-case basis under the guidelines set forth in the Secretary of Homeland Security’s memorandum.



If my removal is deferred pursuant to the consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals process, am I eligible for employment authorization?
Yes. Pursuant to existing regulations, if your case is deferred, you may obtain employment authorization from USCIS provided you can demonstrate an economic necessity for employment.


Does this process apply to me if I am currently in removal proceedings, have a final removal order, or have a voluntary departure order?
This process is open to any individual who can demonstrate he or she meets the guidelines for consideration, including those who have never been in removal proceedings as well as those in removal proceedings, with a final order, or with a voluntary departure order (as long as they are not in immigration detention). If you are not in immigration detention and want to affirmatively request consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals, you must submit your request to USCIS – not ICE – pursuant to the procedures outlined below. If you are currently in immigration detention and believe you meet the guidelines you should not request consideration of deferred action from USCIS but should identify yourself to your detention officer or contact the ICE Office of the Public Advocate through the Office’s hotline at 1-888-351-4024 (staffed 9 a.m. – 5 p.m., Monday – Friday) or by email at EROPublicAdvocate@ice.dhs.gov.


Do I accrue unlawful presence if I have a pending request for consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals?
You will continue to accrue unlawful presence while the request for consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals is pending, unless you are under 18 years old at the time of the request. If you are under 18 years old at the time you submit your request but turn 18 while your request is pending with USCIS, you will not accrue unlawful presence while the request is pending. If your case is deferred, you will not accrue unlawful presence during the period of deferred action. Having action deferred on your case will not excuse previously accrued unlawful presence.


If my case is deferred, am I in lawful status for the period of deferral?
No. Although action on your case has been deferred and you do not accrue unlawful presence during the period of deferred action, deferred action does not confer any lawful status.
There is a significant difference between “unlawful presence” and “unlawful status.” Unlawful presence refers to a period an individual is present in the United States (1) without being admitted or paroled or (2) after the expiration of a period of stay authorized by the Department of Homeland Security (such as after the period of stay authorized by a visa has expired). Unlawful presence is relevant only with respect to determining whether the inadmissibility bars for unlawful presence, set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act at Section 212(a)(9), apply to an individual if he or she departs the United States and subsequently seeks to re-enter. (These unlawful presence bars are commonly known as the 3- and 10-Year Bars.)

The fact that you are not accruing unlawful presence does not change whether you are in lawful status while you remain in the United States. Because you lack lawful status at the time DHS defers action in your case you remain subject to all legal restrictions and prohibitions on individuals in unlawful status.


Does deferred action provide me with a path to permanent residence status or citizenship?
No. Deferred action is a form of prosecutorial discretion that does not confer lawful permanent resident status or a path to citizenship. Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights.


Will my immediate relatives or dependents be considered for deferred action for childhood arrivals?
No. The new process is open only to those who satisfy the guidelines. As such, immediate relatives, including dependents of individuals whose cases are deferred pursuant to the consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals process, may not be considered for deferred action as part of this process unless they independently satisfy the guidelines.


Can I be considered for deferred action even if I do not meet the guidelines to be considered for deferred action for childhood arrivals?
This process is only for individuals who meet the specific guidelines announced by the Secretary. Other individuals may, on a case-by-case basis, request deferred action from USCIS or ICE in certain circumstances, consistent with longstanding practice.


Will the information I share in my request for consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals be used for immigration enforcement purposes?
Information provided in this request is protected from disclosure to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for the purpose of immigration enforcement proceedings unless the requestor meets the criteria for the issuance of a Notice To Appear or a referral to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement under the criteria set forth in USCIS’s Notice to Appear guidance (www.uscis.gov/NTA). Individuals whose cases are deferred pursuant to the consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals process will not be referred to ICE. The information may be shared with national security and law enforcement agencies, including ICE and CBP, for purposes other than removal, including for assistance in the consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals request, to identify or prevent fraudulent claims, for national security purposes, or for the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense. The above information sharing policy covers family members and guardians, in addition to the requestor.

This policy, which may be modified, superseded, or rescinded at any time without notice, is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter.



If my case is referred to ICE for immigration enforcement purposes or if I receive an NTA, will information related to my family members and guardians also be referred to ICE for immigration enforcement purposes?
If your case is referred to ICE for purposes of immigration enforcement or you receive an NTA, information related to your family members or guardians that is contained in your request will not be referred to ICE for purposes of immigration enforcement against family members or guardians. However, that information may be shared with national security and law enforcement agencies, including ICE and CBP, for purposes other than removal, including for assistance in the consideration of the deferred action for childhood arrivals request, to identify or prevent fraudulent claims, for national security purposes, or for the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense.

