Visa waiver program for certain visitors

May 5, 2017 § Leave a comment

8 U.S. Code § 1187 – Visa waiver program for certain visitors

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
Notes
Authorities (CFR)
prev | next
(a) Establishment of programThe Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State are authorized to establish a program (hereinafter in this section referred to as the “program”) under which the requirement of paragraph (7)(B)(i)(II) of section 1182(a) of this title may be waived by the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and in accordance with this section, in the case of an alien who meets the following requirements:
(1) Seeking entry as tourist for 90 days or less
The alien is applying for admission during the program as a nonimmigrant visitor (described in section 1101(a)(15)(B) of this title) for a period not exceeding 90 days.
(2) National of program countryThe alien is a national of, and presents a passport issued by, a country which—
(A) extends (or agrees to extend), either on its own or in conjunction with one or more other countries that are described in subparagraph (B) and that have established with it a common area for immigration admissions, reciprocal privileges to citizens and nationals of the United States, and
(B) is designated as a pilot program country under subsection (c).
(3) Passport requirementsThe alien, at the time of application for admission, is in possession of a valid unexpired passport that satisfies the following:
(A) Machine readable
The passport is a machine-readable passport that is tamper-resistant, incorporates document authentication identifiers, and otherwise satisfies the internationally accepted standard for machine readability.
(B) Electronic
Beginning on April 1, 2016, the passport is an electronic passport that is fraud-resistant, contains relevant biographic and biometric information (as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security), and otherwise satisfies internationally accepted standards for electronic passports.
(4) Executes immigration forms
The alien before the time of such admission completes such immigration form as the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish.
(5) Entry into the United States
If arriving by sea or air, the alien arrives at the port of entry into the United States on a carrier, including any carrier conducting operations under part 135 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, or a noncommercial aircraft that is owned or operated by a domestic corporation conducting operations under part 91 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations [1] which has entered into an agreement with the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to subsection (e). The Secretary of Homeland Security is authorized to require a carrier conducting operations under part 135 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, or a domestic corporation conducting operations under part 91 of that title, to give suitable and proper bond, in such reasonable amount and containing such conditions as the Secretary of Homeland Security may deem sufficient to ensure compliance with the indemnification requirements of this section, as a term of such an agreement.
(6) Not a safety threat
The alien has been determined not to represent a threat to the welfare, health, safety, or security of the United States.
(7) No previous violation
If the alien previously was admitted without a visa under this section, the alien must not have failed to comply with the conditions of any previous admission as such a nonimmigrant.
(8) Round-trip ticket
The alien is in possession of a round-trip transportation ticket (unless this requirement is waived by the Secretary of Homeland Security under regulations or the alien is arriving at the port of entry on an aircraft operated under part 135 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, or a noncommercial aircraft that is owned or operated by a domestic corporation conducting operations under part 91 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations).
(9) Automated system check
The identity of the alien has been checked using an automated electronic database containing information about the inadmissibility of aliens to uncover any grounds on which the alien may be inadmissible to the United States, and no such ground has been found.
(10) Electronic transmission of identification information
Operators of aircraft under part 135 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, or operators of noncommercial aircraft that are owned or operated by a domestic corporation conducting operations under part 91 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, carrying any alien passenger who will apply for admission under this section shall furnish such information as the Secretary of Homeland Security by regulation shall prescribe as necessary for the identification of any alien passenger being transported and for the enforcement of the immigration laws. Such information shall be electronically transmitted not less than one hour prior to arrival at the port of entry for purposes of checking for inadmissibility using the automated electronic database.
(11) Eligibility determination under the electronic system for travel authorization
Beginning on the date on which the electronic system for travel authorization developed under subsection (h)(3) is fully operational, each alien traveling under the program shall, before applying for admission to the United States, electronically provide to the system biographical information and such other information as the Secretary of Homeland Security shall determine necessary to determine the eligibility of, and whether there exists a law enforcement or security risk in permitting, the alien to travel to the United States. Upon review of such biographical information, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall determine whether the alien is eligible to travel to the United States under the program.
(12) Not present in Iraq, Syria, or any other country or area of concern
(A) In generalExcept as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C)—
(i) the alien has not been present, at any time on or after March 1, 2011—
(I) in Iraq or Syria;
(II) in a country that is designated by the Secretary of State under section 4605(j) of title 50 (as continued in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)), section 2780 of title 22, section 2371 of title 22, or any other provision of law, as a country, the government of which has repeatedly provided support of acts of international terrorism; or
(III) in any other country or area of concern designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security under subparagraph (D); and
(ii) regardless of whether the alien is a national of a program country, the alien is not a national of—
(I) Iraq or Syria;
(II) a country that is designated, at the time the alien applies for admission, by the Secretary of State under section 4605(j) of title 50 (as continued in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)), section 2780 of title 22, section 2371 of title 22, or any other provision of law, as a country, the government of which has repeatedly provided support of acts of international terrorism; or
(III) any other country that is designated, at the time the alien applies for admission, by the Secretary of Homeland Security under subparagraph (D).
(B) Certain military personnel and government employeesSubparagraph (A)(i) shall not apply in the case of an alien if the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that the alien was present—
(i) in order to perform military service in the armed forces of a program country; or
(ii) in order to carry out official duties as a full time employee of the government of a program country.
(C) Waiver
The Secretary of Homeland Security may waive the application of subparagraph (A) to an alien if the Secretary determines that such a waiver is in the law enforcement or national security interests of the United States.
(D) Countries or areas of concern
(i) In general
Not later than 60 days after December 18, 2015, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall determine whether the requirement under subparagraph (A) shall apply to any other country or area.
(ii) CriteriaIn making a determination under clause (i), the Secretary shall consider—
(I) whether the presence of an alien in the country or area increases the likelihood that the alien is a credible threat to the national security of the United States;
(II) whether a foreign terrorist organization has a significant presence in the country or area; and
(III) whether the country or area is a safe haven for terrorists.
(iii) Annual review
The Secretary shall conduct a review, on an annual basis, of any determination made under clause (i).
(E) Report
Beginning not later than one year after December 18, 2015, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate a report on each instance in which the Secretary exercised the waiver authority under subparagraph (C) during the previous year.
(b) Waiver of rightsAn alien may not be provided a waiver under the program unless the alien has waived any right—
(1) to review or appeal under this chapter of an immigration officer’s determination as to the admissibility of the alien at the port of entry into the United States, or
(2) to contest, other than on the basis of an application for asylum, any action for removal of the alien.
(c) Designation of program countries
(1) In general
The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may designate any country as a program country if it meets the requirements of paragraph (2).
(2) QualificationsExcept as provided in subsection (f), a country may not be designated as a program country unless the following requirements are met:
(A) Low nonimmigrant visa refusal rateEither—
(i) the average number of refusals of nonimmigrant visitor visas for nationals of that country during—
(I) the two previous full fiscal years was less than 2.0 percent of the total number of nonimmigrant visitor visas for nationals of that country which were granted or refused during those years; and
(II) either of such two previous full fiscal years was less than 2.5 percent of the total number of nonimmigrant visitor visas for nationals of that country which were granted or refused during that year; or
(ii) such refusal rate for nationals of that country during the previous full fiscal year was less than 3.0 percent.
(B) Passport program
(i) Issuance of passports
The government of the country certifies that it issues to its citizens passports described in subparagraph (A) of subsection (a)(3), and on or after April 1, 2016, passports described in subparagraph (B) of subsection (a)(3).
(ii) Validation of passports
Not later than October 1, 2016, the government of the country certifies that it has in place mechanisms to validate passports described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (a)(3) at each key port of entry into that country. This requirement shall not apply to travel between countries which fall within the Schengen Zone.
(C) Law enforcement and security interestsThe Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State—
(i) evaluates the effect that the country’s designation would have on the law enforcement and security interests of the United States (including the interest in enforcement of the immigration laws of the United States and the existence and effectiveness of its agreements and procedures for extraditing to the United States individuals, including its own nationals, who commit crimes that violate United States law);
(ii) determines that such interests would not be compromised by the designation of the country; and
(iii) submits a written report to the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate regarding the country’s qualification for designation that includes an explanation of such determination.
(D) Reporting lost and stolen passports
The government of the country enters into an agreement with the United States to report, or make available through Interpol or other means as designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security, to the United States Government information about the theft or loss of passports not later than 24 hours after becoming aware of the theft or loss and in a manner specified in the agreement.
(E) Repatriation of aliens
The government of the country accepts for repatriation any citizen, former citizen, or national of the country against whom a final executable order of removal is issued not later than three weeks after the issuance of the final order of removal. Nothing in this subparagraph creates any duty for the United States or any right for any alien with respect to removal or release. Nothing in this subparagraph gives rise to any cause of action or claim under this paragraph or any other law against any official of the United States or of any State to compel the release, removal, or consideration for release or removal of any alien.
(F) Passenger information exchange
The government of the country enters into an agreement with the United States to share information regarding whether citizens and nationals of that country traveling to the United States represent a threat to the security or welfare of the United States or its citizens, and fully implements such agreement.
(G) Interpol screening
