Thailand Call: 02-266 3698
USA Call: 1-(316)-974-0454
Integrity Legal
- Legal Blog
- Integrity Legal Home
- Thai Visa
- Company in Thailand
- Real Estate Thailand
- US Visa
- Contact Us
Posts Tagged ‘DHS’
3rd March 2011
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.
9th January 2011
Those who keep up with the news in the United States of America may have seen recent news reports regarding the recent shooting of a United States Representative and Federal District Court Judge. To quote directly from the website Indianexpress.com:
Representative Gabrielle Giffords, an Arizona Democrat, and 18 others were shot Saturday morning when a gunman opened fire outside a supermarket where Giffords was meeting with constituents.
Six of the victims died, among them John M Roll, the chief judge for the United States District Court for Arizona, and a nine-year-old girl…
It seems as if the shootings were motivated by the suspected gunman’s opposition to the political and legal positions held by some of the victims with respect to United States Immigration policy. To quote Indianexpress.com further:
The shootings raised questions about potential political motives, with Pima County Sheriff Clarence W Dupnik blaming “the toxic political environment in Arizona”.
Giffords, who represents the Eighth District in Arizona, has been an outspoken critic of the state’s tough immigration law, which is focused on identifying, prosecuting and deporting illegal immigrants, and she had come under criticism for her vote in favour of the health care law. Friends said she had received threats over the years.
Generally, immigration issues are considered somewhat mundane by those who are interested in American policy, but the American immigration debate has grown increasingly intense since the State of Arizona recently passed controversial legislation aimed at stemming the inflow of illegal and/or undocumented immigrants entering the State of Arizona by way of the international border between the United States of America and its southern neighbor Mexico. To quote directly from an article in the New York Times from April 2010:
Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed the nation’s toughest bill on illegal immigration into law on Friday. Its aim is to identify, prosecute and deport illegal immigrants. The move unleashed immediate protests and reignited the divisive battle over immigration reform nationally. Even before she signed the bill at an afternoon news conference here, President Obama strongly criticized it.
It is interesting to note that American Presidents rarely ever even comment upon legislation passed at the State level as State legislation is often viewed as being within the exclusive bailiwick of State authorities. However, there are strong arguments that Arizona’s passage of the aforementioned legislation represents an infringement upon the Federal government’s right to set and maintain United States Immigration policy. The New York Times’ article went on to note further:
The Arizona law, he added, threatened “to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.”
The law, which proponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Opponents have called it an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status.
The Arizona law represents an interesting controversy from a legal perspective as fundamental Constitutional issues such as Separation of Powers and Federalism are directly impacted by the enactment and subsequent enforcement of this law. The tragic aspect of this situation is that the immigration issue is one which could, and arguably should, be solved through the legislative process and reasoned debate. The fact that American immigration policy may be at the source of the recent shootings is tragic due to the loss of life. Also, it is likely that this shooting will exacerbate an already heated debate on the issue of Comprehensive Immigration Reform and the enforcement of US Immigration law in general.
For related information on American immigration please see: I-601 waiver or Department of Homeland Security.
11th December 2010
Man Loses United States Citizenship and Sentenced for Marriage Fraud
Posted by : admin
The issue of immigration fraud is a serious one. Authorities of the United States government within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of State (DOS), the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), the United States Customs and Border Protection Service (USCBP), and the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service (USICE) are all tasked with the responsibility of screening and investigating matters pertaining to visa and immigration fraud. It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service, colloquially referred to as ICE, apprehended a Nigerian man in connection with US visa fraud. To quote directly from the ICE.gov website:
HOUSTON – A Nigerian man on Monday was stripped of his U.S. citizenship at his sentencing hearing for conspiracy to commit marriage fraud, marriage fraud, naturalization fraud, and making a false statement to a federal agency. The sentence was announced by U.S. Attorney José Angel Moreno, southern District of Texas. The investigation was conducted by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Office of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). Ibraheem Adeneye, 33, who is originally from Nigeria and became a naturalized U.S. citizen, was convicted of the charges May 7 by a jury. He has been in federal custody on these charges for about six months. U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt sentenced Adeneye to the time he has already served in prison. The judge also granted the government’s motion to strip Adeneye of his U.S. citizenship. Adeneye is now subject to deportation.
Denaturalization is the process by which a person is stripped of United States Citizenship and returned to foreign national status. Regarding the issue of sham marriage and the United States Immigration process, the report went on to note:
The ICE HSI investigation was initiated in 2008. Adeneye indicated that he was engaged in brokering sham marriages between Nigerian nationals and U.S. citizens so that the Nigerians could obtain immigration benefits, ultimately leading to U.S. citizenship. In return, the U.S. citizen “spouses” received cash payments to assist the Nigerians in the deception.
Incorporating a sham marriage into an effort to obtain United States visa benefits is a serious crime as can be seen from the above cited report. Those thinking of filing for American Immigration benefits should note that it is NEVER a wise course of action to lie to immigration authorities or attempt to deceive the United States government or its officers. Even if one becomes a United States Citizen, then previous fraudulent activity during the visa process could result in possible de-naturalization and criminal charges.
It should further be noted that those seeking American visa benefits should consult a licensed attorney in an effort to gain insight into the immigration process as only an American attorney licensed and in good standing in at least one US state is entitled to provide advice, counsel, and/or possible representation before the United States Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State.
For related information please see: K1 visa Thailand or K1 Visa Singapore.
