Integrity Legal

13th May
2019

The topic of retirement visa regulations has been of intense concern for some expats living in the Kingdom of Thailand. At first there was speculation that the income affidavit regime might come to an end in the context of retirement and marriage visas. Eventually, those speculating that income affidavits would no longer be provided by many Embassies in the Kingdom would be proven correct. Then, at the beginning of 2019, Surachate “Big Joke” Hakparn (then Immigration Chief) promulgated rules with respect to financial requirements for those wishing to remain in the Kingdom in O-A retirement visa status or O marriage visa status. Shortly, thereafter, the Tourism Authority in Thailand announced an insurance scheme which would provide medical coverage for those temporarily in the Kingdom on tourist visa status. Members of the administration of this blog began to wonder if this insurance scheme was a precursor to a possible new requirement for Thai retirement visa insurance.

It appears, that such speculation is no longer necessary as Thai authorities have recently announced that insurance will soon be a prerequisite for Thai retirement visa issuance. To quote directly from The Nation’s website:

HEALTH insurance has been made mandatory for foreigners aged 50 years and above seeking long-term stay in Thailand. The insurance policy must offer up to Bt40,000 coverage for outpatient treatment and up to Bt400,000 for inpatient treatment…According to Nattawuth, the new rule applies to both new applicants for the non-immigrant visa (O-A) [retirement], which offers a stay of up to one year, and those wishing to renew their visa. Each renewal is valid for one year.

Clearly, authorities in Thailand have been concerned about the issue of uninsured retirees in the Kingdom as evidenced by the relative alacrity with which this policy has been implemented. This recent turn of events has left many to ponder whether they may use their own insurance which was obtained abroad. It appears that overseas insurance will be considered acceptable so long as the coverage comports with that mentioned in the quotation above. However, readers of this blog should note that exact regulations regarding how immigration officers should adjudicate overseas insurance have yet to be promulgated.

The past year has seen a tremendous change in Thai retirement visa law. It remains to be seen how these most recent developments will impact the expatriate community in Thailand, but we will update this blog or our other various media organs as the situation progresses.


3rd April
2019

In recent weeks, a major topic of conversation among the expat community has been the issue of address notification for foreign nationals staying in locations other than those noted on prior immigration documentation (e.g. prior application for extension of stay, or an address noted on a TM6 arrival card). In a recent article from the BuriRam Times the Head of Immigration, Surachate “Big Joke” Hakparn was noted for making comments regarding changes to the penalty system associated with landlords failing to report foreigners staying on their premises:

“Channel 7 said that in the past warnings to people such as hotel owners and condo owners for failing to report foreigners in their properties would now be replaced by fines.”

In order to provide further clarity on this topic it may be best to quote directly from the official site of Thai Immigration:

“According to section 38 of the 1979 immigration act, “House owners, heads of household, landlords or managers of hotels who accommodate foreign nationals on a temporary basis who stay in the kingdom legally, must notify the local immigration authorities within 24 hours from the time of arrival of the foreign national.” If there is no immigration office in the province or locality of the respective house or hotel, the notification is made to the local police station. In Bangkok the notification is made to the Immigration Bureau. The notification of residence of foreign nationals is made by the manager of licensed hotels according to the hotel act, owners of guesthouses, mansions, apartments and rented houses using the form TM. 30. The notification of residence of foreign nationals within 24 hours can be made in a number of ways…”

Clearly, landlords have an affirmative duty to report foreigners staying on their premises through use of the TM30 form. What some foreign nationals staying in Thailand are unaware of is the fact that the duty to notify Thai Immigration of a change in address does not fall exclusively upon the landlord of the location at which the foreigner is staying, but in fact the duty also falls upon the foreign national in question to also unilaterally notify Royal Thai Immigration Police of a change in location (if the duration of stay is longer than 24 hours) through use of the TM28 form. As the administration of this blog reads the relevant regulations, foreign nationals who are deemed to be temporarily staying in the Kingdom must submit the TM28 form if their address should change. What constitutes an address change? Any stay of 24 hours in a given location. In what type of visa status is a foreign national considered to be staying “temporarily” in Thailand? The regulations would seem to dictate that those staying in the Kingdom on a visa exemption stamp, visa on arrival, tourist visa, or any type of non-immigrant visa (including, but not limited to, categories: B, O, ED, or O-A retirement) are considered to be staying in the Kingdom temporarily (regardless of the total duration of stay) and therefore are required to comply with the rules associated with the TM28.

