Articles Posted in PIP

It did not take long. Mere days after the PIP opened, Texas, Idaho, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wyoming  filed a Complaint for injunction with the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint against the Parole in Place (PIP) Keeping Families Together program, raises arguments that challenge the legality and appropriateness of the program. However, these allegations reveal significant oversights. Zneimer & Zneimer, P.C. has reviewed the complaint and the motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) filed in this case. Our firm remains committed to advocating for the protection of nuclear families, particularly those involving noncitizen members, while strictly adhering to the applicable legal standards and procedures. Through this blog, we aim to offer insights into why preserving these families serves a substantial public interest.

Allegations Challenging the Executive’s Parole Authority 

The complaint alleges that the Department of Homeland Security is overstepping its authority by using parole to allow noncitizens to remain in the United States instead of going for consular processing abroad. It claims that the parole authority should only be exercised on a case-by-case basis for “urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit,” and that the PIP program circumvents this by effectively creating a pathway to permanent residency for a large number of individuals. This argument is grounded in a restrictive interpretation of the parole authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5). The complaint points to the language of the statute, allowing for parole “for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit” and alleges that PIP does not account for this statutory requirement.  It is ironic that the states that claim to support families now argue against a program whose purpose is to prevent the disruption of established families, particularly those involving U.S. citizen children, which falls within the realm of “significant public benefit.” By allowing these families to remain undisrupted, the program indeed addresses urgent humanitarian concerns and promotes social stability, which is a substantial public benefit recognized in both statutory and case law.  Additionally, the complaint’s argument that parole should only be granted in narrowly defined, individual cases overlooks the program’s requirement that each person apply individually and individually qualify for the PIP.  The PIP program does not grant permanent residency or citizenship.  It simply allows individuals to remain with their families while their immigration status is resolved. This approach is humane and legally justified under the existing statutory framework.