Lobbying Members of Congress on 245(i)
Posted Aug 24, 2001

August 17, 2001 we published in the MurthyBulletin an article entitled, House and Senate Committees Pass Limited Extension of Section 245(i). That article described the current extension bills for this important provision of law: bill S. 778 on the Senate side and H.R. 1885 in the House of Representatives. Both of these bills included a new restriction, described in detail in the August 17th article. We also outlined the problems inherent in that new restriction. The main problem being that the new, retroactive restriction could invalidate thousands of filings that met the legal requirements at the time they were submitted. There are also other legal problems, as described in the article.

It is important to make your voices heard. Currently, the Senators and Representatives are on recess, returning to Washington, D.C. by September 4, 2001. While they are on recess, you can contact them in their local offices in their home districts. It is also possible to write to their Washington offices, so that your letters will be awaiting them upon their return.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) is distributing a sample letter to send to Senators and Representatives. We reproduce the letters here, but strongly encourage people to send their own versions to express their concerns. (AILA is allowing broad distribution of the letter, but an individual letter can be more effective than a letter that is identical to many others. Still, the identical letters do definitely have an impact as well.)

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES LETTER

The Honorable [Full Name]
__ [Rm #] __ [name of] House Office Building
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Representative ___________:

I am writing to urge you to support a vital provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that would permit immigrants on the brink of becoming permanent residents to stay in the United States while the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) considers their applications. Without Section 245(i), affected immigrants must return to their home countries, thereby disrupting their families and work lives, to apply abroad for U.S. residency. Although I strongly support an extension of Section 245(i), I want to express my opposition to H.R. 1885, in its current form.

Last year, Congress extended Section 245(i), to allow certain immigrants who filed preliminary paperwork by April 30, 2001 to adjust to permanent resident status here in this country. Unfortunately, H.R. 1885, the bill the House passed that would again extend Section 245(i) has significant problems: it would extend the deadline for only four months, and it would require beneficiaries to demonstrate that the required “familial or employment relationship” existed on or before April 30, 2001. Even worse, this new requirement is retroactive to January 14, 1998.

Last year, Congress extended the Section 245(i) deadline for four months. Unfortunately, H.R. 1885’s four month extension again does not provide enough time to file petitions and applications. It is out of step with the Bush Administration (which supports a six month to one-year extension) and with previously introduced House legislation, and will create many of the same problems that arose during the brief period of time the LIFE Act gave applicants. The short application window (made shorter by the need to first issue regulations) will increase the likelihood of widespread confusion in immigrant communities, and will lead to problems at INS and other government agencies by increasing these agencies’ burdens.

The new provision requiring that the “familial or employment relationship” existed on or before April 30, and its retroactive application, will make ineligible innocent families who will not know they need to file by a certain date (nor what they would need to file) and others who, while in bona fide relationship, have yet to marry. The new provision also would require employers who seek Section 245(i) benefits to illegally employ foreign workers in violation of a myriad of immigration, tax, labor, and possibly criminal laws. Even worse, the requirement’s retroactive language would invalidate the applications of thousands of employers who followed the law and properly submitted an application after January 14, 1998 but on or before April 30 on behalf of workers they had not yet hired. The new requirement changes the rules in the middle of the game by mandating an existing employment relationship that, by law, cannot legally exist and did not exist. It will alter the eligibility for thousands of applications and petitions already filed with and processed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Department of Labor, and will result in administrative, accounting and funding nightmares for the INS. If the retroactive language is applied to applications that were properly filed at the time the $1,000 required fee was paid, the INS probably will have to refund the filing fees of these applications because they do not meet the new requirement.

I urge you to support a workable extension of the Section 245(i) deadline of at least one year, without any new requirements. These new requirements are both bad law and bad policy. We need an extension of Section 245(i) that will prevent the separation of families, allow businesses to retain valued employees, and provide much-needed income for the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

SENATE LETTER

The Honorable [Full Name]
__ [Rm #] __ [name of] Senate Office Building
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Senator ___________:

I am writing to urge you to support a vital provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that would permit immigrants on the brink of becoming permanent residents to stay in the United States while the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) considers their applications. Without Section 245(i), affected immigrants must return to their home countries, thereby disrupting their families and work lives, to apply abroad for U.S. residency. Although I strongly support an extension of Section 245(i), I want to express my opposition to S. 778, in its current form.

Last year, Congress extended Section 245(i), to allow certain immigrants who filed preliminary paperwork by April 30, 2001 to adjust to permanent resident status here in this country. Unfortunately, S. 778, the bill the Senate Judiciary passed that would again extend Section 245(i), has a significant problem: it would require beneficiaries to demonstrate that the required “familial or employment relationship” existed on or before April 30, 2001. Even worse, this new provision is retroactive to January 14, 1998.

The new provision requiring that the “familial or employment relationship” existed on or before April 30, and its retroactive application, will make ineligible innocent families who will not know they need to file by a certain date (nor what they would need to file) and others who, while in bona fide relationship, have yet to marry. The new provision also would require employers who seek Section 245(i) benefits to illegally employ foreign workers in violation of a myriad of immigration, tax, labor, and possibly criminal laws. Even worse, the requirement’s retroactive language would invalidate the applications of thousands of employers who followed the law and properly submitted an application after January 14, 1998 but on or before April 30 on behalf of workers they had not yet hired. The new requirement changes the rules in the middle of the game by mandating an existing employment relationship that, by law, cannot legally exist and did not exist. It will alter the eligibility for thousands of applications and petitions already filed with and processed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Department of Labor, and will result in administrative, accounting and funding nightmares for the INS. If the retroactive language is applied to applications that were properly filed at the time the $1,000 required fee was paid, the INS probably will have to refund the filing fees of these applications because they do not meet the new requirement.

I urge you to support a workable extension of the Section 245(i) that includes no new requirements. These new requirements are both bad law and bad policy. We need an extension of Section 245(i) that will prevent the separation of families, allow businesses to retain valued employees, and provide much-needed income for the Immigration and Naturalization Service.