Not later than 270 days after December 18, 2015, except in the case of a country in which there is not an international airport, the government of the country certifies to the Secretary of Homeland Security that, to the maximum extent allowed under the laws of the country, it is screening, for unlawful activity, each person who is not a citizen or national of that country who is admitted to or departs that country, by using relevant databases and notices maintained by Interpol, or other means designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security. This requirement shall not apply to travel between countries which fall within the Schengen Zone.
(3) Continuing and subsequent qualificationsFor each fiscal year after the initial period—
(A) Continuing qualificationIn the case of a country which was a program country in the previous fiscal year, a country may not be designated as a program country unless the sum of—
(i) the total of the number of nationals of that country who were denied admission at the time of arrival or withdrew their application for admission during such previous fiscal year as a nonimmigrant visitor, and
(ii) the total number of nationals of that country who were admitted as nonimmigrant visitors during such previous fiscal year and who violated the terms of such admission,
was less than 2 percent of the total number of nationals of that country who applied for admission as nonimmigrant visitors during such previous fiscal year.
(B) New countriesIn the case of another country, the country may not be designated as a program country unless the following requirements are met:
(i) Low nonimmigrant visa refusal rate in previous 2-year period
The average number of refusals of nonimmigrant visitor visas for nationals of that country during the two previous full fiscal years was less than 2 percent of the total number of nonimmigrant visitor visas for nationals of that country which were granted or refused during those years.
(ii) Low nonimmigrant visa refusal rate in each of the 2 previous years
The average number of refusals of nonimmigrant visitor visas for nationals of that country during either of such two previous full fiscal years was less than 2.5 percent of the total number of nonimmigrant visitor visas for nationals of that country which were granted or refused during that year.
(4) Initial period
For purposes of paragraphs (2) and (3), the term “initial period” means the period beginning at the end of the 30-day period described in subsection (b)(1) and ending on the last day of the first fiscal year which begins after such 30-day period.
(5) Written reports on continuing qualification; designation terminations
(A) Periodic evaluations
(i) In generalThe Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, periodically (but not less than once every 2 years)—
(I) shall evaluate the effect of each program country’s continued designation on the law enforcement and security interests of the United States (including the interest in enforcement of the immigration laws of the United States and the existence and effectiveness of its agreements and procedures for extraditing to the United States individuals, including its own nationals, who commit crimes that violate United States law);
(II) shall determine, based upon the evaluation in subclause (I), whether any such designation ought to be continued or terminated under subsection (d);
(III) shall submit a written report to the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Committee on Homeland Security, of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate regarding the continuation or termination of the country’s designation that includes an explanation of such determination and the effects described in subclause (I);
(IV) shall submit to Congress a report regarding the implementation of the electronic system for travel authorization under subsection (h)(3) and the participation of new countries in the program through a waiver under paragraph (8); and
(V) shall submit to the committees described in subclause (III), a report that includes an assessment of the threat to the national security of the United States of the designation of each country designated as a program country, including the compliance of the government of each such country with the requirements under subparagraphs (D) and (F) of paragraph (2), as well as each such government’s capacity to comply with such requirements.
(ii) Effective date
A termination of the designation of a country under this subparagraph shall take effect on the date determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State.
(iii) Redesignation
In the case of a termination under this subparagraph, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall redesignate the country as a program country, without regard to subsection (f) or paragraph (2) or (3), when the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, determines that all causes of the termination have been eliminated.
(B) Emergency termination
(i) In general
In the case of a program country in which an emergency occurs that the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, determines threatens the law enforcement or security interests of the United States (including the interest in enforcement of the immigration laws of the United States), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall immediately terminate the designation of the country as a program country.
(ii) DefinitionFor purposes of clause (i), the term “emergency” means—
(I) the overthrow of a democratically elected government;
(II) war (including undeclared war, civil war, or other military activity) on the territory of the program country;
(III) a severe breakdown in law and order affecting a significant portion of the program country’s territory;
(IV) a severe economic collapse in the program country; or
(V) any other extraordinary event in the program country that threatens the law enforcement or security interests of the United States (including the interest in enforcement of the immigration laws of the United States) and where the country’s participation in the program could contribute to that threat.
(iii) RedesignationThe Secretary of Homeland Security may redesignate the country as a program country, without regard to subsection (f) or paragraph (2) or (3), when the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, determines that—
(I) at least 6 months have elapsed since the effective date of the termination;
(II) the emergency that caused the termination has ended; and
(III) the average number of refusals of nonimmigrant visitor visas for nationals of that country during the period of termination under this subparagraph was less than 3.0 percent of the total number of nonimmigrant visitor visas for nationals of that country which were granted or refused during such period.
(iv) Program suspension authorityThe Director of National Intelligence shall immediately inform the Secretary of Homeland Security of any current and credible threat which poses an imminent danger to the United States or its citizens and originates from a country participating in the visa waiver program. Upon receiving such notification, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State—
(I) may suspend a country from the visa waiver program without prior notice;
(II) shall notify any country suspended under subclause (I) and, to the extent practicable without disclosing sensitive intelligence sources and methods, provide justification for the suspension; and
(III) shall restore the suspended country’s participation in the visa waiver program upon a determination that the threat no longer poses an imminent danger to the United States or its citizens.
(C) Treatment of nationals after terminationFor purposes of this paragraph—
(i) nationals of a country whose designation is terminated under subparagraph (A) or (B) shall remain eligible for a waiver under subsection (a) until the effective date of such termination; and
(ii) a waiver under this section that is provided to such a national for a period described in subsection (a)(1) shall not, by such termination, be deemed to have been rescinded or otherwise rendered invalid, if the waiver is granted prior to such termination.
(6) Computation of visa refusal rates
For purposes of determining the eligibility of a country to be designated as a program country, the calculation of visa refusal rates shall not include any visa refusals which incorporate any procedures based on, or are otherwise based on, race, sex, or disability, unless otherwise specifically authorized by law or regulation. No court shall have jurisdiction under this paragraph to review any visa refusal, the denial of admission to the United States of any alien by the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary’s computation of the visa refusal rate, or the designation or nondesignation of any country.
(7) Visa waiver information
(A) In general
In refusing the application of nationals of a program country for United States visas, or the applications of nationals of a country seeking entry into the visa waiver program, a consular officer shall not knowingly or intentionally classify the refusal of the visa under a category that is not included in the calculation of the visa refusal rate only so that the percentage of that country’s visa refusals is less than the percentage limitation applicable to qualification for participation in the visa waiver program.
(B) Reporting requirementOn May 1 of each year, for each country under consideration for inclusion in the visa waiver program, the Secretary of State shall provide to the appropriate congressional committees—
(i) the total number of nationals of that country that applied for United States visas in that country during the previous calendar year;
(ii) the total number of such nationals who received United States visas during the previous calendar year;
(iii) the total number of such nationals who were refused United States visas during the previous calendar year;
(iv) the total number of such nationals who were refused United States visas during the previous calendar year under each provision of this chapter under which the visas were refused; and
(v) the number of such nationals that were refused under section 1184(b) of this title as a percentage of the visas that were issued to such nationals.
(C) Certification
Not later than May 1 of each year, the United States chief of mission, acting or permanent, to each country under consideration for inclusion in the visa waiver program shall certify to the appropriate congressional committees that the information described in subparagraph (B) is accurate and provide a copy of that certification to those committees.
(D) Consideration of countries in the visa waiver program
Upon notification to the Secretary of Homeland Security that a country is under consideration for inclusion in the visa waiver program, the Secretary of State shall provide all of the information described in subparagraph (B) to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
(E) Definition
In this paragraph, the term “appropriate congressional committees” means the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives.
(8) Nonimmigrant visa refusal rate flexibility
(A) Certification
(i) In general
On the date on which an air exit system is in place that can verify the departure of not less than 97 percent of foreign nationals who exit through airports of the United States and the electronic system for travel authorization required under subsection (h)(3) is fully operational, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall certify to Congress that such air exit system and electronic system for travel authorization are in place.
(ii) Notification to Congress
The Secretary shall notify Congress in writing of the date on which the air exit system under clause (i) fully satisfies the biometric requirements specified in subsection (i).
(iii) Temporary suspension of waiver authority
Notwithstanding any certification made under clause (i), if the Secretary has not notified Congress in accordance with clause (ii) by June 30, 2009, the Secretary’s waiver authority under subparagraph (B) shall be suspended beginning on July 1, 2009, until such time as the Secretary makes such notification.
(iv) Rule of construction
Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as in any way abrogating the reporting requirements under subsection (i)(3).
(B) WaiverAfter certification by the Secretary under subparagraph (A), the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may waive the application of paragraph (2)(A) for a country if—
(i) the country meets all security requirements of this section;
(ii) the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that the totality of the country’s security risk mitigation measures provide assurance that the country’s participation in the program would not compromise the law enforcement, security interests, or enforcement of the immigration laws of the United States;
(iii) there has been a sustained reduction in the rate of refusals for nonimmigrant visas for nationals of the country and conditions exist to continue such reduction;
(iv) the country cooperated with the Government of the United States on counterterrorism initiatives, information sharing, and preventing terrorist travel before the date of its designation as a program country, and the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State determine that such cooperation will continue; and
(v)
(I) the rate of refusals for nonimmigrant visitor visas for nationals of the country during the previous full fiscal year was not more than ten percent; or
(II) the visa overstay rate for the country for the previous full fiscal year does not exceed the maximum visa overstay rate, once such rate is established under subparagraph (C).
(C) Maximum visa overstay rate
(i) Requirement to establish
