It isn't April 1st although when I first read the headline that the U.S. Department of State has opened an embassy in Iran (albeit one that is accessed solely through the Internet) I had major doubts whether this was a massive hoax.
More than three decades after the hostage crisis that brought the end of diplomatic relations between Iran and the US, and just a few days after news outlets reported that pro-hard liner crowds had stormed the British Embassy in Tehran, the web-based "embassy" went online today with versions in English and Farsi explaining why the administration has chosen this method of reaching out to the Iranian people. In a video message posted to the sites, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the lack of diplomatic relations had hindered dialogue between the U.S. and Iranian citizens.
Clinton said the online embassy was an effort to use new technology to bridge those gaps and promote greater understanding between the two countries.
Iranian vsa applicants will still have to go to neighbouring Abu Dhabi and Ankara to apply for visas but the web based embassy will purportedly serve to answer their questions and avail them of forms. This is strange because forms and information are already available online at the US consulate webpages of those neighboring countries. And of course the Iranian government can block access to any website it deems anti-Islamic. So I am not sure of the purose of opening a web based embassy other than a symbolic, political one at this point.
The new U.S. virtual embassy website can be viewed in English iran.usembassy.gov and in Persian at persian.iran.usembassy.gov although I think so many people are crashing the site that you will have a hard time getting through. Good luck!
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Monday, November 21, 2011
Work permits for Asylum Applicants
The Executive Office for Immigration Review has issued recently an extensive memorandum dealing with issues of employment authorization for immigrants who have applied for asylum in the United States but a decision has not yet been finalized in their cases.
The issue commonly known as "asylum clock" (i.e. calculating the number of days an asylum application has been pending, minus any delays caused by the applicant himself or herself) has had many scratching their heads every since the law changed from making employment authorizations automatic upon filing the application for asylum and instead required that certain number of days elapsed before the immigrant could apply for their work permit.
The problem that many have complained about is that even when the delay is caused through no fault of the applicant, or at the request of DHS (for example to take the time to conduct forensics, or background checks) many Immigration Judges do not enter the code that indicates the clock should continue running. Requests to restart the clock or to recalculate the clock often fall to the clerk of the Immigration Court, who are themselves so swamped by work and often just indicate they cannot do anything either becasue of the code entered on the file (even if the code was erroneously entered). Attempts to deal with this issue on record during a hearing could potentially lead to explosions by the overworked Immigrtaion Judge waiting to go through a pile of files and not in the mood to hear about sich "trivial" things as asylum clocks. The problem is that for applicants, the issue is far from trivial. When applications are sometimes pending months if not years, it is crucial that the applicant be able to secure lawful employment. After all not many asylum applicants are able to flee their country carrying suitcases stashed with cash!
The most recent memorandum is gargantuan in its content as it relates to the rules, exemptions, procedures, etc rekated to the asylum clock. Time will tell if use of the memo by attorneys will persuande the court to at least provide some consistency in the application of the asylum clock. The memo can be found here.
The issue commonly known as "asylum clock" (i.e. calculating the number of days an asylum application has been pending, minus any delays caused by the applicant himself or herself) has had many scratching their heads every since the law changed from making employment authorizations automatic upon filing the application for asylum and instead required that certain number of days elapsed before the immigrant could apply for their work permit.
The problem that many have complained about is that even when the delay is caused through no fault of the applicant, or at the request of DHS (for example to take the time to conduct forensics, or background checks) many Immigration Judges do not enter the code that indicates the clock should continue running. Requests to restart the clock or to recalculate the clock often fall to the clerk of the Immigration Court, who are themselves so swamped by work and often just indicate they cannot do anything either becasue of the code entered on the file (even if the code was erroneously entered). Attempts to deal with this issue on record during a hearing could potentially lead to explosions by the overworked Immigrtaion Judge waiting to go through a pile of files and not in the mood to hear about sich "trivial" things as asylum clocks. The problem is that for applicants, the issue is far from trivial. When applications are sometimes pending months if not years, it is crucial that the applicant be able to secure lawful employment. After all not many asylum applicants are able to flee their country carrying suitcases stashed with cash!
The most recent memorandum is gargantuan in its content as it relates to the rules, exemptions, procedures, etc rekated to the asylum clock. Time will tell if use of the memo by attorneys will persuande the court to at least provide some consistency in the application of the asylum clock. The memo can be found here.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
US Citizens in Canada renounce US Citizenship
An interesting article in the Globe and Mail, Canada's leading national newspaper, talks about US Citizens there renouncing their citizenship in the wake of an announcement that the IRS will crack down on US Citizens who have not filed their taxes simply because they do not live and work in the US anymore.
Unlike many countries, the United States requires its citizens to file annual tax returns with its Internal Revenue Service regardless of where they live and work. Many of the roughly one million Canadian-American citizens long ago stopped filing, assuming they owed no tax. Many are worried now they’ll be hit with punishing penalties as a result of recent U.S. efforts to prevent its citizens from hiding assets in offshore tax havens.
I have been hearing on the local Los Angeles based persian language radio KIRN 670AM about an amnesty period given by IRS for people who have not reported their offshore accounts and income to come clean with the payment of a penalty fee. This would of course be a very relevant issue for many Iranian-American citizens who hold dual residence and businesses in the US and in their home country. But the article in the Globe and Mail suggests that the US expats there, have taken the radical measure of renouncing their citizenship en masse. Well, maybe "en masse" is an exaggeration. However, the numbers do show a growing trend. According to the Globe, last year, 1,534 Americans renounced their U.S. citizenship – more than twice as many as in 2009 and a sevenfold increase from 2008. In Canada, which is home to more U.S. expats than anywhere else in the world, there are typically fewer than 100 renunciations a year.
And the process is not easy or free either. Aside from a $450 fee, there are back taxes to be filed for at least 5 years, which could mean thousands of dollars depending on your income, and an additional exit tax if your income is within certain brackets. And let's not forget the emotional stress. “I’ve been through a divorce and this is quite similar to a divorce,” explains one of the US Citizens in Canada. “It’s a long, drawn-out process and there’s a lot of emotion that comes with doing what I’ve done. It’s not a fun thing to do, but it’s been forced upon me.”
The Globe article can be found here.
Unlike many countries, the United States requires its citizens to file annual tax returns with its Internal Revenue Service regardless of where they live and work. Many of the roughly one million Canadian-American citizens long ago stopped filing, assuming they owed no tax. Many are worried now they’ll be hit with punishing penalties as a result of recent U.S. efforts to prevent its citizens from hiding assets in offshore tax havens.
I have been hearing on the local Los Angeles based persian language radio KIRN 670AM about an amnesty period given by IRS for people who have not reported their offshore accounts and income to come clean with the payment of a penalty fee. This would of course be a very relevant issue for many Iranian-American citizens who hold dual residence and businesses in the US and in their home country. But the article in the Globe and Mail suggests that the US expats there, have taken the radical measure of renouncing their citizenship en masse. Well, maybe "en masse" is an exaggeration. However, the numbers do show a growing trend. According to the Globe, last year, 1,534 Americans renounced their U.S. citizenship – more than twice as many as in 2009 and a sevenfold increase from 2008. In Canada, which is home to more U.S. expats than anywhere else in the world, there are typically fewer than 100 renunciations a year.
And the process is not easy or free either. Aside from a $450 fee, there are back taxes to be filed for at least 5 years, which could mean thousands of dollars depending on your income, and an additional exit tax if your income is within certain brackets. And let's not forget the emotional stress. “I’ve been through a divorce and this is quite similar to a divorce,” explains one of the US Citizens in Canada. “It’s a long, drawn-out process and there’s a lot of emotion that comes with doing what I’ve done. It’s not a fun thing to do, but it’s been forced upon me.”
The Globe article can be found here.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
New policy on deportation
On November 7, 2011, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services issued a new policy memo regarding the priority that they will follow to place certain immigrants in removal ("deportation") proceedings .
Although all three branches of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security established under President Bush to replace the U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service ("INS"), the U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"), the U.S.Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") have the authority to issue Notices to Appear in Removal Proceedings ("NTA"), the official document that is used to formally place an immigrant in deportation/removal proceedings, the USCIS traditionally has had less of a role in enforcement of removal, and is known as the agency that grants benefits instead of taking them away.
For example, if you want to obtain your Green Card ("adjutsment of status"), naturalization as a US Citizen, petition for your spouse or parents, and a host of other services, USCIS is the agency that takes care of these types of applications and petitions. But it is true that if any officer notices any issue that may lead them to refer an immigrant for removal proceedings, such as the fact that the immigrant has a criminal history, or has entered the U.S. without any lawful status, they can do so.
In the wake of the earlier policy memo issued under the Obama administration that sought to give some guidance on how to prosecute certain immigrants versus others once they already are in removal proceedings, for example allowing ICE attorneys to agree to jointly terminate removal proceedings in the case of certain immigrant who can demonstrate a host of criteria, this policy memo provides guidance to USCIS officers on how to issue the NTA in the first place. probably, the goal of this new memo is to try to avoid putting immigants in removal proceedings only to have their cases terminated later on in line, and as such, trying to eliminate unnecessary expenses in money and time by restricting the number of NTA that are issued in the first place, basically cutting off the flow at the source. It is noteworthy to repeat, as I mentioned in an earlier blog, that under the Obama administration, a record number of deportations have been completed, about 400,000, which is unprecedented in the history of this country.
The policy memo of November 7 states that cases involving fraud, serious crimes, categorized as aggravated felonies under the Immigration and Nationality Act, (murder, rape, sexual abuse of minors, possession and/or trafficking in illicit firearms and explosives, crimes of violence, ransom, child porn, human trafficking, drug trafficking, alien smuggling, human rights violators, gang members, and reentry after a prior deportation), and threats to national security will be the top immigration enforcement priority. Other cases are termed "non egregious public safety" cases, that is cases that do not fall under the above-noted criteria. Depending on the circumstances of each case, the policy memo requires the USCIS to follow a complicated referral procedure where USCIS will refer the case to ICE first and let ICE decide whether it is worth their while to pursue. Absent a finding by ICE, USCIS will not issue an NTA in those cases. In other cases, USCIS may automatically refer the cases for an NTA.
I read the memo a couple of times and I am still a bit confused. I am not sure that USCIS officers will be any less confused. It seems to me that it will take even longer for a case to be adjudicated and create even more work on an already overloaded USCIS and ICE. I could imagine officers referring files back and forth to each branch, USCIS, ICE, CBP, each claiming the other had the responsibility of making a decision on the NTA, that it is not their jurisdiction, or not their discretion or whatever, with files piling on top of files until there is no end in sight. A bureaucratic nightmare. The end result will be that in any case it will take much much longer for any NTA to be issued, causing people's legal status to remain in uncertainty that much longer.
The November 7 memo can be found here.
