Integrity Legal

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.

Tags: CR1 Visa, Department of Homeland Security, DHS, expedited removal, Human Rights, I-212, I-601 Waiver, IACHR, IIRAIRA, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, IR1 Visa, Lawful Permanent Residence, LPR, United States Customs and Border Protection, USCBP
Posted in CR1 Visa, Department of Homeland Security, I-601 Waiver, USCBP | No Comments »

Frequently this author uses this blog to post accurate processing time estimates for the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) Centers in the United States. USCIS is a key agency tasked with adjudicating Immigration petitions prior to possible Consular adjudication at a US Embassy or US Consulate abroad.

The following was quoted from the USCIS website on June 18, 2010. These are the current processing time estimates for the USCIS service center in California:

The following are estimated processing times for the USCIS Service Center in Vermont:

Those interested in bringing a foreign loved one to the United States on a K1 visa, K3 Visa, CR1 visa, or IR visa are advised to remember that the above processing time estimates do not take into account special circumstances, Consular Processing, I-601 waiver adjudication, or I-212 waiver adjudication. Therefore, those interested in obtaining a US visa are wise to consult a US Immigration lawyer prior to making any decisions as different visa categories can process faster relative to other categories.

Due to recent unrest in the Kingdom of Thailand, those processing through that Consular Post may find that it takes a bit longer to get an appointment compared to more tranquil periods. However, it should be noted that the US Embassy in Thailand has diligently worked to clear the backlog caused by the recent Embassy closure and processing is getting back to a state of relative normality.

For further information please see: US Visa Thailand.

Tags: American Visa, Consular Processing, CR1 Visa, How Much Time Does it Take to Get a US Visa, I-212 waiver, I-601 Waiver, IR1 Visa, K1 Visa, K3 Visa, US Consulate, US Embassy, US Visa, US Visa Thailand, USCIS, USCIS Processing Time
Posted in CR1 Visa, IR1 Visa, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, L1 Visa, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Embassy Thailand, US Visa Thailand, US Visa and Immigration, USCIS | 30 Comments »

As the world becomes ever more integrated due to economic globalization international organized crime has increased. One issue that has become increasingly concerning for law enforcement agencies around the globe is human trafficking. Many of the people in less developed nations wish to travel to wealthier industrialized countries in order to enjoy the benefits of relatively higher wages. This leads to the growth of “human smugglers” who specialize in assisting illegal immigrants by transporting them from their home country to their desired destination. Unfortunately, a great deal of evidence has been brought to light which suggests that many of these immigrants are placed in conditions which could easily be described as inhumane and many of them are further forced to work under difficult conditions in order to pay back their smugglers for transporting them to their new country.

Recently, the website ThaiVisa.com posted the following:

“Two Japanese men have been arrested in Thailand on suspicion of people smuggling, a police spokesman said Tuesday. The first man, identified by police only by his surname, Bekku, was arrested Monday when he tried to renew his visa. The second man, Tanaka, was arrested later at his apartment in Bangkok. The pair, both in their 60s, are accused of involvement in smuggling people from Thailand and its neighbouring countries. ‘They were arrested on warrants issued by the Japanese police on charges of human smuggling,’ said the spokesman, Major General Manoo Mekmok.”

Under Section 212(a)(2)(H)(i) of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act:

Any alien who commits or conspires to commit human trafficking offenses in the United States or outside the United States, or who the consular officer, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State, or the Attorney General knows or has reason to believe is or has been a knowing aider, abettor, assister, conspirator, or colluder with such a trafficker in severe forms of trafficking in persons, as defined in the section 7102 of title 22, is inadmissible.

Clearly, United States Immigration law takes the issue of human trafficking very seriously as it should since human trafficking is a major issue that causes many deaths each year while concurrently undermining the foundations of international law. Furthermore, those who are found guilty of offenses involving human trafficking are likely to be found inadmissible to the United States of America indefinitely as this ground of inadmissibility cannot be remedied through use of an I-601 waiver.
To learn more about US Immigration please see: US Visa Thailand.

Tags: 212(a)(2)(H)(i), American Immigration Thailand, American Visa Thailand, Attorney General, Excludability, Grounds of Excludability, Grounds of Inadmissibility, Human Smuggling, Human Trafficking, I-601 Waiver, Inadmissibility, Secretary of State, US Immigration, US Immigration Thailand, US Visa Thailand
Posted in Department of Homeland Security, US Visa Thailand, US Visa and Immigration, Visa Waiver | No Comments »

To see this information in English please see: US visa denial

อย่างที่ผู้เขียนได้เคยพูดไว้ในกระทู้ก่อนๆ เหตุผลหลักๆที่ทำให้วีซ่าอเมริกาถูกปฏิเสธขึ้นอยู่กับเหตุที่ทำให้ไม่สามารถเข้าเมืองได้ ในเคสนั้นๆ เหตุหนึ่งก็คือ เจ้าหน้าที่กงสุลพบว่าผู้ขอวีซ่าทำความผิดทางอาญาเกี่ยวกับศีลธรรม ( CIMT ) นั่นหมายความว่า บางครั้งก็เป็นเรื่องยากที่จะวินิจฉัยว่าความผิดที่ผู้ขอวีซ่ากระทำนั้นเป็นความผิดทางอาญาเกี่ยวกับศีลธรรมหรือไม่ คู่มือทางกิจการต่างประเทศกล่าวถึงลักษณะของความผิดที่เป็นความผิดเกี่ยวกับศีลธรรมเอาไว้ ด้านล่างคือข้อความบางส่วนที่ตัดตอนมา

ข้อ9 คู่มือทางกิจการต่างประเทศ 40.21(a) N 2.3-1 ความผิดต่อทรัพย์สิน

( CT. VISA-1318;09-24-2009 )

เอ. ความผิดทางอาญาส่วนใหญ่ที่ถือว่าเกี่ยวข้องกับศีลธรรมอันเป็นความผิดต่อทรัพย์สินได้แก่ ฉ้อโกง การกระทำความผิดฐานฉ้อโกงถือเป็นความผิดต่อศีลธรรมไม่ว่าจะเป็นการกระทำต่อบุคคลหรือความผิดต่อแผ่นดิน ความผิดฐานฉ้อโกง โดยทั่วไป

เกี่ยวกับ

(1) ทำให้บุคคลอื่นหลงเข้าใจผิด

(2) รู้ถึงข้อความที่หลอกลวงซึ่งทำขึ้นโดยตัวผู้ก่อการ

(3) เชื่อถือในสิ่งที่แสดงให้เข้าใจผิดโดยบุคคลที่ถูกหลอก

(4) เจตนาหลอกลวง และ

(5) การกระทำการฉ้อโกง

ความผิดต่อทรัพย์สินไม่เพียงเป็นความผิดทางอาญาเกี่ยวเนื่องด้วยศีลธรรมชนิดเดียวแต่ความผิดต่อเจ้าหน้าที่รัฐก็ถือเป็นความผิดทางอาญาที่เกี่ยวกับศีลธรรมด้วย

ข้อ9 คู่มือทางกิจการต่างประเทศ 40.21(a) N 2.3-2 ความผิดต่อการเจ้าหน้าที่รัฐ

( CT: VISA-1318; 09-24-2009 )

เอ. ความผิดต่อเจ้าหน้าที่รัฐที่เข้ากับนิยามความผิดทางศีลธรรมได้แก่:

(1) การติดสินบน

(2) ปลอมเอกสาร

(3) ฉ้อโกงกรมสรรพากร หรือหน่วยงานราชการอื่น

(4) ฉ้อฉลทางเอกสาร

(5) ให้การเท็จ

(6) ให้ที่พักพิงแก่ผู้ร้ายหลบหนี ( โดยทราบความผิด ) และ

(7) เลี่ยงภาษี ( โดยมีเจตนา )

คู่มือทางกิจการต่างประเทศได้กล่าวถึงกิจกรรมอีกหลายๆลักษณะที่อาจไม่ถือเป็นความผิดทางอาญาเกี่ยวกับศีลธรรม เป็นหน้าที่ของเจ้าหน้าที่ที่พิจารณาเรื่องในการตัดสินข้อเท็จจริงของคดีและตัดสินว่าการกระทำดังกล่าวเป็นความผิดทางอาญาเกี่ยวเนื่องกับศีลธรรมหรือไม่ หากว่าได้กระทำความผิดจริง ก็จะต้องถูกปฏิเสธวีซ่า  ภายใต้ทฤษฎีอำนาจที่ห้ามตรวจสอบของกงสุล ( รู้จักกันในชื่อ อำนาจเด็ดขาดของกงสุล ) คำตัดสินนี้ไม่สามารถอุทธรณ์ได้ อย่างไรก็ตาม ผู้ยื่นขอวีซ่าสามารถแก้ไขปัญหาวีซ่าถูกปฏิเสธได้โดยยื่นขออภัยโทษแบบ I-601

เพื่อประโยชน์ของบางคน มีคำพิพากษาของ ศาลภาค กล่าวว่า

“คำสั่งส่งตัวออกนอกสหรัฐอเมริกาที่มีต่อ ผู้ร้อง อาร์มานโด อัลวาเรซ เรย์นากาเนื่องจากกระทำความผิดอาญาฐานรับยานพาหนะที่ขโมยมา มีความผิดตามมาตรา 496d(a) ตามประมวลกฎหมายอาญาแคลิฟอร์เนีย คำร้องของเขาขอให้พิจาณาใหม่ว่าความผิดทางอาชญากรรมที่กระทำลงนั้น เป็นความผิดตามศีลธรรมหรือไม่ เราสรุปได้ว่าเป็นความผิดฐานอาชญากรรมแต่ไม่ใช่อาชญากรรมเกี่ยวกับศีลธรรม เราปฏิเสธคำร้องขอพิจารณาใหม่”

เมื่อกฎหมายเปลี่ยนแปลงไป นิยามของความผิดทางอาญาเกี่ยวกับศีลธรรมและกิจกรรมที่อยู่ภายใต้ข้อกำหนดของความผิดอาญาทางศีลธรรมตามพระราชบัญญัติคนเข้าเมืองและสัญชาติก็เปลี่ยนแปลงไปด้วย

สำหรับข้อมูลเพิ่มเติมสำหรับวีซ่าอเมริกาจากประเทศไทย โปรดดู วีซ่าอเมริกาประเทศไทย

Tags: American Visa Thailand, Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude, Fiance Visa Thailand, I-601, I-601 Waiver, I-601 waiver information in Thai, I-601 waiver Thai, I601 Waiver, I601 waiver Thailand, K1 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa Thailand, US Visa Thailand, สถานทูตสหรัฐอเมริกาประจำประเทศไทย, ้วีซ่าอเมริกาจากประเทศไทย
Posted in สถานทูตสหรัฐอเมริกาประจำประเทศไทย, ้วีซ่าอเมริกาจากประเทศไทย | No Comments »

Repeatedly, this author uses this blog as a platform to try to educate the public regarding the US visa process and the problems that can arise during that process. In many cases, people are simply unaware of the rules regarding US visa issuance and this blog attempts to provide relevant information that readers may find beneficial. That being said, another frequently discussed topic is the unauthorized practice of law by “visa companies” and “visa agents” or those claiming to be American attorneys. This is not simply a tirade against such practices, but is intended to provide information regarding the detrimental impact that these individuals can have upon the interests of their “clients”.

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

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

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

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

Tags: American Attorney, American Attorney Thailand, American Lawyer, American Lawyer Thailand, Fiance Visa Thailand, I-601 Waiver, K1 Visa Thailand, US attorney, US Attorney Thailand, US Immigration Thailand, US lawyer, US Lawyer Thailand, US Visa, US Visa Thailand, Visa Process
Posted in Adjustment of Status, CR1 Visa, Department of Homeland Security, F1 Visa Thailand, Fiance Visa Thailand, IR1 Visa, J1 Visa Thailand, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Consulate HCMC, US Consulate Singapore, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy Hanoi, US Embassy India, US Embassy Indonesia, US Embassy Jakarta, US Embassy Kathmandu, US Embassy Kuala Lumpur, US Embassy Malaysia, US Embassy Myanmar, US Embassy Nepal, US Embassy New Dehli, US Embassy Phnom Phen, US Embassy Rangoon, US Embassy Singapore, US Embassy Thailand, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US Tourist Visa, US Visa Thailand, US Visa and Immigration, USCIS, lgbt immigration, same sex visa, us embassy bangkok | 1 Comment »

As this author has discussed in previous blog posts, one major reason for US visa denial is based upon a finding that a legal grounds of inadmissibility exists in a given case. One legal grounds of inadmissibility is based upon a finding by the Consular Officer that the applicant committed a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT). That being said, at times it can be difficult to determine whether or not an individual’s prior actions would be considered a crime involving moral turpitude. The Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) provides some insight into what types of crimes are considered to be crimes involving moral turpitude, the following are excerpts from the FAM:

“9 FAM 40.21(a) N2.3-1 Crimes Committed Against
Property
(CT:VISA-1318; 09-24-2009)
a. Most crimes committed against property that involve moral turpitude
include the element of fraud. The act of fraud involves moral turpitude
whether it is aimed against individuals or government. Fraud generally
involves:
(1) Making false representation;
(2) Knowledge of such false representation by the perpetrator;
(3) Reliance on the false representation by the person defrauded;
(4) An intent to defraud; and
(5) The actual act of committing fraud”

Property Crimes are not the only activities that can be construed as crimes involving moral turpitude as criminal actions which violate or undermine governmental authority are also considered to be CIMT:

“9 FAM 40.21(a) N2.3-2 Crimes Committed Against
Governmental Authority
(CT:VISA-1318; 09-24-2009)
a. Crimes committed against governmental authority which fall within the
definition of moral turpitude include:
(1) Bribery;
(2) Counterfeiting;
(3) Fraud against revenue or other government functions;
(4) Mail fraud;
(5) Perjury;
(6) Harboring a fugitive from justice (with guilty knowledge); and
(7) Tax evasion (willful).”

The FAM also goes on to note the various activities that may not be considered CIMT. However, it is incumbent upon the adjudicating officer to examine the facts of a given case and make a decision as to whether the underlying actions that gave rise to a criminal conviction in fact constitutes a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude for purposes of visa issuance. If the officer decides that a CIMT was committed, then the visa application will likely be denied. Under the doctrine of Consular NonReviewability (also known as Consular Absolutism) this decision is not subject to appeal. However, the applicant make be able to overcome the visa denial by applying for, and obtaining, an I-601 waiver.

Of interest to some may be the recent Circuit Court decision which held:

“An order of removal from the United States was entered against Petitioner Armando Alvarez-Reynaga based on his felony conviction for receipt of a stolen vehicle in violation of section 496d(a) of the California Penal Code. His petition for review presents the questions of whether a conviction under that statute qualifies categorically as a conviction for an aggravated felony, and whether it qualifies categorically as a crime involving moral turpitude. We conclude that it qualifies as the first, but not the second. We deny the petition for review.”

As the law continues to evolve, so to does the definition of CIMT and the activities that are considered to be covered by the CIMT provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

For more information about US Visas from the Kingdom of Thailand please see: US Visa Thailand.

(Readers should be advised that the above does not constitute a full analysis of CIMT issues. Each application has its own unique set of facts and those facts must be analyzed on an individual basis in order to form a professional opinion.)

Tags: 601 Waiver, American Immigration Thailand, American Visa Thailand, CIMT, Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude, FAM, Foreign Affairs Manual, I-601 Waiver, I601 Waiver, Inadmissibility, US Family Visa, US Immigration, US Immigration Thailand, us visa denial, US Visa Denial Thailand, US Visa Denied, US Visa Denied Thailand, US Visa Thailand, Waiver
Posted in CR1 Visa, Fiance Visa Thailand, IR1 Visa, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Embassy Thailand, US Visa Thailand, US Visa and Immigration, USCIS, Visa Waiver | No Comments »

Although delicate, the issue of prostitution in Thailand and the impact upon United States Immigration is something that an American Immigration attorney in Thailand should discuss, if for no other reason than the fact that there is a great deal of misinformation about this topic throughout the internet.

First, the relevant law: The United States Immigration and Nationality Act §212(a)(2)(D) has the following to say on the topic of inadmissibility and prostitution:

(D) Prostitution and commercialized vice

Any alien who—

(i) is coming to the United States solely, principally, or incidentally to engage in prostitution, or has engaged in prostitution within 10 years of the date of application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status,

(ii) directly or indirectly procures or attempts to procure, or (within 10 years of the date of application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status) procured or attempted to procure or to import, prostitutes or persons for the purpose of prostitution, or receives or (within such 10-year period) received, in whole or in part, the proceeds of prostitution, or

(iii) is coming to the United States to engage in any other unlawful commercialized vice, whether or not related to prostitution,

is inadmissible.

It should be noted that legality is not an issue when it comes to prostitution as even a legal act of prostitution is a legal ground of inadmissibility from the United States of America. In the US State of Nevada, prostitution is legal provided the brothel has a license and comports to certain regulatory rules with regard to health and advertising. However, the act of prostitution itself is not illegal under in Nevada so long as the prostitute works in a licensed establishment. Regardless of the fact that the act may be legal, the Immigration and Nationality Act still makes the act a legal grounds of inadmissibility if it occurred within 10 years of the application for admission to the United States of America.

This seemingly glaring disjunction is the result of the American doctrine of Federalism. In the US, there is one sovereign in the form of the Federal government and 50 sovereigns in the form of the 50 US states. It is possible that State and Federal law will occasionally conflict. For Immigration purposes, the Federal regulations and statutes are controlling over state law. Therefore, regardless of the fact that an act of prostitution may be legal in a US state, it may still be a legal grounds of inadmissibility if it occurred within 10 years of an application for admission to the USA.

In Thailand this is important to note because prostitution is only vaguely defined in criminal statutes. Under the provisions of the Thai Prevention and Suppression of Prostitution Act of 1996 the definition of prostitution is defined as:

“‘prostitution’ means sexual intercourse, or any other act, or the commission of any other act in order to gratify the sexual desire of another person in a promiscuous manner in return for money or any other benefit, irrespective of whether the person who accepts the act and the person who commits the act are of the same sex or not…”

The obvious problem with this definition is the phrase “in a promiscuous manner.” Authorities in Thailand seem to operate under the assumption that acts of prostitution occurring in private are not promiscuous and therefore do not meet the legal definition of prostitution. The United States immigration authorities do not take this view and their view of prostitution falls in line with the more traditional definition which mandates finding of previous engagement in acts of prostitution if the individual in question was paid in exchange for providing sexual gratification.

If a Consular Officer at a US Embassy or US Consulate abroad finds an alien inadmissible because the alien has engaged in prostitution within 10 years of filing an application for a US visa, then the alien will not be able to obtain a US visa, nor will they be allowed to enter the United States of America. This decision is not subject to appeal.

What is the solution if an alien is found inadmissible based upon a finding that they have engaged in prostitution within 10 years of applying for a US visa? Fortunately, the Immigration and Nationality Act provides a remedy for those who are found inadmissible under these circumstances. An I-601 waiver may be filed with USCIS and if approved, the alien will be able to seek admission to the United States of America.

Throughout the internet there are those who claim that the best way to avoid this issue is to lie to a Consular Officer or “omit certain facts.” This practice is highly inadvisable. First, it is illegal and in some cases punishable by five years in a federal penitentiary and a $250,000 fine. Second, it could lead to further problems for an alien because lying to a Consular Officer could result in a finding that the alien had engaged in fraud and misrepresentation which is a separate ground of inadmissibility. Third, such advice is highly unethical and reflects adversely upon anyone who advises a client to lie to a Consular Officer or in a visa application. Run, don’t walk, away from anyone who gives this kind of advice as it is unethical, illegal, and could result in a permanent bar to entering the United States.

Our firm’s policy is to disclose all legally relevant facts and deal with the legal consequences in a straightforward manner.

For More Information Please See: US Visa Thailand.

Tags: 601 Waiver, fiance visa bargirl, fiancee visa bargirl, I-601, I-601 Waiver, I601, I601 Waiver, Inadmissibility Prostitution, k1 visa bargirl, k1 visa prostitution, k3 visa bargirl, k3 visa prostitution, Prostitution, Prostitution Waiver, Thai fiancee worked in a bar, Thai girlfriend worked in a bar, Thai wife worked in a bar, Thailand bargirl visa, US Visa for Bargirl, US visa for girl who worked in a bar, US visa for someone who worked in a bar, US Visa Prostitution Waiver, US Visa Thailand
Posted in CR1 Visa, Fiance Visa Thailand, IR1 Visa, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Consulate HCMC, US Consulate Singapore, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy Hanoi, US Embassy India, US Embassy Indonesia, US Embassy Jakarta, US Embassy Kathmandu, US Embassy Kuala Lumpur, US Embassy Malaysia, US Embassy Myanmar, US Embassy Nepal, US Embassy New Dehli, US Embassy Phnom Phen, US Embassy Rangoon, US Embassy Singapore, US Embassy Thailand, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US Visa Thailand, US Visa and Immigration, USCIS, us embassy bangkok | 1 Comment »

Since the recent worldwide economic downturn the global tourism industry has suffered a great deal. Much can be attributed to the fact that people have less disposable income, but others are of the opinion that increased promotion may be the key to dealing with this issue. In the United States, the government and business leaders have devised a plan to promote more travel to the USA. To quote a recent posting on CNN’s website:

“President Obama signed legislation into law Thursday to create the United States’ first national travel promotion program…The act will create a nonprofit Corporation for Travel Promotion that will promote the United States as a travel destination and explain travel and security policies to international visitors…”

One aspect of the new program that is stirring up some resentment is the addition of a $10 fee that much be paid by those wishing to enter the United States on the visa waiver program (not to be confused with an I-601 waiver of inadmissibility):

“A $10 fee charged to visitors from countries included in the Visa Waiver Program will partially fund the public-private organization. These visitors will pay the fee every two years when they register online using the Department of Homeland Security’s Electronic System for Travel Authorization…”

As readers may recall, The Electronic System For Travel Authorization (ESTA) is used by those who wish to seek entry into the USA on a visa waiver. This system pre-screens foreign entrants for security purposes. As mentioned previously, tourism around the world is declining, but this program may provide stimulus to this sector of the US economy:

“Despite strong global growth in long-haul international travel between 2000 and 2008, the U.S. welcomed 633,000 fewer overseas visitors in 2008 than it did in 2000, according to figures from the U.S. Department of Commerce. Oxford Economics, an economic consulting and forecasting company, estimates a well-executed promotional program would draw 1.6 million new international visitors annually and generate $4 billion in new visitor spending.”

It remains to be seen how this program will work, but certainly encouragement of tourism is necessary. However, some have questioned how requiring a new fee for travel to the United States will encourage tourism. This is certainly a valid point as increased restrictions on travel for so-called “visa waiver countries” may be one of the reasons behind decreased tourism. There are those who have called ESTA a new type of visa and now that there is a charge for the service it is beginning to become a sort of online visa. That being said, balancing security and economic concerns is difficult.

This new law will likely have very little impact for those from Thailand as Thai nationals do not enjoy “visa waiver” privileges. For this reason Thai nationals must apply for a US tourist visa if they wish to enter the US for recreational purposes. Further, Thais wishing to travel to the US to be with a fiance or spouse must apply for either a K1 visa or a US marriage visa before they will be able to be lawfully admitted.

Tags: Electronic System for Travel Authorization, ESTA, I-601, I-601 Waiver, I-601 Waiver Thailand, I601, I601 Waiver, I601 waiver Thailand, K-1 Visa, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, US Marriage Visa, US Marriage Visa Thailand, US Tourist Visa, US Tourist Visa Thailand, US Visa, US Visa Waiver Program, Visa Waiver, Visa Waiver Program
Posted in K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, US Tourist Visa, US Visa Thailand, US Visa and Immigration, US Warrants | 1 Comment »

In cases where a US visa application is denied it may be possible to remedy the visa denial by applying for a waiver if the denial was based upon a legal grounds of inadmissibility. This type of waiver is called an I-601 waiver. At one time, if a United States visa applicant was infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), then they would be denied a visa visa based upon this factor alone, if no other issues existed that called for a denial. However, recently the United States Immigration authorities have changed this rule. To quote a document promulgated by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA):

“[I]nfection with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) is no longer a ground of inadmissibility. If you have the HIV infection, you are no longer inadmissible to the United States, and are no longer required to file Form I-601 because of your HIV infection. As part of the revisions to Form I-601, any reference to HIV infection in the form and the instructions were removed.”

This is not the only rule change that has been recently promulgated as the filing instructions themselves have recently changed in order to more accurately reflect the proper filing locations as well as other regulatory modifications.

“In addition, USCIS… announced that there are revised filing instructions and addresses for applicants filing Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Ground of Inadmissibility. The change of filing location is part of an overall effort to transition the intake of benefit forms from USCIS local offices and Service Centers to USCIS Lockbox facilities. By centralizing form and fee intake to a Lockbox environment, USCIS can provide customers with more efficient and effective initial processing of applications and fees.”

The “lockbox” method is currently employed when processing immigrant visa applications such as the IR-1 visa and the CR-1 visa. This allows USCIS to streamline the application process as all applications are submitted to one location. K1 visa applications as well as K3 marriage visa applications are submitted directly to the USCIS Service Center with appropriate jurisdiction.

In situations where an I-601 waiver application is submitted overseas, the application is usually submitted at the US Embassy or US Consulate where the visa is denied. This allows the Consular Officer to make a recommendation regarding the waiver application. Those interested in US visa waivers should note that only licensed United States attorneys or accredited representatives are allowed to represent clients before both the United States Embassy and the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). That being said, only an attorney is entitled to charge fees for such services as accredited representatives are usually not-for-profit agencies who only charge a nominal fee (if anything) when assisting immigrants. Those who are not licensed to represent clients is US Immigration matters cannot charge a fee to represent clients in Immigration proceedings pursuant to US law.  For more information please click here.

For more information about American visas and the remedies available upon application denial please see: US Visa Denial.

Tags: 601 Waiver, HIV Waiver, I-601 Waiver, I601 Waiver, Inadmissibility, K1 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa Thailand, US Visa Attorney, us visa attorney bangkok, us visa attorney thailand, us visa denial, us visa lawyer, us visa lawyer bangkok, us visa lawyer thailand, US Visa Thailand, US Visa Waiver
Posted in CR1 Visa, Fiance Visa Thailand, IR1 Visa, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K3 Visa, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Consulate Singapore, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy Hanoi, US Embassy Kathmandu, US Embassy Kuala Lumpur, US Embassy Malaysia, US Embassy Myanmar, US Embassy Nepal, US Embassy Phnom Phen, US Embassy Rangoon, US Embassy Singapore, US Embassy Thailand, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US Tourist Visa, US Visa Thailand, US Visa and Immigration, USCIS, Visa Waiver, us embassy bangkok | No Comments »

Virtually all American news media outlets are reporting on the devastation and destruction brought on by the Earthquake in Haiti. We at Integrity Legal would like to take this opportunity to extend our heartfelt sympathies to all of those who have been adversely impacted by this tragedy. For those of Haitian descent or nationality currently living in the United States, the Earthquake has also had an impact upon Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy. In a recent press release, the Deputy United States Press Secretary Matt Chandler made the following statement:

“Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Assistant Secretary John Morton today halted all removals to Haiti for the time being in response to the devastation caused by yesterday’s earthquake. ICE continues to closely monitor the situation.”

We at Integrity Legal would like to let the United States Department of Homeland Security as well as Secretary Napolitano know that we appreciate their compassion in this matter as the situation places that agency in a difficult position.

When an alien in the United States is removed, they are generally sent back to their country of origin. In the case of Haitians they are sent back to Haiti, but sending a deportee back to Haiti under the current circumstance would, at the very least, be considered by most to be a rather callous initiative. By suspending removals, DHS has shown that they can respond to a difficult situation in a decisive and compassionate manner.

Removal from the United States can occur as a result of deportation proceedings in United States Immigration Court or expedited removal can occur at a United States port of entry after the finding by a Customs and Border Protection Officer that the prospective entrant should be removed from the United States.

Depending upon the method of removal, the alien will be inadmissible to the United States for a statutorily prescribed period of time. However, there may be a remedy to the issue of inadmissibility either through use of an I-601 waiver or an I-212 application for advance permission to reenter the United States.  Those who have previously been removed from the US may face even stiffer penalties for trying to reenter after removal if they do not seek a waiver or advance permission to reenter.

For those who have been previously removed from the United States and wish to seek reentry, it would probably be wise to contact a licensed US Immigration lawyer in order to obtain advice about how best to proceed in attempting to obtain US Immigration benefits.

Tags: Department of Homeland Security, DHS, Haiti Earthquake, I-212, I-212 application, I-601, I-601 Waiver, I212, I601, I601 Waiver, Secretary Napolitano, US Immigration, US Immigration Lawyer, US Immigration Lawyer Thailand
Posted in US Visa and Immigration, Upcoming Legislation, Visa Waiver | 1 Comment »