After certification by the Secretary under subparagraph (A), the Secretary and the Secretary of State jointly shall use information from the air exit system referred to in such subparagraph to establish a maximum visa overstay rate for countries participating in the program pursuant to a waiver under subparagraph (B). The Secretary of Homeland Security shall certify to Congress that such rate would not compromise the law enforcement, security interests, or enforcement of the immigration laws of the United States.
(ii) Visa overstay rate definedIn this paragraph the term “visa overstay rate” means, with respect to a country, the ratio of—
(I) the total number of nationals of that country who were admitted to the United States on the basis of a nonimmigrant visa whose periods of authorized stays ended during a fiscal year but who remained unlawfully in the United States beyond such periods; to
(II) the total number of nationals of that country who were admitted to the United States on the basis of a nonimmigrant visa during that fiscal year.
(iii) Report and publication
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall on the same date submit to Congress and publish in the Federal Register information relating to the maximum visa overstay rate established under clause (i). Not later than 60 days after such date, the Secretary shall issue a final maximum visa overstay rate above which a country may not participate in the program.
(9) Discretionary security-related considerationsIn determining whether to waive the application of paragraph (2)(A) for a country, pursuant to paragraph (8), the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall take into consideration other factors affecting the security of the United States, including—
(A) airport security standards in the country;
(B) whether the country assists in the operation of an effective air marshal program;
(C) the standards of passports and travel documents issued by the country; and
(D) other security-related factors, including the country’s cooperation with the United States’ initiatives toward combating terrorism and the country’s cooperation with the United States intelligence community in sharing information regarding terrorist threats.
(10) Technical assistance
The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall provide technical assistance to program countries to assist those countries in meeting the requirements under this section. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that the program office within the Department of Homeland Security is adequately staffed and has resources to be able to provide such technical assistance, in addition to its duties to effectively monitor compliance of the countries participating in the program with all the requirements of the program.
(11) Independent review
(A) In general
Prior to the admission of a new country into the program under this section, and in conjunction with the periodic evaluations required under subsection (c)(5)(A), the Director of National Intelligence shall conduct an independent intelligence assessment of a nominated country and member of the program.
(B) Reporting requirement
The Director shall provide to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General the independent intelligence assessment required under subparagraph (A).
(C) ContentsThe independent intelligence assessment conducted by the Director shall include—
(i) a review of all current, credible terrorist threats of the subject country;
(ii) an evaluation of the subject country’s counterterrorism efforts;
(iii) an evaluation as to the extent of the country’s sharing of information beneficial to suppressing terrorist movements, financing, or actions;
(iv) an assessment of the risks associated with including the subject country in the program; and
(v) recommendations to mitigate the risks identified in clause (iv).
(12) Designation of high risk program countries
(A) In general
The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of State, shall evaluate program countries on an annual basis based on the criteria described in subparagraph (B) and shall identify any program country, the admission of nationals from which under the visa waiver program under this section, the Secretary determines presents a high risk to the national security of the United States.
(B) CriteriaIn evaluating program countries under subparagraph (A), the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of State, shall consider the following criteria:
(i) The number of nationals of the country determined to be ineligible to travel to the United States under the program during the previous year.
(ii) The number of nationals of the country who were identified in United States Government databases related to the identities of known or suspected terrorists during the previous year.
(iii) The estimated number of nationals of the country who have traveled to Iraq or Syria at any time on or after March 1, 2011 to engage in terrorism.
(iv) The capacity of the country to combat passport fraud.
(v) The level of cooperation of the country with the counter-terrorism efforts of the United States.
(vi) The adequacy of the border and immigration control of the country.
(vii) Any other criteria the Secretary of Homeland Security determines to be appropriate.
(C) Suspension of designation
The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may suspend the designation of a program country based on a determination that the country presents a high risk to the national security of the United States under subparagraph (A) until such time as the Secretary determines that the country no longer presents such a risk.
(D) Report
Not later than 60 days after December 18, 2015, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of State, shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate a report, which includes an evaluation and threat assessment of each country determined to present a high risk to the national security of the United States under subparagraph (A).
(d) Authority
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may for any reason (including national security) refrain from waiving the visa requirement in respect to nationals of any country which may otherwise qualify for designation or may, at any time, rescind any waiver or designation previously granted under this section. The Secretary of Homeland Security may not waive any eligibility requirement under this section unless the Secretary notifies, with respect to the House of Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security, the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Committee on Appropriations, and with respect to the Senate, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the Committee on Appropriations not later than 30 days before the effective date of such waiver.
(e) Carrier agreements
(1) In generalThe agreement referred to in subsection (a)(4) is an agreement between a carrier (including any carrier conducting operations under part 135 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations) or a domestic corporation conducting operations under part 91 of that title and the Secretary of Homeland Security under which the carrier (including any carrier conducting operations under part 135 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations) or a domestic corporation conducting operations under part 91 of that title agrees, in consideration of the waiver of the visa requirement with respect to a nonimmigrant visitor under the program—
(A) to indemnify the United States against any costs for the transportation of the alien from the United States if the visitor is refused admission to the United States or remains in the United States unlawfully after the 90-day period described in subsection (a)(1)(A),
(B) to submit daily to immigration officers any immigration forms received with respect to nonimmigrant visitors provided a waiver under the program,
(C) to be subject to the imposition of fines resulting from the transporting into the United States of a national of a designated country without a passport pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Homeland Security, and
(D) to collect, provide, and share passenger data as required under subsection (h)(1)(B).
(2) Termination of agreements
The Secretary of Homeland Security may terminate an agreement under paragraph (1) with five days’ notice to the carrier (including any carrier conducting operations under part 135 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations) or a domestic corporation conducting operations under part 91 of that title for the failure by a carrier (including any carrier conducting operations under part 135 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations) or a domestic corporation conducting operations under part 91 of that title to meet the terms of such agreement.
(3) Business aircraft requirements
(A) In general
For purposes of this section, a domestic corporation conducting operations under part 91 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations [2] that owns or operates a noncommercial aircraft is a corporation that is organized under the laws of any of the States of the United States or the District of Columbia and is accredited by or a member of a national organization that sets business aviation standards. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall prescribe by regulation the provision of such information as the Secretary of Homeland Security deems necessary to identify the domestic corporation, its officers, employees, shareholders, its place of business, and its business activities.
(B) Collections
In addition to any other fee authorized by law, the Secretary of Homeland Security is authorized to charge and collect, on a periodic basis, an amount from each domestic corporation conducting operations under part 91 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, for nonimmigrant visa waiver admissions on noncommercial aircraft owned or operated by such domestic corporation equal to the total amount of fees assessed for issuance of nonimmigrant visa waiver arrival/departure forms at land border ports of entry. All fees collected under this paragraph shall be deposited into the Immigration User Fee Account established under section 1356(h) of this title.
(f) Duration and termination of designation
(1) In general
(A) Determination and notification of disqualification rate
Upon determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that a program country’s disqualification rate is 2 percent or more, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall notify the Secretary of State.
(B) Probationary status
If the program country’s disqualification rate is greater than 2 percent but less than 3.5 percent, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall place the program country in probationary status for a period not to exceed 2 full fiscal years following the year in which the determination under subparagraph (A) is made.
(C) Termination of designation
Subject to paragraph (3), if the program country’s disqualification rate is 3.5 percent or more, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall terminate the country’s designation as a program country effective at the beginning of the second fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the determination under subparagraph (A) is made.
(2) Termination of probationary status
(A) In general
If the Secretary of Homeland Security determines at the end of the probationary period described in paragraph (1)(B) that the program country placed in probationary status under such paragraph has failed to develop a machine-readable passport program as required by section [3] (c)(2)(C), or has a disqualification rate of 2 percent or more, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall terminate the designation of the country as a program country. If the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that the program country has developed a machine-readable passport program and has a disqualification rate of less than 2 percent, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall redesignate the country as a program country.
(B) Effective date
A termination of the designation of a country under subparagraph (A) shall take effect on the first day of the first fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the determination under such subparagraph is made. Until such date, nationals of the country shall remain eligible for a waiver under subsection (a).
(3) Nonapplicability of certain provisions
Paragraph (1)(C) shall not apply unless the total number of nationals of a program country described in paragraph (4)(A) exceeds 100.
(4) “Disqualification rate” definedFor purposes of this subsection, the term “disqualification rate” means the percentage which—
(A) the total number of nationals of the program country who were—
(i) denied admission at the time of arrival or withdrew their application for admission during the most recent fiscal year for which data are available; and
(ii) admitted as nonimmigrant visitors during such fiscal year and who violated the terms of such admission; bears to
(B) the total number of nationals of such country who applied for admission as nonimmigrant visitors during such fiscal year.
(5) Failure to report passport thefts
If the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State jointly determine that the program country is not reporting the theft or loss of passports, as required by subsection (c)(2)(D), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall terminate the designation of the country as a program country.
(6) Failure to share information
(A) In general