Although all three branches of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security established under President Bush to replace the U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service ("INS"), the U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"), the U.S.Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") have the authority to issue Notices to Appear in Removal Proceedings ("NTA"), the official document that is used to formally place an immigrant in deportation/removal proceedings, the USCIS traditionally has had less of a role in enforcement of removal, and is known as the agency that grants benefits instead of taking them away.
For example, if you want to obtain your Green Card ("adjutsment of status"), naturalization as a US Citizen, petition for your spouse or parents, and a host of other services, USCIS is the agency that takes care of these types of applications and petitions. But it is true that if any officer notices any issue that may lead them to refer an immigrant for removal proceedings, such as the fact that the immigrant has a criminal history, or has entered the U.S. without any lawful status, they can do so.
In the wake of the earlier policy memo issued under the Obama administration that sought to give some guidance on how to prosecute certain immigrants versus others once they already are in removal proceedings, for example allowing ICE attorneys to agree to jointly terminate removal proceedings in the case of certain immigrant who can demonstrate a host of criteria, this policy memo provides guidance to USCIS officers on how to issue the NTA in the first place. probably, the goal of this new memo is to try to avoid putting immigants in removal proceedings only to have their cases terminated later on in line, and as such, trying to eliminate unnecessary expenses in money and time by restricting the number of NTA that are issued in the first place, basically cutting off the flow at the source. It is noteworthy to repeat, as I mentioned in an earlier blog, that under the Obama administration, a record number of deportations have been completed, about 400,000, which is unprecedented in the history of this country.
The policy memo of November 7 states that cases involving fraud, serious crimes, categorized as aggravated felonies under the Immigration and Nationality Act, (murder, rape, sexual abuse of minors, possession and/or trafficking in illicit firearms and explosives, crimes of violence, ransom, child porn, human trafficking, drug trafficking, alien smuggling, human rights violators, gang members, and reentry after a prior deportation), and threats to national security will be the top immigration enforcement priority. Other cases are termed "non egregious public safety" cases, that is cases that do not fall under the above-noted criteria. Depending on the circumstances of each case, the policy memo requires the USCIS to follow a complicated referral procedure where USCIS will refer the case to ICE first and let ICE decide whether it is worth their while to pursue. Absent a finding by ICE, USCIS will not issue an NTA in those cases. In other cases, USCIS may automatically refer the cases for an NTA.
I read the memo a couple of times and I am still a bit confused. I am not sure that USCIS officers will be any less confused. It seems to me that it will take even longer for a case to be adjudicated and create even more work on an already overloaded USCIS and ICE. I could imagine officers referring files back and forth to each branch, USCIS, ICE, CBP, each claiming the other had the responsibility of making a decision on the NTA, that it is not their jurisdiction, or not their discretion or whatever, with files piling on top of files until there is no end in sight. A bureaucratic nightmare. The end result will be that in any case it will take much much longer for any NTA to be issued, causing people's legal status to remain in uncertainty that much longer.
The November 7 memo can be found here.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Record number of deportations
For the past couple of days, there have been a flurry of news reports as well as emails on the local Immigration Attorney listserve about the record number of aliens who have been removed ("deported") from the United States under the Obama administration, almost 400,000. This is a record high under any administration. Interesting because the perception is that Democrats are looser on immigration than Republicans. The Administration has pointed out that the bulk of these removed aliens were criminal offenders who were convicted of everything from homicide to DUI, but it seems that the majority was convicted of drug related offenses, which could theoretically have been simple possession of over 30 g of marijuana. It would be interesting although probably not feasible to have the government break down its statistics even further for example, stating how many of the removed aliens were here without any lawful immigration status. Many people do not realize that having a "Green Card" does not avoid you from being placed in removal proceedings if you have committed certain criminal offenses. So, of this number of removed aliens, it would havebeen interesting to know how many of them were here in some sort of lawful immigration status, whether it was lawful permanent resident status ("Green Card"), student status, visitor status, or any type of employment based visa. Another helpful statistic would have been to find out how many of these removed aliens had committed crimes considered to be aggravated felonies under Immigration and Nationality Act Section 101(a)(43) for example going back to the example of drug related offenses. This is so vague. How many were actual drug traffickers? What kind of controlled substances were involved? You have to remember even though the State of California does not criminalize the medical use of marijuana under Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5, if you are for example convicted of the offense of cultivating, harvesting or processing Marijuana under Health and Safety Code Section 11358, you would likely be removed from the United States since it is considered a particularly serious drug trafficking crime under Ninth Circuit precedent.
Critics from both sides, from pro immigrant advocacy groups to Republicans have decried these results as either too heavy handed or not enough. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said it best when she said:
"Our policies have been simultaneously described as engaging in a mean-spirited effort to blindly deport record numbers of illegal immigrants from the country and alternatively as comprehensive amnesty that ignores our responsibility to enforce the immigration laws; two opposites can't simultaneously be true," she said.
Critics from both sides, from pro immigrant advocacy groups to Republicans have decried these results as either too heavy handed or not enough. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said it best when she said:
"Our policies have been simultaneously described as engaging in a mean-spirited effort to blindly deport record numbers of illegal immigrants from the country and alternatively as comprehensive amnesty that ignores our responsibility to enforce the immigration laws; two opposites can't simultaneously be true," she said.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
New 9th Circut case on abandonment of lawful permanent resident status
Congratulations to attorney Nadia Farah, who won her client the right to retain his lawful permanent resident status ("Green Card" or "LPR" status) in a case published today, August 25, 2011, by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Ms. Farah's client, Salar Khoshfahm, a native and citizen of Iran, was a minor child, 13 years of age, when his parents obtained LPR status. It is important to note that they obtained that status through a family petition filed by Mr. Khoshfahm's uncle, a United States Citizen. It is not clear whether the uncle was related to Mr. Khoshfahm's father or his mother. Suffice it to say that a United States Citizen who files an immigrant petition for a sibling often has to wait about 15 years for the visa to become available, since siblings are not considered to be an immediate family member, like a spouse or a minor child. The Khoshfahm family waited at the back of the queue like everybody else until it was their turn to lawfully enter the United States. It is evident that they wanted to make their life in this country.
After what was supposed to be a short trip back to Iran to sell their property, Mr. Khoshfahm's parents remained there. First they had trouble obtaining airline tickets in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Khoshfahm's father experienced a heart condition for which he had to be hospitalized and thereafter restricted his ability to travel.
Mr. Khoshfahm waited patiently until he turned 18 and then immediately set to return to the United States with his Green Card in hand. He was stopped at the airport in San Francisco, CA, where he was referred before an Immigration Judge for removal ("deportation") proceedings by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement under the allegation that he had abandoned his lawful permanent resident status since he had stayed out of the United States for five years.
The Ninth Circuit found that because a child cannot legally form an intent as to domicile, the intent of the child’s LPR parents as to whether they will return to live in the United States is imputed to the child (over whom the parents have custody and control) during the period of the child’s unemancipation. At the point at which the child becomes an adult, however, he may legally demonstrate his intent separate from that of his parents.
The Court further found that the Government did not carry its burden to show Mr. Khoshfahm’s parents had abandoned their LPR status where Mr. Khoshfahm credibly testified that his parents always intended to return to the United States, and that his parents were prevented from returning by the September 11 attacks and then by his father’s heart condition. The Court found that Mr. Khoshfahm's actions clearly demonstrated his intent to return to live in the United States where as soon as he reached the age of adulthood, he immediately obtained the permanent passport that allowed him to travel alone and sought readmission a few months thereafter.
This is an important decision in the area of abandonment of lawful permanent resident status. I do not recall another precedent on this specific issue, where there is a minor child who attempts to return after emancipation. I worked on a factually similar case a few years ago where the immigrant had been forced to return to his native country by his parents, when he was about 3 or 4. There was ample evidence both from United States authorities (child services) and by autorities and witnesses in the native country that all his life, the child had been the subject of severe physical and psychological abuse by the parents. I remember getting chills when reading the child social worker report on the then three year old child that she had never witnessed such horrific abuse in her career. The child's body ha apparently been covered in cigarette burns, and belt marks and he had to be hospitalized and have life-saving surgery. Why the police was never involved to come arrest the parents in the first place before they could flee back to their home country with their abused child, I will never know. Anyways, the child eventually was able to get his Green Card back from his father when he reached the age of majority and immediately set back to the United States. In that case, although he was, like Mr. Khoshfahm, initially detained by ICE agents at the airport and referred for removal proceedings, after he presented evidence of his intent to return to the United States and that he had been forced to leave when he was still a minor child, both the Immigration Judge and counsel for ICE agreed that he had demonstrated that he had not abandoned his LPR status.
I am glad now we have a precedent that clarifies the issues for people in the position of Mr. Khoshfahm. I believe the Court reached a fair and just verdict given the circumstances. Why the government fought them at every step of the way, from the Immigration Court, to the Board of Immigration Appeals, to the Ninth Circuit, is an entirely separate issue.
The entire text of the decision can be read here.
After what was supposed to be a short trip back to Iran to sell their property, Mr. Khoshfahm's parents remained there. First they had trouble obtaining airline tickets in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Khoshfahm's father experienced a heart condition for which he had to be hospitalized and thereafter restricted his ability to travel.
Mr. Khoshfahm waited patiently until he turned 18 and then immediately set to return to the United States with his Green Card in hand. He was stopped at the airport in San Francisco, CA, where he was referred before an Immigration Judge for removal ("deportation") proceedings by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement under the allegation that he had abandoned his lawful permanent resident status since he had stayed out of the United States for five years.
The Ninth Circuit found that because a child cannot legally form an intent as to domicile, the intent of the child’s LPR parents as to whether they will return to live in the United States is imputed to the child (over whom the parents have custody and control) during the period of the child’s unemancipation. At the point at which the child becomes an adult, however, he may legally demonstrate his intent separate from that of his parents.
The Court further found that the Government did not carry its burden to show Mr. Khoshfahm’s parents had abandoned their LPR status where Mr. Khoshfahm credibly testified that his parents always intended to return to the United States, and that his parents were prevented from returning by the September 11 attacks and then by his father’s heart condition. The Court found that Mr. Khoshfahm's actions clearly demonstrated his intent to return to live in the United States where as soon as he reached the age of adulthood, he immediately obtained the permanent passport that allowed him to travel alone and sought readmission a few months thereafter.
This is an important decision in the area of abandonment of lawful permanent resident status. I do not recall another precedent on this specific issue, where there is a minor child who attempts to return after emancipation. I worked on a factually similar case a few years ago where the immigrant had been forced to return to his native country by his parents, when he was about 3 or 4. There was ample evidence both from United States authorities (child services) and by autorities and witnesses in the native country that all his life, the child had been the subject of severe physical and psychological abuse by the parents. I remember getting chills when reading the child social worker report on the then three year old child that she had never witnessed such horrific abuse in her career. The child's body ha apparently been covered in cigarette burns, and belt marks and he had to be hospitalized and have life-saving surgery. Why the police was never involved to come arrest the parents in the first place before they could flee back to their home country with their abused child, I will never know. Anyways, the child eventually was able to get his Green Card back from his father when he reached the age of majority and immediately set back to the United States. In that case, although he was, like Mr. Khoshfahm, initially detained by ICE agents at the airport and referred for removal proceedings, after he presented evidence of his intent to return to the United States and that he had been forced to leave when he was still a minor child, both the Immigration Judge and counsel for ICE agreed that he had demonstrated that he had not abandoned his LPR status.