30th October 2010
In recent weeks, some websites have been abuzz with information pertaining to a recent memorandum from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) which discussed Social Media platforms and their relevance in the context of United States Immigration. To quote sections of the memo directly, as posted on the EFF.org (Electronic Frontier Foundation) website:
The Internet has made it increasingly easier for people to get connected with each other whether that is with long-distance family, fiiends [sic], or to find new loves and friendships. Social networking sites such as MySpace, Facebook, Classmates, Hi-5, and other similar sites are designed to allow people to share their creativity, pictures, and information with others. Sometimes people do this to find romance, sometimes they do it to find fiiends [sic] with similar interests, and sometimes they do it to keep in touch with family…This provides an excellent vantage point for FDNS to observe the daily life of beneficiaries and petitioners who are suspected of fraudulent activities. Generally, people on these sites speak honestly in their network because all of their friends and family are interacting with them via lM’s (Instant Messages), Blogs (Weblog journals), etc. This social networking gives FDNS an opportunity to reveal fraud by browsing these sites to see if petitioners and beneficiaries are in a valid relationship or are attempting to deceive CIS about their relationship.
Visa and Immigration Fraud are fundamental concerns of the Department of Homeland Security, the USCIS, and Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS). Therefore, investigation into the bona fides of a relationship that is the basis for submission of a visa petition can be rather routine in circumstances where a United States Citizen or Lawful Permanent Resident has submitted a petition for immigration benefits on behalf of a foreign loved one. That said, the implications of USCIS’s monitoring social media sites can be somewhat unnerving for many as evidenced by a recent quote from a blog post on the ImmigrationEquality.org website:
While we would never encourage anyone to engage in immigration fraud, it is disturbing to think of government officials “friending” unknowing immigrants to use the information in their personal posts against them. In these times of technology speeding forward, it’s important to remember that when you post anything on a public site you have to anticipate that it could be used against you.
Immigration fraud is a serious issue as the integrity of United States immigration law must be upheld both by those seeking immigration benefits and those adjudicating immigration petitions. New technologies offer new ways to stay connected to friends, family, and loved ones in a global context. However, comments made on social media sites which may seem innocuous or humorous to an online poster at the time of a comment’s posting could be taken out of context by immigration adjudicators who are not personally acquainted with the person or persons making such comments. At the end of the day, the main themes that may be gleaned from the recent revelation of this memo: DO NOT EVER attempt to defraud the U.S. government in an attempt to obtain immigration benefits and even those seeking immigration benefits for bona fide reasons should be cognizant of the fact that information posted on social media websites could, at some point, be heavily scrutinized by immigration officers and/or adjudicators.
For related information please see: US Visa Processing Time or I-601 waiver.
27th October 2010
Information Regarding Newly Updated Naturalization Certificate
Posted by : admin
It recently came to this author’s attention that the Department of Homeland Security’s United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) has promulgated a new Naturalization Certificate. The new document has enhanced security features and is updated in order to comport with current law. To quote directly from a recent press release distributed by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA):
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced it has begun issuing a redesigned, more secure Certificate of Naturalization (Form N-550) as part of its ongoing efforts to enhance the integrity of the immigration system. The agency anticipates that over 600,000 new citizens will receive the enhanced certificate over the next year.
It really can seem rather astounding that the United States grants citizenship to so many people each year as there are many countries throughout the world that do not take in immigrants at nearly the rate of the United States. Furthermore, of the countries that admit immigrants it would seem that the United States is more eager to grant citizenship to those who have obeyed the immigration laws and sought naturalization through the proper channels.
The aforementioned press release went on to note some frequently asked questions posed by those interested in the U.S. Naturalization process:
Q1. What is a Certificate of Naturalization (Form N-550)?
A1. The Certificate of Naturalization serves as evidence of your citizenship. You receive it after taking the Oath of Allegiance to the United States. Citizenship qualifies you to vote and travel with a U.S. passport, among other rights. In many instances, a Certificate of Naturalization is accepted as a valid form of identification.
Q2. Why did USCIS redesign the naturalization certificate?
A2. The previous Certificates of Naturalization featured hard-copy photos of the candidates. The redesigned certificate features the naturalization candidate’s digitized photo and signature embedded into the base document. Eliminating the requirement to affix the hard-copy photo and hand-stamp the USCIS director’s signature cuts cost in man-hours and improves security.
Q3. What’s different about the new certificates?
A3. The naturalization candidate’s digitized photo and signature are embedded in the security-enhanced certificate. Its background features a color-shifting ink pattern that is difficult to recreate. Additionally, USCIS will use a more secure printing process, making it more tamper-proof.
Q4. When will USCIS issue the security-enhanced naturalization certificates?
A4. USCIS will begin using redesigned certificates at all offices beginning today. USCIS offices in Atlanta, Denver and Baltimore will begin to utilize the automated production process this week, including digitizing photos and signatures on all certificates. USCIS will deploy the automated production system agency-wide by the end of the calendar year.
Q5. Following the agency-wide transition to the new document, will all new citizens receive redesigned naturalization certificates with digitized photos?
A5. While all new citizens will receive the redesigned, security-enhanced certificate, certain, limited categories of naturalization candidates, including overseas military and homebound candidates, will receive documents with hard-copy photos affixed to their certificates.
Q6. I’ve already obtained a Certificate of Naturalization. Will I have to apply for the redesigned security-enhanced version?