This policy, which may be modified, superseded, or rescinded at any time without notice, is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter.



Does this Administration remain committed to comprehensive immigration reform?
Yes. The Administration has consistently pressed for passage of comprehensive immigration reform, including the DREAM Act, because the President believes these steps are critical to building a 21st century immigration system that meets our nation’s economic and security needs.


Is passage of the DREAM Act still necessary in light of the new process?
Yes.The Secretary’s June 15th memorandum allowing certain people to request consideration for deferred action is the most recent in a series of steps that DHS has taken to focus its enforcement resources on the removal of individuals who pose a danger to national security or a risk to public safety. Deferred action does not provide lawful status or a pathway to citizenship. As the President has stated, individuals who would qualify for the DREAM Act deserve certainty about their status. Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer the certainty that comes with a pathway to permanent lawful status.


Guidelines for Requesting Consideration of Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals


What guidelines must I meet to be considered for deferred action for childhood arrivals?
Pursuant to the Secretary’s June 15, 2012 memorandum, in order to be considered for deferred action for childhood arrivals, you must submit evidence, including support documents, showing that you:
  1. Were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012;
  2. Came to the United States before reaching your 16th birthday;
  3. Have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, up to the present time;
  4. Were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making your request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS;
  5. Entered without inspection before June 15, 2012, or your lawful immigration status expired as of June 15, 2012;
  6. Are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general education development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and;
  7. Have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.
These guidelines must be met for consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals. USCIS retains the ultimate discretion on whether deferred action is appropriate in any given case.


How old must I be in order to be considered for deferred action under this process?

  • If you have never been in removal proceedings, or your proceedings have been terminated before your request for consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals, you must be at least 15 years of age or older at the time of filing and meet the other guidelines.
  • If you are in removal proceedings, have a final removal order, or have a voluntary departure order, and are not in immigration detention, you can request consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals even if you are under the age of 15 at the time of filing and meet the other guidelines.
  • In all instances, you cannot be the age of 31 or older as of June 15, 2012 to be considered for deferred action for childhood arrivals.

Does “currently in school” refer to the date on which the request for consideration of deferred action is filed?
To be considered “currently in school” under the guidelines, you must be enrolled in school on the date you submit a request for consideration of deferred action under this process.


Who is considered to be “currently in school” under the guidelines?
To be considered “currently in school” under the guidelines, you must be enrolled in:
  • a public or private elementary school, junior high or middle school, high school, or secondary school;
  • an education, literacy, or career training program (including vocational training) that is designed to lead to placement in postsecondary education, job training, or employment and where you are working toward such placement; or
  • an education program assisting students either in obtaining a regular high school diploma or its recognized equivalent under State law (including a certificate of completion, certificate of attendance, or alternate award), or in passing a General Educational Development (GED) exam or other equivalent State-authorized exam.
Such education, literacy, or career training programs include, but are not limited to, programs funded, in whole or in part, by Federal or State grants. Programs funded by other sources may qualify if they are administered by providers of demonstrated effectiveness, such as institutions of higher education, including community colleges, and certain community-based organizations.

In assessing whether such an education, literacy or career training program not funded in whole or in part by Federal or State grants is of demonstrated effectiveness, USCIS will consider the duration of the program’s existence; the program’s track record in assisting students in obtaining a regular high school diploma or its recognized equivalent, in passing a GED or other state-authorized exam, or in placing students in postsecondary education, job training, or employment; and other indicators of the program’s overall quality. For individuals seeking to demonstrate that they are “currently in school” through enrollment in such a program, the burden is on the requestor to show the program’s demonstrated effectiveness.


How do I establish that I am currently in school?
Documentation sufficient for you to demonstrate that you are currently in school may include, but is not limited to:
  • evidence that you are enrolled in a public or private elementary school, junior high or middle school, high school or secondary school; or
  • evidence that you are enrolled in an education, literacy, or career training program (including vocational training) that is designed to lead to placement in postsecondary education, job training, or employment and where you are working toward such placement, and that the program is funded in whole or in part by Federal or State grants or is of demonstrated effectiveness; or
  • evidence that you are enrolled in an education program assisting students either in obtaining a regular high school diploma or its recognized equivalent under State law (including a certificate of completion, certificate of attendance, or alternate award), or in passing a General Educational Development (GED) exam or other such State-authorized exam, and that the program is funded in whole or in part by Federal or State grants or is of demonstrated effectiveness.
Such evidence of enrollment may include: acceptance letters, school registration cards, letters from school or program, transcripts, report cards, or progress reports showing the name of the school or program, date of enrollment, and current educational or grade level, if relevant.

