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 ‘US Embassy Indonesia’ Category
30th April 2010
US Lawyer Thailand: Confidentiality Issues
Posted by : admin
Repeatedly, this author uses this blog as a platform to try to educate the public regarding the US visa process and the problems that can arise during that process. In many cases, people are simply unaware of the rules regarding US visa issuance and this blog attempts to provide relevant information that readers may find beneficial. That being said, another frequently discussed topic is the unauthorized practice of law by “visa companies” and “visa agents” or those claiming to be American attorneys. This is not simply a tirade against such practices, but is intended to provide information regarding the detrimental impact that these individuals can have upon the interests of their “clients”.
Under section 292.1 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations a licensed attorney is entitled to represent clients before the United States Department of Homeland Security, specifically the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) which is tasked with adjudicating US visa petitions. Many are unaware of the fact that those who assist individuals in preparing visa petitions are engaging in the unauthorized practice of law if they are not: licensed to practice law in at least one US jurisdiction while being eligible to practice law in all US jurisdictions or certified by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
Licensure is no small matter, especially for those individuals who are “represented” by those claiming to be attorneys who are not, in fact, licensed. For example, if an American talks to an unlicensed individual about sensitive matters, then such communications would not be confidential and also would not be protected under the attorney/client privilege. If one is communicating in confidence to a licensed attorney, then such communication is “out of bounds” for US Courts. However, the same communications with one who is unlicensed could be used as evidence in a US court proceeding. Therefore, licensure is extremely important particularly in US Immigration matters involving a legal ground of inadmissibility or an I-601 waiver as certain information could be very detrimental to clients’ interests and if imparted to a licensed American attorney would be confidential, but if imparted to an unlicensed “fly by night” operator such information could be used against the client at a later date.
For all of these reasons, when an American is outside of the USA it is always prudent to check the credentials of anyone claiming to be an attorney from the United States. An individual can provide adequate credentials if they can show their license to practice law before at least on State Supreme Court in the US, or a Federal license to practice law in the USA, or a license to practice law in one of the US territorial jurisdictions (Guam, Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, etc). Anyone who refuses to provide any such credentials and yet still asserts that they are an American attorney should be avoided until proof of credentials can be provided.
For further information about US Immigration from Thailand please see: K1 Visa Thailand.
29th April 2010
Supreme Court Affirms Immigrants’ Right To Immigration Advice
Posted by : admin
In a recent case that was heard and adjudicated by the United States Supreme Court, the issue of Immigrants’ right to counsel was taken up and the outcome of the case resulted in a landmark opinion and a watershed moment for the rights of Immigrants in the United States of America. The case is known as Padilla v. Kentucky, the following quote comes from an email from the Law Corporation of Alice M. Yardum-Hunter:
The case involved a 40-year permanent resident, Jose Padilla, whose criminal defense lawyer advised him not to worry about the immigration consequences of pleading guilty to a crime. That advice was not only wrong but the guilty plea subjected Mr. Padilla to mandatory deportation from the United States. The Kentucky Supreme Court held that Mr. Padilla had no right to withdraw his plea when he learned of the deportation consequence. The Supreme Court reversed that decision and rejected the federal government’s position – also adopted by several other courts – that a noncitizen is protected only from “affirmative misadvice” and not from a lawyer’s failure to provide any advice about the immigration consequences of a plea. The Court held that Mr. Padilla’s counsel was constitutionally deficient and affirmed that immigrants should not be held accountable when they rely on incorrect advice from their lawyers or where counsel fails to provide any immigration advice at all.
The implications of this case are important for attorneys practicing in the United States as they will now be required to provide advice about the legal consequences of certain activities from an Immigration perspective.
This is also important for those American Immigration Lawyers practicing outside of the United States. For example, if an individual with lawful permanent residence in the United States is abroad and learns of a pending criminal warrant or fugitive warrant, then that individual may choose to retain the advice of a US lawyer outside of the United States. In that case, the lawyer would be required, under the provisions of this recently adjudicated decision, to provide advice regarding the immigration consequences of a guilty plea in a pending criminal matter.
