CAMDEN, NJ — An Indian national was indicted on June 2, 2022, for immigration documents fraud and aggravated identity theft, U.S. Attorney Philip R. Sellinger announced.
Rohit Kumar, 30, of West Bengal, India, is charged with six counts of submitting false and fraudulent immigration documents and six counts of committing aggravated identity theft. According to documents filed in this case and statements made in court: Kumar worked for several years in India for one of the largest information technology companies in the world. This IT company contracted with an electric utility company that was based in New Jersey and owned and operated nuclear power facilities at multiple locations, including in southern New Jersey. Under the contract, the IT company supplied services to the New Jersey company, including through the use of foreign national workers from India who worked in specialized occupations. Kumar helped to arrange for Indian national workers to enter the United States under the H-1B visa program and then work at the New Jersey company. Some of these Indian national workers were stationed at a nuclear power plant in southern New Jersey, while other foreign workers were stationed at the company’s other locations in and around New Jersey. On several occasions in 2017 and 2018, Kumar created and presented false and fraudulent documents to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service in support of the H-1B visa applications of the Indian national workers. The documents purported to contain the authorized signature of a contracting manager at the New Jersey electric utility company, but the contracting manager never signed or authorized a signature on these documents. Each count of immigration documents fraud is punishable by a sentence of up to 10 years in prison, as well as a maximum fine of $250,000. Each count of aggravated identity theft is punishable by sentence of two years in prison, which must be served consecutively to any other term imposed, as well as a maximum fine of $250,000. On May 20, a federal district court judge issued a nationwide injunction ordering the Biden administration not to terminate its Title 42 order, which requires U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to process illegal land border crossers promptly (15 minutes in an outdoor setting) — without asylum screening or other Title 8 immigration processes — and expel them back to Mexico through the closest port of entry. Nearly 2 million migrants have been expelled under the order since it was instituted in 2020 as part of former President Trump’s pandemic response. The administration disagrees and intends to appeal the decision to a higher court. According to the administration, “The authority to set public health policy nationally should rest with the Centers for Disease Control [CDC], not with a single district court.” I agree that national public health policies should be set by the CDC, not by district court judges. But that’s not what happened in this case. The Title 42 order was issued to reduce the number of migrants held in congregate settings at ports of entry and Border Patrol stations because of the risk it posed of introducing, transmitting, and spreading COVID-19 in the United States.
CDC terminated the Title 42 order on April 1, 2022, because less burdensome measures are now available to mitigate those risks. The termination, however, wasn’t scheduled to be effective until May 23 because DHS needed time to institute operational plans for implementing the termination order and to establish additional COVID-19 mitigation measures. Notice-and-Comment Requirements The CDC did not comply with the notice-and-comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when it terminated the Title 42 order. According to the CDC, its termination order was not a rule. Moreover, even if it were a rule, it would qualify for the “good cause” and “foreign affairs” exceptions to those requirements. The CDC claims that there is good cause to dispense with the APA requirements because the Title 42 order is restricting asylum applications and other immigration processes, and provisions in Title 42 state that such orders should last no longer than necessary to protect public health. It would be impracticable and contrary to public interest and immigration laws, the administration argued, to delay the effective date of the termination beyond May 23. As to the foreign affairs exception, the CDC claims that the Title 42 order concerns ongoing discussions with Canada, Mexico, and other countries regarding immigration and how best to control COVID-19 transmission over shared borders; consequently, it directly involves a foreign affairs function of the United States. Twenty-four states filed a suit seeking to enjoin the CDC’s termination. The states contend that termination would cause a major increase in undocumented immigrants coming into their states which, among other things, would increase their law enforcement and healthcare costs. They also claim that the termination order violates the APA’s notice-and-comment requirements. Judge’s Decision The judge decided the administration had not advanced its argument that its termination order is not a rule. In any event, the termination is a “rule” because it will end the Title 8 immigration restrictions and resume normal immigration enforcement operations. Thus, according to the judge, it is an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect “designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy.” The CDC’s justification for invoking the “good cause” exception, the judge determined, is flawed for at least four reasons. Forty-one percent of Americans report worrying a great deal about the issue of illegal immigration, with another 19% worried a fair amount, according to a March 1-18 Gallup survey. The survey was conducted before the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced it will soon terminate the emergency powers given to border agents during the pandemic that have allowed them to turn migrants back without an opportunity to seek asylum. The 41% currently worried a great deal roughly ties the percentage found a year ago but is otherwise on the high end of Gallup readings taken over the past decade. The only time significantly more Americans were this concerned was in 2007, when 45% worried a great deal as then-President George W. Bush and Congress debated comprehensive immigration reform. In addition to those worried a great deal about illegal immigration today, 19% of Americans in the March poll reported worrying a fair amount, 17% only a little and 23% not at all. Thus, six in 10 adults worry a sizable amount about the issue, while four in 10 express little to no worry.
While the percentage of U.S. adults feeling highly worried about illegal immigration has varied, the percentage not worried at all has more than doubled since 2006. At the same time, the percentages worried a fair amount and worried only a little have trended down. Gallup measures Americans' concern about illegal immigration along with numerous other issues facing the country each March. As reported last month, illegal immigration ties with race relations as a public concern and ranks among the lower half of 14 issues rated this year. The 41% saying they worry a great deal about these contrasts with 59% worried about their top concern, inflation. |