Integrity Legal

In an apparent effort to deal with a are number of foreign nationals using Thai Tourist visas for unintended purposes, the authorities at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are instructing Consular Officials at Royal Thai Embassies and Consulates to heavily scrutinize applicants for tourist visas. This edict seems especially targeted at Consulates and Embassies in the Southeast Asia region.  Thaivisa.com is covering the story and quotes the edict directly:

“As there has been a number of visa applicants having entered Thailand via tourist visa and misused it to illegally seek employment during their stay and, upon its expiry, sought to re-apply their tourist visas at the Royal Thai Embassy or the Royal Thai Consulate in neighboring countries, requests for visa renewal by such applicants are subject to rejection as their applications are not based on tourism motive, but to continue their illegal employment, which is unlawful.

This is in accordance with the Immigration Act, B.B. 2552 which stipulates that visa applicants are required to clearly express their real purpose of visiting Thailand. Should the case be found that the applicant’s real intention were concealed, the application will be rejected.

Please be informed that the intention of applicants to repeatedly depart and re-enter Thailand via tourist visa issued by the Royal Thai Embassy or the Royal Thai Consulate in neighboring countries in recent years upon its expiry, is considered as concealment of real purpose of visiting Thailand. Thus their visas applications will be rejected.”

Unlike the Thai O visa and the Thai Business visa, the Thai Tourist visa is not designed for those who wish to work in the Kingdom.  One present on a tourist visa is not entitled to apply for a Thai work permit. Due to this restriction, many foreigners opt to stay in Thailand and work illegally or “off the books.” Although tolerated at one time, this practice is viewed with increasing animosity by Thai Immigration officials particularly since the world wide economic downturn.

Thailand’s policy regarding this practice is similar to Section 214b of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act. This statute creates the presumption that those entering the United States on a non-immigrant visa, like a US Tourist visa, are in fact intending immigrants. United States Consular officers often reject tourist visa applicants because they cannot demonstrate true “tourist intention,” meaning that they do not have sufficiently strong ties to a country outside of the US which would compel them to depart the United States.  Working in the United States on a tourist visa without work authorization is also considered to be a major violation of non-immigrant status (although not a ground of inadmissibility). Thailand seems like it is beginning to tighten up immigration protocols and coincidentally these measures are making the system resemble the US Immigration system.

Tags: 214 b, 214(b), Thai Business Visa, Thai Immigration, Thai O Visa, Thai Tourist Visa, Thai Visa, Thailand Business Visa, Thailand Immigration, Thailand o visa, Thailand Tourist Visa, Thailand Visa, US Immigration, US Visa Thailand
Posted in General Legal Information, Legal Opinion, Miscellaneous, Thailand Visa, Upcoming Legislation, US Tourist Visa, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand | 2 Comments »

An L1 Visa is a travel document which is used to enter the United States of America for the express purpose of working in lawful L1 visa status. The visa categorized as L1 is a non-immigrant visa. The visa is valid for a short amount of time when compared to longer term United States visas, usually L1 visas are granted with a validity of 1-3 years.

L1 visas are statutorily intended to be used by the employees and executives of companies and business entities with an international presence. Generally, these entities have offices in countries abroad and in the United States. Some companies with no presence in the United States of America seek to set up a business presence in that jurisdiction while also maintaining a business presence in the home country. L1 visas were created for foreign employees to transfer to the company’s United States office after having been employed with the company’s foreign office for a minimum of at least one year prior to being approved for  L1 visa status. The office in the United States of America must be the direct owner of the US company (parent company relationship), subsidiary to the US company (child company relationship), or an affiliate of the US company (sister company relationship). The major factor in determining if two entities meet the L1 criteria has to do with a “commonality of shareholders.” This means that the two companies must be substantially intertwined from an ownership perspective.

There are two subcategories of the L1 visa. The L1A visa and the L1B visa.

L1A visas are reserved for for Managers and Executives.  The term “Manager” means one who oversees the day-to-day operations of the company or organization. Usually, Managers either supervise the endeavors of other subordinate managers or specialists, or else they oversee important tasks within the corporation. As a rule, a manager is one who has a great deal of authority with regard to routine operational issues.

Those employees who are considered “Executives” are tasked with providing leadership to the management of the company or of a significant division within the corporate hierarchy. Managers set company policy as well as long term goals and have a great deal of autonomy to make decisions regarding the direction of the company. They function with little or no scrutiny from supervisors.