This example illustrates one more reason why it is so important to retain the advice of an individual who is licensed to practice law in the USA. This is particularly important in a country such as Thailand where the existence of “visa companies,” “visa agents,” and unlicensed and non-accredited so-called “lawyers” and “attorneys” operate with little oversight. Many are unaware of the implications of a criminal pleading in an immigration context and this ignorance can lead to unforeseen difficulties for US Immigrants overseas.
For information about United States Immigration from Thailand please see: K1 Visa Thailand.
10th April 2010
US Visa Denial: New Report Discusses Trends
Posted by : admin
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.
27th March 2010
Department of State Discusses Fee Increases for Consular Services
Posted by : admin
In a few recent blog posts, this author has discussed the proposed fee increases for services offered at US Diplomatic and Consular Posts abroad. Apparently, the Department of State will be increasing the fees associated with Passport procurement. Also, those who wish to obtain new pages in their passport will no longer be able to have pages added free of charge. Finally, although on a slightly different topic, the fees for non-immigrant family based visas is to be raised as well. For those who are unfamiliar with the details of US Immigration the US Fiance Visa (also called the K1 visa) and the Non-Immigrant US Marriage visa (Also called a K3 Visa) are issued at American Embassies overseas.
The Department of State issued some statements in a supplement regarding the proposed rule that would increase the fees for Consular Services:
“The Department of State (“Department”) published two proposed rules in the Federal Register on December 14, 2009 (74 FR 66076, Public Notice 6851, RIN 1400-AC57), and on February 9, 2010 (75 FR 6321, Public Notice 6887, RIN 1400-AC58), proposing to amend sections of part 22 of Title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the Schedule of Fees for Consular Services. The Department’s proposed rules solicited comments, and a number of comments requested additional detail on the Consular Services Cost of Service Study (CoSS) as well as time to comment on that detail. In response, the Department is providing the additional written detail below.”
The Department of State should be commended for taking the time to explain to the public the policy reasons for a fee increase. In many ways, a fee increase is periodically necessary as each US Embassy and/or US Consulate must serve the needs of the Americans using the post while at the same time stay within a budget. Balancing these two objectives can be difficult at times. The statement went further in describing the reasons behind the increase in fees, but used an analogy to make the point:
“Example: Imagine a government agency that has a single facility it uses to prepare and issue a single product–a driver’s license. In this simple scenario, every cost associated with that facility (the salaries of employees, the electricity to power the computer terminals, the cost of a blank driver’s license, etc.) can be attributed directly to the cost of producing that single item. If that agency wants to ensure that it is charging a “self- sustaining” price for driver’s licenses, it only has to divide its total costs for a given time period by an estimate of the number of driver’s licenses to be produced during that same time period.”
As this analogy points out, if an organization is just producing one product, then determining the cost of the product is relatively easy:
“However, if that agency issues multiple products (driver’s licenses, non-driver ID cards, etc.), has employees that work on other activities besides licenses (for example, accepting payment for traffic tickets), and operates out of multiple facilities it shares with other agencies, it becomes much more complex for the agency to determine exactly how much it costs to produce any single product. In those instances, the agency would need to know what percent of time its employees spend on each service and how much of its overhead (rent, utilities, facilities maintenance, etc.) are consumed in delivering each service to determine the cost of producing each of its various products–the driver’s license, the non-driver ID card, etc. Using an ABC model would allow the agency to develop those costs.”
Apparently, the Department of State, through use of modeling, has discovered the true cost of their services and is attempting to adjust their fees accordingly. It remains to be seen how thee changes will impact expats and Americans using United States Consular Posts abroad. In Thailand, it is this author’s opinion, that this fee increase will have the biggest impact upon the American Citizen Services Unit of the US Embassy Bangkok and the US Consulate Chiang Mai as those respective units deal with issues like new passport issuance on a regular basis.
21st March 2010
US Visa Thailand: What If My Thai Fiancee or Wife Worked In a Bar?
