Integrity Legal

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, lgbt immigration, same sex visa, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Consulate HCMC, US Consulate Singapore, us embassy bangkok, 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 and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | 1 Comment »

In a recent case that was heard and adjudicated by the United States Supreme Court, the issue of Immigrants’ right to counsel was taken up and the outcome of the case resulted in a landmark opinion and a watershed moment for the rights of Immigrants in the United States of America. The case is known as Padilla v. Kentucky, the following quote comes from an email from the Law Corporation of Alice M. Yardum-Hunter:

The case involved a 40-year permanent resident, Jose Padilla, whose criminal defense lawyer advised him not to worry about the immigration consequences of pleading guilty to a crime. That advice was not only wrong but the guilty plea subjected Mr. Padilla to mandatory deportation from the United States. The Kentucky Supreme Court held that Mr. Padilla had no right to withdraw his plea when he learned of the deportation consequence. The Supreme Court reversed that decision and rejected the federal government’s position – also adopted by several other courts – that a noncitizen is protected only from “affirmative misadvice” and not from a lawyer’s failure to provide any advice about the immigration consequences of a plea. The Court held that Mr. Padilla’s counsel was constitutionally deficient and affirmed that immigrants should not be held accountable when they rely on incorrect advice from their lawyers or where counsel fails to provide any immigration advice at all.

The implications of this case are important for attorneys practicing in the United States as they will now be required to provide advice about the legal consequences of certain activities from an Immigration perspective.

This is also important for those American Immigration Lawyers practicing outside of the United States. For example, if an individual with lawful permanent residence in the United States is abroad and learns of a pending criminal warrant or fugitive warrant, then that individual may choose to retain the advice of a US lawyer outside of the United States. In that case, the lawyer would be required, under the provisions of this recently adjudicated decision, to provide advice regarding the immigration consequences of a guilty plea in a pending criminal matter.

This example illustrates one more reason why it is so important to retain the advice of an individual who is licensed to practice law in the USA. This is particularly important in a country such as Thailand where the existence of “visa companies,” “visa agents,” and unlicensed and non-accredited so-called “lawyers” and “attorneys” operate with little oversight. Many are unaware of the implications of a criminal pleading in an immigration context and this ignorance can lead to unforeseen difficulties for US Immigrants overseas.

For information about United States Immigration from Thailand please see: K1 Visa Thailand.

Tags: American Attorney, American Attorney Thailand, American Lawyer, American Lawyer Thailand, American warrant, Fugitive Warrant, Padilla v. Kentucky, US attorney, US Immigration, US Immigration Thailand, US lawyer, US Lawyer Thailand, US Visa, US Visa Thailand, US warrant, visa agency, visa agent, Visa Company, warrant
Posted in CR1 Visa, Department of Homeland Security, General Legal Information, IR1 Visa, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, US Consulate HCMC, us embassy bangkok, 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 Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, US Warrants, USCBP, USCIS, USICE | No Comments »

ในกระทู้ก่อนๆผู้เขียนได้กล่าวถึง การยื่นแบบ I-130 เพื่อขอวีซ่าอเมริกาสำหรับญาติสนิท สำหรับผู้ที่พำนักอาศัยอยู่ในประเทศที่ไม่มีสำนักงานของ USCIS ก็อาจจะยื่นคำขอต่อกงสุลโดยตรงโดยใช้วิธีการ Direct Consular Filing อย่างไรก็ตาม สำหรับในประเทศที่มีสำนักงาน USCIS อยู่ ผู้ยื่นก็จำเป็นต้องยื่นเรื่องต่อสำนักงาน USCIS โดยตรง โดยมีข้อแม้ว่าจะต้องมีคุณสมบัติคือมีถิ่นที่อยู่ในเขตอำนาจของสำนักงานนั้นๆ นั่นหมายความว่า บางคนเข้าใจผิดๆว่าผู้ยื่นและผู้รับผลประโยชน์เท่านั้นจึงจะยื่นคำขอได้ ซึ่งไม่ใช่เสียทีเดียว

มาตรา 8 CFR 292.1 กล่าวว่า :

(เอ) บุคคลที่สามารถมีตัวแทน ( ต่อ USCIS ) อาจจะใช้ตัวแทนยื่นเรื่องได้ ดังนี้

(1) ทนายความในสหรัฐอเมริกา ทนายความคนใดตามมาตรา 1.1(f) แห่งหมวดนี้

มาตรา 1.1(f) ที่อ้างไว้ข้างต้นกล่าวว่า

“ คำว่าทนายความหมายถึงบุคคลใดๆที่เป็นสมาชิกแห่งเนติบัณฑิตยสภาของศาลสูงสุดในมลรัฐใดๆ เขตแดน รัฐอาณานิคม คอมมอนเวลท์ หรือ เขตโคลัมเบีย และไม่อยู่ภายใต้คำสั่งศาลจำกัดอำนาจ ห้าม กัน ถอนใบอนุญาติ หรืออื่นๆอันเป็นการจำกัดมิให้ผู้นั้นประกอบอาชีพกฎหมาย “

ในทางปฏิบัติ หมายความว่า ทนายความที่มีใบอนุญาติในสหรัฐอเมริกา สามารถเป็นตัวแทนลูกความต่อ USCIS ได้ ไม่มีข้อจำกัดด้านถิ่นที่อยู่สำหรับสิทธิในข้อนี้ ดังนั้น ผู้ที่ต้องการยื่นแบบ I -130 ที่สำนักงานท้องถิ่น สามารถจ้างทนายทำการแทนได้ตามกฎหมาย

วิธีการนี้เป็นประโยชน์ต่อผู้ที่ไม่ต้องการจะดำเนินการกับขั้นตอนการยื่นเรื่อง เนื่องจากเมื่อทนายความมีสิทธิ์ทำการแทนตัวความเกี่ยวกับคำขอ IR1 และ CR1 ในประเทศไทย ผู้ยื่นและผู้รับผลประโยชน์ก็เพียงเตรียมเอกสารที่จำเป็นแก่ทนายความและทนายความก็จะเป็นผู้ดำเนินการต่อเองในนามของผู้ยื่น ในบางกรณี USCIS กำหนดให้ ผู้ยื่นและผู้รับผลประโยชน์มาปรากฏตัวต่อหน้าสำหรับเรื่องที่อยู่ระหว่างดำเนินการ หากมีกรณีเช่นว่า ผู้ยื่นและผู้รับผลประโยชน์ก็สามารถให้ทนายความดำเนินการเข้าพบกับเจ้าหน้าที่ USCIS แทนได้

Tags: 8 CFR 292.1, Direct Consular Filing, I-130, Local filing, US วีซ่า ประเทศไทย, USCIS, USCIS Bangkok, กฏหมายการขอวีซ่า, การว่าคาวมขอขอวีซ่าในประเทศไทย, สถานทูตสหรัฐอเมริกาประจำประเทศไทย, ้วีซ่าอเมริกาจากประเทศไทย
Posted in CR1 Visa, Department of Homeland Security, IR1 Visa, K-3 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, US Visa Thailand, USCIS, สถานทูตสหรัฐอเมริกาประจำประเทศไทย, ้วีซ่าอเมริกาจากประเทศไทย | No Comments »

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.

Tags: CIR, Comprehensive Immigration Reform, gay visa, Gay Visas, lgbt immigration, LGBT Visas, Same Sex Immigration, same sex visa, Same Sex Visas, uafa, Uniting American Families Act, US Immigration
Posted in Department of Homeland Security, General Legal Information, Legal Opinion, lgbt immigration, same sex visa, Upcoming Legislation, US Visa and Immigration, USCBP, USCIS, USICE | No Comments »

In previous posts this author has discussed the I-130 petition for an immediate relative for a visa to the United States of America. For those present in countries that do not have an office of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) it may be possible to file such a petition directly with the Consulate by utilizing a method known as Direct Consular Filing. However, in a country where an overseas office of USCIS is located it is incumbent upon to petitioner to file at the local USCIS office, provided he or she meets the residence requirements for the office to take jurisdiction. That being said, many are under the mistaken impression that only the petitioner and beneficiary, together, can submit an application. This is not necessarily the case.

8 CFR 292.1 states:

(a) A person entitled to representation [before USCIS] may be represented by any of the following:

(1) Attorneys in the United States. Any attorney as defined in §1.1(f) of this chapter.

Section 1.1(f), referenced above states:

“The term attorney means any person who is a member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of any State, possession, territory, Commonwealth, or the District of Columbia, and is not under any order of any court suspending, enjoining, restraining, disbarring, or otherwise restricting him in the practice of law.”

In practical terms, this means that a licensed attorney in the United States is entitled to represent clients before the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service. There is no geographical restriction placed upon this right. Therefore, those wishing to file an I-130 to travel to the United States are entitled, as a matter of law, to attorney representation.

This can provide a real boon to those who do not wish to deal with the petition submission process. Since an attorney in entitled to act on behalf of clients in matters involving petitions for the IR1 visa and the CR1 visa in Thailand, the Petitioner and Beneficiary need simply provide required documents to their attorney and the attorney can file the petition on their behalf. In some limited cases, USCIS officers require that a Petitioner or Beneficiary appear in person regarding a pending case. Should this situation arise, the Petitioner or Beneficiary is entitled to have their attorney present for such a meeting with USCIS officers.

Unfortunately, in Thailand there are many agencies and “fly by night” operations claiming to have the right and expertise to assist in visa matters. However, many of these so-called “lawyers” are not licensed to practice law in the United States, nor in any other jurisdiction. Therefore, they cannot present an I-130 submission on behalf of another. In a way, an I-130 local filing is a “litmus test” of whether or not an individual is really an American attorney. If a so-called “attorney” requires the Petitioner and/or Beneficiary to file the I-130 personally and the so-called “attorney” is unwilling to appear personally, then this may be a sign that they are an unlicensed operator and should be avoided.

For further information please see US Visa Thailand. For further information regarding USCIS local jurisdiction please see: USCIS Bangkok.

Tags: American Attorney Thailand, American Lawyer Thailand, CR1 application Thailand, CR1 Visa Thailand, I-130, I-130 Bangkok, I-130 Thailand, IR1 application Thailand, IR1 Visa Thailand, Local filing, US Attorney Thailand, US Lawyer Thailand, US Visa Thailand, USCIS, USCIS application, USCIS application Bangkok, USCIS application Thailand, USCIS Bangkok, USCIS Local Filing, USCIS Local Filing Bangkok, USCIS Local Filing Thailand, USCIS petition Thailand, USCIS Thailand
Posted in CR1 Visa, Department of Homeland Security, IR1 Visa, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | No Comments »

Traveling to the United States of America, for any purpose, can be a costly and arduous endeavor. Recently the American Immigration Lawyers Association distributed a a memorandum that was promulgated by the United States Customs and Border Protection (USCBP) Service. In this memorandum the Foreign Affairs Manual was referenced. The following is a direct quotation from that memorandum:

“The Department of State (DOS) recently revised 9 FAM 41.104 Exhibit I, entitled, “Countries that Extend Passport Validity for an Additional Six Months after Expiration.” The Inspector’s Field Manual (IFM) Appendix 15.2 will be amended to reflect the new DOS 6-month list.”

The Inspectors Field Manual is important because it notes the countries that will extend passport validity by six months past the date of passport expiration. The memorandum goes further and discusses specific countries that will no longer be recognized as allowing this type of extension past the underlying passport’s validity:

“Among the countries that have been removed from the 6-month list since the last revision of the IFM are the following: Bangladesh, Cuba, Ecuador, Holy See, Italy, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Laos, Oman, Russia, Senegal, Sudan, Syria, and Togo.“

We have posted this information in order to better inform those travelers from the aforementioned countries who are accustomed to traveling to the USA on a passport with little, or no, official validity left. It would be unfortunate for an individual from one of the countries listed above to travel to the USA only to find that they are inadmissible due to the fact that they no longer have a travel document that is recognized as valid by United States Customs and Border Protection.

Thai Authorities generally require that those applying for a Thai visa have at least 6 months of stated validity on their passport. This is due to the fact that Thai officials do not like to issue visas with a validity that stretches substantially past the the date of the underlying passport’s validity period. In some cases, a Thai tourist visa can be obtained when there is little validity left on the passport, but these cases are rare. In cases involving the multiple entry one year Thai business visa or the one year Thai O visa, it has become practically a hard and fast rule that the validity of the passport be more than 6 months before a visa will be issued.

For further information about passports and travel to the USA please see: US Visa Thailand. For further insight into Thai Immigration matters please see: Thailand visa.

Tags: passport, Thai Immigration, Thai O Visa, Thai Visa, Thailand Business Visa, Thailand Immigration, Thailand Visa, United States Customs and Border Protection, US Immigration, US Visa, US Visa Thailand, USCBP
Posted in Department of Homeland Security, General Legal Information, Thailand Visa, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCBP | No Comments »

ในกระทู้นี้เราจะกล่าวถึง Notice of Action 1 หรือ NOA 1 เพื่อแสดงคำนิยามทางกฎหมายคนเข้าเมืองสหรัฐอเมริกาที่แม่นยำให้แก่ผู้ที่กำลังจะขอวีซ่าอเมริกาจากประเทศไทย

ในกรณีเกี่ยวกับคนเข้าเมืองสหรัฐอเมริกาหลายๆเรื่อง โดยเฉพาะเรื่องเกี่ยวกับการเข้าเมืองด้วยจุดประสงค์ทางครอบครัว คำขอจะต้องได้รับการอนุมัติจาก USCIS เสียก่อน หน่วยงานนี้เป็นหนึ่งในหน่วยงานที่ขึ้นตรงกับกระทรวงความมั่นคงสหรัฐอเมริกา (DHS)

เมื่อคู่รักเลือกที่จะยื่นขอวีซ่าสหรัฐอเมริกา ก็มักจะเป็นวีซ่า CR 1 , IR 1, K3 หรือ K 1 วีซ่า CR 1, IR 1 และ K 3 เป็นวีซ่าประเภทคู่สมรสอเมริกาทั้งหมด ในขณะที่วีซ่า K 1 เป็นวีซ่าคู่หมั้น วีซ่าประเภทเหล่านี้จะต้องได้รับการอนุมัติจาก USCIS ก่อนที่จะมีการกำหนดสัมภาษณ์ ในทางกลับกันวีซ่า B1, B2, F1 และ J1 เป็นวีซ่าไม่อพยพ ( ซึ่งไม่อนุญาตให้มีเจตนาในการเข้าเมืองเพื่อวัตถุประสงค์อื่นอีก ) และไม่จำต้องได้รับการอนุมัติจาก USCIS เสียก่อน ข้อควรสังเกตคือวีซ่าไม่อพยพประเภทเหล่านี้เป็นการยากที่จะขอสำหรับคนรักของบุคคลสัญชาติอเมริกันตามมาตรา 214b แห่งพระราชบัญญัติคนเข้าเมืองและสัญชาติ มาตรานี้ได้วางหลักถึงข้อสันนิษฐานที่จะต้องทำให้ปราศจากความสงสัยให้ได้ก่อนที่จะออกวีซ่าให้

เมื่อบุคคลสัญชาติอเมริกันยื่นคำขอวีซ่า K1, K3, CR1 หรือ IR1 จะต้องยื่นคำขอไปยัง USCIS เสียก่อน มีศูนย์บริการ USCIS อยู่สองแห่งโดยขึ้นอยู่กับภูมิลำเนาของผู้ยื่นขอชาวอเมริกัน ผู้ยื่นคำขอจะต้องยื่นคำขอต่อ USCIS และจะมีการออกใบรับให้เรียกว่า Notice of Action 1 (NOA1 ) ใบรับนี้จะแสดงชื่อผู้ยื่นคำขอและผู้รับผลประโยชน์ รวมถึงวันที่รับเรื่องและวันที่ออกใบรับ ใบรับนี้จะแสดงหมายเลขเรื่องด้วย

สำหรับผู้ที่ใช้บริการทนายความทำวีซ่าอเมริกา สำเนา Notice of Action 1 จะถูกส่งไปยังทนายความในกรณีที่ทนายความได้ยื่นแบบ G28 เข้าไปด้วยกับคำขอวีซ่า ก่อนทีจะใช้บริการกับทนายคนใด คุณควรตรวจสอบให้แน่ใจว่าจะมีการยื่นแบบ G28 ด้วยเนื่องจากมันค่อนข้างมีความสัมพันธ์ต่อการดำเนินการตามคำขอวีซ่า และบริษัทวีซ่าไม่สามารถกระทำการแทนลูกค้าต่อ USCIS ได้ดังนั้นน่าจะเป็นการดีที่จะตรวจสอบคุณสมบัติของบุคคลที่คุณต้องการให้เป็นตัวแทนให้ และโชคไม่ดีที่ในประเทศไทยมีผู้ให้บริการที่ไม่ได้รับอนุญาติอยู่มากมายที่ปฏิบัติงานเช่นทนายความมีใบอนุญาติของสหรัฐอเมริกา

Notice of Action 1 นั้นเป็นคนละตัวกับจดหมายจากสถานทูตอเมริกาประจำประเทศไทย จดหมายนี้เรียกว่า Packet 3 และจะถูกส่งในช่วงท้ายๆของกระบวนการคนเข้าเมืองแล้วเท่านั้น

Tags: B1, B1 visa, B1 Visa Thailand, B2, B2 Visa, B2 Visa Thailand, CR1, F1, F1 Visa Thailand, IR1, J1, J1 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, K3 Visa Thailand, NOA 1, NOA1, Notice of Action 1, US Visa Thailand, USCIS
Posted in 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 Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS, สถานทูตสหรัฐอเมริกาประจำประเทศไทย, ้วีซ่าอเมริกาจากประเทศไทย | No Comments »

Visa denial is generally something that most bi-national couples do not wish to discuss, but it is something that should be researched by the prospective visa petitioner as legal grounds of inadmissibility and the I-601 waiver process could be relevant to an individual couple’s Immigration petition and visa application.

In a recent report from the Congressional Research service (distributed by AILA) the issue of visa denial was discussed as the report looked at the reasons for denial and the overall trends in inadmissibility findings:

“Most LPR [Lawful Permanent Residence] petitioners who were excluded on §212(a) grounds from FY1994 through FY2004 were rejected because the Department of State (DOS) determined that the aliens were inadmissible as likely public charges. By FY2004, the proportion of public charge exclusions had fallen but remained the top basis for denial. The lack of proper labor certification was another leading ground for exclusion from FY1994 through FY2004. By FY2008, however, illegal presence and previous orders of removal from the United States was the leading ground.”

The finding of a “public charge” grounds of inadmissibility is related to the affidavit of support. A finding that an alien is likely to be a “public charge” stems from a finding that the sponsor does not have the requisite income and assets necessary to support the alien for whom benefits are being sought. The report goes further to note that Comprehensive Immigration Reform may tackle some of the issues associated with the trends in visa application denials:

“Legislation aimed at comprehensive immigration reform may take a fresh look at the grounds for excluding foreign nationals enacted over the past two decades. Expanding the grounds for inadmissibility, conversely, might be part of the legislative agenda among those who support more restrictive immigration reform policies.”

It is interesting to note that the Immigration system may become more stringent or more lax depending upon the mood of legislators with regard to the issue of immigration. That being said, a more detailed look at the current trends provides insight into the dynamics of the system as a whole:

“[M]ost LPR petitioners who were excluded on §212(a) grounds in FY1996 and FY2000 were rejected because the DOS determined that the aliens were inadmissible as likely public charges. In FY2004, the proportion of public charge exclusions had fallen, but remained the top basis for denial. The lack of proper labor certification was another leading ground for exclusion in FY1996, FY2000, FY2004, and FY2008. By FY2008, however, illegal presence and previous orders of removal from the United States had become the leading ground.”

It is interesting to note that unlawful presence and previous removal had become the leading grounds of inadmissibility cited by the year 2008. This would seem to support the anecdotal evidence and personal experience of this author as more and more prospective entrants to the US seem to be placed in expedited removal proceedings with greater frequency. Also, there seems to be an increasing trend of increasingly zealous enforcement of Immigration law in the USA as illegal aliens are placed in removal proceedings more frequently.

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

Tags: deportation, Deported, expedited removal, removal, us visa denial, US Visa Denial Thailand
Posted in CR1 Visa, Department of Homeland Security, 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 Consulate HCMC, US Consulate Singapore, us embassy bangkok, 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 and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCBP, USCIS, USICE | No Comments »

The Office the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security is responsible for making investigations into the activities of the agencies under the jurisdiction of the Department. This can be a difficult, and likely thankless, task as the Department of Homeland Security is a very large organization. The United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service (USICE) has a mandate to enforce US Immigration and Customs regulations. That being said,  a recent report distributed by the American Immigration Lawyers Association discusses a recent investigation conducted by the Inspector General’s office into the activities of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the relationship between ICE and local law enforcement agencies:

“Today the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General issued a comprehensive report confirming civil rights abuses in a federal program that “deputizes” state and local law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration law. The Inspector General tells of local officers arresting individuals who have committed no offense – including even victims – for the sole purpose of identifying whether they have lawful immigration status.”

Although security and safety are important issues and it is necessary to take measures to ensure that America is safe and secure, there are many who argue that this security cannot come at the cost of American liberties and the ideals upon which America was founded. The report went further:

“Under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, state and local law enforcement agencies, acting under federal supervision, may assume federal immigration enforcement powers. This delegation of immigration enforcement power must be executed through formal written Memoranda of Agreement between the federal government and the local authority. The memoranda require state and local officers to abide by federal civil rights laws. The Inspector General found widespread lack of adequate training, guidance, monitoring or oversight. ‘The federal government has failed in its duty to train and supervise local officers. This program has turned local police into agents of fear within law-abiding communities,’ said Wolfsdorf. ‘Immigration lawyers hear reports everyday that immigrants are afraid to talk to the police and to report crimes. Through this program the federal government is undermining the ability of local authorities to ensure all Americans’ safety and security.’ The report also noted that Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) failed to provide accurate information about the program to Congress and the public.”

It is interesting to note that Department of Homeland Security personnel investigated this issue and made these issues public. The Office of the Inspector General should receive some accolades for assisting in bringing these issues to light.

For specific information about US Immigration from Thailand Please See: American Visa Thailand.

Tags: American Visa Thailand, Department of Homeland Security, DHS, Office of Inspector General DHS, US Immigration, US Visa, USICE
Posted in Department of Homeland Security, General Legal Information, Legal Opinion, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USICE | No Comments »