Quoted in Teen Vogue’s Article on F-1 SEVIS Terminations
I was quoted in this Teen Vogue article highlighting the intense fear and anxiety international (F-1) students are facing under the Trump administration.
https://www.teenvogue.com/story/international-students-legal-threat-trump-administration
Quoted in CBC article on Canada’s Successful Tech Strategy in which it Outsmarted the U.S. by Poaching 10,000 STEM H-1B Visa Holders in Less Than 48 Hours
“At the very least, Canadians have brought to light the fact that there are other, smarter countries with better immigration policies that actually value science, technology, engineering and math,” said immigration lawyer Ashwin Sharma of the Sharma Law Office in Jacksonville, Fla.
“Perhaps the U.S. will start doing the same.”
Sharma also acknowledged that the open nature of the Canadian work permit, coupled with the higher salaries generally on offer in U.S. tech industries, may mean that not all applicants are looking to move to Canada on a long-term basis.
“It could be that the H1-B workers are coming over for a short period of time to perhaps kill off some unemployment period of time,” he said.
“It remains to be seen how many will remain in Canada.”
Implications of USCIS’s Updated CSPA Guidance to Extend Age-Out Protections for Adjustment Applicants
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) had recently issued revised guidance on the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) age calculation, resolving an inconsistency in the previous guidance that left certain adjustment applicants without guaranteed CSPA protection. The CSPA aims to protect certain noncitizens from losing eligibility as a child for immigrant visa and adjustment of status purposes due to aging during the immigration process.
The updated guidance, effective February 14, 2023, aligns visa availability for CSPA age calculations with that for accepting and processing AOS applications. When USCIS announces that applicants may use the Dates for Filing chart for filing AOS applications, it will also use that chart for calculating the applicant’s CSPA age, and vice versa with the Final Action Dates chart.
Previously, USCIS only considered a visa available for CSPA age calculation based on the Final Action Dates chart, creating a discrepancy for adjustment of status (AOS) applicants filing based on the Dates for Filing chart. As a result, applicants could have a visa “immediately available” for filing purposes but not for CSPA age calculation.
This updated guidance generally expands the number of children who can benefit from CSPA protection. However, there remains some uncertainty regarding its implementation. It is unclear how USCIS will view individuals who had been current for more than one year under the Dates for Filing chart but not under the Final Action Date chart. USCIS may not grant CSPA protection in such cases, although it is hoped that they will exercise discretion given the policy change.
Noncitizens whose applications were denied under the prior policy can file a motion to reopen their previously denied AOS using Form I-290B. USCIS may exercise discretion to excuse untimely filing for reasonable delays and factors beyond their control.
The new CSPA guidance is a welcome expansion of the grounds under which a child can benefit from the CSPA and will potentially allow more families to remain together in the United States as the CSPA intended.
Ashwin Sharma interviewed by News4Jax’s I-TEAM on on the Legality of the Biden Admin’s Decision to Land “Migrant Flights” in Jacksonville, FL
“With such a divide in opinions, mostly along party lines, News4Jax looked at the legal grounds with immigration attorney Ashwin Sharma.
“The facilities in Texas and these other border states are substantially overwhelmed. So I assume that that’s why they’re having to go to non-border states like Florida,” attorney Ashwin Sharma said.
Sharma said Florida, like other states, must follow immigration law which is federal law and President Joe Biden’s border policy is to relocate unaccompanied minors to a safe shelter while their cases are being adjudicated.
Leaders and interpretations have changed from President Donald Trump to President Biden, but he says immigration law has for the most part stayed the same.
“I’m not sure that there’s an all-expenses-paid bus that brings people in the US, but the simple fact is that they are here,” Sharma said. “They are at the border. They are coming past the border and at this point you know our policy, our immigration policy, to an extent has to adjudicate the merit of each individual’s claims.”
Sharma said some of the migrants have the potential to be legal American citizens.
“Every case is unique, if their claims are legitimate then they qualify under our laws,” Sharma said.”
(Via AILA.org) Major Settlement Changes How USCIS Adjudicates Work Permits for [H-4 and L-2 ] Nonimmigrant Spouses
Via AILA.org
AILA and its litigation partners entered into a settlement agreement with DHS that provides structural changes for H-4 and L-2 spouses suffering from long delayed processing times for the processing of applications for employment authorization. (Shergill, et al. v. Mayorkas, 11/10/21)
For H-4s:
Within 120 days of the Effective Date, USCIS will amend the receipt notice currently issued to applicants to detail the EAD auto-extension eligibility for those holding H-4 status based on the validity period provided on a Form I-94 in combination with a facially expired EAD and the Form I-797C receipt notice for a timely-filed I-765 EAD renewal application.
For L-2s:
USCIS will issue policy guidance that states that L-2 spouses are employment authorized incident to status and, in cooperation with CBP, change the Form I-94, within 120 days of the Effective Date, to indicate that the bearer is an L-2 spouse so that it can be used as a List C document for Form I-9 purposes.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, November 10, 2021
Washington, DC – The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and its litigation partners Wasden Banias and Steven Brown, celebrate the historic settlement with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in Shergill, et al. v. Mayorkas, which provides structural changes for nonimmigrant H-4 and L-2 spouses suffering from long delayed processing times for the processing of applications for employment authorization. The litigation successfully achieved the reversal of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy that prohibited H-4 spouses from benefiting from automatic extension of their employment authorization during the pendency of standalone employment authorization document (EAD) applications. Although this is a giant achievement, the parties’ agreement will further result in a massive change in position for USCIS, which now recognizes that L-2 spouses enjoy automatic work authorization incident to status, meaning these spouses of executive and managers will no longer have to apply for employment authorization prior to working in the United States.
Jesse Bless, AILA Director of Federal Litigation stated, “Today marks a historic change for L-2 spouses who will now enjoy work authorization incident to status. AILA’s membership has long advocated for the correct statutory interpretation and we’re delighted to have reached this agreement, which includes relief for H-4 spouses, through our litigation efforts with Wasden Banias and Steven Brown. It is gratifying that the administration saw that settling the litigation for nonimmigrant spouses was something that should be done, and done quickly.”
Jon Wasden stated, “After years of outreach to the agency, it became clear that litigation was unfortunately necessary. Despite the plain statutory language, USCIS failed to grant employment authorization incident to status for L-2s. The other issue relates to H-4s whose work permits expire prior to their H-4 status; this is a group that always met the regulatory test for automatic extension of EADs, but the agency previously prohibited them from that benefit and forced them to wait for reauthorization. People were suffering. They were losing their high-paying jobs for absolutely no legitimate reason causing harm to them and U.S. businesses. So, while I’m glad the agency finally followed the law, it is frankly frustrating that an easily fixable issue took this long to address.”
See this op-ed from Forbes for more information
Read the Decision: Shergill, et al. v. Mayorkas, 11/10/21 [PDF]
DHS confirms it is currently enjoined from implementing or enforcing any part of the USCIS Fee Schedule and Changes to Certain Other Immigration Benefit Request Requirements rule
VIA USCIS.gov
“On Sept. 29, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in Immigration Legal Resource Center et al., v. Wolf, et al., 20-cv-05883-JWS, preliminarily enjoined DHS from implementing or enforcing any part of the USCIS Fee Schedule and Changes to Certain Other Immigration Benefit Request Requirements rule.
While the rule is preliminarily enjoined, we will continue to:
Trump Administration rescinds rule requiring International Students to transfer or leave the country if their schools held classes entirely online because of the Coronavirus Pandemic
Good news for international students: DHS just did another one of its 180 degree pirouettes. Facing several federal lawsuits as well as vigorous opposition from hundreds of universities, the Trump Administration today rescinded a rule that would have required international students to transfer or leave the country if their schools held classes entirely online because of the coronavirus pandemic. DHS has agreed to fully rescind the July 6, 2020, ICE guidance and July 7, 2020, Frequently Asked Questions, and rescind all implementing guidance. The status quo based upon the agency’s March 13, 2020, guidance will remain in force.
Ashwin Sharma quoted by the Times of India on USCIS’s latest Policy Memo, a Major Victory for H-1B Consulting Firms/Employees
I was quoted today in a Times of India article on USCIS’s issuance of a game-changing new policy memorandum yesterday in which it rescinds and replaces two previous policy memoranda (2010, 2018) regarding the adjudication of H-1B petitions for professionals assigned to third-party job sites.
Among its other directives, the memo instructs USCIS officers to stop requiring H-1B employers to provide job itineraries for H-1B candidates as well as private contractual documentation between third-party client/vendor companies. The memo advises USCIS officers to refrain from issuing ridiculously short approval durations in these cases (as little as 1-2 months). The memo also makes it easier for an H-1B employer to demonstrate an eligible Employer-Employee relationship with its H-1B employee.
In summary: though USCIS still maintains arrows in its quiver to target the H-1B program, the new guidance represents extremely positive news for H-1B stakeholders, particularly those within the consulting industry. The policy guidance is effective immediately, and applies to any pending or new requests for H-1B classification, including motions on and appeals of revocations and denials of H-1B classification.
Supreme Court Upholds DACA
The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)’s decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, also known as DACA, was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. As a result, the Trump administration may not immediately proceed with its plan to end a program protecting about 700,000 young immigrants known as Dreamers from deportation.
See DHS v. Regents of the University of California (Link to PDF)
Ashwin Sharma Quoted by the Times of India Regarding Issues Faced by Laid-Off H-1B Workers
“Sharma also said H-1B employees face another challenge. The inability of an employee to continue working and retaining insurance benefits because of USCIS’s historic delays in adjudicating extensions (again, for the H-1B in particular, the present unavailability of the premium processing option leaves H-1B employers and employees in a very difficult predicament). “The USCIS’s delay can severely impact an H-1B/EAD (employment authorisation document), employee’s ability to maintain their employment and associated insurance benefits by placing them in a gray area – they may be lawful to remain in the USA during this time, but they cannot work until USCIS approves their H-1B or EAD in these cases,” he said.”
Ashwin Sharma quoted in the Times of India re: the President’s Immigration Suspension and the possible future impact to Nonimmigrant visas such as the H-1B
“Ashwin Sharma, Jacksonville-based immigration attorney, told TOI, “At present the proclamation has left untouched the vulnerable visas in the non-immigrant categories. However, section 6 of the proclamation is deeply concerning as it leaves the door open to a future attack on the H-1B and other work visas.”
Sharma hopes that the President has no further plans to attack the H-1B and other non-immigrant visas under the guise of ‘protecting the American worker’. He wondered whether the proclamation is a subtle and first test of the waters. According to him, US will need its skills gap filled by H-1B and other professional workers in the long recovery from the ravages of Covid-19.”
Attorney Sharma quoted again by the Times of India about the Presidential Proclamation Suspending Entry of Certain Immigrants (formerly known as the “Immigration Ban”)
“Ashwin Sharma, Florida based immigration attorney told TOI, “As per this proclamation, the categories most impacted would include green cards for parents and siblings of US citizens, and for spouses and children of green card holders.”
…
Sharma says, “The Presidents proclamation is illogical. It characterizes a 65-year-old parent of a US citizen as a greater threat to the American worker than the same US citizen’s 20-year-old son. The proclamation is also disingenuous in that in that it is attempting to rebrand the existing processing delays caused by Covid-19 as a targeted ‘suspension’ to shift public scrutiny away from the administration’s delays in addressing the pandemic, and onto its favourite scapegoat, immigrants.”
The U.S. Immigration Law Blog by Ashwin Sharma 
Quoted by the Times of India on President Trump’s Executive Order “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”
I was quoted by the Times of India on President Trump’s Executive Order “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” in which he stipulates that at least one parent now must be a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident for a child to obtain U.S. citizenship at birth. This order appears to directly contravene the 14th Amendment, which unequivocally states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has been consistently interpreted to include nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil, irrespective of their parents’ immigration status, other than children of enemy occupiers or diplomats. The landmark Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) reaffirmed this interpretation, granting citizenship to a child born in the U.S. to Chinese immigrant parents who were not U.S. citizens. This decision established a precedent which leaves little room for reinterpretation.
The President’s argument hinges on a selective and self-serving reinterpretation of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The sweeping language of the executive order excludes from eligibility the children of undocumented immigrants as well as children of legal nonimmigrants, such as H-1B/L-1/TN workers, F-1 students, and other temporary residents. By placing the citizenship of these U.S.-born children in jeopardy, the order creates great uncertainty for immigrant families who have long contributed to the U.S. economy and society. And for a President who claims to champion merit and hard work, this order is a harsh blow to those who exemplify those very ideals. Many of these individuals, particularly those in H-1B status, have spent a decade or more navigating the labyrinthine immigration system, paying taxes, and contributing to their communities, only to face the prospect of their children inheriting the same uncertainty and lengthy delays that they themselves endured. By erecting new barriers to their children’s inclusion, it undermines the foundation of a nation built on the promise of opportunity and equality for all.
This EO will undoubtedly face swift and intense legal challenges; the ACLU has already filed suit. No stroke of a pen in the West Wing can override the 14th Amendment, and it is all but certain that the courts will strike this order down as unconstitutional.
TOI Article Links below:
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/citizenship-by-birth-curtailed-even-for-legal-immigrants-over-1-million-indians-in-green-card-queue-impacted/articleshow/117419508.cms
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/first-lawsuit-filed-in-us-district-court-contesting-end-to-citizenship-by-birth/articleshow/117421279.cms