I basically want to know if I'm still entitled to a worker's permit.
I applied for Cancellation of Removal but the IJ wants to close my case.
My case is simply being closed for ""convenience"" purposes. My wife and I are under removal proceedings but have not yet received a final order of removal. We have a daughter in USC who will be turning 21 in March. My wife will be able to adjust as she entered legally. I however did not.
Government said that they would appeal the Immigration Judge’s decision if he were to grant my Cancellation case. They are doing a Prosecutorial Discretion, cancelling the removal charges, but leaving me with no lawful immigration status. I have no employment authorization documents granted.
Hello - there is not an easy answer to your question of whether you are still entitled to a worker’s permit, as we do not know why the IJ wants to close your case. So you submitted your Cancellation Application to the IJ, and you did not apply for a work permit at that time? Now the Judge wants to admin close your case - but you did not tell us why. What will make a difference in the answer to your question of your eligibility for an EAD is finding out why the Immigration Judge wants to admin close your case.
An Immigration Judge normally does not just close a case unless there is something else going on in your life that will lead you to some sort of relief in the near future. Does this relate to Prosecutorial Discretion? Have an immigration attorney look at the documents you were given, and hopefully we can help you figure this out.
You are not entitled to work authorization simply because your case is administratively closed. You will need to talk to an immigration lawyer to see if there are facts about your case that entitle or could entitle you to work authorization. See the AILA link below.
I agree with my colleagues. You need to collect all of your information and consult with an experienced immigration attorney who can examine your case and provide a legal opinion as to what immigration benefits, including a worker permit, you may qualify for under exisiting law.
Legal disclaimer: The statement above is provided by CC Abbott is based on general assistance and not intended to be a legal opinion because not all the facts are provided. The person requesting information and all others reading the answer should retain an attorney who is permitted by the state bar within the jurisdiction who can examine the complete facts and provide a legal opinion on your case. All information provided in the above answer and other information provided by CC Abbott does not create an attorney/client relationship within any state of Federal law.
No, you are not still entitled to a worker’s permit. To obtain work authorization, you must have a pending application which allows for employment authorization. Our office has tried unsuccessfully to obtain employment authorization for clients whose cases have been administratively closed. CIS has requested the notice with the next court hearing of removal proceedings. That is the problem.
So even if there was a pending application for a worker’s permit before the case was administratively closed, after it is closed, it is highly problematic to get an EAD.
Technically if you have already filed your EOIR-42B application for cancellation of removal with the court and your case has been administratively closed your application is still pending. There is an argument that you are entitled to work authorization based on a pending application. This is an area of huge debate right now, you should contact an immigration attorney who specializes in removal defense and stay tuned to recent developments on this issue.
The Guides and Answers I post to this web site are intended for informational purposes only and are not intended to serve as legal advice regarding specific matters nor should it be construed as a legal opinion. Use of this web site does not establish an attorney-client relationship between you and Rachel Game, or the law firm Hecht and Norman LLP. The information on this web site should not be used to replace the advice of a licensed attorney.