What documentation may be sufficient to demonstrate that I have graduated from high school?
Documentation sufficient for you to demonstrate that you have graduated from high school may include, but is not limited to, a high school diploma from a public or private high school or secondary school, or a recognized equivalent of a high school diploma under State law, including a General Education Development (GED) Certificate, certificate of completion, a certificate of attendance, or an alternate award from a public or private high school or secondary school.



What documentation may be sufficient to demonstrate that I have obtained a General Education Development (GED)?
Documentation sufficient for you to demonstrate that you have obtained a GED may include, but is not limited to, evidence that you have passed a GED exam, or other comparable State-authorized exam, and, as a result, you have received the recognized equivalent of a regular high school diploma under State law.


If I am enrolled in a literacy or career training program, can I meet the guidelines?
Yes, in certain circumstances. You may meet the guidelines if you are enrolled in an education, literacy, or career training program that is designed to lead to placement in postsecondary education, job training, or employment and where you are working toward such placement. Such programs include, but are not limited to, programs funded by Federal or State grants, or administered by providers of demonstrated effectiveness.


If I am enrolled in an English as a Second Language (ESL) program, can I meet the guidelines?
Yes, in certain circumstances. You may meet the guidelines only if you are enrolled in an ESL program as a prerequisite for your placement in postsecondary education, job training, or employment and where you are working toward such placement. You must submit direct documentary evidence that your participation in the ESL program is connected to your placement in postsecondary education, job training or employment and that the program is one of demonstrated effectiveness.


Will USCIS consider circumstantial evidence that I have met the education guidelines?
No. Circumstantial evidence will not be accepted to establish that you are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, or have obtained a general education development certificate. You must submit direct documentary evidence to satisfy that you meet the education guidelines.


If I am currently in school and USCIS defers action in my case, what will I have to demonstrate if I request that USCIS renew the deferral after two years?
If you are in school at the time of your request and your case is deferred by USCIS, in order to have your request for an extension considered, you must show at the time of the request for renewal either (1) that you have graduated from the school in which you were enrolled and, if that school was elementary school or junior high or middle school, you have made substantial, measurable progress toward graduating from high school, or, (2) you have made substantial, measurable progress toward graduating from the school in which you were enrolled.

If you are currently in an education program that assists students either in obtaining a high school diploma or its recognized equivalent under State law, or in passing a GED exam or other equivalent State-authorized exam, and your case is deferred by USCIS, in order to have your request for an extension considered, you must show at the time of the request for renewal that you have obtained a high school diploma or its recognized equivalent or that you have passed a GED or other equivalent State-authorized exam.


If you are currently enrolled in an education, literacy, or career training program (including vocational training) that is designed to lead to placement in postsecondary education, job training, or employment, and your case is deferred by USCIS, in order to have your request for an extension considered, you must show at the time of the request for renewal that you are enrolled in postsecondary education, that you have obtained the employment for which you were trained, or that you have made substantial, measurable progress toward completing the program.
Specific details on the renewal process will be made available at a later date.



Do brief departures from the United States interrupt the continuous residence requirement?
A brief, casual, and innocent absence from the United States will not interrupt your continuous residence. If you were absent from the United States for any period of time, your absence will be considered brief, casual, and innocent, if it was before August 15, 2012, and:
  1. The absence was short and reasonably calculated to accomplish the purpose for the absence;
  2. The absence was not because of an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal;
  3. The absence was not because of an order of voluntary departure, or an administrative grant of voluntary departure before you were placed in exclusion, deportation, or removal proceedings; and
  4. The purpose of the absence and/or your actions while outside the United States were not contrary to law.

May I travel outside of the United States before USCIS has determined whether to defer action in my case?
No. After August 15, 2012, if you travel outside of the United States, you will not be considered for deferred action under this process. If USCIS defers action in your case, you will be permitted to travel outside of the United States only if you apply for and receive advance parole from USCIS.


Any travel outside of the United States that occurred before August 15, 2012, will be assessed by USCIS to determine whether the travel qualifies as brief, casual and innocent (see above).
Note: If you are in unlawful status and/or are currently in removal proceedings, and you leave the United States without a grant of advance parole, you will be deemed to have removed yourself and will be subject to any applicable grounds of inadmissibility if you seek to return.