If the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State jointly determine that the program country is not sharing information, as required by subsection (c)(2)(F), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall terminate the designation of the country as a program country.
(B) Redesignation
In the case of a termination under this paragraph, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall redesignate the country as a program country, without regard to paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (c) or paragraphs (1) through (4), when the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, determines that the country is sharing information, as required by subsection (c)(2)(F).
(7) Failure to screen
(A) In general
Beginning on the date that is 270 days after December 18, 2015, if the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State jointly determine that the program country is not conducting the screening required by subsection (c)(2)(G), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall terminate the designation of the country as a program country.
(B) Redesignation
In the case of a termination under this paragraph, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall redesignate the country as a program country, without regard to paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (c) or paragraphs (1) through (4), when the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, determines that the country is conducting the screening required by subsection (c)(2)(G).
(g) Visa application sole method to dispute denial of waiver based on a ground of inadmissibility
In the case of an alien denied a waiver under the program by reason of a ground of inadmissibility described in section 1182(a) of this title that is discovered at the time of the alien’s application for the waiver or through the use of an automated electronic database required under subsection (a)(9), the alien may apply for a visa at an appropriate consular office outside the United States. There shall be no other means of administrative or judicial review of such a denial, and no court or person otherwise shall have jurisdiction to consider any claim attacking the validity of such a denial.
(h) Use of information technology systems
(1) Automated entry-exit control system
(A) System
Not later than October 1, 2001, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall develop and implement a fully automated entry and exit control system that will collect a record of arrival and departure for every alien who arrives and departs by sea or air at a port of entry into the United States and is provided a waiver under the program.
(B) RequirementsThe system under subparagraph (A) shall satisfy the following requirements:
(i) Data collection by carriers
Not later than October 1, 2001, the records of arrival and departure described in subparagraph (A) shall be based, to the maximum extent practicable, on passenger data collected and electronically transmitted to the automated entry and exit control system by each carrier that has an agreement under subsection (a)(4).
(ii) Data provision by carriers
Not later than October 1, 2002, no waiver may be provided under this section to an alien arriving by sea or air at a port of entry into the United States on a carrier unless the carrier is electronically transmitting to the automated entry and exit control system passenger data determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security to be sufficient to permit the Secretary of Homeland Security to carry out this paragraph.
(iii) Calculation
The system shall contain sufficient data to permit the Secretary of Homeland Security to calculate, for each program country and each fiscal year, the portion of nationals of that country who are described in subparagraph (A) and for whom no record of departure exists, expressed as a percentage of the total number of such nationals who are so described.
(C) Reporting
(i) Percentage of nationals lacking departure record
As part of the annual report required to be submitted under section 1365a(e)(1) of this title, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall include a section containing the calculation described in subparagraph (B)(iii) for each program country for the previous fiscal year, together with an analysis of that information.
(ii) System effectivenessNot later than December 31, 2004, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit a written report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives and of the Senate containing the following:
(I) The conclusions of the Secretary of Homeland Security regarding the effectiveness of the automated entry and exit control system to be developed and implemented under this paragraph.
(II) The recommendations of the Secretary of Homeland Security regarding the use of the calculation described in subparagraph (B)(iii) as a basis for evaluating whether to terminate or continue the designation of a country as a program country.
 The report required by this clause may be combined with the annual report required to be submitted on that date under section 1365a(e)(1) of this title.
(2) Automated data sharing system
(A) System
The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State shall develop and implement an automated data sharing system that will permit them to share data in electronic form from their respective records systems regarding the admissibility of aliens who are nationals of a program country.
(B) RequirementsThe system under subparagraph (A) shall satisfy the following requirements:
(i) Supplying information to immigration officers conducting inspections at ports of entryNot later than October 1, 2002, the system shall enable immigration officers conducting inspections at ports of entry under section 1225 of this title to obtain from the system, with respect to aliens seeking a waiver under the program—
(I) any photograph of the alien that may be contained in the records of the Department of State or the Service; and
(II) information on whether the alien has ever been determined to be ineligible to receive a visa or ineligible to be admitted to the United States.
(ii) Supplying photographs of inadmissible aliens
The system shall permit the Secretary of Homeland Security electronically to obtain any photograph contained in the records of the Secretary of State pertaining to an alien who is a national of a program country and has been determined to be ineligible to receive a visa.
(iii) Maintaining records on applications for admissionThe system shall maintain, for a minimum of 10 years, information about each application for admission made by an alien seeking a waiver under the program, including the following:
(I) The name or Service identification number of each immigration officer conducting the inspection of the alien at the port of entry.
(II) Any information described in clause (i) that is obtained from the system by any such officer.
(III) The results of the application.
(3) Electronic system for travel authorization
(A) System
The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall develop and implement a fully automated electronic system for travel authorization (referred to in this paragraph as the “System”) to collect such biographical and other information as the Secretary of Homeland Security determines necessary to determine, in advance of travel, the eligibility of, and whether there exists a law enforcement or security risk in permitting, the [4] alien to travel to the United States.
(B) Fees
(i) In generalNo later than 6 months after March 4, 2010, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish a fee for the use of the System and begin assessment and collection of that fee. The initial fee shall be the sum of—
(I) $10 per travel authorization; and
(II) an amount that will at least ensure recovery of the full costs of providing and administering the System, as determined by the Secretary.
(ii) Disposition of amounts collected
Amounts collected under clause (i)(I) shall be credited to the Travel Promotion Fund established by subsection (d) of section 2131 of title 22. Amounts collected under clause (i)(II) shall be transferred to the general fund of the Treasury and made available to pay the costs incurred to administer the System.
(iii) Sunset of Travel Promotion Fund fee
The Secretary may not collect the fee authorized by clause (i)(I) for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 2020.
(C) Validity
(i) Period
The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall prescribe regulations that provide for a period, not to exceed three years, during which a determination of eligibility to travel under the program will be valid. Notwithstanding any other provision under this section, the Secretary of Homeland Security may revoke any such determination or shorten the period of eligibility under any such determination at any time and for any reason.
(ii) Limitation
A determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that an alien is eligible to travel to the United States under the program is not a determination that the alien is admissible to the United States.
(iii) Not a determination of visa eligibility
A determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that an alien who applied for authorization to travel to the United States through the System is not eligible to travel under the program is not a determination of eligibility for a visa to travel to the United States and shall not preclude the alien from applying for a visa.
(iv) Judicial review
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall have jurisdiction to review an eligibility determination under the System.
(D) Fraud detection
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall research opportunities to incorporate into the System technology that will detect and prevent fraud and deception in the System.
(E) Additional and previous countries of citizenship
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall collect from an applicant for admission pursuant to this section information on any additional or previous countries of citizenship of that applicant. The Secretary shall take any information so collected into account when making determinations as to the eligibility of the alien for admission pursuant to this section.
(F) Report on certain limitations on travel
Not later than 30 days after December 18, 2015, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate a report on the number of individuals who were denied eligibility to travel under the program, or whose eligibility for such travel was revoked during the previous year, and the number of such individuals determined, in accordance with subsection (a)(6), to represent a threat to the national security of the United States, and shall include the country or countries of citizenship of each such individual.
(i) Exit system
(1) In general
Not later than one year after August 3, 2007, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish an exit system that records the departure on a flight leaving the United States of every alien participating in the visa waiver program established under this section.
(2) System requirementsThe system established under paragraph (1) shall—
(A) match biometric information of the alien against relevant watch lists and immigration information; and
(B) compare such biometric information against manifest information collected by air carriers on passengers departing the United States to confirm such aliens have departed the United States.
(3) ReportNot later than 180 days after August 3, 2007, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that describes—
(A) the progress made in developing and deploying the exit system established under this subsection; and
(B) the procedures by which the Secretary shall improve the method of calculating the rates of nonimmigrants who overstay their authorized period of stay in the United States.
(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title II, ch. 2, § 217, as added Pub. L. 99–603, title III, § 313(a), Nov. 6, 1986, 100 Stat. 3435; amended Pub. L. 100–525, § 2(p)(1), (2), Oct. 24, 1988, 102 Stat. 2613; Pub. L. 101–649, title II, § 201(a), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 5012; Pub. L. 102–232, title III, §§ 303(a)(1), (2), 307(l)(3), Dec. 12, 1991, 105 Stat. 1746, 1756; Pub. L. 103–415, § 1(m), Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4301; Pub. L. 103–416, title II, §§ 210, 211, Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4312, 4313; Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title III, § 308(d)(4)(F), (e)(9), title VI, § 635(a)–(c)(1), (3), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–618, 3009–620, 3009–702, 3009–703; Pub. L. 105–119, title I, § 125, Nov. 26, 1997, 111 Stat. 2471; Pub. L. 105–173, §§ 1, 3, Apr. 27, 1998, 112 Stat. 56; Pub. L. 106–396, title I, § 101(a), title II, §§ 201–207, title IV, § 403(a)–(d), Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1637–1644, 1647, 1648; Pub. L. 107–56, title IV, § 417(c), (d), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 355; Pub. L. 107–173, title III, § 307(a), May 14, 2002, 116 Stat. 556; Pub. L. 110–53, title VII, § 711(c), (d)(1), Aug. 3, 2007, 121 Stat. 339, 341; Pub. L. 111–145, § 9(h), formerly § 9(e), Mar. 4, 2010, 124 Stat. 62, renumbered Pub. L. 113–235, div. B, title VI, § 606(1), Dec. 16, 2014, 128 Stat. 2219; Pub. L. 111–198, § 5(a), July 2, 2010, 124 Stat. 1357; Pub. L. 113–235, div. B, title VI, § 605(b), Dec. 16, 2014, 128 Stat. 2219; Pub. L. 114–113, div. O, title II, §§ 202(a), (b), 203–205(a), 206, 207(a), 209, Dec. 18, 2015, 129 Stat. 2989–2995.)

