DEFENDING OUR COMMUNITIES: FIGHTING DHS MOTIONS TO RECALENDAR

Posted on August 16, 2025 by Mike Baker

THE FIGHT FOR SURVIVAL: WHEN THE GOVERNMENT COMES FOR YOUR CLOSED CASE

A three-part examination of DHS’s mass recalendar campaign and one man’s battle against the system

PART ONE: THE LAW AS WEAPON

The Recalendar Surge Begins

On May 12, 2025, DHS launched a systematic campaign to recalendar thousands of administratively closed immigration cases. Many had been dormant for years, some for over a decade. By July, ICE sent out nearly 10,000 new fine notices; by August, the wave of recalendaring had engulfed courts nationwide.

DHS Enforcement Surge: Timeline May-August 2025

  • Motions to recalendar issued in every major jurisdiction
  • Surge in reopening long-closed cases, many with complex family and hardship factors

Eight-Factor Analysis for DHS Motions to Recalendar


Explosion in DHS Motions to Recalendar (May-August 2025)

The Eight-Factor Battleground

8 CFR §§ 1003.18(c) and 1003.1(l) set out the supposed protections: eight distinct factors immigration judges must weigh before granting any motion to recalendar. These include:

  • Reason for recalendaring
  • Basis for opposition
  • Length of administrative closure
  • Status of collateral applications
  • Results of application adjudication
  • Likelihood of success on pending applications
  • Anticipated outcome if proceedings restart
  • ICE detention status

No single factor dominates: the law requires a “totality of circumstances” analysis. Yet, DHS routinely files template motions that treat these critical safeguards as mere suggestions, ignoring the actual lives on the line.

The Stop-Time Revolution

Two Supreme Court decisions changed the game for many:
Pereira v. Sessions (2018) and Niz-Chavez v. Garland (2021) held that defective Notices to Appear (NTAs) — those lacking specific time, date, and place — don’t trigger the “stop-time” rule for cancellation of removal. For thousands, this technical ruling means their clock for qualifying relief never stopped running. Immigrants who were ineligible years ago are now suddenly eligible for relief thanks to a paperwork oversight.
Source: VisaVerge

Matter of B-N-K- vs. Reality

Despite the regulation, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) tried to elevate “persuasive reasons for a case to proceed on the merits” above all else via Matter of B-N-K-. This contradicts the Administrative Closure Final Rule: judges must consider all factors, not just government preferences or expediency.
Source: ILRC Practice Advisory

Procedural Warfare

Most recent DHS recalendaring motions openly flout procedural standards:

  • No good faith “meet and confer” attempts
  • Deficient or defective service (mismatched postmarks and proofs)
  • Missed or improper signatures
  • Recycled, erroneous case info
  • Generic, non-individualized arguments

A few courts push back, rejecting template filings; others allow them, fueling deeply inconsistent nationwide standards.

The Four Response Strategies

  1. Motion to Extend Response Time: Use procedural flaws to delay and strengthen your substantive challenge, especially with the near-impossible 10-day response window and snail mail service.
  2. Strategic Non-Opposition: When recalendaring means the client now qualifies for valuable relief (like cancellation of removal), returning to active court can serve their interests.
  3. Termination of Proceedings: Under 2024 regs, many cases meet the bar for permanent termination—not just closure. If successful, the case isn’t simply “paused” but ended unless DHS re-files charges.
  4. Total Opposition: In all cases where reopening puts clients at risk, document every procedural and due process violation; force the judge to honestly follow the eight-factor framework.

PART TWO: THE POLITICS OF CRUELTY

The Human Toll of Bureaucratized Enforcement

Numbers reveal only part of the suffering. In Chicago, over 193,000 pending immigration cases rank it as the nation’s fifth most backlogged court.
Source: CBP Monthly Update
Yet the administration has slashed staffing: more than 103 judges fired or resigned. Chicago’s immigration court, intended for significantly more judges, now operates with only a handful—exacerbating already massive delays. Hearings scheduled as far out as 2029 have become the norm, while detained immigrants typically wait 3-6 months before their first court appearance..
Source: NBC Data

Economic Terrorism, Bureaucracy-as-Weapon

Despite <$170 billion in funding> and a congressional mandate to grow the system, ICE detention hit an all-time high of 56,945 people as of July 2025—71.1% with no criminal record. The pretext of “targeting criminals” is a myth; the reality is mass detention of families, workers, and vulnerable survivors.
Source: Immigration Issues

Arrested at the Courthouse Door

In a chilling new twist, EOIR lifted bans on courthouse arrests. ICE now detains people the moment their cases are terminated, turning courthouses into ambush sites. Attorneys describe watching their clients leave court victorious, only to be snatched by ICE moments later.
Source: TRAC Reports

Representation in Crisis

Only one in four immigrants in Chicago’s courts has a lawyer. Nationally, the number is barely one in three. Representation makes a massive difference: five-times higher success rates for those with counsel. But the combination of soaring backlogs, remote detention, and system hostility cripples access to justice.
Source: TRAC Reports

Expedited Removal: The Ignorance Gambit

The nationwide expansion of expedited removal means any noncitizen unable to prove two years continuous presence is at risk of summary ejection—no hearing, no judge, no lawyer. Most don’t even realize they must claim fear of return to get a real hearing, making ignorance itself a tool for government speed.

Constitutional Challenges Emerge

The mass recalendar campaign raises deep constitutional concerns—from due process violations to equal protection, from arbitrary enforcement to family separation without compelling cause.

Chicago Sanctuary City Status Upheld: July 2025

Case Name: State of Illinois v. City of Chicago
Date Decided: July 2025
Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Judge Jenkins reaffirmed that local and state governments cannot be forced to participate in federal immigration enforcement, as this would violate constitutional principles of state sovereignty and federalism. She also clarified that the federal government did not suffer a direct, individual injury from the policies and, therefore, lacked the legal basis to sue. The ruling applies the Tenth Amendment to protect local autonomy and makes clear that federal law cannot commandeer states to enforce federal regulatory programs.

“The Sanctuary Policies reflect Defendants’ decision not to engage in enforcing civil immigration law—a choice protected by the Tenth Amendment and not overridden by the [Immigration and Nationality Act]… Finding that these same Policy provisions constitute discrimination or impermissible regulation would provide an end-run around the Tenth Amendment. It would allow the federal government to commandeer States under the guise of intergovernmental immunity—the exact type of direct regulation of states barred by the Tenth Amendment.”

Key Points of the Ruling

  • The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the federal government’s lawsuit against Illinois, Cook County, and Chicago, allowing Chicago’s sanctuary city policies to remain intact. The court finds that the Department of Justice lacks standing to challenge these policies or force city officials to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement beyond existing.
  • The decision protects local access to city services regardless of immigration status, and bars city employees from inquiring about immigration status except as required by law. “Standing” refers to the legal right to bring a lawsuit. To have standing in federal court, the plaintiff must show that the challenged action causes them a concrete and specific injury that the court can address. In this case, the judge determines that the federal government does not suffer a direct, personal harm from Chicago’s sanctuary city policies. The court rules that the Department of Justice cannot claim injury simply because Chicago or Illinois chooses not to assist with federal immigration enforcement in ways not required by law. Because the federal government cannot show a tangible injury from the sanctuary policies, the lawsuit cannot proceed. As a result, the judge dismisses the case, rather than ruling on the substance or legality of the sanctuary city policies themselves.