Travel Guidelines

Travel Dates
Type of Travel
Does it Affect Continuous Residence
Before August 15, 2012
  • brief
  • casual
  • innocent
No
  • For an extended time
  • Because of an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal
  • To participate in criminal activity
Yes
After August 15, 2012 and before you have requested deferred action
  • Any
Yes.
Yes. You cannot travel while your request is under review.
You cannot apply for advance parole unless and until DHS has determined whether to defer action in your case.
After August 15, 2012 and after you have requested deferred action
  • Any


If my case is deferred pursuant to the consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals process, will I be able to travel outside of the United States?
Not automatically. If USCIS has decided to defer action in your case and you want to travel outside the United States, you must apply for advance parole by filing a Form I-131, Application for Travel Document and paying the applicable fee ($360). USCIS will determine whether your purpose for international travel is justifiable based on the circumstances you describe in your request. Generally, USCIS will only grant advance parole if you are traveling for humanitarian purposes, educational purposes, or employment purposes. You may not apply for advance parole unless and until USCIS defers action in your case pursuant to the consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals process. You cannot apply for advance parole at the same time as you submit your request for consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals. All advance parole requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis.


If USCIS has deferred action in your case under the deferred action for childhood arrivals process and you are subject to a final order of removal, you may request advance parole if you meet the guidelines for advance parole described above. However, once you have received advance parole, you should seek to reopen your case before the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and obtain administrative closure or termination before you travel outside the country. If you have any questions about this process, you may call the ICE Office of the Public Advocate through the Office’s hotline at 1-888-351-4024 (staffed 9 a.m. – 5 p.m., Monday – Friday) or by email at EROPublicAdvocate@ice.dhs.gov.


If I have a conviction for a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, or multiple misdemeanors, can I receive an exercise of prosecutorial discretion under this new process?
No. If you have been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, or three or more other misdemeanor offenses not occurring on the same date and not arising out of the same act, omission, or scheme of misconduct, you will not be considered for deferred action under the new process except where DHS determines there are exceptional circumstances.


What offenses qualify as a felony?
A felony is a federal, state, or local criminal offense punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.


What offenses constitute a significant misdemeanor?
For the purposes of this process, a significant misdemeanor is a misdemeanor as defined by federal law (specifically, one for which the maximum term of imprisonment authorized is one year or less but greater than five days) and that meets the following criteria:

  1. Regardless of the sentence imposed, is an offense of domestic violence; sexual abuse or exploitation; burglary; unlawful possession or use of a firearm; drug distribution or trafficking; or, driving under the influence; or,
  2. If not an offense listed above, is one for which the individual was sentenced to time in custody of more than 90 days. The sentence must involve time to be served in custody, and therefore does not include a suspended sentence.
The time in custody does not include any time served beyond the sentence for the criminal offense based on a state or local law enforcement agency honoring a detainer issued by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Notwithstanding the above, the decision whether to defer action in a particular case is an individualized, discretionary one that is made taking into account the totality of the circumstances. Therefore, the absence of the criminal history outlined above, or its presence, is not necessarily determinative, but is a factor to be considered in the unreviewable exercise of discretion. DHS retains the discretion to determine that an individual does not warrant deferred action on the basis of a single criminal offense for which the individual was sentenced to time in custody of 90 days or less.


What offenses constitute a non-significant misdemeanor?
For purposes of this process, a non-significant misdemeanor is any misdemeanor as defined by federal law (specifically, one for which the maximum term of imprisonment authorized is one year or less but greater than five days) and that meets the following criteria:

Is not an offense of domestic violence; sexual abuse or exploitation; burglary; unlawful possession or use of a firearm; drug distribution or trafficking; or, driving under the influence; and
  1. Is one for which the individual was sentenced to time in custody of 90 days or less. The time in custody does not include any time served beyond the sentence for the criminal offense based on a state or local law enforcement agency honoring a detainer issued by ICE.

Notwithstanding the above, the decision whether to defer action in a particular case is an individualized, discretionary one that is made taking into account the totality of the circumstances. Therefore, the absence of the criminal history outlined above, or its presence, is not necessarily determinative, but is a factor to be considered in the unreviewable exercise of discretion.


If I have a minor traffic offense, such as driving without a license, will it be considered a non-significant misdemeanor that counts towards the “three or more non-significant misdemeanors” making me unable to receive consideration for an exercise of prosecutorial discretion under this new process?
A minor traffic offense will not be considered a misdemeanor for purposes of this process. However, your entire offense history can be considered along with other facts to determine whether, under the totality of the circumstances, you warrant an exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

It is important to emphasize that driving under the influence is a significant misdemeanor regardless of the sentence imposed.



