Integrity Legal

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.

Tags: 221(g) refusal, 221g, 221g denial, Consular Processing, CR1 Visa, Fiance Visa, IR1 Visa, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Process, K1 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, K3 Visa Process, National Visa Center, NVC, US Attorney Thailand, US Consulate, US Embassy, US Visa Process, US Visa Thailand
Posted in CR1 Visa, Fiance Visa Thailand, IR1 Visa, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, Legal Opinion, National Visa Center, US Consulate ChengDu, US Consulate Chennai, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Consulate Guangzhou, US Consulate HCMC, US Consulate Hyderabad, US Consulate Kolkata, US Consulate Mumbai, US Consulate Shanghai, US Consulate Shenyang, US Consulate Singapore, US Consulate Wuhan, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Bangladesh, US Embassy Beijing, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy China, US Embassy Dhaka, US Embassy Fiji, US Embassy Hanoi, US Embassy India, US Embassy Indonesia, US Embassy Jakarta, US Embassy Japan, US Embassy Kathmandu, US Embassy Kiribati, US Embassy Kuala Lumpur, US Embassy Laos, US Embassy Malaysia, US Embassy Maldives, US Embassy Manila, US Embassy Myanmar, US Embassy Nauru, US Embassy Nepal, US Embassy New Dehli, US Embassy Papua New Guinea, US Embassy Philippines, US Embassy Phnom Phen, US Embassy Port Moresby, US Embassy Rangoon, US Embassy Singapore, US Embassy South Korea, US Embassy Sri Lanka, US Embassy Suva, US Embassy Thailand, US Embassy Tokyo, US Embassy Tonga, US Embassy Tuvalu, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US Visa, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand | No Comments »

Those who read this blog frequently would likely notice that we sometimes quote text, either directly or indirectly, from American “rules, proposed rules, and notices of Federal agencies and organizations, as well as executive orders and other presidential documents“. Regulations in the United States are often noted in the Federal Register. In the past, the public service of keeping the public informed about pending regulations and policies was provided in print form. As the world becomes increasingly digital, more and more informational resources are being provided on virtual platforms. It would appear that this is also true for the Federal Register as the following quote from an announcement issued by the Government Printing Office would indicate:

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) and the National Archives’ Office of the Federal Register (OFR) launch the Federal Register 2.0 prototype, a user-friendly online version of the Federal Register. This daily journal of government has provided the public with access to government information and federal regulations for the past 75 years. Federal Register 2.0 features a new layout that organizes the content by topics similar to a newspaper Web site. The site displays individual sections for Money, Environment, World, Science and Technology, Business and Industry, and Health and Public Welfare. The Web site has improved search and navigation tools to guide readers to the most popular topics and relevant documents. Users can submit comments and stay connected through social media.

Although this news is quite interesting and evidences a strong commitment on the part the American government to keep the public informed about those regulatory matters which may have an impact upon the lives of US Citizens and/or lawful permanent residents, it should also be noted that the Federal Register has a distinguished history of providing information to the public in print form. To quote the aforementioned publication further:

The first copy of the Federal Register came off GPO presses on March 14, 1936. GPO partners with OFR to provide the information in the Federal Register to the American people in both print and electronic form. GPO coordinated the development aspects of the new Web site in collaboration with OFR. GPO’s Federal Digital System (FDsys), a content management system and preservation repository, feeds content into Federal Register 2.0 and acts as the holder of the official content and archived information.

“Federal Register 2.0 is a landmark achievement for the National Archives, OFR and GPO,” said Public Printer Bob Tapella. “This is an example of how the legislative branch and executive branch work together to make government information available and easily accessible for the American people. For 75 years, GPO has never missed a print deadline for the Federal Register and now we look forward to working with OFR to support Federal Register 2.0.”

“Federal Register 2.0 is an advance in the open government initiative of the Obama administration by being able to make the  Federal Register readily available and easily understood,” said Director of the Federal Register Ray Mosley. The GPO is the federal government’s primary centralized resource for gathering, cataloging, producing, providing, authenticating, and preserving published U.S. government information in all its forms. GPO is responsible for the production and distribution of information products and services for all three branches of the federal government.

In the information age, knowledge truly equates to power. Therefore, it is admirable that the government took the initiative in attempting to provide a user friendly platform for those seeking information about pending, as well as enacted, Federal rules. Although there are some who believe that the Federal Register should remain exclusively in print form, it seems prudent and far-thinking for the government to provide online services to Americans as well as other interested parties. With that in mind, there are those who feel that there could be a possible “information overload” scenario in which Americans, inundated by a constant barrage of news and media, will not be receptive to initiatives such as this. It is this author’s opinion that increasing information for public consumption will generally have a net positive impact upon the American population as a whole.

Tags: American law, American legislation, Federal Register, Federal Register 2.0, Federal Register online, Government Printing Office, GPO, the government printing office
Posted in General Legal Information, Legal Opinion, News | No Comments »

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.

Tags: Administrative Closure, American Fiance Visa, American Immigration, American K1 Visa, American K3 Visa, American Marriage Visa, American State Department, American Visa, Department of State, DOS, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, National Visa Center, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, US Fiance Visa, US Immigration, us k1 visa, US K3 Visa, US Marriage Visa, USCIS, USCIS policy review
Posted in Department of Homeland Security, Fiance Visa Thailand, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, Legal Opinion, National Visa Center, US Visa, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | 1 Comment »

This blog routinely discusses issues surrounding United States Immigration Law. However, this author must admit that we often fail to mention the human side of the Immigration and visa process. At the time of this writing the United States appears to be on the verge of making radical changes to the makeup of American Immigration law. This will likely occur through Comprehensive Immigration Reform of the US Immigration and Nationality Act and other pertinent legislation. The reasons for seeking reform vary depending upon the individual or organization. That said, the following excerpt from a news story posted on Yahoo.com poignantly elucidates the human aspect of the issues surrounding Comprehensive Immigration Reform (also known as CIR):

Seven-year-old Daisy Cuevas, thrilled to see herself on television with U.S. First Lady Michelle Obama, didn’t quite understand the predicament in which she had innocently placed her undocumented Peruvian parents. “She laughed, she jumped up and down. She was excited” after the encounter at Daisy’s suburban Washington, D.C., elementary school, the girl’s maternal grandfather, Genaro Juica, told The Associated Press. The TV appearance made the pigtailed second grader a voice of the estimated 12 million immigrants living in the United States illegally — and a source of pride for Peru’s president, who visits Washington on Tuesday. “My mom says that Barack Obama is taking away everybody that doesn’t have papers,” Daisy told the U.S. first lady on May 19 at the New Hampshire Estates Elementary School in Silver Spring, Maryland. “Well, that’s something that we have to work on, right, to make sure that people can be here with the right kind of papers,” Michelle Obama replied. “But my mom doesn’t have papers,” said Daisy, a U.S. citizen by virtue of her birth. The color immediately drained from her mother’s face. She ran crying to call her parents in Lima, then went into hiding, fearful of being deported. These are tense times for people like Daisy’s mother, a maid who arrived in the United States with her carpenter husband when she was two months pregnant with Daisy. Daisy’s parents are fearful of U.S. anti-immigrant sentiment, which for many Latin Americans is epitomized by an Arizona law taking effect in July that gives police the right to demand ID papers of anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has said it is not pursuing Daisy’s parents. Immigration investigations, it said in a statement, “are based on making sure the law is followed and not on a question-and-answer discussion in a classroom.” Nonetheless, Daisy’s mother asked the AP after the May 19 incident not to name her or her husband.

Many of those hoping for a “path to citizenship” for undocumented aliens in America feel that rectification of US Immigration policy can only be effected through reforming the Immigration laws. There are others who feel that the recently proposed CIR legislation does not go far enough in rectifying the inequities that currently exist under American Immigration law. A clarion call for further reform is especially noticeable from the LGBT immigration movement.

Hopefully, we will see Immigration reform soon, but in the meantime we may be able to learn something from this incident as it would appear that even children can see the “Equity Gap” that currently seems to exist in the realm of United States Immigration.

Tags: American Immigration, American Immigration law, American Visa, CIR, Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Daisy Cuevas, Department of Homeland Security, Equity Gap, lgbt immigration, Michelle Obama, US Department of Homeland Security, US Immigration, US Immigration Law, US Visa
Posted in Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Department of Homeland Security, General Legal Information, Legal Opinion, lgbt immigration, News | No Comments »

In a recent statement, the Director of the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC), Timothy J. Healy, discussed the overall methodology of the Center and how it has had a positive impact upon anti-terrorism initiatives of both the United States and the global community. The following in an excerpt from the statement, which has been distributed by AILA:

Established in 2003, the TSC is a multi-agency center that connects the law enforcement communities with the Intelligence Community by consolidating information about known and suspected terrorists into a single Terrorist Screening Database, which is commonly referred to as the “Terrorist Watchlist.” The TSC facilitates terrorist screening operations, helps coordinate the law enforcement responses to terrorist encounters developed during the screening process, and captures intelligence information resulting from screening.

Of paramount significance is the TSC’s success in making this critical information accessible to the people who need it most – the law enforcement officers who patrol our streets, the Customs and Border Protection Officers who protect our borders, and our other domestic or foreign partners who conduct terrorist screening every day. In the six years since we began operations, the Terrorist Watchlist has become the world’s most comprehensive and widely shared database of terrorist identities. The current terrorist watchlisting and screening enterprise is an excellent example of interagency information sharing whose success is due to the superb collaborative efforts between the TSC, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) and other members of the Intelligence Community.

It is interesting to note the international character of this initiative. In a previous posting on this blog the author noted that Thai Immigration authorities have begun linking their database to international and American information databases in order to more accurately investigate individuals who may be a threat to security.

On a related note, it should be mentioned that due to the new synergy that has arisen as a result of international cross referencing of criminal record databases those Americans living or staying in a foreign country could have significant problems if they have an American warrant as having a US Criminal warrant could result is passport confiscation by a Consular Officer at an American Citizen Services section of a US Consulate overseas. This usually happens when Americans with such warrants need to obtain a new passport or add pages to their current passport. In order to forestall these types of problems, it is advisable to speak to an American attorney in order to assess one’s options with regard to dealing with the matter in the legally prescribed manner.

For further information about Thai Immigration, please see: Thailand Visa.

Tags: AILA, American Citizen Services, criminal warrant, DHS, FBI, New Passport, passport, Terrorist Screening Center, Terrorsit Watchlist, TSC, US Consulate, warrant
Posted in Department of Homeland Security, General Legal Information, Legal Opinion, Thailand Visa, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, US Warrants, USCBP, USCIS, USICE | 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 visa runs and border runs. Another common method of obtaining lawful status in the form of a Thai visa is by traveling to Thai Embassies and Consulates outside of the Kingdom of Thailand. This can be a difficult endeavor for some, but the difficulty can be increased as Embassies and Consulates change their internal rules frequently. This is a by-product of doctrines similar to that of Consular Absolutism also known as Consular NonReviewability. This doctrine states, in a nutshell, that Consular Officers are given wide latitude to use their own discretion when making factual determinations about visa issuance.

Recently, this author has learned that the Royal Thai Embassy Kuala Lumpur will no longer issue the 1 year multiple entry Thai business visa to those with a work permit that is valid for less than 7 months. In the past, it was routine to see the 1 year Thailand business visa issued to those with a valid work permit regardless of the duration of its validity. Now, it seems that only a 90 day business visa will be granted to those with a Thai work permit that is valid for less than 7 months.

In recent years, the Thailand work permit and the Thailand visa have been effectively “decoupled” in the sense that one is no longer necessarily dependent upon the other. For a long period of time one had to have a work permit in order to obtain a Thai visa extension. Once that extension was obtained one needed to then extend the work permit so that the two documents’ validity were in sync. This has changed as the Ministry of Labour is more apt to grant a 1 year work permit to first time applicants and then the applicant can easily obtain a visa extension. The side effect of this system is that Thai Embassies and Consulates are increasingly less willing to issue one year Thai visas since their personnel view the decision regarding issuance of such a long term travel document ought to be made by the Royal Thai Immigration Police in the Kingdom of Thailand.

When analyzed, this policy makes sense as the Royal Thai Immigration Police in Thailand are often better equipped to adjudicate visa extension requests. However, there are often very compelling reasons why an applicant would wish to obtain a 1 year multiple entry visa from outside of Thailand. One notable reason, such a travel document would not require the issuance of a Thai Reentry Permit as would be necessary if a one year visa extension were issued.

It should be noted that each Thai Consular and/or Diplomatic Post has a different set of rules with regard to visa issuance so what is the rule at one post may not be the same at another.

Tags: Consular Absolutism, Consular Nonreviewability, Royal Thai Embassy, Royal Thai Embassy Kuala Lumpur, Thai Embassy KL, Thai Embassy Kuala Lumpur, Thai Immigration, Thai Visa, Thai Visas, Thai Work Permit, Thailand Embassy Kuala Lumpur, Thailand Immigration, Thailand Visa, Thailand Visas, Thailand Work Permit, Visa Thailand, work permit Thailand
Posted in Legal Opinion, Thai Embassy Kuala Lumpur, Thailand Business, Thailand Embassy, Thailand Visa | 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 »

The issue of extradition is becoming more important as the world becomes increasingly “small” thanks in part to technology and the movement towards globalization. In a global environment, legal issues are becoming increasingly international as people are leaving their home countries and taking up residence in countries abroad. In order to understand extradition we need to understand how the international legal system operates when it comes to the issue of dealing with individuals who have warrants or arrests in multiple jurisdictions.  First we need to define what “extradition” means as it can have a significant impact upon individuals throughout the world.

The online informational resource wikipedia.com defines Extradition as follows:

“Extradition is the official process whereby one nation or state surrenders a suspected or convicted criminal. Between nation states, extradition is regulated by treaties.”

