The Department of Homeland Security's Authority To Prioritize Removal of Certain Aliens Unlawfully Present In The United States and To Defer Removal of Others, 14-3

Decision Date19 November 2014
Docket Number14-3
Citation38 Op. O.L.C. 1
CourtOpinions of the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice
PartiesThe Department of Homeland Security's Authority to Prioritize Removal of Certain Aliens Unlawfully Present in the United States and to Defer Removal of Others

KARL R. THOMPSON Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Office of Legal Counsel.

The Department of Homeland Security's Authority to Prioritize Removal of Certain Aliens Unlawfully Present in the United States and to Defer Removal of Others

The Department of Homeland Security's proposed policy to prioritize the removal of certain aliens unlawfully present in the United States would be a permissible exercise of DHS's discretion to enforce the immigration laws.

The Department of Homeland Security's proposed deferred action program for parents of u.s. citizens and legal permanent residents would also be a permissible exercise of DHS's discretion to enforce the immigration laws.

The Department of Homeland Security's proposed deferred action program for parents of recipients of deferred action under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program would not be a permissible exercise of DHS's enforcement discretion.

MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND THE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT

You have asked two questions concerning the scope of the Department of Homeland Security's discretion to enforce the immigration laws. First, you have asked whether, in light of the limited resources available to the Department (“DHS”) to remove aliens unlawfully present in the United States, it would be legally permissible for the Department to implement a policy prioritizing the removal of certain categories of aliens over others. DHS has explained that although there are approximately 11.3 million undocumented aliens in the country, it has the resources to remove fewer than 400, 000 such aliens each year. DHS's proposed policy would prioritize the removal of aliens who present threats to national security, public safety, or border security. Under the proposed policy, DHS officials could remove an alien who did not fall into one of these categories provided that an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) Field Office Director determined that “removing such an alien would serve an important federal interest.” Draft Memorandum for Thomas S. Winkowski, Acting Director, ICE, et al., from Jeh Charles Johnson, Secretary of Homeland Security, Re Policies for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants at 5 (Nov. 17, 2014) (Johnson Prioritization Memorandum).

Second you have asked whether it would be permissible for DHS to extend deferred action, a form of temporary administrative relief from removal, to certain aliens who are the parents of children who are present in the United States. Specifically DHS has proposed to implement a program under which an alien could apply for, and would be eligible to receive, deferred action if he or she is not a DHS removal priority under the policy described above; has continuously resided in the United States since before January 1, 2010; has a child who is either a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident; is physically present in the United [ 2] States both when DHS announces its program and at the time of application for deferred action; and presents “no other factors that, in the exercise of discretion, make[] the grant of deferred action inappropriate.” Draft Memorandum for Leon Rodriguez, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al., from Jeh Charles Johnson, Secretary of Homeland Security, Re: Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children and Others at 4 (Nov. 17, 2014) (“Johnson Deferred Action Memorandum”). You have also asked whether DHS could implement a similar program for parents of individuals who have received deferred action under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) program.

As has historically been true of deferred action, these proposed deferred action programs would not “legalize” any aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States Deferred action does not confer any lawful immigration status, nor does it provide a path to obtaining permanent residence or citizenship. Grants of deferred action under the proposed programs would, rather, represent DHS's decision not to seek an alien's removal for a prescribed period of time. See generally Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrim Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 483-84 (1999) (describing deferred action). Under decades-old regulations promulgated pursuant to authority delegated by Congress, see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1103(a)(3), 1324a(h)(3), aliens who are granted deferred action-like certain other categories of aliens who do not have lawful immigration status, such as asylum applicants-may apply for authorization to work in the United States in certain circumstances, 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(14) (providing that deferred action recipients may apply for work authorization if they can show an “economic necessity for employment”); see also 8 C.F.R. § 109.1(b)(7) (1982). Under DHS policy guidance, a grant of deferred action also suspends an alien's accrual of unlawful presence for purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(i) and (a)(9)(C)(i)(I), provisions that restrict the admission of aliens who have departed the United States after having been unlawfully present for specified periods of time. A grant of deferred action under the proposed programs would remain in effect for three years, subject to renewal, and could be terminated at any time at DHS's discretion. See Johnson Deferred Action Memorandum at 2, 5.

