Court Blocks USCIS Fee Increases

On the 29th of September, 2020, a federal judge in California granted a motion for the preliminary injunction of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) updated fee schedule. This fee schedule was set to go into effect on October 2nd, 2020, and would have increased filing fees for certain immigration and naturalization benefit requests. International studies, new U.S. citizens, and businesses would have been impacted.

DHS has originally announced the final rule on July 31st, 2020, which included a weighted average fee increase of 20 percent. Changes to filing fees included a new $50.00 fee for asylum seekers and an 80% increase for naturalization services. A $10 registration fee requirement was added for the filing of H-1B petitions on behalf of cap-subject aliens. I-765 Application for Employment Authorization fees would have increased by $140 and I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence fees would have reduced by $10 to amount to $1,130. USCIS had said that these price increases were necessary to support the agency as it suffered from a budget shortfall. Many immigration activists and human rights organizations denounced the rule soon after it was issued, criticizing that the rule pushed lower-income individuals outside of the U.S. immigration system.

Northern California U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White issued the nationwide injunction yesterday, banning Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and USCIS officials from implementing the July 31st Final Rule. Co-founder of Boundless Immigration Doug Rand explained that as long as this preliminary injunction is in place, USCIS will not be able to raise its fees as it had planned. It is likely that the U.S. government will appeal the Ninth Circuit court to obtain a stay, says Doug Rand, although it is unclear as to how long this will take.

In his ruling of Immigrant Legal Resource Center, et al. v. Chad F. Wolf, et al., Judge White wrote, “Plaintiffs persuasively argue that the public interest would be served by enjoining or staying the effective date of the Final Rule because if it takes effect, it will prevent vulnerable and low-income applicants from applying for immigration benefits, will block access to humanitarian protections, and will expose those populations to further danger.”

 

Judge White ruled that the case’s plaintiffs, composed of eight non-profit organizations that serve immigrants, showed that:

  1. DHS was not serving under the Homeland Security Act;
  2. The final rule violates procedural and substantive requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which included, “failing to disclose data, relying on unexplained data and ignoring data on the record,” according to the final rule. DHS had argued that individuals would apply for immigration services no matter how expensive USCIS filing fees are, which contradicted the statements that appeared during DHS’s comment period;
  3. The final rule was arbitrary and capricious, as it failed to consider the negative impacts on low-income immigrant populations;
  4. The government did not provide reasoned justification for the policy shift in which fee waivers were eliminated and fees were increased; and
  5. By implementing a fee for asylum seekers to deter frivolous applications, USCIS relied on factors that Congress had not intended for DHS to consider. This, again, violates the APA.

Judge White rejected the Trump Administration’s request for a brief administrative stay, writing that, “A stay beyond October 2, 2020, would allow the Final Rule to go into effect, thereby altering the status quo.” Note that this ruling temporarily halts the fee increases until the merits of the case are decided as a whole. Therefore, there remains the possibility that USCIS’s filing fees will go up in the future.

 

On the 25th of August, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that it would cancel the scheduled furlough of about 13,400 of its employees. USCIS justifies this decision by citing “unprecedented spending cuts” as well as a “steady increase in daily incoming revenue and receipts.” The agency expects to maintain operations through the end of the 2020 fiscal year. In a recently published announcement, USCIS notes that aggressive spending reduction measures will impact all agency operations and agency contracts.

The USCIS deputy director for policy, Joseph Edlow, said in a statement that, “averting this furlough comes at a severe operational cost that will increase backlogs and wait times across the board, with no guarantee we can avoid future furloughs.” The deputy director emphasized that congressional intervention is still crucial to sustain the agency through the 2021 fiscal year, particularly since USCIS averted the furloughs scheduled for August 30th. This furlough was delayed numerous times before the final cancellation.

These furloughs would have drastically halted the immigration system. Not only would they have caused a standstill to essential services, but they would also have adversely impact millions of legal immigrants and U.S. citizens. This would be a detriment to the already-stalled U.S. economy. As USCIS has received fewer immigration applications filed over the past few months, USCIS’s revenue has also decreased. This budgetary restraint has led to a pause in the printing of 50,000 green cards and 75,000 worker permits.

