Page 39 - The Indian EYE 061325

IMMIGRATION JUNE 13, 2025 | The Indian Eye 39

it to inflict maximum predecision to provide the basis for the (c)(11) additional documents from employ- Documents, and the potential impact
damage, court-ordered stays exist to EAD. EADs issued to CHNV pa- ees to determine if an employee is no on the organization’s workforce plan-
minimize—not maximize—harm to rolees bear the same code as EADs longer work authorized. AILA ad- ning strategies and the continuity of
litigating parties.” issued to other parolees, unlike, for vises that “organizations employing their business operations.” See AILA
The Trump administration’s example, DACA EADs, which have CHNV parolees should evaluate the Doc. No. 25042408.
abrupt termination of the program a different code from other deferred risks and potential consequences as- The Supreme Court’s ratification
leaves hundreds of thousands of in- action cases. Moreover, it is entirely sociated with identifying this specific of this betrayal is even more disap-
dividuals vulnerable to being placed plausible that that many CHNV pa- population of their workforce, how pointing, however. Individuals who
in removal proceedings and poten- rolees may have c(8) EADs by now to update I-9 records and confirm entered the United States pursuant
tially returned to turbulent and un- based on pending I-589 asylum ap- these individuals’ continued (in)eli- to these parole programs did so legal-
safe home countries. It also puts into plications, and 8 USC 1324(a)(B) gibility to work in the United States, ly, only to have the rug cruelly ripped
doubt the validity of the EAD under does not obligate an employer to ask. providing these individuals with an out from under them.
8 CFR 274a.12(c)(11). Although the Employers have to walk a fine line opportunity to present other docu- *Kaitlyn Box is a Partner at Cyrus D.
EAD under (c)(11) may be valid on to avoid discrimination in requesting ments from the List of Acceptable Mehta & Partners PLLC.
its face if it has not expired, a public ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
announcement of the termination of Cyrus D. Mehta, a graduate of Cambridge University and Columbia Law School, is the Managing Partner of Cyrus D. Mehta
the program would put employers on & Partners PLLC in New York City. Mr. Mehta is a member of AILA’s Administrative Litigation Task Force; AILA’s EB-5 Com-
notice that impacted employees are
no longer authorized to work under 8 mittee; former chair of AILA’s Ethics Committee; special counsel on immigration matters to the Departmental Disciplinary
USC 1324(a)(1)(A) and (2). Committee, Appellate Division, First Department, New York; member of the ABA Commission on Immigration; board member
The Supreme Court order has of Volunteers for Legal Services and board member of New York Immigration Coalition. Mr. Mehta is the former chair of the
stayed the District Court’s order Board of Trustees of the American Immigration Council and former chair of the Committee on Immigration and Nationality
that prevented the DHS from ter- Law of the New York City Bar Association. He is a frequent speaker and writer on various immigration-related issues, including
minating CHNV parole, including on ethics, and is also an adjunct professor of law at Brooklyn Law School, where he teaches a course entitled Immigration and
(c)(11) EADs issued pursuant to
the program. Still, employers may Work. Mr. Mehta received the AILA 2018 Edith Lowenstein Memorial Award for advancing the practice of immigration law
not know whether the (c)(11) EAD and the AILA 2011 Michael Maggio Memorial Award for his outstanding efforts in providing pro bono representation in the
is associated CHNV parole or some immigration field. He has also received two AILA Presidential Commendations in 2010 and 2016. Mr. Mehta is ranked among
other kind of parole, and it may be the most highly regarded lawyers in North America by Who’s Who Legal – Corporate Immigration Law 2019 and is also ranked
discriminatory to ask an employee in Chambers USA and Chambers Global 2019 in immigration law, among other rankings.

www.TheIndianEYE.com