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.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)