
Integrity Legal
- Legal Blog
- Integrity Legal Home
- Thai Visa
- Company in Thailand
- Real Estate Thailand
- US Visa
- Contact Us
Archive for May, 2011
6th May 2011
It recently came to this blogger’s attention, via the website MetroWeekly.com, that the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, has vacated a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals which applied controversial section 3 of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) in a recent case. To quote directly from a PDF copy of AG Holder’s order as posted to the aforementioned website:
Pursuant to my authority set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h)(1)(i), I order that the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) in this case applying Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C. § 7, be vacated, and that this matter be referred to me for review.
In the exercise of my review authority under that regulation, and upon consideration of the record in this case, I direct that the order of the Board be vacated and that this matter be remanded to the Board to make such findings as may be necessary to determine whether and how the constitutionality of DOMA is presented in this case, including, but not limited to: 1) whether respondent’s same-sex partnership or civil union qualifies him to be considered a “spouse” under New Jersey law; 2) whether, absent the requirements of DOMA, respondent’s same-sex partnership or civil union would qualify him to be considered a “spouse” under the Immigration and Nationality Act; 3) what, if any, impact the timing of respondent’s civil union should have on his request for that discretionary relief; and 4) whether, if he had a “qualifying relative,” the respondent would be able to satisfy the exceptional and unusual hardship requirement for cancellation of removal.
Those reading this posting are encouraged to read the article on Metroweekly.com posted by Chris Geidner regarding these issues as this blogger found that posting to be very insightful.
For those who are not familiar with this issue it should be noted that the current provisions of DOMA preclude accordance of federal benefits to those who have entered into a same sex relationship. This preclusion even overrides State prerogatives regarding marriage as, in an immigration context, the language of DOMA precludes recognition of even a same sex marriage solemnized and/or legalized in a sovereign American State. Currently, there is some legislation, such as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) or the Respect for Marriage Act, pending before the American Federal legislature which would seek to remove the current restrictions being imposed upon the LGBT community.
It remains to be seen whether same sex visa benefits will be accorded the same sex partners engaged in a bi-national relationship, but one thing is clear: there is momentum gathering behind the cause of LGBT equal rights as American authorities would seem to be taking notice of the legitimate grievances of those who have, for too long, been denied their rights to equal protection under the law. Meanwhile, this blogger finds it likely that there will eventually be some sort of decision regarding the accordance of Full Faith and Credit to those legal marriages solemnized and/or legalized by those States which currently license such unions. As of the time of this writing, however, such remedies remain to be seen and the assurances that they will manifest themselves sometime in the future is likely cold comfort to those who are separated from their loved ones now.
For related information please see: Full Faith and Credit Clause.
5th May 2011
It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) has recently updated some of the information with regard to that agency’s official fact sheet pertaining to I-864 affidavits of support. To quote directly from the official website of USCIS:
In determining inadmissibility, USCIS defines “public charge”as an individual who is likely to become “primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance, or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.” See “Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds,” 64 FR 28689 (May 26, 1999). In determining whether an alien meets this definition for public charge inadmissibility, a number of factors are considered, including age, health, family status, assets, resources, financial status, education, and skills. No single factor, other than the lack of an affidavit of support, if required, will determine whether an individual is a public charge.
Those reading this blog are encouraged to click on the hyperlinks above to read more and gain insight into the issues associated with the I-864 affidavit of support.
It should be noted that the issues associated with the I-864 affidavit of support are significant and should not be overlooked by those seeking immigration benefits. Furthermore, the issues associated with the I-864 affidavit of support pertain not only to USCIS in the United States, but also impact the Consular processing phase of U.S. Immigration process for those who are seeking United States immigrant visas, such as the IR-1 visa and the CR-1 visa, abroad. Meanwhile, seekers of visas such as the K-1 visa (for fiancees of US Citizens) must submit a similar document to a US Embassy or US Consulate abroad in the form of an I-134 affidavit of support. Bearing this in mind, the reader should take note of the fact that the issues surrounding the I-864 affidavit of support are likely to come to the forefront for K-1 visa holders when they eventually apply for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence.
There was an interesting notation on the aforementioned website:
Note: In general, lawful permanent residents who currently possess a “green card” cannot be denied U.S. citizenship for lawfully receiving any public benefits for which they are eligible.
The reader is encouraged to bear in mind the fact that the above quotation is speaking in generalities, but the issue of naturalization in the context of the affidavit of support may be of interest to Americans thinking about bringing a loved one to the USA. The reason that Americans may find the issue of naturalization interesting when discussing family immigration stems from the fact that upon a foreign spouse’s naturalization to US Citizenship, the encumbrances placed upon the American Citizen within the provisions of the affidavit of support are extinguished as upon becoming a United States Citizen a previous foreign national becomes eligible in their own right for government benefits (where applicable). Therefore, the previous sponsor(s) are no long liable to the United States government should the newly-naturalized citizen take government benefits.
For related information please see: Certificate of Citizenship or Child Citizenship Act.
5th May 2011
It recently came to this blogger’s attention that an official within China’s foreign exchange authority was noted for comments made regarding the currencies of the so-called BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) and their future relationship to the so-called SDR or Special Drawing Right. To quote directly from the Reuters Africa section of the official website of the Reuters news service, Reuters.com:
SHANGHAI May 5 (Reuters) – The IMF should consider including currencies of the BRICS countries and other emerging economies when it next reviews its Special Drawing Right (SDR) system by 2015, the head of China’s foreign exchange authority said in remarks published on Thursday.
Yi Gang, who is also a deputy governor of the People’s Bank of China (PBOC), called on the International Monetary Fund to kick off a research of a “shadow SDR” this year, the semi-official China Business News reported.
The administration of this blog strongly encourages readers to click upon the hyperlinks above to read this story in detail as doing so would likely add perspective on an insightful article.
Clearly issues related to the relationship of currencies of developing countries, rising economies, and those of developed countries are being considered of increasing importance to policymakers the world over. This is especially true in the context of East Asia while Southeast Asian nations seem to have different issues to ponder regarding currency. As the constituent economies and jurisdictions comprising the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) continue to thrive economically, the question of a single currency seems to persistently manifest itself at the foreground of analysis pertaining to the long term outlook for the ASEAN region. To quote directly from the website of The Jakarta Post, TheJakartaPost.com:
Indonesia and its neighbors in the ASEAN region have been weighing the possibility of having a single currency such as the euro for years.
Some ASEAN representatives and economic ministers believed that the implementation of a single currency in ASEAN could take the economic community in the region to the next level, as it would enhance economic development in the area and forge stronger ties among ASEAN countries.
But currently, Europe’s crisis is a lesson to learn for Indonesia and ASEAN on the risks and to realize that the potential economic losses if the single currency policy fails is indeed massive.
The administration again encourages readers to click on the hyperlinks above to read this intriguing story in detail.
It would appear as though recent developments in Europe have been a cause of concern for those analyzing the issues associated with a single ASEAN currency, as they probably should be since the decision to implement a single currency for multiple jurisdictions is a serious undertaking that would likely require a great deal of logistical as well as financial investment. While exploring The Jakarta Post website this blogger also came upon an interesting letter posted on that site. To quote directly from the posting Letter: On ASEAN Currency at TheJakartaPost.com:
I hardly see a future for a single ASEAN currency. What is lacking in ASEAN is unity. ASEAN is mainly focused on an economic agenda while the European Union (EU) has adopted extensive and expensive integration programs not only on an economic scale but also on a social, cultural and demographic platform.
Again, readers are strongly encouraged to click upon the hyperlink above to read this letter in detail. Some could argue that one of the strengths of the ASEAN community in her current form arises from the fact that there is not a single currency since some could argue that it would be extremely difficult to integrate the, sometimes radically, different economies of the ASEAN region via currency unification. Therefore, this reasoning posits, the creation of a relatively unified market platform in combination with multiple currencies operates as a sort of “best of both worlds” scenario under the current prevailing circumstances. That stated, anything further than simple analysis of the current factual circumstances pertaining to this issue would arguably be an exercise in mere speculation.
It is this blogger’s personal opinion that the issues above are likely to be debated for some time to come while it is hoped that business in China, business in ASEAN, business in Thailand, and business in the United States of America will continue to show growth in coming years.
For related information please see: US Company Registration or Thailand Company Registration.
4th May 2011
It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the recently announced Presidential candidate Representative Ron Paul noted his reaction to hearing the news of the demise of terrorist Osama bin Laden. To quote directly from an interesting article posted on the official website of The State Column, thestatecolumn.com:
Texas Rep. Ron Paul said Tuesday that he was delighted to hear of the death of Osama bin Laden.
The Texas Republican, and potential Republican presidential candidate, discussed the killing of bin Laden on The Diane Rehm Show, saying he is “still looking for more information” concerning the details of the killing.
Mr. Paul said he supported the killing of bin Laden, adding that he voted for the authority to go after those responsible for 9/11.
The administration of this blog recommends readers click upon the hyperlinks above to learn more from this insightful story.
On a somewhat related matter (related as both stories pertain to U.S. politics), but certainly of likely interest to readers of this blog, it would appear as though the Immigration Equality Action Fund has taken steps to build a coalition of businesses in favor of enactment of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). To quote directly from the official website of the Immigration Equality Action Fund, ImmigrationEqualityActionFund.org:
Immigration Equality Action Fund created the Business Coalition for the Uniting American Families Act to engage global companies who are fed up with the loss of talented LGBT employees due to immigration restrictions. The Coalition is a group of global businesses calling on Congress to pass the Uniting American Families Act, S. 424/H.R. 1024.
The administration of this web log strongly encourages readers to click upon the hyperlinks noted above to read about this information in detail. Furthermore, readers are encouraged to take note of those companies which have shown their support for the rights of the American LGBT community.
For those unfamiliar with this issue, the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), recently reintroduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Representative Jerrold Nadler, would provide immigration benefits for the “permanent partners” of United States Citizens and/or Lawful Permanent Residents thereby circumventing the current (questionably Constitutional) legal restrictions barring the granting of federal benefits to those who are in a same sex marriage or intending to enter into a same sex marriage upon lawful admission to the United States of America. Such discrimination currently exists pursuant to the provisions of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA). The reader is encouraged to note that these current restrictions exist notwithstanding the fact that a number of sovereign American States have voiced their support for same sex marital unions. Most notable for those interested in the legal ramifications of this issue: the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the State of California have seen cases pertaining to these issues, but as of yet, the issue remains in a sort of stasis as the wheels of justice slowly turn.
As the 2012 election approaches it is noteworthy how varied the issues are likely to be even as they comprise the spectrum of presidential debate topics.
For related information please see: Respect for Marriage Act or Full Faith and Credit Clause.
3rd May 2011
It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the media mogul and Mayor of the City of New York Michael Bloomberg has been noted for remarks about the beneficial aspects of immigration to America. To quote directly from the website myfoxny.com:
WASHINGTON – Detroit should take a page from Lady Liberty and shine a beacon of welcome to immigrants as a way to overcome its severe population loss, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Sunday.
For those who follow this blog with any frequency it should be noted that New York has recently seen efforts by the attorney generals of that State to decrease the amount of immigration fraud in the form of illegitimate operators claiming expertise in U.S. immigration matters. It would appear that the city of Detroit has encountered much economic turbulence as a result of recent economic downturns. Meanwhile, there can be significant benefits to a national economy to be had through effective immigration policies. To quote further from the aforementioned article:
Bloomberg’s prescription for Detroit’s salvation came in a discussion about what he called a “crisis of confidence” among business people about the nation’s economy. Bloomberg said the “most obvious” answer is to encourage immigration.
“This is a country that was built by immigrants … that became a superpower because of its immigrant population, and unless we continue to have immigrants, we cannot maintain as a superpower,” he said.
Virtually all Americans are descended from those who immigrated to the United States of America. In a modern context, there are many visa categories available to prospective immigrants who are interested in conducting business in America. For example, the EB-5 visa provides lawful permanent residence to the visa holder upon lawful admission to the United States. Furthermore, the E-2 visa may allow for non-immigrant visa benefits to those foreign nationals conducting business pursuant to a Treaty with the United States. In the context of Thailand, there may be visa benefits which can be acquired pursuant to the bi-lateral relationship between the USA and Thailand as codified in agreements such as the US-Thai Treaty of Amity. Some may be eligible for similar benefits in the form of the E-1 visa. Those working for a multi-national organization may be eligible to obtain an L-1 visa as an intra-company transferee either in the form of an L-1A visa or an L-1B visa, depending upon the factual circumstances of the case.
Clearly, there are benefits to be accrued to those immigrating to the USA. Concurrently, there may also be benefits to the American economy and the American People as a result of immigration to the USA by foreign nationals.
For related information please see: US lawyer or US business visa.
2nd May 2011
It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the Premier of China has expressed interest in expanded trade relations with the economies comprising the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). To quote directly from the official website of the China Post, ChinaPost.com.tw:
JAKARTA — Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said Saturday Beijing wants to boost cooperation in trade and security with the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
In a policy speech on the last day of a three-day visit to Indonesia, the current chair of ASEAN and its biggest member, Wen extolled the virtues of an ASEAN-China free trade agreement (FTA) that came into effect in January.
It should be noted that the trade between the jurisdictions comprising the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and China is not negligible. As the economy of China has shown tremendous growth in recent years, so too have many of the ASEAN nations. It is interesting that as both regions grow, they seem to create a mutually beneficial feedback loop in terms of trade and business. To quote further from the aforementioned article in the China Post:
“Last year, China became ASEAN’s biggest trading partner. We launched the largest FTA among developing countries and we have set the target of US$500 billion in two-way trade by 2015,” he said.
The administration of this web log highly recommends that readers click upon the above hyperlinks to learn more on this story and the issues associated therewith. It would appear as though the current trading relationship between ASEAN and China is highly beneficial to many of the economies concerned.
Meanwhile, of possibly more pressing interest to some, it would appear as though the United States Embassy in India is taking some precautionary measures in the aftermath of the recent announcement that notorious terrorist Osama bin Laden is deceased. To quote directly from the official website of the Times of India:
NEW DELHI: Immediately after the United States informed India on Monday about the killing of al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden by American forces in Pakistan, security was tightened around the US Embassy in New Delhi and consulates in Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Hyderabad and Bangalore.
“Besides asking Delhi Police to enhance its deployment around the US embassy here, the home ministry issued advisories asking states having US consulates to strengthen the security of these places”, said a senior home ministry official.
The administration of this blog again strongly recommends that readers click upon the hyperlinks above to read the above story in detail. Frequent readers of this web log may take note of the fact that the United States maintains the American Corner Bangalore.
Clearly authorities are taking precautions in reaction to recently announced events. It is likely that further information will come to light regarding all of these subjects in the coming weeks, months, and years. Hopefully, all of these precautions will prove unnecessary, but this remains, as of yet, to be seen.
For related information please see: business in China or US Visa India.
1st May 2011
Pepsi Panarchy Perishing? Prognosis: Possible Peruvian Plundering
Posted by : admin
As the world economy continues to re-stratify in ways that have not been predictable, it recently came to this blogger’s attention that recent shareholder voting activity at a local Thai bottling company may have placed the soft drink giant Pepsi upon something of a “back foot”. To quote directly from the official website of Reuters, Reuters.com:
BANGKOK, April 29 (Reuters) – Shareholders in PepsiCo Inc’s Thai bottler, Serm Suk Pcl , voted on Friday to terminate its contracts with the U.S. soft drink maker after more than half a century in business together.
The move means the U.S. giant will have to find other partners to tap growth in the Southeast Asian country of 67 million people. It had no immediate comment.
From an American’s perspective as an observer in the Kingdom of Thailand the re-stratification mentioned above can be best observed by the increasing importance of regional organizations such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Concurrently, American companies doing business in Thailand and Greater Asia are finding that some jurisdictions have different rules regarding corporate governance when compared to the United States. To continue quoting further from the aforementioned article:
About 99.41 percent of shareholders voted to end the business with PepsiCo. PepsiCo, maker of Pepsi-Cola, Sierra Mist and Tropicana juice, owns 41.54 percent of Serm Suk through Pepsi-Cola (Thai)Trading and Seven-Up Nederland BV. It remains unclear what it will do with this stake.
The administration of this web log recommends readers click upon the hyperlinks above to read further about this story in detail.
It is interesting to note that shareholder voting rights can have a tremendous impact upon the governance of a corporation in Thailand as a Thai Company may be governed by Thai corporate law which can be substantially different in many ways to U.S. law on the same subject matter. For American readers, it should be noted that there may be benefits to be had for US companies in Thailand pursuant to the provisions of the US-Thai Treaty of Amity. That stated, although Amity Treaty Companies may be of benefit to some endeavors not all business activity can be undertaken pursuant to this Treaty. Therefore, those interested in further information on this subject may be best informed by contacting a Thai lawyer.
The ramifications of the shareholder vote noted above may be felt not only by Pepsi, but by others in the soft drink business in the Kingdom of Thailand and Greater Southeast Asia. To quote directly from a recent article entitled SSC Seals Pepsi Divorce from the Business section of the Bangkok Post‘s official website BangkokPost.com:
The transition period could create opportunities for rival Coke and new players such as the fast-rising Peruvian brand Big Cola to steal market share from Pepsi. Thailand has long been one of only a handful of cola markets in the world where Pepsi outsells Coke.
The administration of this web log strongly recommends that readers interested in these topics click upon the hyperlinks above to read further from this insightful article in order to gain insight and perspective on this story and the possible ramifications thereof.
Clearly the reverberations of the recent corporate vote could accrue to the benefit of Pepsi’s competitors within the Thai market. This blogger, simply as a consumer, has noticed what appears to be some increasing popularity for Big Cola mentioned above. This recent popularity may not necessarily mean that this soft drink will take Pepsi’s place as the number one soft drink in Thailand, but the whole incident may go to show the way in which the local Thai soft drink market is beginning to show an increasing taste for novelty. This trend toward novelty is increasingly palpable across much of the Thai economy as consumers are presented with increasing purchasing choices in the Kingdom. Meanwhile, it could be argued that the biggest beneficiary of the recent vote is Pepsi’s major international rival Coca-Cola which might pick up further market share as a result of a possible Pepsi decline.
For related information please see: business in China or US Company Registration.
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.