Will offenses criminalized as felonies or misdemeanors by state immigration laws be considered felonies or misdemeanors for purpose of this process?
No. Immigration-related offenses characterized as felonies or misdemeanors by state immigration laws will not be treated as disqualifying felonies or misdemeanors for the purpose of considering a request for consideration of deferred action pursuant to this process.


Will DHS consider my expunged or juvenile conviction as an offense making me unable to receive an exercise of prosecutorial discretion?
Expunged convictions and juvenile convictions will not automatically disqualify you. Your request will be assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether, under the particular circumstances, a favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion is warranted. If you were a juvenile, but tried and convicted as an adult, you will be treated as an adult for purposes of the deferred action for childhood arrivals process.


What qualifies as a national security or public safety threat?
If the background check or other information uncovered during the review of your request for deferred action indicates that your presence in the United States threatens public safety or national security, you will not be able to receive consideration for an exercise of prosecutorial discretion except where DHS determines there are exceptional circumstances. Indicators that you pose such a threat include, but are not limited to, gang membership, participation in criminal activities, or participation in activities that threaten the United States.


Can I request consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals under this process if I am currently in a nonimmigrant status (e.g. F-1, E-2, H-4) or have Temporary Protected Status (TPS)?
No. You can only request consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals under this process if you currently have no immigration status and were not in any lawful status on June 15, 2012.


If I am not in removal proceedings but believe I meet the guidelines for an exercise of deferred action under this process, should I seek to place myself into removal proceedings through encounters with CBP or ICE?
No. If you are not in removal proceedings but believe that you meet the guidelines you should submit your request for consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals to USCIS under the process outlined below.

Filing Process


How do I request consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals?
Beginning August 15, 2012, to request consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals from USCIS, you must submit Form I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals to USCIS. This form must be completed, properly signed and accompanied by a Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, and a Form I-765WS, Worksheet, establishing your economic need for employment. If you fail to submit a completed Form I-765 (along with the accompanying filing fees for that form, totaling $465), USCIS will not consider your request for deferred action. Please read the form instructions to ensure that you submit all the required documentation to support your request. All requests received before August 15, 2012 will be rejected.

You must file your request for consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals at the USCIS Lockbox. You can find the mailing address and instructions on www.uscis.gov/i-821d. After your Form I-821D, Form I-765, and Form I-765 Worksheet have been received, USCIS will review them for completeness, including submission of the required fee, initial evidence and supporting documents. If it is determined that the request is complete, USCIS will send you a receipt notice. USCIS will then send you an appointment notice to visit an Application Support Center (ASC) for biometric services. Please make sure you read and follow the directions in the notice. Failure to attend your biometrics appointment may delay processing of your request for consideration of deferred action, or may result in a denial of your request. You may also choose to receive an email and/or text message notifying you that your form has been accepted by completing a Form G-1145, E-Notification of Application/Petition Acceptance.


Each request for consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals will be reviewed on an individual, case-by-case basis. USCIS may request more information or evidence from you, or request that you appear at a USCIS office. USCIS will notify you of its determination in writing.
Note: All individuals who believe they meet the guidelines, including those in removal proceedings, with a final removal order, or with a voluntary departure order (and not in immigration detention), may affirmatively request consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals from USCIS through this process. Individuals who are currently in immigration detention and believe they meet the guidelines may not request consideration of deferred action from USCIS but may identify themselves to their detention officer or to the ICE Office of the Public Advocate through the Office’s hotline at 1-888-351-4024 (staffed 9 a.m. – 5 p.m., Monday – Friday) or by email at EROPublicAdvocate@ice.dhs.gov.


Will USCIS conduct a background check when reviewing my request for consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals?
Yes. You must undergo biographic and biometric background checks before USCIS will consider whether to exercise prosecutorial discretion under the consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals process. If you have been convicted of any felony, a significant misdemeanor offense, three or more misdemeanor offenses not occurring on the same date and not arising out of the same act, omission, or scheme of misconduct, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety, you will not be considered for deferred action for childhood arrivals except where DHS determines there are exceptional circumstances.


What do background checks involve?
Background checks involve checking biographic and biometric information provided by the individuals against a variety of databases maintained by DHS and other federal government agencies.


If USCIS does not exercise deferred action in my case, will I be placed in removal proceedings?
If you have submitted a request for consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals and USCIS decides not to defer action in your case, USCIS will apply its policy guidance governing the referral of cases to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the issuance of Notices to Appear (NTA). If your case does not involve a criminal offense, fraud, or a threat to national security or public safety, your case will not be referred to ICE for purposes of removal proceedings except where DHS determines there are exceptional circumstances. For more detailed information on the applicable NTA policy visit www.uscis.gov/NTA. If after a review of the totality of circumstances USCIS determines to defer action in your case, USCIS will likewise exercise its discretion and will not issue you a Notice to Appear.