L1B visas are granted to those with specialized knowledge of the company’s business or the inner workings of the company itself. The specialized knowledge denoted in this category is company specific, meaning that an L1B visa holder should be intimately aware of issues relevant to the overseas entity specifically.

A major concern of US immigration authorities is the, not unfounded, suspicion that some companies are changing their corporate structure in order to obtain visa benefits for their executives, managers, and specialists. This is of particular concern with regard to small companies. Readers should note that it is never advisable to make business decisions solely for the purpose of obtaining Immigration benefits as doing so could bring up issues of immigration fraud.

Note: The L1 visa is a dual intent visa, so even though the visa is for non-immigrants it is possible that the visa holder could eventually adjust status in the United States and obtain lawful permanent residence.

Tags: Adjustment of Status, American Visa Thailand, Dual Intent Doctrine, L1 Visa, L1 Visa Thailand, L1A, L1B, US Business Visa, US Company Thailand, US Visa Thailand
Posted in General Legal Information, L1 Visa, Legal Opinion, Miscellaneous, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand | No Comments »

Under Section 214b of the Immigration and Nationality Act, a Consular officer can deny a non-immigrant visa (J1, F1, B1, B2) if they believe that the foreign applicant has not overcome the statutory presumption that they are actually an intending immigrant. In some cases, a consular officer may grant a tourist visa application, but the foreign national will be refused entry upon arrival in the United States of America.

How can a foreign national be granted a visa and still be denied entry to the United States? There is a common misconception that visa application approval creates a “right” to enter the United States of America. In fact, Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) Officers have the discretion to turn away alien nationals if they believe that there is a ground of excludability. If a CBP officer reasonably believes that an ostensible non-immigrant actually has immigrant intent, then they have the right to deny entry and it is further within the officer’s discretion to use expedited deportation to remove the prospective entrant.

The following paraphrases the INA:

According to section 212(a)(7)(A)(i) of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), any immigrant who, at the time of application for admission:

is not in possession of a valid unexpired immigrant visa, reentry permit, border crossing identification card, or other valid entry document required by the Immigration and Nationality Act, and a valid unexpired passport, or other suitable travel document, or document of identity and nationality if such document is required under the INS regulations, or whose visa has been issued without compliance with the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act is excludable [from the United States].

A waiver is available under INA §212(k) where the Attorney General is satisfied that the exclusion was not known to, and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of reasonable diligence by, the immigrant before the time of departure of the vessel or aircraft from the last port outside the United States and outside foreign contiguous territory or, in the case of an immigrant coming from foreign contiguous territory, before the time of the immigrant’s application for admission.

The powers of CBP officers described above illustrate the reason for seeking a proper visa rather than attempting to circumvent the Immigration rules. For example, there are some Americans who have a Thai loved one and they wish to bring them to the USA for the purpose of marriage and adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence. Generally a K1 visa (also known as a fiancee visa) would be the proper travel document for this purpose. However, some opt to pursue a US Tourist visa because the K1 visa has a processing time of approximately 6-7 months whereas a tourist visa generally takes a few weeks to acquire if the application is approved. Even if the visa application is approved, denial at the port of entry poses the risk of expedited deportation as well as the underlying monetary loss due to the fruitless visa application as well as travel expenses to get to the port of entry and be turned away. Removal from the United States can later be used to bar admission particularly if an Immigration officer finds that the entrant was intentionally misrepresenting themselves. In a situation such as this, the only way to remedy the inadmissibility could be the use of an I601 waiver.

Entry denial does not automatically lead to expedited deportation, the CBP officer has the discretion to allow the prospective entrant to withdraw their request for entry and leave at their own expense, but improper usage of non-immigrant visas does include the inherent risk of removal and those seeking entry to United States of America should bear this in mind when researching US Immigration issues.

Tags: 212, 212a7, American Visa Thailand, I601, Immigration and Nationality Act, INA, intending immigrant, K1 Visa Thailand, US Immigration Thailand, US Tourist Visa, US Visa Thailand
Posted in Adjustment of Status, F1 Visa Thailand, Fiance Visa Thailand, J1 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa Thailand, US Tourist Visa, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | No Comments »

Being denied for a visa to the United States of America is certainly not something that people researching the immigration process wish to think about. However, visa denials do occur and by understanding the reasons for denial it may allow prospective immigrants to make more informed decisions regarding their immigration strategy.

When it comes to American Family Immigration a common miscalculation involves applying for a US Tourist Visa on behalf of a foreign loved one. For example, if an American Citizen has a Thai fiancee and he attempts to assist in obtaining a US Tourist Visa for her, it will very likely result in a denial of the visa application. This is not due to some sort of malevolent feeling on the part of the United States Consular Officers, but it is rooted in American Immigration law.

It is probably best to simple quote the US Department of State website:

“Section 214(b) is part of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). It states:

‘Every alien shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of application for admission, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status…’

To qualify for a visitor or student visa, an applicant must meet the requirements of sections 101(a)(15)(B) or (F) of the INA respectively. Failure to do so will result in a refusal of a visa under INA 214(b). The most frequent basis for such a refusal concerns the requirement that the prospective visitor or student possess a residence abroad he/she has no intention of abandoning. Applicants prove the existence of such residence by demonstrating that they have ties abroad that would compel them to leave the U.S. at the end of the temporary stay. The law places this burden of proof on the applicant.”

Overcoming the presumption of immigrant intent has always been a somewhat major obstacle, but visa denials under this section of the law became more prevalent after the tragedy of September 11, 2001. After 9/11, there were some changes made in the way that non-immigrant visas were processed. A particularly critical change was the requirement that the applicant for a United States tourist visa be interviewed in person. This requirement, combined with increased scrutiny and heightened security concerns lead to more Tourist visa denials. In many cases, the denials were based upon section 214 (b) because the applicants failed to show that they were going to return to their home country, or, at the very least, leave the USA.

Where the foreign applicant is a loved one of a US Citizen, particularly where the Citizen primarily resides in the USA, it is unlikely that the tourist visa application will be approved unless that applicant can show sufficiently “strong ties,” to their home country. However, to forestall needlessly wasting of time and resources, it may be wise for a couple to look into the prospect of submitting a K1 visa application or seek to obtain a K3 visa. The K1 visa is a travel document which allows a temporary stay in the United States, but leaves room under the Doctrine of Dual Intent to allow for the visa holder to adjust status to US permanent residence.

Tags: 214 b, 214(b), 21b, immigrant intent, K1 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, Tourist Visa Denial, Tourist Visa Denied, US Immigration Law, US Tourist Visa, us visa denial, US Visa Denied, US Visa Thailand
Posted in K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa Thailand, US Tourist Visa, US Visa Thailand | No Comments »

For those entering the United States of America on a non-immigrant visa, there is generally a requirement that the entrant have non-immigrant intent. This means that the person entering the country must intend to simply remain on a temporary basis and not have the intention to reside in the United States permanently. United States Visas that require non-immigrant intent include the US Tourist Visa, the F1 Student Visa, and the J1 Exchange Visitor Visa. For each of these categories, the prospective entrant could be denied access to the United States either by visa denial or entry denial at the United States Embassy in Bangkok or the port of entry in the USA. Due to the risk of visa denial or entry denial, it is always recommended to apply for a visa that comports to the applicant’s true intentions.

Conversely, it may be unwise to apply for an immigrant visa if the parties true intentions do not actually involve residing in the United States. In this situation, the issue of intent is somewhat more fluid, but it is still advisable that the parties have a bona fide intention to reside in the USA.

With both of these issues in mind, there is something of a “middle path,” with regard to United States Immigration. This middle path is the doctrine of dual intent. This doctrine is a legal concept that deals with the fact that there are some cases where a US Visa must permit foreign nationals to be present temporarily in the United States of America in legal status and still have immigrant intent. The doctrine was promulgated due to practical necessity as there are situations in which aliens come to live and work in the USA on temporary visas, but they themselves wish to eventually obtain lawful permanent residence. United States Immigration authorities and experts have come to recognize that there are certain situations where this seemingly paradoxical situation must be accepted and, to a certain extent, encouraged.

An example of a commonly sought visa category in Thailand, is the K1 fiance visa. The K1 is a non-immigrant visa, but the alien entering the US on this visa is generally doing so in order to: reunite with their fiance(e), marry, and adjust status to permanent residence.  Therefore, the K1 visa is essentially a dual intent visa as it only allows for a 30 day temporary stay, but provides the opportunity to acquire US permanent residence.

To some extent, the K3 visa is a dual intent travel document as it is technically a non-immigrant visa, but once in the United States, the visa holder must eventually adjust status as the K3 does not confer lawful permanent residence. Usage of the K3 has declined in recent years as visa processing times have decreased for immigrant visas and increased slightly for K3 visas.

L1 visas as well as H1-B work visas are further examples of temporary visas which allow for dual intent. Although, these categories are employment based visas.

Tags: Dual Intent Doctrine, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, us embassy bangkok, US Immigration Law, US Tourist Visa, US Visa Thailand
Posted in Adjustment of Status, F1 Visa Thailand, Fiance Visa Thailand, J1 Visa Thailand, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa Thailand, L1 Visa, Legal Opinion, us embassy bangkok, US Tourist Visa, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand | 2 Comments »

This blog has often compared and contrasted the difference between the Immigration procedures for obtainment of a US Visa and a Thai Visa. To further compare the two systems, this post will provide a brief overview of the financial requirements one must meet in order to obtain a visa to Thailand or the United States of America.

In order to sponsor a traveler to the United States, one must first decipher the type of visa the traveler will be using. In the case of Non-Immigrant visas (F1 student visa, J1 exchange visa, or B1 Business Visa) the applicant must be able to prove that they or their sponsor will be able to pay the expenses related to the trip. In the case of F1 and J1 visas, the applicant must show that they will also fully pay for their educational endeavors or their exchange program. In some cases, the J1 visitor must reimburse the public education system where they stay in order to obtain the J1 visa.

In the case of United States Immigrant IR1 and CR1 visas for family members from Thailand, the American Citizen must show that they meet the income or financial requirements in order to act as sponsor for their loved one. The basic concern of the Consular officer revolves around the notion that the Immigrant could become a “public charge,” if the American Citizen does not have the resources to pay for the foreign spouse. An I-864 affidavit of support is used to assist in determining if the American is capable of sponsorship.

The K1 visa is a combination of the non-immigrant and immigrant visas. That being said, an affidavit of support must be filled out by the American Citizen. The difference between the I-134 and I-864 is the fact that the I-864 is more legally binding with regard to the sponsor. If the foreign entrant ever becomes a ward of the state, then the sponsor could be forced to reimburse the American government for the expenses the foreign national incurs. The K3 visa, although a marriage visa, is technically a non-immigrant visa so the American Citizen must simply submit an I-134 affidavit of support.

In Thailand, there are certain Thai visa categories which require that the applicant show that they have some sort of financial safety net. Visas such as the Thai retirement visa and the Thailand O visa (based upon marriage), require the visa holder to continually prove that they either meet a prescribed minimum monthly income or have a certain amount of money in a Thai bank account.

For those applying for Thai visas outside of Thailand, certain consulates have differing financial requirements depending upon the visa category. Therefore, one wishing to obtain a Thai Business Visa may be required to show a minimum bank balance. The minimum financial requirement may vary from post to post.

The United States Embassy in Thailand, diligently scrutinizes the financial resources of those applicants wishing to obtain an American visa. Many people believe that there is some sort of magic numerical amount of money that if shown in a bank account will guarantee visa application approval. In reality, the Embassy looks at the “whole picture” when making decisions on US tourist visas and often simply having a large bank balance is not enough to obtain a tourist visa. Further, in cases where an American boyfriend tranfers a large amount of money into a Thai applicant’s bank account in an effort to “beef up” the applicant’s credentials, the Embassy can tell that the bank balance is artificially inflated and will likely deny the application. It is never wise to manufacture evidence in order to obtain a United States visa on behalf of another.

Tags: Affidavit of Support, B2 Visa, CR1 Visa, F1 Visa, Financial Requirement Immigration, I-134, I-864, I134, I864, Immigrant Visa, IR1 Visa, J1 visa, K1 Visa, K3 Visa, Thai Visa, Thailand Immigration, Thailand Visa, US Tourist Visa, US Visa Thailand
Posted in F1 Visa Thailand, Fiance Visa Thailand, J1 Visa Thailand, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa Thailand, Thailand Visa, US Consulate Chiang Mai, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Thailand, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand | No Comments »

In a recent announcement from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), Deferred Action will be granted to those widows and widowers of United States Citizens who die before the two year anniversary of the foreign spouse’s arrival in the United States of America. To quote the AILA press release:

“U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano, on June 9, 2009, announced that DHS would grant deferred action relief to surviving spouses of U.S. citizens who died before the second anniversary of their marriage. Based on the Secretary’s decision, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will temporarily suspend adjudication of visa petitions and adjustment applications filed for widow(er)s where the sole reason for an adverse decision from USCIS would be the death of a U.S. citizen spouse prior to the second anniversary of their marriage.”

The first question that probably comes to the mind of the reader is:  ok, so what does “deferred action” mean in practice? To further quote the USCIS press release:

“Deferred action is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion not to pursue removal from the United States of a particular foreigner for a specific period. Deferred action is not intended to be a permanent remedy for this situation; rather it is a temporary discretionary solution.”

In cases involving United States Immigrant visas, there are two types of immigrant visa categories for spouses of American Citizens. There is the Conditional Resident Visa (CR1) and the Immediate Relative Visa (IR1). The Conditional Resident Visa is meant for spouses of United States Citizens who have been married for less than two years. IR-1 visas are meant for those who have been married for more than 2 years. When a Permanent Resident is in CR-1 status, then they must apply for a lift of conditions before they change status to IR-1. If residence is conditional, then the immigrant must leave the USA  if the lift of conditionality is not filed and approved. In many cases, only the US Citizen spouse can file to have the conditions lifted. Therefore, if the US Citizen spouse dies before the lift of conditions is filed and approved then the Conditional Permanent Resident could fall out of status as soon as 2 years is up. Deferred action places the Resident in a kind of limbo in which they can lawfully remain in the USA, but are not moved in IR-1 status. The press release goes further and states:

“Aliens with deferred action may apply for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) if they can establish an economic necessity for employment.”

Therefore, the alien in the US in this situation could work and reside without fear of being removed, but the situation would seem to be simply a temporary stopgap measure and it does not appear that this would be a viable long term legal option.

Bear in mind that this issue only deals with US spousal and fiancee visas after adjustment of status. Therefore, the above analysis is not relevant to the K1 visa or the K3 visa per se, although it would be relevant if the foreign fiancee or spouse adjusts to CR1 status.

Tags: American Visa, CR-1 Visa, CR1 Visa, Deferred Action, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, US Immigration, US Visa, USCIS
Posted in Adjustment of Status, Fiance Visa Thailand, General Legal Information, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa Thailand, Legal Opinion, Miscellaneous, Upcoming Legislation, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | No Comments »

Apparently, the State of New York has made the decision to crack down on Immigration Consultants and so-called “visa agencies.” Only a licensed attorney or USCIS approved representative is entitled to prepare visa applications and petitions on behalf of clients pursuing United States Immigration benefits. In flagrant transgression of this rule, many companies in the United States of America provide unlicensed immigration advice. The State of New York has opted to take an aggressive position regarding this practice. To quote the a publication by the State of New York, promulgated through the American Immigration Lawyers Association:

“In thousands of cases across New York City and Long Island, these companies unlawfully filed immigration petitions with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on behalf of immigrants and their families, jeopardizing efforts to obtain legal status.”

Many people do not recognize how detrimentally these unscrupulous agencies can affect prospective immigrants’ chances of obtaining an American visa. The aforementioned publication quoted the New York Attorney General as saying:

“The consequences of bad legal advice can be absolutely devastating,” said Attorney General Cuomo. “Fraudulent legal services can haunt individuals and their families for a lifetime. Companies and individuals that represent someone in a legal proceeding without having the authority to do so must be stopped, and my office will hold them accountable.”

It is good to see that local authorities in the United States are taking a firm stand against these practices. In a way, cracking down on these types of enterprises is of assistance to all immigrants and prospective immigrants because United States Immigration is a field that has been somewhat plagued by “fly by night” operations masquerading as attorneys and law firms in an effort to swindle clients out of their hard earned money.

Many of these organizations advertise “guarantees” and “full refunds” for failure to achieve desired results. In many cases, these too good to be true propositions are simply gimmicks to get unsuspecting immigrants to part with their money. Unfortunately, in Thailand “visa agencies” and those pretending to be lawyers prey upon uninformed foreigners and Thais. This practice is particularly prevalent in Thailand because many applications for visas are filed on behalf of family members who are of Thai extraction. Since Thailand is a sovereign nation independent of American legal jurisdiction, it is difficult for American authorities to apprehend those falsely claiming to be American attorneys. Therefore, the consumer environment in Thailand with regard to legal services is: Buyer Beware. Always ask if the attorney can provide a copy of their license to practice law from at least one jurisdiction in the United States.

Tags: AILA, American Immigration law, Immigration Consultants, New York Attorney General, USCIS, Visa Agencies, visa agent
Posted in General Legal Information, Miscellaneous, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Thailand, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand | No Comments »

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) is a very large bureaucracy that handles the processing of many petitions for US Immigration benefits. The Service can take a great deal of time to process visa applications and simple delay is not considered out of the ordinary. That being said, there are certain situations in which a delay by USCIS is unwarranted.

If it becomes necessary to compel a government agency to fulfill their statutorily mandated obligations, then a Writ of Mandamus can be filed to compel the agency or officer to perform their duty. A Mandamus action is a civil action and is promulgated by a court of competent jurisdiction. It specifically compels a government officer to carry out their duties in the manner prescribed by law. A piece of legislation known as the Mandamus Act, can be found at 28 U.S.C.: 1361. This provision specifically states that Mandamus is an, “Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty.”

With regard to USCIS, a mandamus action will likely be brought before a Federal District Judge in a United States District Court. If granted, the court’s order will be binding upon the USCIS officer who allegedly failed to adequately fulfill his duties.

The writ of Mandamus exists for a very good reason as it was designed to create a check on the unfettered powers of government officers. That being said, those thinking of filing for a writ of mandamus should give the decision a great deal of thought because the ultimate result could turn out to be detrimental in certain cases. For example, should a case get caught up in the system making it necessary to file a Mandamus action, because the Mandamus order only compels the officer to take action, and does not compel the officer as to what decision should be made, it could turn out that the officer simply denies the application and the case comes to an end, albeit more quickly than it likely would have had the Mandamus order not been granted.

With this in mind, the Mandamus action should be utilized judiciously as not every case calls for it. In those cases where a Mandamus action would be appropriate, the seeker of such a writ should weigh all of his or her options in order to make a full determination as to whether the Mandamus action is appropriate in light of the unique facts in that particular case.

Tags: American Immigration law, Mandamus, US Immigration, US Immigration Law, US Visa, US Visa Thailand, USCIS
Posted in Legal Opinion, Miscellaneous, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | No Comments »

As the Obama Administration continues to put together a cogent piece of Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation, immigrant communities in the United States of America are becoming more politically active in an effort to make their views regarding the Immigration situation known.

One immigrant group of particular interest is that of first and second generation Asian-Americans. The blog Immigration Impact recently discussed the political clout that these Asian groups are beginning to harness:

“According to the Asian American Justice Center, there are currently more than 15 million Asian Americans residing in the United States—the majority of whom are foreign born and thus have firsthand knowledge of our woefully outdated immigration system. Countless Asians are caught in the family immigration backlogs and remain separated from close family members, and there are more than 1 million undocumented Asians in the U.S. today. Because the broken immigration system affects them in such a personal way, many in the Asian American community are banding together this week to attend town hall meetings with members of Congress, hold press conferences and petition lawmakers to fix our currently broken immigration system that restricts due process rights, breaks up families, and ultimately hurts the economy.”

The United States Embassy in Thailand processes a large number of US visa cases each year. Among the many US family based petitions are those for the K1 visa and Immigrant visas based upon an I-130 application and these are probably the most popular American visa categories.  The people entering on these types of visas eventually take up Permanent Residence either through adjustment of status or upon entry as an intending immigrant. Once stateside, many of these Thai immigrants in the United States eventually go on the naturalize as United States Citizens. These immigrants and their children have something of a unique opinion regarding immigration reform and as such it is most likely a net positive if they enter the public discourse on this important issue.

As Citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents of the United States, Asian American Immigrants probably account for a disproportionately large number of family based petitions in lower preference categories. A result of this situation is the fact that many of these families remain apart for long periods of time due to the quotas set on the various immigrant visa categories and the large caseload being processed by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). Hopefully, Comprehensive Immigration Reform will untie the Gordian Knot of US Immigration for these separated families while at the same time assuring that America is safe and secure.

Tags: American Visa Thailand, CIR, Comprehensive Immigration Reform, K1 Visa Thailand, US Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS
Posted in Fiance Visa Thailand, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa Thailand, Legal Opinion, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Thailand, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand | No Comments »