I have not heard about an FBI background check triggering a contact with ICE, and I doubt that would happen, but I do not know for sure. Since you are already in immigration court, ICE obviously knows about you already, so I guess I am not sure that the background check would have any further effect. Take care, Jason

We are seeing people get interviews from 2015 and 2016. You can try a mandamus lawsuit, as that is a way to get an interview. You can also try to expedite – I wrote about that on March 23, 2022. Take care, Jason

Congratulations – it is nice to hear good news. You can apply any time, but I (and I think most lawyers) recommend waiting 6 months before you apply, but that is up to you. I explain the reasoning in a post dated February 6, 2023 – hopefully that post will be helpful. Take care, Jason

I think a federal district court did find that the statute was void for vagueness under the Constitution, but that was years ago and if I remember, that decision was overturned on a different basis. I do think there are very serious problems with this status. Whether that will be enough for the current Supreme Court to invalidate it, we shall see. Take care, Jason

As long as the RTD is valid, you should be fine to make that trip. The one unknown is that ban, and we don’t know for sure what countries will be affected, whether asylees will be affected, or when the ban will go into effect. If you travel, I would just watch the news and if a ban is coming, see if it affects you, and then maybe come back to the US quickly if necessary. Take care, Jason

I have a pending asylum interview since 2017 at the Arlington office. Do you see any recent changes of people getting interview? Any hope to expedite the interview? This is becoming very stressful.

Best regards,
Hailu

I received my asylum approval today, and I’ve come across conflicting information regarding when I can apply for a green card. Could you clarify the timeline? Would it be advisable to apply before the one-year mark?

Thanks,
Reema

The Secretary of State’s use of INA § 237(a)(4)(C)(1) to deport lawful permanent residents (LPRs) who have expressed pro-Palestinian views, to me, raises serious constitutional concerns. This provision, which allows deportation if a non-citizen’s “presence or activities” are believed to have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences,” is extremely vague- especially in light of the fact that the government has not provided concrete evidence to support its accusations against these people, and it has not charged any of them with a crime- and grants unchecked discretion to the executive branch. Like you have alluded to, the lack of clear standards- and I would prefer if they are enumerated or listed- makes it impossible for individuals to know what speech or conduct might trigger deportation. This therefore invites arbitrary enforcement and violates due process protections under the Fifth Amendment.

Moreover, applying this provision to individuals who have publicly opposed the war in Gaza—most of whom were protesting what they determined to be genocide and humanitarian abuses, not supporting Hamas, btw—directly implicates the First Amendment. LPRs are entitled to robust free speech protections, especially regarding political expression. Equating peaceful criticism of a foreign government with support for terrorism is both factually unfounded and constitutionally dangerous.

The courts have long recognized that ambiguous deportation statutes must be interpreted in favor of non-citizens. Here, the provision fails to define what constitutes “adverse foreign policy consequences,” leaving it entirely to the subjective judgment of a political appointee (Rubio, for example). This effectively allows the Secretary of State to designate dissenting voices as threats, without judicial oversight or factual inquiry.

Thus, one could reasonably argue that the weaponization of INA § 237(a)(4)(C)(1) to silence dissent violates fundamental constitutional principles. It chills protected speech, lacks the precision required of laws affecting liberty, and sets a dangerous precedent where political beliefs become grounds for deportation. Courts should therefore recognize this as a textbook example of a statute void for vagueness and strike down its current application.