Phoenix Immigration & Naturalization Law Blog

Residents in border states like Arizona will likely be aware that President Donald Trump has taken aggressive steps in recent weeks to address an immigration situation that he has described as a national emergency. In late May, Trump said that he would impose tariffs on goods imported from Mexico if the Mexican government does not take action to stop immigrant caravans at the Guatemalan border. Just a day later, immigration officials announced that measures designed to protect children seeking asylum in the United States are being curtailed.

The protections, which were implemented during the Obama administration, allow unaccompanied minors to make their cases for asylum before officials from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services instead of in court. If their petitions are denied, they are given a second chance at asylum in front of an immigration judge. The rules were put into place to spare emotionally damaged children the trauma of court proceedings. Immigration officials say that these considerations will no longer be offered to unaccompanied minors who turn 18 before their asylum cases are heard or to children who are reunited with family members while in federal custody.

Residents of border states like Arizona are likely paying particular attention to the Trump administration's ongoing efforts to stem the flow of immigrants from Central America. The courts have already thwarted the White House's efforts to limit asylum claims and deny petitions filed by individuals who crossed the border illegally. Most experts believe that a memorandum signed by the president on April 29 will lead to a new round of legal proceedings.

In the memorandum, Trump ordered the departments of Homeland Security and Justice to streamline the asylum process and require those seeking asylum in the U.S. to pay for an application fee. The president wants asylum petitions to be completed within 180 days. Furthermore, he has told the departments to deny asylum seekers work permits. The memorandum gives the DOJ and DHS just 90 days to comply with the memorandum's requirements.

Many businesses, highly skilled international graduate students and technical workers in Arizona are concerned about reports that an increasing number of H-1B visa petitions are being denied. The H-1B Employer Data Hub was criticized by many when it was introduced by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). These critics saw it as a way for the administration to target negative attention toward businesses that make use of the program that allows companies to hire highly skilled international workers, typically in technical or scientific fields.

Further analysis of the data posted publicly indicates that USCIS is sharply restricting the number of H-1B petitions it approves. While only 6 percent of petitions were denied in 2015, 32 percent were denied in the first quarter of 2019 alone. Between 2015 and 2018, the denial rate grew by three times, from 6 percent to 24 percent. This means that the overall denial rate for new H-1B visa applications is now triple or quadruple what it was only a few years in the past. Immigration lawyers and employers say that USCIS has secretly raised the standards required for the approval of a petition.

Asylum-seekers in Arizona whose bid for asylum has been rejected on the grounds that they did not establish that they had a "credible fear" of returning to their home country may be able to appeal their rejection before an immigration judge. On March 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that denying asylum-seekers this right violates non-citizens' constitutional rights.

The asylum-seeker in this case was a man from Sri Lanka who was part of the Tamil minority. Despite his assertion that his support of a Tamil politician resulted in his kidnapping and torture, an agent with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said that he failed the "credible fear" standard. When the man sought to appeal it, he found that the only grounds for doing so were on technical errors that had to do with whether the person actually qualified for "expedited removal".