Keeping Families Together: A New Path for Certain Undocumented Spouses and Stepchildren of U.S. Citizens

October 18, 2024
A group of people are posing for a picture together.

Keeping Families Together: A New Path for Certain Undocumented Spouses and Stepchildren of U.S. Citizens

On August 19, 2024, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) implemented “Keeping Families Together,” a process allowing certain noncitizen spouses and stepchildren of U.S. citizens to request parole-in- place.

What Is Parole-in-Place?

Parole-in-place allows specific individuals who entered the United States without presenting themselves to an immigration officer at an official checkpoint to remain in the country for up to three years and possibly apply for their green card in the United States rather than having to travel abroad to apply at a U.S. consulate.

Who May Be Eligible?

Noncitizen spouses of U.S. citizens who:

  • Are present in the United States without admission or parole;
  • Have been continuously physically present since at least June 17, 2014, through the date of filing their request; and
  • Have a valid marriage to a S. citizen on or before June 17, 2024.

Noncitizen stepchildren of U.S. citizens who:

  • Were under 21 and unmarried on June 17, 2024;
  • Are present in the United States without admission or parole;
  • Have been continuously physically present since at least June 17, 2024, and through the date of filing their request; and
  • Have a noncitizen parent who married a U.S. citizen on or before June 17, 2024, and before the stepchild’s 18th

An applicant must:

  • Not have any disqualifying criminal history;
  • Not commit acts that are a threat to public safety, national security, or border security; and
  • Undergo required background checks and national security and public safety vetting. You may be required t o go to an application support center to submit photographs and fingerprints.

If a Parole-in-Place Application Is Approved, the Applicant Can:

  • Stay in the United States legally for up to three years
  • Apply for work authorization
  • Apply for other immigration benefits, like a green card,

if you qualify

Important Considerations:

  • Each eligible family member must file separately
  • Approval is discretionary and not guaranteed
  • Criminal history or prior immigration violations may affect eligibility
  • Travel outside the United States may affect eligibility for parole status or terminate parole status once granted
  • DHS can end your parole at any time

Next Steps:

Note: This is general information, not legal advice. Immigration laws are complex and can change. Always consult a qualified immigration attorney for advice on your specific situation.

We encourage you to contact our office at 719 602 4477 if you have any questions.

Keeping Families Together: A New Path for Certain Undocumented Spouses and Stepchildren of U.S. Citizens
By 7070266136 April 17, 2025
Recently, several cases have been reported in which the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has sent communications to citizens and legal residents, urging them to leave the country or face potential legal action. Among the various cases, one that has drawn particular attention is that of Nicole Micheroni, an immigration attorney born in the U.S., who received an email from DHS dated April 11, informing her that she must leave the country within seven days. The message, titled "Notice of Parole Termination," stated that her parole had been revoked. Although DHS later suggested that the email may have been sent in error due to her email address being associated with clients, the situation reveals a concerning practice. This incident indicates that DHS may be sending intimidating mass emails intended to pressure recipients to leave the country. According to the website Nbcboston , “In a statement, a senior official from the Department of Homeland Security told NBC10 Boston that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is issuing parole termination notices to individuals who do not have legal status to remain in the country, and that 'CBP used the known email addresses of the foreign nationals to send the notifications. If a non-personal email was provided—such as one belonging to a U.S. citizen—it’s possible that the notifications were sent to unintended recipients. CBP is monitoring the communications and will address any issues on a case-by-case basis.’” These actions reflect an escalation in immigration policies under the Trump administration, affecting not only immigrants but also U.S. citizens and legal residents. If you need legal assistance or additional information on immigration matters, contact us to schedule an appointment at (719) 602-4477.
By 7070266136 April 9, 2025
Jeanette Vizguerra, a prominent immigrant and labor rights activist in Colorado, was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). She is currently being held in an ICE facility in Aurora, Colorado, awaiting deportation to Mexico. ICE claims that Vizguerra entered the U.S. illegally from Mexico in 1997 and has a final deportation order. However, her legal team challenges the validity of this order, arguing that it was reinstated incorrectly and that she has received due process. A hearing is scheduled for March 28, 2025, in which U.S. District Judge Nina Wang will consider these arguments and decide on her potential release. This arrest is particularly significant, as Vizguerra’s case gained national attention during the previous Trump administration. She became known as an immigrant rights activist after, in 2017, to avoid deportation, she moved into a church basement with her three children. Later, she was named one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people of 2017. On March 17, Vizguerra was arrested by ICE while on a break from her job at Target (a store that, by the way, has openly declared itself non-protective of immigrants). According to reports, during the arrest, officials told her, "We finally have you." This statement has been interpreted by many as a clear example of persecution toward activists. According to The New York Times, "Her detention has already sparked backlash from Colorado’s Democratic politicians and immigrant rights advocates, who accused the Trump administration of attempting to silence critics of its harsh immigration policies." The New York Times quoted Denver Mayor Mike Johnston, who condemned the arrest of Ms. Vizguerra as "a Putin-style persecution of political dissidents," which ensnared a working-class mother who had dedicated her life to helping other undocumented immigrants. “We don’t see this as immigration law enforcement,” he said in an interview. “This is about targeting political opponents and using the power of the government to punish them.” Colorado Democratic Senator Michael Bennet called Ms. Vizguerra a "pillar of her community" and urged U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to release her. An ICE spokesperson confirmed her arrest to The Guardian, stating that Vizguerra was "arrested without incident" on Monday and would "remain in ICE custody pending her deportation from the United States." The spokesperson described Vizguerra as “a convicted criminal alien from Mexico who has a final deportation order issued by a federal immigration judge” and stated that she “illegally entered the United States near El Paso, Texas, on December 24, 1997, and has received due process in a U.S. immigration court.” However, on Tuesday, Vizguerra's attorneys filed a writ of habeas corpus with the court, urging ICE to bring Vizguerra before the court to determine if her detention is legal. “Vizguerra has fought her own deportation since 2009 while advocating for immigrant rights, labor protections, and family unity,” they stated in a release from the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition. In conclusion, this particular case draws attention not only because Vizguerra was arrested, but also because it is another concerning case related to activists being repressed for being openly against the policies of the Trump administration. At Pikes Peak Immigration, we continue to fight for immigrant rights. If you have any questions or need advice on immigration matters, don’t hesitate to contact us.
By 7070266136 March 28, 2025
Recently, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts, has had public disagreements with President Donald Trump. The conflict arose after District Judge James E. Boasberg issued an order blocking the deportation of Venezuelans under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. In response, Trump called Judge Boasberg a "radical left-wing lunatic" and demanded his removal. This request was rejected by Chief Justice Roberts, who emphasized that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreements with judicial decisions and stressed the importance of the appeals process. This situation highlights the tensions between the executive and judicial branches, especially when the impartiality or integrity of the judicial system is questioned. The confrontation has been seen as an institutional clash, with the Chief Justice openly opposing the political pressures exerted by former President Trump, reaffirming the importance of judicial independence. As reported by The Wall Street Journal, "Roberts' recent remarks are not the first time he has rebuked politicians for undermining the judiciary. In 2018, after Trump attacked what he called an 'Obama judge' for ruling against him in a separate immigration case, Roberts issued a statement defending the courts." "We don’t have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges," Roberts said at the time. "What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges who make their best efforts to dispense fair justice to those who appear before them." To this, Trump responded: "Sorry, Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do in fact have ‘Obama judges,’ and they have a very different point of view from the people responsible for the safety of our country." As The Wall Street Journal explains in one of its articles: "Threats of impeachment against district judges over preliminary orders issued at the start of litigation are virtually unheard of—and even less so when coming from the president. To remove a judge, the House would have to approve articles of impeachment, and the Senate, after a trial, would need to convict by a two-thirds vote. Although the likelihood of this happening is low, Roberts and other judges have warned that the inflammatory rhetoric of political leaders can lead to the intimidation of judges and even threats to their safety and that of their families." Meanwhile, the court of appeals has not made any decision regarding the removal of Boasberg, and he continues to carry out his duties, such as requesting more information from the government about recent deportation flights. The government continues to evade this request, providing little information while vehemently insisting on Boasberg's removal. If you have any questions about how this could affect your immigration case, please don't hesitate to contact us.
More Posts →