Page 36 - The Indian EYE 022423
P. 36
IMMIGRATION FEBRUARY 24, 2023 | The Indian Eye 36
Texas’s Legal Challenge to Biden’s
Humanitarian Parole Program is
Both Flawed and Inhuman
CYRUS D. MEHTA AND
KAITLYN BOX* individuals will be eligible for lic benefit’”. The complaint ly characterized as “illegal case 360,000 individuals, are
work authorization, and must further alleges that the pro- aliens”. granted humanitarian pa-
resident Biden’s hu- have a U.S. sponsor who gram “amounts to the cre- The complaint also re- role, this does not mean that
manitarian parole pro- agrees to provide them with ation of a new visa program fers to the Migration Policy the benefit will not be grant-
Pgram is a wonderful financial support for the du- that allows hundreds of thou- Institute (MPI) Noncitizen ed on a case-by-case basis,
example of how executive ration of the parole period. sands of aliens to enter the Respondents in U.S. Census or that the justifications of
action can reshape immigra- But alas, on January 24, United States who otherwise Bureau Survey Data, which “urgent humanitarian rea-
tion policy in the face of Con- 2023, Texas and nineteen have no basis for doing so”, provides demographic infor- sons” or “a significant public
gressional inaction. It allows other states filed a suit chal- and asserts that the Biden mation about unauthorized benefit” will not be present.
people fleeing troubled spots lenging the Biden adminis- Administration failed to en- immigrants living in each Each applicant can still be
to come to the US in an or- tration’s implementation of gage in notice-and-comment state. The complaint relies reviewed on an individual ba-
derly manner. The program the program. The plaintiff rulemaking under the Ad- on this data to support the sis, and their applications can
initially implemented for states argue that the “De- ministrative Procedure Act idea that the humanitarian denied if they do not meet
Ukranian and Venezuelan partment’s parole power is (APA). parole program would im- the requirements for human-
nationals will allow 30,000 exceptionally limited, having Notably, the complaint pose a financial burden on itarian parole.
qualifying nationals of Cuba, been curtailed by Congress refers to individuals entering the plaintiff states due to the The humanitarian pa-
Haiti, Nicaragua and Vene- multiple times, and can be the United States under hu- costs involved in supporting role program is based on
zuela to be admitted to the used ‘only on a case-by-case manitarian parole as “illegal undocumented immigrants. the Uniting for Ukraine pro-
United States every month basis for urgent humanitari- aliens”. Page 3 of the com- However, the MPI survey gram, which has not been
for up to two years. These an reasons or significant pub- plaint, for example, asserts includes TPS recipients, challenged by this lawsuit.
that “[t]he Department DACA recipients, and in- The programs bear many
does not have the au- dividuals who entered the similarities, as well. The
thority to invite more United States without autho- Uniting for Ukraine program
than a third of a million rization but have since ap- also requires that individuals
more illegal aliens into plied for asylum. who are granted parole can
the United States annu- The MPI figures re- be supported by a U.S. spon-
ally as it has announced garding unauthorized pop- sor who files an I-134.
with this program.” ulations each state include We thus question wheth-
However, the plaintiff noncitizens who may also be er Texas and the other plain-
states’ characterization authorized to remain in the tiff states’ true objection is
of parolees as “illegal U.S., and may have work au- not a perceived violation of
aliens” is entirely erro- thorization, even if they were INA § 212(d)(5), but rather
neous. INA § 212(d) previously undocumented. the fact that the expanded
(5) provides the legal The complaint’s reliance on program will benefit Cu-
authority for humani- this data to illustrate the bur- ban, Nicaraguan, Haitian,
tarian parole, Biden’s den that the humanitarian and Venezuelan noncitizens
expansion of the pro- parole program would im- rather than Ukrainians. Oth-
gram notwithstanding. pose on states thus appears er humanitarian programs
This provision authoriz- to be misplaced. intended to benefit large
es humanitarian parole Further, the complaint groups of noncitizens have
on a case-by-case basis asserts that the humanitari- also not been challenged,
for “urgent humanitar- an parole program violates including the Haitian Fami-
m of ian reasons” or “signifi- the requirements laid out ly Reunification Parole Pro-
CYRUS D. MEHTA & PARTNERS PLLC cant public benefit” for in INA § 212(d)(5) that the gram that allows certain ben-
individuals who present benefit be granted only “on eficiaries of I-130 petitions
neither a security risk a case-by-case basis for ur- from Haiti to be paroled into
nor a risk of absconding. gent humanitarian reasons the U.S. pursuant to INA §
Because humanitarian or for a significant public 212(d)(5), and the Filipino
parole is a longstand- benefit”. However, even a World War II Veterans Pro-
ing program authorized narrow reading of this pro- gram, which also benefits di-
by the INA, individuals vision does not indicate that rect and derivative beneficia-
who enter the U.S. pur- there is a numerical limit on ries of I-130 petitions.
suant to this program the benefit. Even if a large In addition to being con-
2 6th Floor
cannot thus be accurate- group of noncitizens, in this sistent with the “case by case
www.TheIndianEYE.com
