Integrity Legal
- Legal Blog
- Integrity Legal Home
- Thai Visa
- Company in Thailand
- Real Estate Thailand
- US Visa
- Contact Us
Posts Tagged ‘gay visa’
12th JUL 2010
This blog frequently discusses issues that are relevant to those who are in same-sex or LGBT relationships seeking United States immigration benefits for their loved ones overseas. In a posting on the blog Immigration Equality the recently handed down decision in a Massachusetts Court case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was discussed. The following is a direct quote from the July 9th posting:
Yesterday a Massachusetts federal district court judge sided with the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders and with the state of Massachusetts and found that it is unconstitutional for the U.S. federal government to refuse to recognize same sex marriages that are validly entered into in the couple’s state. This is a huge victory and we should all take a moment to celebrate! But, this battle is far from over.
Apparently, this ruling will not have a practical impact in the short term as the Court opted to “stay” the decision until the appeal process is exhausted. The report went on to analyze the possible outcome should the United States Judicial Branch ultimately find that DOMA is unconstitutional:
If, eventually, the Supreme Court upholds the ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional, same sex couples that are validly married, would be able to receive federal benefits, including immigration, based on their marriage. Basically, this would mean that binational couples who live in the handful of states that allow same sex marriage could get immigration benefits, and couples who live in states with mini-DOMAs could not.
Many feel that the main issue in this case is that of States’ Rights. Presently, the United States government does not recognize the legality of a same sex marriage even where such a marriage was validly solemnized pursuant to the laws of a sovereign US state. This tension between the Federal and State power is often an issue in matters involving conflicting state and federal regulations. That said, where such conflict has an adverse impact upon individual rights, equal protection under the law, substantive due process, and Federal benefits, then the issue may be ripe for judicial review.
As the Immigration Equality blog accurately noted, this decision does not mark the end of the pursuit for those seeking equal US immigration rights as, at the time of this writing, those seeking a US family visa based upon an LGBT relationship (sometimes referred to as a same sex visa) still cannot obtain visa benefits notwithstanding the recently promulgated decision.
Although a judicially created solution for same sex couples may not be available for a relatively long period of time, the passage of legislation similar to the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) either within the provisions of a Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill or as stand alone legislation could create a new family based visa category for “Permanent Partners” of US Citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents.
For those interested in learning more about US Immigration issues for same sex couples in Thai please see: LGBT immigration.
24th APR 2010
Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Will UAFA Be Included?
Posted by : admin
Many Americans are aware of the recent legislative changes enacted by the United States Congress with the support of President Obama. Recently, a blogger discussed this legislation:
“Having now accomplished Health Care Reform, it is apparent that President Obama has acquired the momentum and political capital to fuel the leadership necessary to fulfill the next campaign promise, that of immigration reform. Why then are our congressional leaders still asserting impossible?”
What is this so-called “impossible” legislative task that this writer is concerned about? Put simply, it is equal immigration rights for those bi-national couples of the same sex. Recently, Congressional Representative Gutierrez introduced a Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill, but many in the LGBT immigration community are unhappy with the Bill in its current form:
“Rep Gutierrez’s Bill, however, snubbed gay and lesbian couples, much to the upset of the LGBT community and bi-national same-sex couples, by failing to attach UAFA, the Uniting American Families Act, H.R. 1024, S. 424) a U.S.Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate discrimination in the immigration laws against gay couples seeking spousal/ partner sponsorship for green cards, as a critical component to his version of comprehensive immigration reform. Is he thinking that we should not have immigration equality? Is he going to attach UAFA later in the process? Does he think UAFA should be a stand-alone Bill.”
UAFA, or the Uniting American Families Act, is an important piece of hotly debated legislation in the United States that, if enacted, would provide immigration benefits to the same sex “permanent partners” of American Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents. US Congressman Jerrold Nadler has be a strong proponent of UAFA and immigration rights for the “permanent partners” of American Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents. Exactly what the term “permanent partner” means is left open to further debate, but presently a debate is raging over placing the provisions of UAFA into a Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill:
“Nadler asserted that this would be the only way – for UAFA to pass- and that would be via passage with a larger immigration reform bill. The votes would need to be 217 in the House and at least 51 in the Senate. Congressman Nadler has led the fight for UAFA and is highly respected by activists and the LGBT community, reputed to be one of the most dedicated in the fight for immigration equality. His ideas are to be trusted and his leadership followed.”
If Representative Nadler believes that same sex visas for bi-national permanent partners will ultimately come to fruition through use of a broader legislative vehicle, then this author is inclined to believe that this is the truth. However, when that broader legislative action will come about remains to be seen.
