blog-hdr.gif

Integrity Legal

Archive for the ‘K1 Visa Thailand’ Category

13th April 2010

For information in English please see: marriage registration.

มีคนหลายคนแต่งงานในประเทศไทยในแต่ละปี เราได้รับคำถามเกี่ยวกับการยอมรับการสมรสในประเทศไทยจากลูกค้าชาวต่างชาติมากมาย ประเทศไทยไม่ใช่ประเทศในระบอบคอมมอนลอว์ และเพราะเหตุนั้นการสมรสตามกฎหมายคอมมอนลอว์ไม่สามารถใช้ยันในศาลไทยได้ นั่นหมายความว่าแม้ประเทศไทยจะเป็นระบบกฎหมายซีวิลลอว์ การแต่งงานตามประเภณีหรือตามศาสนายังคงเป็นเรื่องที่ปกติ นี่อาจจะมีสาเหตุมาจากการจดทะเบียนสมรสเป็นไปค่อนข้างยาก โดยเฉพาะสำหรับคนที่ไม่คุ้นเคยกับระบบกฎหมายไทยและหน่วยงานราชการของไทย

ในประเทศไทย การสมรสคือการจดทะเบียนที่สำนักงานอำเภอ สำนักงานนี้เป็นหน่วยงานที่รับข้อมูลด้านสำมะโนประชากร และในระบบอเมริกันเราเรียกว่า Court Clerk อำเภอจะเก็บข้อมูลของบุคคลที่มีภูมิลำเนาอยู่ในเขตนั้นๆ ดังนั้นอำเภอจะเก็บข้อมูลการเปลี่ยนชื่อ การสมรส การเกิด และการตายในประเทศไทย เป็นไปได้ที่บุคคลที่ไม่มีสัญชาติไทยสองคนจะสมรสกันในประเทศไทย อนึ่ง สำนักงานแต่ละแห่งจะมีระเบียบภายในของตนเอง ดังนั้นคุณควรปรึกษาทนายเพื่อช่วยเหลือในการจดทะเบียนสมรส

เมื่อมีการจดทะเบียนสมรสตามกฎหมายไทยแล้ว คำถามคือ สหรัฐอเมริกายอมรับการสมรสนั้นหรือไปไม่ พูดง่ายๆก็คือ ยอมรับ ตามเว็บไซต์ของสถานทูตอเมริกาประจำประเทศไทยนั้น ในกรณีที่การสมรสได้ทำขึ้นตามกฎหมายในราชอาณาจักร ประเทศสหรัฐอเมริกายอมรับความสมบูรณ์ของการสมรสนั้นนี่เป็นคำถามสำคัญโดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่งในกรณีเกี่ยวกับวีซ่าสหรัฐอเมริกา หากว่าการสมรสของคู่สมรสนั้นไม่ได้รับการยอมรับจากสหรัฐอเมริกา คำขอวีซ่า CR1 หรือ K3 สำหรับคู่สมรสก็จะถูกปฏิเสธ เนื่องจากคู่สมรสไม่มีคุณสมบัติที่จะออกวีซ่าให้ อีกทั้งสำหรับคู่รักที่ต้องการขอวีซ่า K1 สำหรับคู่หมั้น ก็อาจจะเกิดมาจากการที่ทั้งคู่ได้สมรสกันในประเทศไทยโดยคิดว่าสหรัฐอเมริกาไม่ยอมรับการสมรสนั้น ในกรณีนั้น USCIS จะถูกบังคับให้ต้องปฏิเสธคำขอเนื่องจากคำขอขาดคุณสมบัติ เจตนาที่จะสมรส ไม่ใช่จากการสมรสนั้น

มุมมองที่น่าสนใจเกี่ยวกับการจดทะเบียนสมรสของไทยที่ต้องเกี่ยวกับการทำสัญญาก่อนสมรส ในประเทศไทย สัญญาก่อนสมรสจะถูกบันทึกไว้พร้อมกับการจดทะเบียนสมรสที่อำเภอใน สำหรับข้อมูลเพิ่มเติมโปรดดูเรื่อง สัญญาก่อนสมรสของไทย

เพื่อเป็นการสรุป การสมรสที่ทำขึ้นอย่างถูกต้องในประเทศไทยถือว่าสมบูรณ์ในประเทศสหรัฐอเมริกา และเพื่อวัตถุประสงค์ในการขอวีซ่าอเมริกา หรือเพื่อผลประโยชน์ทางกฎหมายคนเข้าเมืองอื่นๆ ดังนั้นการสมรสในประเทศไทยไม่ใช่สิ่งที่ควรให้ความสำคัญเพียงเล็กน้อย เมื่อคิดจะทำการสมรสในประเทศไทย โปรดจำไว้ว่าการสมรสนั้นจะถูกปฏิบัติเหมือนการสมรสที่เกิดขึ้นในสหรัฐอเมริกา

more Comments: 04

10th April 2010

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.

more Comments: 04

9th April 2010

To see related information in English please see: 221g.

ยังคงมีข้อสงสัยเกี่ยวกับการที่วีซ่าถูกปฏิเสธภายใต้มาตรา 221 (G ) สำหรับคำร้องขอวีซ่าจากประเทศไทย การปฏิเสธวีซ่าตามมาตรา 221 (G ) ก็คือการปฏิเสธเพื่อขอหลักฐานเพิ่มเติม เมื่อเจ้าหน้าที่กงสุลตัดสินใจว่าจะออกวีซ่าสหรัฐอเมริกาให้หรือไม่ ( ในการนี้ให้ดูเรื่อง วีซ่าคู่หมั้น K1, K3 หรือ วีซ่าคู่สมรส CR1 ) เจ้าหน้าที่จะทำการสืบเสาะข้อเท็จจริงเพื่อให้มั่นใจว่าผู้ขอวีซ่าเป็นบุคคลตามที่กล่าวอ้างจริง และจะเดินทางไปสหรัฐอเมริกาด้วยเหตุผลที่มีมูล ( ในกรณีเช่นนี้หมายความว่าต้องเป็นการเดินทางไปเพื่อวัตถุประสงค์ความสัมพันธ์ทางครอบครัวกับผู้ร้องสัณชาติอเมริกัน )

คู่รักบางคู่มีความกังวลใจเมื่อได้รับ แบบ 221 (G) และก็อาจจะเป็นเรื่องที่ไม่ค่อยสะดวกเท่าไหร่โดยเฉพาะกรณีที่ผู้ขอวีซ่ามาจากต่างจังหวัด ซึ่งก็เป็นปัญหาได้ หากว่าผู้ขอวีซ่ามีสำมะโนครัว (ทะเบียนบ้าน ) อยู่ต่างจังหวัดและเป็นการยากต่อการเดินทางกลับไป บ่อยครั้งที่เอกสารที่ถูกเรียกจะต้องออกโดยอำเภอที่ผู้ขอวีซ่ามีชื่ออยู่ในทะเบียนบ้าน แม้ว่าจะเป็นเรื่องปกติสำหรับสถานทูตที่จะออก คำร้องขอเอกสารเพิ่มเติมในลักษณะนี้ แต่ก็สามารถเป็นเรื่องลำบากสำหรับผู้ขอวีซ่าชาวไทยที่จะไปนำเอกสารที่จำเป็นนั้นมาให้ได้

การปฏิเสธวีซ่าภายใต้มาตรา 221 (g) นี้โดยทั่วไปแล้วจะให้เวลาผู้ขอวีซ่า 1 ปีในการหาเอกสารที่ได้รับการร้องขอก่อนที่สถานทูตจะทำการทำลายไฟล์ของคุณ หากไม่ปฏิบัติตามคำร้องขอนี้ ก็อาจจะทำให้คำร้องขอวีซ่าของคุณถูกยกเลิกและต้องเริ่มกระบวนการใหม่อีกครั้งหนึ่ง

เพื่อหลีกเลี่ยงการปฏิเสธวีซ่าภายใต้มาตรา 221 ( G) อาจจะเป็นการดีที่จะขอความช่วยเหลือจากทนายความด้านกฎหมายคนเข้าเมือง เพื่อป้องกันการปฏิเสธวีซ่าภายใต้มาตรา 221 ( G) แต่อย่างไรก็ตาม แม้ว่าจะได้มีการจ้างทนายความแล้ว คุณก็ยังคงสามารถถูกปฏิเสธวีซ่าภายใต้มาตรา 221 ( G) ได้ หากว่ามีเอกสารอื่นที่จำเป็นต้องแสดง เจ้าหน้าที่กงสุลมีอำนาจดุลพินิจอย่างกว้างขวางตามอำนาจเด็ดขาดของกงสุล ดังนั้น คำร้องขอเอกสารเพิ่มเติมโดยเจ้าหน้ากงสุลเป็นเรื่องที่คุณต้องให้การตอบรับคำร้องขอนั้นภายในเวลาที่กำหนดให้

more Comments: 04

8th April 2010

This author has repeatedly discussed the problems arising from the unauthorized practice of law as so called “visa agents” and “visa companies” as well as those masquerading as legitimate attorneys can cause many problems for bi-national couples. With this in mind, we will briefly discuss the proliferation of “Do It Yourself” Kits and the American Visa Process.

Throughout the internet, it is becoming increasingly easy to find those touting “Kits” to provide guidance to those who are processing their own visa petition and application. First, it should be noted that this author is not concerned by those who opt to process their own US visa petition or US visa application. In fact, the right to unilaterally petition one’s government for benefits is something that should be preserved at all costs. However, some opt to seek counsel in processing their US visa application. In these cases, the use of a “kit” could prove more detrimental than beneficial. For example: most so-called “kits” simply provide information that is already freely available. In many cases, individuals find that when their “kit” arrives it contains information that could easily have been found on either the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) website or the website of the Department of State. In some cases, information found in these “kits” can prove to be less than useful as some have found that information contained in a “visa kit” is out of date.

United States Immigration law encompasses rules and regulations promulgated by multiple government agencies as well as local law in foreign jurisdictions and the local Embassy or Consulate procedures in nearly every country on the planet. It is extremely difficult to imagine a “kit” that could provide guidance for all possible scenarios that could arise throughout the process of obtaining a visa for a foreign loved one.

A case in point, only recently was it announced that the K3 Visa application would be administratively closed. It is hard to imagine that one who purchased a kit right before this change was announced would have up-to-date information regarding the processing of a US marriage visa. This is just one example of how “Kits” cannot be used as effectively as competent legal advice from a professional.

Many “kit” retailers provide a 100% Guarantee or some other form of guarantee. As has been repeated many times on this blog, no ethical individual, attorney or otherwise, can guarantee the outcome of any case pending before USCIS, the National Visa Center, or a US Embassy abroad. Those thinking about purchasing a “Kit” may be wise to simply save their money.

For related information please see: K1 visa.

more Comments: 04

7th April 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

more Comments: 04

6th April 2010

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) is responsible for overseeing the United States naturalization process. Each year, many Immigrants in the United States take advantage of the ability to naturalize to US Citizenship. For some, the Naturalization test is a daunting prospect. In order to help inform the public, USCIS has provided a video on their website that can be of assistance to those looking into the naturalization process. To quote the USCIS website directly:

“The USCIS Naturalization Interview and Test was developed as an informational resource for individuals interested in learning more about the naturalization process. The 16-minute video provides an overview of the naturalization process including the eligibility requirements, the application process, preliminary steps, the naturalization interview, the English tests and the U.S. history and government test (civics). The video includes two simulated interviews between applicants and USCIS Officers. Individuals applying for naturalization may use this video as a reference tool to prepare for the naturalization interview. Teachers and volunteers can use this video to complement classroom instruction.”

Although naturalization is the most common method employed by foreign nationals seeking US citizenship. Few are aware that there is another method of obtaining Citizenship for the children of United States Citizens who did not receive Citizenship at birth. The Child Citizenship Act of 2000 provides a legal means for the minor children of United States Citizens to obtain American Citizenship.

Another interesting program for those interested in becoming United States Citizens is the expedited naturalization program for those foreign nationals enlisted in the United States military. The expedited naturalization process is a major benefit to foreign nationals and their families who choose to serve in A the United States trmed Forces.

Some are unaware that those who gained United States Lawful Permanent Residence based upon marriage are entitled to faster naturalization. For those who enter the United States and take up Permanent Residence based upon employment, the naturalization process generally takes about 5 years. However, for those married to a US Citizen the process takes 3 years from the time Permanent Residence is approved. This means that the naturalization “clock” starts running for K1 visa holders after the adjustment of status is approved. A CR1 visa holder who enters the country with conditional lawful permanent residence at entry begins accruing  presence that can be used toward naturalization at entry. This being said, a CR1 visa holder must still get a lift of conditions before they will be entitled to a 10 year “Green Card.”

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


more Comments: 04

3rd April 2010

As frequent readers of this blog may be aware, two of the most hotly debated issues in the realm of United States Immigration are: Comprehensive Immigration Reform and US Family Immigration benefits for LGBT bi-national couples. A seemingly unrelated issue is that of the upcoming United States Census. Recently, the LGBT immigration blog Immigration Equality.org discussed how the US Census and the issues of Comprehensive Immigration Reform and LGBT Visas are connected:

“Research conducted by the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) shows an excellent reason for undocumented immigrants to participate in the census: They can actually use the completed census form as proof of continuous physical presence in the U.S., should Congress enact a path to citizenship, with requires such proof for residency, in the future. Additionally, certified copies of completed census forms can be used as evidence of continuous presence in the U.S. under certain current laws as well. These include the amnesty program under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA); amelioration provisions of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act of 2000; and for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) (for when one cannot return due to war, natural disasters etc.) under the Immigration and Nationality Act Section 244…There are undocumented immigrants living in the US in same-sex binational relationships as well, and they should be counted, too. A recent Immigration Equality client, living here with his American partner for nearly 20 years, was detained upon trying to re-enter the United States after going home to visit his dying mother. By participating in the confidential census process, couples like these can be “counted,” and give voice, through their numbers, to the very real plight of binational couples who have, for too long, remain too hidden in the shadows.”

As explained above, proof of having participated in a US Census can be used as evidence to show one’s continuous residence in the United States of America. Therefore, participating in the Census can be a beneficial endeavor for certain individuals.

It is interesting to note how the issue of undocumented aliens intersects with the issue of LGBT Immigration rights as these two groups would otherwise seem to have interests that are unrelated, but at this time same sex bi-national and undocumented aliens are in legally precarious position. In this author’s opinion, Comprehensive Immigration Reform could be the solution to both of these groups’ problems, but this author believes that it is more likely that the US Courts will deal with the issue of same sex immigration when they adjudicate the Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). However, the outcome with regard to all of these issues remains to be seen.

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

more Comments: 04

2nd April 2010

An integral component of the US visa process is the submission of an affidavit of support which attests to the US Citizen Petitioner’s ability to support a foreign fiance for a K1 visa or spouse for a CR1 Visa, IR1 Visa, or K3 Visa once they are in the United States. Usually, the Federal Poverty Guidelines are used as a basis for ascertaining the guidelines used by Consular Officers and USCIS officers to adjudicate the ability to provide support. In most cases, the Federal poverty guidelines are updated on a yearly basis, as of the time of this writing, the 2010 guidelines have not been published, per se. Instead, the US Congress has extended the guidelines from 2009. The following is quoted from the website of Housing and Human Services:

“Congress has taken action to keep the 2009 poverty guidelines in effect until at least March 31, 2010.

Congressional actions on this matter have been in response to a decrease in the annual average Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) for 2009, projected during 2009 and announced on January 15, 2010 (see http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/cpi_01152010.pdf, Table 1A). In the absence of legislative change, this decrease–the first since the poverty guidelines began to be issued in 1965–would have required HHS to issue 2010 poverty guidelines that were lower than the 2009 poverty guidelines; that would have led to the “reduction in eligibility” referred to in the Congressional explanatory language quoted below. Congress took several actions on this matter:

1. On December 19, 2009, Congress enacted and the President signed the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010 (Pub. L. 111-118), which included a provision affecting the poverty guidelines. Section 1012 of this law (as originally enacted, before subsequent amendment) stated that:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall not publish updated poverty guidelines for 2010 under section 673(2) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)) before March 1, 2010, and the poverty guidelines published under such section on January 23, 2009, shall remain in effect until updated poverty guidelines are published.

The Congressional Record (House) (December 16, 2009, p. H15370) provided the following explanation of this Congressional action in Pub. L. 111-118:

Section 1012 includes a provision to freeze the Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines at 2009 levels in order to prevent a reduction in eligibility for certain means-tested programs, including Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and child nutrition, through March 1, 2010.

A Federal Register notice about this initial extension of the 2009 poverty guidelines was published on January 22, 2010. (See Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 14, January 22, 2010, pp. 3734-3735.)

2. On March 2, 2010, Congress enacted and the President signed the Temporary Extension Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-144), which included a provision affecting the poverty guidelines. Section 7 of this law amended Section 1012 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010, by replacing “March 1, 2010” with “March 31, 2010”. The effect of this was to extend the 2009 poverty guidelines until at least March 31, 2010.”

The issue of one’s ability to provide support to a foreign national is extremely important. Currently, the Federal poverty guidelines appear to still be those of the year 2009 as there is no word that new guidelines will be promulgated. Therefore, those who have an interest in the current guidelines would be wise to keep checking up on this issue as we are due for either a new extension of the 2009 guidelines or a new set of guidelines for 2010.

For further information please see: K1 Visa Requirements.

more Comments: 04

1st April 2010

As we have previously discussed on this blog, the K1 visa (the category that is used to denote the US fiance visa) has a derivative counterpart that allows for the children of a foreign fiance or fiancee to travel to the United States with their parent. From a legal standpoint, there is nothing particularly interesting about this, but it does become interesting when holders of K2 Visas apply for adjustment of status in order to obtain United States Lawful Permanent Residence also referred to as a “Green Card.” Under the current rules, there is some question as to whether or not a K2 visa holder is allowed to adjust status after they turn 21 years of age. In a recent article posted on the Immigration Slip Opinion Blog, the author noted that issues surrounding K2 adjustment have yet to be fully addressed, but upcoming cases before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) may clarify this vexing issue:

“‘Aging out’ issues: K-2 and CSPA

There are at least seven cases currently before the BIA that raise the question of whether Congress intended that a K-2 visa holder, admitted to the United States as the child of a fiancé(e) of a U.S. citizen, would become ineligible for adjustment of status upon turning 21. In briefs submitted as amici curiae, the American Immigration Council (Immigration Council) and AILA argue that such a result would produce absurd results and could not have been Congress’s intent. After all, the statute permits – and DHS practice allows – a child of a fiancée to enter the country on a K-2 visa up until his or her 21st birthday. In numerous cases, children enter with only a few days to spare before turning 21. Interpreting the statute as allowing these children to enter until age 21, but then also requiring that an adjustment be completed before they turn 21, is simply unreasonable. The only reasonable interpretation of the statute is that a K-2 child must be under 21 at admission but not at the time of adjustment. A recent favorable 10th Circuit decision doesn’t go quite this far, but should help convince the BIA that DHS is wrong. We have asked the BIA to schedule oral argument on this issue and to decide these cases together.”

This author has yet to be convinced of Congress’s original intent, but this issue is interesting and it will be fascinating to see how this issue plays out in the Immigration Courts. A favorable decision could lead to major benefits for children of the Thai fiancees of American Citizens.

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

more Comments: 04

31st March 2010

The issue of advance parole can be extremely important for those enter the United States on a K1 visa. A K1 visa is a US fiance visa that allows the fiance of a US Citizen to enter the United States for a period of 90 days in order to marry and apply for adjustment of status. Adjustment of Status is the process of acquiring Lawful Permanent Residence (Also Known as a “Green Card”). For those who are awaiting the approval of an adjustment application a sense of being in “limbo” can set in as the applicant does not yet have permanent residence and they cannot leave the United States without falling out of status and thereby, often inadvertently, causing the entire visa process to begin anew.

There is a way that a foreign national can keep from falling out of status and still leave the United States. If the foreign national petitions for, and obtains, advance parole, then they may leave the United States and preserve both their Fiance Visa and their adjustment application.

In the past, applications for advance parole were adjudicated by local USCIS offices. However, in a recent USCIS announcement distributed by AILA, this procedure is changing:

“WASHINGTON – U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced revised filing instructions and addresses for applicants filing an Application for Travel Document (Form I-131). The change of filing location is part of an overall effort to transition the intake of some USCIS forms from USCIS local offices and Service Centers to USCIS Lockbox facilities. By Centralizing form and fee intake to a Lockbox environment, the agency can provide customers with more efficient and effective initial processing of applications and fees.”

“Beginning March 19, 2010 applicants will file their applications at the USCIS Vermont Service Center or at one of the USCIS Lockbox facilities. Detailed guidance can be found in updated Form I-131 instructions page at www.uscis.gov.”

Many people may already be asking themselves: What if I inadvertently filed my advance parole application at the wrong location because I was unaware of the change? Luckily, USCIS is dealing with this internally, at least for now:

“The USCIS Service Centers will forward incorrectly filed Form I-131 applications to the USCIS Lockbox facilities for 30 days, until Monday, April 19, 2010. After April 19, 2010, incorrectly filed applications will be returned to the applicant, with a note to send the application to the correct location.”

Since USCIS will discontinue forwarding incorrectly filed applications, those seeking advance parole should carefully study this issue before submitting an application as failure to do so could cause delays in being granted permission to leave the USA and preserve one’s status.

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

more Comments: 04

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.