Posted by : admin
Although delicate, the issue of prostitution in Thailand and the impact upon United States Immigration is something that an American Immigration attorney in Thailand should discuss, if for no other reason than the fact that there is a great deal of misinformation about this topic throughout the internet.
First, the relevant law: The United States Immigration and Nationality Act §212(a)(2)(D) has the following to say on the topic of inadmissibility and prostitution:
(D) Prostitution and commercialized vice
Any alien who—
(i) is coming to the United States solely, principally, or incidentally to engage in prostitution, or has engaged in prostitution within 10 years of the date of application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status,
(ii) directly or indirectly procures or attempts to procure, or (within 10 years of the date of application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status) procured or attempted to procure or to import, prostitutes or persons for the purpose of prostitution, or receives or (within such 10-year period) received, in whole or in part, the proceeds of prostitution, or
(iii) is coming to the United States to engage in any other unlawful commercialized vice, whether or not related to prostitution,
is inadmissible.
It should be noted that legality is not an issue when it comes to prostitution as even a legal act of prostitution is a legal ground of inadmissibility from the United States of America. In the US State of Nevada, prostitution is legal provided the brothel has a license and comports to certain regulatory rules with regard to health and advertising. However, the act of prostitution itself is not illegal under in Nevada so long as the prostitute works in a licensed establishment. Regardless of the fact that the act may be legal, the Immigration and Nationality Act still makes the act a legal grounds of inadmissibility if it occurred within 10 years of the application for admission to the United States of America.
This seemingly glaring disjunction is the result of the American doctrine of Federalism. In the US, there is one sovereign in the form of the Federal government and 50 sovereigns in the form of the 50 US states. It is possible that State and Federal law will occasionally conflict. For Immigration purposes, the Federal regulations and statutes are controlling over state law. Therefore, regardless of the fact that an act of prostitution may be legal in a US state, it may still be a legal grounds of inadmissibility if it occurred within 10 years of an application for admission to the USA.
In Thailand this is important to note because prostitution is only vaguely defined in criminal statutes. Under the provisions of the Thai Prevention and Suppression of Prostitution Act of 1996 the definition of prostitution is defined as:
“‘prostitution’ means sexual intercourse, or any other act, or the commission of any other act in order to gratify the sexual desire of another person in a promiscuous manner in return for money or any other benefit, irrespective of whether the person who accepts the act and the person who commits the act are of the same sex or not…”
The obvious problem with this definition is the phrase “in a promiscuous manner.” Authorities in Thailand seem to operate under the assumption that acts of prostitution occurring in private are not promiscuous and therefore do not meet the legal definition of prostitution. The United States immigration authorities do not take this view and their view of prostitution falls in line with the more traditional definition which mandates finding of previous engagement in acts of prostitution if the individual in question was paid in exchange for providing sexual gratification.
If a Consular Officer at a US Embassy or US Consulate abroad finds an alien inadmissible because the alien has engaged in prostitution within 10 years of filing an application for a US visa, then the alien will not be able to obtain a US visa, nor will they be allowed to enter the United States of America. This decision is not subject to appeal.
What is the solution if an alien is found inadmissible based upon a finding that they have engaged in prostitution within 10 years of applying for a US visa? Fortunately, the Immigration and Nationality Act provides a remedy for those who are found inadmissible under these circumstances. An I-601 waiver may be filed with USCIS and if approved, the alien will be able to seek admission to the United States of America.
Throughout the internet there are those who claim that the best way to avoid this issue is to lie to a Consular Officer or “omit certain facts.” This practice is highly inadvisable. First, it is illegal and in some cases punishable by five years in a federal penitentiary and a $250,000 fine. Second, it could lead to further problems for an alien because lying to a Consular Officer could result in a finding that the alien had engaged in fraud and misrepresentation which is a separate ground of inadmissibility. Third, such advice is highly unethical and reflects adversely upon anyone who advises a client to lie to a Consular Officer or in a visa application. Run, don’t walk, away from anyone who gives this kind of advice as it is unethical, illegal, and could result in a permanent bar to entering the United States.
Our firm’s policy is to disclose all legally relevant facts and deal with the legal consequences in a straightforward manner.
For More Information Please See: US Visa Thailand.
18th March 2010
For regular readers of this blog, it is probably no surprise that some of the most recent USCIS Service Center processing time estimates are being put up as a courtesy to readers and the immigrant community at large. However, we have begun adding other visa category processing time estimates as there may be those in Thailand interested in either the L1 visa for intracompany transferees or the E2 visa for those trading in the United States under the US-Thai Treaty of Amity.
The following are the processing time estimates from the California Service Center as of January 31, 2010:
| 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 | June 23, 2005 |
| I-130 | Petition for Alien Relative | U.S. citizen filing for a married son or daughter over 21 | May 23, 2002 |
| I-130 | Petition for Alien Relative | U.S. citizen filing for a brother or sister | January 16, 2001 |
| I-130 | Petition for Alien Relative | Permanent resident filling for a spouse or child under 21 | April 02, 2007 |
| I-130 | Petition for Alien Relative | Permanent resident filling for an unmarried son or daughter over 21 | February 02, 2003 |
| I-131 | Application for Travel Document | All other applicants for advance parole | 3 Months |
| I-212 | Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the U.S. After Deportation or Removal | Readmission after deportation or removal | 4 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 Month |
The following are the processing time estimates for the Vermont Service Center as of January 31, 2010:
| 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 15, 2008 |
| I-130 | Petition for Alien Relative | U.S. citizen filing for a married son or daughter over 21 | October 15, 2008 |
| I-130 | Petition for Alien Relative | U.S. citizen filing for a brother or sister | January 16, 2009 |
| I-130 | Petition for Alien Relative | Permanent resident filling for a spouse or child under 21 | August 27, 2008 |
| I-130 | Petition for Alien Relative | Permanent resident filling for an unmarried son or daughter over 21 | January 09, 2009 |
| I-131 | Application for Travel Document | All other applicants for advance parole | 3 Months |
| I-212 | Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the U.S. After Deportation or Removal | Readmission after deportation or removal | 4 Months |
|---|
| I-129 | Petition for A Nonimmigrant Worker | L – Intracompany transfers | 1 Month |
|---|
Please note that these estimates are for USCIS processing only and do not include processing time for an application at the National Visa Center or at the US Embassy or US Consulate that will ultimately adjudicate a foreign national’s visa application. Please be advised that recent changes implemented by NVC may have a dramatic impact upon the overal K3 Visa process, but these policies should not effect the processing of a K1 visa.
For information about assisting a loved one with US visa obtainment please see: Thai Girlfriend Visa.
17th March 2010
Can I Get A US Tourist Visa For My Thai Girlfriend?
Posted by : admin
Many people contact this author in order to ask questions about the United States Immigration process. Sometimes, a question becomes so common that I feel the need to post an article about the subject on this blog. The question that has been recently posed with great frequency is: Can I get my Thai girlfriend to the United States on a US tourist visa? Strictly speaking, yes, but this answer needs to be highly qualified. Anyone who is approved for a US tourist visa can go to the United States and request admission, but obtaining approval of a US tourist visa application can be difficult for the boyfriend or girlfriend of an American Citizen. The difficulty arises under the provisions of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act.
Pursuant to Section 214(b) of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act a Consular Officer at a United States Embassy or United States Consulate-General is required to make a presumption that a non-immigrant visa applicant is actually an intending immigrant unless they can prove otherwise. This, in turn, leads to a factual analysis by the Consular Officer. The Consular Officer must believe that the applicant has “strong ties” to their home country, or any other country outside of the USA, and “weak ties” to the United States. In many cases, the mere existence of a US Citizen boyfriend or girlfriend will mitigate against any “strong ties” abroad and lead to a visa denial under section 214(b). This reasoning on the part of US Embassy personnel should not be misconstrued as a personal denial. Instead, the officer is legally compelled to deny a tourist visa application if the applicant cannot overcome the presumption imposed by section 214(b).