Can I obtain a fee waiver or fee exemption for this process?
There are no fee waivers available for employment authorization applications connected to the deferred action for childhood arrivals process. There are very limited fee exemptions available. Requests for fee exemptions must be filed and favorably adjudicated before an individual files his/her request for consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals without a fee. In order to be considered for a fee exemption, you must submit a letter and supporting documentation to USCIS demonstrating that you meet one of the following conditions:

  • You are under 18 years of age, homeless, in foster care or under 18 years of age and otherwise lacking any parental or other familial support, and your income is less than 150% of the U.S. poverty level.
  • You cannot care for yourself because you suffer from a serious, chronic disability and your income is less than 150% of the U.S. poverty level.
  • You have, at the time of the request, accumulated $25,000 or more in debt in the past 12 months as a result of unreimbursed medical expenses for yourself or an immediate family member, and your income is less than 150% of the U.S. poverty level.

Beginning August 15, 2012 additional information on how to make your request for a fee exemption will be available on www.uscis.gov/childhoodarrivals. Your request must be submitted and decided before you submit a request for consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals without a fee. In order to be considered for a fee exemption, you must provide documentary evidence to demonstrate that you meet any of the above conditions at the time that you make the request. For evidence USCIS will:

  • Accept affidavits from community-based or religious organizations to establish a requestor’s homelessness or lack of parental or other familial financial support.
  • Accept copies of tax returns, banks statement, pay stubs, or other reliable evidence of income level. Evidence can also include an affidavit from the applicant or a responsible third party attesting that the applicant does not file tax returns, has no bank accounts, and/or has no income to prove income level.
  • Accept copies of medical records, insurance records, bank statements, or other reliable evidence of unreimbursed medical expenses of at least $25,000.
  • Address factual questions through requests for evidence (RFEs).

Will there be supervisory review of decisions by USCIS under this process?
Yes. USCIS will implement a supervisory review process in all four Service Centers to ensure a consistent process for considering requests for deferred action for childhood arrivals. USCIS will require officers to elevate for supervisory review those cases that involve certain factors.


Can I appeal USCIS’s determination?
No. You cannot file a motion to reopen or reconsider, and cannot appeal the decision if USCIS denies your request for consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals. USCIS will not review its discretionary determinations. You may request a review using the Service Request Management Tool (SRMT) process if you met all of the process guidelines and you believe that your request was denied due to one of the following errors:

  • USCIS denied the request for consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals based on abandonment and you claim that you did respond to a Request for Evidence within the prescribed time; or
  • USCIS mailed the Request for Evidence to the wrong address, even though you had submitted a Form AR-11, Change of Address, or changed your address online at www.uscis.gov before the issuance of the Request for Evidence.

Can I extend the period of deferred action in my case?
Yes. Unless terminated, individuals whose case is deferred pursuant to the consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals process will not be placed into removal proceedings or removed from the United States for a period of two years. You may request consideration for an extension of that period of deferred action. As long as you were not above the age of 30 on June 15, 2012, you may request a renewal after turning 31. Your request for an extension will be considered on a case-by-case basis.


If my period of deferred action is extended, will I need to re-apply for an extension of my employment authorization?
Yes. If USCIS decides to defer action for additional periods beyond the initial two years, you must also have requested an extension of your employment authorization.


Will USCIS personnel responsible for reviewing requests for an exercise of prosecutorial discretion under this process receive special training?
Yes. USCIS personnel responsible for considering requests for consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals will receive special training.


Evidence


The following chart provides examples of documentation you may submit to demonstrate you meet the guidelines for consideration of deferred action under this process. Please see the instructions of Form I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, for additional details of acceptable documentation.