I am glad now we have a precedent that clarifies the issues for people in the position of Mr. Khoshfahm. I believe the Court reached a fair and just verdict given the circumstances. Why the government fought them at every step of the way, from the Immigration Court, to the Board of Immigration Appeals, to the Ninth Circuit, is an entirely separate issue.
The entire text of the decision can be read here.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Department of Homeland Security announces Moratorium on Deportation of Dream Act Students
Today, in a letter to Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL) and 21 other Senators, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that the Administration has established a new process for handling the deportation cases of DREAM Act students and other sympathetic individuals. If fully implemented, the new process should stop virtually all DREAM Act deportations.
“The Obama Administration has made the right decision in changing the way they handle deportations of DREAM Act students,” Durbin said. “These students are the future doctors, lawyers, teachers and, maybe, Senators, who will make America stronger. We need to be doing all we can to keep these talented, dedicated, American students here, not wasting increasingly precious resources sending them away to countries they barely remember. The Administration’s new process is a fair and just way to deal with an important group of immigrant students and I will closely monitor DHS to ensure it is fully implemented.”
Under the new process, a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ) working group will develop specific criteria to identify low-priority removal cases that should be considered for prosecutorial discretion. These criteria will be based on “positive factors” from the Morton Memo, which include individuals present in the U.S. since childhood (like DREAM Act students), minors, the elderly, pregnant and nursing women, victims of serious crimes, veterans and members of the armed services, and individuals with serious disabilities or health problems. The working group will develop a process for reviewing cases pending before immigration and federal courts that meet these specific criteria.
On a regular basis, ICE attorneys will individually review every case scheduled for a hearing within the next 1-2 months to identify those cases that meet these specific criteria. These cases will be closed except in extraordinary circumstances, in which case the reviewing attorney must receive the approval of a supervisor to move forward. DHS will also begin reviewing all 300,000 pending cases to identify those that meet these specific criteria. These cases will be closed except in extraordinary circumstances, in which case the reviewing attorney must receive the approval of a supervisor to move forward. Individuals whose cases are closed will be able to apply for certain immigration benefits, including work authorization. All applications for benefits will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
About the DREAM Act:
The DREAM Act would allow a select group of immigrant students with great potential to contribute more fully to America. These young people were brought to the U.S. as children and should not be punished for their parents’ mistakes. The DREAM Act would give these students a chance to earn legal status if they:
•Came to the U.S. as children (15 or under)
•Are long-term U.S. residents (continuous physical presence for at least five years)
•Have good moral character
•Graduate from high school or obtain a GED
•Complete two years of college or military service in good standing
More information about the DREAM Act can be found here.
“The Obama Administration has made the right decision in changing the way they handle deportations of DREAM Act students,” Durbin said. “These students are the future doctors, lawyers, teachers and, maybe, Senators, who will make America stronger. We need to be doing all we can to keep these talented, dedicated, American students here, not wasting increasingly precious resources sending them away to countries they barely remember. The Administration’s new process is a fair and just way to deal with an important group of immigrant students and I will closely monitor DHS to ensure it is fully implemented.”
Under the new process, a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ) working group will develop specific criteria to identify low-priority removal cases that should be considered for prosecutorial discretion. These criteria will be based on “positive factors” from the Morton Memo, which include individuals present in the U.S. since childhood (like DREAM Act students), minors, the elderly, pregnant and nursing women, victims of serious crimes, veterans and members of the armed services, and individuals with serious disabilities or health problems. The working group will develop a process for reviewing cases pending before immigration and federal courts that meet these specific criteria.
On a regular basis, ICE attorneys will individually review every case scheduled for a hearing within the next 1-2 months to identify those cases that meet these specific criteria. These cases will be closed except in extraordinary circumstances, in which case the reviewing attorney must receive the approval of a supervisor to move forward. DHS will also begin reviewing all 300,000 pending cases to identify those that meet these specific criteria. These cases will be closed except in extraordinary circumstances, in which case the reviewing attorney must receive the approval of a supervisor to move forward. Individuals whose cases are closed will be able to apply for certain immigration benefits, including work authorization. All applications for benefits will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
About the DREAM Act:
The DREAM Act would allow a select group of immigrant students with great potential to contribute more fully to America. These young people were brought to the U.S. as children and should not be punished for their parents’ mistakes. The DREAM Act would give these students a chance to earn legal status if they:
•Came to the U.S. as children (15 or under)
•Are long-term U.S. residents (continuous physical presence for at least five years)
•Have good moral character
•Graduate from high school or obtain a GED
•Complete two years of college or military service in good standing
More information about the DREAM Act can be found here.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
California Dream approved for undocumented immigrants
This month, California Jerry Brown signed into a law a bill, known as the California Dream Act, that would allow undocumented (illegal) immigrants in California to receive private funds to go to college, if they would otherwise qualify. As I have said many times over in this blog and elsewhere, this is a part of the solution. The entire text of the California Dream Act can be found on the American immigration Lawyers Association website here.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Avoid Green Card Lottery Fraud
As I mentioned in my earlier blog, the annual Green Card Lottery is redrawing winners starting from July 15, 2011 in order to fix the computer glitch that corrupted the last results of the draw. Along with this news comes the usual warnings to avoid the many scammers who try to defraud people by sending emails that look like they are official emails from the Department of State and asking the "winners" to wire them money or other vital information.
One easy way to tell they are a fraud is that the e-mail address does not end with a “.gov”.
One particularly common fraud email comes from an address ending in @diplomats.com or @usa.com and asks potential victims to wire $819 per applicant/family member via Western Union to an individual (the name varies) at the following address in the United Kingdom: 24 Grosvenor Square, London W1A 1AE. If you receive this email, do NOT respond. Report it immediately to the Internet Crime Complaint Center and the Federal Trade Commission online or by calling 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357).
You can access more information about these types of fraudulent activities on the Beacon, the USCIS official blog here and also on the Department of State's official website here.
One easy way to tell they are a fraud is that the e-mail address does not end with a “.gov”.
One particularly common fraud email comes from an address ending in @diplomats.com or @usa.com and asks potential victims to wire $819 per applicant/family member via Western Union to an individual (the name varies) at the following address in the United Kingdom: 24 Grosvenor Square, London W1A 1AE. If you receive this email, do NOT respond. Report it immediately to the Internet Crime Complaint Center and the Federal Trade Commission online or by calling 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357).
You can access more information about these types of fraudulent activities on the Beacon, the USCIS official blog here and also on the Department of State's official website here.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Green Card Lottery draw rescheduled for this Friday July 15, 2011
The annual U.S. Diversity Immigrant Visa Program, popularly known as the Green Card Lottery, makes available up to 55,000 diversity visas annually, drawn from random selection among applicants who come from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States. This program is very important because the very basic requirements (high school diploma or work equivalent, plus being a native of one of the eligible counties, the lack of a filing fee, and the simple application process of submitting the application form and photographs electronically through the US Department of State website) opens the doors to many who otherwise would have no way to lawfully immigrate to the U.S.
Each year, there is a registration period that usually lasts 1-2 months, in the fall, during which you can submit your application (registration phase) and after a random computer generated selection, the lucky few can check the US Department of State website for news of their selection in the following spring/summer, and invited to complete the visa process at the local US Consulate or take the required steps to adjust their status if they are already in the United States.
For the most recent 2012 lottery however, a computer glitch caused the selection of winners not to be random at all. After review, it was discovered that 90% of winners were selected among applicants who had filed their application on the first two days of registration (Octoebr 5 and 6, 2010). This caused the U.S. Department of State the embarassment of having to notify all those "winners" that in fact their selection had to be voided (and their hopes crushed). A new draw has been scheduled and so, for those of you who applied for the 2012 lottery on any day of the registration period between October 5, 2010 and November 3, 2010, it will be included in the new selection lottery. Your confirmation number to check results on the U.S. Department of State website is still valid.
So check the status of your application through the DOS website between July 15, 2011 (this Friday) until June 30, 2012. More information can be found on the official Diversity Visa Lottery website here.
Good luck!!!
Each year, there is a registration period that usually lasts 1-2 months, in the fall, during which you can submit your application (registration phase) and after a random computer generated selection, the lucky few can check the US Department of State website for news of their selection in the following spring/summer, and invited to complete the visa process at the local US Consulate or take the required steps to adjust their status if they are already in the United States.
For the most recent 2012 lottery however, a computer glitch caused the selection of winners not to be random at all. After review, it was discovered that 90% of winners were selected among applicants who had filed their application on the first two days of registration (Octoebr 5 and 6, 2010). This caused the U.S. Department of State the embarassment of having to notify all those "winners" that in fact their selection had to be voided (and their hopes crushed). A new draw has been scheduled and so, for those of you who applied for the 2012 lottery on any day of the registration period between October 5, 2010 and November 3, 2010, it will be included in the new selection lottery. Your confirmation number to check results on the U.S. Department of State website is still valid.
So check the status of your application through the DOS website between July 15, 2011 (this Friday) until June 30, 2012. More information can be found on the official Diversity Visa Lottery website here.
Good luck!!!
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
New 9th Circuit case on fraud and removability
The Ninth Circuit has today filed a new opinion in the case of Planes v. Holder, holding that a conviction under California Penal Code section 476a(a)(passing a bad check with intent to defraud) is categorically a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT) rendering an alien removable (deportable) from the United States. That is, it is sufficient for the Department of Homeland Security to merely submit evidence of a conviction, without going to the trouble of adding conviction records that could provide a context for the offense, in order to prove their case against the alien.
This was an interesting read for me because I have been arguing in a current case before the Immigration Court that my client's conviction under a similar fraud statute, albeit this one is for forgery under section 470(a), is not categorically a CIMT. Neither counsel for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) nor I could find a case exactly on point, although I tried to argue that the Ninth Circuit has already found forgery not to categorically be a CIMT in Vizcarra-Ayala v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 870, 872 (9th Cir. 2008), a case involving a conviction for possession of a forged document under California Penal Code 475(c). In Vizcarra-Ayala, the Ninth Circuit looked at criminal court cases in California that involved section 475(c) and found one case where it was used to successfully prosecute a woman who tried to cash a fictitious check in the sincere belief that it was intended for her. Because of that sincere belief, the woman, though in possession of a forged document, could not by any conceivable means be considered to have acted in a manner “inherently base, vile, or depraved”, which is one of the murky definitions of a CIMT. Foolish, yes. A CIMT, no. As such, the Ninth Circuit found that Mr. Vizcarra-Ayala could not be found removable by virtue of a conviction under section 475(c) alone. Crucial in its conclusion was the fact that the Department of Homeland Security had not provided any conviction documents for Mr. Vizcarra-Ayala save for a bare abstract of judgment and as such, the Department had failed to provide any “indication of the context surrounding [the] offense” that could shed light on whether the respondent’s conduct could be qualified as inherently base, vile, or depraved. The Judge's decision in my client's case is still pendng at this point.
