Integrity Legal

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the US business visas categorized as the B-1 visa and the H-1B visa are making headlines on the World Wide Web. To quote directly from the official website of First Post, FirstPost.com:

Infosys announced on Tuesday that it had received a subpoena from a US District Court demanding documentation of its B1 visa usage, which is  the subject of a criminal investigation by the US Department of Justice (DOJ).

Those reading this web log are strongly encouraged to click upon the hyperlinks above in order to gain more perspective on this developing story. Concurrently, readers are also asked to remember that those accused of an illegal act, whether a natural person or a corporation, are innocent until proven guilty pursuant to America law.

Those unfamiliar with these visa categories should note that the B-1 visa is a non-immigrant visa designed for use by those who intend to remain in the United States for a short period of time for business meetings or training. Such travel documents do not permit the bearer to take up employment within the jurisdiction of the United States. Meanwhile, the H-1B visa is intended for those who wish to  undertake employment in the United States of America. In much the same way that a Thai business visa does not confer the right to work in the Kingdom of Thailand, only a Thai work permit entails such privileges, so too does a B-1 visa exclusively permit the bearer lawful status in the USA upon admission. Therefore, those wishing to work in the USA are generally required to obtain a visa which permits the bearer to work or obtain Employment Authorization. Those who have lawful permanent residence pursuant to entry in the USA on a CR1 Visa or an IR1 Visa are allowed to work in the USA.

The aforementioned article went on to note:

The DOJ’s criminal investigation is not the only legal claim Infosys is facing in relation to B1 visas. As Firstpost has previously reported, an Alabama-based employee named Jack “Jay” Palmer filed a civil lawsuit against the company in February alleging that Infosys used the B1 visa as a way to “creatively” manoeuvre around H-1B visa caps. (Infosys has consistently been the top recipient of H-1B visas in the US.)

Those seeking American immigration benefits should be aware of the fact that the privilege of working in the United States is not always easily obtained. Furthermore, those pondering immigration benefits should note that it is never prudent to be anything but 100% honest with American immigration officials as failure to be candid regarding one’s bona fide immigration intentions could have tremendous adverse ramifications. Consequences for failure to be forthright with immigration authorities could include fines, penalties, incarceration, or a finding of legal inadmissibility. Those found to be legally ineligible for admission to the United States of America may be able to rectify such inadmissibility through use of either an I-601 waiver or an I-212 waiver, depending upon the circumstances of the case.

Meanwhile, it appears that the Department of Homeland Security‘s Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is taking criticism from a federal legislator regarding the methodology surrounding the groping of individuals passing through airports in the USA. To quote directly from the official website of Real Clear Politics, RealClearPolitics.com:

The Hill reports: “I walked through … right behind me there was a grandmother — little old lady, and she was was patted down,” Rep. Paul Broun (R-Georgia) said on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal.” “Right behind her was a little kid who was patted down. And then right behind him was a guy in Arabian dress who just walked right through. Why are we patting down grandma and kids?”

The administration of this blog strongly encourages readers to click upon the hyperlinks noted above to learn more.

It is certainly a credit to Representative Paul Broun that he is questioning TSA policies regarding groping of prospective passengers as it is this blogger’s personal opinion that such searches violate the provisions of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. This news comes on the heels of a recent announcement that lawmakers in the sovereign State of Texas have withdrawn a recent bill brought before that State’s legislature to curtail the activities of the TSA. To quote directly from the website of the Texas Tribune, TexasTribune.org:

A threat from the federal government to shut down Texas airports or cancel flights may have killed legislation by Tea Party conservatives in the Texas Capitol to prohibit federal Transportation Security Administration agents from conducting “invasive searches.” “I don’t cave in to heavy handed threats by the federal government,” said an angry Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, the Senate sponsor of the bill, who ultimately withdrew the bill. House Bill 1937, which was passed by the House earlier this month, would make it a misdemeanor offense for a federal security agent to “intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly [touch] the anus, sexual organ, buttocks, or breast of the other person, including touching through clothing, or touching the other person in a manner that would be offensive to a reasonable person.” Two TSA officials visited Patrick at the Capitol earlier today to discuss the legislation. They warned him that the legislation “could close down all the airports in Texas,” he said…

This blogger encourages readers to click on the hyperlinks above to find out more.

Clearly, the issue of TSA “pat downs” is controversial and can raise tempers. This blogger encourages readers to keep abreast of the stories above at it seems likely that the underlying issues will continue to be poignant in the days and weeks ahead. This may be especially true in the context of an upcoming election as issues pertaining to U.S. immigration and the 4th amendment may be of concern to prospective voters.

Tags: B-1 Visa, B-1 visas, B1 visa, CR-1 Visa, CR1 Visa, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, DOJ, H-1B visa, H-1B visas, I-212 waiver, I-601 Waiver, Infosys, invasive searches, IR-1 Visa, IR1 Visa, Texas airports, Texas Capitol, Texas Senator Dan Patrick, Thai Business Visa, Thai Work Permit, Transportation Security Administration, TSA, TSA Groping, TSA invasive searches, TSA Pat Down, US business visas, US District Court
Posted in Transportation Security Administration (TSA), US Visa, US Visa and Immigration | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) has issued a new memorandum regarding the revocation of United States Passports by the United States Department of State. In order to better shed light upon this issue it may be best to quote directly from the interim USCIS memorandum itself:

DOS has authority to issue and revoke passports. Specifically, 22 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) 211a authorizes the Secretary of State and his or her designee (the U.S. Passport Office of the Bureau of Consular Affairs) to grant, issue, and verify passports. Through Executive Order No. 11295, 31 Fed. Reg. 10603, the President designated and empowered the Secretary of State with the authority to designate and prescribe the rules governing the granting, issuing, and verifying of passports.
DOS revokes passports in accordance with Title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) sections 51.60-62, and 51.65. There are also several statutes under which passports may be revoked and that are incorporated into DOS’s regulations, including: 8 U.S.C. 1504 (the passport was illegally, fraudulently or erroneously obtained); 42 U.S.C. 652(k) (for non-payment of child support); 22 U.S.C. 2714 (for certain drug traffickers); 22 U.S.C. 2671(d)(3) (non-repayment of repatriation loan); and 22 U.S.C. 212a (adds authority to revoke passports of persons convicted of sex tourism). The regulations also require DOS to send written notification of the revocation of a passport to the bearer. See 22 CFR 51.65(a).

