Andres Mejer: Good evening and welcome to the English version of our program. But it’s got to be legal today. We’re going to talk about the nine changes that have made immigrating to the US harder in 2019.
Andres Mejer: My name is Andrés Mejer. And today we’re here to answer your questions. So please subscribe to our channel, share our video, but any comments you have right below and we’ll try to answer them as quickly as we can. So let’s jump right into it. Nine changes that made immigrants United States harder in 2019. Well, number one is to reduce the number of asylum applicant Trump points to bar asylum applicants altogether, particularly from Central America.
Andres Mejer: He calls them a scam. He calls it the asylum loophole. They’re all criminals, rapists, and drug dealers. That’s how Trump views Hispanic Americans, whether from Mexico or Central America. So under Trump’s plan, any immigrant that came across the border, legally or otherwise, by train, by car, walking across the border. Anything but plain can’t apply for asylum unless they’ve already tried and failed in one other country. So, look, if you’re a Mexican citizen, you can come to the border and ask for asylum. That’s not a problem. But if you’re from anywhere south of Mexico, like El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua, what they did to Panama, you will be sent back to Guatemala. And you have to apply for asylum there, be denied there before you can come to us again. So two exceptions. One, if you come by plane, because obviously you didn’t cross over Guatemala, you went over. Second is your Mexican. So if you’re Mexican and you’re afraid, you fear persecution in your country, Mexico, United States can’t by law send you back to the country where you’re saying you’re afraid to go back to. But any place south of that is fair game. Now, so far, the courts have stopped this plane. We’ll see what happens in the future. Many of these items are in litigation as we speak. The next one is to Remain in Mexico program. Now, this is still how the Trump administration wants to reduce asylum applications in the first scenario. You don’t get a chance to file, period. No due process whatsoever. You know, you walk through Mexico, you walk through, what, a mile and then went to Mexico and you didn’t ask for a Solomon in Guatemala. They won’t hear your case. They’ll automatically send you back to Guatemala to make that application remain in the Mexico program. This is where if you come through the mix through Mexico legally or league illegally, meaning you come to the border music, I’m on this method. I’m from cheated, but I’m afraid to go back to my country. They will send me back to Mexico to wait for the adjudication of my case. They’re even setting up courts in Mexico, tennis courts, which nobody has seen has access to. And you don’t get to see an attorney. And good luck trying to hire an attorney. How are you going to find an attorney familiar with American immigration law in Mexico? I’m sure there’s many of them, right. That’s a joke. No, there aren’t many of them particularly involved in removal proceedings, which have never been done. So maybe they’ve done family-based petitions, but they’ve never done an asylum petition. They’ve never done cancelation. They don’t have that background or that information. So how are they going to be able to help you? Well, that’s the goal. Not for you not to get the benefit, not to get the advice and get deported. And hopefully, if there if you know that you’re going to have to stay in Mexico, well, hopefully, you won’t even come at all. That’s the ultimate goal out of this. No. To deny residents to immigrants considered to be public birds or a public charge. So in 2018, governments start implementing this for people seeking visas to the United States. Basically, look, the underlying principle, I think is solid. So I understand that rationale. It’s just the way that they’re going about it.
Andres Mejer: They’re making it harder and harder and harder to immigrate to the United States.
Andres Mejer: So in 2019, they tried to implement it inside the U.S. for those seeking cards. Now, the goal is to know Green Card to people who have or are likely to receive government benefits. And there and that is likely to be a gray area. That’s really not defined. So the way that the regulation was presented says, look, in the past 36 months, meaning three years before the application. How many months did you receive in government benefits? And each benefit was a point. So if you had twelve or more, you’re disqualified and you’re gonna have to wait three years. So if you receive it. Food stamps and you receive housing for two months. That’s two benefit points per month. So four points in total. But so you’re not automatically disqualified because it’s less than twelve.
Andres Mejer: But hey, maybe.
Andres Mejer: You are likely to need it again in the future. Because of that, you’re disqualified. Did you have it or did you not in the past? That’s easy. I got no problem with it. You shouldn’t be getting government benefits, period. You know, if you’re a victim of domestic violence or you are applying under the veil, what means there are exceptions to every rule? Right. But in general speaking, you shouldn’t be you shouldn’t have access to those benefits. And if you did, you’re not going to be rewarded for it. Right? That’s essentially what they’re saying. But the way that they phrased it is. Well, you had it once. You may have it for, though, in the future. Now we’re going to deny you. That’s not kosher. That’s not appropriate. And that’s one of the reasons why the courts have stopped it so far. Now number three, pushing more people into deportation proceedings. What do I mean by that? I mean, you apply for anything you’re denied. You’re put in removal proceedings. That’s not the way it used to be. It used to be only if you’re a priority. Only if you’re a danger to society. Only if you’re a criminal or a terrorist. Would you be put in removal proceedings? Not anymore. Every denial a hundred percent of the time is now being put into removal proceedings. And that’s not right. To give an example, let’s assume you have a conditional Green Card. What is that? It means that you got your Green Card based on marriage, your spouse. When when when she applied for you, you were married less than two years. So when you go your Green Card, they said, hey, we’re only giving you for two years, two years from now, you don’t have to prove to us you’re still together. You’re gonna have to really give us more evidence to show this is legitimate because you are a marriage of short duration so that you’re a higher likelihood of fraud. That’s what the law says. You know, there’s a suspicion of a lot of fraud, particularly on the immigration side, because I can go in front of a judge tomorrow and I’m married. But that doesn’t mean that it’s a bonafide relationship. That doesn’t mean that impaired marries me. So I need to prove that it’s a legitimate relationship. Well, we went from hello to I want to spend the rest of my life with you. And that’s what we need to show in our process. But let’s say for purposes of conversation, you got your Green Card. It was only a two year Green Card. Everything was fine. Maybe you even have a child together. But last month, you know, you guys disagreed. Kick you out of the house for whatever reason. You haven’t spoken to her in the past couple of days. She doesn’t show up at your interview Now. In the past, they might give you another opportunity. Let’s say you said, listen, we’ve had our disagreements and, you know, kicked me out of the house. I don’t know what’s going to happen. They could Now flat out denying your petition and put you in removal proceedings.
Andres Mejer: It shouldn’t happen. It’s not appropriate. But it can.
Andres Mejer: Let’s say your employer, you have an H1 B process, so you’re employment side petition. It’s called especially occupation based on your education or experience. You know, your employer applied for you and you got work authorization for a period of time. U.S. 3 years. You can renew it at least one more time. Now, let’s say your employer merges another company and then you filed the correct paperwork to document the change. You can get denied and be placed in removal proceedings. You know, it’s ridiculous. It’s silly. But now a small thing became really expensive. Now when you received your Green Card, let’s say USCIS made a clerical error, let’s say 25 years ago, you were a beneficiary under your father’s petition. So an employee file for your father at the time you are under 21. By the time it was approved, you were over 21 and they put you down in the wrong category. Whoops. So if you’re in New Jersey, they’ll deny you’re applying for citizenship, they’ll deny you citizenship. Nowadays, they’ll say you’re not lawfully admitted into the U.S. But if you’re in other states, in other jurisdictions, they might do more than just deny your petition. They might put you in removal proceedings.
Andres Mejer: That can happen. Now, let me give another example. Let’s say you failed to renew status. Let’s say your Green Green Card petition was conditional and Newton filed to remove those conditions in time. Let’s say you have DACA and you submitted your paperwork late. What happens if you didn’t sign a petition? What happens if you sent the wrong filing fee or you didn’t send a filing fee? The government could now deny your petition flat out and put you in removal proceedings. In the past, they would point out that the deficiency in allowing fixing it. Are they going to do it in the future? They don’t have to. The law. You know, the circumstances have changed now. They no longer have to give you that opportunity. Are they going to? I don’t know. But that’s the direction of where things are going.
Andres Mejer: Number four using the courts to increase deportation, they ask me, how do you do that? The whole point of a court is you have due process. You have noticed an opportunity to be heard. Well, let me tell you, the past couple of years on the Obama administration and probably to a lesser extent, Bush and Clinton judges closed three hundred and fifty thousand cases that were deemed as a low priority. No, not a flight risk bit here a long time. No criminal record. So they closed the case and stopped the removal proceedings. Well, now the Trump administration wants to reopen every single one of those and they’ve narrowed it immigration judges’ ability to end deportation proceedings. It’s pretty much only where the government agrees that. The matter should be closed. Well, nowadays and let me put it in context. When you’re in immigration court. Who does the attorney that represents the government? What is his or her role? Well, that attorney works for ICE. The client is ICE. ICE is what’s trying to do to deport you. So are they going to agree to close your case? Very rarely. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen. It does, but it’s very rare in those circumstances. Now to speed up deportations. The government has created a quota of seven hundred case resolution for every immigration judge every year.
Andres Mejer: If they don’t do it. Well. They get punished. They could lose their job. They could make less money if they remand cases to too many to other agencies like USCIS. Same thing. They can get punished if they get reversed, meaning if they make a decision that then goes up an appeal and their decision gets reversed. You get it. There are consequences. There’s punishment. So the government’s really cracking down on immigration judges and making their lives miserable because all that the governor wants him to do is deport, deport, deport.