Previously, the slow-moving pace of Congress’ plans about the next COVID-19 relief bill discouraged USCIS, as this funding has yet to be obtained by the federal agency. Notably, USCIS originally requested $1.2 billion in funding from Congress.

Fortunately, this past weekend, the House of Representatives unanimously introduced the Emergency Stopgap USCIS Stabilization Act, which would have temporarily kept USCIS afloat, although this legislation has yet to be passed by the U.S. Senate. This provides some hope that USCIS has caught Congress’ attention, and that subsequent funding may be allocated to USCIS with future bills.

 

On the 21st of August, the House of Representatives introduced a new bill called the Emergency Stopgap USCIS Stabilization Act, which would allow the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services agency to halt the furloughs of over two-thirds of its employees and to expand its services for improved processing of applications.

USCIS is scheduled to furlough 13,355 of its 19,881 employees on August 30th, 2020, if no funding is provided by Congress to support the federal agency. The furloughs, announced in May 2020 when the agency was struggling to combat a funding shortfall, has already been delayed from the end of July. It is important to note that USCIS is now projected to have enough funds to keep its operations fully functional through the remainder of the fiscal year. Despite this, it is likely that the agency will run out of funds after November 2020, so USCIS is still planning to continue with the furloughs.

How the proposed bill works

In order to forestall the furloughs, the Emergency Stopgap USCIS Stabilization Act will increase USCIS’s “premium processing” revenues. Premium processing is a special service offered by the federal agency through Form I-907 to request faster processing of Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker and Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker. The additional fee for premium processing is currently $1,440, and would expedite the processing to 15 days on eligible petitions and applications.

In order to increase USCIS’s “premium processing” revenues, the premium fee will increase from $1,440 to $2,500 for petitions and applications eligible for premium processing. The sole exception is for H-2B and religious worker (R) petitions, in which case the fee increases to $1,500.

Additionally, the bill expands the availability of premium processing to more petitions and applications. The revenues collected are only allowed to be sued by USCIS to improve adjudication and naturalization services.

Finally, the bill provides benefits to all applicants, either premium and non-premium. The bill will ensure that premium processing funds improve adjudication times and reduce backlogs across all form types, including non-premium applicants. Furthermore, the bill will stabilize the rapidity of premium processing by ensuring that the premium service is only suspended when necessary.

According to Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren, this bill won’t serve as a complete solution to USCIS’s fiscal struggles, but it will provide USCIS with immediate access to supplemental revenue to eliminate the need for the August 30th furloughs.

Furloughs will dramatically disrupt the process of all U.S. immigration and naturalization services, which is why such a bill – if passed by the Senate – would significantly alleviate a burden on American business and families.

On July 31st, 2020, DHS announced a final rule regarding the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) fee schedule, which would dramatically increase USCIS filing fees for certain immigration and naturalization benefit requests. Overall, USCIS fees are being increased by a weighted average of 20 percent, according to USCIS.

The changes to filing fees include a first-ever $50.00 fee for asylum seekers and an 80% increase for naturalization services, which would raise the cost of online naturalization applications from $640 to $1,160. In addition, the changes announced include a $10 fee for the registration requirement for petitioners filing H-1B petitions on behalf of cap-subject aliens. I-765 Application for Employment Authorization fees will be increased by $140 (34% increase of the original $410 fee) and I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence fees have been reduced by $10 to amount to $1,130.

A detailed fee schedule, noting old fees and new fees for each application type, can be found here (or on uscis.gov/forms) on the USCIS website. On its website, USCIS specified that all filings postmarked December 23rd, 2016 or later must include the new fees or they will be rejected.

Effective on October 2nd, 2020, this new rule will support payroll, technology, and operations of USCIS. According to the agency, current fees would leave USCIS underfunded by around $1 billion per year. Immigration fees have risen to an extraordinary level in recent decades in the United States. For instance, in the 1990s, naturalization application fees were under $100.