Examples of Documents to Submit to Demonstrate you Meet the Guidelines
Proof of identity
  • Passport
  • Birth certificate with photo identification
  • School or military ID with photo
  • Any U.S. government immigration or other document bearing your name and photo
Proof you came to U.S. before your 16th birthday
  • Passport with admission stamp
  • Form I-94/I-95/I-94W
  • School records from the U.S. schools you have attended
  • Any Immigration and Naturalization Service or DHS document stating your date of entry (Form I-862, Notice to Appear)
  • Travel records
  • Hospital or medical records
Proof of immigration status
  • Form I-94/I-95/I-94W with authorized stay expiration date
  • Final order of exclusion, deportation, or removal issued as of June 15, 2012
  • A charging document placing you into removal proceedings
Proof of Presence in U.S. on June 15, 2012
  • Rent receipts or utility bills
  • Employment records (pay stubs, W-2 Forms, etc)
  • School records (letters, report cards, etc)
  • Military records (Form DD-214 or NGB Form 22)
  • Official records from a religious entity confirming participation in a religious ceremony
  • Copies of money order receipts for money sent in or out of the country
  • Passport entries
  • Birth certificates of children born in the U.S.
  • Dated bank transactions
  • Social Security card
  • Automobile license receipts or registration
  • Deeds, mortgages, rental agreement contracts
  • Tax receipts, insurance policies
Proof you continuously resided in U.S. since June 15, 2007
Proof of your student status at the time of requesting consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals
  • School records (transcripts, report cards, etc) from the school that you are currently attending in the United States showing the name(s) of the school(s) and periods of school attendance and the current educational or grade level
  • U.S. high school diploma or certificate of completion
    • U.S. GED certificate
Proof you are an honorably discharged veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces or the U.S. Coast Guard
  • Form DD-214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty
  • NGB Form 22, National Guard Report of Separation and Record of Service
  • Military personnel records
  • Military health records

May I file affidavits as proof that I meet the guidelines for consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals?
Affidavits generally will not be sufficient on their own to demonstrate that you meet the guidelines for USCIS to consider you for deferred action for childhood arrivals.

However, affidavits may be used to support meeting the following guidelines only if the documentary evidence available to you is insufficient or lacking:

  • A gap in the documentation demonstrating that you meet the five year continuous residence requirement; and
  • A shortcoming in documentation with respect to the brief, casual and innocent departures during the five years of required continuous presence.

If you submit affidavits related to the above criteria, you must submit two or more affidavits, sworn to or affirmed by people other than yourself, who have direct personal knowledge of the events and circumstances. Should USCIS determine that the affidavits are insufficient to overcome the unavailability or the lack of documentary evidence with respect to either of these guidelines, it will issue a Request for Evidence, indicating that further evidence must be submitted to demonstrate that you meet these guidelines.

USCIS will not accept affidavits as proof of satisfying the following guidelines:

  • You are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general education development certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran from the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States;
  • You were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012;
  • You came to the United States before reaching your 16th birthday;
  • You were under the age of 31 on June 15, 2012; and
  • Your criminal history, if applicable.

If the only evidence you submit to demonstrate you meet any of the above guidelines is an affidavit, USCIS will issue a Request for Evidence, indicating that you have not demonstrated that you meet these guidelines and that you must do so in order to demonstrate that you meet that guideline.


Will USCIS consider circumstantial evidence that I have met certain guidelines?
Circumstantial evidence may be used to establish the following guidelines and factual showings if available documentary evidence is insufficient or lacking and shows that:

  • You were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012;
  • You came to the United States before reaching your 16th birthday;
  • You satisfy the five year continuous residence requirement, as long as you present direct evidence of your continued residence in the United States for a portion of the required five-year period and the circumstantial evidence is used only to fill in gaps in the length of continuous residence demonstrated by the direct evidence; and
  • Any travel outside the United States during the five years of required continuous presence was brief, casual, and innocent.

However, USCIS will not accept circumstantial evidence as proof of any of the following guidelines to demonstrate that you:

  • Were under the age of 31 on June 15, 2012; and
  • Are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general education development certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States.

For example, if you do not have documentary proof of your presence in the United States on June 15, 2012, you may nevertheless be able to satisfy the guideline circumstantially by submitting credible documentary evidence that you were present in the United States shortly before and shortly after June 15, 2012, which under the facts presented may give rise to an inference of your presence on June 15, 2012 as well. However, circumstantial evidence will not be accepted to establish that you have graduated high school. You must submit direct documentary evidence to satisfy that you meet this guideline.

Cases in Other Immigration Processes


Will I be considered to be in unlawful status if I had an application for asylum or cancellation of removal pending before either USCIS or the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) on June 15, 2012?
Yes. If you had an application for asylum or cancellation of removal, or similar relief, pending before either USCIS or EOIR as of June 15, 2012, but had no lawful status, you may request consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals.