A6. No. All previously issued Certificates of Naturalization will remain valid.Q7. How does the issuance of the redesigned naturalization certificate impact applicants?
A7. The issuance of the redesigned Certificate of Naturalization will not impact Application for Naturalization (N-400) processing times. USCIS Application Support Centers (ASCs) will still require applicants to submit their fingerprints and two hard-copy photos. The ASCs will also capture a digital photograph and digital signature for each N-400 applicant.
Q8. If ASCs will capture digital photos of N-400 applicants, why must applicants still provide hard-copy photos?
A8. The hard-copy photos will be required as a back-up in case of unforeseen issues, allowing them to continue their naturalization process without delay.
Q9. Will USCIS update any of its other certificates?
A9. Yes. USCIS intends to digitize its other citizenship-related certificates, but no completion dates have been set.
Q10. Will the wording of the naturalization certificate change?
A10. Yes. USCIS has revised the wording to better reflect the current provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. In particular, obsolete language stating that the candidate resides in the United States and “intends to reside in the United States when so required by the Naturalization laws of the United States” has been removed. These changes affect the form of the certificate only and do not alter any legal requirements for naturalization or USCIS application processing.
This author found it interesting to note that the FAQ’s quoted above mentioned that other citizenship documentation may be updated soon. It remains to be seen whether or not the Certificate of Citizenship, which signifies US Citizenship, but for those who are Citizens not by naturalization, but through either some extraneous set of circumstances of by operation of law; will be enhanced to safeguard against fraud. Certificates of Citizenship are likely to be more common in the future particularly since the promulgation of the Child Citizenship Act, but it remains to be seen how the Certificate of Citizenship might be upgraded.
Naturalization to United States Citizenship is a serious undertaking and those interested in becoming United States Citizens should research the process thoroughly in an effort to understand the requirements and ramifications of United States Citizenship. Hopefully, this new Naturalization Certificate will result in increased security in the form of more tamper resistant documentation.
Fore related information please see: USCIS processing time, Child Citizenship Act, or Legal.
6th October 2010
The Diversity Visa Lottery Program in 2010
Posted by : admin
Those familiar with this blog may note that the Diversity Visa Lottery is on the horizon. This is a no-cost application and our firm currently does not take clients for Diversity Visas. That said, there are many around the world who are eligible to submit an application to be entered in the Diversity Visa Lottery. The following is language from the Federal Register quoted directly from a posting on the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) website:
[Federal Register: October 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 190)]
[Notices]
[Page 60846-60854]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01oc10-116]
—————————————
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
[Public Notice: 7184]
Bureau of Consular Affairs; Registration for the Diversity Immigrant (DV-2012) Visa Program
AGENCY: Department of State.
ACTION: Notice.
—————————————
SUMMARY: This public notice provides information on how to apply for the DV-2012 Program. This notice is issued pursuant to 22 CFR 42.33(b)(3) which implements sections 201(a)(3), 201(e), 203(c) and 204(a)(1)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, (8 U.S.C. 1151, 1153, and 1154(a)(1)(I)).
Instructions for the 2012 Diversity Immigrant Visa Program (DV-2012)
The congressionally mandated Diversity Immigrant Visa Program is administered on an annual basis by the Department of State and conducted under the terms of Section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Section 131 of the Immigration Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-649) amended INA 203 and provides for a class of immigrants known as “diversity immigrants.” Section 203(c) of the INA provides a maximum of 55,000 Diversity Visas (DV) each fiscal year to be made available to persons from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States.
The annual DV program makes permanent residence visas available to persons meeting the simple, but strict, eligibility requirements. A computer-generated random lottery drawing chooses selectees for Diversity Visas. The visas are distributed among six geographic regions with a greater number of visas going to regions with lower rates of immigration, and with no visas going to nationals of countries sending more than 50,000 immigrants to the United States over the period of the past five years. Within each region, no single country may receive more than seven percent of the available Diversity Visas in any one year.
For DV-2012, natives of the following countries are not eligible to apply because the countries sent a total of
[[Page 60847]]
more than 50,000 immigrants to the United States in the previous five years:
BRAZIL, CANADA, CHINA (mainland-born), COLOMBIA, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, ECUADOR, EL SALVADOR, GUATEMALA, HAITI, INDIA, JAMAICA, MEXICO, PAKISTAN, PERU, the PHILIPPINES, POLAND, SOUTH KOREA, UNITED KINGDOM (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and VIETNAM.
Persons born in Hong Kong SAR, Macau SAR and Taiwan are eligible. For DV-2012, no countries have been added or removed from the previous year’s list of eligible countries.
The Department of State implemented the electronic registration system beginning with DV-2005 in order to make the Diversity Visa process more efficient and secure. The Department utilizes special technology and other means to identify those who commit fraud for the purposes of illegal immigration or who submit multiple entries.
Diversity Visa Registration Period
Entries for the DV-2012 Diversity Visa Lottery must be submitted electronically between noon, Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) (GMT-4), Tuesday, October 5, 2010, and noon, Eastern Standard Time (EST) (GMT-5) Wednesday, November 3, 2010. Applicants may access the electronic Diversity Visa Entry Form (E-DV) at http://www.dvlottery.state.gov during the registration period. Paper entries will not be accepted. Applicants are strongly encouraged not to wait until the last week of the registration period to enter. Heavy demand may result in Web site delays. No entries will be accepted after noon, EST, on November 3, 2010.
