President Trump ended Deferred Action for DACA holders as of September 5, 2017. Renewals became unavailable after October 5, 2017. DACA holders who are married to US citizens should investigate the applicabiity of a Provisional Waiver for possible relief.
The following is of historical interest only
Using executive powers to stop removal (deportation) of young persons illegally present in the U.S., but who assimilated through education or military service, on June 15, 2012, then Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano issued a memorandum providing for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) who were in removal, subject to removal, or identified as undocumented, provided they met the following criteria:
This was the original DACA program, which remained in effect notwithstanding an injunction against executive actions to expand the program announced in November 2014 by President Obama. Read more about executive actions and the injunction against them.
Eligible individuals, regardless of being under the age of 15, who were already in removal proceedings that had not culminated in a final order of removal (deportation) were to be given deferred action for a period of two years, which was renewable indefinitely. The ICE Office of Public Advocate was the entity to whom persons who believed they could qualify to direct inquiries.
Qualified persons whose cases resulted in final orders of removal (deportation) of any age or who were never placed in removal and were at least 15 years old could apply to USCIS for a two year deferred action determination, subject to renewal.
USCIS began accepting applications on August 15, 2012. Three official forms had to be submitted, one for deferred action (form I-821d), another for work authorization (form I-765), and a third worksheet to establish economic need for employment (form I-765ws). Documents to establish physical presence, schooling or military record, identity, and age were required to be submitted. Applications had to be accompanied by the required $465 fee, which was non-refundable. No fee waiver was possible but in some rare cases, fee exemption could be granted. A criminal record would disqualify persons under certain circumstances. No appeal was possible. A motion to reopen could be filed in egregiously wrongly decided cases, but refilings were discouraged.
If an application was successful, advance parole to travel outside the country wass available, at the discretion of the immigration officials. A form I-131 was used to request it, after the I-821d was approved.
One potentially troublesome area in administering the policy involved prior trouble with the law. Traditional immigration rules applicable to other criminal cases did not necessarily apply to determinations made for deferred action. Thus, a single prior DUI conviction, which ordinarily had little relevance in other immigration proceedings, could disqualify an applicant who was otherwise eligible under DACA. Prior juvenile delinquency dispositions generally were not taken into account. The same is true of expunged crimes. On the other hand, a misdemeanor conviction for illegal possession of marijuana did not necessarily preclude DACA.
No amnesty, path to permanent residency, citizenship, or other immigration benefit wass officially authorized, but one did emerge based on the case of Arrabally and Yerrabelly. No benefit was conferred on family members by virtue of DACA. Read more about deferred actions.
Arizona refused at first to issue driver's licenses to persons granted DACA benefits on the theory that the DACA documents did not confer lawful presence upon them, but in ARIZONA DREAM ACT COALITION V. JANICE BREWER , 13-16248 (2014), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled this policy unconstitutional as a violation of equal protection of the laws, a decision the Supreme Court refused to enjoin.
Young people who were ever the subject of a police investigation, used a false social security card, falsely claimed to be a citizen, or left the country during the five year qualifying period were strongly advised to consult with a qualified immigration lawyer before filing papers for DACA, as the process may not have been appropriate for them. Although USCIS stated it would not consider prior use of false social security cards in the DACA process, some successful DACA applicants reported inquiries from social security about the use of false numbers previously when they applied for social security cards after employment authorization issued.
Being enrolled in certain GED programs would qualify as being currently enrolled in school and thus could support an application for DACA benefits but in Arizona, one was required to have a state issued ID to enroll for a GED under state programs, which was unavailable generally to undocumented persons.
Although DACA was a program that is not supposed to lead to permanent residency and citizenship, in practice, it did. By departing the US under advance parole and re-entering with it, it was possible to apply for permanent residency if the requisite familial or other traditional legal basis existed. This procedure was eliminated by the Trump administration in 2017.