Immigration officials have noted that the Immigration regulations are likely to soon see amendment due to the fact that many of the protocols associated with Thai Immigration law are somewhat outdated. Actual amendment of the regulations remains to be seen, but we will update readers as soon as changes occur.


17th March
2019

The past 3 years have been some of the most eventful in the history of the Thai immigration apparatus. For example, the “Good Guys In Bad Guys Out” initiative and the concurrent enforcement program known as “Operation X-Ray Outlaw Foreigner” have resulted in a large number of arrests, deportations, and the blacklisting of a number of foreigners in the Kingdom. Meanwhile, there have been a number of initiatives involving those in Non-immigrant status which have been noteworthy.

Changes to the Enforcement Rules for Thai Retirement Visas

A particularly hot topic since the beginning of 2019 has been how the rules regarding retirement visa income and financial evidence will be adjudicated moving forward. Whereas in the past it was possible for American, British, and Australian retirees in Thailand to obtain a certified letter or income affidavit regarding their abilities to financially support themselves since the conclusion of 2019 this type of evidence is no longer available as Embassies and Consulates of the aforementioned countries will no longer issue such documentation. Thereafter, in the first quarter of 2019 many announcements were made with respect to how evidence of financing would be adjudicated. Those seeking a retirement visa extension must now show that they have maintained a balance in their personal account of not less than 800,000 THB for 60 days prior to their application for a retirement visa extension and after the extension is issued it must be shown that the 800,000 THB remained on balance for an additional 90 days thereafter. Throughout the rest of the year 400,000 THB must be maintained. The Head of Thai Immigration Surachate “Big Joke” Hakparn has noted that for the year 2019 Immigration officers are permitted to be somewhat lenient, but after 2019 these rules are to be enforced strictly.

Thai Marriage Visa Applicants Increasingly Scrutinized for Sham Marriages

Meanwhile, those who are seeking Thai marriage visas should be careful to avoid entering into a marriage solely for the purpose of obtaining a Thai Immigration benefit as Immigration police are increasingly wary of sham marriages in the wake of a number of such unions being discovered. Furthermore, as is the case with retirement visas, financial requirements connected to Thai marriage visa applications are subject to new enforcement protocols in the aftermath of the discontinuation of the aforementioned income affidavit scheme.

The Business Visa Extensions Incur Increased Scrutiny

It is not only those seeking marriage or retirement visas who are feeling the watchful eye of Thai Immigration peering over their shoulder. An increasing number of small business owners are being subjected to inspection and document scrutiny in connection with their applications for business visa extension. In fact, according to this blogger’s experience virtually all first time visa extension applicants in Bangkok are being subjected to inspection. Whether this trend will continue in the future remains to be seen.

Education Visas have Become Far Less Easy to Obtain

Finally, the Education visa: this visa was once a rather straightforward extension to obtain if one could prove enrollment in some sort of government sanctioned education program, but in recent years such visas have been more difficult to obtain and those utilizing such documentation have been the subject of increased scrutiny as well as periodic Immigration raids. It appears Immigration officers believe certain schools were being used merely as a pretext for procuring immigration benefits and conducted a number of raids on such facilities culminating in a large amount of arrests and deportation.

In conclusion, it should also be noted that Immigration authorities have arrested a number of so-called “visa agents” for filing false documentation in connection with visa applications. All of the above evidence leads to one logical conclusion: the Immigration system is Thailand is becoming more sophisticated and focused on enforcement measures. The era of a lax immigration regime allowing a significant number of foreigners to remain in the Kingdom for no valid reason is drawing to a close.


8th February
2019

In recent days news regarding the changes in the approach to enforcing the rules regarding retirement visas has been a major topic of discussion among the expat community in Thailand. To provide some background it should be noted that in late 2018 new policies were promulgated by the American, British, and Australian Embassies regarding the issuance of income affidavits (also referred to as income verification letters). In the past, the American Citizen Services section of the United States Embassy in Bangkok, for example, would notarize documentation signed by Americans regarding their income. This notarization did not authenticate the veracity of the statements in such documentation, but instead merely attested to the signer’s identity and true signature. Thai authorities viewed this documentation as valid so long as the document was translated and legalized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In 2018 it was announced that income affidavits would no longer be issued by the foreign missions noted above. Thereafter, there was speculation regarding how income and/or assets would be verified for purposes of retirement visa issuance moving forward.