Impact on Chicago Residents

  • Immigrant families retain full access to city services, schools, and healthcare facilities.
  • Law enforcement in Chicago continues prioritizing public safety and community trust, not immigration enforcement.
  • Legal advocates praise the decision as a major victory for civil rights and local control.

Official Statement

“Chicago will remain a sanctuary city. Our priorities are public safety and community wellbeing—not federal immigration enforcement.”

– Mayor of Chicago, July 2025

PART THREE: JUAN CARLOS—THE AMERICAN DREAM ON TRIAL

The Face of Bureaucratic Terror

Juan Carlos Mendoza begins his day in his Pilsen office, staring at the DHS motion that could destroy everything he built. He arrived at seventeen—alone, bereaved, fleeing a future with nothing in Mexico. By 2012, he had founded J.C. Landscaping, built a regular client base, and bought a home with his U.S. citizen partner who became his spouse, Miguel.

Love in the Time of DOMA

Their story is one of hope through struggle: from learning English via telenovelas, to building a business with nothing but drive, to navigating marriage after DOMA fell and Illinois finally recognized same-sex unions.

Thirteen Years of Security—Now at Risk

Juan Carlos’s case was administratively closed in 2012 due to prosecutorial discretion. He became deeply woven into his community—expanding his business, hiring six employees, coaching soccer, and paying taxes. Thirteen years pass in peaceful, productive work.

Administrative Closure: A History of Executive Discretion and Judicial Authority

Administrative closure has served as a critical docket management tool in immigration courts for decades, representing a complex interplay between executive discretion and judicial authority that has evolved significantly across presidential administrations. Under the Obama Administration, administrative closure became a cornerstone of immigration policy, used extensively as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion to prioritize enforcement resources. Beginning in 2012, the Obama administration implemented systematic prosecutorial discretion policies that allowed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) attorneys and immigration judges to administratively close cases involving individuals deemed “low priority” for removal—including those with U.S. citizen children, victims of domestic violence, and longtime residents with strong community ties. This approach reflected the administration’s judgment that limited enforcement resources should focus on individuals who posed public safety or national security threats, rather than pursuing removal against all removable noncitizens indiscriminately. Key guidance documents included the John Morton ICE Director Memo on “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Consistent with the Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities” (June 17, 2011) and the DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano Memo on “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children” (June 15, 2012).

The landmark Board of Immigration Appeals decision in Matter of Avetisyan (2012) formalized this discretionary authority, establishing for the first time that immigration judges could unilaterally administratively close cases even over government objection, using a multi-factor analysis that considered equitable circumstances. This represented a significant expansion of judicial discretion, allowing judges to exercise their own judgment about case management and the appropriate use of court resources. Between 2012 and early 2017, approximately 88,249 cases were administratively closed through prosecutorial discretion, effectively removing low-priority cases from overcrowded court dockets and allowing individuals to remain in the United States while maintaining work authorization through pending applications.

The Trump Administration fundamentally reversed this approach, viewing administrative closure as an impediment to enforcement rather than a tool of smart resource allocation. In May 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued Matter of Castro-Tum, which stripped immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals of their general authority to administratively close cases, arguing that such discretion improperly interfered with DHS prosecutorial decisions. This decision reflected the Trump administration’s judgment that all removable noncitizens should face expedited removal proceedings regardless of equitable factors or enforcement priorities. ICE subsequently moved to recalendar over 355,000 previously closed cases, dramatically expanding the immigration court backlog and forcing individuals who had been living legally with work authorization back into active removal proceedings.

Under the Biden Administration, the pendulum swung back toward embracing administrative closure as both a docket management tool and mechanism for prosecutorial discretion. In July 2021, Attorney General Merrick Garland issued Matter of Cruz-Valdez, which overturned Castro-Tum and restored immigration judges’ authority to administratively close cases using the Avetisyan factors. The Biden administration’s approach represents a return to the judgment that immigration courts function most effectively when judges have discretion to manage their dockets according to case-specific circumstances, enforcement priorities, and equitable considerations. New regulations finalized in 2024 codified administrative closure authority, making it more difficult for future administrations to eliminate this discretionary tool through policy changes alone. The administration also issued comprehensive prosecutorial discretion guidance through the DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas Memo on “Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law” (September 30, 2021) and the ICE Principal Legal Advisor Kerry Doyle Memo on enforcement guidance (April 3, 2022).

Administrative Closure Guidance:

See EOIR Memorandum on Administrative Closure (Nov. 22, 2021).


Read the Official EOIR Memo (PDF)

However, the current Trump Administration’s 2025 recalendaring campaign represents yet another dramatic shift, with DHS filing thousands of motions to recalendar administratively closed cases—including some that have been dormant for decades. This systematic approach to reviving dormant cases reflects the administration’s judgment that administrative closure constitutes an improper “de facto amnesty program” rather than legitimate prosecutorial discretion, prioritizing case resolution over individualized equity determinations and resource allocation considerations that have historically guided immigration enforcement.

The Government Letter

On a random Tuesday, Miguel delivers the DHS motion to recalendar—fear and uncertainty return overnight. This is “bureaucratic terrorism” in practice: just numbers on a spreadsheet to DHS, but lives and families hanging in the balance.

The Legal Reality

Juan Carlos’s opposition is a clinic in the eight-factor analysis:

  • Generic government interest: insufficient
  • Deep community ties, approved family petition, business contributions
  • thirteen years of closure—settled expectations, reliance interests
  • Approved I-130, strong grounds for adjustment
  • Not detained, integrated into local economy

His NTA, like many, is defective—missing key details—so his clock for cancellation relief never stopped. With over twenty years of continuous presence, he passes every statutory hurdle.
Source: VisaVerge

Exceptional and Extremely Unusual Hardship

The hardship analysis centers on Miguel, Juan Carlos’s U.S. citizen spouse. Matter of Monreal requires hardship “substantially beyond that which would ordinarily be expected to result from the alien’s deportation”.
Source: TRAC Reports

  • Economic devastation: Juan Carlos built their business from nothing. Miguel works at the Cultural Center for $35,000 annually. The landscaping business generates $180,000 in revenue. Without Juan Carlos, the business fails and their mortgage defaults.
  • Medical hardship: Miguel has Type 1 diabetes requiring expensive medication and regular monitoring. Juan Carlos manages his care, insurance, and medical appointments. Separation would threaten Miguel’s health.
  • Social isolation: Miguel’s family accepted their relationship only gradually. Juan Carlos became his primary emotional support. His removal would isolate Miguel from the Latino community they’ve built together.
  • Cultural barriers: Miguel speaks limited Spanish and has never lived in Mexico. Following Juan Carlos would mean abandoning his career, his community, and his medical care system.

