September 27, 2008
TPS Extension for El Salvadorans
TPS has been extended 18-months for El Salvador from March 10, 2009 through September 9, 2010. There will be a 90-day re-registration announced as soon as the notice is published in the Federal Register. Please note that there is no automatic extension of EADs – this means that TPS beneficiaries reregistering for this extension will need to get their applications in at the beginning of the re-registration period to avoid a lapse in employment authorization. Please be sure to emphasize this point as you disseminate this information to stakeholders and to the Salvadorian community.
Here's the USCIS Announcement:18-Month Extension of Temporary Protected Status for El Salvador
WASHINGTON – U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced today that it will extend Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for nationals of El Salvador through Sept. 9, 2010. The extension will make those who have already been granted TPS eligible to reregister and maintain their status for an additional 18 months. There are approximately 229,000 nationals of El Salvador (and people having no nationality who last habitually resided in El Salvador) who are eligible for re-registration. TPS does not apply to Salvadoran nationals who entered the United States after Feb. 13, 2001.
The extension of TPS for El Salvador is effective March 10, 2009 and will remain in effect through Sept. 9, 2010. Nationals of El Salvador (and people having no nationality who last habitually resided in El Salvador) who have been granted TPS must reregister for the 18-month extension during the reregistration period beginning the day it is published in the Federal Register and remaining in effect 90 days thereafter. Salvadoran TPS beneficiaries are strongly encouraged to apply as soon as possible following the start of the 90-day reregistration period. Applications from Salvadoran TPS beneficiaries will not be accepted prior to the opening of the reregistration period.
TPS beneficiaries must submit the Application for Temporary Protected Status (Form I-821) without the application fee and the Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765) in order to reregister for TPS. All applicants seeking an extension of employment authorization through Sep. 9, 2010 must submit the required application filing fee with the Form I-765. If the applicant is only seeking to reregister for TPS and not seeking an extension of employment authorization, he or she must submit the Form I-765 for data-gathering purposes only, and is not required to submit the I-765 filing fee. All re-registrants 14 years of age and older must submit the biometric service fee. Applicants may request a fee waiver for any of the application or biometric service fees in accordance with the regulations. Failure to submit the required filing fees or a properly documented fee waiver request will result in the rejection of the reregistration application.
Further details on this extension of TPS for El Salvador, including the application requirements and procedures, will appear in a Federal Register notice shortly. For additional information, contact the USCIS National Customer Service Center toll-free telephone number: 1-800-375-5283. TPS forms are available from the toll-free USCIS forms line, 1-800-870-3676, or from the USCIS Web site: http://www.uscis.gov.
September 27, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference TPS Extension for El Salvadorans:
Let's Put the "T" Back in TPS.
Posted by: Susan Goya | Sep 27, 2008 9:30:15 AM
Susan, if you were not an ignorant know-nothing (meaning that in more than one sense!) you'd know that TPS is usually _more_ temporary than is objectively called for. It's clear once again, though, that you don't actually care about getting things right. You're just reflexively anti-foreigner. Since you don't care about getting things right it would be better if you went and played elsewhere rather than just being a troll on this site.
Posted by: Matt Lister | Sep 27, 2008 12:59:07 PM
No ad hominen attacks please Mr. Lister! Although anti-illegal immigration, none of my posts have been anti-foreigner. My philosophy is that a vigorous debate, with both sides ably represented, will result in better immigration policy. You, for example, have argued for greater protection for gang-related asylum claims. I am happy to report that the Courts of Appeals have wisely rejected these claims. An expansion of the "particular social group" concept is better and more legitimately addressed in Congress and, indeed, these applicants should seek legal redress and protection in their home countries.
Posted by: Susan Goya | Sep 28, 2008 9:11:13 AM
Susan, you're once again showing that you don't know what you're talking about. In order to have a "vigorous debate" you must know something about the subject. You repeated show that you do not. For example, those with TPS protection are not "illegal immigrants". Therefore, your remarks about TPS cannot be plausibly claimed to be "anti Illegal immigrant" and are clearly shown for what they are, anti foreigner. Secondly, there is quite a mixed range of cases relating to gang activity in the courts of appeals. (If you'd read my piece you'd see that.) So, you're wrong there, too. Some decisions I think are right and some wrong (and provide reasons why- that's what you do in a debate, rather than make [usually wrong] pronouncements, as is your style. You're also wrong that the contours of the "particular social group" category should be set in congress. It never has been before and congress it quite ill equipped to do so. Rather, it has to be worked out analogically in a case-by-case way, as is done in the US and around the world. Again, you show your self to not know what you're talking about. Self-confident pronouncements about things you demonstrably know little about isn't a way to promote debate. It's trolling, pure and simple. You should stop and take the time to learn something.
Posted by: Matt Lister | Sep 28, 2008 9:38:24 AM
Additionally, Susan, you misunderstand the meaning of an ad hominem. My remark that you're an ignorant know-nothing isn't an ad hominem. It's a factual statement about your level of knowledge. That it makes you feel bad doesn't turn it into an ad hominem. An ad hominem would be saying that we should not listen to your arguments because of your character. I think your character is pretty bad, but the reason we shouldn't listen to your arguments is that you don't know what you're talking about.
Posted by: Matt Lister | Sep 28, 2008 9:40:31 AM
Most, if not all Salvadorans protected by TPS entered the United States in violation of law and so therefore are (in my opinion) illegal aliens (but for TPS). The Ninth and Eleventh Circuits just this year rejected particular social group classifications in Central American gang cases (and these cases could not have therefore made it into your article). The United States Senate must approve (before ratification) all international treaties (including the Refugee Convention). The Senate (if it so desires) can attach reservations to a treaty (such as "Alien gang members shall not be entitled to particular social group status for purposes of this convention."). Calling someone an "ignorant know-nothing" is ad hominem. If you disagree with someone's statements or ideas, it is better to challenge or disprove the validity of the ideas and not attack the proponent of the ideas personally. My character (according to you) is "pretty bad." But how can you judge my character without even knowing me? According to you, I "do not know what I am talking about." But I have in all of my posts made factual statements that either can or cannot be proven. A debate must have at least two sides. There are no conservative immigration law professors posting to this site. If you want this blog to be nothing more than an echo-chamber for your own views and those who think just like you, by all means continue to hurl unhinged ad hominem attacks. I do not think Benjamin Franklin would be very proud of you!
Posted by: Susan Goya | Sep 28, 2008 2:41:43 PM
Susan, among other things you show again that you don't know what "ad hominem" means. When I say you're an ignorant know-nothing it's not an ad hominem. It wouldn't be one even if you knew a lot. You don't know a lot, though, so that makes it a factually true claim that's relevant to the point. I know that lots of people (including, it seems, you) think "ad hominem" means "saying something I think is mean" but that's just not true. For example, you say that Salvadorans protected by TPS are illegal immigrants. That's false. Now you add "in your opinion". What can that even mean here? You opinion has nothing to do with the matter, and what you say is false. This shows you to be a fool as well as a know-nothing. It's true that congress could make a rule limiting particular social group in some ways, but why would or should they? The courts seem to do an okay job now. If they did, they'd almost certainly be violating our obligations under the refugee convention. As for your character, it's revealed not only by your consistent anti-foreigner views (your "opinion" that someone is an illegal immigrant doesn't make them so, so your claims that you only oppose "illegal" immigrants is manifestly false), but also by your consistent trolling of this site. There are ways to engage in debate, but you don't take part in them.
Posted by: Matt Lister | Sep 28, 2008 6:36:05 PM