A clue regarding the direction on enforcement policy initially appeared when the head of Thai Immigration Surachate “Big Joke” Hakparn made comments regarding the need to be cautious about utilizing the services of certain types of Thai visa agents. Then in recent days major news broke that immigration authorities would be granted a certain level of discretion throughout 2019 regarding adjudication of retirement visa applications based upon income. This was to allow retirement visa holders to more smoothly transition into the new regime. Concurrently, a significant change was announced with respect to those using a lump sum amount of money in a bank account as evidence of financial ability to support a retirement visa. In the past, it was theoretically possible to simply deposit funds into an account for a relatively short period of time (as little as a day supposedly) and use the funds in the account as the basis for issuance of the retirement visa. New rules coming into effect March 1, 2019 would preclude this practice. Beginning in March, those seeking a retirement visa based upon a bank account must show 800,000 THB in a Thai bank account, said funds must have been on hand in the account for the 2 months preceding a Thai retirement visa application. Thereafter, the funds must remain in the account for another 90 days following the issuance of the retirement visa (presumably this is to be proven at the applicant’s initial 90 day report). After the initial 90 days, funds may be drawn down to 400,000 THB, but 400,000 THB must remain in the account until 2 months prior to a subsequent application for renewal at which point the balance must exceed 800,000 THB and the cycle begins again. At this time, it is unclear what steps Royal Thai Immigration Police personnel will be taking to scrutinize individuals’ finances and enforce these changes, but any new regulatory changes will likely be observable in the early days of March.

It seems possible that some time in the relatively near future further rule changes could come into effect. In fact, discussion about future requirements with respect to health insurance has made many wonder whether this may eventually become a requirement for those wishing to retire and live long term in the Kingdom.


6th January
2019

As the year 2019 opens, it appears as though the process of obtaining and maintaining a Thai or American visa will be more difficult compared to years past. Although certain aspects of each process may involve increased laxity, flexibility, or efficiency the overall theme from immigration authorities in the United States and Thailand would seem to be one of heightened scrutiny and increasingly stringent enforcement measures.

American Immigration Issues

Some facets of the US visa process look to be improving. For example, the Department of State through the National Visa Center and various Embassies and Consulates abroad are becoming more efficient by shifting away from paper documentation over to a new digitized interface allowing faster processing of supporting documentation for immigrant and non-immigrant visa applications. This blogger can say from personal experience that the new system still has some issues to be worked out, but the overall system would suggest that faster processing times at NVC are likely to be a mainstay in the future.

That stated, the overall process of obtaining a US visa would appear to be getting more difficult especially in light of the current administration’s addition of a National Vetting Center tasked with adding scrutiny to the overall adjudication of visa petitions. Meanwhile, policy changes regarding adjudication of visa applications are likely to have substantial impact upon the amount of denials which are issued by USCIS in coming years. A memorandum which came into effect in September of 2018 allows officers of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service to deny visa petitions much more easily compared to times past when a Request For Evidence generally had to be issued before a denial. These developments coupled with creation of bodies such as the DeNaturalization task force and the prospect of a prolonged government shutdown would suggest that matters pertaining to American immigration are likely to prove more difficult moving forward.

Thai Immigration Issues

Meanwhile, as the United States’ Immigration apparatus becomes more cumbersome, Immigration authorities in Thailand do not seem to be backing down from their position regarding immigration and immigration enforcement in the Kingdom. In the lead up to 2019, the overarching policy of “Good Guys in Bad Guys Out” (a policy of encouraging lawful visitors and immigrants to the Kingdom while attempting to discourage travelers with more nefarious motives) manifested itself in terms of enforcement with “Operation X-Ray Outlaw Foreigner“. By the end of 2018 Surachate “Big Joke” Hakparn had announced that tens of thousand of illegal aliens had been arrested, deported, and blacklisted from returning to Thailand. In December of 2018 further statements would suggest that although a great number of visa violators have been precluded from remaining in Thailand, the Immigration office’s vigilance will not decrease. Concurrently, the process of obtaining extensions of Thai retirement visas and Thai marriage visas are likely to become more difficult for some people as it will no longer be possible to obtain an income affidavit for such extensions. This comes at the same time as immigration authorities make comments that would indicate prospective increased scrutiny on those using visa services to obtain retirement and marriage visa extensions by dint of funds on account in a Thai bank.