The Business That Built a Community

J.C. Landscaping employs six people, all immigrants, all supporting families. The business maintains forty-seven properties, mostly for middle-class families in Pilsen, Little Village, and Bridgeport. Juan Carlos charges fair prices and provides reliable service that larger companies won’t match in these neighborhoods.
The employees include Maria, whose son just started high school; Roberto, saving money to bring his wife from Guatemala; and David, a DACA recipient studying business at UIC. If Juan Carlos is deported, six families lose their primary income.

The Weight of the American Dream

Juan Carlos feels the weight differently now. At seventeen, crossing the desert, he carried only hope and fear. Now he carries the dreams of six employees, the expectations of forty-seven clients, the mortgage on a two-flat, and the promise he made to Miguel at City Hall eleven years ago.

The Night Before the Hearing

Juan Carlos and Miguel have a restless night, haunted by the possibility of losing everything because of a bureaucratic decision. Their fight is personal, but it resonates with many others.

The Morning of Truth

Thirty-seven pages of compelling evidence: financial records, medical documentation, employee affidavits, proof of community roots. The legal strategy is airtight, but the system is broken. The battle is between hope and a government machine programmed for attrition.

As of publication, Juan Carlos waits for his verdict. He is not alone. Their business continues; Miguel manages his health. Their employees come to work, but they all wonder what tomorrow will bring.

Strategic Options for Respondents with Pending I-601A Waiver Cases: Carlos’ Path

For individuals like Carlos, whose removal proceedings are being targeted for recalendaring and who have a pending I-601A provisional waiver (with a USCIS receipt), recent practice advisories outline two clear, fact-based legal avenues:

1. Seek Termination of Proceedings and Consular Process Abroad

Overview:
Carlos may request that the Immigration Judge terminate his removal case based on his pending I-601A waiver and any other relevant grounds.

  • Benefits:
    • Allows Carlos to complete his waiver application with USCIS and, if approved, proceed to consular processing for his immigrant visa abroad.
    • The process before USCIS is generally faster, more predictable, and avoids EOIR court backlog and delays.
  • Risks/Considerations:
    • If departing the United States for consular processing, Carlos must ensure his I-601A is approved. If denied, he may face significant reentry bars.
    • Must assess the risk of expedited removal should his case be terminated while the waiver is pending.
    • All required evidence (USCIS receipt, supporting documents) must be prepared and presented with the motion to terminate.
  • Best Practice: File a motion to terminate removal proceedings, attach the I-601A receipt and support, and clearly explain why termination is preferable. Counsel Carlos about risks and process before making this decision.

Termination of Proceedings (Permanent Case End):
Under regulations effective July 29, 2024 (8 CFR §1003.18(d)), immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals can now end—not just pause—removal cases in several specific scenarios. When a case is terminated, it is completely closed and cannot be restored unless the Department of Homeland Security files new charges. This is a more decisive outcome than administrative closure, which merely suspends a case until further notice.

Mandatory termination applies if:
– No charge of removability can be proven,
– The noncitizen obtains citizenship or qualifying legal status (LPR, asylee, refugee, or designated survivor/trafficking visas),
– Mental incompetency renders a fair hearing impossible,
– Both parties jointly move for termination, or other legal requirements (like NACARA adjustment, see 8 CFR §1245.13(l)) are met.

Judges also have discretionary authority to terminate cases in selected additional circumstances based on a full review of the record, and DHS no longer has unilateral veto power over this relief.

Regulatory authority: 8 CFR §1003.18(d) (July 2024); see ILRC Practice Advisory, ilrc.org/resources/seeking-administrative-closure-and-termination-using-new-eoir-regulations-hostile.

Sample Language for Motion to Terminate (for Carlos):

“Respondent has a pending I-601A provisional waiver (receipt attached). In light of these circumstances, termination of proceedings will allow the respondent to pursue consular processing following waiver approval, avoiding unnecessary delay and hardship associated with backlogged removal proceedings.”

Law on Motions to Terminate Removal Proceedings

  • Motions to terminate are governed by 8 CFR §§ 1003.18(d) and 1003.1(m).
  • Termination ends removal proceedings entirely; a new Notice to Appear (NTA) is required to bring someone back into court.
  • Mandatory termination: The immigration judge must terminate proceedings in specific situations set out in the regulations, such as lack of jurisdiction, ineligible charging documents, granted relief (e.g. U visa, TPS, DACA, SIJ, DALE), or other qualifying status.
  • Discretionary termination: Even if mandatory grounds do not apply, the judge may terminate in the exercise of discretion—for instance, where law or circumstances justify resolving the case without further proceedings.
  • The motion should identify all relevant mandatory and discretionary grounds, and include documentary evidence supporting those grounds (e.g. grant notices, proof of pending application, deferred action approval).

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
IMMIGRATION COURT [CITY, STATE]

In the Matter of: [Respondent Full Name]
Alien Number: A#[XXXXXXXX]
File No: [XXXXXXXX]

Motion to Terminate Removal Proceedings

TO: Immigration Judge, [City] Immigration Court
NOW COMES Respondent, through undersigned counsel, and respectfully moves this Court to terminate removal proceedings pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.18(d), 1003.1(m), and other applicable law. This motion is based on the following grounds:
  • The Respondent is the beneficiary of and/or has a pending application for [describe relief, e.g., U or T visa, TPS, Deferred Action].
  • The basis for previous administrative closure has now been codified as a basis for termination under current EOIR regulations.
  • [Summarize factual basis and eligibility for mandatory/discretionary termination. List supporting documents if applicable.]
WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that the Immigration Judge terminate removal proceedings under the relevant regulations and in the interest of justice.
Respectfully submitted,
[Attorney Name]
[Attorney Bar Number]
[Attorney Address]
[Attorney Phone and Email]
Date: [MM/DD/YYYY]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2. Recalendar and Continue Proceedings in Immigration Court

Overview:
Carlos may allow his case to be recalendared and proceed in Immigration Court while his I-601A remains pending.

  • Benefits:
    • He can ask the judge for administrative closure or continuance pending adjudication of the I-601A.
    • If the waiver is approved, he may move for termination or explore other forms of relief.
  • Risks/Considerations:
    • Court dockets are extremely backlogged; this route may result in prolonged delays.
    • Delays may affect eligibility for other forms of relief.
    • The process is less predictable and can create stress and disruption for Carlos and his family.
  • Best Practice: If Carlos decides to proceed in court, immediately file a motion for continuance or closure, citing the docket backlog and hardship. Document all relevant factors, including the pending I-601A and related hardship.