For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that DHS's proposed prioritization policy and its proposed deferred action program for parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents would be permissible exercises of DHS's discretion to enforce the immigration laws. We further conclude that, as it has been described to us, the proposed deferred action program for parents of DACA recipients would not be a permissible exercise of enforcement discretion.

I.

We first address DHS's authority to prioritize the removal of certain categories of aliens over others. We begin by discussing some of the sources and limits of [ 3] DHS's enforcement discretion under the immigration laws, and then analyze DHS's proposed prioritization policy in light of these considerations.

A.

DHS's authority to remove aliens from the United States rests on the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (“INA”), as amended, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq. In the INA, Congress established a comprehensive scheme governing immigration and naturalization. The INA specifies certain categories of aliens who are inadmissible to the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182. It also specifies “which aliens may be removed from the United States and the procedures for doing so.” Arizona v. United States, 132 S.Ct. 2492, 2499 (2012). “Aliens may be removed if they were inadmissible at the time of entry, have been convicted of certain crimes, or meet other criteria set by federal law.” Id. (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1227); see 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a) (providing that [a]ny alien . . . in and admitted to the United States shall, upon the order of the Attorney General, be removed if the alien” falls within one or more classes of deportable aliens); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (listing classes of aliens ineligible to receive visas or be admitted to the United States). Removal proceedings ordinarily take place in federal immigration courts administered by the Executive Office for Immigration Review, a component of the Department of Justice. See Id. § 1229a (governing removal proceedings); see also Id. §§ 1225(b)(1)(A), 1228(b) (setting out expedited removal procedures for certain arriving aliens and certain aliens convicted of aggravated felonies).

Before 2003, the Department of Justice, through the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”), was also responsible for providing immigration-related administrative services and generally enforcing the immigration laws. In the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, Congress transferred most of these functions to DHS, giving it primary responsibility both for initiating removal proceedings and for carrying out final orders of removal. See 6 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.; see also Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 374 n.1 (2005) (noting that the immigration authorities previously exercised by the Attorney General and INS “now reside” in the Secretary of Homeland Security and DHS). The Act divided INS's functions among three different agencies within DHS: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), which oversees legal immigration into the United States and provides immigration and naturalization services to aliens; ICE, which enforces federal laws governing customs, trade, and immigration; and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), which monitors and secures the nation's borders and ports of entry. See Pub. L. No. 107-296, §§ 403, 442, 451, 471, 116 Stat. 2135, 2178, 2193, 2195, 2205; see also Name Change From the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 69 Fed. Reg. 60938, 60938 (Oct. 13, 2004); Name Change of Two DHS Components, 75 Fed. Reg. 12445, 12445 (Mar. 16, 2010). The Secretary of Homeland Security is thus now “charged with the administration and [ 4] enforcement of [the INA] and all other laws relating to the immigration and naturalization of aliens.” 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(1).

As a general rule, when Congress vests enforcement authority in an executive agency, that agency has the discretion to decide whether a particular violation of the law warrants prosecution or other enforcement action. This discretion is rooted...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • State ex rel. Brnovich v. Maricopa Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. Bd.
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • 20 Junio 2017
  • Vidal v. Nielsen
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 13 Febrero 2018
  • Vidal v. Duke
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 9 Noviembre 2017
    ... ... Elaine C. DUKE, Acting Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, et al., Defendants. State ... Donald Trump, President of the United States, et al., Defendants. 16–CV–4756 (NGG) ... between the number of individuals unlawfully present in the United States and DHS's ability to ... (The Department of Homeland Security's Authority to Prioritize Removal 295 F.Supp.3d 137 of in Aliens Unlawfully Present in the United States and to fer Removal of Others, 38 Op. O.L.C. at 1 (2014) ("OLC Op.") (Admin. R ... § 1154(a)(1)(D)(i)(II), (IV) (making certain individuals "eligible for deferred action and ... ...
1 books & journal articles
  • EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY AND THE TAKE CARE CLAUSE.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 94 No. 1, November 2018
    • 1 Noviembre 2018
    ...of Homeland See's Auth. to Prioritize Removal of Certain Aliens Unlawfully Present in the United States and to Defer Removal of Others, 38 Op. O.L.C. 1 (2014) thereinafter OLC (10) See id. at 25-33. (11) There are two district court injunctions requiring President Trump to keep DACA in plac......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT