Thailand Call: 02-266 3698
USA Call: 1-(316)-974-0454
Integrity Legal
- Legal Blog
- Integrity Legal Home
- Thai Visa
- Company in Thailand
- Real Estate Thailand
- US Visa
- Contact Us
Archive for the ‘K1 Visa Thailand’ Category
30th August 2010
In previous posts on this blog, this author has discussed so-called visa companies and other organizations that claim to be licensed to provide legal services to immigrants and prospective immigrants. In a previous post, the New York Attorney General’s campaign to combat fraudulent immigration practitioners was discussed at length. It would appear that Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is still intent upon seeing that this type of activity is thwarted. To quote directly from a press release distributed by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA):
NEW YORK, NY (August 17, 2010) – Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo today announced the latest actions in his ongoing effort to combat scams that target New York’s immigrant communities. As part of his broad investigation into immigration fraud, Cuomo has shut down seven companies and sued two other organizations for providing fraudulent legal services to immigrants.
The following seven companies and their owners have been permanently barred from operating any immigration services businesses and must collectively pay $370,000 in damages to the State of New York: (1) Centro Santa Ana, Inc. and Ana Lucia Baquero, in Queens; (2) Margo’s Immigration Services and Margarita Davidov a/k/a Margo Davidov, in Queens; (3) Miguel Fittipaldi, J.D., Ltd. and Miguel Fittipaldi, in Manhattan; (4) Arthur C. Hurwitz, in Manhattan; (5) Oficina Legal Para
Hispanos, P.C. and Geoffrey S. Stewart, in Manhattan; (6) Asilos and Camilo Perdomo, in Queens; and (7) Mision Hispana, Inc. and Mayra Liz, in Queens.The Attorney General began an investigation and issued subpoenas to these companies after receiving information that they were engaged in fraudulent and illegal business practices. The illegal conduct included, among other things, misrepresenting their authorization to submit documents on behalf of immigrants to the government and giving legal advice to immigrants. Further, some of these companies involved attorneys who aided others in the unauthorized practice of the law and simply lent their name to provide legitimacy to the business. Collectively, these companies abused hundreds of immigrants.
This author is pleased to see Attorney General Cuomo taking such a keen interest in an often overlooked problem plaguing the United States at large as well as immigrant communities in the USA. These immigrant groups are often targeted by unlicensed “visa agents” or “Immigration specialists” who prey upon uninformed consumers.
This can be a real problem outside of the United States as well. In Asia, there are many unlicensed practitioners who claim to be authorized to practice US law. When dealing with someone who claims to be US lawyer abroad it is always wise to ask for credentials in order to ascertain whether or not an individual really is qualified to provide legal advice on American immigration matters. An American attorney’s credentials can be proven by producing either a State of Federal license to practice law or a Bar Association membership card for a State or Federal Bar Association. Even after production of such documents consumers are well advised to check with the attorney’s licensing body in order to verify that the individual in question is a licensed practitioner.
For related information please see: US Attorney Bangkok
27th August 2010
National Visa Center To Begin An Electronic Processing Pilot Program
Posted by : admin
Those with pending visa petitions and applications may have only had a passing experience dealing with the National Visa Center. For example, the National Visa Center plays a rather small role in the K1 visa process. Meanwhile those seeking a CR1 Visa or an IR1 Visa have probably had extensive dealings with the National Visa Center (NVC). In recent weeks, the NVC changed some of their processing policies for certain US Marriage Visas. Therefore, many of those seeking K3 Visa benefits have seen their application “administratively closed” by the NVC where the underlying I-130 arrived prior to, or contemporaneously with, the I-129f petition. In a recent announcement from the American State Department it was announced that NVC has begun a pilot program that many hope will eventually lead to simplification of the NVC document compilation process. To quote directly from the State Department’s announcement, as distributed through AILA:
The Immigrant Visa Electronic Processing Program is a pilot project which uses electronic communication and documentation methods to simplify and accelerate the immigrant visa application process. This program uses e-mail for communication and submission of all forms and documents to the NVC using the Portable Document Format (PDF). Under the Electronic Processing Program all forms will be downloaded, completed, signed (if required), scanned, saved as PDF files, and e-mailed to the NVC. Required civil documents and supporting documents must be converted to PDF files by scanning and e-mailed to the NVC. After the NVC has completed processing the applicant’s petition, the applicant will need to present the original physical documents to the US Embassy/Consulate at the time of the applicant’s visa interview. Failure to do so may cause a delay or denial of the visa being sought.
It is this author’s opinion that this policy change will have a tremendous impact upon the US visa process and will likely lead to faster visa processing in general. It will be interesting to see how this new program will impact US Consular Processing abroad. As noted in the announcement, original documentation will not be required by the NVC in some cases. Those who did not remit original documentation to the NVC may need to do so at the visa interview which usually occurs at a US Embassy or US Consulate with appropriate jurisdiction. Those who fail to remit such documentation may be subjected to a 221g refusal. In some cases, issuance of a 221g can delay a case by weeks, or in a limited number of cases the case could be delayed by months.
That said, those seeking visas to the United States are still well advised to seek the assistance of a competent licensed American attorney from the USA. Regardless of increased processing efficiency, there are many factors which can affect a visa application and competent advice and counsel can forestall unforeseen problems.
For related information please see: US Attorney Thailand.
5th August 2010
New Lockbox Facility To Receive K1 Visa Petitions
Posted by : admin
This blog routinely discusses both the US Marriage Visa and the US fiance visa as these are popular travel documents for the loved ones of Americans Citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents. The Fiancee visa is generally referred to as the K1 visa while many refer to the US Marriage Visa as the K3 Visa. Strictly speaking, this is not the correct appellation as the K3 Visa is a special non-immigrant marriage visa that has been phased out through the National Visa Center’s use of “Administrative Closure”.
Those who file for a classic US marriage visa are likely to have noted that the petition was sent to a “lockbox” of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). These “lockboxes” are used to receive documentation. In a way, they are something of a clearinghouse for visa petitions as they receipt the petitions in, assign them a number, and forward the file on to the appropriate service center.
In the recent past, this was not the way in which I-129f visa petitions were submitted to USCIS. In the past, the petitioner would submit the petition directly to the appropriate service center. However, a recent announcement from USCIS confirmed that this will no longer be the procedure for filing petitions for an American fiance visa. To quote directly from the USCIS press release:
WASHINGTON – U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced a change in filing location instructions and addresses for the Petition for Alien Fiancé(e) (Form I-129F). The new instructions, dated 6/14/10, are part of an overall effort to transition the intake of forms from Service Centers to USCIS Lockbox facilities. Centralizing form and fee intake to a Lockbox environment allows USCIS to provide customers with more efficient and effective initial processing of applications/petitions and fees.
Many feel that utilization of a “lockbox” facility will help streamline the adjudication process for fiancee visa petitions. Every year, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service processes a large number of fiance visa petitions. The caseload is currently rather bifurcated as these petitions are sent directly to a service center (currently there is one service center in Vermont and one in California). However, this method is rather cumbersome. Hopefully, by receiving all I-129f petitions in one centralized facility the process will be streamlined and made more efficient as cases can be sent to the service center with the capacity to handle the caseload.
For more about USCIS processing of K1 visa petitions please see: processing times.
27th July 2010
This author has recently been informed that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) is poised to conduct a thorough policy review which will delve into USCIS’s customer service procedures and look for ways to improve the US immigration system. As a first step, USCIS announced that a public survey would be conducted. Below are excerpts from a USCIS press release (distributed by the American Immigration Lawyers Association [AILA]), which outlines the purpose of the policy review and provides guidance regarding further methods of information gathering in an effort to improve USCIS customer service policies:
WASHINGTON— U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has announced the results of a public survey that launched the USCIS Policy Review, an unprecedented, top-to-bottom examination of the agency’s adjudication and customer-service policies. The survey results helped USCIS select the first 10 issue areas to address in the agency-wide review.
Informed by the survey responses, the agency’s needs, and input from the workforce, the USCIS Policy Review will begin by examining policies in the following issue areas: National Customer Service Center; Nonimmigrant H-1B; Naturalization and Citizenship; Employment-based Adjustment of Status; Family-based Adjustment of Status; Employment-Based Preference Categories 1, 2 and 3; Refugee and Asylum Adjustment of Status; Form I-601; General Humanitarian; and Employment
Authorization and Travel Documents.
“As an agency, we must achieve consistency in the policies that guide us and in how we implement them for the public benefit,” said USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas. “To achieve that critical goal, we are partnering with the public in this major undertaking to review our adjudication and customer-service policies. We will work collaboratively toward the shared objectives of consistency, integrity, transparency and efficiency.”
In April 2010, USCIS issued a survey that asked any interested member of the public, as well as its own workforce, to help identify the issue areas that the agency should examine first. USCIS received approximately 5,600 survey responses from diverse stakeholders. Those results are now available, along with a summary developed by USCIS’s new Office of Performance and Quality.
Some have questioned the need for such a survey as there are those who feel that USCIS’s current policies do not need improvement. Clearly, this is not the official view of USCIS as can be evidenced by the following statement:
On April 15, 2010, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) launched the USCIS Policy Review, an unprecedented, top-to-bottom examination the agency’s adjudication and customer service policies with the engaged participation of the USCIS workforce and the public. USCIS issued a survey that asked any interested member of the public, as well as its own workforce, to help identify the issue areas that the agency should examine first. Nearly 5,600 stakeholders responded to the survey, representing current immigrant and non-immigrant visa holders, employers, immigration attorneys and advocates, among others, in addition to responses from approximately 2,400 members of the USCIS workforce. Those responses helped USCIS select the first 10 issue areas to address in the agency-wide review. USCIS is now convening working groups to review the first 10 issue areas.
The press release went further than merely providing information regarding this important policy review. In an effort to provide the public with relevant information, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) also provided a “Q & A” component to the recent press release. The following are questions and answers arising in connection with USCIS’s policy review initiative:
Questions and Answers
Q. What is the USCIS Policy Review?
A. The USCIS Policy Review is a comprehensive review of policy, guidance, and procedures related to our adjudications and customer service. The Policy Review is divided into four stages: (1) assembling and categorizing existing policy documents; (2) deciding which issue areas to review first, with input from surveys of the workforce and external stakeholders; (3) completing a review of policies in each identified issue area; and (4) consolidating and publishing updated policy documents (as appropriate), once approved.
Q. How does the Policy Review advance major goals already established for USCIS and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)?
A. In the 2010 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR), DHS identified the effective administration of the immigration system as a key priority. In particular, the QHSR emphasized the importance of a system that produces fair, consistent and prompt decisions for the public it serves. The Policy Review is designed to ensure that USCIS meets that standard in its work.
Q. How does the Policy Review relate to USCIS’s responsibilities and authority under federal law?
A. By law, USCIS is charged with setting policies and priorities for the administration of immigration services. USCIS will be reviewing those policies in our current effort. If the Policy Review identifies the need for proposed regulatory changes, we will fully engage in the federal rulemaking process. The purpose of the Policy Review is not to develop proposed changes to the immigration statutes established by Congress.Q. Will the Policy Review change USCIS policy?
A. In many cases, yes. Working groups will evaluate policy based on USCIS goals, legal requirements and stakeholder concerns. These working groups will draft updated policy documents and proceed through USCIS’s policy-approval process. If the Policy Review identifies the need for proposed regulatory changes, USCIS will fully engage in the federal rulemaking process.
Q. What happens to existing policies during the course of the Policy Review?
A. While the Policy Review is underway, all policies already in place remain in full force and will be honored. From time to time in the course of the agency’s operations, policy issues may arise that require immediate attention outside the course of the formal Policy Review. We will continue to give these issues immediate attention as the need arises.
Q: What prompted the Policy Review?
A. USCIS is committed to ensuring that our policies are consistent and up to date. To that end, the agency has launched the USCIS Policy Review to examine our policies with input from the public it serves and from its workforce.
Q. Has USCIS previously undertaken a comprehensive review of its policies?
A: No. The effort to undertake a top-to-bottom review of our adjudication and customer service policies is an unprecedented initiative for USCIS.
Q. How will USCIS seek the public’s input during the Policy Review?
A. In keeping with our commitments to customer service and transparency, USCIS will engage practitioners, advocates, businesses, applicants, and other interested stakeholders throughout the course of the Policy Review. The survey was the first opportunity for stakeholders to participate. As we review policies in specific issue areas, we will offer a number of further opportunities for the public to offer input. For example, in some issue areas, we will conduct public meetings to solicit stakeholders’ views on specific policy matters. In many cases, we will also published drafts of new or revised policy memoranda on our website for public comment, now a regular step in USCIS’s policy development process.
Q. What did the survey ask?
A. The survey asked any interested member of the public, as well as the USCIS workforce, to help identify the issue areas that the agency should examine first. The survey also included comment sections.
Q. How many people responded to the survey?
A. Nearly 5,600 external stakeholders responded to the survey, representing current immigrant and nonimmigrant visa holders, employers, immigration attorneys and advocates, among others. Nearly 2,400 members of the workforce from USCIS offices worldwide also participated in the survey.
Q. How has USCIS used the survey results?
A. The survey results helped USCIS identify which issue areas to address first in its agency-wide review. USCIS considered quantitative and qualitative feedback from the surveys along with operational and programmatic needs to develop the initial list of issue areas for review.Q. In addition to the survey, what progress has USCIS made in the Policy Review?
A. USCIS has assembled thousands of existing policy documents and categorized them into issue areas. USICS is now convening internal working groups to begin examining and evaluating the policy documents in the first 10 issue areas.
Q. What is the expected length and scope of the Policy Review?
A. The Policy Review is a multi-year effort designed to work thoughtfully through thousands of policy documents, many of which overlap or complement each other, in collaboration with the USCIS workforce and external stakeholders. New policy documents, once drafted, will be submitted through the USCIS clearance process, with many posted on the USCIS website for public comment.
At the time of this writing, there have been relatively few changes in the law regarding US Family Visas. Although administrative and regulatory changes have had a significant impact upon processing of the US Marriage Visa and the US fiance visa. That said, the recent fee increase for Consular Processing of the K1 visa (fiance visa) and the administrative closure of K3 Visa applications by the National Visa Center were promulgated by the Department of State (DOS) as there has been little recent change in the fee structure and administration of USCIS’s adjudication of family based visa petitions.
This author is of the opinion that this unprecedented policy review should be welcomed as it may herald further improvements to the American Immigration system and provide immigrants and Americans with better overall service. One must applaud USCIS for taking the initiative and promoting positive change.
For related information from the perspective of Southeast Asia please see: K1 Visa Thailand.
23rd July 2010
This blog routinely posts information regarding LGBT Immigration and announcements regarding the campaign for equal immigration rights for same-sex bi-national couples. In a recent blog posting on the Stonewall Democrats blog, it was announced that members of the United States House of Representatives are continuing to call for equal immigration rights for same-sex as well as different-sex couples. To quote directly from the blog:
Supporters of immigration and LGBT rights are renewing their calls on Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform legislation this year that includes protections for bi-national same-sex couples. At a press conference Thursday on Capitol Hill, several U.S. House members emphasized the importance of passing legislation to make the nation’s immigration laws more fair and enable LGBT Americans to sponsor their foreign partners for residency in the United States. The strengthened call for passing comprehensive immigration reform comes as limited time remains in the legislative calendar for this Congress, raising questions about whether lawmakers will be able to address major legislation such as immigration reform this year. Same-sex partners currently have no recourse under any portion of family law in the U.S. immigration code. The policy threatens to keep an estimated 36,000 bi-national same-sex couples from remaining together in the United States. Among those who spoke in favor of passing immigration reform inclusive of this language is Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who sponsors the Uniting American Families Act, a standalone bill that would address the situation for LGBT families. Nadler said passing immigration reform that includes protections for the LGBT community is “absolutely essential.” “In particular, binational LGBT couples must be granted the right to sponsor their permanent partners for immigration, just as other committed and straight married couples can,” he said. Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.), the sponsor of another UAFA-inclusive bill known as the Reuniting Familes Act, also addressed the importance of passing such legislation. Honda said “ending discrimination” against bi-national same-sex couples is “in line with American values and is good for our economy.”
Frequent readers of the blog will recall the the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) is considered to be a key piece of legislation for those Americans seeking immigration benefits for their same sex foreign partner.
It should be noted that many States in the USA have either promulgated legislation legalizing same sex marriage or creating civil unions for same sex partners. However, notwithstanding the fact that same sex marriages may be solemnized and recognized by a State, the Federal government, based upon legislation such as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), refuses to recognize these marriages for purposes of awarding immigration benefits. Therefore, as of the time of this writing, there is no “Same Sex Visa” accorded to LGBT bi-national couples. However, there are currently cases pending in the US Courts which may overturn this practice as many feel that this type of discrimination violates States’ Rights as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. However, the ultimate adjudication of these issues may have to be addressed by the United States Supreme Court if legislation is not promulgated which would grant equal immigration benefits to the same sex partner of a US Citizen or Lawful Permanent Resident.
For further details about US visas for different-sex couples please see: K1 visa.
17th July 2010
As regular readers will likely note, we try to provide relevant and useful information to those interested in obtaining a US family visa from abroad. Below are the processing times for the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) Centers which process Immigrant and non-immigrant family based petitions for visas such as the K1 visa, the K3 Visa, the CR1 Visa, and the IR-1 Visa. The following processing time estimates for the California Service Center were quoted directly from the USCIS website:
| I-129F | Petition for Alien Fiance(e) | K-1/K-2 – Not yet married – fiance and/or dependent child | 5 Months |
|---|---|---|---|
| I-129F | Petition for Alien Fiance(e) | K-3/K-4 – Already married – spouse and/or dependent child | 5 Months |
| I-130 | Petition for Alien Relative | U.S. citizen filing for a spouse, parent, or child under 21 | 5 Months |
| I-130 | Petition for Alien Relative | U.S. citizen filing for an unmarried son or daughter over 21 | April 02, 2006 |
| I-130 | Petition for Alien Relative | U.S. citizen filing for a married son or daughter over 21 | September 02, 2002 |
| I-130 | Petition for Alien Relative | U.S. citizen filing for a brother or sister | January 02, 2002 |
| I-130 | Petition for Alien Relative | Permanent resident filling for a spouse or child under 21 | March 23, 2009 |
| I-130 | Petition for Alien Relative | Permanent resident filling for an unmarried son or daughter over 21 |
May 02, 2004 |
| I-131 | Application for Travel Document | All other applicants for advance parole | 3 Months |
| I-129 | Petition for A Nonimmigrant Worker | E – Treaty traders and investors | 2 Months |
|---|---|---|---|
| I-129 | Petition for A Nonimmigrant Worker | L – Intracompany transfers | 1 Months |
As USCIS has two service centers which handle Family based Immigration adjudications it is fitting to post both both sets of processing time estimates. The following processing time estimates for the California Service Center were quoted
directly from the USCIS website:
| I-129F | Petition for Alien Fiance(e) | K-1/K-2 – Not yet married – fiance and/or dependent child | 5 Months |
|---|---|---|---|
| I-129F | Petition for Alien Fiance(e) | K-3/K-4 – Already married – spouse and/or dependent child | 5 Months |
| I-130 | Petition for Alien Relative | U.S. citizen filing for a spouse, parent, or child under 21 | 5 Months |
| I-130 | Petition for Alien Relative | U.S. citizen filing for an unmarried son or daughter over 21 | October 16, 2009 |
| I-130 | Petition for Alien Relative | U.S. citizen filing for a married son or daughter over 21 | September 20, 2009 |
| I-130 | Petition for Alien Relative | U.S. citizen filing for a brother or sister | 5 Months |
| I-130 | Petition for Alien Relative | Permanent resident filling for a spouse or child under 21 | January 02, 2009 |
| I-130 | Petition for Alien Relative | Permanent resident filling for an unmarried son or daughter over 21 |
October 03, 2009 |
| I-131 | Application for Travel Document | Permanent resident applying for a re-entry permit | 3 Months |
| I-131 | Application for Travel Document | Refugee or asylee applying for a refugee travel document | 3 Months |
| I-131 | Application for Travel Document | Haitian Refugee Immigrant Fairness Act (HRIFA) principal applying for advance parole |
3 Months |
| I-131 | Application for Travel Document | Haitian Refugee Immigrant Fairness Act (HRIFA) dependent applying for advance parole |
3 Months |
| I-131 | Application for Travel Document | All other applicants for advance parole | 3 Months |
| I-129 | Petition for A Nonimmigrant Worker | E – Treaty traders and investors | 2 Months |
|---|---|---|---|
| I-129 | Petition for A Nonimmigrant Worker | L – Intracompany transfers | 1 Months |
If a family based petition is adjudicated and approved by USCIS, then it will be forwarded to the National Visa Center in New Hampshire where it will be processed and sent to the the US Embassy or US Consulate with appropriate jurisdiction. For further information about US Family Immigration generally please see: US Marriage Visa.
16th July 2010
American Immigration: Frequently Asked Questions from Military Personnel
Posted by : admin
This blog is dedicated to providing relevant information for those with pending Immigration petitions before the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). With that in mind, it is particularly important to provide relevant information to military personnel who have a spouse or loved one processing through the American Immigration system. This author recently discovered that USCIS has posted a set for frequently asked questions (and their answers) regarding the US Immigration process for military personnel and their families. Below is a list of Questions and Answers promulgated by USCIS and distributed by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA):
Questions and Answers for Members of the Military
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) offers immigration services and resources specifically for members of the U.S. Armed Forces and their families who are stationed in the United States and abroad. USCIS established a military assistance team to ensure that the military community receives quick and secure access to accurate information. Below is a list of answers to frequently asked questions received by our military assistance team.
Adjustments
Q. What is the fee for the Application for Naturalization (Form N-400) filed by spouses of military members?
A. The filing fee for the Application for Naturalization (Form N-400) is $675 ($595 plus a biometrics fee of $80). Individuals who submit FD-258 Fingerprint Cards directly to USCIS with their applications are not required to pay the biometrics fee. Applicants filing from within the United States should submit a single check or money order of $675 made payable to Department of Homeland Security or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Q. I am a military member stationed abroad with my dependents. Can my dependents have their naturalization interviews conducted overseas?
A. Yes. Certain spouses or children of service members residing abroad with that service member (as authorized by official orders) may be eligible to become naturalized citizens without having to travel to the United States for any part of the naturalization process. Please see “Fact Sheet: Requirements for Naturalization Abroad by Spouses of Members of the U.S. Armed Forces” and “Overseas Naturalization Eligibility for Certain Children of U.S. Armed Forces Members” on www.uscis.gov/military for more information.
If you have an appointment for a naturalization interview and you have transferred overseas, contact USCIS by calling the Military Help Line by telephone: 1-877-CIS-4MIL (1-877-247-4645) or email: [email protected] and request to have your case transferred to your nearest USCIS overseas office.
Submitting Biometrics
Q. I am an active duty military member and am required to submit biometrics at a USCIS Application Support Center (ASC). Do I need an appointment?
A. No. Active duty military members do not need an appointment and will be accepted on a walk-in basis at any ASC in the United States. You should bring your military ID with you to the ASC.
Q. Can I submit fingerprints before I file the Application for Naturalization (Form N-400)?
A. Yes. You may submit fingerprints even if you have not yet submitted an Application for Naturalization.
Q. Where can military members or dependents that are living abroad go to have the fingerprints taken?
A. Military members and dependents stationed abroad can submit 2 properly completed FD-258 Fingerprint Cards taken by the Military Police, Department of Homeland Security officials or U.S. Embassy or Consulate officials.
Q. If my military installation does not use FD-258, can I submit another type of fingerprint document instead?
A. FD-258 is the preferred document used to submit fingerprint, however USCIS may be able to accept a comparable document, such as the Department of Defense SF-87, in place of the FD-258. Please contact the USCIS Military Help Line at 1-877-CIS-4MIL (1-877-247-4645) for more information.
General Information
Q. What are the criteria to have an application or petition expedited for military personnel?
A. USCIS reviews all expedite requests on a case-by-case basis. Some examples of situations that may
qualify for expedited processing include:
• Pending military deployment
• Extreme emergent situation
• Humanitarian situation
Please contact your local USCIS office or the USCIS Military Help Line at 1 877 CIS 4MIL (1-877-
247-4645) for more information.
Q. I am an active duty military member stationed abroad. How do I check the status of my application?
A. You can check their status of any application by clicking on the “Check My Case Status” link on the right-hand side of this page. Note: when checking the status of an I-751, you must use the receipt number from the ASC appointment notice. You may also call the USCIS Military Help Line at 1-877-CIS-4MIL (1-877-247-4645).
It is admirable that USCIS took the time to provide this information to those serving in the American military. Many feel that one of the positive aspects of the US immigration system is the care and attention provided to members of the Armed Services and their families.
For information about Immigration options for Thai spouses and Fiances of US Citizens please see: US Marriage Visa or Fiance Visa Thailand.
15th July 2010
New Director Named For USCIS California Service Center
Posted by : admin
This blog routinely discusses issues and news relevant to US Immigration. In a recent announcement from the Office of Public Engagement, within the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), it was noted that a new Director has been named to oversee the activities of the California Service Center. The following is a copy of the announcement directly quoted from the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) website:
Dear Stakeholders,
USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas has appointed Rosemary Langley Melville, currently the Acting Regional Director in the Southeast Region, as the new California Service Center (CSC) Director. Ms. Melville will assume her new responsibilities in late August.
Effective Monday, July 12th Barbara Velarde, Deputy Associate Director for Service Center Operations, assumed the role of Acting Director of the CSC with Phoenix District Director John Kramar as the Acting Deputy Director. We look forward to working together as we continue to address areas of common interest.
The California Service Center plays an integral part in US Family Visa cases as it processes a large number of visa petitions each year. For those living in certain Western US States the California Service Center is most often the processing point for K1 visa applications as well as the I-129f petitions submitted in connection with the K3 Visa category.
Those seeking traditional US Marriage Visa benefits may also have their petition processed by the California Service Center. When an I-130 petition (used by those seeking the CR1 and/or IR1 visa) is submitted to USCIS, the Lockbox Facility will usually forward the petition to either the California Service Center or its counterpart, the USCIS Service Center in Vermont. USCIS adjudicates the merits of the petition and assuming there is an approval in the case the file will be forwarded to the Department of State’s National Visa Center where it will either be quickly forwarded to the proper US Consulate or US Embassy (as is the case in the K1 visa process or the K3 visa process) or the NVC will hold the petition and begin the process of accumulating relevant documentation. After necessary documents are compiled the whole file will be forwarded to the Consular Post with appropriate jurisdiction.
If a visa application is denied by the US Consulate then the file will be sent back to USCIS for revocation. Under certain circumstances, a petitioner may challenge a USCIS revocation.
For further information regarding recent developments pertaining to Consular Processing and USCIS revocation please see: US visa denial.
10th July 2010
American Citizen Sues Government Over K-1 Visa Denial Procedures
Posted by : admin
K1 visas are a topic frequently discussed on this web log as they are a rather popular travel document for those American Citizens who have a foreign fiancee living outside of the United States of America. That said, in a recently filed complaint before the Federal District Court of Oregon an American Citizen, Dzu Cong Tran, asked for declaratory and injunctive relief as well as a writ of mandamus in connection with his previously filed I-129f petition on behalf of his Vietnamese fiancee. To quote the opening of the complaint:
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Nearly three years ago, the former United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) Ombudsman Mr. Prakash Khatri issued recommendations to Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and USCIS regarding necessary changes to the standards and
processes for re-adjudication of petitions returned by consular offices for revocation or revalidation, due to systemic nationwide failures of the system. Two years ago, Jonathan R. Scharfen, former Acting Director of USCIS under the Bush Administration responded to the USCIS Ombudsman’s recommendations, implementing only some of those recommendations and specifically rejecting others. This class action lawsuit involves some of the recommendations of the USCIS Ombudsman which were rejected by defendants, in addition to other issues.
Through the contradictory and unlawful practices of each defendant agency, plaintiff and class members have been aggrieved by agency action and inaction, have suffered agency action unlawfully withheld and unreasonably delayed, have been subjected to arbitrary, capricious and unlawful denials and file transfers, have been deprived of due process of law and had visa issuance and petition approval denied or unreasonably withheld contrary to constitutional right, contrary to procedure required by law, and contrary to the limitations of statutory jurisdiction and authority. Thousands of families across the country and around the
world have been separated due to a colossal sparring match between the defendant agencies, and because of internal dissent within each agency.
Specifically, Plaintiff Dzu Cong Tran, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, challenges (a) defendant U.S. State Department’s (State Department’s) policies and procedures for processing and returning approved petitions to defendant U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) with a recommendation that the petition be revoked; and (b) defendant USCIS’ policies and procedures for revoking, denying or terminating petitions returned to it by defendant State Department. Plaintiff respectfully petitions this Court for injunctive, declaratory and mandamus relief to: (a) compel State Department to schedule a
visa interview within a reasonable period from the date that State Department’s National Visa Center receives an approved I-129F petition for fiancé(e) from USCIS; (b) compel State Department to issue a K-1 visa to the fiancé(e) of a U.S. citizen or notify the petitioner and beneficiary that the petition will be returned to DHS/USCIS within reasonable period following interview; (c) compel State Department to provide a reasonable period during which a petitioner and beneficiary may rebut consular findings before the petition is returned to DHS/USCIS; (d) compel State Department to return petitions to DHS/USCIS only where substantial evidence
exists that fraud, misrepresentation, or ineligibility would lead to denial, and not where it is merely suspected; and to provide a written notice supported by the legal and factual basis for the visa denial and petition return that are not conclusive, speculative, equivocal or irrelevant; (e)compel State Department to render a final decision to approve the K-1 visa or return a petition to
DHS/USCIS within a reasonable period not to exceed 30 days from the receipt of all necessary documents from the petitioner and beneficiary, and to accomplish delivery of the petition to State Department’s National Visa Center within such period; (f) declare that 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(k)(5), which purports to limit the validity of a K-1 fiancé(e) petition (Form I-129F) to four months, is ultra vires and in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; (g) following such declaration, enjoin DHS/USCIS from limiting the validity period of any approved fiancé(e) petition; (h) declare that the Foreign Affairs Manual, at 9 FAM 40.63 N10.1, which purports to establish the materiality of an alleged misrepresentation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i), merely based upon DHS/USCIS summary revocation of the petition is ultra vires and in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; (i) issue a permanent injunction barring the State Department from placing a marker, called a “P6C1” marker, or “quasi-refusal” in a visa beneficiary’s record, and deeming the DHS/USCIS revocation of the petition as automatically establishing the permanent misrepresentation bar to any future immigration possibility; (j) compel DHS/USCIS to issue a notice to petitioner within a reasonable period of time not to exceed 30 days from receipt of the returned petition from the State Department, providing petitioner with the legal and factual basis for the consular recommendation that is not conclusive, speculative, equivocal or irrelevant; (k) compel DHS/USCIS to provide petitioner the opportunity to submit evidence to rebut the consular recommendation within a reasonable period of time; (l) compel DHS/USCIS, in the case of a reaffirmation of approval, to deliver the reaffirmed petition to the State Department within a reasonable period of time, and compel State Department to issue the K-1 visa within a reasonable period of time following reaffirmation; (m) compel DHS/USCIS, in the case of a denial, to issue a decision within a reasonable period of time, and to advise petitioner of the right to appeal the decision to the Administrative Appeals Office.
The United States of America’s immigration apparatus is complex and multifaceted. This is due to the fact that two Departments have a role in the Immigration process and within each of those Departments there are multiple government agencies with different roles at differing phases of the process. For example, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) and the United States Customs and Border Protection Service (USCBP), respectively, have jurisdiction over adjudication of visa petitions and inspection of aliens upon admission to the United States. In the interim, the Department of State, through the National Visa Center and each US Embassy or US Consulate abroad, is tasked with adjudicating visa applications and making determinations regarding an individual applicant’s admissibility to the USA. In the vast majority of cases involving a US visa denial the applicant will be provided written notice of the denial along with factual and legal reasons for the denial. Amongst many other things, the aforementioned complaint alleged that the:
State Department issued the [visa] denial based on mere suspicion and failed to provide a written notice supported by the legal and factual basis for the visa denial and petition return that was not conclusive, speculative, equivocal or irrelevant.
When a US visa application is denied, the Consular Officer issuing the denial should provide a written notice of denial based upon findings of fact and conclusions of law. The complaint, in essence, would seem to be alleging that the Officer at the US Consulate in HCMC did not provide a legally sufficient basis for denial. Of further interest within the complaint was the following allegation:
State Department, in its denial, stated that, “[i]f USCIS revokes the petition, beneficiary will become ineligible for a visa under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act.” INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), is a permanent bar to admissibility for misrepresentation. Pursuant to the Foreign Affairs Manual, 9 FAM 40.63 N10.1, State Department placed a marker, called a “P6C1” marker, or “quasi-refusal” in Ms. Pham’s records, and will deem USCIS revocation of the petition as automatically establishing the permanent misrepresentation bar to any future immigration possibility.
This is an interesting phenomenon. As the US Immigration system becomes more sophisticated Department of State refusals seem to be evermore problematic for those who may later seek admission to the United States. For example, in another post on this blog it was noted that those with a previously issued 221(g) denial from a US Embassy or US Consulate may be denied benefits under the visa waiver program pursuant regulations related to the Electronic System For Travel Authorization (ESTA). As ESTA is under the jurisdiction of the USCBP and since that agency considers 221g refusals to be denials, while the Department of State continues to refer to them as refusals, the issuance of 221g could lead to an otherwise admissible individual being deemed inadmissible to the United States. This author has never personally dealt with a situation in which a Consular Officer has denied a US visa without a factual or legal basis. Hopefully, this case will help ascertain the exact nature of visa refusals at Consulates and Embassies overseas. Bearing that in mind, the decision in a case such as this could have major ramifications upon Consular Processing procedures at virtually every US Consular Post abroad.
For further information related to the US fiance visa please see: K1 visa.
9th July 2010
Department of State To Amend the Biometric Visa Program
Posted by : admin
In a recent announcement from the American Department of State it was revealed that those agencies tasked with issuing US visas are to add security features to American travel documents issued to foreign nationals. To quote the announcement as posted on the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) website:
This public notice announces an amendment to the Biometric Visa Program. Section 303 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 has required, since October 26, 2004, that all visas issued by the Department must be machine-readable and tamper-resistant and use biometric identifiers. In consultation with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Department determined that fingerprints and a photo image should be required as biometric identifiers. When the biometric visa program began, available technology allowed for the efficient capture and comparisons of only two fingerscans. As a result of technological improvements, the Department instituted a ten fingerscan standard to raise the accuracy rate in matching fingerscans and enhanced our ability to detect and thwart persons who are eligible for visas.
As implied above, the Department of States is not the only American agency which will have a role in creating more effective security enhancements for American visas. The Department of Homeland Security will also play a part in this important endeavor. To further quote the announcement posted on the AILA website:
In establishing the Biometric Visa Program, the Department coordinated closely with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Biometric Visa Program is a partner program to the DHS US-VISIT Program that is in effect at U.S. ports of entry and that uses the same biometric identifiers. By coordinating these two programs, the two departments have ensured the integrity of the U.S. visa. This is accomplished by sending the fingerscans and photos of visa applicants to DHS databases. When a person to whom a visa has been issued arrives at a port of entry, his or her photo is retrieved from a database and projected on the computer screen of the Customs and Border Protection officer. The person’s fingerscans are compared to the fingerscans in the database to ensure that the person presenting the visa is the same as the person to whom the visa was issued.
The new security features are likely be used for visa categories such as the K1 visa, the K3 Visa, and the common US Family Immigrant visas (CR1 Visa, IR1 visa) not to mention the non-immigrant visa categories such as the B1 visa and the B2 visa. That said, it seems unlikely that this will have an adverse impact upon those who seek a US visa in compliance with relevant US law.
Although the full-scale implementation of this program has yet to take effect, there are many who feel that more effective security measures will help ensure that there will be less fraud perpetrated against the United States government by foreign nationals wishing to illegally enter the USA.
For further information specifically related to US Consular Processing in Thailand please see: US Embassy Thailand.
Pages
Archives
- June 2023
- April 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- March 2015
- January 2015
- November 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- October 2012
- September 2012
- April 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- October 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
Categories
- Adjustment of Status (51)
- American Business (27)
- American Institute Taiwan (33)
- arrest warrant (2)
- ASEAN Business (84)
- ASEAN Visa (22)
- Australian Migration (1)
- Brazil Business (2)
- Cambodia Business (26)
- China Business (51)
- Comprehensive Immigration Reform (16)
- CR1 Visa (147)
- Department of Homeland Security (99)
- Transportation Security Administration (TSA) (10)
- USCBP (39)
- USICE (23)
- E1 visa (13)
- E2 Visa (17)
- EB-1 Visa (7)
- EB-2 Visa (7)
- EB-3 Visa (7)
- EB-4 Visa (7)
- EB5 Visa (34)
- Ecommerce (6)
- Editorial (24)
- Election 2012 (6)
- F1 Visa Thailand (25)
- Fiance Visa Thailand (178)
- Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) (3)
- Gaming Law (7)
- General Legal Information (115)
- I-601 Waiver (24)
- India Business (7)
- Indonesia Business (6)
- IR1 Visa (114)
- J1 visa (15)
- J1 Visa Thailand (29)
- K-3 Visa Thailand (160)
- K1 Visa (195)
- K2 Visa (104)
- K1 Visa Thailand (212)
- K2 Visa Thailand (77)
- K3 Visa (158)
- L1 Visa (36)
- Laos Business (22)
- Legal News (19)
- Thailand Legal News (12)
- Legal Opinion (107)
- Legal Process Outsourcing (5)
- lgbt immigration (97)
- same sex visa (95)
- Malaysia Business (14)
- Miscellaneous (107)
- Myanmar (Burma) Business (19)
- National Visa Center (47)
- News (86)
- Online Gaming (7)
- Opinion (29)
- prenuptial agreement (3)
- Russia Business (6)
- South Africa Business (3)
- T Visa (1)
- Thai Family Law (24)
- Thailand Business (158)
- Thailand company (35)
- Amity Treaty (20)
- Thailand Condo (11)
- Thailand Customs (1)
- Thailand Embassy (20)
- Thailand Marriage Registration (22)
- Thailand Notary (3)
- Thailand Property (39)
- Thailand Real Estate (39)
- Thailand Visa (153)
- Thailand Work Permit (16)
- Upcoming Legislation (61)
- US Business (27)
- US Company Registration (13)
- US LLC (9)
- US Citizenship (27)
- US Constitution (22)
- States' Rights (16)
- US Consulate HCMC (70)
- US Emassy Mongolia (10)
- US Embassy Afghanistan (4)
- US Embassy Kabul (4)
- US Embassy Australia (35)
- us embassy bangkok (178)
- US Embassy Bangladesh (51)
- US Embassy Dhaka (51)
- US Embassy Brunei Darussalam (10)
- US Embassy Burma (90)
- US Embassy Myanmar (86)
- US Embassy Rangoon (84)
- US Embassy Yangon (84)
- US Embassy Cambodia (85)
- US Embassy China (64)
- US Consulate ChengDu (52)
- US Consulate Guangzhou (53)
- US Consulate Hong Kong (28)
- US Consulate Macau (28)
- US Consulate Shanghai (53)
- US Consulate Shenyang (53)
- US Consulate Wuhan (52)
- US Embassy Beijing (51)
- US Embassy Fiji (39)
- US Embassy Kiribati (38)
- US Embassy Nauru (38)
- US Embassy Suva (38)
- US Embassy Tonga (38)
- US Embassy Tuvalu (37)
- US Embassy India (81)
- US Consulate Chennai (49)
- US Consulate Hyderabad (48)
- US Consulate Kolkata (48)
- US Consulate Mumbai (47)
- US Embassy New Dehli (71)
- US Embassy Indonesia (72)
- US Embassy Jakarta (71)
- US Embassy Iraq (23)
- US Embassy Japan (52)
- US Embassy Kyrgyz Republic (Kyrgyzstan) (9)
- US Embassy Laos (51)
- US Embassy Malaysia (74)
- US Embassy Maldives (44)
- US Embassy Mauritius (33)
- US Embassy Mongolia (33)
- US Embassy Nepal (71)
- US Embassy Kathmandu (69)
- US Embassy New Zealand (35)
- US Embassy Pakistan (28)
- US Embassy Islamabad (27)
- US Embassy Papua New Guinea (42)
- US Embassy Philippines (45)
- US Embassy Manila (44)
- US Embassy Russia (13)
- US Embassy Singapore (69)
- US Embassy South Korea (44)
- US Embassy Sri Lanka (45)
- US Embassy Tokyo (49)
- US Embassy Turkmenistan (8)
- US Embassy Uzbekistan (8)
- US Embassy Vietnam (78)
- US Consulate HCMC (1)
- US Embassy Hanoi (75)
- US State Department (64)
- US Mission ASEAN (9)
- US Taxes (7)
- US Tourist Visa (69)
- US Visa (97)
- US Visa and Immigration (414)
- US Embassy Thailand (187)
- US Consulate Chiang Mai (120)
- US Embassy Thailand (187)
- US Visa Thailand (299)
- US Warrants (20)
- Extradition (13)
- USCIS (184)
- Vietnam Business (11)
- Visa Waiver (39)
- Weird Law (8)
- ข่าวกฎหมาย (1)
- ข่าวในพม่า (2)
- ธุรกิจในนพม่า (2)
- ตลาดหลักทรัพย์กัมพูชา (1)
- ธุรกิจกัมพูชา (1)
- ธุรกิจในกัมพูชา (1)
- ธุรกิจในประเทศจีน (6)
- ธุรกิจในประเทศลาว (2)
- ธุรกิจในอาเซียน (1)
- ธูรกิจในประเทศไทย (6)
- บริการทางกฎหมายจีน (2)
- บริษัทอเมริกัน (5)
- ธุรกิจในอเมริกา (2)
- ภาษีอเมริกัน (1)
- วีซ่าคู่เพศเดียวกัน (3)
- วีซ่าไทย (1)
- โนตารี (1)
- ้วีซ่าอเมริกาจากประเทศไทย (59)
-
RSS Feeds
The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely on advertisement. Before you decide, ask us to send you free written information about our qualifications and experience. The information presented on this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship.