I am no Terrorist, any advice?
- Thread starter saxo
- Start date
Last edited by a moderator:
Hello Everyone,
A couple of days ago Ms. Hughes sent an e-mail to Deep Trigger and I, informing us of a pending exemption that we all have been waiting for. The following is a copy of that e-mail. While we all know this is an amazing development in about to unfold, we would like to ask everyone to please refrain from calling Ms. Hughes. At this point there is no need to contact the people involved , as they are already hard at work pushing this forward. Congratulations to us all, let's stand by and wait for the final draft of the exemption to be published. Thank you.
A couple of days ago Ms. Hughes sent an e-mail to Deep Trigger and I, informing us of a pending exemption that we all have been waiting for. The following is a copy of that e-mail. While we all know this is an amazing development in about to unfold, we would like to ask everyone to please refrain from calling Ms. Hughes. At this point there is no need to contact the people involved , as they are already hard at work pushing this forward. Congratulations to us all, let's stand by and wait for the final draft of the exemption to be published. Thank you.
Dear Mr. ******* and Mr. *******:
I am writing to you both, first, with apologies for my long silence—it’s been a very busy period, but for once I’m actually writing with some progress to report:
DHS is in the final stages of a new exemption, not specific to any particular group, that should allow it to grant exceptions from the material support bar on a case-by-case basis to people who are currently on hold due to the material support bar but whose contributions (to the group or party that DHS is treating as a terrorist organization) were not significant. I anticipate that this exemption, or a parallel one, will also cover some other categories of cases. I’m told these are very, very close to being finalized, and it sounds as if they may be signed as early as late January, if all goes well. While we believe cases of this kind should not have been placed on hold in the first place, in practical terms, this should allow resolution of a LOT of cases.
I am being a bit vague about this because the exemption has not yet been issued and I have not seen its text and will not know its specific terms until it is issued. I will let you know as soon as this happens. I wanted to let you know this now, though, because (1) it’s genuinely very good news for a lot of people in your group—how many of you, exactly, will be easier to predict once we have the language of the exemption—and (2) it will probably change the universe of cases who may require other action to get them resolved. It sounds as if thinking on other possible exemptions that are tied to particular scenarios rather than being specific to particular Tier III groups is also (finally!) moving forward. We had a meeting on all this with DHS yesterday and the mood was very positive.
Also, they are continuing to sort through who can and cannot benefit from the so-called Limited Group Exemption, or LGE (the exemption that was announced in the summer of 2012), and a bunch of cases are currently being processed under this. It is taking a while from when they take cases off hold to when the applicant actually gets a decision, due to the need to re-run security checks, supervisory review of exemption determinations, etc. etc., but this is also making some progress.
I will let you know more concrete details on the most recent development as soon as it is finalized.
Best regards and best wishes to all of us that we may finally deal with this problem in 2014,
Anwen Hughes
I am writing to you both, first, with apologies for my long silence—it’s been a very busy period, but for once I’m actually writing with some progress to report:
DHS is in the final stages of a new exemption, not specific to any particular group, that should allow it to grant exceptions from the material support bar on a case-by-case basis to people who are currently on hold due to the material support bar but whose contributions (to the group or party that DHS is treating as a terrorist organization) were not significant. I anticipate that this exemption, or a parallel one, will also cover some other categories of cases. I’m told these are very, very close to being finalized, and it sounds as if they may be signed as early as late January, if all goes well. While we believe cases of this kind should not have been placed on hold in the first place, in practical terms, this should allow resolution of a LOT of cases.
I am being a bit vague about this because the exemption has not yet been issued and I have not seen its text and will not know its specific terms until it is issued. I will let you know as soon as this happens. I wanted to let you know this now, though, because (1) it’s genuinely very good news for a lot of people in your group—how many of you, exactly, will be easier to predict once we have the language of the exemption—and (2) it will probably change the universe of cases who may require other action to get them resolved. It sounds as if thinking on other possible exemptions that are tied to particular scenarios rather than being specific to particular Tier III groups is also (finally!) moving forward. We had a meeting on all this with DHS yesterday and the mood was very positive.
Also, they are continuing to sort through who can and cannot benefit from the so-called Limited Group Exemption, or LGE (the exemption that was announced in the summer of 2012), and a bunch of cases are currently being processed under this. It is taking a while from when they take cases off hold to when the applicant actually gets a decision, due to the need to re-run security checks, supervisory review of exemption determinations, etc. etc., but this is also making some progress.
I will let you know more concrete details on the most recent development as soon as it is finalized.
Best regards and best wishes to all of us that we may finally deal with this problem in 2014,
Anwen Hughes
Deep Trigger
Registered Users (C)
Hi Everyone,
Finally, i got the following e-mail that i have been waiting for the past 10 years because of the Tier III hold. I would like to thank many of you for keep updating us on our situation. I hope you all will get this type e-mail quite soon if not already. Thanks again!
On January 24, 2014, we ordered production of your new card. Please allow 30 days for your card to be mailed to you. If we need something from you we will contact you. If you move before you receive the card, call customer service at 1-800-375-5283.
Finally, i got the following e-mail that i have been waiting for the past 10 years because of the Tier III hold. I would like to thank many of you for keep updating us on our situation. I hope you all will get this type e-mail quite soon if not already. Thanks again!
On January 24, 2014, we ordered production of your new card. Please allow 30 days for your card to be mailed to you. If we need something from you we will contact you. If you move before you receive the card, call customer service at 1-800-375-5283.
New Development in my pending application
The INS has yet to respond to my attorney’s recent letter. My attorney has decided to file the law suit on Monday afternoon. However, I got a letter from the service on Thursday asking me to appear in local service support center for fingerprints in next couple of weeks. I was fingerprinted once before in mid-2012.
The INS has yet to respond to my attorney’s recent letter. My attorney has decided to file the law suit on Monday afternoon. However, I got a letter from the service on Thursday asking me to appear in local service support center for fingerprints in next couple of weeks. I was fingerprinted once before in mid-2012.
Jutice is done
Hi All,
I was in the same boat with all of you. I tried everything humanly possible including a class action law suite with member of this forum. I recently contacted CISOMBUDSMAN and I got the usual standard generic email. I called and told them that I need a real answer for my pending application. Then USCIS sent me request for evidence letter regarding my relationship and activities with the tier III organization.With the help of my lawyer, i respond to the questions and provide additional information regarding what I have done sine I came to the US.(Tax payer, family guy ....)
Today, I received the email ...On January 28, 2014, we ordered production of your new card. Please allow 30 days for your card to be mailed to you. If we need something from you we will contact you. If you move before you receive the card, call customer service at 1-800-375-5283.
I recommend all of you to try the services of CISOMBUDSMAN but do not stop if they send you the same generic response. You need to continue contact them until justice is done.
I wish you all to get the card soon ...
Hi All,
I was in the same boat with all of you. I tried everything humanly possible including a class action law suite with member of this forum. I recently contacted CISOMBUDSMAN and I got the usual standard generic email. I called and told them that I need a real answer for my pending application. Then USCIS sent me request for evidence letter regarding my relationship and activities with the tier III organization.With the help of my lawyer, i respond to the questions and provide additional information regarding what I have done sine I came to the US.(Tax payer, family guy ....)
Today, I received the email ...On January 28, 2014, we ordered production of your new card. Please allow 30 days for your card to be mailed to you. If we need something from you we will contact you. If you move before you receive the card, call customer service at 1-800-375-5283.
I recommend all of you to try the services of CISOMBUDSMAN but do not stop if they send you the same generic response. You need to continue contact them until justice is done.
I wish you all to get the card soon ...
Congratulations Justic and Jone, and others who have made it!
I started this conversation in 2009 (wow, that feels like ages ago), a few years after waiting patiently when I received the dreaded "hold" letter. I felt hopeless, sunk in the darkest of places but this forum gave me a lot of hope, knowing that I wasn't the only one in that situation really helped. This forum fueled my courage and determination. In time, I received my GC and just recently I became a USC! it only took me 13 years!
I guess my message for everyone here is this: don't give up, try anything and everything, try again and again. Keep trying. Keep making phone calls, writing letters and, if comes to that, suing. Don't rely on others to do stuff for you, take your case in your own hands and keep pushing. There is hope, we've seen many others that have come through this forum and (like me) found a happy resolution to their case. Know that there is way out and know that you will find it. Keep it up, don't despair, keep trying and keep sharing your experiences.
I wish you all the best!
I started this conversation in 2009 (wow, that feels like ages ago), a few years after waiting patiently when I received the dreaded "hold" letter. I felt hopeless, sunk in the darkest of places but this forum gave me a lot of hope, knowing that I wasn't the only one in that situation really helped. This forum fueled my courage and determination. In time, I received my GC and just recently I became a USC! it only took me 13 years!
I guess my message for everyone here is this: don't give up, try anything and everything, try again and again. Keep trying. Keep making phone calls, writing letters and, if comes to that, suing. Don't rely on others to do stuff for you, take your case in your own hands and keep pushing. There is hope, we've seen many others that have come through this forum and (like me) found a happy resolution to their case. Know that there is way out and know that you will find it. Keep it up, don't despair, keep trying and keep sharing your experiences.
I wish you all the best!
I did not correspond with a specific service center. I had inquired about the status of my pending application four times in the past five or so years using TRIG contact e mail provided in INS official website. I do not even know where they are located…the e mails I have received from them as related to my inquiries do not show any address…I only see from their e mail that it is a governmental agency. Recently I got ASC appointment notice (I-797C) in the mail from USCIS. I hope I have answered your question.
My attorney has filed a law suit challenging the INS decision of not processing my pending application for adjustment of status to PR. We did not challenge the constitutionality of law related to terrorism related inadmissibility. According to my attorney it would be extremely difficult and expensive to challenge the law…and unlikely to succeed as most Judges may prefer to error on the side of cautious when it comes to national security issues…however, I am challenging the INS decision to identify me with a political group that was formed after I was already admitted into the US and had submitted my application for asylum. And every time I had inquired about my pending application I was identified with a new group. So far the four replies I got from INS in the past five years are contradictory…I cannot be affiliated with one group one day and another the next day…and eventually with a government that I was seeking asylum form and was successful. What is obvious from my case is that whoever put my application on hold had on information about the country condition or political history of the country…probably he thought that I came from a certain country so I was a good candidate for hold… I will not be surprised that there are more similar cases on hold now.
Hello,
Here what i received today.
On February 3, 2014, we mailed a notice requesting additional evidence or information in this case I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS. Please follow the instructions on the notice to submit the requested information. This case will be in suspense until we receive the evidence or the opportunity to submit it expires. Once we receive the requested evidence or information and make a decision on the case, you will be notified by mail. If you move while this case is pending, please use our Change of Address online tool to update your case with your new address or call our customer service center at 1-800-375-5283.
Here what i received today.
On February 3, 2014, we mailed a notice requesting additional evidence or information in this case I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS. Please follow the instructions on the notice to submit the requested information. This case will be in suspense until we receive the evidence or the opportunity to submit it expires. Once we receive the requested evidence or information and make a decision on the case, you will be notified by mail. If you move while this case is pending, please use our Change of Address online tool to update your case with your new address or call our customer service center at 1-800-375-5283.
Deep Trigger
Registered Users (C)
Just an FYI for all in waiting for the actual Policy Memorandum.
Washington, D.C. – Human Rights First welcomes today’s announcement that the United States will take important steps to address impediments facing refugees waiting to be resettled to the United States, including Syrian refugees. A joint notice scheduled for publication in tomorrow’s Federal Register announced two new exemptions from the overly-broad inadmissibility provisions of U.S. immigration law that threatened to exclude from refugee protection many vulnerable Syrians who have engaged in no wrongdoing and pose no threat to the United States.
Certain provisions of U.S. immigration law are interpreted to define any rebellion against any sitting government as terrorist activity. These have been invoked to unfairly deny protection to innocent people, including a refugee who had been robbed of $4 and his lunch by armed rebels, and a florist who sold bouquets to members of a group designated by the United States as a terrorist organization. As Secretaries John Kerry and Jeh Johnson will recognize formally in tomorrow’s exemption announcements, these overly-broad provisions of law are a bar to refugees “who do not pose a national security or public safety risk.”
“We applaud the administration for taking steps now to address some of the hurdles that Syrian refugees are likely to face in being resettled to safety in the United States,” said Human Rights First’s Anwen Hughes. “At the same time, several of the scenarios covered by these exemptions should not have been treated as ‘terrorist activity’ in the first place. We welcome these announcements for the practical relief they will provide to many refugees, but regret that the administration has not taken this opportunity to adopt a more sensible interpretation of the underlying statute, which is being applied to bar thousands of refugees from protection in the United States.”
Human Rights First raised concerns about the likely impact of these inadmissibility grounds on Syrian refugee resettlement in its recent report Refuge at Risk as well as a statement submitted to Congress. There are currently more than 2.4 million Syrian refugees in Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq, and Egypt, and the United States needs to step up resettlement efforts to help Syria’s neighbors, help protect the most vulnerable of Syria’s refugees, and set an example for other resettlement countries. Human Rights First has called for the United States to resettle at least 15,000 Syrian refugees each year, subject to evolving need.
“Until Congress focuses immigration law’s definitions of ‘terrorist activity’ and ‘terrorist organization,’ the administration must act to ensure that legitimate refugees are not excluded from the United States in violation of U.S. international obligations,” said Hughes. “The administration, as it launches a meaningful resettlement effort for Syrian refugees, must ensure that it is not indiscriminately excluding from protection all those who assisted any armed opposition group, including those the U.S. government itself supports, against a regime it has repeatedly condemned.”
The first exemption announced today will allow for protection to be granted on a case-by-case basis to an otherwise eligible refugee who provided limited support to a so-called “Tier III” organization. Tier III organizations are groups that are neither designated nor listed as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government but are characterized as such for immigration purposes based solely on the fact that they are non-state groups that use or have a sub-group that uses armed force. The exemption will also apply to those who provided limited support to a member of a Tier III group, or to anyone who is not a member of any armed group but who has personally engaged in the use of armed force or plans to. These exemptions will only apply if that support involved:
Certain routine commercial transactions or certain routine social transactions (i.e. in the satisfaction of well-established or verifiable family, social, or cultural obligations);
Certain humanitarian assistance; or,
Substantial pressure that does not rise to the level of duress.
The second exemption will be applicable to cases of people who gave what the announcement characterizes as “insignificant material support” to the same range of groups and actors described above. Applicants under consideration for either of these exemptions must satisfy several requirements. For example, they must have passed all relevant background and security checks, must not have provided material support to a designated terrorist organization, and must pose no danger to the safety and security of the United States. Human Rights First anticipates that these exemptions will benefit significant numbers of refugees, including persons previously granted asylum or refugee status whose later applications for permanent residency or family reunification have been held up for years because of these problems.
While the announced exemptions represent a very welcome step forward, action is still needed to bring relief to a number of other categories of refugees, from Syria and elsewhere, including:
Anyone who provided assistance to any group deemed to be a Tier III organization that is not deemed to be insignificant or to fall into the limited categories described above;
Anyone who solicited funds or members for a Tier III group;
Anyone who provided assistance in any amount to any Tier III group with the intention of assisting in the overthrow of any government, regardless of the nature or tactics of that government or whether the person’s actions and the actions he/she furthered were consistent with international humanitarian law;
Anyone who engaged in a routine commercial or social transaction with a member of a group that is listed or designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. government, a scenario that has arisen not only in Syria but previously in other countries from Colombia to Sri Lanka, where refugees had incidental contacts with listed or designated groups that seized control of the areas where these refugees lived;
Former combatants, including former child soldiers for whom no solution presently exists under U.S. immigration law;
Anyone whose spouse or parent is deemed to be inadmissible under these provisions.
Washington, D.C. – Human Rights First welcomes today’s announcement that the United States will take important steps to address impediments facing refugees waiting to be resettled to the United States, including Syrian refugees. A joint notice scheduled for publication in tomorrow’s Federal Register announced two new exemptions from the overly-broad inadmissibility provisions of U.S. immigration law that threatened to exclude from refugee protection many vulnerable Syrians who have engaged in no wrongdoing and pose no threat to the United States.
Certain provisions of U.S. immigration law are interpreted to define any rebellion against any sitting government as terrorist activity. These have been invoked to unfairly deny protection to innocent people, including a refugee who had been robbed of $4 and his lunch by armed rebels, and a florist who sold bouquets to members of a group designated by the United States as a terrorist organization. As Secretaries John Kerry and Jeh Johnson will recognize formally in tomorrow’s exemption announcements, these overly-broad provisions of law are a bar to refugees “who do not pose a national security or public safety risk.”
“We applaud the administration for taking steps now to address some of the hurdles that Syrian refugees are likely to face in being resettled to safety in the United States,” said Human Rights First’s Anwen Hughes. “At the same time, several of the scenarios covered by these exemptions should not have been treated as ‘terrorist activity’ in the first place. We welcome these announcements for the practical relief they will provide to many refugees, but regret that the administration has not taken this opportunity to adopt a more sensible interpretation of the underlying statute, which is being applied to bar thousands of refugees from protection in the United States.”
Human Rights First raised concerns about the likely impact of these inadmissibility grounds on Syrian refugee resettlement in its recent report Refuge at Risk as well as a statement submitted to Congress. There are currently more than 2.4 million Syrian refugees in Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq, and Egypt, and the United States needs to step up resettlement efforts to help Syria’s neighbors, help protect the most vulnerable of Syria’s refugees, and set an example for other resettlement countries. Human Rights First has called for the United States to resettle at least 15,000 Syrian refugees each year, subject to evolving need.
“Until Congress focuses immigration law’s definitions of ‘terrorist activity’ and ‘terrorist organization,’ the administration must act to ensure that legitimate refugees are not excluded from the United States in violation of U.S. international obligations,” said Hughes. “The administration, as it launches a meaningful resettlement effort for Syrian refugees, must ensure that it is not indiscriminately excluding from protection all those who assisted any armed opposition group, including those the U.S. government itself supports, against a regime it has repeatedly condemned.”
The first exemption announced today will allow for protection to be granted on a case-by-case basis to an otherwise eligible refugee who provided limited support to a so-called “Tier III” organization. Tier III organizations are groups that are neither designated nor listed as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government but are characterized as such for immigration purposes based solely on the fact that they are non-state groups that use or have a sub-group that uses armed force. The exemption will also apply to those who provided limited support to a member of a Tier III group, or to anyone who is not a member of any armed group but who has personally engaged in the use of armed force or plans to. These exemptions will only apply if that support involved:
Certain routine commercial transactions or certain routine social transactions (i.e. in the satisfaction of well-established or verifiable family, social, or cultural obligations);
Certain humanitarian assistance; or,
Substantial pressure that does not rise to the level of duress.
The second exemption will be applicable to cases of people who gave what the announcement characterizes as “insignificant material support” to the same range of groups and actors described above. Applicants under consideration for either of these exemptions must satisfy several requirements. For example, they must have passed all relevant background and security checks, must not have provided material support to a designated terrorist organization, and must pose no danger to the safety and security of the United States. Human Rights First anticipates that these exemptions will benefit significant numbers of refugees, including persons previously granted asylum or refugee status whose later applications for permanent residency or family reunification have been held up for years because of these problems.
While the announced exemptions represent a very welcome step forward, action is still needed to bring relief to a number of other categories of refugees, from Syria and elsewhere, including:
Anyone who provided assistance to any group deemed to be a Tier III organization that is not deemed to be insignificant or to fall into the limited categories described above;
Anyone who solicited funds or members for a Tier III group;
Anyone who provided assistance in any amount to any Tier III group with the intention of assisting in the overthrow of any government, regardless of the nature or tactics of that government or whether the person’s actions and the actions he/she furthered were consistent with international humanitarian law;
Anyone who engaged in a routine commercial or social transaction with a member of a group that is listed or designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. government, a scenario that has arisen not only in Syria but previously in other countries from Colombia to Sri Lanka, where refugees had incidental contacts with listed or designated groups that seized control of the areas where these refugees lived;
Former combatants, including former child soldiers for whom no solution presently exists under U.S. immigration law;
Anyone whose spouse or parent is deemed to be inadmissible under these provisions.
Anwen Hughes
11:26 AM (10 minutes ago)
Below is a quick summary of how these exemptions work and what we think they mean.
Dear colleagues:
On Wednesday the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State jointly issued two new discretionary exemptions from the terrorism-related inadmissibility grounds (“TRIG” is DHS’s abbreviation for these) of the Immigration & Nationality Act. The first of these covers what the exemption announcement terms "insignificant material support" to a group deemed to be a Tier III (undesignated) "terrorist organization" under the INA, or to a member of such a group, or to a person who the actor knows has engaged, or has planned to engage, in the use of armed force in an individual capacity (not as a member of any group). The second applies to certain types of incidental contacts with that same range of actors--Tier III groups, members of Tier III groups, or an individual who has engaged in the use of armed force, or plans to, without being a member of any group, and not acting on behalf of any listed or designated terrorist organization.
Both of these exemption announcements, which have been in the works for a very long time, include the welcome recognition that the INA’s TRIG grounds “bar certain aliens who do not pose a national security or public safety risk from admission to the United States and from obtaining immigration benefits or other status.” These two exemptions are intended to cure some of the most glaring examples of this over-breadth. Because DHS and its sister agencies have chosen to interpret the relevant provisions of the statute, and particularly the term “material support,” in an extremely expansive way, the cases covered by these exemptions, many of which are frankly silly—silly not in their impact on the applicants, which has in many cases been devastating, but in the notion that these kinds of factual scenarios should make anyone subject to the terrorism-related inadmissibility grounds of the INA—actually make up a significant proportion of the TRIG-related caseload. We had hoped that the Administration would resolve part of this problem by adopting a more natural reading of the term “material support,” one that would not consider insignificant assistance to be “material,” and would not consider, for example, routine commercial transactions with members of armed groups to fall within the scope of the bar. The Administration instead has chosen to try to address those problems by means of these discretionary exemptions. Also included in these exemptions are some other scenarios equally unfair but less amenable to resolution through interpretation of the statute alone.
From a practical perspective, for anyone whose case is, or will be, adjudicated by DHS or State (affirmative applicants for asylum and other immigration benefits whose cases are pending with USCIS, refugees seeking resettlement from overseas, and applicants for immigrant visas from abroad), these exemptions once implemented should bring fairly prompt relief. For applicants in removal proceedings, the situation remains very different, and the failure to resolve some of this through a better reading of the statute is particularly frustrating: applicants in removal proceedings who are being told they are barred from asylum because they gave a plate of food to a member of a Tier III group, for sample, or because they ran a restaurant where a member of a Tier III group bought lunch, are still going to have to wait until they have been ordered removed and that removal order is administratively final, before they can be considered for either of these exemptions—and then, they will only be considered assuming the order of removal finds them to be eligible for the benefit they are seeking “but for” this inadmissibility ground (and they have passed all relevant security and background checks, they pose no danger to the safety and security of the United States, they have not provided support to any terrorist activities that they knew or reasonably should have known targeted noncombatant persons, U.S. citizens, or U.S. interests—all of which are conditions always applicable to these exemptions generally—in addition to additional requirements specific to each exemption and discussed below). For those of us doing removal defense, and for our clients in removal proceedings, this is an incredibly draining process, morally, financially, and in every other respect, and these exemptions, while they should ultimately provide relief to many of those applicants, will do so in a much slower, more uncertain, and less efficient way.
Also—and this is a very significant limitation to both of these exemptions—neither the insignificant assistance exemption nor the incidental contacts exemption covers anyone who gave such insignificant assistance or had such incidental contacts with any group that was (at the time of the donation/contact) a Tier I or Tier II group (=a designated foreign terrorist organization or a listed terrorist organization).
Implementation guidance on these exemptions is believed to be final or close to final, but has not yet been published and it is not clear that DHS intends to publish it. What follows is a very quick overview of our current understanding of what these exemptions do, whom they cover, and whom they do not. It appears that DHS may be referring to these exemptions by the acronyms CLE I and CLE II; we am not sure what these abbreviations refer to (“categorical limited exemption” would be our best guess). As of today, these new exemptions have not yet been posted to USCIS’s TRIG exemption website (http://www.uscis.gov/laws/terrorism...sm-related-inadmissibility-grounds-exemptions ), so in the interests of clarity we will refer to them as the “insignificant assistance exemption” and the “incidental contacts exemption.
1) Insignificant assistance exemption:
This exemption applies to persons who have not provided more than “an insignificant amount of material support” to (1) a Tier III group, (2) a member of a Tier III group, or (3) an individual whom the donor knew, or reasonably should have known, had committed or planned to commit a “terrorist activity” as defined by the INA (which, according to the government, includes any unlawful use of armed force as a non-state actor). This exemption will only apply if the person did not provide this “material support” with any intent of furthering the terrorist or violent activities of the individual or the group to whom the donation was made, did not provide “material support” that the donor knew or reasonably should have known could directly be used to engage in terrorist or violent activity, and has not provided “material support” to any individual whom the donor knew or reasonably should have known had committed or planned to commit a terrorist activity on behalf of a Tier I or Tier II group, and has not provided “material support” that the donor knew or reasonably should have known involved providing weapons, ammunition, explosives, or components thereof, or the transportation or concealment of such items. The applicant must also meet the additional requirements common to both exemptions (and indeed to all those that have gone before them), which are listed below.
Hypothetical example: Zeina lived in a village in Darfur in a region that came under heavy attack from a mix of Sudanese government and government-sponsored forces. Several of Zeina’s relatives had been killed in an attack on a neighboring village, including Zeina’s husband who was visiting family in that village on the day of the attack. After this attack, members of the SLA, a rebel group, came through Zeina’s village. They said they were defending her people against these government-sponsored attacks. Zeina served them food, and gave one of them a package of her late husband’s clothing. A few days later, government forces attacked Zeina’s village, killed many of the villagers, raped Zeina, and burned the village. Zeina fled to neighboring Chad, where she has been living as a refugee with her children for years now. DHS would consider Zeina to be inadmissible to the U.S. for “material support” to a terrorist organization based on serving of a meal and donation of used clothing. Zeina should benefit from the insignificant assistance exemption, opening the path to refugee resettlement for her and her children, if Zeina and the children pass all security and background checks and meet all the other requirements for this exemption.
Link to Federal Register announcement:
https://www.federalregister.gov/art...12d3bi-of-the-immigration-and-nationality-act
2) Incidental contacts exemption:
This exemption applies to persons who have provided only limited material support to (1) (1) a Tier III group, (2) a member of a Tier III group, or (3) an individual whom the donor knew, or reasonably should have known, had committed or planned to commit a “terrorist activity” as defined by the INA (which, according to the government, includes any unlawful use of armed force as a non-state actor), if that limited support involves:
a) Certain routine commercial transactions
Hypothetical example: Maria ran a small restaurant in a small town in Colombia in an area where various armed groups were active. Like most restaurant owners, she served food to all her customers without political distinction, and charged everyone the same price. Among her customers were members of a paramilitary group. Maria’s family was later targeted by this same paramilitary group and, after trying and failing to find safety in other parts of Colombia, fled the country. Because this particular paramilitary organization was not listed or designated as a Tier I or Tier II group by the U.S. government at the time, Maria should be able to benefit from the exemption from the material support bar based on her routine commercial transaction with these members of the paramilitary force, whereby she served them food for which they paid the going rate.
Another hypothetical example: Maria’s sister Fernanda had a bakery in a different part of the country that came under the control of FARC guerrillas. Many people in the town, and people from surrounding areas who came into the town to bring goods to market, bought bread and Colombian pastries from this bakery. Among these customers were men Fernanda knew were affiliated with the FARC. Fernanda remains barred, according to DHS, because although her actions were identical to her sister Maria’s, the FARC was a designated (Tier I) terrorist organization at the time of these events.
b) certain routine social transactions (i.e. in satisfaction of certain well-established or verifiable family, social, or cultural obligations)
Hypothetical example: Ahmad is a 19-year-old who recently fled to Jordan with his mother and younger siblings, where they are now living as refugees. The family previously lived in Syria in an area that was under constant attack by Syrian government forces. In response to these attacks, in the summer of 2012 Ahmad’s father joined the Free Syrian Army. He was living at home or visiting frequently in the early stages of the conflict. When he was at home, his mother continued to cook meals for the whole family, including her husband, and Ahmad would serve tea and sweets to his father’s visitors when they came by the house, some of whom were also FSA members. When the situation became too dangerous, Ahmad’s mother and the children fled to safety in Jordan. Ahmad’s father was later killed in Syria. Ahmad and his mother would benefit from this exemption to the “material support” bar that DHS would otherwise apply to their ordinary acts of family solidarity and social courtesy.
c) Certain humanitarian assistance
Hypothetical example: Ibrahim is a teacher was part of a network of community activists who organized to provide assistance to the displaced in his region of Syria. They gathered donations of clothing, medical supplies, blankets, personal hygiene items, and other essentials, which they distributed to people who had fled from zones of active conflict. Ibrahim knew that some of these people were, or had been, involved with the Free Syrian Army, but distributed toothpaste and blankets to everyone. Ibrahim would not be barred from refugee protection in the United States based on his humanitarian assistance thanks to this exemption.
d) Substantial pressure that does not rise to the level of duress
Hypothetical example: On their way to Jordan, Ahmad’s mother (from the example above) gives money to members of a rebel group who assist her and her family in reaching the Jordanian border. The route to the border is under attack by Syrian government forces and the family needs this assistance in order to reach safety. The members of the rebel group were not threatening the family—they were in fact helpful to them—but Ahmad’s mother felt compelled to give them something for their assistance. This scenario should be covered by the “substantial pressure” exemption, but only if the rebel group in question was not a listed or designated group.
Another hypothetical example: David farmed a piece of land a few miles outside the village where he lived, in an area that was under the control of a rebel group. In order to access his land, which was a chief source of income for his family, he had to pay a daily “toll” to the rebel forces who controlled the road. David should be covered by this exemption—assuming he meets all the other criteria—but only if the group in question was not a Tier I or Tier II group.
Note in order to qualify under any aspect of this “incidental contacts” exemption, the applicant must show that he or she did not give whatever he or she gave “with any intent or desire to assist any terrorist organization or terrorist activity.” The idea here is that the Tier III group was really incidental to the transaction that took place, which was not focused on aiding the group but dealing with other legitimate priorities or obligations of the applicant.
Link to Federal Register announcement:
https://www.federalregister.gov/art...12d3bi-of-the-immigration-and-nationality-act
3) Additional requirements common to both exemptions:
In order to qualify for either of these exemptions, an applicant must also satisfy DHS or the State Department that he or she:
(a) Is seeking a benefit or protection under the INA and has been determined to be otherwise eligible for the benefit or protection;
(b) has undergone and passed all relevant background and security checks;
(c) has fully disclosed, in all relevant applications and/or interviews with U.S. government representatives and agents, the nature and circumstances of any material support provided and any other activity or association falling within the scope of section 212(a)(3)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B), as well as all contact with a terrorist organization and its members;
(f) has not provided material support to terrorist activities that he or she knew or reasonably should have known targeted noncombatant persons, U.S. citizens, or U.S. interests;
(g) has not provided material support that the alien knew or reasonably should have known involved providing weapons, ammunition, explosives, or components thereof, or the transportation or concealment of such items;
(h) has not provided material support in the form of military-type training (as defined in section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18, United States Code);
(i) has not engaged in any other terrorist activity, including but not limited to providing material support to a designated terrorist organization, as described in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(I) or (II) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(I) or (II), to which no other exemption applies;
(j) poses no danger to the safety and security of the United States; and
(k) warrants an exemption from the relevant inadmissibility provision in the totality of the circumstances.
11:26 AM (10 minutes ago)
Below is a quick summary of how these exemptions work and what we think they mean.
Dear colleagues:
On Wednesday the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State jointly issued two new discretionary exemptions from the terrorism-related inadmissibility grounds (“TRIG” is DHS’s abbreviation for these) of the Immigration & Nationality Act. The first of these covers what the exemption announcement terms "insignificant material support" to a group deemed to be a Tier III (undesignated) "terrorist organization" under the INA, or to a member of such a group, or to a person who the actor knows has engaged, or has planned to engage, in the use of armed force in an individual capacity (not as a member of any group). The second applies to certain types of incidental contacts with that same range of actors--Tier III groups, members of Tier III groups, or an individual who has engaged in the use of armed force, or plans to, without being a member of any group, and not acting on behalf of any listed or designated terrorist organization.
Both of these exemption announcements, which have been in the works for a very long time, include the welcome recognition that the INA’s TRIG grounds “bar certain aliens who do not pose a national security or public safety risk from admission to the United States and from obtaining immigration benefits or other status.” These two exemptions are intended to cure some of the most glaring examples of this over-breadth. Because DHS and its sister agencies have chosen to interpret the relevant provisions of the statute, and particularly the term “material support,” in an extremely expansive way, the cases covered by these exemptions, many of which are frankly silly—silly not in their impact on the applicants, which has in many cases been devastating, but in the notion that these kinds of factual scenarios should make anyone subject to the terrorism-related inadmissibility grounds of the INA—actually make up a significant proportion of the TRIG-related caseload. We had hoped that the Administration would resolve part of this problem by adopting a more natural reading of the term “material support,” one that would not consider insignificant assistance to be “material,” and would not consider, for example, routine commercial transactions with members of armed groups to fall within the scope of the bar. The Administration instead has chosen to try to address those problems by means of these discretionary exemptions. Also included in these exemptions are some other scenarios equally unfair but less amenable to resolution through interpretation of the statute alone.
From a practical perspective, for anyone whose case is, or will be, adjudicated by DHS or State (affirmative applicants for asylum and other immigration benefits whose cases are pending with USCIS, refugees seeking resettlement from overseas, and applicants for immigrant visas from abroad), these exemptions once implemented should bring fairly prompt relief. For applicants in removal proceedings, the situation remains very different, and the failure to resolve some of this through a better reading of the statute is particularly frustrating: applicants in removal proceedings who are being told they are barred from asylum because they gave a plate of food to a member of a Tier III group, for sample, or because they ran a restaurant where a member of a Tier III group bought lunch, are still going to have to wait until they have been ordered removed and that removal order is administratively final, before they can be considered for either of these exemptions—and then, they will only be considered assuming the order of removal finds them to be eligible for the benefit they are seeking “but for” this inadmissibility ground (and they have passed all relevant security and background checks, they pose no danger to the safety and security of the United States, they have not provided support to any terrorist activities that they knew or reasonably should have known targeted noncombatant persons, U.S. citizens, or U.S. interests—all of which are conditions always applicable to these exemptions generally—in addition to additional requirements specific to each exemption and discussed below). For those of us doing removal defense, and for our clients in removal proceedings, this is an incredibly draining process, morally, financially, and in every other respect, and these exemptions, while they should ultimately provide relief to many of those applicants, will do so in a much slower, more uncertain, and less efficient way.
Also—and this is a very significant limitation to both of these exemptions—neither the insignificant assistance exemption nor the incidental contacts exemption covers anyone who gave such insignificant assistance or had such incidental contacts with any group that was (at the time of the donation/contact) a Tier I or Tier II group (=a designated foreign terrorist organization or a listed terrorist organization).
Implementation guidance on these exemptions is believed to be final or close to final, but has not yet been published and it is not clear that DHS intends to publish it. What follows is a very quick overview of our current understanding of what these exemptions do, whom they cover, and whom they do not. It appears that DHS may be referring to these exemptions by the acronyms CLE I and CLE II; we am not sure what these abbreviations refer to (“categorical limited exemption” would be our best guess). As of today, these new exemptions have not yet been posted to USCIS’s TRIG exemption website (http://www.uscis.gov/laws/terrorism...sm-related-inadmissibility-grounds-exemptions ), so in the interests of clarity we will refer to them as the “insignificant assistance exemption” and the “incidental contacts exemption.
1) Insignificant assistance exemption:
This exemption applies to persons who have not provided more than “an insignificant amount of material support” to (1) a Tier III group, (2) a member of a Tier III group, or (3) an individual whom the donor knew, or reasonably should have known, had committed or planned to commit a “terrorist activity” as defined by the INA (which, according to the government, includes any unlawful use of armed force as a non-state actor). This exemption will only apply if the person did not provide this “material support” with any intent of furthering the terrorist or violent activities of the individual or the group to whom the donation was made, did not provide “material support” that the donor knew or reasonably should have known could directly be used to engage in terrorist or violent activity, and has not provided “material support” to any individual whom the donor knew or reasonably should have known had committed or planned to commit a terrorist activity on behalf of a Tier I or Tier II group, and has not provided “material support” that the donor knew or reasonably should have known involved providing weapons, ammunition, explosives, or components thereof, or the transportation or concealment of such items. The applicant must also meet the additional requirements common to both exemptions (and indeed to all those that have gone before them), which are listed below.
Hypothetical example: Zeina lived in a village in Darfur in a region that came under heavy attack from a mix of Sudanese government and government-sponsored forces. Several of Zeina’s relatives had been killed in an attack on a neighboring village, including Zeina’s husband who was visiting family in that village on the day of the attack. After this attack, members of the SLA, a rebel group, came through Zeina’s village. They said they were defending her people against these government-sponsored attacks. Zeina served them food, and gave one of them a package of her late husband’s clothing. A few days later, government forces attacked Zeina’s village, killed many of the villagers, raped Zeina, and burned the village. Zeina fled to neighboring Chad, where she has been living as a refugee with her children for years now. DHS would consider Zeina to be inadmissible to the U.S. for “material support” to a terrorist organization based on serving of a meal and donation of used clothing. Zeina should benefit from the insignificant assistance exemption, opening the path to refugee resettlement for her and her children, if Zeina and the children pass all security and background checks and meet all the other requirements for this exemption.
Link to Federal Register announcement:
https://www.federalregister.gov/art...12d3bi-of-the-immigration-and-nationality-act
2) Incidental contacts exemption:
This exemption applies to persons who have provided only limited material support to (1) (1) a Tier III group, (2) a member of a Tier III group, or (3) an individual whom the donor knew, or reasonably should have known, had committed or planned to commit a “terrorist activity” as defined by the INA (which, according to the government, includes any unlawful use of armed force as a non-state actor), if that limited support involves:
a) Certain routine commercial transactions
Hypothetical example: Maria ran a small restaurant in a small town in Colombia in an area where various armed groups were active. Like most restaurant owners, she served food to all her customers without political distinction, and charged everyone the same price. Among her customers were members of a paramilitary group. Maria’s family was later targeted by this same paramilitary group and, after trying and failing to find safety in other parts of Colombia, fled the country. Because this particular paramilitary organization was not listed or designated as a Tier I or Tier II group by the U.S. government at the time, Maria should be able to benefit from the exemption from the material support bar based on her routine commercial transaction with these members of the paramilitary force, whereby she served them food for which they paid the going rate.
Another hypothetical example: Maria’s sister Fernanda had a bakery in a different part of the country that came under the control of FARC guerrillas. Many people in the town, and people from surrounding areas who came into the town to bring goods to market, bought bread and Colombian pastries from this bakery. Among these customers were men Fernanda knew were affiliated with the FARC. Fernanda remains barred, according to DHS, because although her actions were identical to her sister Maria’s, the FARC was a designated (Tier I) terrorist organization at the time of these events.
b) certain routine social transactions (i.e. in satisfaction of certain well-established or verifiable family, social, or cultural obligations)
Hypothetical example: Ahmad is a 19-year-old who recently fled to Jordan with his mother and younger siblings, where they are now living as refugees. The family previously lived in Syria in an area that was under constant attack by Syrian government forces. In response to these attacks, in the summer of 2012 Ahmad’s father joined the Free Syrian Army. He was living at home or visiting frequently in the early stages of the conflict. When he was at home, his mother continued to cook meals for the whole family, including her husband, and Ahmad would serve tea and sweets to his father’s visitors when they came by the house, some of whom were also FSA members. When the situation became too dangerous, Ahmad’s mother and the children fled to safety in Jordan. Ahmad’s father was later killed in Syria. Ahmad and his mother would benefit from this exemption to the “material support” bar that DHS would otherwise apply to their ordinary acts of family solidarity and social courtesy.
c) Certain humanitarian assistance
Hypothetical example: Ibrahim is a teacher was part of a network of community activists who organized to provide assistance to the displaced in his region of Syria. They gathered donations of clothing, medical supplies, blankets, personal hygiene items, and other essentials, which they distributed to people who had fled from zones of active conflict. Ibrahim knew that some of these people were, or had been, involved with the Free Syrian Army, but distributed toothpaste and blankets to everyone. Ibrahim would not be barred from refugee protection in the United States based on his humanitarian assistance thanks to this exemption.
d) Substantial pressure that does not rise to the level of duress
Hypothetical example: On their way to Jordan, Ahmad’s mother (from the example above) gives money to members of a rebel group who assist her and her family in reaching the Jordanian border. The route to the border is under attack by Syrian government forces and the family needs this assistance in order to reach safety. The members of the rebel group were not threatening the family—they were in fact helpful to them—but Ahmad’s mother felt compelled to give them something for their assistance. This scenario should be covered by the “substantial pressure” exemption, but only if the rebel group in question was not a listed or designated group.
Another hypothetical example: David farmed a piece of land a few miles outside the village where he lived, in an area that was under the control of a rebel group. In order to access his land, which was a chief source of income for his family, he had to pay a daily “toll” to the rebel forces who controlled the road. David should be covered by this exemption—assuming he meets all the other criteria—but only if the group in question was not a Tier I or Tier II group.
Note in order to qualify under any aspect of this “incidental contacts” exemption, the applicant must show that he or she did not give whatever he or she gave “with any intent or desire to assist any terrorist organization or terrorist activity.” The idea here is that the Tier III group was really incidental to the transaction that took place, which was not focused on aiding the group but dealing with other legitimate priorities or obligations of the applicant.
Link to Federal Register announcement:
https://www.federalregister.gov/art...12d3bi-of-the-immigration-and-nationality-act
3) Additional requirements common to both exemptions:
In order to qualify for either of these exemptions, an applicant must also satisfy DHS or the State Department that he or she:
(a) Is seeking a benefit or protection under the INA and has been determined to be otherwise eligible for the benefit or protection;
(b) has undergone and passed all relevant background and security checks;
(c) has fully disclosed, in all relevant applications and/or interviews with U.S. government representatives and agents, the nature and circumstances of any material support provided and any other activity or association falling within the scope of section 212(a)(3)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B), as well as all contact with a terrorist organization and its members;
(f) has not provided material support to terrorist activities that he or she knew or reasonably should have known targeted noncombatant persons, U.S. citizens, or U.S. interests;
(g) has not provided material support that the alien knew or reasonably should have known involved providing weapons, ammunition, explosives, or components thereof, or the transportation or concealment of such items;
(h) has not provided material support in the form of military-type training (as defined in section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18, United States Code);
(i) has not engaged in any other terrorist activity, including but not limited to providing material support to a designated terrorist organization, as described in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(I) or (II) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(I) or (II), to which no other exemption applies;
(j) poses no danger to the safety and security of the United States; and
(k) warrants an exemption from the relevant inadmissibility provision in the totality of the circumstances.
ACTION
Notice Of Determination.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Back to Top
AGENCIES:
AUTHORITY:
Back to Top
8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(B)(i)
Following consultations with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State have determined that grounds of inadmissibility at section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B), bar certain aliens who do not pose a national security or public safety risk from admission to the United States and from obtaining immigration benefits or other status. Accordingly, consistent with prior exercises of the exemption authority, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General, hereby conclude, as a matter of discretion in accordance with the authority granted by INA section 212(d)(3)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(B)(i), as amended, as well as the foreign policy and national security interests deemed relevant in these consultations, that paragraphs 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)(bb) and (dd) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)(bb) and (dd), shall not apply with respect to an alien who provided insignificant material support to an organization described in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III), or to a member of such an organization, or to an individual described in section 212(a)(3)(B)((iv)(VI)(bb) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)(bb), provided that the alien satisfies the relevant agency authority that the alien:
(a) Is seeking a benefit or protection under the INA and has been determined to be otherwise eligible for the benefit or protection;
(b) has undergone and passed all relevant background and security checks;
(c) has fully disclosed, in all relevant applications and/or interviews with U.S. government representatives and agents, the nature and circumstances of any material support provided and any other activity or association falling within the scope of section 212(a)(3)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B), as well as all contact with a terrorist organization and its members;
(d) has not provided more than an insignificant amount of material support to a terrorist organization described in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III), or to a member of such an organization, or to an individual described in section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)(bb) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182 (a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)(bb);
(e) (1) has not provided the material support with any intent of furthering the terrorist or violent activities of the individual or organization; (2) has not provided material support that the alien knew or reasonably should have known could directly be used to engage in terrorist or violent activity; and (3) has not provided material support to any individual who the alien knew or reasonably should have known had committed or planned to commit a terrorist activity on behalf of a designated terrorist organization, as described in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(I) or (II) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(I) or (II);
(f) has not provided material support to terrorist activities that he or she knew or reasonably should have known targeted noncombatant persons, U.S. citizens, or U.S. interests;
(g) has not provided material support that the alien knew or reasonablyshould have known involved providing weapons, ammunition, explosives, or components thereof, or the transportation or concealment of such items;
(h) has not provided material support in the form of military-type training (as defined in section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18, United States Code);
(i) has not engaged in any other terrorist activity, including but not limited to providing material support to a designated terrorist organization, as described in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(I) or (II) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(I) or (II), to which no other exemption applies;
(j) poses no danger to the safety and security of the United States; and
(k) warrants an exemption from the relevant inadmissibility provision in the totality of the circumstances.
Implementation of this determination will be made by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), in consultation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), or by U.S. consular officers, as applicable, who shall ascertain, to their satisfaction, and in their discretion, that the particular alien meets each of the criteria set forth above.
This exercise of authority may be revoked as a matter of discretion and without notice at any time with respect to any and all persons subject to it. Any determination made under this exercise of authority as set out above can inform but shall not control a decision regarding any subsequent benefit or protection applications, unless such exercise of authority has been revoked.
This exercise of authority shall not be construed to prejudice, in any way, the ability of the U.S. government to commence subsequent criminal or civil proceedings in accordance with U.S. law involving any beneficiary of this exercise of authority (or any other person). This exercise of authority creates no substantive or procedural right or benefit that is legally enforceable by any party against the United States or its agencies or officers or any other person.
In accordance with section 212(d)(3)(B)(ii) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(B)(ii), a report on the aliens to whom this exercise of authority is applied, on the basis of case-by-case decisions by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security or by the U.S. Department of State, shall be provided to the specified congressional committees not later than 90 days after the end of the fiscal year.
This determination is based on an assessment related to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States as they apply to the particular persons described herein and shall not have any application with respect to other persons or to other provisions of U.S. law.
Jeh Charles Johnson,
Secretary of Homeland Security.
John F. Kerry,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-02353 Filed 2-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-9M-P
Notice Of Determination.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Back to Top
AGENCIES:
AUTHORITY:
Back to Top
8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(B)(i)
Following consultations with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State have determined that grounds of inadmissibility at section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B), bar certain aliens who do not pose a national security or public safety risk from admission to the United States and from obtaining immigration benefits or other status. Accordingly, consistent with prior exercises of the exemption authority, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General, hereby conclude, as a matter of discretion in accordance with the authority granted by INA section 212(d)(3)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(B)(i), as amended, as well as the foreign policy and national security interests deemed relevant in these consultations, that paragraphs 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)(bb) and (dd) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)(bb) and (dd), shall not apply with respect to an alien who provided insignificant material support to an organization described in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III), or to a member of such an organization, or to an individual described in section 212(a)(3)(B)((iv)(VI)(bb) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)(bb), provided that the alien satisfies the relevant agency authority that the alien:
(a) Is seeking a benefit or protection under the INA and has been determined to be otherwise eligible for the benefit or protection;
(b) has undergone and passed all relevant background and security checks;
(c) has fully disclosed, in all relevant applications and/or interviews with U.S. government representatives and agents, the nature and circumstances of any material support provided and any other activity or association falling within the scope of section 212(a)(3)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B), as well as all contact with a terrorist organization and its members;
(d) has not provided more than an insignificant amount of material support to a terrorist organization described in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III), or to a member of such an organization, or to an individual described in section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)(bb) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182 (a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)(bb);
(e) (1) has not provided the material support with any intent of furthering the terrorist or violent activities of the individual or organization; (2) has not provided material support that the alien knew or reasonably should have known could directly be used to engage in terrorist or violent activity; and (3) has not provided material support to any individual who the alien knew or reasonably should have known had committed or planned to commit a terrorist activity on behalf of a designated terrorist organization, as described in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(I) or (II) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(I) or (II);
(f) has not provided material support to terrorist activities that he or she knew or reasonably should have known targeted noncombatant persons, U.S. citizens, or U.S. interests;
(g) has not provided material support that the alien knew or reasonablyshould have known involved providing weapons, ammunition, explosives, or components thereof, or the transportation or concealment of such items;
(h) has not provided material support in the form of military-type training (as defined in section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18, United States Code);
(i) has not engaged in any other terrorist activity, including but not limited to providing material support to a designated terrorist organization, as described in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(I) or (II) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(I) or (II), to which no other exemption applies;
(j) poses no danger to the safety and security of the United States; and
(k) warrants an exemption from the relevant inadmissibility provision in the totality of the circumstances.
Implementation of this determination will be made by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), in consultation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), or by U.S. consular officers, as applicable, who shall ascertain, to their satisfaction, and in their discretion, that the particular alien meets each of the criteria set forth above.
This exercise of authority may be revoked as a matter of discretion and without notice at any time with respect to any and all persons subject to it. Any determination made under this exercise of authority as set out above can inform but shall not control a decision regarding any subsequent benefit or protection applications, unless such exercise of authority has been revoked.
This exercise of authority shall not be construed to prejudice, in any way, the ability of the U.S. government to commence subsequent criminal or civil proceedings in accordance with U.S. law involving any beneficiary of this exercise of authority (or any other person). This exercise of authority creates no substantive or procedural right or benefit that is legally enforceable by any party against the United States or its agencies or officers or any other person.
In accordance with section 212(d)(3)(B)(ii) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(B)(ii), a report on the aliens to whom this exercise of authority is applied, on the basis of case-by-case decisions by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security or by the U.S. Department of State, shall be provided to the specified congressional committees not later than 90 days after the end of the fiscal year.
This determination is based on an assessment related to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States as they apply to the particular persons described herein and shall not have any application with respect to other persons or to other provisions of U.S. law.
Jeh Charles Johnson,
Secretary of Homeland Security.
John F. Kerry,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-02353 Filed 2-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-9M-P