Clearly, as can be ascertained from the above citation, the Department of State is authorized to issue and revoke United States Passports. This can be of acute concern to those abroad with an outstanding warrant in the United States as Department of State officials routinely rescind passports upon finding that an American Citizen has a pending criminal warrant, fugitive warrant, or even a warrant in connection to domestic matters such as failure to pay American child support. Once a passport is revoked, an American may be issued a travel letter for the specific purpose of returning to the United States of America. For those unfamiliar with so-called travel letters it may be best to quote directly from the Foreign Affairs Manual:

Posts should issue travel letters only in rare or unusual circumstances described in this Appendix, where it is impossible to issue a passport. These circumstances include: (1) Law enforcement related travel letters in situations other than extradition. Such travel letters must be expressly authorized by CA/PPT/L/LA, which works with the U.S. law enforcement authority on matters related to revocation of the passport of the subject of an outstanding federal warrant. (See 7 FAM 1380 Passport Denial, Revocation, Restriction, Limitation and Surrender.)

Clearly, the Department of State only issues travel letters under rare circumstances, but US Passport revocation and travel letter issuance can occur especially in the context of Federal warrants. That said, the authority reserved to the Department of State regarding passport issuance and revocation would appear not to extend to the Department of Homeland Security‘s USCIS. To quote further from the USCIS memo cited above:

USCIS lacks the authority to revoke or confiscate a U.S. Passport. If reasons to doubt the validity of a passport come to the attention of USCIS, USCIS will not seize the passport, instruct the bearer to return the passport to DOS, or otherwise notify the bearer that there may be issues with the passport…In recent months, USCIS employees have on occasion informed customers that their U.S. Passports were invalid and should be surrendered to DOS. Upon review of certain cases, DOS determined that the passports were, in fact, valid and recognized in accordance with DOS policies and statutes. DOS has requested that USCIS direct any concerns regarding the validity of passports to DOS and not to the bearer of the passport.

It would seem from the quotation above as though the Department of State is in the best position to make a decision regarding the validity of a US Passport as such matters are within that Department’s bailiwick. As noted in the the US visa process, some matters pertaining to travel and immigration are bifurcated between the USCIS and the Department of State. Based upon the above memorandum and the Foreign Affairs Manual it would appear that Passport issues remain almost entirely within the Department of State’s mandate.

For related information please see: Arrest Warrant or Federal Warrant.

Tags: American warrant, arrest warrant, Bench Warrant, criminal warrant, Department of Homeland Security, Department of State, Department of State Passport, Federal Warrant, Foreign Affairs Manual, Fugitive Warrant, Fugitive Warrant Thailand, Passport Revocation, Travel Letter, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, US Fugitive Warrant, us passport, US Travel Letter, US warrant, USCIS, warrant
Posted in USCIS | No Comments »

สิ่งที่กำลังได้รับความสนใจในขณะนี้คือ กระทรวงความมั่นคงแห่งมาตุภูมิ (DHS) ได้ให้คำแนะนำแก่หน่วยบริการการเข้าเมืองและพลเมืองอเมริกัน (USCIS) ในการที่จะจัดการกับการชะลอการเนรเทศคู่ของคนเพศเดียวกันที่เป็นพลเมืองอเมริกันและเป็นผู้มีถิ่นฐานถาวรซึ่งมีการประกาศเมื่อ 2 วันที่ผ่านมา อ้างโดยตรงจากบทความที่เขียนในเว็บ Advocate.com ซึ่งเกี่ยวกับ การไม่ชะลอเรื่องของการเข้าเมืองของคู่เกย์

เช้าวันพุธ เลขาธิการ USCIS คริสโตเฟอร์ เอส.เบนท์ลีย์กล่าวว่า ตัวแทนได้รับคำแนะนำทางกฎหมายให้ยกเรื่องการชะลอที่เผยแพร่เมื่อวันจันทร์ที่ผ่านมา คำแนะนำนี้เป็นไปในรูปแบบของลายลักษณ์อักษรจากสำนักงานอัยการที่กระทรวงความมั่นคงแห่งมาตุภูมิ (USCISเป็นส่วนหนึ่งของ DHS)

.ผู้ที่สนใจสามารถศึกษาข้อมูลเพิ่มเติมได้จากลิงค์ที่อ้างถึงด้านบน

เป็นที่ปรากฎอย่างชัดเจนว่า เจ้าหน้าที่ของหน่วยบริการการเข้าเมืองและพลเมืองสหรัฐอเมริกา (USCIS) ด้วยความพยายามที่จะหาหนทางที่จะช่วยเหลือกลุ่มเพศที่สามในสหรัฐอเมริกากับคู่เพศเดียวกันสองสัญชาติผู้ที่อยู่ในกระบวนการเข้าเมืองนี้ เนื่องจากเป็นการปกป้องการแต่งงานของเพศเดียวกัน คำถามของผู้เขียนคือ เพราะเหตุใดจะมีทางแก้ปัญหาเรื่องของรัฐได้ เป็นสิ่งที่ชัดเจนว่า วิธีที่จะแก้ปัญหาในประเด็นนี้ ศาลสูงสุดสหรัฐอเมริกา แต่ดูเหมือนว่า ฝ่ายบริหารจะแก้ปัญหาในประเด็นนี้ผ่านทางกฎระเบียบภายในและแนวทางปฏิบัติของฝ่ายบริหาร แต่สิ่งนี้ไม่ใช่วิธีทางกฎหมาย และไม่เป็นไปตามกฎหมายที่กระทบต่อการเปลี่ยนแปลงของสถานการณ์ต่างๆเช่นที่จะกระทบต่อกลุ่มเพศที่สาม ตามทัศนะของผู้เขียน แม้คำตัดสินศาลสูงสุดของสหรัฐอเมริกาในประเด็นการรับรองของส่วนกลางให้เป็นไปตามกฎหมายและบังคับใช้ในแต่ละรัฐมีแนวโน้มที่จะส่งผลให้เป็นหนทางในการอนุญาตให้คู่เพศเดียวกันได้รับสิทธิประโยลชน์ทางการเข้าเมืองเช่นเดียวกับสิทธิคู่ต่างเพศสองสัญชาติ

การประกาศจาก USCIS ในวันจันทร์เกี่ยวกับ “การชะลอ” การเนรเทศของคู่เพศเดียวกันของพลเมืองอเมริกันและผู้มีถิ่นฐานถาวร เนื่องจากการบรรเทาแก่ชาวอเมริกันผู้ที่เกี่ยวข้องกับการเนรเทศตามพระราชบัญญัติ “การคุ้มครองการแต่งงาน” (DOMA) เนื่องจากคู่เพศเดียวกันสองสัญชาตินั้นเป็นไปตามกฎหมายที่การแต่งงานของคนเพศเดียวกันมีผลใน 6 รัฐ (รวมทั้งแคลิฟอร์เนีย)ซึ่งอนุญาตให้มีการแต่งงานของคู่เพศเดียวกัน สิ่งหนึ่งที่มีการรับรองจากส่วนกลางของการแต่งงานเพศเดียวกันภายใต้เขตอำนาจของรัฐที่มีอำนาจซึ่งเป็นการปฏิบัติตามรัฐธรรมนูญเรียกว่า “พระราชบัญญัติการคุ้มครองการแต่งงาน” (DOMA)ซค่งมีการร่างในสมัยของประธานาธิบดีวิลเลียม เจฟเฟอร์สัน คลินตัน

เมื่อไม่นานมานี้ ในบันทึกจากสำนักงานอัยการ (อีริค โฮลเดอร์)ถึงโฆษกสภาผู้แทนราษฎร ความว่า ฝ่ายบริหารของประธานาธิบดีเห็นว่า คู่เพศเดียวกันควรจะได้รับสิทธิในการตรวจสอบที่เข้มงวดจากศาลสูงสุดสหรัฐอเมริกาและฝ่ายบริหารไม่ได้ดำเนินการต่อพระราชบัญญัติ DOMA ต่อคู่เพศที่สาม บทความนี้บอกว่า อาจจะไม่เป็นการให้สิทธิประโยชน์ของการเข้าเมืองเนื่องจากมีการพลาดไม่มี “ข้อโต้แย้ง” ก่อนที่ศาลสูงสุดสหรัฐอเมริกาจะนำไปสู่สถานการณ์ที่มีประเด็นทางกฎหมายที่ซับซ้อนที่ไม่ได้ตัดสินโดยศาลสูงสุดของสหรัฐอเมริกาและยังคงเป็นเรื่องที่ถูกลืมในประเด็นที่ไม่มีความหนักแน่น ประกาศของกระทรวงความมั่นคงแห่งมาตุภูมิ เพิ่มเติมว่า จนกระทั่งบทบัญญัติในพระราชบัญญัติ DOMA ซึ่งจะมีการรับรองส่วนกลางในการแต่งงานของเพศเดียวกันเป็นจุดพลิกผันของการแต่งงานของกลุ่มเพศที่สาม (อย่างน้อยที่สุดในมุมมองของผู้มีอำนาจทางกฎหมาย)

ประเด็นหนึ่งที่กล่าวอ้างข้างบนเป็นที่น่าสนใจของบทความนี้ ข้อความต่อไปนี้อ้างโดยตรงจากบทความที่กล่างมาแล้วก่อนหน้านี้

เบนท์ลีย์ปฏิเสธที่จะเผยแพร่เอกสารใดๆที่เป็นลายลักษณ์อักษรในเวลานี้ อาจกล่าวได้ว่า เป็นการสื่อสารที่ได้รับสิทธิประโยชน์ เขาเน้นว่า นโยบายอย่างเป็นทางการใน DHS ไม่มีวันเปลี่ยนแปลง

ด้วยสิทธิประโยชน์ รัฐบาลสหรัฐอเมริกา ในแบบของกระทรวงความมั่นคงแห่งมาตุภูมิให้สิทธิพิเศษ (หลักการที่สำคัญที่ขะสงวนสำหรับบุคคลโดยธรรมชาติในการติดต่อกับหน่วยงานในสหรัฐอเมริกา) ในการที่จะเก็บบันทึกไว้เป็นความลับ ทำไมต้องเป็นความลับ ทำไมเรื่องที่เกี่ยวกับสิทธิประโยชน์ของกลุ่มเพศที่สามจึงไม่มีการบังคับใช้ให้เป็นธรรมและอาจจะมีการวางฐานะของกลุ่มเพศที่สามน้อยเมื่อเปรียบเทียบกับฐานะของพวกเขาก่อนที่จะมีบันทึกถึงโฆษกสภา ดังนั้นกระทรวงความมั่นคงแห่งมาตุภูมิได้อ้างถึงสิทธิประโยชน์ในการสื่อสารกับหน่วยบริการคนเข้าเมืองและพลเมืองอเมริกัน (USCIS) ตัวแทนอเมริกันภายใต้เขตอำนาจของ DHS เป็นเรื่องแปลกหรือไม่ที่รัฐบาลสหรัฐอเมริกาอ้างถึงนโยบายระหว่างตัวแทนที่จะรักษาสสิทธิของอเมริกันและครอบครัวอเมริกัน ตามความเห็นของผู้เขียนว่า เจ้าหน้าที่รัฐของสหรัฐอเมริกาทำหน้าที่รับใช้ประชาชนและดังนั้นต้องการที่จะสร้างความโปร่งใสในนโยบายโดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่งนโยบายที่มีผลกระทบในวงกว้างต่อพลเมืองและครอบครัวของสหรัฐอเมริกา

โดยปรากฏอย่างชัดแจ้ง การโจมตีความเท่าเทียมกันของสิทธิการเข้าเมืองของกลุ่มเพศที่สามยังไม่ได้รับชัยชนะ แต่สำหรับผู้ที่สนใจในประโนนี้อาจเป็นการรณรงค์ที่แสดงให้เห็นถึงการเยียวยาของคู่เพศเดียวกันภายใต้กฎหมายสหรัฐอเมริกา บทความนี้จคอยคัดเลือกประเด็นที่สำคัญและน่าสนใจ

อีกวอธีการหนึ่งที่จะได้รับสิทธิที่เท่าเทียมกันของคู่เพศเดียวกันสองสัญชาติผ่านทางการร่างกฎหมายเช่นพระราชบัญญัติการรวมกลุ่มของครอบครัวอเมริกัน (UAFA)ซึ่งได้ให้สิทธิแก่คู่เพศเดียวกันสองสัญชาติในการขอวีซ่าคนเข้าเมืองสำหรับ “คู่ถาวร”ของเขา” ดังนั้น เป็นการหลีกเลี่ยงข้อกำหนด DOMA การร่างกฎหมายของส่วนกลางเช่นผู้แทนเจอร์รัลด์ แนดเลอร์เสนอร่างกฎหมายอีกครั้งด้วยความพยายามที่จะหาวิธีที่จะบรรเทาสิทธิประโยชน์การแต่งงานของคู่เพศเดียวกันสองสัญชาติที่ยังคงไม่ได้รับความเป็นธรรม  ในขณะที่เขียนนี้ นายแนดเลอร์ ยังคงที่จะเปิดการเรียกร้องเกี่ยวกับ DOMA และการปประกาศใช้พระราชบัญัญติการเคารพสิทธิการแต่งงานซึ่งเป็นงานการร่างกฎหมายที่ฟื้นฟูมาจากการรับรองของรัฐในการแต่งงานตามกฎหมาย อย่างน้อยที่สุดในส่วนหนึ่ง สิทธิของคู่แต่งงานเพศเดียวกันต้องการความเป็นธรรมตามากฎหมาย

To view this information in English please see: Department of Homeland Security.

Tags: Department of Homeland Security, DOMA, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, USCIS
Posted in สถานทูตสหรัฐอเมริกาประจำประเทศไทย | No Comments »

It would appear as though government shutdown has been averted, at least for the time being as an apparent bi-partisan initiative has resulted in continued funding for the United States government. To quote directly from ABC News on go.com:

Barely more than an hour before a midnight deadline Friday night, officials announced a deal to avert a government shutdown. “We will cut $78.5 billion below the president’s 2011 budget proposal, and we have reached an agreement on the policy riders,” House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., wrote in a joint statement.

The agreement would cut $37.67 billion from the 2010 budget and keep intact funding to Planned Parenthood, sources from both parties told ABC News.

“We protected the investments we need to win the future,” President Obama said after the deal was struck. “At the same time, we also made sure at the end of the day this was a debate about spending cuts — not social issues like women’s health and the protection of our air and water. These are important issues that deserve discussion, just not during a debate about our budget.”

Readers of this blog are highly encouraged to visit the above links to gain more insight on this story.

On a related note, credit where credit is due regarding the preparations seemingly undertaken by the officers of the Department of State in trying to front load their efforts as much as humanly possible regarding previously-approved visa issuances as the prospect of Government Shutdown became more acute.

On a less related note, those interested in the struggle for equality for the LGBT community in the context of the United States immigration process should take note of the fact that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) attempted to put a hold on deportations involving same sex bi-national couples before having that hold rescinded by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). USCIS, your efforts to help keep bi-national families together has not gone unnoticed.

It would seem as though the ultimate resolution on this issue will come either in the form of a legal opinion from the United States Supreme Court, as in a case such as that from the Massachusetts Federal Court and others in the US Courts currently working their way through the appellate process, or through enactment of legislation which would repeal, hopefully at the very least, the Federal recognition provisions currently embodied in the language of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) similar to the legislation colloquially referred to as the Respect for Marriage Act and/or the Uniting American Families Act.

Tags: American government shutdown, Defense of Marriage Act, Department of Homeland Security, Department of State, House Speaker John Boehner, LGBT community, LGBT Equal Immigration, President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, Uniting American Families Act, US government shutdown, USCIS
Posted in Editorial, News, Opinion | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that an attorney formerly associated with the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service (USICE, sometimes referred to by the acronym ICE) has received a criminal conviction which involves public corruption. To quote directly from the New York Paralegal Blog:

LOS ANGELES—A senior attorney with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was sentenced this morning to 212 months in federal prison for taking nearly one-half million dollars in bribes from immigrants who were promised immigration benefits that would allow them to remain in the United States.

ICE Assistant Chief Counsel Constantine Peter Kallas, 40, of Alta Loma, received the 17⅔-year sentence from United States District Judge Terry J. Hatter Jr.
In addition to the prison term, Judge Hatter ordered Kallas to pay $296,865 in restitution after fraudulently receiving worker’s compensation benefits.

“Mr. Kallas has received one of the longest sentences ever seen in a public corruption case,” said United States Attorney André Birotte Jr. “Mr. Kallas took in hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes—money he obtained by exploiting his knowledge of the immigration system. The lengthy sentence reflects the seriousness of the crimes, which were a wholesale violation of the public trust.”

Those interested in reading more are highly encouraged to click on the above hyperlinks to learn more.

It is unfortunate any time there is a situation where a public official is engaged in corruption. The case cited above is notable for the fact that the United States government is clearly not treating such cases as anything less than serious. Corruption is a concern for all polities around the world as corruption can undermine the very fabric of the political system in which it occurs. One of the most important aspects of the United States is the high ethical standard by which public servants must adhere. This blogger has personally found that public servants at the Department of Homeland Security, USCIS, and the US Embassy in Bangkok are all helpful and highly ethical, but not all government employees are up to such standards, as evidenced by the quotation above. However, there is a tendency among the public at large to view innocent and upstanding public servants through the same lens as the former attorney noted above. This would be a mistake, most public servants are ethical hard working people who are simply interested in doing the job they were retained to perform. Casting all public servants in the same light as the former ICE agent noted above would fail to take into account the significant contribution of the public servants currently providing valuable services to the American public.

For related information please see: USICE.

Tags: Department of Homeland Security, ICE, New York Paralegal Blog, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy in Bangkok, us embassy thailand, USCIS, USICE
Posted in USICE | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued instructions to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) to dispense with the hold on deportations of same sex spouses of United States Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents which was announced approximately 2 days ago. To quote directly from an article posted on the Advocate.com entitled Official: No Hold On Gay Immigration Cases:

Wednesday morning USCIS press secretary Christopher S. Bentley told The Advocate that the agency had received legal guidance to lift the hold it had issued Monday. The guidance was issued in the form of written communications from the Office of the General Counsel at Department of Homeland Security (USCIS is a component of DHS).

Those interested in reading more about this information are highly encouraged to click on the hyperlinks immediately preceding the quotation to learn more.

Clearly, officials at the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) were attempting to provide some relief to those in the LGBT community in the USA with their same sex bi-national partners who are stuck in the currently limbo-like immigration system, as it pertains to same sex marriages. The question this blogger has is: why all of this bureaucratic runaround? There is a clear venue for resolving this issue: the United States Supreme Court, but it would seem as though the administration would like solve this issue through internal bureaucratic rule making and unilateral executive actions, but this is not the way law is made and this is not the legal way of effecting change in situations such as the one currently facing the LGBT community. Even a Supreme Court decision on this issue is unlikely to be straightforward as there are many aspects of the Full Faith and Credit Clause which come up in the context of interstate recognition of same sex marriage. However, the decision of the Supreme Court, in this blogger’s opinion, on the issue of FEDERAL recognition of same sex marriages legalized and solemnized in the sovereign States is likely to produce an outcome whereby an avenue would be created to allow same sex bi-national couples to receive immigration benefits of the same quality as those granted to different sex bi-national couples.

The announcement from USCIS on Monday about placing a “hold” on deportations of same sex partners of US Citizens and Permanent Residents came as a relief to many in the United States who may only be subject to deportation due to the onerous (and possibly UnConstitutional) provisions of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) since some same sex bi-national couples have legalized and solemnized a valid same sex marriage in one of the 6 States (along with the District of Columbia) that allows same sex marriage. The only thing precluding Federal recognition of same sex marriages performed within the jurisdiction of the sovereign States which recognize such unions is the questionably Constitutional so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) which was promulgated and enacted under the Presidency of William Jefferson Clinton.

In a recent memorandum from the Attorney General (Eric Holder) to the Speaker of the House of Representatives it was noted that the President’s administration has taken the position that same sex married couples ought to be granted the benefit of so-called “strict scrutiny” review from the Supreme Court and that the administration would discontinue in prosecuting DOMA cases against LGBT couples. This blogger has noted that such a position may not be beneficial to the overall cause of equal immigration rights as failure to get a “case or controversy” before the United States Supreme Court could lead to a situation in which this complex legal issue is not adjudicated by the Highest Court in the USA and therefore remains in the “limbo” in which this issue currently continues to languish. The Department of Homeland Security’s announcement further shows that until the provisions of DOMA, which preclude Federal recognition of same sex marriage, are overturned the position of the married LGBT community (at least in the eyes of the law and the immigration authorities) will remain precarious.

One point in the above cited article was of particular interest to this blogger. The following passage was quoted from the aforementioned article:

Bentley declined to release any of the written documents at this time, saying it was privileged communication. He emphasized that the official policy itself within DHS had never changed.

What PRIVILEGE!!!! So now the United States government, in the form of the Department of Homeland Security, invokes privilege (a legal principle generally reserved for individual natural persons when dealing with the US government) to keep their own policy memorandum regarding this issue secret? Why the secrecy? Why all of the pomp and circumstance about how important the administration’s memo was to the LGBT community when in reality it would appear to have done nothing substantive for the cause of LGBT equal rights and might have even placed the LGBT community in a less favorable position compared to their position prior to the administration’s memo to the Speaker of the House? So the Department of Homeland Security is claiming privilege when communicating with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), an American agency under DHS jurisdiction. Does anyone find it strange that the United States government now claims that civilian inter-agency memos regarding official policy which pertains to Americans and their families are privileged? It was this blogger’s belief that the United States governmental authorities are servants of the people and therefore required to provide transparency in their policy making endeavors especially when such policy making can impact a wide spectrum of the United States Citizenry and their families.

Clearly, the struggle to secure equal immigration rights for the LGBT community has yet to be won, but for those interested in this issue it is clear that there may be a long campaign to see equal treatment of same sex bi-national couples under the law of the United States of America. This blogger and this blog will continue to monitor this important and interesting issue.

Another method to gain equal immigration rights for same sex bi-national couples is through passage of legislation such as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) which would grant same sex bi-national couples the benefit of applying for an immigrant visa for a “permanent partner” thereby circumventing the immigration restrictions imposed by DOMA. Federal legislators such as Representative Jerrold Nadler have introduced such legislation repeatedly in an effort to provide some kind of relief to those same sex bi-national couples who continue to be denied equal access to family immigration benefits. As of the time of this writing, Mr. Nadler has gone so far as to openly call for a repeal of DOMA and the promulgation of the Respect for Marriage Act a piece of legislation which would restore Federal recognition of State licensed marriage and restore, at least in part, the rights of same sex married couples who merely seek equal protection under the law.

For related information please see: same sex immigration.

Tags: Christopher S. Bentley, Defense of Marriage Act, Department of Homeland Security, DHS, DOMA, lgbt immigration, lgbt visa, Respect for Marriage Act, RFMA, Same Sex Immigration, Same Sex Marriage, same sex visa, The Advocate, uafa, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, Uniting American Families Act, USCIS
Posted in Editorial, News, Opinion, same sex visa | No Comments »

สิ่งที่เกิดขึ้นและเป็นที่น่าสนใจเมื่อเร็วๆนี้  หน่วยบริการคนเข้าเมืองและพลเมืองสัญชาติอเมริกัน (USCIS) อาจจะมีการเปลี่ยนแปลงในขั้นตอนต่างๆซึงเกี่ยวกับกระบวนการการยื่นคำขอเข้าเมืองที่เกี่ยวกับการขอวีซ่าประเภทซีอาร์-1 ไออาร์-1 วีซ่า เค-1 และวีซ่าเค-3 ซึ่งยื่นโดยพลเมืองอเมริกันและพลเมืองที่มีถิ่นฐานถาวร อ้างโดยตรงจากบันทึกของ USCIS ที่อ้างลงใน ILW.com:

บันทึกนี้ได้ให้คำแนะนำในเรื่องของศูนย์บริการ USCIS ในประเด็นของการเปลี่ยนแปลงในการจัดการของคำขอ I-130 และ คำขอ I-129F ที่ยื่นโดยผู้ยื่นคำขอที่เกี่ยวข้องกับ “ข้อหาเกี่ยวกับความผิดเล็กๆน้อยๆ” ภายใต้พระราชบัญญัติการความปลอดภัยและการปกป้องเด็กอดัม วอร์ช ปี 2006 (พระราชบัญญัติอดัม วอร์ช หรือ AWA) และเกี่ยวข้องกันกับประเด็นนี้ บันทึกนี้ปรับใช้กับคำขอที่เกี่ยวกับศูนย์บริการและไม่ใช่คำขอที่เกี่ยวข้องกับสำนักงานของ USCIS

โดยทั่วไปแล้ว คำขอ I-130 (ประเภทที่ใช้สำหรับการอ้างคำขอของวีซ่า CR-1 หรือวีซ่า IR-1)เป็นกระบวนการของ หน่วยบริการ USCIS ซึ่งเป็นกระบวนการเฉพาะและเป็นหลักฐานการชำระเงิน ในบางกรณี อาจจะเป็นไปได้ที่กระบวนการของ I-130ในสำนักงานต่างๆที่ตั้งอยู่ในต่างแดน เช่นสำนักงาน USCISในกรุงเทพฯ คำขอของ I-129f (เป็นประเภทหนึ่งของการยื่นคำขอวีซ่าคู่หมั้นสหรัฐ หรือวีซ่า K1)ซึ่งอยู่ในขั้นตอนการดำเนินงานของศูนย์บริการUSCISในสหรัฐอเมริกา เนื่องจากสำนักงานหลักไม่สามารถดำเนินการต่างๆได้ในขณะที่เขียนบทความนี้อยู่ อ้างเพิ่มเติมจากบันทึกข้อความที่กล่าวถึงก่อนหน้านี้

USCIS จะเป็นศูนย์กลางที่ VSC ในการเป็นศูนย์บริการ หากศูนย์บริการได้มีการตัดสินใจในเบื้องต้นว่ามีการประกันคำขอในฐานะที่เป็นเรื่องเกี่ยวกับ AWA ที่ VSCจะให้บริการการจัดการกับปัญหาต่างๆจากรัฐบาลกลาง รัฐ และตัวแทนท้องถิ่นอื่นๆในเรื่องที่เกี่ยวกับ AWA ดำเนินการอยู่ หรือเรื่องที่เกี่ยวกับหนึ่งในสี่ของศูนย์บริการ (ในที่นี้อ้างถึง “หน่วยบริการต้นกำเนิด” หรือ “หน่วยบริการที่ส่งไป”) ในนขณะที่เรื่องที่เกี่ยวกับAWA ต้องการที่จะจัดการแบบพิเศษ การตัดสินใจที่จะรวมอำนาจเกี่ยวกับ AWAที่ VSC จะกระทบต่อเรื่องที่อยู่ในศูนย์บริการอื่นเพียงเล็กน้อย

เป็นที่เห็นได้ชัดเจนว่า หน่วยบริการการเข้าเมืองและพลเมืองอเมริกัน (USCIS) ได้มีการเปลี่ยนแปลงนโยบายเพื่อที่จะเพิ่มประสิทธิภาพในการตรวจสอบตามพระราชบัญญัติอดัม วอร์ช (AWA) ในบทบาทของศูนย์บริการในเวอร์มอนท์ซึ่งเกี่ยวข้อง

กับ AWAในบทบาทของศูนย์บริการวีซ่าแห่งชาติในกระบวนการทั่วทั้งสหรัฐเนื่องจากตัวแทนมีภาระหน้าที่ในเรื่องเกี่ยวกับคำขอวีซ่าซึ่งมาจาก USCIS และผ่านกระบวนการของสถานทูตอเมริกา หรือกงสุลสหรัฐในต่างประเทศ แม้NVCอยู่ภายใต้อำนาจของกระทรวงของรัฐในขณะที่ศูนย์บริการเUSCISวอร์มอนท์(เหมือนกับศูนย์บริการ USCIS อื่นๆ) ภายใต้เขตขอำนาจของกระทรวงความมั่นคงแห่งมาตุภูมิ (DHS)และ USCIS

To view this posting in English please see: K-1 visa.

Tags: Adam Walsh Act, AWA, CR-1 Visa, Department of Homeland Security, DHS, I-129f, I-130, IR-1 Visa, K-1 Visa, K1 Visa, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, US Visa Burma, US Visa Cambodia, US Visa Laos, US Visa Malaysia, US Visa Myanmar, US Visa Thailand, USCIS, กระทรวงความมั่นคงเเห่ง, พระราชบัญญัติอดัม วอร์ช, วีซ่า ซี อาร์วัีน, วีซ่า เคทรี, วีซ่า ไอ อาร์ วัน, วีซ่าคู่หมั้นสหรัฐ, วีซ่าสหรัฐในไทย, วีซ่าอเมริกาในไทย, วีซ่าเค วัน, ศูนย์บริการวีซ่าเเห่งชาติ, หน่วยบริการวีซ่า
Posted in สถานทูตสหรัฐอเมริกาประจำประเทศไทย | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that it would appear as though the Department of Homeland Security‘s United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) is placing certain deportations on hold if such a proceeding pertains to the same sex spouse of a United States Citizen or Lawful Permanent Resident. To quote directly from the website dailynews-update.net:

The U.S. Citizen and Immigration Service confirmed Monday that it has temporarily put some deportations of partners in same-sex marriages on hold if they could be affected by the recent Department of Justice decision to no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act.

Chris Bentley, Press Secretary for the USCIS said in a statement: “USCIS has issued guidance to the field asking that related cases be held in abeyance while awaiting final guidance related to distinct legal issues.”

The administration of this blog highly recommends that readers click on the above links to view this story in its entirety.

There are many “distinct legal issues” at play when it comes to the issue of same sex marriage and governmental recognition thereof. Those who read this web log with any frequency may have noticed that this blogger has dedicated a great deal of time to commenting and following this issue as it is truly a struggle for both the civil rights of American Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents as well as a struggle for Federal recognition of sovereign State prerogatives on the issue of marriage.

Throughout the struggle for equal marriage rights for the LGBT community there have been many legislators who have supported the cause of same sex bi-national couples. Most notably, Representative Jerrold Nadler has repeatedly introduced legislation such as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) in an effort to make headway in securing immigration benefits for same sex bi-national couples in the same manner accorded to their different-sex counterparts. Meanwhile, as noted on this blog, groups such as Immigration Equality and their Immigration Equality Action Fund Blog have recently announced a position regarding DHS issuance of Green Cards for foreign same sex partners of American Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents. Announcements such as these are important because they illuminate the extent to which the political and immigration systems are evolving in an effort to deal with this issue. Clearly, the LGBT equal rights movement has an organic base committed to seeing real change in the immigration system.

It was recently noted on this blog that the Obama administration’s Attorney General Eric Holder issued a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives noting that the administration no longer felt that pursuing so-called “Defense of Marriage Act“  (DOMA) cases was Constitutional. There are some who would argue that this action is contrary to the administration’s duty pursuant to United States law. Some members of Congress, as well as apparent presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich, have even made noises about impeachment regarding this issue. As of the time of this writing, such an action has not taken place.

This blogger personally disagrees with the American administration’s decision not to pursue DOMA cases because doing so could preclude Supreme Court adjudication due to lack of a “case or controversy” before that body. This blogger would also argue that the Supreme Court is the best adjudicator of this issue as there are many ramifications of same sex marriage recognition pursuant to the provisions of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.

How the whole issue of same sex marriage, and American government recognition thereof; will ultimately be decided remains to be seen, but for advocates of equal LGBT immigration rights this recent USCIS decision is definitely a positive one.

For related information please see: LGBT visa.

Tags: Chris Bentley, Defense of Marriage Act, Department of Homeland Security, deportation, DOMA, expedited removal, Full Faith and Credit Clause, Immigration Equality Action Fund Blog, Jerrold Nadler, LGBT marriage, lgbt visa, removal, Same Sex Bi-National Couples, Same Sex Marriage, uafa, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, Uniting American Families Act
Posted in same sex visa | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the Department of Homeland Security has issued a final rule regarding the implementation of the REAL ID Act of 2005. To quote directly from the official website of the Department of Homeland Security:

The Department of Homeland Security has issued a final rule to establish minimum standards for state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards in accordance with the REAL ID Act of 2005.

These regulations set standards for states to meet the requirements of the REAL ID Act, including:

• information and security features that must be incorporated into each card;
• proof of identity and lawful status of an applicant;
• verification of the source documents provided by an applicant; and
• security standards for the offices that issue licenses and identification cards.

This final rule also provides a process for states to seek an additional extension of the compliance deadline to May 11, 2011, by demonstrating material compliance with the core requirements of the Act and this rule.

For those who are unfamiliar with the REAL ID Act, this piece of legislation greatly altered the dynamics of identity documentation in the United States. As usual, Wikipedia concisely describes some of the implications of the REAL ID Act in the context of State driving licenses, to quote directly from Wikipedia:

After 2011, “a Federal agency may not accept, for any official purpose, a driver’s license or identification card issued by a state to any person unless the state is meeting the requirements” specified in the REAL ID Act. States remain free to also issue non-complying licenses and IDs, so long as these have a unique design and a clear statement that they cannot be accepted for any Federal identification purpose. The federal Transportation Security Administration is responsible for security check-in at airports, so bearers of non-compliant documents would no longer be able to travel on common carrier aircraft without additional screening unless they had an alternative government-issued photo ID.^[16]

Clearly, advocates of a limited Federal government may take some exception with some of the notions outlined above. There are some who have voiced concerns regarding the Federal government’s role in the context of the REAL ID Act as advocates in favor of civil liberties and privacy rights have mentioned some of the more eerie implications of the REAL ID Act. States Rights proponents and Constitutional scholars have also raised interesting issues in discussions regarding the REAL ID Act. Some even speculate as to the scope of an agency such as DHS when examining programs such as the implementation of the REAL ID Act in conjunction with technology such as the Iris scanners and DNA screeners previously mentioned on this blog. Notwithstanding controversy, the REAL ID Act and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) seem to be increasingly ubiquitous issues in the dual pantheons of both the so-called “Alternative Media” as well as the “Mainstream Media“.

As the role of the DHS and the TSA becomes more defined it seems likely that new and interesting legal, social, and political issues will will arise as a result.

Tags: Civil Libertarians, Department of Homeland Security, DNA Screener, Iris Scanner, privacy rights, REAL ID Act, REAL ID Act of 2005, States' Rights, Transportation Safety Administration, Transportation Security Administration, TSA, US Constitution
Posted in Department of Homeland Security, Editorial, News, Opinion, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention through the Huffington Post website that a legislator in the sovereign State of New Hampshire has introduced a bill that could criminalize certain activities of the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA). To quote directly from the story posted on the Huffington Post official website:

A Republican state representative from New Hampshire named George Lambert has co-sponsored a bill that would make it a felony to touch or view someone’s private parts without probable cause.

Lambert was interviewed by MSNBC on Wednesday to discuss the bill, which would apply to TSA pat downs, as well as the agency’s x-ray scanners. The bill would essentially make it a sexual assault to conduct an invasive pat down or look at images of a traveler on one of the TSA’s new high-tech scanners.

Clearly, the TSA’s current policies on so-called “pat downs” (which many argue are unduly invasive and violate Constitutional protections prohibiting unreasonable search and seizure) and scanning are under fire from many different circles. However, the question must be posed: is New Hampshire Constitutionally permitted to enforce criminal sanctions against TSA officers? TSA officers operate under the jurisdiction of the United States Federal government’s Department of Homeland Security. Most currently binding American jurisprudence has found against the notion that State’s may enforce State law against Federal agents or institutions. The most notable case in this vein is probably McCulloch v. Maryland. In the language of the McCulloch decision, the Court found that the State of Maryland did not have the right to levy a tax upon the Bank of the United States. This decision set the stage for the, now rather sophisticated, premise that the States’ power to enforce State law is curtailed when attempting to enforce that law against the Federal government. Through later cases, this notion was expanded upon. This blogger recently found an interesting article on this topic entitled: What Kind of Immunity? Federal Officers, State Criminal Law, and the Supremacy Clause. This article delves deeply into the issues associated with Federal preemption of State prerogatives in matters pertaining to Federal operations and Federal agents and this blogger highly recommends those interested in this issue click on the link above to read this article.

It would appear from the plain language of the McCulloch decision that the States’ ability to enforce actions against the Federal government are not restricted completely. To quote directly from page 2219 of the What Kind of Immunity? article noted above, the article’s authors, Seth P. Waxman and Trevor W. Morrison, cited a section of the McCulloch decision which is noteworthy:

[N]o principle [of state power] . . . can be admissible, which would defeat the legitimate operations of a supreme government. It is of the very essence of supremacy, to remove all obstacles to its action within its own sphere, and so to modify every power vested insubordinate governments, as to exempt its own operations from their own influence.

At first blush, the above citation may appear to fully favor the Federal authorities on the issue of whether the sovereign State of New Hampshire has the authority to enforce criminal penalties against TSA officers, but one phrase is critical to an analysis of New Hampshire’s proposed legislation and that phrase is “legitimate operations“. In the McCulloch case, the Bank of the United States was deemed to be a legitimate operation of the Federal government notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution did not expressly permit such an institution because the Court reasoned that the Federal government, through the Necessary and Proper Clause, could establish a bank so as to facilitate the express Federal powers granted under the Taxing and Spending Clause. In short: the Federal government’s ability to tax and spend is considered a “legitimate operation” of the Federal government and if a bank facilitates that operation, then it is operating lawfully.

This analysis begs the question: Is groping Americans’ genitalia (also referred to as “enhanced pat downs”) and capturing nude body scanner images a “legitimate operation” of the Federal government? If not, then the State may have a right to enforce State criminal law against those who engage in such activity. That said, this issue is far from resolved and the State of New Hampshire has yet to actually promulgate this legislation, but clearly the issues noted above make for interesting jurisprudence.

For related information please see: US States.

Tags: Department of Homeland Security, DHS, Enhanced Pat Downs, Federalism, George Lambert, McCulloch v. Maryland, New Hampshire, Preemption, Seth P. Waxman, Sovereign State of New Hampshire, State Representative George Lambert, States' Rights, Supremacy Clause, Transportation Safety Administration, Trevor W. Morrison, TSA, TSA Body Scanners, TSA Genital Groping, TSA Groping, US Constituion
Posted in Department of Homeland Security, States' Rights, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), US Constitution | No Comments »