In today's opinion, Planes v. Holder, the Ninth Circuit, in a very short paragraph of a fourteen page decision, dismissed Mr. Planes' argument that his conviction for passing a bad check was not categorically a CIMT. The Ninth Circuit made a sweeping statement that all fraud crimes are categorically crimes involving moral turpitude, simply by virtue of their fraudulent nature, adding that this is a “clearly established rule” that has existed “since at least 1951”. Accordingly, none of the arguments advanced by Mr. Planes could disturb the "longstanding rule that crimes that have fraud as an element... are categorically crimes involving moral turpitude." This is so perplexing to me because, as I mentioned above, in the case of Vizcarra-Ayala, whose forgery conviction was under a section that also had fraud as an element, the Ninth Circuit found the opposite. So, in my humble opinion, there could be a contradiction here between precedents.
The full text of the opinion can be found here.
This was an interesting read for me because I have been arguing in a current case before the Immigration Court that my client's conviction under a similar fraud statute, albeit this one is for forgery under section 470(a), is not categorically a CIMT. Neither counsel for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) nor I could find a case exactly on point, although I tried to argue that the Ninth Circuit has already found forgery not to categorically be a CIMT in Vizcarra-Ayala v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 870, 872 (9th Cir. 2008), a case involving a conviction for possession of a forged document under California Penal Code 475(c). In Vizcarra-Ayala, the Ninth Circuit looked at criminal court cases in California that involved section 475(c) and found one case where it was used to successfully prosecute a woman who tried to cash a fictitious check in the sincere belief that it was intended for her. Because of that sincere belief, the woman, though in possession of a forged document, could not by any conceivable means be considered to have acted in a manner “inherently base, vile, or depraved”, which is one of the murky definitions of a CIMT. Foolish, yes. A CIMT, no. As such, the Ninth Circuit found that Mr. Vizcarra-Ayala could not be found removable by virtue of a conviction under section 475(c) alone. Crucial in its conclusion was the fact that the Department of Homeland Security had not provided any conviction documents for Mr. Vizcarra-Ayala save for a bare abstract of judgment and as such, the Department had failed to provide any “indication of the context surrounding [the] offense” that could shed light on whether the respondent’s conduct could be qualified as inherently base, vile, or depraved. The Judge's decision in my client's case is still pendng at this point.
In today's opinion, Planes v. Holder, the Ninth Circuit, in a very short paragraph of a fourteen page decision, dismissed Mr. Planes' argument that his conviction for passing a bad check was not categorically a CIMT. The Ninth Circuit made a sweeping statement that all fraud crimes are categorically crimes involving moral turpitude, simply by virtue of their fraudulent nature, adding that this is a “clearly established rule” that has existed “since at least 1951”. Accordingly, none of the arguments advanced by Mr. Planes could disturb the "longstanding rule that crimes that have fraud as an element... are categorically crimes involving moral turpitude." This is so perplexing to me because, as I mentioned above, in the case of Vizcarra-Ayala, whose forgery conviction was under a section that also had fraud as an element, the Ninth Circuit found the opposite. So, in my humble opinion, there could be a contradiction here between precedents.
The full text of the opinion can be found here.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Supreme Court upholds lower tuition for California illegal immigrants
The United States Supreme Court has upheld a California law allowing undocumented immigrants to pay the same college tuition as legal residents of the state, as long as they attended a California high school for a minimum of three years and graduated from said institution. The tuition is considerably lower than for applicants from out of state. Although the justices had issued their decision in November 2010, it had been appealed by out-of-state students attending California schools, who said it was unfair that as U.S. citizens, they had to pay as much as $20,000 more than illegal immigrants. They claimed such "preferential treatment" violated federal law, which bars "residence within a state" from being used as the basis to allow "any postsecondary benefit" unless all U.S. citizens would similarly benefit. On Monday, the Supreme Court Justices refused to accept their appeal.
It seems to me this law is aimed at the children whose parents snuck into the US when they were infants and they therefore had no choice and often no knowledge in the matter. Furthermore, as I wrote about in an earlier blog, many of those infants grow up to be full fledeged American citizens or at least they believe themselves to be all their life. It is their identity, whether or not they hold the paper to prove it. It is only upon reaching majority and sometimes even later, when as adults, they are asked for legal documents such birth certificates, that they get a rude awakening. What is fair to do with these children?
If you believe that in state residents should pay a lower tuition than out of state residents, on the basis that in state residents have all their lives contributed to the state in many ways, such as through paying taxes, consuming goods, working, simply being part of the local economy and fabric of the community, while the out of state residents should pay a higher fee because they have not contributed anything to the state therefore they should pick up more slack for taking advantage of the educational institutions, then why not grant those children of undocumented parents, who are for all practical purposes in-state residents, the same same benefit of a lower tuition.
After all, their parents contributed to the local economy just as much as any other, even despite not having lawful immigration status. All of my undocumented clients in ten years of practice had been able to show me yearly income tax returns, federal and state, they often held more than one job, and they did not for one day bilk the state or federal government of any medical or unemployment or any other benefits. The sad matter is that the clients or potential clients who came for consultation with me because their immigration status was in jeopardy after they had been convicted of defrauding the government of medi-Cal or other benefits, were all lawful permanent residents or had some sort of lawful status here!
Other states with similar laws are: Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin. Another dozen states have passed specific laws refusing in-state tuition for illegal immigrants.
Congress is considering a similar law, called the DREAM Act. It would speed citizenship for younger illegal immigrants who attend college or join the military.
More about this decision can be read in the CNN article here.
It seems to me this law is aimed at the children whose parents snuck into the US when they were infants and they therefore had no choice and often no knowledge in the matter. Furthermore, as I wrote about in an earlier blog, many of those infants grow up to be full fledeged American citizens or at least they believe themselves to be all their life. It is their identity, whether or not they hold the paper to prove it. It is only upon reaching majority and sometimes even later, when as adults, they are asked for legal documents such birth certificates, that they get a rude awakening. What is fair to do with these children?
If you believe that in state residents should pay a lower tuition than out of state residents, on the basis that in state residents have all their lives contributed to the state in many ways, such as through paying taxes, consuming goods, working, simply being part of the local economy and fabric of the community, while the out of state residents should pay a higher fee because they have not contributed anything to the state therefore they should pick up more slack for taking advantage of the educational institutions, then why not grant those children of undocumented parents, who are for all practical purposes in-state residents, the same same benefit of a lower tuition.
After all, their parents contributed to the local economy just as much as any other, even despite not having lawful immigration status. All of my undocumented clients in ten years of practice had been able to show me yearly income tax returns, federal and state, they often held more than one job, and they did not for one day bilk the state or federal government of any medical or unemployment or any other benefits. The sad matter is that the clients or potential clients who came for consultation with me because their immigration status was in jeopardy after they had been convicted of defrauding the government of medi-Cal or other benefits, were all lawful permanent residents or had some sort of lawful status here!
Other states with similar laws are: Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin. Another dozen states have passed specific laws refusing in-state tuition for illegal immigrants.
Congress is considering a similar law, called the DREAM Act. It would speed citizenship for younger illegal immigrants who attend college or join the military.
More about this decision can be read in the CNN article here.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Can Iranian students already in US get the new multiple entry visa?
After the Department of State's recent announcement that Iranian students seeking a US visa would be permitted to obtain a 2 year multiple entry visa instead of a 3 months visa, I have been flooded with questions from Iranian students ALREADY in the US if they can benefit from this change in policy.
The short answer to the question is yes. Officially, any Iranian students already in the US and in valid F, J, or M status, could leave the US and apply to a consulate abroad for this visa.
The long answer is more complex. The key is they can "apply". However there is no guarantee that they will obtain it. To add complications, since the US Embassy hostage crisis, there is no US embassy or consulate inside Iran. As such, Iranian students, in fact any Iranian national seeking any type of visa has to travel to a US consulate abroad to apply. For those residing in Iran, they have mostly gone to Ankara, Turkey, or Abu Dhabi, UAE. The benefit of going to those locations is not only that they are geographically near, but they traditionally grant temporary visitor visas to Iranian nationals without any undue burden or restrictions or time delay, which enables the Iranian nationals to stay in Ankara or Abu Dhabi for the several days that it usually takes to go through the application and visa interview process.
Some, if they can afford it and if they are able to obtain visas to those countries, can apply for the visas in Europe. One of the advantages there could be that there is less delay beause there are less applicants who can make it there.
For those Iranian students already in the US, a logical question is whether they could travel to nearby US consulates in Mexico or Canada, instead of going through the expense of returning to the Middle East or going to Europe. Of course, the answer is yes. The US Consulates have limited number of appointments available for third country nationals who are currently in valid visa status in the US. But there are several technical problems the Iranian student will face.
First of all, to obtain a tourist visa to Canada, as an Iranian national, is no easier feat than obtaining one to the US. That is, they come under special scrutiny and will experience more delay than other nationals, because of the presumption that a national from Iran has an immigrant intent. Of course, you have to get voluminous documents together, including the visa application form, the proof that you are in the US legally, which includes not only the proof that your educational institution has been approved by the Department of Homeland Security, and that you are enrolled there, but that you are pursuing your full time program of study, you have proof that you are supporting yourself financialy without the authorization to work in the US, and that you intend to return to that program of study and eventually to your home country, before Canada will consider granting you a visitor visa. And then of course there is the matter of the visa application fees. I am guessing the time to process all of that will be at a minimum several weeks.
Then, you have to request the appointment at the US consulate in Toronto for your visa appointment. You can do that via telephone or email and it usually takes 4 to 6 weeks according to their website to secure an appointment. Then, the visa application process can take up to 2 weeks. So you have to get ready to spend a minimum of 2 weeks there. If you don't have family or friends who can help you out, that can be a costly proposition. To add to the burden, missing up to two weeks from your course of study better not render you out of status. So you definitely have to check with your school that it is okay to take that time off because you don't want to experience the irony of being denied a visa because you are considered to have abandoned your studies precisely because it took 2 weeks to process a request for a student visa!!! Kafkaesque conundrum indeed.
Here is the kicker. No guarantees can ever be given ahead of time that an applicant will be found qualified for a U.S. visa as this determination can only be made during the visa interview process. Furthermore, within the course of the visa interview it may be determined that an application could be subjected to a legally mandated administrative review, which may take several weeks or months to be concluded. During this time visa applicants may not be allowed re-entry into the United States."
In other words, you are gambling with higher stakes than a Las Vegas casino if you want to take your chance to leave the US an apply for the new multiple entry visa abroad. It doesn't matter that all your paperwork is in order and that you are a valid, solid, student.
You have to understand that the "interview" is really you standing there, with no right to an attorney, in front of a small window, just like at the DMV or social security office except less friendly and efficient, and the person who is quickly shooting questions at you while simulatenously browsing your mound of documents, makes up his or her mind about denial or approval in a matter of minutes if not seconds. And if you want to appeal the decision, it is going to take months during which you are not allowed reentry in the US, so definitely that is going to make you get kicked out of school and then, your appeal is really worthless, even if you do get a reversal at the end of several months of wait.
And of course, Canada is not necessarily going to allow you to remain there past the expiry date of your tourist visa even if you have the excuse that you are waiting for the results of your apeal. So the only alternative you may have to face is to return to Iran, and have some kind soul pack up your things, and take care of your now breached lease/rental agreement, utility bills, close your bank account, sell your car, etc. in the hopes that one day in the future, you will be accepted back into your school after your defection.
I don't know but if you ask me, that is too high a gamble. It is difficult to understand for people who have had passports that grant them instantaneous access t practically any country they want to visit, study in or work, what it is to go through life holding a passport that renders you a suspect before you even open your mouth and present your documents. Another sad consequence of the policies of a government that bears harshly upon its most well-intentioned and in many cases most brilliant and positive citizens.
The short answer to the question is yes. Officially, any Iranian students already in the US and in valid F, J, or M status, could leave the US and apply to a consulate abroad for this visa.
The long answer is more complex. The key is they can "apply". However there is no guarantee that they will obtain it. To add complications, since the US Embassy hostage crisis, there is no US embassy or consulate inside Iran. As such, Iranian students, in fact any Iranian national seeking any type of visa has to travel to a US consulate abroad to apply. For those residing in Iran, they have mostly gone to Ankara, Turkey, or Abu Dhabi, UAE. The benefit of going to those locations is not only that they are geographically near, but they traditionally grant temporary visitor visas to Iranian nationals without any undue burden or restrictions or time delay, which enables the Iranian nationals to stay in Ankara or Abu Dhabi for the several days that it usually takes to go through the application and visa interview process.
Some, if they can afford it and if they are able to obtain visas to those countries, can apply for the visas in Europe. One of the advantages there could be that there is less delay beause there are less applicants who can make it there.
For those Iranian students already in the US, a logical question is whether they could travel to nearby US consulates in Mexico or Canada, instead of going through the expense of returning to the Middle East or going to Europe. Of course, the answer is yes. The US Consulates have limited number of appointments available for third country nationals who are currently in valid visa status in the US. But there are several technical problems the Iranian student will face.
First of all, to obtain a tourist visa to Canada, as an Iranian national, is no easier feat than obtaining one to the US. That is, they come under special scrutiny and will experience more delay than other nationals, because of the presumption that a national from Iran has an immigrant intent. Of course, you have to get voluminous documents together, including the visa application form, the proof that you are in the US legally, which includes not only the proof that your educational institution has been approved by the Department of Homeland Security, and that you are enrolled there, but that you are pursuing your full time program of study, you have proof that you are supporting yourself financialy without the authorization to work in the US, and that you intend to return to that program of study and eventually to your home country, before Canada will consider granting you a visitor visa. And then of course there is the matter of the visa application fees. I am guessing the time to process all of that will be at a minimum several weeks.
Then, you have to request the appointment at the US consulate in Toronto for your visa appointment. You can do that via telephone or email and it usually takes 4 to 6 weeks according to their website to secure an appointment. Then, the visa application process can take up to 2 weeks. So you have to get ready to spend a minimum of 2 weeks there. If you don't have family or friends who can help you out, that can be a costly proposition. To add to the burden, missing up to two weeks from your course of study better not render you out of status. So you definitely have to check with your school that it is okay to take that time off because you don't want to experience the irony of being denied a visa because you are considered to have abandoned your studies precisely because it took 2 weeks to process a request for a student visa!!! Kafkaesque conundrum indeed.
Here is the kicker. No guarantees can ever be given ahead of time that an applicant will be found qualified for a U.S. visa as this determination can only be made during the visa interview process. Furthermore, within the course of the visa interview it may be determined that an application could be subjected to a legally mandated administrative review, which may take several weeks or months to be concluded. During this time visa applicants may not be allowed re-entry into the United States."
In other words, you are gambling with higher stakes than a Las Vegas casino if you want to take your chance to leave the US an apply for the new multiple entry visa abroad. It doesn't matter that all your paperwork is in order and that you are a valid, solid, student.
You have to understand that the "interview" is really you standing there, with no right to an attorney, in front of a small window, just like at the DMV or social security office except less friendly and efficient, and the person who is quickly shooting questions at you while simulatenously browsing your mound of documents, makes up his or her mind about denial or approval in a matter of minutes if not seconds. And if you want to appeal the decision, it is going to take months during which you are not allowed reentry in the US, so definitely that is going to make you get kicked out of school and then, your appeal is really worthless, even if you do get a reversal at the end of several months of wait.
And of course, Canada is not necessarily going to allow you to remain there past the expiry date of your tourist visa even if you have the excuse that you are waiting for the results of your apeal. So the only alternative you may have to face is to return to Iran, and have some kind soul pack up your things, and take care of your now breached lease/rental agreement, utility bills, close your bank account, sell your car, etc. in the hopes that one day in the future, you will be accepted back into your school after your defection.
I don't know but if you ask me, that is too high a gamble. It is difficult to understand for people who have had passports that grant them instantaneous access t practically any country they want to visit, study in or work, what it is to go through life holding a passport that renders you a suspect before you even open your mouth and present your documents. Another sad consequence of the policies of a government that bears harshly upon its most well-intentioned and in many cases most brilliant and positive citizens.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Changes to student visas for Iranian citizens
In a press statement on May 20, 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced that Iranian citizens who seek student visas to come to the United States will from now on be granted multiple entry visas valid for two years instead of the 3 months single entry visas they used to be granted.
It is important to make a distinction between the validity of a visa versus the length of stay authorized by the Dept. of Homeland Security. For example, under the old rules, an Iranian citizen applying for a student visa for a four year Bachelor program at UCLA would have been authorized to stay in the U.S. for all of those four years. However, the visa she would have been granted under the old rules would have had a small window of 3 months to make arrangements to enter the U.S. once accepted After that, if that person chose to leave the U.S. for, say a vacation, let's say 6 months, or 1 year, or 2 years after she started her program of study, she would then be required to re-apply for a brand new 3 month single entry student visa from the U.S. consulate abroad in order to return to the U.S. and resume her studies.
Iranian students for the overwhelming part chose not to take the risk of leaving the U.S. in the unfortunate event that once out, they would either be refused re-admission or experience a significant delay in obtaining a new visa to return to their program of study, which could prove detrimental to their studies themselves, like making them miss important course registration deadlines or an exam.
The change anounced by Mrs. Clinton applies to any Iranian abroad who are currently seeking visas in the F, M, or J categories. Iranians currently in the United States on a three-month, single-entry visa in one of these categories can obtain them too by reapplying outside the United States at a consular post in order to obtain two-year, multiple-entry visas. Surprisingly, this news has been met with considerable derision in the Iranian blogosphere. It seems some people are bent on spinning this in a negative way, either to criticize the U.S. government for righting a wrong (too little, too late attitude) or casting suspicion on students who are supposedly able to afford the thousands of dollars it would take to go back home during a course of study.
In my opinion, this news is extremely important and a positive step forward in eradicating discrimination against Iranian students. Those who are accepted in universities here not only make a positive contribution to the host universities and communities but they will take back with them important tools to redistribute to their own community. Fostering educational and cultural exchanges is in my mind the best way to improve future relationships between countries, in every respect.
A Farsi version of the press statement and a video announcement are available on the official DOS website here.
It is important to make a distinction between the validity of a visa versus the length of stay authorized by the Dept. of Homeland Security. For example, under the old rules, an Iranian citizen applying for a student visa for a four year Bachelor program at UCLA would have been authorized to stay in the U.S. for all of those four years. However, the visa she would have been granted under the old rules would have had a small window of 3 months to make arrangements to enter the U.S. once accepted After that, if that person chose to leave the U.S. for, say a vacation, let's say 6 months, or 1 year, or 2 years after she started her program of study, she would then be required to re-apply for a brand new 3 month single entry student visa from the U.S. consulate abroad in order to return to the U.S. and resume her studies.
Iranian students for the overwhelming part chose not to take the risk of leaving the U.S. in the unfortunate event that once out, they would either be refused re-admission or experience a significant delay in obtaining a new visa to return to their program of study, which could prove detrimental to their studies themselves, like making them miss important course registration deadlines or an exam.
The change anounced by Mrs. Clinton applies to any Iranian abroad who are currently seeking visas in the F, M, or J categories. Iranians currently in the United States on a three-month, single-entry visa in one of these categories can obtain them too by reapplying outside the United States at a consular post in order to obtain two-year, multiple-entry visas. Surprisingly, this news has been met with considerable derision in the Iranian blogosphere. It seems some people are bent on spinning this in a negative way, either to criticize the U.S. government for righting a wrong (too little, too late attitude) or casting suspicion on students who are supposedly able to afford the thousands of dollars it would take to go back home during a course of study.
In my opinion, this news is extremely important and a positive step forward in eradicating discrimination against Iranian students. Those who are accepted in universities here not only make a positive contribution to the host universities and communities but they will take back with them important tools to redistribute to their own community. Fostering educational and cultural exchanges is in my mind the best way to improve future relationships between countries, in every respect.
A Farsi version of the press statement and a video announcement are available on the official DOS website here.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Big step forward for same sex immigrant couples
Today, the U.S. Attorney-General made a big step towards changing the immigration law of the United States as it regards same sex couples who wish to obtain a Green Card based on their civil union. This comes after the White House earlier stated a major shift in policy regarding the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"), which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages, an issue I previously blogged about.
Using special authority given to his office by Congress, the AG vacated and remanded the case of Paul Wilson Dorman, a resident of New Jersey, back to the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"), which had previously denied his claim based on DOMA.
The AG ordered the BIA to reconsider the case to determine whether and how the
constitutionality of DOMA is presented in this case, including, but not limited
to:
1) whether respondent’s same-sex partnership or civil union qualifies him
to be considered a “spouse” under New Jersey law;
2) whether, absent the requirements of DOMA, respondent’s same-sex partnership or civil union would qualify him to be considered a “spouse” under the Immigration and
Nationality Act;
The AG's decision is available in its entirety on the official website of the US Department of Justice here.
Stay tuned for developments, and Happy Cinquo de Mayo!
Using special authority given to his office by Congress, the AG vacated and remanded the case of Paul Wilson Dorman, a resident of New Jersey, back to the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"), which had previously denied his claim based on DOMA.
The AG ordered the BIA to reconsider the case to determine whether and how the
constitutionality of DOMA is presented in this case, including, but not limited
to:
1) whether respondent’s same-sex partnership or civil union qualifies him
to be considered a “spouse” under New Jersey law;
2) whether, absent the requirements of DOMA, respondent’s same-sex partnership or civil union would qualify him to be considered a “spouse” under the Immigration and
Nationality Act;
The AG's decision is available in its entirety on the official website of the US Department of Justice here.
Stay tuned for developments, and Happy Cinquo de Mayo!
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Change to law for widow(er)s of US Citizens
For years, widows and widowers of United States Citizens were not eligible to apply for lawful permanent resident status (Green Card) unless they showed, among other things, that they had been married at least two years and that they applied within two years of the death.
Recently, the U.S. government decided to amend that law and USCIS has subsequently changed their policy regarding widow(er)s petitions to make it easier for them to apply for lawful immigration status in the United States.
The major change is the removal of the two-year marriage requirement previously necessary for a widow(er). Additionally, when a widow(er) qualifies as an immediate relative under the law, his or her unmarried minor children will also qualify for the same status. The law applies equally to widow(er)s living abroad, who are seeking immigrant visas and widow(er)s in the United States, who want to become permanent residents based on their marriage. Also, the two year deadline to file a petition for immigrants who became widow(er)s prior to October 28, 2009 has been extended to october 28, 2011, a date which is just around the corner. So a lot of people who thought previously they would not be eligible or had their petition denied because of the 2 year requirements could now file a new petition, have their old petition converted or file a motion to reopen their case.
This is however fairly new legal territory and potential petitioners need to tread carefully.
A useful memo on the new law can be found on the USCIS website here. There is also a Fact Sheet available here. However, these memo and fact sheet are more useful for attorneys than the general public. And the potential immigrants need to be warned that even if they qualify for such a petition, this might not be the smooth path to citizenship that they believed it was.
The new law, for example, does not make any exceptions or give preferential treatment to any immigrant widow(er)s who have had previous immigration violations. These types of petitioners will need to file additional applications for waivers of those violations and they will most likely need to depart the United States and apply for a visa and waiver from abroad. Although there is a program called parole-in-place to allow military widow(er)s to remain in the United States during the pendency of the application process, this benefit has not been extended so far to other widow(er)s. The law regarding widow(er)s is complex and it would be highly advisable to consult with an attorney before filing anything.
Recently, the U.S. government decided to amend that law and USCIS has subsequently changed their policy regarding widow(er)s petitions to make it easier for them to apply for lawful immigration status in the United States.
The major change is the removal of the two-year marriage requirement previously necessary for a widow(er). Additionally, when a widow(er) qualifies as an immediate relative under the law, his or her unmarried minor children will also qualify for the same status. The law applies equally to widow(er)s living abroad, who are seeking immigrant visas and widow(er)s in the United States, who want to become permanent residents based on their marriage. Also, the two year deadline to file a petition for immigrants who became widow(er)s prior to October 28, 2009 has been extended to october 28, 2011, a date which is just around the corner. So a lot of people who thought previously they would not be eligible or had their petition denied because of the 2 year requirements could now file a new petition, have their old petition converted or file a motion to reopen their case.
This is however fairly new legal territory and potential petitioners need to tread carefully.
A useful memo on the new law can be found on the USCIS website here. There is also a Fact Sheet available here. However, these memo and fact sheet are more useful for attorneys than the general public. And the potential immigrants need to be warned that even if they qualify for such a petition, this might not be the smooth path to citizenship that they believed it was.
The new law, for example, does not make any exceptions or give preferential treatment to any immigrant widow(er)s who have had previous immigration violations. These types of petitioners will need to file additional applications for waivers of those violations and they will most likely need to depart the United States and apply for a visa and waiver from abroad. Although there is a program called parole-in-place to allow military widow(er)s to remain in the United States during the pendency of the application process, this benefit has not been extended so far to other widow(er)s. The law regarding widow(er)s is complex and it would be highly advisable to consult with an attorney before filing anything.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Free Immigration Law Fair in Los Angeles on May 6
For those of you residing in the Los Angeles area, the Los Angeles County Bar Association (LACBA) Immigration Section has scheduled its annual “Law Day” Immigration Information Fair, for Friday, May 6, 2011.
PLACE: La Placita Church (patio), located at " Olvera Street ", 535 N. Main St. Los Angeles , CA 90012 .
TIME: 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM
The goals are to:
1) Provide professional legal advice concerning immigration cases;
2) Deter the immigrant community from seeking out “notarios” or immigration “consultants”;
3) To discuss immigrant rights;
4) To promote a better understanding of our legal system in the eyes of the immigrant community and;
5) To support the pro bono responsibilities of attorneys.
For more information, go to LACBA's official website here.
PLACE: La Placita Church (patio), located at " Olvera Street ", 535 N. Main St. Los Angeles , CA 90012 .
TIME: 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM
The goals are to:
1) Provide professional legal advice concerning immigration cases;
2) Deter the immigrant community from seeking out “notarios” or immigration “consultants”;
3) To discuss immigrant rights;
4) To promote a better understanding of our legal system in the eyes of the immigrant community and;
5) To support the pro bono responsibilities of attorneys.
For more information, go to LACBA's official website here.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
USCIS Assoc. Director testifies about H1B visas
This morning, Donald Neufeld, Associate Director for the USCIS, testified before the House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement on "H-1B Visas: Designing a Program to Meet the Needs of the U.S. Economy and U.S. Workers."
As I explained in an earlier blog, H1B visas are temporary visas for foreign workers to work in the United States for a certain period of time. They do not lead to permanent resident status or citizenship, and there are a limited number of visas for a great many applicants, forcing every petitioner to rush their applications before the visa numbers are exhausted, and they are exhausted very quickly each year.
The Associate Director explains procedural requirements to petition for an H1B visa, talks about Requests for Evidence (RFEs) which many petitioners and attorneys have complained about being repetitive and unduly burdensome (concerns that Neufeld dismisses) and also talks about fraud-prevention measures, including surprise on-site visits, that resulted in approximately 13%-14% of fraudulent petitions that were revoked.
The entire testimony can be read here.
As I explained in an earlier blog, H1B visas are temporary visas for foreign workers to work in the United States for a certain period of time. They do not lead to permanent resident status or citizenship, and there are a limited number of visas for a great many applicants, forcing every petitioner to rush their applications before the visa numbers are exhausted, and they are exhausted very quickly each year.
The Associate Director explains procedural requirements to petition for an H1B visa, talks about Requests for Evidence (RFEs) which many petitioners and attorneys have complained about being repetitive and unduly burdensome (concerns that Neufeld dismisses) and also talks about fraud-prevention measures, including surprise on-site visits, that resulted in approximately 13%-14% of fraudulent petitions that were revoked.
The entire testimony can be read here.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Immigration Attorney sentenced to 17 years for corruption
In my practice, I often get clients from so called "developing" nations sometimes referred to as "third world" countries where government corruption is high. Actually, it is a daily facet of life. For many clients, paying off a government official to speed up a case or get an approval is not only routine, it IS the rule of law. So sometimes, we engage in an awkward, uncomfortable conversation where they are assuming that I, as a private attorney, have some know-how or behind the scenes "connection" to guarantee a speedy or successful outcome in their immigration cases. Of course, that is not the case but even when I protest that not only I don't have any such connections, it is completely morally unethical and criminally illegal to engage in such practices, they often shrug their shoulders or smirk like they don't believe me.
News stories like this one about Constantine Kallas, a former government immigration attorney who DID take hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes to obtain immigration status for foreigners, (including his housekeeper's daughter!!!) make my protestations seem even less credible. I would like to think that people like this are aberrations and that on the whole our government is not rampant with corruption. At least, there is some comfort knowing the federal prosecutors went against him with all their might and they did not just slap him on the wrist. He was sentenced to 17 years in prison. But it does not make the situation any better for all those individuals who obtained what they thought was lawful status through Mr. Kallas.
What I mean is that it could certainly be possible that the people who paid the bribes to this government attorney, who falsely claimed to them sometimes that he was an immigration judge, and basically let them know it was within his power to grant them relief in what was often a life and death situation, could very well have believed that this was just more of the same bureaucratic corruption that ran rampant in their own countries. That this was the way things were done here. So does that make them accomplices in a crime? Or victims of fraud themselves?
I actually had a client once who was told by a man posing as an immigration officer (with a uniform and badge and everything)at a seminar she was attending that he would speed up her work permit application if she paid him a "fee". My gullible client did, not believing she was doing anything wrong but actually thinking this was a legitimate filing fee, since she was filing her green card application by herself and without any assistance from an immigration attorney. When she came to our office and my then boss researched her case and told her due to the fraudulent activities of that fake officer, she had been placed under a deportation order unbeknownst to her, the poor woman actually FAINTED right then and there in our office, because she was in such shock. Fortunately, when we exposed all the facts to the Immigration Judge and the Department of Homeland Security attorney, they agreed with us that this was case where she should get a chance to undo the mistake and she actually eventually obtained her Green Card. This case was many many years ago when there was not such a frenzy of anti-immigrant sentiments in the popular media. How many victims of Mr. Kallas today will get the same understanding by authorities?
More information about this particular case can be found on the Los Angeles Times website here.
News stories like this one about Constantine Kallas, a former government immigration attorney who DID take hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes to obtain immigration status for foreigners, (including his housekeeper's daughter!!!) make my protestations seem even less credible. I would like to think that people like this are aberrations and that on the whole our government is not rampant with corruption. At least, there is some comfort knowing the federal prosecutors went against him with all their might and they did not just slap him on the wrist. He was sentenced to 17 years in prison. But it does not make the situation any better for all those individuals who obtained what they thought was lawful status through Mr. Kallas.
What I mean is that it could certainly be possible that the people who paid the bribes to this government attorney, who falsely claimed to them sometimes that he was an immigration judge, and basically let them know it was within his power to grant them relief in what was often a life and death situation, could very well have believed that this was just more of the same bureaucratic corruption that ran rampant in their own countries. That this was the way things were done here. So does that make them accomplices in a crime? Or victims of fraud themselves?
I actually had a client once who was told by a man posing as an immigration officer (with a uniform and badge and everything)at a seminar she was attending that he would speed up her work permit application if she paid him a "fee". My gullible client did, not believing she was doing anything wrong but actually thinking this was a legitimate filing fee, since she was filing her green card application by herself and without any assistance from an immigration attorney. When she came to our office and my then boss researched her case and told her due to the fraudulent activities of that fake officer, she had been placed under a deportation order unbeknownst to her, the poor woman actually FAINTED right then and there in our office, because she was in such shock. Fortunately, when we exposed all the facts to the Immigration Judge and the Department of Homeland Security attorney, they agreed with us that this was case where she should get a chance to undo the mistake and she actually eventually obtained her Green Card. This case was many many years ago when there was not such a frenzy of anti-immigrant sentiments in the popular media. How many victims of Mr. Kallas today will get the same understanding by authorities?