The addition of a new asylum fee is important, as the U.S. joins Iran, Fiji, and Australia as countries that impose fees on asylum-seekers. Many immigration attorneys and activists have decried the added financial burden, as the right to seek asylum in the U.S. should not be conditioned on the ability to pay a fee, no matter what amount.

Human Rights First, a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) international human rights organization, denounced the rule soon after it was issued. The organization’s Deputy Legal Director, Anwen Hughes, stated: “Asylum seekers typically arrive in the United States with very limited resources that quickly dwindle. For some who are detained upon arrival, the total amount of money they have available to them by the time they are filing for asylum can be less than this application fee.”

While these fee changes have been added, the proposed $275 renewal fee for DACA recipients has been removed so that DACA fees for employment authorization and biometric services will remain at 2017-levels.  

USCIS deputy director for policy, Joseph Edlow, has stated that “USCIS is required to examine incoming and outgoing expenditures and make adjustments based on that analysis.” He added, “These overdue adjustments in fees are necessary to efficiently and fairly administer our nation’s lawful immigration system, secure the homeland and protect Americans.” In a Facebook post, USCIS announced that these fees are reviewed every other year by law.

Note that USCIS, experiencing the economic consequences of the coronavirus pandemic, risks facing a revenue shortfall for the calendar year, despite having a budget surplus for the fiscal year. This will likely contribute to over 13,000 furloughs if USCIS does not receive a $1.2 billion emergency fund from Congress. USCIS is a peculiar federal agency because, rather than coming from the government, it receives its funds mainly from fee collection. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic and Trump’s recent immigration restriction-oriented policies, the agency has received fewer applications, contributing to its revenue shortfall.

According to the American Immigration Lawyers Association, such furloughs will halt U.S. immigration, which will hurt families, businesses, educational institutions, medical facilities, and churches. Additionally, if USCIS is close to being shut down, immigrants in the process of naturalization will be unable to complete the process in time to register to vote, DACA recipients will not be able to renew their benefits, asylum applicants will face significant delays to their cases, and businesses will be unable to hire and retain non-citizen employees. The Migration Policy Institute concluded that for every month that the USCIS furlough lasts, 75,000 applications will not be processed. Fortunately, USCIS has agreed to move the previously-set date for these furloughs from August 3rd to August 30th.

Immigration Lawyer Portland Oregon

Last evening, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals limited an order that blocked the application of Trump’s Public Charge Grounds Final Rule during the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic. The federal appellate court concluded that the Department of Homeland and Security (DHS) and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may implement the public charge policy in every state but New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. These three states had previously sued the Trump administration over the public charge rule.

Since July 29th, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an injunction of the Trump administration’s public charge rule, meaning that USCIS and DHS had temporarily reverted to the 1999 Interim Field guidance established before Trump’s Public Charge Grounds Final Rule. The N.Y. district court reasoned that Trump’s rule had deterred immigrants from seeking testing and treatment for COVID-19, as they feared such acts would negatively impact their immigration cases.

The federal appellate court’s most recent decision, briefly detailed in a one-paragraph order written by U.S. Circuit Judge Peter Hall, will revive Trump’s “wealth test” for immigrants, a victory for the Trump administration as this is one of the most extensive restrictions on legal immigration. Under this test, DHS may negatively consider immigrants’ past usage of public benefits programs, such as food stamps and housing subsidies, as well as health and education level, to determine whether they will rely on government assistance. Such a reliance would adversely impact green card applications.

In the short order, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals – a higher level court than the U.S. district court that issued the primary injunction – explained that the public charge injunction is no longer nationwide and only applies to residents of New York, Connecticut, and Vermont.

Since the nationwide injunction was announced, USCIS instructed applicants to hold off from filing Form I-944 Declaration of Self-Sufficiency for those filing on or after July 29th, 2020. USCIS has yet to publish further instructions for applicants who have already filed without the Form I-944, and USCIS has yet to update its website with the new ruling. However, because USCIS still has these instructions from July 29th on its website despite having adopted a new ruling, it may be useful to save a copy of this, along with the date, if an applicant has already filed without Form I-944.