Many people then ask the question: can this visa denial be appealed? No, although an applicant may ask for a tourist visa application to be reopened. That being said, in virtually all cases, the denial will be upheld. A Consular Officer’s factual findings are not subject to appeal based upon the doctrine of Consular Absolutism. However, a legal finding may be subject to reversal. With that in mind, one should recognize that a visa denial under section 214(b) is a factual determination and therefore not generally subject to reversal.
If a couple truly has a bona fide intention to marry in the USA and apply for adjustment of status, then a tourist visa is really not the correct travel document as it specifically precludes immigrant intent (unlike a dual intent travel document such as a K1 visa or an L1 visa). Therefore, if the couple wishes to marry and adjust status, then a Fiance Visa is a more appropriate travel document. However, the couple must have a truly bona fide intention to marry and not simply a pretextual intention in order to pursue US Immigration benefits.
For further information for about visas in general and the complex issues surrounding family based petitions please see: US Visa Thai Girlfriend.
10th March 2010
CRBA: Consular Reports of Birth Abroad and Consequences of Denial
Posted by : admin
Consular Reports of Birth Abroad (CRBA) are similar to birth certificates in that they note that a child was born, but they differ in their reason for issuance. A Consular Report of Birth Abroad also notes that a child was born an American Citizen. There are two ways that a child can be born an American Citizen. One way is by birth in the United States. Although, the American Immigration and Nationality Act defines “United States” (for purposes of US Immigration) as all of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, the US Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico birth in the non-US states or the District of Columbia may or may not cause the transmission of automatic Citizenship depending upon the situation. That being said, birth in the 50 US states definitely confers automatic Citizenship. However, there is another method of transmission of United States Citizenship and that is by blood. A United States Citizen may transmit their citizenship to their child outside of the US if at least one of the child’s parent’s meets the legal requirements for Citizenship transmission. This can become complicated as automatic citizenship transmission can be dependent upon many factors.
In order to obtain a Consular Report of Birth Abroad an applicant usually makes an appointment with the American Citizen Services Section of the appropriate US Embassy or US Consulate. In Thailand, the CRBA interview would likely take place at either the US Embassy in Bangkok or the US Consulate General in Chiang Mai.
What concerns us in this post is the prospect of a Consular Report of Birth Abroad Denial. If, by law, an American Citizen cannot transmit their Citizenship to their child automatically because the US Citizen parent did not spend enough time physically present in the US at the time of the child’s birth, then a Consular Report of Birth Abroad may not be issued and the child may not be entitled to a US passport. It should be noted that in some cases a parent cannot prove up their actual presence in the United States, but later procures proof. In this case, it may be possible to re-apply for the CRBA and, assuming the new evidence is acceptable to the Consular Officer, thereby legally prove transmission of Citizenship. However, there are some cases where the transmission of Citizenship either cannot be proven or did not, in fact, occur. In situations such as these, Americans are basically left with one option: they may petition for an Immigrant visa for their child. An American Citizen may petition for Immigrant visa benefits for their child and upon approval of a visa application and petition, the child may enter the United States with their US Citizen parent. Under the provisions of the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 if the child enters with their US Citizen parent in order to take up residence, then the “foreign” child becomes a US Citizen by operation of law upon lawful admission.
In this situation, the child may then obtain a Certificate of Citizenship (similar to a Naturalization Certificate) in order to prove their status.
For related information please see: US Visa Denial or CR1 Visa.
5th March 2010
Deputy Assistant US Secretary of State Discusses Increased Passport Fees
Posted by : admin
Recently we reported on this blog that the fees associated with passport issuance are likely to be increased in the near future. In a recent press release Brenda S. Sprague, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Passport Services, discussed the proposed fee increase and the policy reasons underlying the American State Department’s proposal for an increase in fees associated with American passports:
“Over the last five years, the demand for passports has increased to an average of 15 million applications per year. On February 9th, the State Department published a proposed rule in the Federal Register to increase certain fees related to U.S. passport and passport card applications. The proposed fee change is based on a comprehensive cost-ofservices study, completed in June, 2009, that was the most detailed and exhaustive study the U.S. State Department has ever conducted of its for-fee services, and updates the schedule of fees from four years ago.”