Can I request consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals from USCIS if I am in immigration detention under the custody of ICE?
No. If you are currently in immigration detention, you may not request consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals from USCIS. If you think you may meet the guidelines of this process, you should identify yourself to your detention officer or contact the ICE Office of the Public Advocate so that ICE may review your case. The ICE Office of the Public Advocate can be reached through the Office’s hotline at 1-888-351-4024 (staffed 9 a.m. – 5 p.m., Monday – Friday) or by email at EROPublicAdvocate@ice.dhs.gov


If I am about to be removed by ICE and believe that I meet the guidelines for consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals, what steps should I take to seek review of your case before removal?
If you believe you can demonstrate that you meet the guidelines and are about to be removed, you should immediately contact either the Law Enforcement Support Center’s hotline at 1-855-448-6903 (staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week) or the ICE Office of the Public Advocate through the Office’s hotline at 1-888-351-4024 (staffed 9 a.m. – 5 p.m., Monday – Friday) or by email at EROPublicAdvocate@ice.dhs.gov.


If individuals meet the guidelines for consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals and are encountered by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) or ICE, will they be placed into removal proceedings?
This policy is intended to allow CBP and ICE to focus on priority cases. Pursuant to the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security, if an individual meets the guidelines of this process, CBP or ICE should exercise their discretion on a case-by-case basis to prevent qualifying individuals from being apprehended, placed into removal proceedings, or removed. If individuals believe that, in light of this policy, they should not have been placed into removal proceedings, contact either the Law Enforcement Support Center’s hotline at 1-855-448-6903 (staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week) or the ICE Office of the Public Advocate through the Office’s hotline at 1-888-351-4024 (staffed 9 a.m. – 5 p.m., Monday – Friday) or by email at EROPublicAdvocate@ice.dhs.gov.


If I accepted an offer of administrative closure under the case-by-case review process or my case was terminated as part of the case-by-case review process, can I be considered for deferred action under this process?
Yes. If you can demonstrate that you meet the guidelines, you will be able to request consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals even if you have accepted an offer of administrative closure or termination under the case-by-case review process. If you are in removal proceedings and have already been identified as meeting the guidelines and warranting discretion as part of ICE’s case-by-case review, ICE already has offered you deferred action for a period of two years, subject to renewal.


If I declined an offer of administrative closure under the case-by-case review process, can I be considered for deferred action under this process?
Yes. If you can demonstrate that you meet the guidelines, you will be able to request consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals from USCIS even if you declined an offer of administrative closure under the case-by-case review process.


If my case was reviewed as part of the case-by-case review process but I was not offered administrative closure, can I be considered for deferred action under this process?
Yes. If you can demonstrate that you meet the guidelines, you will be able to request consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals from USCIS even if you were not offered administrative closure following review of you case as part of the case-by-case review process.


How will ICE and USCIS handle cases involving individuals who do not satisfy the guidelines of this process but believe they may warrant an exercise of prosecutorial discretion under the June 2011 Prosecutorial Discretion Memoranda?
If USCIS determines that you do not satisfy the guidelines or otherwise determines you do not warrant an exercise of prosecutorial discretion, then it will decline to defer action in your case. If you are currently in removal proceedings, have a final order, or have a voluntary departure order, you may then request ICE consider whether to exercise prosecutorial discretion under the ICE June 2011 Prosecutorial Discretion Memoranda through any of the established channels at ICE, including through a request to the ICE Office of the Public Advocate or to the local Field Office Director. USCIS will not consider requests for review under the ICE June 2011 Prosecutorial Discretion Memoranda.


What should I do if I meet the guidelines of this process and have been issued an ICE detainer following an arrest by a state or local law enforcement officer?
If you meet the guidelines and have been served a detainer, you should immediately contact either the Law Enforcement Support Center’s hotline at 1-855-448-6903 (staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week) or the ICE Office of the Public Advocate either through the Office’s hotline at 1-888-351-4024 (staffed 9 a.m. – 5 p.m., Monday – Friday) or by email at EROPublicAdvocate@ice.dhs.gov.


Avoiding Scams and Preventing Fraud

Someone told me if I pay them a fee, they can expedite my deferred action for childhood arrivals request, is this true?
No. There is no expedited processing for deferred action. Dishonest practitioners may promise to provide you with faster services if you pay them a fee. These people are trying to scam you and take your money. Visit our Avoid Scams page to learn how you can protect yourself from immigration scams.
Make sure you seek information about requests for consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals from official government sources such as USCIS or the Department of Homeland Security. If you are seeking legal advice, visit our Find Legal Services page to learn how to choose a licensed attorney or accredited representative.

What steps will USCIS and ICE take if I engage in fraud through the new process?
If you knowingly make a misrepresentation, or knowingly fail to disclose facts, in an effort to have your case deferred or obtain work authorization through this new process, you will be treated as an immigration enforcement priority to the fullest extent permitted by law, and be subject to criminal prosecution and/or removal from the United States.