On August 3rd, 2020, President Trump issued an executive order entitled “Executive Order Aligning Federal Contracting and Hiring Practices with the Interests of American Workers.” This order follows a trend of curtailing employment-based immigration, as Trump cites the economic crisis catalyzed by the coronavirus pandemic as a primary justification for newly adopted immigration policies. The new executive order bars federal agencies from replacing U.S. citizens and green card holders with foreign workers, accompanied by new increased scrutiny of federal contractors who use temporary nonimmigrant visas to hire foreign labor for high-skilled jobs.

The order does not require any immediate actions from federal contractors, it foreshadows a potential future order that bolsters entry restrictions and increases Department of Labor and Department of Homeland and Security audits. Furthermore, while the August 3rd order does not introduce new restrictions on H-1B visas, such a change to federal employer policy will make H-1B visas more difficult to obtain.

On August 3rd, during a meeting with U.S. Tech companies, President Trump condemned the alleged abuses of U.S. workers by the Tennessee Valley Authority, whose CEO Jeffrey Lyash recently announced that the company would replace over 200 American workers with cheaper foreign workers hired from overseas. Trump denounced that Lyash, “sadly and cruelly betrayed American workers.” Trump criticized such employers who trade American jobs for temporary foreign labor, as this supposedly reduces opportunities for American workers.

Broadly, the execuive order instructs all federal agencies to review existing contracting and subcontracting practices and to determine if these practices have adverse impacts on American workers, whether due to offshored positions or the temporary use of foreign labor. The executive order requires that federal agencies propose corrective changes to protect American workers, citing the American economy and national security as main priorities. Within 120 days of the date of the order, August 3rd, 2020, the head of each agency must also submit a report to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to highlight their findings concerning whether their specific circumstances negatively impact U.S. workers.

Finally, the order directs the Secretaries of Labor and Homeland Security to take action within 45 days of the order to protect American workers from potential adverse effects on American wages and workers caused by the use of H-1B visa holders at job sites (and third-party job sites), including measures to ensure that all employers of H-1B visa holders (as well as secondary employers) comply with the requirements of section 212(n) (1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The deep impact of this order on foreign workers is that federal agencies like USCIS and the Labor Department are now given broad discretion to assess immigration applications. This will even further delay an immigration system already in the midst of a slowdown. If a federal agency like USCIS finds reason to believe that an applicant’s immigration case will adversely impact American workers, the applicant’s case will likely be audited or adjudicated, which further slows the painful process of obtaining a visa.

The cost of H-1B visas has already been set to increase by 75% this upcoming October from $460 to $555. Targeted by new policy, foreign employees are increasingly insecure in the United States.

In terms of impacts on immigration, the effects are drastic. It is possible that this new executive order will justify the shortening of visa durations. The entire certification process of recruitment, application, and approval certification will become more complex. While this order will not take effect for over another month, it instills anxiety and looming uncertainty into foreign workers. As they wait for clearer specifics concerning their employment, foreign workers on temporary work visas are placed in a limbo.

On July 29, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a nationwide temporary suspension of the application of the February 24th 2020 Public Charge Grounds Final Rule. The injunction of this rule will apply to any period during which there is a declared national health emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As long as the July 29th decision is in effect, USCIS will only apply the 1999 Public Charge Guidance established before the Public Charge Grounds Final Rule.

On March 26th, 1999, “public charge” was defined by Immigration and Naturalization Services as a ground of inadmissibility for which an alien may be denied immigration. A “public charge” refers to an individual “primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either (i) the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance, or (ii) institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.” In August 2019, DHS announced a new rule that would alter this definition of “public charge,” so that it made individuals receiving the following benefits are inadmissible for permanent residence: Supplement Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid (with some exceptions), and certain public housing assistance. This secured self-sufficiency of permanent resident applicants, so that these individuals would not rely on American public resources. The change to the definition of “public charge” was adopted on February 24th, 2020, so that both applicants applying for permanent residents in the U.S. as well as those seeking immigration from abroad would be impacted. Until February 24th, 2020, the use of most public benefits did not have negative consequences to an immigrant’s legal status.

As long as the July 29, 2020 injunction is in place, USCIS will uphold the existing 1999 public charge guidance, rather than the Trump administration’s expanded rule. This injunction will certainly soften the process for permanent resident applicants, and will be applied throughout the COVID-19 national health emergency.

On July 29th, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York concluded that the plaintiffs provided sufficient evidence to show that the February 2020 Public Charge Final Rule deterred immigrants from seeking testing and treatment for COVID-19, fearing that this would make them consequently inadmissible to the United States. This, of course, complicates efforts at stopping the coronavirus and even further aggravates the spread of the pandemic. An injunction, the plaintiffs argued, would be in the general American public’s interest.

 

This injunction applies to adjustment of status applications and to non-immigration change or extension of status. For any petition filed after July 29, 2020, the applicant or the petitioner does not need to include the Form I-944, Declaration of Self-Sufficiency. If an applicant or petitioner has already submitted this form, USCIS will not consider the information on this form regarding receipt of public benefits. Additionally, the applicant and petitioner do not need to include information on the receipt of public benefits in Part 5 on Form I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant status, Part 3 on Form I-539A, or Part 6 on Form I-129 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker.

On its website, USCIS has announced that it will issue guidance regarding the use of affected forms.

USCIS has been delaying the printing of green cards and employment authorization documents that the organization has already promised to individuals. This accompanies a wave of green card and work permit delays related to the U.S.’s response in immigration policy during the COVID-19 pandemic.

It is important to note that USCIS is currently still open, processing applications and accepting new ones. Typically, if USCIS approves a new application, the organization will issue an approval notice and will mail a green card or employment authorization document to the applicant. Historically, USCIS has outsourced the printing of these documents to a third-party company. In June, however, USCIS’s contract with the third-party company expired. Rather than renewing this contract, USCIS decided to handle the printing of these documents internally. Due to USCIS’s current budget crisis, however, the organization has not hired workers to handle this insourced printing, which contributes to the current delay in these documents’ issuance, printing, and delivery.

At the moment, there are 50,000 green cards and 75,000 employment authorization documents that have been promised to immigrants and that have yet to be printed, USCIS disclosed in a statement. Many of these missing green cards are for immigrants who are newly approved for legal permanent residency, although others are for existing permanent residents who are attempting to renew their identity cards. These are essential for lawful permanent residents to have, as these documents demonstrate proof of status in the U.S., which is needed when applying for a job. Without such documents, individuals in the U.S. can face fines or prison sentences.

Overall, green card and work permit issuances are dependent upon the capabilities of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, USCIS has seen a major decrease in immigration application filings. Now, USCIS finds itself in a budget crisis because of the steep decline in applications. USCIS seeks a $1.2 billion bailout from the U.S. Congress, proposing a 10% visa fee surcharge in efforts to repay the loan. If Congress cannot provide these funds before the 3rd of August, USCIS will have to furlough over 13,000 staff members. As a consequence, this will only further delay H-1B processing, green card renewals, and work permits.

These delays come after President Trump’s June 22nd Executive Order, which temporarily suspended the entry of many foreign workers into the United States, pausing the overall issuance of H-1B visas (used by tech companies), H-2B visas (for seasonal employees), J-1 visas (for cultural exchanges), and L-1 visas (for corporate executives). While this excludes hundreds of thousands of individuals from obtaining employment and from uniting with their family members in the United States, the executive order does not impact the status of individuals already in the United States and who have already been promised these green cards or work permits.

The June proclamation heavily restricts immigration, justified by the rationale of strengthening the American economy through American job retention. However, multinational corporations continue to face shortages of skilled professionals in the U.S., according to Yasmin Mirreh in a Bloomberg News article.

The consequential delays that accompany this executive order are frustrating. In many countries, consulates have been closed or are operating during limited hours. Furthermore, once these offices do reopen, priority will likely be given to appointments that were canceled due to the coronavirus pandemic. This puts new applicants waiting for many more months (and possibly years, depending upon the circumstances). In a report last week, the USCIS announced that about 583,420 H-1B visa holders working in the U.S. are stuck in decades-long green card waiting lines due to per country caps.

As immigration policy continues to intersect with the COVID-19 pandemic, USCIS’s budget shortfall, and President Trump’s new executive orders, we are left wondering how – and when – individuals who have been promised green cards or work permits will obtain these documents.

On the 21st of July 2020, President Donald Trump signed a presidential memorandum that would exclude undocumented immigrants from being counted in congressional districts. This comes with the purpose of redrawing congressional districts, as unauthorized immigrants living in the United States will be excluded from census population counts. The White House justified these changes by claiming that by law, the president can determine who is counted in the census.

Today, states draw congressional districts and determine the areas that each elected official represents. This is based on aspects like a state’s total population and its population of unauthorized immigrants. After the 2020 census comes in, current maps will be redrawn across the nation – thus far 62% of the country has responded to the census. This reconfiguration will impact who will win elections, which communities will be represented in Congress, and what laws will ultimately be approved. Trump’s goal appears to be to reduce the counts of unauthorized immigrants in Democrat-ruled cities in order to undermine their political voice relative to Republic-ruled spaces. This will also certainly have an impact on Republican-led states like Texas, where there is a significant immigrant population.

Additionally, this memorandum will discourage immigrants from responding to the census if they have yet to do so. For months, community organizations and immigrant advocacy groups in the U.S. have pushed immigrants to participate in the census, regardless of status. Because census counts often determine federal funding, immigrant-majority communities will consequently be most negatively hurt, as they will lose funding for schools, infrastructure, and other community projects if they do not complete the census.

Note that the Constitution says congressional representation is allocated based on “the whole Number of free persons,” and not the number of American citizens.

As Nicole Narea writes in Vox News, Trump has politicized the U.S. Census in previous years. In June 2019, Trump fought to put a question regarding citizenship status on the 2020 census, although he lost his bid at the Supreme Court.

This marks the Administration’s latest effort to advance Trump’s immigration agenda, altering the ways in which U.S. populations are counted and supported. Blocking unauthorized immigrants from census counts will minimize these groups’ political weight. This executive order comes during a wave of other orders issued by the president that have restricted immigration.

Many actors plan on challenging the memorandum, including the American Civil Liberties Union. Dale Ho, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, announced in a statement, “[Trump’s] latest attempt to weaponize the census for an attack on immigrant communities will be found unconstitutional. We’ll see him in court, and win, again.”

Immigration Lawyer Portland

On July 17th, a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration must accept new applications for DACA, a program started by former President Obama to protect undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children. A month ago, the Trump administration attempted to completely end the DACA program, but this order was blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court on the basis that the administration did not provide sufficient justification for ending the DACA program.

The DACA program applies to undocumented immigrants who were younger than 16 years old when they came to the country and who were 30 years old or younger as of June 2012. Under the program, immigrants would receive a renewable, two-year work permit. USCIS has been renewing the DACA status for about 650,000 immigrants, but rejecting all new applicants since Trump took office.

In his 4-page order, U.S. District Court Judge Paul Grimm announced that the DACA program will return to its “pre-September 5, 2017 status,” which refers to the pre-Trump era when any eligible immigrant had the opportunity to apply to the program.

Judge Paul Grimm wrote, “Defendants [including the Department of Homeland Security] and their agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them, are ENJOINED from implementing or enforcing the DACA rescission and from taking any other action to rescind DACA.”

It is uncertain whether many will apply for the DACA program, as this requires releasing identifying information to officials who are serving an administration that has been increasingly hostile towards immigrants. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) of the Department of Homeland and Security (DHS) is currently reviewing the ruling. Amidst uncertainty, president and CEO of the National Immigration Forum, Ali Noorani, noted: “Ignoring this decision puts the administration directly at odds with the rule of law, and leaves DREAMers steeped in even more uncertainty about their futures.”

From the Supreme Court down, the courts have supported the decision for the DACA program to remain and to open for new applicants. The decision to restore DACA to a pre-Trump era will allow around 300,000 young and eligible immigrants to apply.