All of the above developments would indicate that immigration matters in both countries will continue to be complex if not downright difficult in the coming year and beyond.


13th December
2018

Although probably coincidental it appears that Immigration officials in both the United States as well as Thailand are taking a firmer stance regarding immigration violations compared to times past. In a recent article from USA Today it was noted:

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was ordered to quadruple worksite enforcement this year, and it did just that. In fiscal year 2018, which ended Sept. 30, ICE set 10-year highs for the number of worksite audits conducted (5,981) and criminal charges filed (779). ICE leadership claimed its crackdown is focused on employers and employees equally as part of a balanced approach to worksite enforcement, but the data show that the majority of arrests in 2018 were of workers. The 113 members of management charged with criminal violations in 2018 increased 82 percent from the previous year, but the 666 workers charged with criminal violations increased by 812 percent. The number of “administrative arrests” – those for basic immigration violations that are predominantly used against workers – spiked from 172 in 2017 to 1,525 in 2018. The 121 federal indictments and convictions of managers in 2018 represented a 10-year low for the agency.

It appears officials in the United States are predominantly concerned with immigration violations in an employment context, but there have also been developments which show the administration’s determination to more zealously scrutinize proposed beneficiary’s of immigration benefits as evidenced by the creation of the National Vetting Center as well as the formation of a task force designed to de-naturalize those suspected of immigration fraud. All of these developments in the aggregate provide substantial evidence that American officials are keen to suppress illegality in the Immigration apparatus.

Meanwhile, in Thailand officials continue to conduct raids on locations where “outlaw foreigners” are suspected of congregating or residing. However, it appears as though sham marriages have been an issue of more pressing concern as The Nation recently reported that Immigration authorities have had to deal with a number of individuals who have arranged marriages of convenience solely for the purpose of obtaining Thai Immigration benefits:

Police, in the ongoing crackdown on foreigners living unlawfully in the Kingdom, have arrested 10 Indian men and 24 Thai women os suspicion of involvement in a scam whereby fake marriages and false documents were used to extend the men’s stay in Thailand…Immigration Police Bureau 1 in Bangkok had detected the fake marriages between the 30 men and 30 women, which were falsely documented in order to extend spousal visas for the men, most of whom made a living in Thailand as illegal moneylenders or salesmen for pay-by-installment goods such as clothing and electrical appliances, police explained.

These recent developments evidence both an increased interest on the part of immigration officials to ascertain whether marriages are being entered into for legitimate purposes as well as an increasing level of sophistication utilized by Thai law enforcement officials in targeting suspected visa violators.

As of the time of this writing, it does not appear as though the pressure on illegal immigration operators in Thailand and the USA will let up.


3rd November
2018

In recent weeks there has been a great deal of discussion in the media regarding President Donald Trump’s statements regarding the use of executive orders to fundamentally alter the way in which citizenship is conferred to individuals born in the USA. To quote directly from a recent article in the New York Times:

President Trump said he was preparing an executive order that would nullify the long-accepted constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship in the United States…“We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years, with all of those benefits,” Mr. Trump [said].

There are many people of various political persuasions who do not agree with the notion that Mr. Trump indeed has the legal authority to bring birthright citizenship to an end exclusively through executive order. However, there has been some debate on whether a Constitutional amendment or legislation from the United States Congress is sufficient to change the rules with respect to this issue. To quote directly from the Washington Post:

The 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause did not even address, much less resolve, the question of citizenship for the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants…Although the clause states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” Congress and courts were left to work out the full meaning of the words, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

In this blogger’s opinion it is also worth noting that the United States Supreme Court could also have a direct impact upon the way in which citizenship is defined in the United States through use of that branch of government’s interpretive powers to redefine the framework of citizenship conferment. However, the entire issue of citizenship in this context is of no particular concern for the reader of this blog as most readers of this blog reside in Thailand. For these individuals it is important to note that a change in the framework for conferring citizenship could have implications for children born to United States Citizen abroad.