More information about this particular case can be found on the Los Angeles Times website here.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Japanese citizens: no TPS yet but other benefits
Though USCIS has not issued TPS status for Japanese citizens yet, which I hope they will do in light of the increasingly horrific news about the dangerous radiation levels caused by their nuclear meltdown, it has agreed to assist Japanese citizens in the US or Japanese LPRs (Green Card holders) abroad with extensions of their visas in some cases. I personally think being hit by an earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear meltdown all at once would qualify them for temporary protection from USCIS and I really hope that we soon see an announcement for that. For more information about humanitarian assistance and other assistance programs offered by USCIS, you can go to their official website here.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Temporary Protected Status for Japan?
With the news of the devastating earthquake and tsunami hitting Japan, and President Obama's pledge for assistance, I wonder if the next step is for the Secretary of Homeland Security to declare Temporary Protected Status for Japanese citizens.
Temporary Protected Status or TPS is a form of protection for citizens of a certain country who find it impossible to return safely to their country of origin due to the conditions there. The USCIS may grant TPS to eligible nationals of certain countries (or parts of countries), who are already in the United States. Eligible individuals without nationality who last resided in the designated country may also be granted TPS. The Secretary of Homeland Security may designate a country for TPS due to the following temporary conditions in the country:
-Ongoing armed conflict (such as civil war)
-An environmental disaster (such as earthquake or hurricane)
-Other extraordinary and temporary conditions
During a designated period, eligible individuals:
-Are not removable from the United States
-Cannot be detained by DHS
-Can obtain an employment authorization document (EAD)
-May apply for travel authorization
Although having TPS, by itself, does not lead to permanent resident status (a green card), a TPS beneficiary may immigrate permanently under another provision of law if qualified.
The last 2 countries that were granted TPS by the Secretary are El Salvador and Haiti (although not too effectively, according to a former chief counsel for USCIS, which I blogged about previously).
While the application of TPS may leave a lot to be desired, it certainly may be the only option available to many. More information about designation of countries, the application process and whether the applicant can find a path to citizenship based on TPS can be found on the uscis website here.
Temporary Protected Status or TPS is a form of protection for citizens of a certain country who find it impossible to return safely to their country of origin due to the conditions there. The USCIS may grant TPS to eligible nationals of certain countries (or parts of countries), who are already in the United States. Eligible individuals without nationality who last resided in the designated country may also be granted TPS. The Secretary of Homeland Security may designate a country for TPS due to the following temporary conditions in the country:
-Ongoing armed conflict (such as civil war)
-An environmental disaster (such as earthquake or hurricane)
-Other extraordinary and temporary conditions
During a designated period, eligible individuals:
-Are not removable from the United States
-Cannot be detained by DHS
-Can obtain an employment authorization document (EAD)
-May apply for travel authorization
Although having TPS, by itself, does not lead to permanent resident status (a green card), a TPS beneficiary may immigrate permanently under another provision of law if qualified.
The last 2 countries that were granted TPS by the Secretary are El Salvador and Haiti (although not too effectively, according to a former chief counsel for USCIS, which I blogged about previously).
While the application of TPS may leave a lot to be desired, it certainly may be the only option available to many. More information about designation of countries, the application process and whether the applicant can find a path to citizenship based on TPS can be found on the uscis website here.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Stop Notario Fraud
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) has set up a website to help victims of immigration fraud at www.stopnotariofraud.org. As I mentioned in a previous blog, USCIS Director Alejandro Majorkas has only recently addressed years of complaints by private immigration attorneys, immigration clients and governmental immigration officers about the practice of "notarios", basically unregulated, unlicensed, and often unknowledgeable and unreliable if not outright criminal individuals posing as immigration experts in vulnerable immigrant communities, bilking people out of hundreds of thousands of dollars to apply for immigration benefits they were never eligible for in the first place. The "Stop notario fraud" website provides useful information for victims of this type of fraud, pending more information from USCIS on how exactly they are going to implement the goals of their initiative against notarios.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Haitian earthquake refugees: Dreadful mistakes made
In the March issue of Arizona Attorney Magazine, former USCIS chief counsel Roxie Bacon does not mince words when it comes to highlighting some dreadful mistakes made in the case of Haitian immigrants seeking refuge in the United States in the midst of the worst crisis the country has experienced after the devastating earthquake last year. And she echoes the sentiments of many attorneys in the private bar regarding the lack of funding for USCIS, the branch of the Department of Homeland Security that is about conferring immigration benefits to people rather than deporting them.
The full article can be read online here.
The full article can be read online here.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Arizona anti-immigration activist sentenced to death
There are so many heartbreaking stories in immigration. Just today, we hear the news of the arrest by Mexican authorities of the suspect in the shocking, brazen, and terrible shooting death of an American border agent that happened a few days ago. And on this same day, a jury sentenced to death an American anti-immigrant activist who orchestrated the heinous, criminal and tragic home invasion shooting death of a 9 year old girl.
I can't comment on the specifics of these stories, you can read all the details yourselves on the links provided. But I have to say the following. I got into immigration law because I was an immigrant myself, as were my parents and my grandparents. We had to flee our home country due to circumstances beyond our control and beyond even our comprehension. Far from the political wheelers and dealers and the extremist factions, it is the average people, the families with small children, the elderly, the disabled, the hopeless, who are the ones who suffer from the turmoil of civil war and unrest, revolutions and coups, drug wars and genocide. And for most of these people, their dream is to attain the West. Not that Western countries are perfect. But no matter how flawed or imperfect Western countries are, it is a reality that this is where people seek refuge because they feel they have the most chance at safety and a normal life, and yes, even maybe happiness.
News stories like the ones I have read today break my heart. So much death, destruction, and hate, that will only add to the fuel of more death, destruction, and hate...
I can't comment on the specifics of these stories, you can read all the details yourselves on the links provided. But I have to say the following. I got into immigration law because I was an immigrant myself, as were my parents and my grandparents. We had to flee our home country due to circumstances beyond our control and beyond even our comprehension. Far from the political wheelers and dealers and the extremist factions, it is the average people, the families with small children, the elderly, the disabled, the hopeless, who are the ones who suffer from the turmoil of civil war and unrest, revolutions and coups, drug wars and genocide. And for most of these people, their dream is to attain the West. Not that Western countries are perfect. But no matter how flawed or imperfect Western countries are, it is a reality that this is where people seek refuge because they feel they have the most chance at safety and a normal life, and yes, even maybe happiness.
News stories like the ones I have read today break my heart. So much death, destruction, and hate, that will only add to the fuel of more death, destruction, and hate...
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
New policy on Gay marriage may affect immigration
President Obama, in a major legal policy shift, has directed the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act — the 1996 law that bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages — against lawsuits challenging it as unconstitutional.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. sent a letter to Congress on Wednesday saying that the Justice Department will now take the position in court that the act should be struck down as a violation of same-sex couples’ rights to equal protection under the law.
The government’s new position could have far-reaching implications for the rights of gays and lesbians that extend beyond the Defense of Marriage Act, for example in immigration law, where right now, only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized and therefore given the right to sponsor a spouse for a Green Card.
To read more about this, you can read the article in the New York Times here.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. sent a letter to Congress on Wednesday saying that the Justice Department will now take the position in court that the act should be struck down as a violation of same-sex couples’ rights to equal protection under the law.
The government’s new position could have far-reaching implications for the rights of gays and lesbians that extend beyond the Defense of Marriage Act, for example in immigration law, where right now, only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized and therefore given the right to sponsor a spouse for a Green Card.
To read more about this, you can read the article in the New York Times here.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
The Beacon: USCIS' Official Blog
The Beacon is USCIS' Official Blog. You can subscribe to it to get the latest news and info on immigration forms, filing fees, deadlines for applications etc.
The latest post has photos of the naturalization ceremony conducted in Afghanistan for U.S. military personnel.
I am sometimes asked if you can get a (quicker) path to citizenship if you sign up for the Army. There are certain special provisions made to make it smoother and in some cases quicker for military personnel to acquire citizenship as well as extending immigration benefits to the spouse and children of a deceased military personnel. By the same token, dishonorable discharge and other conditions may bar or revoke citizenship. More information can be found on the USCIS facsheet on naturalization of military personnel, here.
The latest post has photos of the naturalization ceremony conducted in Afghanistan for U.S. military personnel.
I am sometimes asked if you can get a (quicker) path to citizenship if you sign up for the Army. There are certain special provisions made to make it smoother and in some cases quicker for military personnel to acquire citizenship as well as extending immigration benefits to the spouse and children of a deceased military personnel. By the same token, dishonorable discharge and other conditions may bar or revoke citizenship. More information can be found on the USCIS facsheet on naturalization of military personnel, here.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
New Governmental Initiative against Fraudulent Immigration Service Providers
The USCIS has released the transcripts of a press conference held by its director Alejandro Mayorkas on February 17, to answer questions and highlight the achievements of the previous year as well as anticipate the goals for the current year.
Among USCIS accomplishments in the year 2010, Mr. Mayorkas mentioned:
-10,000 issued U visas (which I spoke about in an earlier blog)
-620,000 new naturalized citizens
-565,000 Green Cards approved
As for the goals for this year, there were the usual stated goals of improving USCIS operation and customer service and strenghtening security measures. Interestingly, there is also a new initiative against the unauthorized practice of immigration law or UPIL initiative. It remains vague as to what exactly the initiative will accomplish.
Unauthorized practice of immigration law has been prevalent in "hot" immigration jurisdictions like Los Angeles, because it is easy to prey on immigrants who face language, educational, financial etc. barriers and thus everyday we hear stories of "notarios" and even attorneys swindling people of money under false promises and putting them in a collision course with the law, unbeknownst to them. Even though fraud is so prevalent, there has been very little that the defrauded individuals could do as recourse.
Neither the USCIS nor the state criminal prosecutors or police have shown much interest in going after these people. The most an attorney like me could do, if presented with such a set of facts, is to help the client file a complaint with the Consumer Affairs Office. And very little has come out of that! I mean, these non-attorney immigration "law" offices are not regulated at all. Only in really egregious cases have we seen the closing down of the offices, and most often than not, those same individuals pop up somehwere else, under a new company name and start all over again. Very frustrating to say the least!
The entire transcripts of the Press Conference can be read here.
Among USCIS accomplishments in the year 2010, Mr. Mayorkas mentioned:
-10,000 issued U visas (which I spoke about in an earlier blog)
-620,000 new naturalized citizens
-565,000 Green Cards approved
As for the goals for this year, there were the usual stated goals of improving USCIS operation and customer service and strenghtening security measures. Interestingly, there is also a new initiative against the unauthorized practice of immigration law or UPIL initiative. It remains vague as to what exactly the initiative will accomplish.