Many who are reading about this fee increase for the first time are probably wondering what the cost of passports would be under the recent proposed rule:
“Under the proposed fee schedule, the total cost for a first-time applicant aged 16 and older, who is applying for a passport book will be have $135. For those younger than 16, the price will be $105. The cost of a passport card for a first-time applicant 16 or older is $55. And for those younger than age 16, the price is $40. Passport books and cards for people who are 16 or older are valid for 10 years, books and cards issued to individuals younger than 16 are available for five years.”
When discussing this issue with American expatriates in Thailand, the initial reaction regarding this fee increase is: what are they increasing the fess and what will the new funding be used for? Hopefully the following excerpt will shed light on this issue:
“Passport fees are critically important to our keeping up with the latest developments in technology. Research and development, production, and implementation of new technologies for use in our U.S. passport books and cards must be an ongoing priority if we are to keep one step ahead of the resourceful and technologically savvy criminals, terrorists groups, and subversive elements bent on doing our nation harm. The fees cover the costs of fraud prevention initiatives such as facial recognition to help us to detect look-alike fraud and data-sharing programs that permit us to verify the validity of social security numbers, driver’s licenses, birth records, and naturalization certificates. Passport fees also help to cover the costs of providing emergency services for American citizens overseas in crises situations, something that our U.S. citizens stranded in Haiti undoubtedly appreciated.”
This issue is of critical importance to those who have American Citizen children outside of the USA. In Thailand, the usual protocol at the US Embassy in Bangkok or the US Consulate in Chiang Mai is for an American Citizen to first apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad. After this document is obtained from the American Citizen Services Section of the US Consulate in Bangkok, then a passport can be issued. However, the recently proposed rule would also increase the fees associated with Consular Reports of Birth Abroad as well. That being said, the rule has yet to be adopted as there is still an official comment period so these issues have yet to be fully resolved, but it is highly likely that the rule will be implemented and the fees will be raised apparently in an to reflect what the State Department claims are the increased costs of promulgating these travel documents.
For information about American Immigration from Thailand please see: US Visa Thailand.
28th February 2010
In a recent posting on this blog we discussed a recent internal rule change at the National Visa Center (NVC). The NVC announced that effective February 1, 2010 they will no longer process I-129f petitions for marriage visa benefits if the underlying I-130 petition arrives prior to, or at the same time as, the supplemental I-129f petition. There are those who are wondering what impact this will have upon visa seekers. For those seeking a K-3 visa, the impact of this recent announcement is very important because in many cases, the NVC will require couples to seek immigrant spouse visas such as the IR-1 visa and the CR-1 visa rather than the expedited K3 visa. However, some may be confused about how this new rule will impact those seeking a fiance visa.
In order to obtain a fiance visa, the US Citizen must file an I-129f petition for a K1 visa. If the initial petition is approved, then it will be forwarded to the National Visa Center for a security clearance. After a security clearance, it will be forwarded to the US Embassy or US Consulate with proper jurisdiction. Confusion may arise because some may be placed under the mistaken impression that the I-129f petition will be administratively closed by NVC in a fiance visa case. This is not the truth, as administrative closures of I-129f petitions are only to happen in the context of applications for the K3 visa and not the K1 visa. This recent rule change will likely have no impact upon the K1 visa process as the rule is designed to change the K3 visa process exclusively.
One upshot of this recent development is that the resources that NVC was expending in processing I-129f petitions for K-3 visas may be diverted to processing Immigrant visas or K1 visas. That being said, it is this author’s opinion that the K1 visa process is quite efficient and NVC usually takes very little time to process K1 visa applications. In most cases where the visa application is to be processed by the US Embassy Thailand, there is a two week waiting time between I-129f petition approval by USCIS and the forwarding of the file from NVC to the US Embassy. By most people’s estimate, this is a reasonable period of time to wait. In the case of Immigrant visas, the NVC processing time is considerably longer as the NVC requires more documentation in Immigrant visa matters compared to non-immigrant visa cases.
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.