This leads to the question: If extradition is the process of surrendering foreign criminals to another nation, then how do countries determine when it is appropriate to extradite individuals? This can be incredibly important as activities which are considered criminal in one jurisdiction may be considered legal in another. To further quote wikipedia:

“The consensus in international law is that a state does not have any obligation to surrender an alleged criminal to a foreign state as one principle of sovereignty is that every state has legal authority over the people within its borders. Such absence of international obligation and the desire of the right to demand such criminals of other countries have caused a web of extradition treaties or agreements to evolve; most countries in the world have signed bilateral extradition treaties with most other countries. No country in the world has an extradition treaty with all other countries…”

Extradition Treaties represent the agreement between two countries regarding the procedure for dealing with those individuals who have a criminal warrant or conviction in one of the nations that is a party to the Treaty. The Kingdom of Thailand and the United States of America have an Extradition Treaty. To quote the American State Department’s website:

“There is a bilateral treaty on Extradition in force between the United States and Thailand, 11 Bevans 1008, 43 Stat. 1749 (1924) and Treaty relating to extradition signed at Washington December 14, 1983, entered into force May 17, 1991. There is a treaty on transfer of prisoners “Treaty on Cooperation in Execution of Penal Sentences” signed at Bangkok October 29, 1982, entered into force December 7, 1988.”

From a practical standpoint, the existence of an Extradition Treaty does not necessarily mean that those with arrest warrants, convictions, or fugitive warrants in the USA will be automatically picked up, arrested, and extradited by authorities in Thailand. Instead, this is unlikely as the Thai authorities do not have direct access to the databases that contain US criminal warrant information. However, recently the Thai immigration authorities have announced that they are taking measures to streamline their information gathering process when it comes to foreign nationals. Authorities in Thailand hope to be “plugged in” to US law enforcement databases soon.

Another issue with regard to US warrants involves US passports as Consular Officers at the American Citizen Services Section of the US Embassy in Bangkok may confiscate an American’s passport if they have outstanding US warrants. In such a scenario, the American would likely be accorded an opportunity to willingly return to the USA.

Tags: American Citizen Services, Arrest Warrant Thailand, criminal warrant, Extradition, Extradition from Thailand, Extradition Treaties, Extradition Treaty, Fugitive Warrant, Fugitive Warrant Thailand, US -Thailand Extradition Treaty, US Arrest Warrant Thailand, US Criminal Warrant Thailand, US Fugitive Warrant Thailand, us passport, US warrant, US Warrant Thailand, warrant
Posted in General Legal Information, Legal Opinion, Miscellaneous, US Warrants | 10 Comments »

This author has been increasingly asked about the impact of recent political demonstrations upon those living in Bangkok. From personal experience, this author must admit that the demonstrations have had little or no impact upon living conditions in Bangkok. That being said, it appears that the recent protests are having an effect upon the Thai tourist industry.

In a recent posting on Thaivisa.com the issue of the protests and the detrimental effect they are having on the Tourism industry was discussed:

“The Thai Hotels Association said Thursday that room cancellations in Bangkok have been made at about 1,000 rooms per day, although the Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT) has assessed Red Shirt demonstration in the capital has not had a great impact on tourism so far. Thai Hotels Association director Sakrin Chorsawai said the demonstration has affected tourism operators, particularly in hotel businesses in Bangkok. A significant drop in the number of foreign tourists was seen and room reservations fell some 10-20 per cent. About 1,000 rooms were canceled daily on average as tourists feared possible violence during the mass demonstrations, in particular from March 12-23, Mr Sakrin said. However, tourism operators in other regions have not been affected, and are enjoying a normal rate of hotel bookings, he said. Local tourists, who are worried about the political situation, do not travel. If the demonstration is prolonged, its negative effects on tourism will be clearly seen, said Mr Sakrin. Meanwhile, TAT director Surapol Svetasreni said the tourism in January and February had recovered but since the Red Shirt protest began in Bangkok last week, the national agency is vigilant on the current situation to alleviate and to minimise possible effects on tourism. TAT’s promotional campaign this year still focuses on overseas roadshows and targets the number of foreign tourists at 15 million people in 2010.”

Although room cancellations may be attributable to the protests, this author believes that other factors may explain the recent downturn in Thai tourism overall. In a previous post, it was noted that the free Thai tourist visa scheme had come to an end. Subsequent to that posting, it was reported that the Thai visa fee waiver would go back into effect for Tourist visas beginning on April 1st of 2010. However, this left a window of about one month in which Thai tourist visas would not be granted free of charge. There is a possibility that some of those planning to tour Thailand are awaiting the re-institution of the free tourist visa scheme. This is mere speculation on the part of this author, but it may be the case.

For more information about Thai Immigration generally please see: Thailand visa.

Tags: Free Thai Tourist Visa, protests, redshirts, riots, Thai Tourist Visa, Thai Visa, Thailand Tourism, Thailand Tourist Industry, Thailand Visa, Tourist Visa, Tourist visas
Posted in Legal Opinion, Miscellaneous, Thailand Visa | 1 Comment »