Hernandez v. New York State Board of Elections A federal court approved the terms of a settlement agreement that requires the NYS Board of Elections create a statewide remote mail-in system so that voters who are blind, or have other print disabilities, can read and mark their ballots independently.
What is the phase 2 of the Hernandez v. Reno settlement agreement?
Phase two of the implementation of the “single application” system agreed to under the Hernandez v. Reno settlement agreement involved the development and issuance of a revised Form I-817 that would contain sufficient requests for information from the applicant so that an employment authorization document could be issued without resorting to the use of the Form I-765 as a supplement. Such a form has now been developed and has been sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Approval of the revised Form I-817, now entitled “Application for Benefits under the Family Unity Program,” will result in the grant of voluntary departure for a 2-year period and the issuance of an employment authorization document valid for the same period as the grant of voluntary departure.
What is the interim rule in Hernandez v. Reno?
No. 9:93 CV 63 (E.D. Tex., filed Dec. 30, 1997), requiring the development and implementation of a single application form to be used in connection with the adjudication of requests for benefits under the Family Unity Program, including voluntary departure and an employment authorization document. This interim rule also clarifies the regulations to provide that certain aliens will not lose their eligibility for the Family Unity Program simply because their sponsoring family member has become a naturalized United States citizen. In addition, this interim rule adds a class of aliens who are ineligible for Family Unity benefits. Individuals who, as juveniles, committed an act of juvenile delinquency which, if committed by an adult would be classified as a felony “crime of violence against another individual,” are ineligible for benefits under the Family Unity Program. Finally, this rule deletes as matter of agency procedure the category for Family Unity Program-based employment authorization set forth at 8 CFR 274 a.12 (c) (12). The Service recognizes that this category is redundant in light of the existence of a virtually identical category set forth at 8 CFR 274 a.12 (a) (13).
When did the IIRIRA amendments apply?
The amendments made by section 383 of IIRIRA apply to benefits granted or extended after September 30, 1996.
Is the 804 rule a major rule?
This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.
Does the Immigration and Naturalization Service have an impact on small businesses?
605 (b)), has reviewed this regulation and, by approving it, certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. While this rule does affect individuals, the number affected will be minimal. There is no impact on small entities.