Requirements for Entry
To enter the DV lottery, you must be a native of one of the listed countries. See “List of Countries by Region Whose Natives Qualify.” In most cases this means the country in which you were born. However, there are two other ways you may be able to qualify. First, if you were born in a country whose natives are ineligible but your spouse was born in a country whose natives are eligible; you can claim your spouse’s country of birth, provided both you and your spouse are on the selected entry, are issued visas, and enter the United States simultaneously. Second, if you were born in a country whose natives are ineligible, but neither of your parents was born there or resided there at the time of your birth, you may claim nativity in one of your parents’ country of birth, if it is a country whose natives qualify for the DV-2012 program.
To enter the lottery, you must meet either the education or work experience requirement of the DV program. You must have either a high school education or its equivalent, defined as successful completion of a 12-year course of elementary and secondary education; OR, two years of work experience within the past five years in an occupation requiring at least two years of training or experience to perform. The U.S. Department of Labor’s O*Net OnLine database will be used to determine qualifying work experience. For more information about qualifying work experience, see Frequently Asked Question 13. If you cannot meet either of these requirements, you should NOT submit an entry to the DV program. [AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 10100163 (posted Oct. 1, 2010)]
Those wishing to apply for a Diversity Visa should first ascertain if they are eligible. After determining eligibility an application must be submitted. Should an entrant be chosen to receive the visa, then Consular Processing will still be required. Therefore, applicants for a US diversity visa may still be required to submit themselves for interview at a US Embassy or US Consulate outside of the United States. Some find that attorney assistance is beneficial during the Consular Processing phase of this type of application while others choose to file pro se.
It should be noted that the Visa Lottery does not require payment of any fees initially (although winners may need to pay Consular Processing fees and travel expenses). Therefore, those wishing to obtain this type of travel document should view anyone seeking an “application fee” with caution. Finally, as always, before retaining anyone to assist with any type of visa application it may be prudent to check the credentials of the individual to be retained in an effort to determine if he or she is a licensed American attorney who is able to practice US Immigration law.
For related information please see: US Visa Thailand.
23rd September 2010
การตัดสินใจว่าจ้างบริษัทกฎหมายคนเข้าเมืองอเมริกัน
Posted by : admin
ผู้เขียนพบปัญหามากมายจากการที่คนเข้าเมืองติดต่อกับตัวแทนหรือผู้เชี่ยวชาญด้านการบริการคนเข้าเมืองสหรัฐอเริกาที่ไม่ได้รับอนุญาต กฎหมายอเมริกันและกฎเกณฑ์ของรัฐบาลกลางนั้นระบุชัดเจนว่า ผู้ที่จะได้รับอนุญาตในการให้บริการทางกฎหมายก่อนที่จะมาถึงขั้นตอนของการบริการพลเมืองอเมริกันและการเข้าเมือง (USCIS) หรือตัวแทนอื่นที่อยู่ภายใต้การควบคุมของกระทรวงความมั่นคงแห่งมาตุภูมิ (DHS) ผู้ที่จะให้คำปรึกษาเกี่ยวกับการเข้าเมืองสหรัฐอเมริกาคือ ทนายความที่ได้รับอนุญาตจากสหรัฐอเมริกาเท่านั้น นอกจากนี้ทนายความเหล่านั้นที่จะมีสิทธิเก็บค่าธรรมเนียมในฐานะเป็นตัวแทนของลูกความก่อนที่จะถึงขั้นตอนของDHS เช่น USCISต้องเป็นทนายความที่ได้รับอนุญาตจากศาลสูงสุดของที่ใดที่หนึ่งคือ สหรัฐอเมริกา สหพันธรัฐ หรือเขตชายแดน
เป็นที่น่าเสียดายที่มีองค์กรที่ไม่ได้รับอนุญาตอยู่ทั่วโลกที่อ้างว่าสามารถให้คำแนะนำและให้ความช่วยเหลือในเรื่องการเข้าเมืองของอเมริกัน อินเตอร์เน็ตเป็นเครื่องมือที่ดียิ่งที่จะค้นหาข้อมูลการเข้าเมืองสหรัฐอเมริกา ในขณะเดียวกันอินเตอร์เน็ตก็เป็นแหล่งของปฏิบัติการที่มีการอ้างว่า เป็นผู้เชี่ยวชาญทางกฎหมายโดยปราศจากการอบรมหรือใบอนุญาตใดๆ คุณควรที่จะหลีกเลี่ยงการให้ข้อมูลและสิทธิส่วนบุคคลเนื่องจากคุณอาจจะไม่ได้รับการคุ้มครองทางกฎหมายระหว่างทนายความอเมริกันและลูกความ
ผู้ที่ไม่ได้รับการฝึกอบรมทางกฎหมายหรือไม่มีใบอนุญาตใดๆที่จะให้บริการทางกฎหมายในเขตที่ให้อำนาจหรือในเรื่องที่เกี่ยวข้องไม่สามารถให้คำปรึกษาได้อย่างมีประสิทธิภาพหรือให้ความมั่นใจในการช่วยเหลือ เรื่องนี้เป็นเรื่องที่สำคัญในการเตรียมข้อมูลก่อนที่จะนำไปสู่ขั้นตอนของการบริการคนเข้าเมือง ตัวแทน สถานทูตสหรัฐอเมริกา หรือสถานกงสุลสหรัฐอเมริกาในต่างประเทศ ตามที่ได้กล่าวไปข้างต้นแล้วนั้น ลูกความที่ใช้บริการทางกฎหมายที่ไม่ได้รับอนุญาตโดยที่ผู้ให้บริการเห็นแก่ประโยชน์ส่วนตนมากกว่านั้นย่อมตกอยู่ในความเสี่ยง
เมื่อเปรียบเทียบราคาของการบริการทางกฎหมายนั้นเป็นเรื่องสำคัญที่จะต้องทำความเข้าใจกับบทบาทของการได้รับอนุญาตในขณะที่ตัดสินใจจะรับคำปรึกษา การให้บริการทางกฎหมายที่ได้รับอนุญาตด้วยราคาที่สมเหตุสมผลที่ได้รับอนุญาตนั้นย่อมไม่ก่อให้เกิดปัญหาแก่ลูกความ โดยทั่วไปแล้ว ผู้ที่อ้างว่ามีความเชี่ยวชาญจะดำเนินการเพื่อความมั่งคั่งของธุรกิจ เมื่อเปรียบเทียบกับการให้บริการทางกฎหมายของทนายความอเมริกันแล้ว กฎหมายอเมริกันนั้นไม่ให้ผู้ที่ไม่ได้รับอนุญาตให้คำปรึกษาเกี่ยวกับการเข้าเมือง กล่าวโดยย่อแล้ว ไม่มีใครที่จะสามารถเปรียบเทียบการให้บริการทางกฎหมายที่ผิดกฎหมาย เพราะการให้บริการที่ผิดกฎหมายนั้นไม่สามารถจะให้บริการได้เลย แม้จะด้วยราคาเท่าใดก็ตาม
หากท่านต้องการข้อมูลเพิ่มเติม กรุณาปรึกษาK1 วีซ่า ข้อมูลเพิ่มเติมเกี่ยวกับ การเข้าเมืองของสหรัฐอเมริกาในภูมิภาคเอเชียตะวันออกเฉียงใต้ โปรดดูรายละเอียดที่ USCIS
24th August 2010
Those familiar with this blog may recall that new measures have been implemented that can have an effect upon those traveling to the United States on the Visa Waiver Program. The Department of State (DOS) recently released a cable which outlines soon-to-be implemented changes to the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA). The following is quoted directly from the Department of State Cable as distributed by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA):
Summary: This cable provides additional information on implementation of the Travel Promotion Act of 2009 (TPA) and fee collection for the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA), requests posts to engage in outreach, and provides talking points. End summary.
3. As previously reported (Ref a), President Obama signed the TPA into law on March 4, 2010. The TPA will create a partnership between the U.S. government and the private sector to market the United States as a travel destination for international visitors. Fees collected from international travelers from Visa Waiver Program (VWP) countries, matched by private sector contributions, will fund the Corporation for Travel Promotion. The fees will be collected through the ESTA system, which the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) administers.
4. On August 6, 2010, DHS announced an interim final rule that amends DHS regulations to require travelers from VWP countries to pay operational and travel promotion fees when applying for ESTA beginning September 8, 2010. The total fee will be $14.00, with $4.00 to recover the cost of administering the ESTA system and $10.00 as mandated in the TPA.
5. The Department is working with DHS and the Department of Commerce to notify foreign and domestic media, the travel industry, and other stakeholders about this change. The Department requests that consular officers in VWP countries, in coordination with DHS and Commerce representatives, meet with host government officials, and airline, tourism, and other stakeholders to inform them of the new fee provisions connected to ESTA. Please contact the ESTA Program Management Office [redacted] for outreach materials or requests for ESTA representatives to travel in-country. They will do their best to accommodate. This cable is being sent as an ALDAC to facilitate all posts answering questions from citizens of VWP countries and the general public.
6. The Department supports the TPA goal of attracting international visitors to the United States. Our greatest diplomatic tool for sharing American values is America itself, and we recognize the critical importance of travel and tourism to our economy and job creation. The Department looks forward to working with the Corporation for Travel Promotion to ensure that prospective visitors to the United States receive comprehensive, up-to-date information on travel documents and requirements for entry.
The Travel Promotion Act mentioned above will likely have significant consequences for those foreign nationals traveling to the United States pursuant to the conditions of the visa waiver program. Therefore, those originating in a country that has visa-free travel privileges to the USA may be wise to research both the US Visa Waiver Program and the ESTA program. Fortunately, the aforementioned cable also included a Frequently Asked Questions Section. The following FAQ’s were quoted from the previously mentioned DOS cable distributed by AILA:
Q. What is the new fee charged to travelers?
A. It is $14.00. Since the implementation of ESTA, DHS has had discretion to charge a fee to cover administrative costs. DHA determined that cost to be $4.00 per registration. The TPA fee adds an additional $10.00.
Q. When will the fee go into effect?
A. ESTA registrations on or after September 8, 2010, will be subject to the fee.
Q. How do travelers pay the fee?
A. At this time, payment is required through the following credit cards: Mastercard, Visa, American Express, and Discover. Payments can also be made with a debit card that holds the Visa or Mastercard symbol. Please check with your bank on the compatibility of your debit card. We are continuing to explore other payment measures. The ESTA registration form already in use will walk users through the payment process.
Q. What types of privacy protection exist on the website?
A. “Pay.gov” uses advanced encryption to protect transactions while applicants are logged in. When accessing a profile, any account numbers entered will be masked on-screen.
Q. How long are ESTA approvals valid?
A. Each approved ESTA application will be valid for a period of two years unless the traveler’s passport expires sooner. It allows for multiple visits to the United States within that application.
Q. If I have a valid ESTA, will I have to re-register when the new fees go into effect?
A. No, existing ESTA registrations remain valid for travel through their expiration date.
Q. Is ESTA approval like a visa?
A. An ESTA approval is not a visa under U.S. law, nor does it confer the same benefits as a visa.
Q. Will this attract more international visitors to the United States?
A. Oxford Economics, a leading economic forecasting consultancy, estimates that the TPA program will generate $4 billion in new visitor spending, and lead to the creation of 40,000 new jobs.
Q. Why do VWP countries have to fund this travel promotion program through ESTA fees?
A. Some countries fund tourism promotion through airline or hotel taxes. The Travel Promotion Act legislation specified that the U.S. government fund this program through a $10 fee added to ESTA registration.
8. The following are Visa Waiver Program member countries: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brunei, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom…
At the time of this writing, the Kingdom of Thailand is not a member of the United States Visa Waiver Program. Therefore, ESTA rules have little impact upon most Thai nationals. That said, as pointed out in previous blog posts, relevant regulations may require those who have been issued a 221g refusal to disclose this refusal as a “visa denial” for purposes of travel to the USA on the Visa Waiver Program. It would seem that at the time of this writing the Department of State and the United States Customs and Border Protection Service (USCBP), an agency under the authority of the US Department of Homeland Security, view 221(G) refusals differently. Those who have been issued a 221g who still wish to travel to the United States may be wise to contact a US lawyer in order to deal with a pending 221g refusal.
Those who are from countries that do not participate in the Visa Waiver Program should seek a US visa before traveling to the USA. For information about the US Tourist Visa please see: B2 visa.
18th August 2010
The United States Customs and Border Protection Service (USCBP) is tasked with implementing security policy along the US borders. This organization is also responsible for screening immigrants and entrants on their way in to the United States of America (as defined by the United States Immigration and Nationality Act). Recently, an announcement was released which noted that USCBP is testing new technologies in an effort to provide further security along the border and at Ports of Entry to the United States. To quote the aforementioned publication directly:
As part of its Multi-Modal Biometrics Projects, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science & Technology (S&T) Directorate and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) are investigating iris recognition as a promising biometric modality that may become suitable to support DHS operations in the near future…
Iris scanning has been discussed in the past in connection with identity verification technology. It would seem that until recently this technology was not available for widespread use due to testing and cost considerations. Also, the technology is relatively young and, as a result, there has been little time to examine all of the ramifications of this technology:
This project is managed by the DHS Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate, co-sponsored by the National Programs and Protection Directorate, US-VISIT Program and leverages the joint expertise of DHS, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Department of Defense (DoD) and the U.S. Naval Academy. Iris recognition is a promising biometric modality that may become suitable to support DHS operations in the future. However, iris recognition has not been systematically and extensively evaluated outside of carefully controlled environments (i.e., in laboratories). The purpose of this evaluation of iris recognition technologies is to conduct field trials/studies of iris camera prototypes under conditions and environments of relevance (e.g., humidity levels, amount of sunlight, etc) to DHS operational users to assess the viability of the technology and its potential operational effectiveness in support of DHS operations.
In a way, this Iris technology has a great deal in common with identity identification through fingerprinting. In the future, some believe that eye scanning technology will be widely used in order to increase security at certain facilities. Furthermore, there are some who believe that Iris scanning, or technology similar thereto, will be used as a means of identification for quick cross referencing in various government databases. The aforementioned report went on to further note:
The iris is a muscle that forms the colored portion of the eye. It regulates the size of the pupil, controlling the amount of light that enters the eye. Although the coloration and structure of the iris is genetically linked, the details of the iris structure are not. Iris imaging requires use of a high quality digital camera that illuminates the iris using near-infrared light and takes a photograph without causing harm or discomfort to the individual. The prototype cameras in this evaluation are designed to capture iris images for different operational scenarios (e.g., standing in front of a mounted or handheld camera or walking near a camera while walking through a portal).
S&T and US-VISIT are working with the DHS Customs and Border Protection (CBP)/ Office of Border Patrol to develop a concept of operations (ConOps) to describe how the technology may be tested to support its existing operational missions.
It will likely take a relatively substantial period of time before this technology is used widely. That said, the implications of such technology could be very significant from both a privacy standpoint as well as a practical standpoint. In a final excerpt from the above cited publication:
Once identified by the DHS team, the iris camera prototypes will be provided to the U.S. Border Patrol agents. The iris camera prototype includes sensors such as floor-mounted pressure sensors, beam break sensors, motion sensors, and simple cameras. This system works by electronically capturing the iris images of individuals that are placed in front of the camera…
Although consumer use of iris scanning technology may not be the norm in the near term, there are those who believe that USCBP will have this technology at their disposal soon. Hopefully this new technology will provide increased security in a legal and non-obtrusive manner.
For related information please see: expedited removal
14th August 2010
This author recently came across the following information regarding petitions submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The following is a direct quotation from a press release from the Organization of American States distributed by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA):
On December 27, 2002 and July 17, 2003, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (the “Inter-American Commission” or the “IACHR”) received petitions from the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), the law firm of Gibbs Houston Pauw, and the Center for Human Rights and Justice (“the petitioners”) against the Government of the United States (“the State” or “United States”) on behalf of Wayne Smith and his children and Hugo Armendariz and his children, respectively, (hereinafter collectively the “alleged victims”) in relation to Mr. Smith and Mr. Armendariz’s deportation from the United States. According to the petitions, the State violated the alleged victims’ rights protected under Articles I (right to life, liberty and personal security), V (right to private and family life), VI (right to family), VII (right to protection for mothers and children), IX (right to inviolability of the home), XVIII (right to fair trial) and XXVI (right to due process of law) of the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man (the “American Declaration”).
Deportation, also referred to as removal, is the process whereby foreign national(s) residing or remaining temporarily in the United States, either lawfully or unlawfully, are sent back to their home country (or another country outside of the United states) usually following proceedings in which a tribunal adjudicates the legality of a foreign national’s presence in the United States. To quote the aforementioned press release further:
Regarding the merits of the case, the petitioners allege that Messrs. Smith and Armendariz, both of whom were legal permanent residents in the United States, were subjected to deportation without permitting them to present a meaningful defense in administrative and judicial courts, including the following alleged internationally-required consideration of humanitarian equities to deportation: the alleged victims’ length of legal residency in the United States; the alleged victims’ family ties in the United States; the potential hardship on the family members left behind in the United States; the alleged victims’ links with their countries of origin; the extent of the alleged victims’ rehabilitation and social contribution to the United States; any medical or psychological considerations; and the gravity of the alleged victims’ offense and the age when it was committed.
Lawful Permanent Residence (LPR) is a legal status in the United States also referred to as “Green Card” status. Those American Citizens married to a foreign national often seek a CR1 Visa or an IR1 Visa in order to obtain the benefits of lawful permanent residence for their foreign loved one(s). Under certain circumstances an alien present in the United States in lawful permanent resident status can be stripped of said status if they have committed certain “aggravated” criminal offenses or other acts which are deemed to be grounds for removal from the USA, or grounds of inadmissibility to the United States (if the LPR has been abroad and is seeking readmission to the USA or if State law allows activity which Federal law deems to be a legal grounds of inadmissibility) . To further quote the aforementioned press release:
In its response on the merits, the State asserts that under international law each sovereign nation has the right to establish reasonable, objective immigration laws that govern the circumstances under which non-citizens may reside in its country. From this principle, the State argues that the statutory scheme established by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (hereinafter “IIRIRA”) and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (hereinafter “AEDPA”) is a reasonable exercise of sovereign authority to protect U.S. citizens and other non-citizens alike who reside in the United States. Under IIRIRA and AEDPA, a legal permanent resident who has been convicted of an “aggravated felony,” is deportable without the opportunity of receiving a waiver of deportation from an immigration or federal judge. In addition, the State asserts that the petitioners interpret the relevant articles under the American Declaration too expansively and that they fail to recognize the proviso in Article XXVIII of the American Declaration, which permits Member States under certain circumstances to curtail a person’s individual rights in order to preserve the rights and security of others. The State asserts that the mandatory deportation of a non-citizen convicted of an “aggravated felony” is such a circumstance.
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) is a significant piece of Immigration legislation in that it changed some of the procedures relevant to removal. Specifically, expedited removal, a comparatively quick removal proceeding often conducted by Officers of the Customs and Border Protection Service (USCBP), was essentially created by the provisions of the IIRAIRA. In recent years, some believe that deportation of “aggravated felons” in LPR status has increased, but that some of those removed from the USA have had certain due process rights violated in the course of their removal. The case in question seems to rely upon arguments based upon this supposition. To quote the aforementioned press release further:
After having reviewed the positions of the parties and their accompanying evidence, the IACHR concludes that the United States is responsible for violations of Wayne Smith and Hugo Armendariz’s rights protected under Articles V, VI, VII, XVIII, and XXVI of the American Declaration. The Inter-American Commission further concludes that it is well-recognized under international law that a Member State must provide non-citizen residents an opportunity to present a defense against deportation based on humanitarian and other considerations, such as the rights protected under Articles V, VI, and VII of the American Declaration. Each Member State’s administrative or judicial bodies, charged with reviewing deportation orders, must be permitted to give meaningful
consideration to a non-citizen resident’s defense, balance it against the State’s sovereign right to enforce reasonable, objective immigration policy, and provided effective relief from deportation if merited. The United States did not follow these international norms in the present case. The IACHR presents its recommendations to the State regarding these violations of the American Declaration.
One can speculate as to the ultimate result of the above decision by the IACHR as the above finding could have implications in future removal proceedings as agents of the United States government as well as Immigration adjudicators may be required to provide future prospective deportees with an opportunity to form a defense strategy based upon humanitarian considerations. The exact nature of future defenses based upon humanitarian grounds remains to be seen, but this finding may place more rights in the hands of those foreign nationals in American removal proceedings.
For related information please see: I-601 waiver.
Pages
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- October 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
Categories
- Adjustment of Status (48)
- American Business (24)
- American Institute Taiwan (32)
- arrest warrant (2)
- ASEAN Business (67)
- ASEAN Visa (16)
- Australian Migration (1)
- Brazil Business (2)
- Cambodia Business (25)
- China Business (39)
- Comprehensive Immigration Reform (15)
- CR1 Visa (136)
- Department of Homeland Security (94)
- Transportation Security Administration (TSA) (10)
- USCBP (37)
- USICE (22)
- E1 visa (9)
- E2 Visa (13)
- EB-1 Visa (2)
- EB-2 Visa (2)
- EB-3 Visa (2)
- EB-4 Visa (2)
- EB5 Visa (29)
- Ecommerce (6)
- Editorial (24)
- Election 2012 (6)
- F1 Visa Thailand (23)
- Fiance Visa Thailand (165)
- Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) (3)
- Gaming Law (6)
- General Legal Information (114)
- I-601 Waiver (19)
- India Business (7)
- Indonesia Business (5)
- IR1 Visa (102)
- J1 visa (13)
- J1 Visa Thailand (27)
- K-3 Visa Thailand (148)
- K1 Visa (181)
- K2 Visa (95)
- K1 Visa Thailand (199)
- K2 Visa Thailand (68)
- K3 Visa (146)
- L1 Visa (30)
- Laos Business (19)
- Legal Opinion (107)
- Legal Process Outsourcing (5)
- lgbt immigration (81)
- same sex visa (79)
- Malaysia Business (10)
- Miscellaneous (107)
- Myanmar (Burma) Business (16)
- National Visa Center (43)
- News (67)
- Online Gaming (7)
- Opinion (29)
- prenuptial agreement (2)
- Russia Business (6)
- South Africa Business (3)
- T Visa (1)
- Thai Family Law (23)
- Thailand Business (109)
- Thailand company (26)
- Amity Treaty (13)
- Thailand Condo (11)
- Thailand Customs (1)
- Thailand Embassy (16)
- Thailand Marriage Registration (20)
- Thailand Notary (2)
- Thailand Property (36)
- Thailand Real Estate (35)
- Thailand Visa (73)
- Thailand Work Permit (7)
- Upcoming Legislation (58)
- US Business (24)
- US Company Registration (13)
- US LLC (9)
- US Citizenship (23)
- US Constitution (22)
- States' Rights (16)
- US Consulate HCMC (68)
- US Emassy Mongolia (8)
- US Embassy Afghanistan (2)
- US Embassy Kabul (2)
- US Embassy Australia (33)
- us embassy bangkok (173)
- US Embassy Bangladesh (49)
- US Embassy Dhaka (49)
- US Embassy Brunei Darussalam (8)
- US Embassy Burma (85)
- US Embassy Myanmar (81)
- US Embassy Rangoon (80)
- US Embassy Yangon (80)
- US Embassy Cambodia (76)
- US Embassy China (61)
- US Consulate ChengDu (51)
- US Consulate Guangzhou (52)
- US Consulate Hong Kong (27)
- US Consulate Macau (27)
- US Consulate Shanghai (52)
- US Consulate Shenyang (52)
- US Consulate Wuhan (51)
- US Embassy Beijing (50)
- US Embassy Fiji (37)
- US Embassy Kiribati (37)
- US Embassy Nauru (37)
- US Embassy Suva (37)
- US Embassy Tonga (37)
- US Embassy Tuvalu (36)
- US Embassy India (79)
- US Consulate Chennai (48)
- US Consulate Hyderabad (47)
- US Consulate Kolkata (47)
- US Consulate Mumbai (46)
- US Embassy New Dehli (70)
- US Embassy Indonesia (70)
- US Embassy Jakarta (70)
- US Embassy Iraq (21)
- US Embassy Japan (49)
- US Embassy Kyrgyz Republic (Kyrgyzstan) (7)
- US Embassy Laos (47)
- US Embassy Malaysia (72)
- US Embassy Maldives (42)
- US Embassy Mauritius (31)
- US Embassy Mongolia (31)
- US Embassy Nepal (69)
- US Embassy Kathmandu (68)
- US Embassy New Zealand (33)
- US Embassy Pakistan (26)
- US Embassy Islamabad (26)
- US Embassy Papua New Guinea (41)
- US Embassy Philippines (43)
- US Embassy Manila (43)
- US Embassy Russia (11)
- US Embassy Singapore (67)
- US Embassy South Korea (42)
- US Embassy Sri Lanka (43)
- US Embassy Tokyo (47)
- US Embassy Turkmenistan (6)
- US Embassy Uzbekistan (6)
- US Embassy Vietnam (74)
- US Embassy Hanoi (74)
- US State Department (58)
- US Mission ASEAN (8)
- US Taxes (3)
- US Tourist Visa (66)
- US Visa (84)
- US Visa and Immigration (369)
- US Embassy Thailand (171)
- US Consulate Chiang Mai (115)
- US Embassy Thailand (171)
- US Visa Thailand (276)
- US Warrants (19)
- Extradition (12)
- USCIS (170)
- Vietnam Business (9)
- Visa Waiver (36)
- Weird Law (8)
- ข่าวกฎหมาย (1)
- ข่าวในพม่า (2)
- ธุรกิจในนพม่า (2)
- ตลาดหลักทรัพย์กัมพูชา (1)
- ธุรกิจกัมพูชา (1)
- ธุรกิจในกัมพูชา (1)
- ธุรกิจในประเทศจีน (6)
- ธุรกิจในประเทศลาว (2)
- ธุรกิจในอาเซียน (1)
- ธูรกิจในประเทศไทย (6)
- บริการทางกฎหมายจีน (2)
- บริษัทอเมริกัน (5)
- ธุรกิจในอเมริกา (2)
- ภาษีอเมริกัน (1)
- วีซ่าคู่เพศเดียวกัน (1)
- วีซ่าไทย (1)
- โนตารี (1)
- ้วีซ่าอเมริกาจากประเทศไทย (59)
-
RSS Feeds
The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely on advertisement. Before you decide, ask us to send you free written information about our qualifications and experience. The information presented on this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship.