Military Service Can Simplify Green Card Process for Family Members

The Trump administration’s zero tolerance policy toward immigration has affected a lot of mixed immigration status families in the United States. One category of mixed status families who are still protected are the undocumented relatives of U.S. military servicemen and military veterans. In a recent case, Alejandra Juarez, the wife of Temo Juarez- an Iraqi war veteran, and mother of two U.S. citizen children, was ordered removed after being questioned during a routine traffic stop, despite her marriage to her husband who was a naturalized U.S. citizen who put his life on the line during the Iraqi war. The Juarez’s were eligible to take advantage of what is known as the “Parole in Place” program.

In 2013, the Obama administration implemented the Parole in Place program, allowing certain undocumented people with relatives who were in the military or are veterans to adjust their status to permanent resident while remaining inside the United States. Most people who entered the United States without inspection or permission would need to leave the U.S. for an interview at a consulate in their home country in order to become permanent residents; this is known as “consular processing”. 

Many people do not start an immigration process to become permanent residents because they are afraid of the uncertainty that comes with consular processing. Upon leaving the U.S. for their interview, many people who entered the U.S. become inadmissible for re-entry.  Many people therefore need an additional waiver (for re-entry) with their immigration petition to pardon certain inadmissibility grounds, such as unlawful presence, crimes, etc.  Most waivers are limited to certain undocumented people and the burden of proof is very high, which adds more stress to already an uncertain and difficult situation.

The Parole in Place program therefore eliminates a huge obstacle for many family members of U.S. active military or veterans by allowing them to seek permanent residency inside the U.S. and without the need to leave for an interview in their home country.

In 2016, the Parole in Place expanded from just allowing unmarried minor children, spouses, and parents of military and vets to now also allowing adult children, as well as their spouses, to take advantage of the program.  The purpose of the policy is designed to reduce the “stress and anxiety” of military family members and veterans who are worried about the immigration status of their family members in the United States. A person who is given Parole in Place has the ability to get a work authorization card and is eligible for adjustment of status.

While the expansion is still in place, it can be removed with just the stroke of a pen through the President’s executive order authority. The program is not automatic and potential candidates must apply. If you think you qualify for Parole in Place, or have friends or family who you believe could benefit, call our office at (312) 419-9611 to talk to one of our immigration attorneys.

The Levels of Relationship Scrutiny

View fullsize

 All is not fair in Love and Law....

Hello, everyone! Two of the most confusing things to engage in are the practice of law and romantic relationships. Since these two things (my legal practice and my relationship) are the sources of most of my own personal confusion, I began to think about how they were related started to view my relationship through a Constitutional Law lens, and my girlfriend as the Chief Justice of our Supreme Courtship (isn’t that normally the case?).

In “Con Law” (as law students like to call it), there are three levels of scrutiny that courts use to decide the validity of a law in the eyes of the Constitution: rational basis; intermediate scrutiny; and strict scrutiny.

When a law’s validity is subject to the rational basis test, the law must be “rationally related” to a legitimate government interest to be held constitutional. So, points A and B should logically lead you to point C. For example, the government deciding to instate a 55mph speed limit on public highways because slower driving will decrease the amount of high-speed accidents. Pretty simple.

Likewise, if your significant other judges you under a rational basis level of scrutiny, chances are you have it pretty easy. There isn’t much second-guessing involved in what you are doing and why you are doing it. Essentially, you have the green light to do whatever you want because your reasoning generally makes sense to your partner.

Intermediate scrutiny is the second-toughest level of scrutiny. Under this test, a judge decides if a law is constitutional by determining whether the law  is “substantially related” to an “important” purpose (whatever that means). Without getting into semantics, the takeaway from intermediate scrutiny should be that the purpose of the law must be more important than merely legitimate, and the means of achieving that purpose must be more closely related to achieving that goal than only showing some indicia of “rational” logic. A better way to put it would be to say that if there were three roads that all led to the pot of gold, under intermediate scrutiny you cannot pick the scenic route. This type of scrutiny is saved for important issues, like laws that touch upon gender.

In a relationship, if your decisions are judged under intermediate scrutiny then this means that your significant other has their eye on you. You still have the benefit of the doubt when push comes to shove, but you better not stray too far away from the line. This may manifest itself in the form of “playing hard to get”, or being questioned as to why you must use their iPad to look up the score, instead of going upstairs to use your own. This level presents a challenge, but not one that’s insurmountable.

And -last but not least- there’s strict scrutiny. Under this level of review, the law’s means must be narrowly-tailored to achieve a “compelling” end.  Narrowly-tailored means that the means by which the end is achieved must be the least-restrictive way to achieve that compelling governmental purpose…aka, the only way. This level is very stringent because it is saved for laws that touch on very sensitive issues such as religion, race, ethnicity, and fundamental rights.

If your significant other judges your Supreme Courtship using strict scrutiny, then this means you are constantly under a microscope, and you bare the burden of proving that your decisions are the absolute best way of achieving your purpose. Think of your significant other questioning why you drove instead of taking the train, why you chose a blue tie instead of a red one, why you are coming home at 6:45 instead of 6:30. For some people, this type of standard is great for them because it keeps them at the top of their game, but to many this can be an extremely stressful and tiring environment to be in. In a nutshell, if you can operate in strict scrutiny you are either a glutton for abuse or you are one smooth operator. If you recognize you are in this situation and you are neither of those two…RUN!

*Please do not confuse this information as legitimate relationship advice, as lawyers are not known for managing relationships well.*

Blog Coming Soon!

Stay tuned for our first blog post. Smith Lopez Cunningham is excited to be contributing to the Chicago legal blogging community and serving the citizens of Chicago. We specialize in DUI Defense, Immigration, Family Law, and Personal Injury matters. Check back soon for updated information.