Children born to United States Citizens in Thailand (or anywhere else outside of the United States) may be granted citizenship automatically through use of a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (or CRBA). In order to automatically confer United States citizenship to a child born abroad one of the parents of the child must be an American citizen at the time of the child’s birth and the American citizen must have spent the statutorily required amount of time physically present in the USA at the time the child was born. There are instances where an American citizen parent will be unable to confer citizenship to their child due to a failure to meet the physical presence requirement for automatic transmission. In such cases, it is possible to utilize the provisions of the Child Citizenship Act of 2001 to allow a child born abroad to become a United States citizen by operation of law.

These issues are important to keep in mind for Americans living abroad as it is this blogger’s opinion that Mr. Trump’s attempt to change birthright citizenship rules through executive order is likely to kick off litigation which will ultimately culminate in the United States Supreme Court. The framework for conferring citizenship rendered in an opinion of the Court could change not only birthright citizenship rules, but rules regarding citizenship for individuals born abroad as well.

As this situation evolves we will update this blog accordingly.


25th October
2018

It recently came to this blogger’s attention, via a press release from the US Embassy in Bangkok, that the Embassy seems to be in the process of discontinuing issuance of income affidavits pertaining to verification of finances in the context of application for certain types of Thai visa extension. To quote directly from the press release:

As of January 1, 2019, the U.S. Embassy in Bangkok and the U.S. Consulate General in Chiang Mai will cease to provide the income affidavit for the purpose of applying for Thai retirement and family visas and will not notarize previous versions of the income affidavit.  The Royal Thai Government requires actual verification of income to certify visa applicants meet financial requirements for long-stay visas.  The U.S. government cannot provide this verification and will no longer issue the affidavits.

Those unaware of the importance of these documents should take note of the fact that in the past notarized income affidavits were used in connection with applications for either a Thai retirement visa or a Thai marriage visa. Such documents were utilized in lieu of presenting evidence of a lump sum in a Thai bank account (800,000 THB for a retirement visa, and 400,000 THB for a marriage visa) or proof of a prolonged history of income in a Thai bank account (65,000 THB per month for a retirement visa and 40,000 per month for a marriage visa). These documents were generally issued by the American Citizen Services (ACS) Section of the US Embassy. In the past, a notarized income affidavit from the US Embassy which was legalized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was sufficient to meet the evidentiary requirements of the Thai Immigration officers adjudicating financial documentation in connection with applications for visa extensions. As seems to be the case in matters pertaining to British income letters, American officials appear to be unwilling to continue issuance these instruments in light of the recent official Thai requests that the veracity of the information in the affidavit be verified rather than merely the authenticity of the signature on the document. It seems that although the Embassy is unable to continue issuing such documentation as it was issued in the past, they will continue to notarize other documentation.


10th October
2018

Even less-than-avid readers of news regarding Thai Immigration matters are probably aware that there have been a number of changes which have occurred within the ranks of the Immigration Bureau in Thailand (including the appointment of Surachate Hakparn also known as “Big Joke” as head of Immigration). Also, there have been a number of incidents which point to an overall shift in the paradigm of Immigration officers in the Kingdom of Thailand. For example, the ongoing raids occurring throughout Thailand under the Operation X-Ray Outlaw Foreigner program and the follow-on arrests, deportations, and blacklisting associated therewith.

Meanwhile, Immigration Checkpoints at various ports of entry throughout the country have seen multiple postings of signs explaining that there is to be “No Tipping” of Immigration personnel by those entering the Kingdom from abroad. The initiative appears to be especially aimed at those arriving in Thailand in need of a Visa on Arrival. This news came upon the heels of reports that individuals were recently arrested in connection with an immigration matter as it was found that the individuals in question were apparently attempting to use forged documents in order to obtain a Thai visa extension. The upshot of these arrests has resulted in increased scrutiny of those filing applications for Thai visa extension. As of the time of this writing, the heightened scrutiny of extension applications appears to be being applied across the board and not exclusively to cases which may be deemed suspicious. This is resulting in delays and difficulties for many people seeking to extend their non-immigrant visa status in the Kingdom.

It recently came to this blogger’s attention via the Bangkok Post that there are even further developments with respect to Thai Immigration. To quote directly from a recent Bangkok Post article:

The defence minister has ordered the IB to strictly enforce the law against foreign nationals overstaying their visas and those who remain in the country despite their visas having been revoked…Lt Gen Kongcheep added the foreign nationals identity database has to be integrated with the immigration screening facilities at border checkpoints and airports to help identify more quickly those who might pose as a threat to national security. Meanwhile, Pol Maj Gen Surachate announced IB will begin to deport visa overstayers — of which there are at least 40,000 — within a month.

These developments would represent substantial changes in terms of the way Immigration authorities currently enforce the law. Moreover, it is notable that the Immigration database will soon be linked to a more broad identity database which will likely result in better coordination between different government ministries in Thailand. As a result, Immigration authorities will be better equipped to identify and possibly forestall those deemed to be undesirable from entering or reentering the Kingdom.

If there are actually 40,000 individuals currently overstaying their status in Thailand it seems logical to infer that the implementation of these measures along with those previously implemented will result in a large number of such individuals being apprehended and possibly deported from Thailand. It should be noted that those arrested in Thailand for visa overstay are likely to be placed on the Blacklist and precluded from returning to the Kingdom for a prolonged period of time.


19th September
2018

In what may be one of the most significant developments in immigration practice in quite some time, it recently came to this blogger’s attention via a policy memorandum from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) that the USCIS is radically changing their policies with respect to Requests for Evidence (RFEs) and Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs). For those unaware, an RFE is issued in a case where the adjudicating officer of an immigration petition is not fully satisfied that the beneficiary and/or the petitioner meet the legal requirements. An NOID is similar and may allow the petitioner to rectify a petition notwithstanding prior inadequacy.

That being stated, the procedures regarding issuance of RFEs and NOIDs have been fundamentally altered pursuant to policy memorandum PM-602-0163 dated July 13, 2018 entitled “Issuance of Certain RFEs and NOIDs; Revisions to Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM)Chapter 10.5(a), Chapter 10.5(b)” The provisions of this memo dictate new guidelines for adjudicators of immigration petitions. To quote directly from the USCIS website:

The 2013 PM addressed policies for the issuance of RFEs and NOIDs when the evidence submitted at the time of filing did not establish eligibility. In practice, the 2013 PM limited denials without RFEs or NOIDs to statutory denials by providing that RFEs should be issued unless there was “no possibility” of approval. This “no possibility” policy limited the application of an adjudicator’s discretion.

The policy implemented in this guidance restores to the adjudicator full discretion to deny applications, petitions, and requests without first issuing an RFE or a NOID, when appropriate.

Although the ramifications may not be immediately apparent, especially to those who do not deal with the immigration apparatus on a regular basis, this change in policy is rather profound. The prior doctrine which required that an adjudicator denying a petition without first issuing an RFE or NOID show that there was “no possibility” that a case could receive approval provided a great deal of limitation upon an adjudicator’s ability to unilaterally deny an immigration petition. The removal of this policy encumbrance allows future adjudicators a great deal more discretion in issuing immediate petition denials. The sources noted above go on to note that the primary reason for the change in policy stems from the desire to discourage so-called “placeholder” or “frivolous” filings (which under certain circumstances is laudable as such cases can unnecessarily clog up the immigration processing channels), but there could be significant ramifications for cases which would not necessarily fit those descriptions.

For example, in K-1 visa petitions it is now more likely that more denials will be issued in the future in such cases where it has not been incontrovertibly proven that the couple has in fact met in person within 2 years of filing for the benefit (the so-called Meeting Requirement). Furthermore, in cases involving petitioning for a fiance visa it seems logical to infer that future adjudications may result in a  denial where the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that both parties maintain the requisite intention to marry in the USA.

It is difficult to speculate at this time exactly how this change in policy will be implemented and the full consequences associated therewith. However, two things are clear: 1) visa petitions are likely to be more susceptible to denial moving forward and 2) those thinking of undertaking a do-it-yourself approach to petitioning for a fiancee or marriage visa are well advised to seriously consider the negative aspects of failing to seek professional legal assistance in immigration matters as failure to fully delineate a case clearly and concisely in the initial petition for immigration benefits could result in a denial and thereby a loss of time and resources.


The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely on advertisement. Before you decide, ask us to send you free written information about our qualifications and experience. The information presented on this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship.