What is the practical impact of the government’s closure upon the immigration process? It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the following has been posted on the official website of the United States Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand:

The U.S. Embassy in Bangkok and Consulate General Chiang Mai remain open to the public. As always, our priorities remain providing safety, security, and service to U.S. citizens. We are open for all consular services, including visa processing.

It could be inferred that the Embassy is attempting to dispel rumors that a shutdown will negatively impact the processing of US visa applications as well as applications for US passports, Consular Reports of Birth Abroad (CRBA), and various notarial services requested by Americans living in Thailand. Hopefully, the recently announced government shutdown will not last long and thus not cause any great problems for those seeking visas to the United States of America. However, a protracted shutdown could mean that processing of US visa applications could move at a slower pace, or, in a worst case scenario, be discontinued until such time as a budget is agreed upon. Hopefully, this will not happen and the processing of applications will continue apace.

Meanwhile, it is likely that the shutdown will not affect processing of immigration petitions at the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). As USCIS is funded by the fees paid by petitioners, it seems likely that a government shutdown will not adversely impact those seeking immigration benefits from USCIS. Again, as the United States has not seen a government shutdown in nearly two decades some of the details about the impact of the current shutdown remain somewhat speculative. Readers of this blog should take note that further information will be provided herein as it becomes available.

It should be also noted that although these USCIS estimated processing times can provide a general framework for understanding the time frames for petition adjudication by USCIS, these estimates do not necessarily reflect the estimated time frame for the entire US visa process especially if the unique circumstances of a given case requires Consular Processing of a US visa application at a US Embassy or US Consulate abroad.

For a married couple seeking an IR1 visa or a CR1 Visa for a foreign spouse of US Citizen the process begins at the USCIS where the initial petition will be adjudicated. Assuming USCIS approves the initial petition, then the petition will be forwarded to the National Visa Center (NVC). NVC will require certain documents before forwarding the application to a US Embassy or Consulate abroad where a foreign spouse must undergo an interview prior to the Consular Officer making a decision regarding visa issuance. In some cases, the Consular Officer may approve the visa application at the interview. Meanwhile, in some circumstances, the officer may deny the application (especially where a ground of inadmissibility is found to exist in the case and under such circumstances the applicant must be granted an I-601 waiver, or something similar, prior to the application receiving further favorable treatment). In some cases, the officer may simply find that some further evidence of the relationship or documentation pertaining to the foreign national is lacking and will thereby deny the application pursuant to section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Under these circumstances, the 221(G) denial may be overcome by presenting further evidence to the Consular Officer and upon their finding that the relevant requirements have been met the application may be approved.

As one can infer from the above example, the USCIS estimateed  processing times may not accurately reflect the total time it may take to obtain a US visa since the process is sometimes more complex than simple USCIS petition approval.

Legislation aimed at comprehensive immigration reform may take a fresh look at the grounds for excluding foreign nationals that were enacted in the 1990s. All foreign nationals seeking visas must undergo admissibility reviews performed by U.S. Department of State (DOS) consular officers abroad. These reviews are intended to ensure that they are not ineligible for visas or admission under the grounds for inadmissibility spelled out in the INA. These criteria are: health related grounds; criminal history; security and terrorist concerns; public charge (e.g., indigence); seeking to work without proper labor certification; illegal entrants and immigration law violations; ineligible for citizenship; and, aliens previously removed. Over the past year, Congress incrementally revised the grounds for inadmissibility. Two laws enacted in the 110th Congress altered longstanding policies on exclusion of aliens due to membership in organizations deemed terrorist.

Terrorism has been a key concern for American government officials across the entire spectrum of agencies associated with Immigration and travel to the United States. Public health and safety are also significant issues for American Immigration and Consular Officers. To quote the aforementioned publication further:

The 110th Congress also revisited the health-related grounds of inadmissibility for those who were diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. More recently, the “H1N1 swine flu” outbreak focused the spotlight on inadmissibility screenings at the border. Questions about the public charge ground of inadmissibility arose in the context of Medicaid and the state Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) in the 111th Congress.

Influenza has been concerning to many health officials in recent years. However, for many the removal of HIV/AIDS from the list of diseases which can result in a finding of inadmissibility was a relief as many individuals who were previously inadmissible to the USA may have immediately become admissible after HIV/AIDS was no longer a legal grounds for finding someone inadmissible to the USA. This issue was especially acute in the LGBT community as HIV and AIDS issues seem to have a disproportionate impact upon individuals and couples within that community. The report went on to note that issues pertaining to legal inadmissibility are likely to be discussed in the context of proposed Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation:

While advocacy of sweeping changes to the grounds for inadmissibility has not emerged, proponents of comprehensive immigration reform might seek to ease a few of these provisions as part of the legislative proposals. The provision that makes an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States for longer than 180 days inadmissible, for example, might be waived as part of a legislative package that includes legalization provisions. Tightening up the grounds for inadmissibility, conversely, might be part of the legislative agenda among those who support more restrictive immigration reform policies.

Many people are found inadmissible to the United States every year. Among those found inadmissible are those who are unable to seek a remedy in the form of either an I-601 waiver or an I-212 waiver application for advance permission to reenter the USA. Individuals who have been found inadmissible and cannot seek a waiver are colloquially referred to as being unwaivably excluded from the United States. Bearing this in mind, many findings of legal inadmissibility can be remedied through use of a waiver. That said, the waiver process and the standard of proof for obtaining a waiver can be difficult to overcome. For this reason, many bi-national couples opt to utilize the services of an American immigration attorney to assist in matters related to United States Immigration. It is always prudent to ask for the credentials of anyone claiming expertise in United States Immigration law as only a licensed American attorney is permitted to provide advice, counsel, and representation in pending matters before the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the American State Department.

For related information please see: US Visa Denial.

Unfortunately, there are some unauthorized organizations throughout the world claiming to be able to provide advice and assistance in American Immigration matters. The internet has proven to be a great tool for those wishing to research matters pertaining to United States Immigration. Meanwhile, it has also provided a platform for some operations which claim legal expertise without appropriate training or licensure. Such individuals and entities ought to be avoided at all costs since information transmitted to such individuals and entities may not be protected by the usual legal protections accorded to communications conveyed between an American attorney and their client. Furthermore, one who is not legally trained or not licensed to provide legal services in a given jurisdiction or about a particular subject cannot provide effective counsel nor lawful confidentiality to those seeking their assistance. This can be especially important to those conveying sensitive information about a case pending before an immigration tribunal, agency, US Embassy, or US Consulate abroad. Those engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in the aforementioned manner are thereby placing their own interests, as well as those of their unsuspecting “clients’”, in jeopardy.

When comparing the costs of legal service it is important to understand the pivotal role of licensure when making a decision to retain counsel. No licensed legal professional is likely to have a problem with prospective clients shopping for a reasonably priced service with a professional that they feel comfortable dealing with. In general, licensed American attorneys find that competition with other professionals makes for a healthy and prosperous business environment, but to compare the services of a licensed American immigration attorney with one who is not licensed to practice law creates a false comparison as US law is clear that those without licensure cannot provide the services which they claim they can provide in an immigration context. In short: one cannot compare a legal service with an illegal service from a price standpoint as an illegal service provider simply cannot provide such services at any price.

For further information please see: licensed lawyer. To learn more about US Immigration from Southeast Asia please see: US Immigration Law Thailand.

NEW YORK, NY (August 17, 2010) – Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo today announced the latest actions in his ongoing effort to combat scams that target New York’s immigrant communities. As part of his broad investigation into immigration fraud, Cuomo has shut down seven companies and sued two other organizations for providing fraudulent legal services to immigrants.

The following seven companies and their owners have been permanently barred from operating any immigration services businesses and must collectively pay $370,000 in damages to the State of New York: (1) Centro Santa Ana, Inc. and Ana Lucia Baquero, in Queens; (2) Margo’s Immigration Services and Margarita Davidov a/k/a Margo Davidov, in Queens; (3) Miguel Fittipaldi, J.D., Ltd. and Miguel Fittipaldi, in Manhattan; (4) Arthur C. Hurwitz, in Manhattan; (5) Oficina Legal Para
Hispanos, P.C. and Geoffrey S. Stewart, in Manhattan; (6) Asilos and Camilo Perdomo, in Queens; and (7) Mision Hispana, Inc. and Mayra Liz, in Queens.

The Attorney General began an investigation and issued subpoenas to these companies after receiving information that they were engaged in fraudulent and illegal business practices. The illegal conduct included, among other things, misrepresenting their authorization to submit documents on behalf of immigrants to the government and giving legal advice to immigrants. Further, some of these companies involved attorneys who aided others in the unauthorized practice of the law and simply lent their name to provide legitimacy to the business. Collectively, these companies abused hundreds of immigrants.

This author is pleased to see Attorney General Cuomo taking such a keen interest in an often overlooked problem plaguing the United States at large as well as immigrant communities in the USA. These immigrant groups are often targeted by unlicensed “visa agents” or “Immigration specialists” who prey upon uninformed consumers.

This can be a real problem outside of the United States as well. In Asia, there are many unlicensed practitioners who claim to be authorized to practice US law. When dealing with someone who claims to be US lawyer abroad it is always wise to ask for credentials in order to ascertain whether or not an individual really is qualified to provide legal advice on American immigration matters. An American attorney’s credentials can be proven by producing either a State of Federal license to practice law or a Bar Association membership card for a State or Federal Bar Association. Even after production of such documents consumers are well advised to check with the attorney’s licensing body in order to verify that the individual in question is a licensed practitioner.

For related information please see: US Attorney Bangkok

No, it is not. The regulations, at 8 CFR 214.2(b)(7), specifically prohibit study in the United States while in B-1 or B-2 status.

Before enrolling in classes, individuals who are in B-1 or B-2 status must first acquire F-1 (academic student) or M-1 (vocational student) status. Enrolling in classes while in B-1/B-2 status will result in a status violation. Individuals in B-1 or B-2 status, who have violated their nonimmigrant status by enrolling in classes, are not eligible to extend their B status or change to F-1 or M-1 status. Theseregulations provide no exceptions.

If you currently hold B-1 or B-2 nonimmigrant status and would like to enroll in classes, you may apply for a change of status to F-1 or M-1, as appropriate, if:

You have not yet enrolled in classes
Your current status has not expired
You have not engaged in unauthorized employment

To change your nonimmigrant status from B-1/B-2 to F-1 or M-1, you must file an Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status (Form I-539), and include the required fee and documents listed in the filing instructions.

Please Note:

If you enroll in classes before USCIS approves your Form I-539, you will be ineligible to change your nonimmigrant status from B to F or M. If you are applying to extend your B-1/B-2 stay and you have already enrolled in classes, USCIS cannot approve your B-1/B-2 extension because of the status violation.

For some, the change of status process can be confusing and difficult as few are familiar with DHS forms and protocols, but for those who obtain an F1 visa, the educational rewards can offset the time and resources expended obtaining the visa. Those who are not eligible to receive a change of status may find the following excerpt from the previously mentioned announcement helpful:

If you are not eligible to change your nonimmigrant status to F-1 or M-1, you may apply for an F-1 or M-1 visa at a consular post abroad…We encourage all students and prospective students to work closely with their designated school official (DSO) to coordinate the timing of applying for change of status and enrolling in classes.

Those staying in the United States on any type of visa are required by law to fully comply with the terms of their visa. Failure to do so could lead to severe civil and criminal penalties. Those wishing to travel to the United States of America are well advised to seek the type of visa that truly comports with proposed activity in the USA. As extraneous circumstances can cause unforeseen problems it may be necessary to apply for a change of status if one’s current visa does not provide proper benefits.

Adjustment of status, which can be confused with changing status, is the process of switching a foreign national from a non-immigrant visa to Lawful Permanent Residence (Green Card). Those traveling to the United States of America on a K1 visa must adjust their status within 90 days of their arrival after their marriage to the US Citizen petitioner.

For more about adjusting status please see: adjustment of status.

Under section 292.1 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations a licensed attorney is entitled to represent clients before the United States Department of Homeland Security, specifically the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) which is tasked with adjudicating US visa petitions. Many are unaware of the fact that those who assist individuals in preparing visa petitions are engaging in the unauthorized practice of law if they are not: licensed to practice law in at least one US jurisdiction while being eligible to practice law in all US jurisdictions or certified by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).

Licensure is no small matter, especially for those individuals who are “represented” by those claiming to be attorneys who are not, in fact, licensed. For example, if an American talks to an unlicensed individual about sensitive matters, then such communications would not be confidential and also would not be protected under the attorney/client privilege. If one is communicating in confidence to a licensed attorney, then such communication is “out of bounds” for US Courts. However, the same communications with one who is unlicensed could be used as evidence in a US court proceeding. Therefore, licensure is extremely important particularly in US Immigration matters involving a legal ground of inadmissibility or an I-601 waiver as certain information could be very detrimental to clients’ interests and if imparted to a licensed American attorney would be confidential, but if imparted to an unlicensed “fly by night” operator such information could be used against the client at a later date.

For all of these reasons, when an American is outside of the USA it is always prudent to check the credentials of anyone claiming to be an attorney from the United States. An individual can provide adequate credentials if they can show their license to practice law before at least on State Supreme Court in the US, or a Federal license to practice law in the USA, or a license to practice law in one of the US territorial jurisdictions (Guam, Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, etc). Anyone who refuses to provide any such credentials and yet still asserts that they are an American attorney should be avoided until proof of credentials can be provided.

For further information about US Immigration from Thailand please see: K1 Visa Thailand.

ในกระทู้นี้เราจะกล่าวถึง Notice of Action 1 หรือ NOA 1 เพื่อแสดงคำนิยามทางกฎหมายคนเข้าเมืองสหรัฐอเมริกาที่แม่นยำให้แก่ผู้ที่กำลังจะขอวีซ่าอเมริกาจากประเทศไทย

ในกรณีเกี่ยวกับคนเข้าเมืองสหรัฐอเมริกาหลายๆเรื่อง โดยเฉพาะเรื่องเกี่ยวกับการเข้าเมืองด้วยจุดประสงค์ทางครอบครัว คำขอจะต้องได้รับการอนุมัติจาก USCIS เสียก่อน หน่วยงานนี้เป็นหนึ่งในหน่วยงานที่ขึ้นตรงกับกระทรวงความมั่นคงสหรัฐอเมริกา (DHS)

เมื่อคู่รักเลือกที่จะยื่นขอวีซ่าสหรัฐอเมริกา ก็มักจะเป็นวีซ่า CR 1 , IR 1, K3 หรือ K 1 วีซ่า CR 1, IR 1 และ K 3 เป็นวีซ่าประเภทคู่สมรสอเมริกาทั้งหมด ในขณะที่วีซ่า K 1 เป็นวีซ่าคู่หมั้น วีซ่าประเภทเหล่านี้จะต้องได้รับการอนุมัติจาก USCIS ก่อนที่จะมีการกำหนดสัมภาษณ์ ในทางกลับกันวีซ่า B1, B2, F1 และ J1 เป็นวีซ่าไม่อพยพ ( ซึ่งไม่อนุญาตให้มีเจตนาในการเข้าเมืองเพื่อวัตถุประสงค์อื่นอีก ) และไม่จำต้องได้รับการอนุมัติจาก USCIS เสียก่อน ข้อควรสังเกตคือวีซ่าไม่อพยพประเภทเหล่านี้เป็นการยากที่จะขอสำหรับคนรักของบุคคลสัญชาติอเมริกันตามมาตรา 214b แห่งพระราชบัญญัติคนเข้าเมืองและสัญชาติ มาตรานี้ได้วางหลักถึงข้อสันนิษฐานที่จะต้องทำให้ปราศจากความสงสัยให้ได้ก่อนที่จะออกวีซ่าให้

เมื่อบุคคลสัญชาติอเมริกันยื่นคำขอวีซ่า K1, K3, CR1 หรือ IR1 จะต้องยื่นคำขอไปยัง USCIS เสียก่อน มีศูนย์บริการ USCIS อยู่สองแห่งโดยขึ้นอยู่กับภูมิลำเนาของผู้ยื่นขอชาวอเมริกัน ผู้ยื่นคำขอจะต้องยื่นคำขอต่อ USCIS และจะมีการออกใบรับให้เรียกว่า Notice of Action 1 (NOA1 ) ใบรับนี้จะแสดงชื่อผู้ยื่นคำขอและผู้รับผลประโยชน์ รวมถึงวันที่รับเรื่องและวันที่ออกใบรับ ใบรับนี้จะแสดงหมายเลขเรื่องด้วย

สำหรับผู้ที่ใช้บริการทนายความทำวีซ่าอเมริกา สำเนา Notice of Action 1 จะถูกส่งไปยังทนายความในกรณีที่ทนายความได้ยื่นแบบ G28 เข้าไปด้วยกับคำขอวีซ่า ก่อนทีจะใช้บริการกับทนายคนใด คุณควรตรวจสอบให้แน่ใจว่าจะมีการยื่นแบบ G28 ด้วยเนื่องจากมันค่อนข้างมีความสัมพันธ์ต่อการดำเนินการตามคำขอวีซ่า และบริษัทวีซ่าไม่สามารถกระทำการแทนลูกค้าต่อ USCIS ได้ดังนั้นน่าจะเป็นการดีที่จะตรวจสอบคุณสมบัติของบุคคลที่คุณต้องการให้เป็นตัวแทนให้ และโชคไม่ดีที่ในประเทศไทยมีผู้ให้บริการที่ไม่ได้รับอนุญาติอยู่มากมายที่ปฏิบัติงานเช่นทนายความมีใบอนุญาติของสหรัฐอเมริกา

Notice of Action 1 นั้นเป็นคนละตัวกับจดหมายจากสถานทูตอเมริกาประจำประเทศไทย จดหมายนี้เรียกว่า Packet 3 และจะถูกส่งในช่วงท้ายๆของกระบวนการคนเข้าเมืองแล้วเท่านั้น

In the initial posting on the new blog, USCIS took the opportunity to discuss the measures that have been taken to accord Haitian Nationals with Temporary Protected Status (TPS). This status allows those of Haitian Nationality who are present in the United States to file for protected status so as to avoid being placed into removal proceedings and sent back to Haiti. The reason that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service has taken this measure is to avoid sending Haitians back to their home country as the Republic of Haiti has recently been the victim of incredibly damaging hurricanes and as a result the conditions in the country are tragic, if not, downright abysmal.

To quote directly from the USCIS blog:

The devastating earthquakes in Haiti have made it both dangerous and virtually impossible for most Haitian nationals living in the U.S. to return to their country in the near future. To help protect those who might otherwise be repatriated to a nation struggling to recover, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced the designation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitian nationals who were in the United States as of January 12, 2010.

In this situation, USCIS has shown a very high level of efficiency, decisiveness, and compassion as TPS status was quickly granted to Haitians. It would appear that the decision to grant this status is based almost entirely upon humanitarian grounds and it is hard for anyone to disagree with the idea that sending Haitians back to Haiti at this time would be morally wrong, to say the least. That being said, the ultimate fate of Haitian nationals in the United States remains to be seen, but for now those present in the US do not need to fear the specter of being forcibly returned to their devastated homeland.

Hopefully, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service will continue to provide relevant and important information through its website, press releases, and blog posts.

The F-1 Visa in 2010

Unlike the J1 visa, the F1 Student Visa rules were left unmodified with no proposals for modification in 2009. That being said, the F1 visa could turn out to be a problem for those later filing for a family visa category such as a K-1 or K-3. This can be attributed to the fact that some of those who enter the United States on an initial F-1 visa either overstay their visa or remain for a long period of time in “duration of status.” Duration of status means that the visa holder is in status so long as underlying reason for traveling to the United States still exists. Those who remain for a long period of time in duration of status are unlikely to be later found inadmissible due to overstay as they usually do not accrue unlawful presence. However, their application and file may be placed into administrative processing while the Consular Officers make a determination regarding the applicant’s previous status in the United States. In some ways, this can be more frustrating than a finding of inadmissibility because Administrative Processing can take a great deal of time as the Consular Officers diligently research the applicant’s immigration history.

The F1 visa in Thailand is similar to the J1 visa in Thailand because the applicant may interview at the US Consulate in Chiang Mai rather than the US Embassy in Bangkok if the applicant lives in the Chiang Mai Consular district. One should not assume that one post is any “better,” than the other because at either post, the Consular Officers still make their decisions based upon the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM). It has been the author’s opinion that Consular Officers adjudicate cases “by the book,” and therefore any type of “forum shopping,” could be counterproductive.

Unlike a K1 visa, the F-1 visa is not a dual intent travel document so the Consular Officer must make a presumption of immigrant intent pursuant to section 214b of the INA. In order to overcome this presumption, the F1 visa applicant must demonstrate that they have “strong ties,” to Thailand and do not intend to remain in the United States past the expiration of their visa. The F-1 visa applicant must further prove that he or she has the financial resources necessary to pay for the educational course of study as well as living expenses in the US.

]]> http://integrity-legal.com/legal-blog/us-visa-immigration/the-us-f1-student-visa-in-2010/feed/ 0