Unauthorized practice of immigration law has been prevalent in "hot" immigration jurisdictions like Los Angeles, because it is easy to prey on immigrants who face language, educational, financial etc. barriers and thus everyday we hear stories of "notarios" and even attorneys swindling people of money under false promises and putting them in a collision course with the law, unbeknownst to them. Even though fraud is so prevalent, there has been very little that the defrauded individuals could do as recourse.
Neither the USCIS nor the state criminal prosecutors or police have shown much interest in going after these people. The most an attorney like me could do, if presented with such a set of facts, is to help the client file a complaint with the Consumer Affairs Office. And very little has come out of that! I mean, these non-attorney immigration "law" offices are not regulated at all. Only in really egregious cases have we seen the closing down of the offices, and most often than not, those same individuals pop up somehwere else, under a new company name and start all over again. Very frustrating to say the least!
The entire transcripts of the Press Conference can be read here.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Family Petitions Delay addressed by USCIS
On February 8, USCIS posted a notification regarding the delay in processing of approximately 36,000 immediate relative petitions (that would be for American citizens filing for their spouse, their parents, or their minor children) that were transferred from the California Service Center to the Texas Service Center, ironically because USCIS thought that Texas could process them faster. In fact, the opposite happened and so, in that February 8 notification, USCIS advised that some cases were transferred back to the California Service Center to take advantage of currently available resources.
The following update is provided as of February 14, 2011, and reflects the number of cases in this group that have been processed to date by the Texas Service Center and the California Service Center.
Approved: 10,264
Denied: 55
Request for Evidence/Intent to Deny: 4137
Referred to District Office for Interview: 408
If you have filed a family petition that has been delayed, or if in fact if you have filed any type of immigration application that is currently pending, you can monitor the progress of your case by accessing My Case Status online on the USCIS official website at www.uscis.gov. If you do not see any action on your case, such as an approval, denial or an RFE, by March 1, 2011 you should contact a legal representative to make a formal inquiry with USCIS. Please note that you also have the option of contacting your Senator and/or Congressperson in your district. These offices usually have an immigration congressional liaison who can intercede on your behalf and find out what happened to your case and in many cases, obtain your approval notice without further delay.
The following update is provided as of February 14, 2011, and reflects the number of cases in this group that have been processed to date by the Texas Service Center and the California Service Center.
Approved: 10,264
Denied: 55
Request for Evidence/Intent to Deny: 4137
Referred to District Office for Interview: 408
If you have filed a family petition that has been delayed, or if in fact if you have filed any type of immigration application that is currently pending, you can monitor the progress of your case by accessing My Case Status online on the USCIS official website at www.uscis.gov. If you do not see any action on your case, such as an approval, denial or an RFE, by March 1, 2011 you should contact a legal representative to make a formal inquiry with USCIS. Please note that you also have the option of contacting your Senator and/or Congressperson in your district. These offices usually have an immigration congressional liaison who can intercede on your behalf and find out what happened to your case and in many cases, obtain your approval notice without further delay.
State Dept. warning against travel in Mexico
After months if not years of news about the escalating violence in Mexico by drug cartels, which caused the temporary closings of American consulates there several times already, we now have an official warning by the U.S. Department of State against travel in Mexico. This latest step was taken after the killing of a U.S. federal agent by a drug gang on the Texas-Mexico border.
Travel warnings are issued when long-term, protracted conditions that make a country dangerous or unstable lead the State Department to recommend that Americans avoid or consider the risk of travel to that country. A Travel Warning is also issued when the U.S. Government's ability to assist American citizens is constrained due to the closure of an embassy or consulate or because of a drawdown of its staff. It has recently issued a travel warning against Egypt, on February 6, 2011, in the wake of unrest in the Middle-East. The latest travel warning against iran was issued in 2010.The Department of State make periodical reviews and issuance of warnings which can easily be found on its website here.
Travel warnings are issued when long-term, protracted conditions that make a country dangerous or unstable lead the State Department to recommend that Americans avoid or consider the risk of travel to that country. A Travel Warning is also issued when the U.S. Government's ability to assist American citizens is constrained due to the closure of an embassy or consulate or because of a drawdown of its staff. It has recently issued a travel warning against Egypt, on February 6, 2011, in the wake of unrest in the Middle-East. The latest travel warning against iran was issued in 2010.The Department of State make periodical reviews and issuance of warnings which can easily be found on its website here.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Immigration Backlog at Record High
The figures are astounding! According to Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a non-partisan research organization from Syracuse University, the backlog of immigration cases pending before the Immigration Courts throughout the country is 44% higher than it was in 2008.
The average time these cases had been pending, TRAC said, was 467 days.
California led states with the longest wait time – 639 days, followed by Massachusetts with 615 and Nebraska with 511 days.
Among the countries with the most people involved in Immigration Court cases, people from Armenia had the longest wait – 886, nearly twice the national average of 467 days, the report said.
Other nationalities that waited the longest were Indonesians, Albanians, Iranians and Pakistanis.
This could be in part due to the delay in processing all the background checks, something over which neither the applicant nor the Department of Homeland Security have any power. But it is also a sign of the budgetary crisis faced by the federal government since, clearly, there needs to be additional Immigration Judges, court staff and Department of Homeland Security attorneys hired to deal with this mass of cases.
How many times did I show up in court, ready to present my client's case,and the case was continued, either due to lack of background check, or DHS counsel having misplaced the file, or an interpreter not being available, or the Judge simply having a boatload of cases that took priority because they were pending for even longer than my client's? And of course let's not forget the unscrupulous individuals, attorney and non-attorney alike who have abused the system so egregiously by submitting forged documents, resulting in an entire ethnic group being placed under suspicion because of the actions of a few, and therefore more delay while the government attempts to examine the validity of every documentation submitted by the applicant in their out of state forensics lab, or through certification at the American consulates abroad.
I remember around 2002 the Board of Immigration Appeals underwent major restructuring, with many of the Judges being fired, and the processing of the cases expedited due to a new one member vs three member panel decision making process. But swift justice is not always adequate justice.
What happened is that temporarily, the BIA was able to clear some backlog by basically rubber stamping denials on complex cases that demanded more analysis and these simply ended up being remanded back fromt he Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals because the decisions simply failed to articulate or demonstrate if the legal and factual factors were properly evaluated.
And that is for the people who were able to afford legal representation to take them all the way to the Ninth Circuit. For those who didn't, it simply reaffirmed in them the notion that justice is not for the poor! This was a really sad situation as we are not talking about contractual disputes between multi-million dollar companies but the life and death issues of largely indigent families with small children who had survived the most terrifying acts of physical and mental abuse in their home countries.
So we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. What is the better of two awful scenarios? An extreme delay in adjudication that basically places a family's survival options in limbo for several years or the kind of swift justice that unfortunately more often than not destroys that same family's chance of survival?
You can read more about TRAC's backlog study in this article here.
The average time these cases had been pending, TRAC said, was 467 days.
California led states with the longest wait time – 639 days, followed by Massachusetts with 615 and Nebraska with 511 days.
Among the countries with the most people involved in Immigration Court cases, people from Armenia had the longest wait – 886, nearly twice the national average of 467 days, the report said.
Other nationalities that waited the longest were Indonesians, Albanians, Iranians and Pakistanis.
This could be in part due to the delay in processing all the background checks, something over which neither the applicant nor the Department of Homeland Security have any power. But it is also a sign of the budgetary crisis faced by the federal government since, clearly, there needs to be additional Immigration Judges, court staff and Department of Homeland Security attorneys hired to deal with this mass of cases.
How many times did I show up in court, ready to present my client's case,and the case was continued, either due to lack of background check, or DHS counsel having misplaced the file, or an interpreter not being available, or the Judge simply having a boatload of cases that took priority because they were pending for even longer than my client's? And of course let's not forget the unscrupulous individuals, attorney and non-attorney alike who have abused the system so egregiously by submitting forged documents, resulting in an entire ethnic group being placed under suspicion because of the actions of a few, and therefore more delay while the government attempts to examine the validity of every documentation submitted by the applicant in their out of state forensics lab, or through certification at the American consulates abroad.
I remember around 2002 the Board of Immigration Appeals underwent major restructuring, with many of the Judges being fired, and the processing of the cases expedited due to a new one member vs three member panel decision making process. But swift justice is not always adequate justice.
What happened is that temporarily, the BIA was able to clear some backlog by basically rubber stamping denials on complex cases that demanded more analysis and these simply ended up being remanded back fromt he Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals because the decisions simply failed to articulate or demonstrate if the legal and factual factors were properly evaluated.
And that is for the people who were able to afford legal representation to take them all the way to the Ninth Circuit. For those who didn't, it simply reaffirmed in them the notion that justice is not for the poor! This was a really sad situation as we are not talking about contractual disputes between multi-million dollar companies but the life and death issues of largely indigent families with small children who had survived the most terrifying acts of physical and mental abuse in their home countries.
So we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. What is the better of two awful scenarios? An extreme delay in adjudication that basically places a family's survival options in limbo for several years or the kind of swift justice that unfortunately more often than not destroys that same family's chance of survival?
You can read more about TRAC's backlog study in this article here.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Searchable blog of new immigration cases
Jacqueline Brown Scott, a San Francisco based immigration attorney, has a wonderful blog of the newest immigration cases in the Ninth Circuit and BIA, both published and unpublished. The search engine allows you to find the latest cases on the particular topic you are looking for, which is extremely useful for small, sole practitioners (as most immigration attorneys are) who cannot afford expensive legal search programs. She also links to some very informative blogs and websites all on the topic of immigration law. Thank you Jacqueline!
Jacqueline's blog, "New Immigration Cases" can be found here. Her law firm's official website can be found here.
Jacqueline's blog, "New Immigration Cases" can be found here. Her law firm's official website can be found here.
New: Work Permit and Travel Document now combined
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has announced last week that it is now issuing employment and travel authorization on a single card for certain applicants filing for adjustment of status (Green Card). This is an improvement because of the delay in obtaining a travel document in the past, which meant that the applicants were stuck here or else were deemed to abandon their entire application (along with the non refundable filing fees, which cost to about a thousand dollars) if they decided to leave the US without their travel document in hand. By contrast, the work permit card was usually issued pretty quickly, probably within 45 days of the application, if there were no documents lacking in the application and the results of the applicant's background check were favorable.
The new card actually looks exactly like the work permit card, except for the fine print on the card that reads "Serves as I-512 Advance Parole." This seemingly does not apply to other types of travel documents (at least not yet), like the refugee travel document, or the re-entry permit (for Green Card holders who have some kind of emergency out of the country for which they know they must remain outside for more than 6 months).
More on this can be found on the USCIS official website here.
The new card actually looks exactly like the work permit card, except for the fine print on the card that reads "Serves as I-512 Advance Parole." This seemingly does not apply to other types of travel documents (at least not yet), like the refugee travel document, or the re-entry permit (for Green Card holders who have some kind of emergency out of the country for which they know they must remain outside for more than 6 months).
More on this can be found on the USCIS official website here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)