11th NOV 2009
Advocates for DOMA Repeal Seem Unsatisfied With US Congress
Posted by : admin
There are many people throughout the United States who seem more and more unhappy with the current state of gay rights issues. This unhappiness seems particularly acute when discussing the issue of DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act). Under current United States Federal law same sex marriages are not recognized by the Federal Government. Therefore, United States Immigration benefits based upon marriage cannot be extended to the same-sex partners of US citizens as same sex marriage is not recognized as a “marriage” for purposes of US Immigration.
Many have advocated either the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act or the enactment of some federal legislation which would allow for same sex immigration benefits notwithstanding DOMA. A recent example of the latter is the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) which would provide US Immigration benefits to “permanent partners” of US Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents. Most efforts to provide same sex immigration benefits have been in vain which has created frustration in the LGBT community as well as amongst advocates for civil rights.
In recent months there has been talk of repealing the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy in the US military. Also, the US State Department has issued internal rules granting Immigration benefits, in the form of diplomatic and official passports, to the same sex partners of State Department employees working abroad. Many feel that these are “half measures,” simply designed to placate advocates for LGBT rights. The following, quoted from this source, sums up the feeling of consternation:
Noticeably absent from this civil rights agenda is the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. Apparently a Democratic majority in the House, a Democratic super-majority in the Senate, and a Democratic president in the White House isn’t quite enough to get a repeal passed. Of course, other major issues are confronting the nation, and issues dealing with same-sex marriage often bring with them volatile politics. But, with the prospect of trimmed Democratic majorities in Congress after the 2010 midterm elections, is it really unreasonable for the LGBT community to expect action on DOMA now, as opposed to potentially a decade from now, maybe later? [Emphasis in original]
As can be seen from the above quote, the real issue for many is the repeal of DOMA. This legislation lies at the heart of most legal restrictions placed upon same-sex couples in the United States. Currently, the legality of DOMA is also being weighed in the US Federal Courts, but the outcome is far from certain. The repeal of DOMA is likely to remain a controversial issue in the future. A repeal of these restrictions will likely mark a watershed moment for American Civil Liberties.
31st OCT 2009
HIV Infection Will No Longer Be A Legal Ground Of Inadmissibility
Posted by : admin
As reported previously on this blog, HIV is to be taken off of the list of communicable diseases which can cause an Immigrant to be deemed inadmissible to the United States of America. At the time of this writing, anyone who has HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) is not admissible to the United States. This means that those infected with the virus must obtain an I-601 waiver of inadmissibility before they will be allowed to enter the United States. Under the new rule, this will no longer be the case.
To quote a document, provided courtesy of AILA, promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services:
As a result of this final rule, aliens will no longer be inadmissible into the United States based solely on the ground they are infected with HIV, and they will not be required to undergo HIV testing as part of the required medical examination for U.S. immigration.
As a result of this rule change, it is highly likely that Embassy mandated medical examinations will be greatly altered as it will no longer be necessary for the Embassy-approved doctors (sometimes referred to as civil surgeons) to test prospective immigrants for HIV.
This rule change reflects the new policy of the United States government regarding HIV. Basically the Center for Disease Control and the authorities at the Department of Homeland Security no longer consider HIV a “communicable” disease as defined in the relevant provisions of Immigration and Nationality Act. To further quote the aforementioned document:
While HIV infection is a serious health condition, it is not a communicable disease that is a significant public health risk for introduction, transmission, and spread to the U.S. population through casual contact.
Please note that this rule has not taken effect and until it does HIV is still considered a communicable disease in cases involving inadmissibility.
Although many laud the promulgation of this rule, there are those, particularly in the LGBT community who feel that the current Administration is not doing enough to provide immigration benefits to same sex couples. Many view this rule change as a “half measure” designed to placate advocates for gay rights as HIV has a major impact upon the gay and lesbian community.
Although this rule change will effect those with HIV who wish to enter the USA, it does not effect same-sex bi-national couples who cannot obtain US Immigration benefits for a foreign partner based upon the current federal laws which do not recognize same-sex marriage. There are many who feel that the rescission of this rule regarding HIV infected immigrants falls short of full immigration equality for all.
20th JUL 2009
The Re-Uniting American Families Act
Posted by : admin
It would appear that although repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) may not be happening anytime during the current legislative session. For same sex partners of United States Citizens, there may be hope that United States Federal Immigration Law could be modified in order to allow for United States immigration benefits for Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Trans-gender (LGBT) Couples.
Under the current laws on the books, embodied in the United States Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), Bi-national LGBT couples are precluded from obtaining immigration benefits based upon their relationship. Therefore, the same sex partner of an American Citizen cannot obtain United States Lawful Permanent Resident (Green card) status based upon their relationship in the same way that foreign spouse or fiance could. It would appear that this situation may soon change.
According to CBS News:
“[M]ore than 100 lawmakers in the House and about 20 in the Senate have signed onto bills that would add the United States to the 19 countries that already recognize same-sex couples for immigration purposes.”
Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) is currently being considered in both the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. Many lawmakers are hoping to amend the currently pending bills with proposed amendments to correct the immigration injustice being perpetrated against bi-national same-sex couples. However, the proposed amendments to this legislation do not come without challengers, further from CBS News:
“The long-standing fight over the country’s estimated 36,000 same sex couples of two nationalities is a small but emotional part of the debate over immigration reform. But including same-sex couples in the mix could make it harder to pass an immigration overhaul. A key ally in past immigration fights, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said it would not support a measure that has a same-sex provision.”
United States Representative Mike Honda is a supporter of the legislation aimed at ameliorating same-sex discrepancies in Immigration law. The so-called Re-Uniting American Families Act is similar to previous legislation known as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). In both proposals, an addition of the term “permanent partner,” will be made to the United States INA which will allow for a circumvention of the restrictions placed upon same sex couples under current federal law (DOMA).
President Obama has signaled his wish that some sort of US Immigration category be created that would allow same-sex couples to have benefits similar to different sex couples. There are questions among same-sex civil rights groups regarding just how much the President really supports their cause as the outcome of the same-sex immigration debate remains in doubt.
(This post is not legal advice. Contact a Licensed professional for legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is created between the writer and any reader of this article.)
10th JUL 2009
Massachusetts fired the opening salvo in what appears to be a major battle for same sex immigration rights. The Commonwealth is suing the Federal government of the United States. Specifically repugnant to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. The first pillar of the case brought against the USA is based upon the idea that the provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) deny those same sex couples married in the Commonwealth the “essential rights and protections” accorded to different sex couples.
A further, and in my opinion more compelling, argument deals with the issues of state versus federal sovereignty. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts asserts that the United States government does not have the right to dictate to the states about what will and will not constitute marriage. By refusing to acknowledge a valid same-sex marriage legally executed in a state (in this case the Commonwealth of Massachusetts), the Federal government is refusing to provide Federal benefits to married same-sex couples, while providing benefits to married different-sex couples. This denial violates the doctrine of “states’ rights” which contends that the states, not the federal government, are endowed with the inherent right to regulate the citizenry.
Hillary Sorin wrote the following on this issue:
“Five states now legally marry same-sex couples, but these couples are denied the federal protections and programs available to married straight couples. These include income-tax credits, employment and retirement benefits, health insurance coverage, Social Security payments and immigration benefits for spouses of U.S. citizens.”
Of particular interest to readers of this blog is probably the fact that DOMA effectively precludes US Family based visas because the Federal government refuses to recognize a same sex marriage (or an intention to obtain a same sex marriage) within the United States.
If DOMA were to be repealed then it is logical to assume that those same sex bi-national couples who marry in Massachusetts (or any state where same-sex marriage is legal) would be able to obtain a Permanent Resident Visa (CR-1, IR-1) based upon that valid marriage. Further, an unmarried same sex couple with an intention to travel to the United States for the purpose of marriage could conceivably obtain a K-1 visa if the Defense of Marriage Act was no longer Federal law.
This case will be very interesting to follow because the ramifications on Immigration law will be tremendous as the whole field of US Family Immigration will likely be opened up to those couples previously unable to obtain US Immigration benefits.
(Please note that the author has no intention that reader use this information in place of legal advice. For advice on the law, please contact a licensed attorney. No attorney-client relationship is created between the author and any reader of this article.)
4th JUN 2009
US Senate Holds Hearing on Uniting of American Families Act
Posted by : admin
On June 3rd the United States Senate held hearings on the Uniting American Families Act for the first time. This was a historic event because it marked the first time in history that the Senate held hearing regarding Same-Sex Family Immigration matters.
For those unfamiliar with the UAFA, it is a bill that would add the term “Permanent Partner” to the list of those eligible for US Immigration benefits based upon a family relationship. Under the Defense of Marriage Act, the Federal government only recognizes marriage between a man and a woman. The UAFA creates a new category of family member, namely: Permanent Partners.
A note of importance, the President of AILA , The American Immigration Lawyers Association, submitted a statement to the committee supporting the enactment of the Uniting of American Families Act. An interesting quote from the statement:
“[S]ame sex partners of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents are not recognized as family members under current immigration law, no matter how long-term or committed the relationship. This outdated and biased definition forces U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents to make unconscionable, life-altering decisions to either relocate to a foreign country or permanently separate from their loved ones.”
The hearing was punctuated by the heart wrenching story of an immigrant partner who was taken away by US Immigration officers and deported in full view of her partner and family members in the USA. The witness said on the record, “I was put into a van with two men in yellow jump suits and chains and searched like a criminal, in a way I have only seen in movies.”
On a related topic, the American State Department recently changed internal rules in order to allow same-sex partners of State Department employees the same rights as different sex couples. US Secretary of State was quoted as saying such rule changes were the “right thing to do.”
Current Immigration law still does not allow American Immigration benefits for same sex loved ones of American Citizens, but the above changes in guidelines and proposed enactments would greatly equalize immigration law to the benefit of same sex couples. It should be noted that this proposed legislation would have no effect on the Defense of Marriage Act, nor would it have any effect with regard to gay marriage. Instead, it would grant immigration benefits to persons previously not qualified to receive them.
(Nothing contained herein is to be construed as legal advice. No lawyer/client relationship is created by reading this post)
26th MAY 2009
The American State Department, as of May 24th, has begun offering benefits to same sex partners of American diplomats and State Department employees. This comes after many years of the US State Department refusing to grant benefits to same sex partners and spouses. The justification that the state department previously used was based upon the Defense of Marriage Act. State Department officials often sighted DOMA claiming that it precluded allowing benefits for same sex partners.
The current move made by the State Department signals a major shift in state department policy on the issue of same sex domestic issues. Of great import is the fact that among other benefits, same sex partners will be issued diplomatic passports along with their diplomat partner or spouse.
In a State Department memo circulated pursuant to this regulatory change Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton hinted that this change was overdue. Secretary Clinton stated, “At bottom, the department will provide these benefits for both opposite-sex and same-sex partners because it is the right thing to do,”
This begs the question that if, at bottom, these benefits ought to be conferred because “it is the right thing to do,” then isn’t granting same sex couple’s US Family Immigration benefits the right thing to do as well? The Uniting of American Families Act is a piece of legislation that would allow US citizens to obtain US visas for their alien same sex partner.
In this situation, the US State Department has disregarded the spirit of the Defense of Marriage Act by conferring these benefits upon same sex partners and will likely prevail in doing so because offering these benefits is a prerogative of the Secretary of State and under the bailiwick of the executive branch of the United States government (Under the doctrine of Separation of Powers, there are certain areas in which each branch of government cannot be challenged by another branch).
The UAFA also subtly avoids the restrictions imposed by the Defense of Marriage Act by creating a new category of US Visa under the United States Immigration an Nationality Act. This new visa category would allow an alien to obtain a US visa based upon family relationship if the meet the definition of “permanent partner.”
As we have previously stated on this blog, the US Immigration implictions of the enactment of the Uniting of American Families Act would be a watershed for Same Sex immigration rights as well as a very interesting case study in conflict of laws.
For more information on US Immigration from Thailand Please see:
(Please note that the information contained herein is for educational purposes only and should not be used as a substitute for legal advice. No lawyer client relationship is formed between author and reader).
24th MAR 2009
US Immigration and Visa Rights of Same Sex Couples under UAFA
Posted by : admin
The Uniting of American Families Act (UAFA) is a bill currently in Congress that would amend the US Immigration and Nationality Act in an effort to end discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and the trans-gendered US Immigration legislation by allowing “permanent partners” of US Citizens and permanent residents to obtain lawful permanent resident status in the same way as conventional spouses of American citizens and lawful permanent residents and to penalize immigration fraud related to non-bona fide “permanent partnerships.”
The most important aspect of this legislation is the addition of the term “permanent partner,” to current Immigration law. Under the proposed legislation proving permanent partnership would be defined as someone who:
- (A) is in a committed, intimate relationship with another individual 18 years of age or older in which both parties intend a lifelong commitment;
- (B) is financially interdependent with that other individual;
- (C) is not married to or in a permanent partnership with anyone other than that other individual;
- (D) is unable to contract with that other individual a marriage cognizable under this Act; and
- (E) is not a first, second, or third degree blood relation of that other individual.
In my opinion, these “permanent partner” visas will require a great deal more evidence to prove a relationship than a conventional marriage visa, but at the same time it could closely resemble the K1 Fiance Visa in that, the K1 is a visa not based upon a marriage but an underlying bona fide relationship between the petitioner and the beneficiary. After the sweeping election of Democrats in November there is a better chance than ever that this legislation will pass, but in order to get this through it may still require pressure being brought to bear on local Congressmen and Senators. So if this is an issue for you or someone you know, then call your local representative and tell them to vote for the Uniting of American Families Act.
Should this legislation be passed it would be a major victory for the LGBT Immigration movement. For more information please visit the following sites:
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.

Thailand Call: 02-266 3698
USA Call: 1-(316)-974-0454