Summary Table: Carlos’ Two Main Paths

Option Pros Cons/Risks Key Action Step
Terminate & Consular Process (I-601A) Court case finished; more predictable with USCIS Risk at consulate if waiver denied; brief separation; risk of expedited removal if terminated before approval Motion to terminate with evidence
Continue in Immigration Court May pursue other relief; possibly more options Significant delays, added stress/costs Motion to continue/close, monitor case

Practical Advice for Counsel

  • Clearly discuss strategic options, risks, and timelines with Carlos before deciding a path.
  • Ensure the court has all updated paperwork, including the I-601A receipt, address, and attorney contact information.
  • If pursuing termination, reference why Immigration Court would not efficiently resolve Carlos’ case compared to consular processing.
  • If remaining in proceedings, advocate for closure or continuance to minimize time in court.

This guidance integrates the latest practice advisories, providing concrete steps and options for respondents facing recalendaring of closed cases with a pending I-601A waiver.

How Democracy Dies

The slow suffocation of individual hope is not dramatic; it’s procedural, technical, cloaked in the language of “efficiency.” Juan Carlos’s case will decide more than his own fate: it is a proxy for thousands buckling under the weight of government indifference.

The law provides a weapon. Justice insists he should win. But success in Trump’s America demands surviving a system built to grind hope into dust.

Advocacy Takeaways & Resources

  • Know your rights: The eight-factor analysis is not optional. Demand individualized consideration, and document every procedural flaw.
  • Use Supreme Court decisions: Pereira and Niz-Chavez empower many clients to challenge defective NTAs and seek cancellation relief.
  • Oppose template motions aggressively: Challenge DHS’s generic filings with detailed facts, individualized hardship arguments, and requests for procedural fairness.
  • Community support: Build and represent not just individuals, but the families, businesses, and communities they sustain.
  • Stay updated: Follow the court staffing crisis. Advocate for expanded representation and due process at every step.
  • Risk assessment: Understand the real dangers of expedited removal, and advise clients on asserting their rights at first contact.

Matter of Monreal: “Extreme and Exceptional Hardship” Requirements

  • The qualifying relative must suffer hardship substantially beyond that ordinarily expected from deportation.
  • Relevant factors include the age, health, family ties, and financial impact on the qualifying relative.
  • Social, cultural, and psychological impact must be considered, especially the conditions in the country of relocation.
  • Evidence of medical needs, educational disruption, or inability to provide care in the country of relocation weighs in favor of hardship.
  • Hardship must be assessed cumulatively and include all relevant circumstances. No single factor is dispositive.

Share this blog. Stand up for every Juan Carlos. Remind America of its promise: justice, redemption, and the dignity of hard work.

Posted in Administrative closure, Motion to Recalendar, \immigration-law-administrative-closure-current | Leave a comment

Effects of Removal (Deportation) on Retirement or Disability Beneficiaries

Posted on August 15, 2025 by Michael Baker

Can I receive Social Security benefits if I have been deported? How does deportation or removal from the United States affect the receipt of benefits?

Once the Department of Homeland Security notifies the Social Security Administration that an individual has been removed, Social Security will terminate benefits. Benefits will resume again if and when the individual returns to the United States as a lawful permanent resident. For most people, this means that means at least a ten year wait abroad. Of course there also has to be a legal way for the person to return.

Dependents or survivors of workers fare better. Even though the individual worker may have been removed, a dependent or a person entitled to survivors benefits may receive the benefits as long as they: (1) are U.S. Citizens or (2) present in the United States for the entire month(s) after the worker has been removed from the United States. If you would like to see the actual text of the regulation, it is contained at 20 C.F.R. Section 404.464.

Code of Federal Regulations § 404.464. How does deportation or removal from the United States affect the receipt of benefits?

(a) Old-age or disability insurance benefits. (1) You cannot receive an old-age or disability benefit for any month that occurs after the month we receive notice from the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General of the United States that you were:

(i) Deported under the provisions of section 241(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that were in effect before April 1, 1997, unless your deportation was under:

(A) Paragraph (1)(C) of that section; or

(B) Paragraph (1)(E) of that section and we received notice of your deportation under this paragraph before March 3, 2004;

(ii) Removed as deportable under the provisions of section 237(a) of the INA as in effect beginning April 1, 1997, unless your removal was under:

(A) Paragraph (1)(C) of that section; or

(B) Paragraph (1)(E) of that section and we received notice of your removal under this paragraph before March 3, 2004; or

(iii) Removed as inadmissible under the provisions of section 212(a)(6)(A) of the INA as in effect beginning April 1, 1997.

(2) Benefits that cannot be paid to you because of your deportation or removal under paragraph (a)(1) of this section may again be payable for any month subsequent to your deportation or removal that you are lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence. You are considered lawfully admitted for permanent residence as of the month you enter the United States with permission to reside here permanently.

(b) Dependents or survivors benefits. If an insured person on whose record you are entitled cannot be paid (or could not have been paid while still alive) an old-age or disability benefit for a month(s) because of his or her deportation or removal under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, you cannot be paid a dependent or survivor benefit on the insured person’s record for that month(s) unless:

(1) You are a U.S citizen; or

(2) You were present in the United States for the entire month. (This means you were not absent from the United States for any period during the month, no matter how short.)

(c) Lump sum death payment. A lump sum death payment cannot be paid on the record of a person who died:

(1) In or after the month we receive from the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General of the United States notice of his or her deportation or removal under the provisions of the INA specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section (excluding the exceptions under paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(A) and (B) and (ii)(A) and (B) of this section); and

(2) Before the month in which the deceased person was thereafter lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence.

[70 FR 16411, Mar. 31, 2005]

OLD-AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE BENEFIT PAYMENTS: Old-Age Insurance Benefits

Sec. 202. [42 U.S.C. 402] (a) Every individual who—

(1) is a fully insured individual (as defined in section 214(a)),

(2) has attained age 62, and

(3) has filed application for old-age insurance benefits or was entitled to disability insurance benefits for the month preceding the month in which he attained retirement age (as defined in section 216(l)), shall be entitled to an old-age insurance benefit for each month, beginning with—

(A) in the case of an individual who has attained retirement age (as defined in section 216(l)), the first month in which such individual meets the criteria specified in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), or

(B) in the case of an individual who has attained age 62, but has not attained retirement age (as defined in section 216(l)), the first month throughout which such individual meets the criteria specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) (if in that month he meets the criterion specified in paragraph (3)), and ending with the month preceding the month in which he dies. Except as provided in subsection (q) and subsection (w), such individual’s old-age insurance benefit for any month shall be equal to his primary insurance amount (as defined in section 215(a)) for such month.

Termination of Benefits Upon Removal of Primary Beneficiary

(n)(1) If any individual is (after the date of enactment of this subsection[28]) removed under section 237(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (other than under paragraph (1)(C) of such section) or under section 212(a)(6)(A) of such Act, then, notwithstanding any other provisions of this title—

(A) no monthly benefit under this section or section 223 shall be paid to such individual, on the basis of his wages and self-employment income, for any month occurring (i) after the month in which the Commissioner of Social Security is notified by the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security that such individual has been so removed, and (ii) before the month in which such individual is thereafter lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence,

(B) if no benefit could be paid to such individual (or if no benefit could be paid to him if he were alive) for any month by reason of subparagraph (A), no monthly benefit under this section shall be paid, on the basis of his wages and self-employment income, for such month to any other person who is not a citizen of the United States and is outside the United States for any part of such month, and

(C) no lump-sum death payment shall be made on the basis of such individual’s wages and self-employment income if he dies (i) in or after the month in which such notice is received, and (ii) before the month in which he is thereafter lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence.

Section 203(b), (c), and (d) of this Act shall not apply with respect to any such individual for any month for which no monthly benefit may be paid to him by reason of this paragraph.

(2) As soon as practicable after the removal of any individual under any of the paragraphs of section 237(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (other than under paragraph (1)(C) of such section) or under section 212(a)(6)(A) of such Act[29], the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security shall notify the Commissioner of Social Security of such removal.

(3) For purposes of paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, an individual against whom a final order of removal has been issued under paragraph (4)(D) of section 237(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (relating to participating in Nazi persecutions or genocide) shall be considered to have been removed under such paragraph (4)(D) as of the date on which such order became final.

———————————————–

RS 02635.001 Effects of Removal (Deportation) on Retirement or Disability Beneficiaries

“D. Policy – Impact on Title II Beneficiaries
1. Effect on Payments to the Number Holder

Section 202(n)(1) or section 223 of the Act prohibits the number holder (NH) on a Social Security record from receiving his or her title II retirement and/or disability benefits when SSA receives notice from DHS that the NH has been deported or removed from the United States under any of the sections of the INA that are listed in the definitions in RS 02635.001C.

DHS routinely sends SSA reports of removals under those INA sections; SSA maintains such reports on the SSA Disability, Railroad, Alien and Military Service (DRAMS) file under the general category “Alien Deportation Information.” (See RS 02635.005B.)

EXCEPTIONS: Some NH’s are exempt from suspension of their title II benefits if their removal was ordered on the basis of certain grounds. (Grounds for removal are included in coded format on the removal reports from DHS. They are displayed as “Final Charge Codes” on the DRAMS record. See RS 02635.005B.2.). A NH can continue to receive his/her retirement or disability benefits if the Final DHS Charge Code on DRAMS shows one of the following codes:…”

See https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0302635001

Your children will not receive your benefits – however, they MAY receive their own dependent benefits still (potentially):

“4. Effect on Payments to Dependents or Survivors

Title II dependent or survivor benefits on a removed NHs record cannot be paid under the removal provisions for any month in which the following conditions are met:

The NH’s benefits are suspended under section 202(n) or section 223 of the Act (or would have been suspended had the NH been alive); and

The dependent or survivor is an alien; and

The dependent or survivor was outside the United States at any time during the month–even if the absence was only for part of a day.

NOTE: Benefits payable to alien dependents and survivors are not affected by their own removal however they are subject to section 202(t) or section 202(y) of the Act (see RS 02610.000).”

_____________

TN 4 (06-04)
RS 02635.001 Effects of Removal (Deportation) on Retirement or Disability Beneficiaries
A. Introduction

This subchapter discusses removal (formerly deportation) under section 202(n) or section 223 of the Social Security Act and their effect on Non- U.S. citizens (Aliens) applying for or receiving title II benefits. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), formerly the Immigration and Naturalization Service, deports certain aliens from the United States in accordance with the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) effective September 1954. Generally, aliens are removed for immigration offenses (e.g., failure to comply with visa requirements, remaining in the United States past the time allotted), for the commission of crimes worthy of imprisonment, for engagement in terrorist activities, etc. The removal of a deportable alien (formerly referred to as “deportation”) or, in certain limited situations, the removal of an inadmissible alien may result in nonpayment of benefits under title II of the Social Security Act (herein referred to as the Act). (It may also affect Supplemental Security Income payments and Special Veterans Benefits as indicated RS 02635.001E.)

B. Background

Effective April 1, 1997, amendments to the INA combined the previously separate U.S. exclusion and deportation processes into one comprehensive removal process. For proceedings beginning on that date, aliens are removed as inadmissible (similar to the old exclusion process) or removed as deportable (similar to the old deportation process).

P.L 108-203, the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 (SSPA), enacted March 2, 2004, amended the deportation provisions of the Act (section 202(n)) to conform to the 1997 INA amendments. As a result, the deportation provisions were extended to apply to aliens removed as deportable under INA section 237(a) and to aliens removed as inadmissible under INA section 212(a)(6)(A) on grounds of illegal entry into the United States and to aliens removed as deportable under INS section 237(a). (Aliens who are removed as inadmissible under other paragraphs of INA section 212(a) are not subject to suspension under section 202(n). See RS 02635.001C.). The section 202(n) amendments also eliminated the exception to the nonpayment provisions that previously applied to aliens deported or removed on grounds of smuggling other aliens into the United States. (See RS 02635.001D.1. regarding “final charge code “1E”.)

C. Definitions

The term “deportation” or “removal” as used in this section refer to a formal process where an order of deportation or removal is issued and a hearing is held before an Immigration Judge. Generally, deportation or removal occurs when the order is carried out and the alien is physically expelled from the United States, (See RS 02635.015E.2. – RS 02635.015E.3.) except under final order of deportation or removal on grounds of participating in Nazi persecution or committing crimes of genocide. (See exceptions RS 02635.001D.1.)

The term removal (or remove or removed person) is used to refer to any of the following situations:

The deportation of an alien under section 241(a) of the old INA (proceedings initiated prior to April 1, 1997);

The removal of an alien as deportable under section 237(a) of the amended INA (proceedings initiated April 1, 1997 or later);

The removal of an alien as inadmissible on grounds of illegal entry into the United States under section 212(a) (6) (A) of the amended INA. (This applies to removals reported by DHS to SSA on March 3, 2004 or later). See NOTE in RS 02635.005B.2. and in RS 02635.015E.4.).

The terms “deportation” or “removal” as used in this section refer to a formal process where an order of deportation or removal is issued and a hearing is held before an Immigration Judge. Generally, deportation or removal occurs when the order is carried out and the alien is physically expelled from the United States.

(See RS 02635.015E.2 – RS 02635.015E.3.).

D. Policy – Impact on Title II Beneficiaries

1. Effect on Payments to the Number Holder

Section 202(n)(1) or section 223 of the Act prohibits the number holder (NH) on a Social Security record from receiving his or her title II retirement and/or disability benefits when SSA receives notice from DHS that the NH has been deported or removed from the United States under any of the sections of the INA that are listed in the definitions in RS 02635.001C.

DHS routinely sends SSA reports of removals under those INA sections; SSA maintains such reports on the SSA Disability, Railroad, Alien and Military Service (DRAMS) file under the general category “Alien Deportation Information.” (See RS 02635.005B.)

EXCEPTIONS: Some NH’s are exempt from suspension of their title II benefits if their removal was ordered on the basis of certain grounds. (Grounds for removal are included in coded format on the removal reports from DHS. They are displayed as “Final Charge Codes” on the DRAMS record. See RS 02635.005B.2.). A NH can continue to receive his/her retirement or disability benefits if the Final DHS Charge Code on DRAMS shows one of the following codes:

“03”, “08”, “09”, “13”, “1C”, or

“1E”—but only in cases where the “DATE RCVD IN SSA” as shown on DRAMS is before March 3, 2004. The Social Security Protection Act of 2004 amended section 202(n) to eliminate the exemption from title II benefit suspension that previously applied to NHs removed under final charge code “1E”. This change is effective for removals reported by DHS to SSA after the date of enactment, which was March 2, 2004.

IMPORTANT: The exceptions in this section do not protect removed NHs from suspension of their retirement or disability benefits (if warranted) under section 202(t) of the Act (see RS 02610.000) or under section 202(y) of the Act should they return to the United States after removal and fail to meet the lawful presence requirements. (See RS 00204.000). Also, the exceptions do not protect removed NHs from loss of their Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments. (See RS 02635.001E.4.)

2. When Suspension Begins

Retirement or disability benefits are not payable to the NH beginning with the month after the month SSA receives notice of his or her removal from the Secretary of Homeland Security, DHS or the Attorney General. Note that the Office of the Attorney General is over the Department of Justice (DOJ) which houses the Office of Special Investigations (OSI). DHS electronically discloses information to SSA regarding individuals who have been deported from the United States. SSA will use this information to conduct matches against Title II and Title XVI claims systems and to update the Disability, Railroad, Alien and Military Service(DRAMS) database (see RS 02635.005B.). However, notice can also be sent from the office of the U.S. Attorney General (DOJ) including an Immigration Judge or the Office of Special Investigations (OSI). See RS 02635.015E. when notice of deportation or removal comes from a source other than DHS and there is no supporting DRAMS record.

Generally, the date SSA receives notice of removal from DHS is reflected on the SSA DRAMS file under “DATE RECD IN SSA” (see RS 02635.005B.2.). If there is no date shown after “DATE RECD IN SSA”, use the month after the date of removal from the United States as the date RECD IN SSA.

EXAMPLE: The DRAMS file DATE RECD IN SSA is June 15. The month of suspension is July which is the month after the month the notice was received.

EXAMPLE: The DRAMS file does not list the DATE RECD IN SSA. DATE DEPORTED is June. SSA should have received notice in July. Suspension begins in August. Two months after the date NH was deported.

If SSA receives notice of the NH’s removal before his/her entitlement to retirement or disability benefits, suspension begins with the first month of entitlement unless lawful admission for permanent residence has been granted subsequent to the removal and before entitlement.

EXCEPTION: Section 202(n)(3) prohibits payment of retirement and/or disability insurance benefits to NHs who effective November 10, 1988 or later are placed under a final order of deportation or removal on grounds of participating in Nazi persecution or committing crimes of genocide. (DRAMS will show a final charge code of ‘19′ or ‘4D’ to denote such grounds.) Unlike other removal situations, the NH in these cases need not have been physically removed for suspension to apply. Benefits are not payable beginning with the month after the month SSA is notified by the Attorney General of the final deportation or removal order (even though the NH may have never left the United States). IMPORTANT: The Translation and Priority Work Unit (TPWU) in the office of International Operations (OIO) should be contacted before any action is taken on cases in which DRAMS shows a final charge code of “I9 of 4D.”

3. When Suspension Ends

Once the NH is subject to nonpayment of benefits on account of removal from the United States, payment cannot be reinstated until he or she is granted lawful admission for permanent residence (LAPR) in the United States subsequent to the removal. Under the removal provisions, benefits may be resumed with the first month during any part of which LAPR status is granted. However, applicability of the lawful presence provisions under section 202(y) of the Act (see RS 00204.000) should be considered when resuming benefits to a removed NH on the basis of his/her LAPR status.

The lawful presence provisions apply beginning with the first full calendar month a beneficiary is in the United States. If a previously removed NH is granted LAPR status in a month during which he or she is also required to meet the lawful presence requirements, the NH must be granted LAPR status on the first day of the month or the NH must have lawful presence status in another category prior to attaining LAPR status in order to qualify for payment in the month LAPR status is granted.

EXAMPLE: A previously removed NH returns to the United States as LAPR on June 15. The NH cannot have his title II benefits resumed until July since he does not meet the lawful presence requirement for the entire month of June. However, if LAPR status is granted on June 1, benefits can be resumed in June. In this case, we assume that LAPR status has been granted for the entire day of June 1 and, therefore, that the lawful presence requirements are met for the entire calendar month of June.

IMPORTANT: Lawful presence status in a category other than LAPR is not sufficient for resumption under the removal provisions. (See GN 00303.440B. for the evidence required to establish LAPR.)

4. Effect on Payments to Dependents or Survivors

Title II dependent or survivor benefits on a removed NHs record cannot be paid under the removal provisions for any month in which the following conditions are met:

The NH’s benefits are suspended under section 202(n) or section 223 of the Act (or would have been suspended had the NH been alive); and

The dependent or survivor is an alien; and

The dependent or survivor was outside the United States at any time during the month–even if the absence was only for part of a day.

NOTE: Benefits payable to alien dependents and survivors are not affected by their own removal however they are subject to section 202(t) or section 202(y) of the Act (see RS 02610.000).

5. Maximum and Minimum Provisions

Dependent or survivor benefits payable to other beneficiaries entitled on the NH’s earnings record are not adjusted when one or more beneficiaries are suspended on the basis of the NH’s removal. This is because nonpayment due to removal is neither a deduction nor a termination event.

6. Effects of Employment on Benefits

Benefits to dependents are not affected by the employment or self-employment of a NH whose title II benefits are suspended under the removal provisions, however the work activity of the spouse, child, or survivor beneficiary may affect his or her own benefits under the annual earnings or foreign work test.

E. Policy – Impact of Removal on Other Benefits

1. Lump Sum Death Benefit

The lump sum death payment (LSDP) is not payable on the record of a NH who dies in or after the month SSA receives notice of his or her removal under conditions requiring the suspension of title II retirement or disability benefits.

EXCEPTION: The LSDP can be made if the NH was granted LAPR status at any time after the removal through the month of death.

2. Hospital Insurance and Supplemental Medical Insurance Coverage

Removal has no effect on these programs. A NH whose benefits are suspended because of removal from the United States retains entitlement to Medicare coverage, if any, under Part A and Part B. However, Medicare generally does not cover health services obtained outside the United States.

3. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Payments

Benefits under the SSI program are not subject to suspension under the provisions of section 202(n). However, failure to meet the SSI eligibility requirements involving alien and/or U.S. residence status as a result of the removal requires suspension of SSI benefits. (This is discussed in SI 02301.225.)

4. Special Veterans Benefits (SVB)

Individuals who are removed from the United States are prohibited from receiving SVB payments under section 804 of the Social Security Act. (See VB 00205.205.)

Link: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/cfr20/404/404-0464.htm

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

H-2A vs H-2B Visa Programs: 2025 Guide for US Employers

Posted on August 12, 2025 by Mike Baker

The H-2A and H-2B temporary work visa programs offer critical solutions for U.S. employers seeking to address seasonal and temporary labor shortages. Understanding which program fits your business needs—and the requirements—can make the difference in securing a compliant, reliable workforce.

Understanding the Two Programs

H-2A Temporary Agricultural Workers

  • For seasonal or temporary agricultural jobs (farms, ranches, nurseries, livestock).
  • No annual visa cap.
  • Extensive employer responsibilities, including housing and transportation.
  • Streamlined application through the DOL’s FLAG system.
  • Official USCIS information

H-2B Temporary Non-Agricultural Workers

  • For temporary non-agricultural jobs (landscaping, hospitality, construction, seafood).
  • Capped at 66,000 visas per year, split in two halves.
  • Fewer employer obligations regarding housing and transportation.
  • Official USCIS information

H-2A vs H-2B: Comparison Table

Feature H-2A (Agricultural) H-2B (Non-Agricultural)
Industry Scope Farming, livestock, nurseries, orchards Hospitality, landscaping, construction, seafood, tourism
Cap on Visas No cap 66,000/year + supplemental visas
Housing Requirement Mandatory, free housing meeting DOL standards Not required
Transportation Inbound/outbound travel + daily work transport provided Reimbursement after 50% contract completion
Wages Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR) or prevailing wage Prevailing wage
Application Complexity Streamlined via FLAG system Highly competitive due to cap

H-2A Application Process

  1. 90+ Days Before Need: Assess labor needs; gather documentation.
  2. 75–60 Days Before Start: File Agricultural Clearance Order (Form ETA-790A) via FLAG.
  3. Temporary Labor Certification: File Form ETA-9142A showing seasonal need.
  4. 7-Day Recruitment Period: Recruit U.S. workers.
  5. Submit recruitment report to DOL.
  6. File Form I-129 with USCIS: After certification.
  7. Workers apply for visas at U.S. consulates.
  8. Workers enter U.S. and begin work.

H-2A Employer Requirements Checklist

  • Free housing that meets DOL standards.
  • Transportation to/from home country, daily transport to worksites.
  • Pay AEWR or prevailing wage.
  • Guarantee 75% of contract workdays.
  • Provide cooking facilities or meal allowances.
  • Workers’ compensation coverage for all H-2A employees.
  • Complete U.S. worker recruitment and maintain hiring records.

H-2B Cap, Process, and Requirements

  • Cap: 66,000 visas/year, plus supplemental visas authorized for FY 2025.
  • Steps: Prevailing wage request → Temporary labor certification → 14-day recruitment → I-129 filing.
  • Transportation reimbursement only after 50% of contract completed.

Recent Regulatory Updates (2025)

  • Removed country eligibility restriction for H-2A workers.
  • Stronger enforcement for labor law violations.
  • 64,716 additional H-2B visas announced for 2025.

Conclusion

The H-2A and H-2B programs are essential tools for meeting temporary staffing needs, but each comes with its own compliance obligations. For detailed, up-to-date instructions, always refer to official U.S. government sources:


Posted in h2a-vs-h2b-visa-programs-2025-guide | Leave a comment

Immigration Justice in the Age of AI: Key Federal Guidance, Policies, and Court Insights — August 2025

Posted on August 11, 2025 by Mike Baker

Below is an updated overview of the federal government’s most consequential artificial-intelligence guidance documents, current as of August 2025. These policies collectively accelerate AI innovation while preserving accountability and public trust.

OMB Memorandum M-25-21 — Accelerating Federal Use of AI through Innovation, Governance, and Public Trust

Issued: April 3 2025  |  Authority: Office of Management and Budget  |  Scope: All Executive-Branch agencies (including independent regulatory agencies)

Core Objective: Maintain U.S. global AI leadership while safeguarding civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy. The memorandum mandates a forward-leaning, pro-innovation posture and slashes bureaucratic hurdles that slow deployment.

Deadline Agency Action Required Applies To
60 days (June 2 2025) Designate a Chief AI Officer (CAIO) All agencies
90 days (July 2 2025) Establish an AI Governance Board CFO Act agencies
90 days (July 2 2025) Launch the inter-agency Chief AI Officer Council Chaired by OMB
180 days (Sept 30 2025) Publish a public-facing AI Strategy CFO Act agencies
180 days (Sept 30 2025) Submit compliance implementation plans All agencies
270 days (Dec 29 2025) Update IT, data, and cybersecurity directives to align with AI use All agencies
270 days (Dec 29 2025) Issue a generative-AI policy All agencies
365 days (Apr 3 2026) Fully implement high-impact AI risk-management regime All agencies (except IC)

High-Impact AI refers to systems whose outputs serve as a principal basis for decisions that are legally or materially binding on rights, benefits, or safety. Such systems must undergo strict testing, independent impact assessments, continuous monitoring, and provide human appeals procedures.

EOIR Policy Memorandum PM 25-40 — Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in EOIR Proceedings

Issued: August 8 2025  |  Authority: Executive Office for Immigration Review (Acting Director Sirce E. Owen)  |  Scope: All EOIR courts and practitioners

Current Posture: No blanket ban and no mandatory disclosure of AI usage. However, judges may impose local rules, and practitioners face discipline if they file hallucinated citations or other inaccurate, AI-generated materials.

Risk / Obligation Key Details
Primary Risk Hallucinated citations or arguments may lead to sanctions and reputational damage.
Professional Duty Verify every AI-generated citation; comply with state-bar ethics rules; consult clients when appropriate.
Adjudicator Role Remain vigilant; report suspected misconduct to the Attorney Discipline and Anti-Fraud programs.
Future Guidance DOJ-wide generative-AI policy expected by December 29 2025; BIA may issue precedential decisions.

Context & Legal Framework

Both memoranda align with Executive Order 14179 — “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence” (January 23 2025), which rescinded the previous administration’s AI order and set a policy of rapid, responsible AI adoption.

Chief Justice John Roberts echoed this balance of innovation and caution in the 2023 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, noting that AI “has great potential to dramatically increase access to key information” but “requires caution and humility.”

Verified Source Documents

Document Date Issued Official PDF / Web Link
OMB Memorandum M-25-21 April 3 2025 Download PDF
EOIR Policy Memorandum PM 25-40 August 8 2025 Download PDF
Executive Order 14179 — Removing Barriers to American Leadership in AI January 23 2025 View EO
Supreme Court 2023 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary December 31 2023 Download PDF
Posted in federal-ai-policies-august-2025-omb-eoir-guidance | Leave a comment

How the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” Targets Immigrant Health, Families, and DACA Recipients

Posted on August 3, 2025 by Mike Baker

Overview: Harmful Provisions of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA)

The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” enacted July 4, 2025, marks a sweeping overhaul of U.S. immigration, health, and tax policy. This summary brings together the most critical changes, including recent updates that strip DACA recipients of health insurance access through the ACA and other major anti-immigrant provisions.

1. Unprecedented Immigration Detention and Enforcement Funding

  • $45 billion for immigration detention — quadruples ICE’s detention budget, supporting indefinite large-scale family and child detention, even in violation of court-ordered protections under the Flores Settlement Agreement.
  • $32 billion for enforcement operations — expands expedited removals and increases racial profiling with reduced oversight.
  • $75 billion for border enforcement — including $47 billion for new border wall construction and related militarized operations.

2. Extreme Measures Targeting Children and Families

  • Indefinite family/child detention: Explicitly permits prolonged or indefinite family and child detention, disregarding established legal and humanitarian protections.
  • Intrusive physical exams of unaccompanied minors for gang-related markings, regardless of age.
  • “Extreme vetting” for child sponsors: Deterring potential sponsors and increasing the time children spend in custody.
  • No legal representation for some unaccompanied children: Allowing rapid deportation of minors without an attorney or court appearance.

3. Massive Resources for State and DOJ Enforcement

  • $13.5 billion for state/local enforcement of federal immigration laws, fueling racial profiling and risking civil rights violations in local communities.
  • Funds for controversial “Alligator Alcatraz” and other new detention centers in states like Florida.
  • $1 billion for military involvement in immigration and border enforcement.
  • $3.3 billion to the DOJ for increased prosecutions of immigrants for status offenses, with a cap on hiring new judges—guaranteeing longer backlogs.

4. Unaffordable Immigration Fees and Penalties

  • Non-waivable, dramatically increased fees:
    • $100 for asylum applications
    • $1,000 for humanitarian parole
    • $500 for Temporary Protected Status (TPS)
    • $550 for initial work authorization; $275 for renewals (including for asylees and parolees)
  • Annual $100 “pending asylum” fee
  • $900 for immigration court motions/appeals
  • $5,000 penalty for unauthorized border crossings, regardless of asylum intent

U.S. Immigration Fees Have Skyrocketed: What You Need to Know (2025 Update)

Seeking protection or justice in America now comes with massive, non-waivable fees. Here’s a simple breakdown of how much everything costs — and how much more expensive it’s become.

Current Immigration Fees – 2025

Application Old Fee NEW Fee (2025) Notes
Asylum Application $0 $100 First time applicants now must pay
Annual “Pending Asylum” Fee $0 $100/yr For every year your asylum is unresolved
Humanitarian Parole $575–$630 $1,000 Fee waivers almost eliminated
Temporary Protected Status (TPS) $50 $500 Initial registration only; huge jump
Work Authorization (EAD) $0–$520 $550 (Initial)
$275 (Renewal)		 Increased for all, including asylees/parolees
Immigration Court Motions/Appeals $110 $900 Motions to reopen/reconsider & appeals
Unauthorized Border Crossing Penalty No standard penalty $5,000 Even if seeking asylum, no waivers

When Do These New Fees Start?

  • Applies to forms postmarked on/after: July 22, 2025
  • Forms postmarked on/after August 21, 2025 without the new fee will be rejected
  • Annual inflation increases: Fees may keep rising each year

Key Facts:

  • Fee waivers gone for almost all humanitarian cases
  • Even basic humanitarian applications are now hundreds of dollars
  • Immigrants appealing in court pay $900 — up from $110
  • Border-crossers and asylum seekers face a $5,000 penalty

Fleeing persecution isn’t supposed to cost thousands of dollars. It does now: $100 for asylum, $1,000 for parole, $500 for TPS, $550 for a work permit, $900 to appeal, and $5,000 just for crossing the border seeking help. These fees were $0–$110 until now. Most waivers and discounts? Gone.

5. Restrictions on Immigrants’ Health and Nutrition

  • Most lawfully present immigrants (including DACA recipients, asylees, refugees, TPS holders, and survivors of domestic violence) lose access to Medicaid, ACA, CHIP, and SNAP.
  • Only lawful permanent residents, certain Cuban/Haitian entrants, and COFA migrants retain eligibility.
  • Staggered implementation:

    • SNAP eligibility ends at next recertification
    • New fee structures began July 22, 2025
    • Medicaid/CHIP ends October 1, 2026
    • ACA eligibility ends January 1, 2027 (DACA recipients lose coverage by August 31, 2025)
    • Medicare ends January 27, 2027
  • Stricter documentation rules may lead to loss of benefits even for eligible immigrants and some U.S. citizens unable to produce documents promptly.

Special Focus: DACA Recipients and ACA Coverage

  • DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) recipients will no longer be eligible for ACA (“Obamacare”) health coverage nationwide as of August 2025. Nearly 2,300 DACA recipients in California alone are expected to lose health coverage by August 31, 2025.
  • Previously, DACA recipients could purchase private insurance via federal or state exchanges. This new rule strips that eligibility, leaving few alternatives beyond state or local safety net programs.

6. Tax Increases Targeting Immigrant Families

  • Eliminates the Child Tax Credit (CTC) for 2.6 million children whose parents lack valid Social Security Numbers (SSNs), devastating mixed-status and immigrant families.
  • All new tax benefits restricted to families with valid SSNs.
  • “Trump account” savings program: Excludes children in non-citizen households from new tax-advantaged accounts.

Summary Table: Key Harmful Provisions

Area Policy Change(s) Immediate Impact Long-term Risks
Detention funding $45B for ICE, indefinite family detention Massive expansion of detention, incl. minors Ongoing rights violations, family separation
Enforcement $32B for ICE, $75B border ops, state & military roles Expanded arrests, removals Racial profiling, due process erosion
Children’s protections Extreme vetting, physical exams, no representation Fewer sponsors, longer custody Trauma, abuse, loss of rights
Fees & fines Large increases, non-waivable Barriers to legal relief Fewer seeking protection
Health & nutrition Medicaid, ACA, SNAP restricted/ended Loss of care/nutrition Public health decline, hardship
Taxes CTC removed, new benefits SSN-only Lower support for millions Child poverty, economic hardship

This summary draws from leading advocates and primary documentation. For the complete analysis and official text, see:

Key Takeaways from Subtitle A and Related Sections:

  1. Massive New Fee Structure: Subtitle A imposes dozens of immigration-related fees aimed at offsetting enforcement costs and expanding adjudicatory capacity.
  2. Enforcement Funding Pipeline: Subtitle A, Part 2 earmarks the fee revenue for detention beds, ICE and EOIR staffing, removal operations, and state-federal cooperation programs.
  3. Eligibility Clamp-Downs: SNAP, Medicaid, and CHIP provisions tighten verification standards and eliminate benefits for most undocumented immigrants.
  4. Border Infrastructure Surge: Homeland Security and Defense titles fund wall construction, technology, DoD support, and state reimbursement.
  5. Regulatory & Litigation Controls: Bill restricts DHS rulemaking latitude and curtails certain DOJ settlement practices related to immigration enforcement.

(Section page ranges are approximate within the 1,000-page PDF.)

Posted in one-big-beautiful-bill-immigrant-health-tax-daca-analysis | Leave a comment