The statutory scheme defining and delimiting the rights of aliens is exceedingly complex. Courts and commentators have stated that the Immigration and Nationality Act resembles ‘King Mino’s labyrinth in ancient Crete,’ and is ‘second only to the Internal Revenue Code in complexity.'” Chan v. Reno, 1997 U.S. Dist. Lexis 3016, *5 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).The District Court Judge in the DAPA case was never an immigration lawyer prior to becoming a federal court judge. And, we cannot fault the court for not understanding the nuances and complexities of immigration law, regulation, and policy. But, the issues before the court are not really about immigration law. The main issues are about general issues of standing and statutory construction. Yet, even in these two areas the District Court in Texas has found itself unable to get there from here, even though a District Court judge in Washington, D.C. clearly understood these issues, and found DAPA and expanded DAPA fully within the executive branch's authority.
Extend DACA renewal and work authorization to three-years. The period for which DACA and the accompanying employment authorization is granted will be extended to three-year increments, rather than the current two-year increments. This change shall apply to all first-time applications as well as all applications for renewal effective November 24, 2014. Beginning on that date, USCIS should issue all work 3 authorization documents valid for three years, including to those individuals who have applied and are awaiting two-year work authorization documents based on the renewal of their DACA grants. USCIS should also consider means to extend those two-year renewals already issued to three years.
Undocumented Parents of U.S. Citizens keep asking us, "when will DAPA start?" The answer, unfortunately, is that we do not know when it will begin. Certainly not in the original time frame envisioned by Secretary Johnson. But, we remain convinced that the Court of Appeals, and even the Supreme Court will both find that there is no real standing in this case for states to object, and that even if there were standing, Secretary Johnson's policy memos are will within the purview of the executive branch and that no compliance with the APA was necessary.