[1]  So in original. Probably should be followed by a comma.

[2]  So in original. Probably should be followed by a comma.

[3]  So in original. Probably should be “subsection”.

[4]  So in original. Probably should be “an”.

LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.

Advertisements

Legally Kidnapped

May 2, 2017 § Leave a comment

Legally Kidnapped
Amber Alert triggered as parents allegedly kidnap their own child
Baby with rare medical condition reunited with parents after false abuse accusations
Authorities investigate the death of infant boy in foster care
Amber Alert triggered as parents allegedly kidnap their own child
Posted: 01 May 2017 05:30 AM PDT
Three people were arrested in Tewksbury Friday night, after the alleged kidnapping of a child from a supervised visit in New Hampshire triggered an Amber Alert.

More >> Amber Alert triggered as parents allegedly kidnap their own child
Baby with rare medical condition reunited with parents after false abuse accusations
Posted: 01 May 2017 04:26 AM PDT
A couple who were accused of shaking their baby have been reunited with their child after it emerged she has a rare medical condition which causes “easy bruising”.

More >> Baby with rare medical condition reunited with parents after false abuse accusations
Authorities investigate the death of infant boy in foster care
Posted: 30 Apr 2017 01:52 PM PDT
The death of an infant boy who died Sunday while in foster care with the Forsyth County Department of Social Services remains under investigation, though a preliminary autopsy did not reveal anything suspicious in the child’s death.

More >> Authorities investigate the death of infant boy in foster care

Legally Kidnapped
Foster son died after being locked in a hot cupboard for two days with no food or water
Baby boy dies unexpectedly while in foster care
Former Bendigo child protection worker pleads guilty to possessing child exploitation material
Former group home worker charged with sex trafficking 17-year-old girl
‘I WILL FILE A CPS REPORT’: PEDIATRICIAN’S BLUNT MESSAGE ABOUT VACCINES IS GOING VIRAL
Requirements for foster care workers too high, Kansas agency says
Audit finds problems in privatized foster care system, faults DCF for lax oversight
Foster son died after being locked in a hot cupboard for two days with no food or water
Posted: 29 Apr 2017 08:58 PM PDT
This is an old story, but his memory should live on.

In August 2006, 3-year-old Marcus Fiesel went missing. His foster mum Liz Carroll claimed he’d been kidnapped. Someone knew what had happened to him, but the culprits turned out to be shockingly close to home.

More >> Foster son died after being locked in a hot cupboard for two days with no food or water
Baby boy dies unexpectedly while in foster care
Posted: 29 Apr 2017 11:45 AM PDT
An investigation is underway after a 5-month-old baby boy died unexpectedly while in foster care on Sunday.

More >> Baby boy dies unexpectedly while in foster care
Former Bendigo child protection worker pleads guilty to possessing child exploitation material
Posted: 29 Apr 2017 11:34 AM PDT
A FORMER Bendigo child protection worker who downloaded at least 980 child exploitation images has been told he must “reflect” on the victims of child abuse.

More >> Former Bendigo child protection worker pleads guilty to possessing child exploitation material
Former group home worker charged with sex trafficking 17-year-old girl
Posted: 29 Apr 2017 07:50 AM PDT

In a sting operation targeting ‘Backpage.com,’ Cranston Police and the Department of Homeland Security nabbed 27-year-old Reysean Williams for trying to sell a 17-year-old girl for sex.

More >> Former group home worker charged with sex trafficking 17-year-old girl
‘I WILL FILE A CPS REPORT’: PEDIATRICIAN’S BLUNT MESSAGE ABOUT VACCINES IS GOING VIRAL
Posted: 29 Apr 2017 07:42 AM PDT
Vaccines are one of the most hotly debated topics when it comes to parenting today. In recent years, many parents have opted not to vaccinate due to concerns over the shots causing autism. (Andrew Wakefield, the former doctor who spearheaded these fears with his 1998 research paper, lost his medical license after it was found that he lied about his findings.)

