Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia

  • September 5, 2017
    Guest Post

    by Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar and founding director of the Center for Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Penn State Law - University Park and Lorella Praeli, Director of Immigration Policy and Campaigns and former Dreamer, American Civil Liberties Union

    *This piece draws from an ACS briefing call on DACA from August 24, 2017

    During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump promised to deport Dreamers, a reference to people who came to the United States as children.

    The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA), announced by the Obama Administration in June 2012, allows qualifying young people who were brought to the United States as children to request that any removal action against them be deferred in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and 10 other state attorneys general have written to Attorney General Jeff Sessions indicating their intent to challenge DACA in court unless the administration agrees to rescind the program by September 5, 2017. Against this backdrop, the Trump administration announced the decision to terminate DACA.

  • July 20, 2017
    Guest Post

    by Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, the Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar and Law Professor at Penn State Law and founding director, Center for Immigrants’ Rights Clinic.

    On June 26, the Supreme Court granted a partial stay and also granted certiorari in Trump v. Hawaii and Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, the Muslim travel ban cases. Here is a short analysis. The scope of the partial stay is as follows: within 72 hours of the ruling, any person from the six designated countries or refugee who cannot show a “bona fide relationship to a person or entity” will be banned from entry. The Department of State indicated that the travel ban would go into effect at 8:00pm EDT on June 29, 2017. Hours before the ban was to go into effect, the government issued guidance defining what constitutes a “bona fide relationship” narrowly. Litigation about the meaning of a “bona fide relationship” ensued in the Hawaii District Court and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

  • July 14, 2017
    Guest Post

     

    by Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, the Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar and Law Professor at Penn State Law and founding director, Center for Immigrants’ Rights Clinic.

    A travel ban was signed by the president in the form of an Executive Order on March 6, 2017. The most controversial provisions of the ban include a 90-day travel restriction for nationals from six countries with Muslim populations of more than 90 percent: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen as well as a suspension of the refugee admissions program for a period of 120 days. The ban was successfully challenged in the courts on both constitutional and statutory grounds. 

    On June 26, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a significant decision on the travel ban, agreeing to hear the case in the October 2017 term and also allowing part of the ban to go into effect. The formula offered was as follows: any national from the six countries impacted by the ban or refugee who lacks a credible “bona fide relationship to a person or entity” is banned from the United States. Unsurprisingly, attorneys and affected communities were eager to understand how “bona fide relationship” would be defined and applied. While the Supreme Court offered a few examples of what might qualify as a bona fide relationship to a person or entity, the uncertainty about how this would be applied by the implementing agencies (in this case Department of Homeland Security and Department of State) is real.

    Hours before the ban was to go into effect at 8:00pm EST on June 29, the Departments of State and Homeland Security issued “guidance” which to say the least is controversial. Guidance from DHS offered the following question and answer regarding the definition of “bona fide relationship:”

  • March 13, 2017
    Guest Post

    by Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar & Clinical Professor of Law; Director, Center for Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, Penn State Law

    On March 6, 2017, President Donald Trump issued a “revised” Executive Order titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry in the United States” in an attempt to avoid the catalogue of lawsuits brought against the first. However, the revised EO suffers from the same legal and policy flaws as the first by shutting the door on Muslims and refugees. Every country targeted by the revised EO is comprised of Muslim majority populations: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. While the revised EO no longer lists “Iraq,” nationals from the country are singled out for special review in another section of the EO. Whether the list of countries is six or seven, Muslims remain the target.

    The revised EO applies specifically to those outside the United States without a valid visa at 5:00 p.m. on Jan. 27, 2017 and on the effective date, which begins one minute after midnight on March 16, 2017. The revised EO makes a few adjustments to the first by carving out exceptions for select people like green card holders, dual nationals and those already granted refugee-related protection. It also creates a waiver process for nationals of the six countries who seek entry during the 90-day ban. Waivers may be issued on a case-by-case basis for those who at a minimum prove that denial of entry would cause “undue hardship,” entry would not pose a threat to national security and entry would be in the “national interest.” How these waivers will be implemented is unknown but the revised EO lists nine scenarios where a waiver may be appropriate like those with previous “significant” contacts,” business, or professional obligations in the United States and those coming to visit a close family member. Despite the long list of examples contained in the EO there is no assurance that people will actually receive waivers or that agencies will be equipped to adjudicate them. The revised EO maintains the 120-day suspension to the refugee program and slash in the total number of refugees by over one-half from 110,000 to 50,000. Exceptions are available on a case-by-case basis for qualifying refugees through a “national interest” formula. Unlike the first EO, the revised version no longer contains an exemption for religious minorities or an indefinite ban on Syrian refugee admissions. Notably, all refugees, including those from Iraq and Syria are affected by the revised EO.

  • November 21, 2016
    Guest Post

    by Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar, Clinical Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Immigrants' Rights at Penn State Law

    In the wake of the election, immigration has been a centerpiece. Immigration attorneys and advocates have worked around the clock speaking to clients about how best to proceed in their cases and to the immigrant community and beyond about the rule of law. The fear and uncertainty sweeping immigrant communities are propelled by an anti-immigrant agenda by President-elect Donald Trump and his transition team. Specifically, proposals to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program; deport two to three million “criminal aliens”; and subject certain individuals to a “Muslim registry” have caused immediate and specific concern and also confusion between rhetoric and reality.

    DACA is a program implemented by President Obama in 2012 that enables noncitizens without status to apply for a form of prosecutorial discretion called “deferred action” if they entered the United States before the age of 16, are currently in school, have resided continuously since June 15, 2007 and meet other program requirements. Since the program started, more than 700,000 people have received DACA and employment authorization pursuant to their deferred action status- thousands more have had their DACA status “renewed”. Whether the President-elect will revoke DACA and work permits from DACA holders remains to be seen, but the concerns are real and have furthermore heightened the risks for prospective applicants and applications for renewal which may be pending through inauguration day. Current and would-be recipients of DACA represent the lowest priorities and should not be targeted by any Administration.