More >> ‘I WILL FILE A CPS REPORT’: PEDIATRICIAN’S BLUNT MESSAGE ABOUT VACCINES IS GOING VIRAL

Requirements for foster care workers too high, Kansas agency says
Posted: 29 Apr 2017 07:19 AM PDT
Requirements to work in Kansas’ foster care system are too high, the agency in charge said Friday after a new audit found the state’s foster care contractors have difficulty employing enough workers.

More – Requirements for foster care workers too high, Kansas agency says

Note: Yeah! Any monkey can do that job, right?
Audit finds problems in privatized foster care system, faults DCF for lax oversight
Posted: 29 Apr 2017 06:45 AM PDT
The private nonprofit agencies that manage Kansas’ foster care system do not have the capacity in many parts of the state to handle the volume of cases they deal with, and the Kansas Department for Children and Families often does not conduct adequate oversight of those contractors.

More >> Audit finds problems in privatized foster care system, faults DCF for lax oversight

Legally Kidnapped
Kansas DCF: Lower requirements for social workers would improve recruiting
Posted: 29 Apr 2017 04:37 AM PDT
State standards for social workers are too high, dampening the Department for Children and Family’s ability to fill positions in a time when the need for foster care is growing, the agency’s leader said Friday in response to a state audit that showed contractors are finding it difficult to hire social workers.

More >> Kansas DCF: Lower requirements for social workers would improve recruiting
Parents speak out after being accused of abusing their baby girl
Posted: 29 Apr 2017 04:35 AM PDT
Parents who were separated from their baby girl after being falsely accused of abusing her are speaking out to raise awareness of the condition that led to her being taken away.

More >> Parents speak out after being accused of abusing their baby girl

Legally Kidnapped
Infowars’ Alex Jones loses child custody battle
Missouri trial ordered for woman accused in foster child’s death
Foster father had history of violent temper before murder-suicide
DCF official: ‘Long road of rehab’ ahead for Victor Barahona
Jurors deliberate for 3rd day in foster father sex abuse trial
DHHS Commissioner: Schofield case changed the department
DCYF reports little progress to joint committee
Lehigh teen killed in foster care; mom demands answers
Former Pawtucket group home employee accused of sex-trafficking teen in DCYF care
Infowars’ Alex Jones loses child custody battle
Posted: 28 Apr 2017 04:26 AM PDT

Infowars’ Alex Jones has lost a custody over his three kids with ex-wife Kelly Jones in a case where the fiery conspiracy theorist’s attorney argued that he is only “playing a character” on his show.

More >> Infowars’ Alex Jones loses child custody battle
Missouri trial ordered for woman accused in foster child’s death
Posted: 28 Apr 2017 03:58 AM PDT
A southwestern Missouri woman has been ordered to stand trial in connection with the 2001 death of a nearly 2-year-old foster child.

More >> Missouri trial ordered for woman accused in foster child’s death
Foster father had history of violent temper before murder-suicide
Posted: 27 Apr 2017 05:34 PM PDT
NBC2 uncovered exclusive new details about a Fort Myers High School student who was murdered by her foster father last week.

More >> Foster father had history of violent temper before murder-suicide
DCF official: ‘Long road of rehab’ ahead for Victor Barahona
Posted: 27 Apr 2017 05:19 PM PDT
Victor Barahona has been released from the hospital and is recovering from life-threatening burn injuries at a therapeutic foster home in Miami-Dade County, Department of Children and Families Secretary David Wilkins said at a press conference this morning.

More >> DCF official: ‘Long road of rehab’ ahead for Victor Barahona

Condition of boy doused in chemicals is improving, DCF head says

Jurors deliberate for 3rd day in foster father sex abuse trial
Posted: 27 Apr 2017 05:17 PM PDT
Jurors deliberated for a third day Wednesday in the trial of a Ridge foster father accused of sexually abusing several boys in his care.

More >> Jurors deliberate for 3rd day in foster father sex abuse trial

Jury deadlocked on verdict for Long Island foster dad accused of sexually assaulting eight boys

DHHS Commissioner: Schofield case changed the department
Posted: 27 Apr 2017 04:57 PM PDT
Sally Ann Schofield was a caseworker and foster parent, for Maine’s Department of Health and Human Services, when she caused the death of a child in her custody.

More >> DHHS Commissioner: Schofield case changed the department
DCYF reports little progress to joint committee
Posted: 27 Apr 2017 04:52 PM PDT
A joint House-Senate committee appointed to review the status of child protective services in New Hampshire got deep into the weeds at the Division for Children, Youth and Families, and discovered that not much has changed when it comes to the day-to-day functioning of the troubled agency.

More >> DCYF reports little progress to joint committee
Lehigh teen killed in foster care; mom demands answers
Posted: 27 Apr 2017 04:48 PM PDT
A North Fort Myers mother is looking for answers after her daughter was killed while living in foster care.

More >> Lehigh teen killed in foster care; mom demands answers
Former Pawtucket group home employee accused of sex-trafficking teen in DCYF care
Posted: 27 Apr 2017 04:29 PM PDT
A former staff counselor at a group home was charged this week with sex trafficking a teenage girl who was under the care of the state Department of Children, Youth and Families.

More >> Former Pawtucket group home employee accused of sex-trafficking teen in DCYF care

Advocates of Honest Judiciaries

April 15, 2017 § Leave a comment

See the note below on “joinedwords” andinterference with the formatting of this email.

Dear Mrs. Harrold-Claessonand Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,

Thank you very much for youremail and kind wish for 2017.

I in turn wish you and theorganization that you preside over, the Nordic Committee for Human Rights NKMR/NCHR – For theProtection of Family Rights in the Nordic countries- successful involvement inadvancing family rights by joining the effort both to expose unaccountable judgeswho engage risklessly in wrongdoing, and to advocate judicial reform.

To that end, I would like toencourage you to read an article that sets out how organizations inside and outsidethe U.S. can join that effort. It is at *>ol:127. I wrote it in response to a query from an organization inScotland.
.
Thematerials corresponding to the (bluetext references) herein are found in my study ofjudges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable thus:

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
Pioneering the news and publishing field of
judicial unaccountability reporting* †

*Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page number up to ol:393

†Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf from ol2:394

Moreover, since you seem to befamiliar with judicial corruption in American courts, I would like to draw yourattention to a pertinent article on how pro ses as well as represented partiescan join forces to audit the writings of judges –such as their decisions- insearch of the most persuasive evidence of their wrongdoing, namely, patternsand trends of wrongdoing. It is at ol:274-283.

The tables and templates for partiesto organize the audited writings and subsequently present their findings tothird parties, such as journalists, are at ol:304-307.

Consider the window of opportunitythat is opening for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform by the ascendancyof The Dissatisfied With The Establishment. They elected Trump, voted for Brexit,are supporting Far Right Populist Marie LePen in France, have developed astrong opposition to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, defeated Prime Minister Renziin Italy, have assumed a decisive role in the Spanish government, and firstmanifested themselves in the Arab Spring.

A powerful component of theDissatisfied is the dissatisfied with the judicial and legal systems(ol:311¶1). Imagine them joining forcesacross borders in order to create an international movement that asserts the statusof We the People as the sovereignsource of all political power and, thus, the masters who are entitled to holdall our public servants, including judicial public servants, which is what judgesare, accountable and even liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing.

By joining forces to work towardthat objective, you and your organization could become internationallyrecognized as Champions of Justice.

To that end, I respectfully suggestthat you discuss with the members of your organization the above-mentionedarticles, and share and post the article below as widely as possible.

Visit the website at, and subscribe to its series of articles thus:
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org> + New or Users >Add New

Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.
* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
New York City

Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, RicCordero@verizon.net, Corderoric@yahoo.com,

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

NOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at * >ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.
*********************************

Re: How you can demand that P-e. Trump does not shirk from draining the swamp of the Federal Judiciary, whose life-tenured judges are the most established of the Establishment

NOTE ON THIS EMAIL’S FORMATTING AND POSSIBLE INTERFERENCE WITH IT: The formatting of this email is normal, consistent, and intended to be pleasant to the readers, rather than to be odd, disconcerting, and dissuade them from reading it.
The following are its main features; if they are otherwise, please overlook any oddity and let me know by emailing me at this bloc of addresses: Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com:
a. 14 point Bookman Old Style type (this NOTE is in Calibri 13) (but this parenthesis is in Bookman 12, a bit bigger than the characters in the Subject line above); and this question is in Bookman 14). Which is just big enough to be easy on your eyes?
b. normal typeface so that italics and boldface are exceptional in paragraphs and no underlining
c. headings that are boldfaced, and sequentially identified and indented in outline style
d. numbered paragraphs with justified margins
e. 6 point white space between paragraphs
f. text carefully spell-checked to ensure that there are no “joinedwords” when the email goes out.
On interference with the communications between advocates of honest judiciaries see †>ol2:426§C; and on The Dissatisfied With The Establishment see below.
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf

Federal judges with life-tenure are
the Establishment by definition
Will President-elect Trump
drain the judicial swamp
or
let it fester
on the advice of the Establishment insiders that
he is bringing into the White House and his cabinet and
to avoid judges’ retaliation against
his 70 pending business lawsuits,
thus leaving exposed to judges’ continued abuse
The Dissatisfied With The Establishment and
the rest of We the People?

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

Thisarticle may be republished and redistributed non-commercially, provided it is
in its entirety and without any addition, deletion, or modification,
and credit is given to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

Visit the website at, and subscribe to its series of letters and articles thus:
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org> + New or Users >Add New

1. President-elect Trump has stated that what follows in importance a president’s declaration of war is a Supreme Court nomination.

2. Indeed, until the Court upholds the constitutionality of a law, it is little more than a set of wishful guidelines envisaged by the 535 members of Congress and the president and expressed in black ink on white paper. Where would Obamacare be today if the Court had held it unconstitutional? In a footnote in the chronicles of the Obama presidency.

3. P-e Trump also campaigned on the promise “to drain the swamp of corruption of Washington insiders”. The latter constitute the Establishment. He accused Sec. Clinton of being its representative so that if she won the presidential election, she would protect the swamp and its corruption would continue festering.

4. It stills festers although in 2006, Democratic Representative Nancy Pelosi, before becoming Speaker of the House, famously declared that “Washington is dominated by the culture of corruption” and vowed “to drain the swamp”(*>jur:23fn16). She miserably failed to do so because she was part of the Establishment.

5. By contrast, P-e Trump is an outsider. He is not tied, and does not owe his election, to Establishment members. Far from it, those who got him elected are precisely The Dissatisfied With The Establishment.

6. However, in light of his nomination of Washington insiders for his White House and cabinet, how concerned should The Dissatisfied be about his becoming domesticated on those insiders’ advice to the Washington ways so as to become used to the continued festering of the swamp, in general, and its most harmful portion, the judicial swamp, in particular?

A. The abused powers that generate the judicial swamp

“Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Lord Acton, Letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, April 3, 1887.

7. The status of unaccountability is at the source of the capacity to turn power into absolute power that ends up forming a swamp of corruption.

1. Judges’ power to stay established: life-appointment and irremovability in practice

8. Federal judges are appointed for life. Worse yet, they are irremovable in effect: While 2,293 federal judges were in office on 30sep15, in the last 227 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of them impeached and removed is 8!(*>jur:21§1).

The above statistics originate in the official ones that the Federal Judiciary must submit by law(28 USC §604(d)(3); (h)(2); *>jur:26fn23a) , to Congress every year. They are analyzed in my study of judges’ performance in practice as opposed to as prescribed on rules printed on paper. It is titled and downloadable thus:

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
Pioneering the news and publishing field of
judicial unaccountability reporting. *†

* Vol. 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page# up to ol:393

† Vol. 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from ol2:394

All the materials corresponding to the (blue text references) herein are found in that study.

9. Several justices have been on the Supreme Court for around 25 years, such as JJ. Thomas (29), Kennedy (28), Ginsburg (23), and Breyer (22). J. Scalia was in office for 30 years. That does not count at all the years that they spent in the circuit and district courts.

10. For instance, while J. Sotomayor has been on the Supreme Court only since 2009, she has been in the Federal Judiciary since 1992, when she was appointed a federal district court, followed by her appointment in 1998 to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Hence, she has already been in the judicial Establishment for 24 years.

11. As a matter of fact, the Federal Judiciary is the quintessential Establishment. Its judges are established in power forever no matter the quality or quantity of their performance or conduct.

2. The power of connivance between appointing-politicians and their appointed judges

12. Federal judges are recommended, endorsed, nominated, and confirmed by politicians. For the latter, judges are “our men and women on the bench”. They stand in an appointer-appointee relation(ol2:488¶¶3-6).

13. Politicians hold judges unaccountable in the expectation that they will hold the laws of their legislative agenda constitutional(jur:23fn17a) and not retaliate(Lsch:17§C) against the thousands of lawsuits that the government files every year.

14. The relation of power between these branches is out of balance, but only due to pragmatic considerations, not because the Constitution holds the Judiciary superior to the other branches. Far from it. Nevertheless, the result is that judges neither fear nor respect politicians.

3. Judges’ vast power of the office

15. Judges act as a standing constitutional convention, for they give content to the mere labels of the Constitution(jur:22fn12b), such as “freedom of speech, freedom of the press”, “due process”, “equal protection of the law”. They even read into it new rights never imagined hundreds of years ago by a rural, religious, and mostly illiterate society and even diametrically opposite to its beliefs.

16. Judges interpret the meaning and scope of application of every law. By exercising that power in its many forms(ol:267§4), they dispose of the property, liberty, life, and all the rights and duties that shape what people can and cannot do from before their birth, throughout their lives, and after their death(jur:25fn25, 26).

17. Judges abuse their power by the way they make decisions: The analysis of their official statistics shows that the 12 federal regional circuit courts dispose of 93% of appeals in decisions “on procedural grounds, by consolidation, unpublished, unsigned, without comment”. They are so perfunctory that the majority of them are issued on a 5¢ summary order form and/or marked “not precedential”(ol2:453), mere ad hoc, arbitrary, reasonless fiats of the judicial swamp.

18. There can be no doubt that individually and collectively judges wield the broadest, farthest-reach-ing, and most substantial power of any public officer, including the most corruptive: the power ‘to tell what is good and evil’ in the contemplation of the law, that is, what is legal and illegal.

4. Judges’ power to grab benefits

19. Judges abuse their power to grab the social, material, and personal benefits within their reach(ol:173¶93) and for sheer convenience.

20. The opportunity to use power to grab can hardly be passed up under the influence of the most insidious corruptor: money!, lots of money! In the calendar year 2010, the bankruptcy judges alone ruled on the $373 billion at stake in only personal bankruptcies(jur:27§2). The only ones watching with power to do anything about its disposition were the circuit judges who had appointed them and they and the district judges who could remove them(jur:43fn61a). With them as their overseers, bankruptcy judges could do just about anything, except being too greedy and ungrateful.

21. In addition, there is all the money subject to judges’ decisions in probate matters, contracts, alimony, mergers & acquisition, taxes, product liability, initial public offers, etc.

5. Judges’ power to grow well-connected

22. The arguments that militate in support of the two-term limit for holding the presidency, and of P-e Trump’s promise to push for legislation limiting the number of terms for members of Congress apply to judges too: The longer a person serves in public office, the more entitled they feel and the more their public office becomes their personal one.

23. That feeling of entitlement is exacerbated for federal judges, who do not have to run for reelection and need not fear in reality being removed. They and their public office become one and the same.

24. Moreover, as public officers deal with ever more people, they become ever more powerful through the IOUs that they have collected from people who needed their help; and the more indebted they become to others whose help they needed to get their way. Hence, to an ever greater extent they move from doing the public’s business to ‘dealing for their own account’.

6. Judges’ power of camaraderie

25. To be in good standing with the other judges, a judge only needs to engage in knowing indifference and willful ignorance or blindness, which are forms of culpably looking the other way(jur:88§§a-c) and carrying on as if nothing had happened or will happen.

‘Keep your mouth shut about what I and the other judges did or are about to do, and you can enjoy our friendship.’

‘I will protect you today against this complaint and tomorrow you will protect me or my friends when we are the target of a complaint’.

26. That is how judges implicitly or explicitly ensure for decades their social acceptance and their self-preservation through reciprocal protection. They know from the historical record that nobody will charge them with accessorial liability after the fact that they kept quiet about or covered up, and before the fact of the next wrongful act that they encouraged others to do with their promise of passive silence or active cover-up.

27. By contrast, a judge who dared expose another judge’s wrongdoing would be deemed by all the other judges an unreliable traitor and cast out their social circle and activities as a pariah.

28. Such interdependent security(Lsch:16§1) gives rise to the judicial class mentality. It is similar to that found among police officers, doctors, priests, sports teams, sororities and fraternities, etc. It trades integrity for the benefits of membership.

29. The more time judges spend in the Judiciary, the more they transition from peers to colleagues, to members, to friends, and to co-conspirators(ol:166§§C, D). So instead of administering justice to We the People, they run their swamp as a private enterprise to make it ever more profitable, efficient, and secure for themselves.

7. Judges’ power to self-discipline

30. In its Article III, the Constitution only creates the Supreme Court. All lower courts thereunder are created by Congress, which can also create tribunal-like administrative agencies under Art. II, Sec. 8; and appoint judges directly or by delegation under Art. II, Sec. 2.

31. The Constitution does not grant judges, not even those of the Supreme Court, the power to determine themselves what constitutes “good Behaviour” during which they can “hold their Offices”. Yet, politicians have relinquished that significant ‘check and balance’ to the judges by allowing them to exercise the power of self-disciplining(jur:21§1).

32. With the connivance of politicians, judges abuse that power by dismissing 99.82%(jur:10-14) of complaints against them filed by parties to cases and any other members of the People, as well as denying up to 100% of petitions to review those dismissals(jur:24§§b-d).

33. The relation of political protectors-judicial protégés is anathema to the objective analysis of complaints against judges and the fair and impartial treatment of complainants. That is why judges have no inhibitions about abusing their self-disciplining power to arrogate to themselves self-exemption from liability.

34. Complainants have no other source of relief. They are left to bob with their complained about harm in the middle of the swamp.

8. Judges’ power to show contempt for We the People and our representatives

35. We the People, the masters in “government of, by, and for the people”(jur:82fn172), hired judges as their public servants to deliver the service of administering justice according to the rule of law.

36. But judges need not serve the People to stay established in office. Voters neither elect nor reelect federal judges. Judges stay even when they disserve the People. There is no downside to disservice, for they can

What a great Dissent.

February 18, 2017 § Leave a comment

JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting:
The Illinois Constitution is meant to prevent tyranny, not to enshrine it.
Today, just as a critical election board deadline is about to expire, four members of our court have delivered, as a fait accompli, nothing less than the nullification of a critical component of the Illinois Constitution of 1970. In direct contradiction of the clear and unambiguous intention of the people who drafted the constitution and the citizens who voted to adopt it, the majority has irrevocably severed a vital lifeline created by the drafters for the express purpose of enabling later generations of Illinoisans to use their sovereign authority as a check against self-interest by the legislature. When the Reporter of Decisions sends out the majority’s disposition, he should include a bright orange warning sticker for readers to paste over article XIV, section 3, of their personal copies of the 1970 Constitution reading, “Out of Service.”
The majority’s ruling in this case comes at a particularly unfortunate time. In Illinois, as throughout the United States, there is a palpable sense of frustration by voters of every political affiliation that self-perpetuating institutions of government have excluded them from meaningful participation in the political process.
In their wisdom, the drafters of the 1970 Constitution foresaw just this problem and fashioned a clear and specific mechanism to insure that the legislature could never have the upper hand on the people of Illinois, in whose hands the sovereign power of this State rests.
¶ 60
¶ 61
– 16 –
¶ 62
¶ 63 ¶ 64 ¶ 65
¶ 66 ¶ 67
That mechanism is article XIV, section 3. In undertaking our constitutional duties, we, as judges, are obliged to resolve any doubt as to the meaning of that provision in favor of the right of the people to have a voice in government, as the drafters intended. I would honor that obligation and permit the ballot initiative proposed here to go forward. The majority’s decision to quash it is no less than the death knell of article XIV, section 3’s promise of direct democracy as a check on legislative self-interest.
Today a muzzle has been placed on the people of this State, and their voices supplanted with judicial fiat.
The whimper you hear is democracy stifled.

https://www.iardc.org/co_recentdiscdec.html

December 5, 2016 § Leave a comment

NEW FILINGS, HEARING SCHEDULES AND CLERK’S OFFICE

Like this one M.R.24458 – In re: L. Tod Schlosser. (May 18, 2011)

Disciplinary Commission.

The motion by the Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission to approve and confirm the report and recommendation of the Hearing Board is allowed, and respondent L. Tod Schlosser is DISBARRED.

Order entered by the Court.

Recent Disciplinary Decisions from Supreme Court | Recently Filed Complaints and Reports | Announcements | Schedule of Hearings | Clerk’s Office Services

RECENTLY FILED DISCIPLINARY DECISIONS FROM SUPREME COURT

This page contains links to recently filed opinions and announcements of disciplinary decisions issued by the Supreme Court and the dates listed below. The list is sequenced in inverse chronological order with the most recent filing at the top. Click on a date listed below to go to the opinions and/or announcements issued on that date.NEW FILINGS

November 21, 2016
September 22, 2016
May 18, 2016
March 22, 2016
January 21, 2016
November 17, 2015
September 21, 2015
May 14, 2015
March 12, 2015
January 16, 2015
November 20, 2014 (opinion)
November 13, 2014
September 12, 2014
May 16, 2014
March 14, 2014
January 17, 2014
November 20, 2013
November 15, 2013 (opinion)
September 25, 2013
May 22, 2013
May 20, 2013
March 15, 2013
January 18, 2013
November 19, 2012
September 17, 2012
May 18, 2012
March 19, 2012
January 20, 2012 (opinion)
January 13, 2012
November 22, 2011
November 17, 2011
September 26, 2011
September 22, 2011 (opinion)
September 20, 2011
May 18, 2011
March 21, 2011
January 19, 2011
November 12, 2010
September 23, 2010
September 22, 2010
September 20, 2010
May 18, 2010
May 17, 2010
March 16, 2010
January 21, 2010
November 17, 2009
September 22, 2009
June 4, 2009 (opinion)
May 18, 2009
March 16, 2009
January 20, 2009
November 18, 2008
September 17, 2008
September 16, 2008
May 19, 2008
March 17, 2008
January 23, 2008
November 20, 2007
September 18, 2007
May 18, 2007
March 19, 2007
January 12, 2007
November 17, 2006
September 21, 2006
September 20, 2006
May 18, 2006 (opinion)
May 16, 2006
March 23, 2006 (opinion)
March 21, 2006
March 20, 2006
January 17, 2006
January 13, 2006
November 22, 2005
September 27, 2005
September 26, 2005
June 13, 2005
May 20, 2005
May 19, 2005
March 22, 2005
March 18, 2005
January 14, 2005
November 19, 2004
November 17, 2004
September 27, 2004
September 24, 2004
May 18, 2004
May 17, 2004
May 14, 2004
March 15, 2004
March 12, 2004
January 23, 2004 (opinion)
January 20, 2004
January 16, 2004
November 20, 2003 (opinion)
November 20, 2003
November 17, 2003
November 14, 2003
November 14, 2003
October 16, 2003
October 14, 2003
September 25, 2003
September 24, 2003
September 22, 2003
September 19, 2003
May 22, 2003
April 1, 2003
March 19, 2003
January 24, 2003
January 23, 2003
November 26, 2002
November 21, 2002 (opinion)
September 20, 2002
September 19, 2002
May 24, 2002
March 26, 2002
March 22, 2002
January 30, 2002
January 29, 2002
January 28, 2002
November 28, 2001
November 29, 2001
September 21, 2001
September 20, 2001

How many times does the child’s constitutional get violated to have parents is directly related to attorneys and judges ?

November 18, 2016 § Leave a comment

If there was no litigation the appearance the scumbags wouldn’t get extortion monies out of the noncustodial parent is just unjust and business as usual in ILLINOIS.

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing the DUE PROCESS category at Will County Pro-se.