Integrity Legal

On this blog we often discuss issues associated with US passports and US Immigration. Recently, this author discovered that the Department of State (DOS) is seeking comments regarding a proposed rule change which would alter the way in which DOS collects information prior to American passport issuance. The following excerpts are taken from the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) website. To quote one page from the AILA website:

The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment in the Federal Register preceding submission to OMB. We are conducting this process in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995….

Abstract of proposed collection:

The information collected on the DS-3053 is used to facilitate the issuance of passports to U.S. citizens and nationals under the age of 16. The primary purpose of soliciting the information is to ensure that both parents and/or all guardians consent to the issuance of a passport to a minor under age 16, except where one parent has sole custody or there are exigent or special family circumstances.

Methodology:

Passport Services collects information from U.S. citizens and non- citizen nationals when they complete and submit the Statement of Consent or Special Circumstances: Issuance of a Passport to a Minor under Age 16. Passport applicants can either download the DS-3053 from the Internet or obtain one from an Acceptance Facility/Passport Agency. The form must be completed, signed, and submitted along with the applicant’s DS-11, Application for a U.S. Passport…

Clearly the Department of State wishes to use the DS-3053 in order to collect what they deem to be the necessary information before issuing a passport to a minor child. The public policy reasons for this change of rules is somewhat obvious as the Department is likely concerned about improper issuance of a US passport to minor.

To quote another page on the AILA website:

60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Form DS-5504, Application for a U.S. Passport: Name Change, Data Correction, and Limited Passport Book Replacement, OMB Control Number 1405-0160…

The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment in the Federal Register preceding submission to OMB. We are conducting this process in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995…

We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:

Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our functions…

The information collected on the DS-5504 is used to facilitate the re-issuance of passports to U.S. citizens and nationals when (a) the passport holder’s name has changed within the first year of the issuance of the passport; (b) the passport holder needs correction of descriptive information on the data page of the passport; or (c) the passport holder wishes to obtain a fully valid passport after obtaining a full-fee passport with a limited validity of two years or less. The primary purpose of soliciting the information is to establish citizenship, identity, and entitlement of the applicant to the U.S. passport or related service, and to properly administer and enforce the laws pertaining to the issuance thereof…

In this instance, it would seem that the Department of State is primarily concerned with collecting necessary data so as to issue US passports only to those individuals who are legally entitled to such travel documents. US Citizenship has many benefits that are not accorded to Non-US Citizens. Therefore, those issuing US passports must take appropriate measures to ensure that US passports are not issued to individuals who are not legally entitled to such status. With laws such as the Child Citizenship Act, these measures are likely to become more necessary as individuals are deriving their US Citizenship in different way compared to Americans in previous generations.

For those interested in obtaining a US Passport in Thailand or information about visa services please see: American Citizen Services or US Embassy Thailand.

Tags: American Citizen Services, American State Department, Child Citizenship Act, Department of State, DOS, DS-3053, DS-5504, State Department, us embassy thailand, US Immigration, us passport, US passports, US State Department
Posted in Extradition, Upcoming Legislation, US Citizenship, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Consulate HCMC, US Consulate Singapore, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Bangladesh, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy Dhaka, US Embassy Hanoi, US Embassy India, US Embassy Indonesia, US Embassy Jakarta, US Embassy Kathmandu, US Embassy Kuala Lumpur, US Embassy Malaysia, US Embassy Myanmar, US Embassy Nepal, US Embassy New Dehli, US Embassy Phnom Phen, US Embassy Rangoon, US Embassy Singapore, US Embassy Thailand, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US Warrants | No Comments »

The Department of State (DOS) is a multifaceted government agency as it is tasked with handling American foreign relations as well as Consular Affairs. That said, an often overlooked aspect of the American State Department’s mandate is refugee assistance. Unfortunately, throughout the world, economic and political turbulence causes the displacement and migration of local populations. In a recent government press release Eric Schwartz, Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration, had this to say about DOS’s role in international population migration:

In my first 11 months on the job, many friends, colleagues and counterparts have asked me about the scope of the humanitarian work of the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM), which I am honored to lead. For those of you who already know our Bureau well, this note may not be critical reading. For those who don’t, I thought I’d take some time to describe the Bureau and its priorities, and finish by introducing our new Front Office team. Within the Department of State, PRM serves as the principal humanitarian advisor to the Secretary of State, provides key leadership on population and migration issues, and manages two high-impact foreign assistance accounts that totaled over $1.7 billion in FY 2009. Our mandate is to provide protection and solutions to the world’s most vulnerable people: refugees, conflict victims, stateless persons, and vulnerable migrants, and to do so by integrating diplomacy, advocacy and humanitarian assistance programs. In this effort, we seek to help realize the commitments of President Obama and Secretary Clinton to alleviate human suffering and create the conditions for sustainable recovery, and to build a more effective multilateral system for humanitarian response.

It is interesting to note that many of the issues associated with refugee assistance can trace their roots to routine diplomatic issues which is why the Department of State is an ideal mechanism for providing assistance to refugee populations. To quote the aforementioned press release further:

Most of the humanitarian situations to which PRM responds are rooted in political or security challenges. For this reason, our access to foreign heads of government and other key foreign government decision-makers is critical, as it fosters the integration of humanitarian diplomacy within a full range of U.S. government assistance and protection programs, and leverages these programs to achieve critical humanitarian objectives. Over the past many months, I’ve pursued international humanitarian objectives in visits with a range of senior foreign leaders and officials, including with President Fernandez of the Dominican Republic on issues relating to the status of Haitians; the Prime Minister of Jordan and the Vice Foreign Minister of Syria on issues relating to Iraqi and Palestinian refugees; and the President, Defense Minister and Foreign Minister on conditions for internally displaced persons in Sri Lanka.

In this author’s opinion, assisting refugees and displaced individuals is a noble pursuit. Therefore, the efforts of DOS in this regard should be applauded as this type of activity ought to continue as countries around the world strive for greater international harmony.

For related information please see: US Visa Thailand or US Embassy Thailand.

Tags: American Department of State, American State Department, DOS, State Department, US Department of State, us embassy thailand, US Visa Thailand
Posted in News, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Consulate HCMC, US Consulate Singapore, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Bangladesh, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy Dhaka, US Embassy Hanoi, US Embassy India, US Embassy Indonesia, US Embassy Jakarta, US Embassy Kathmandu, US Embassy Kuala Lumpur, US Embassy Malaysia, US Embassy Myanmar, US Embassy Nepal, US Embassy New Dehli, US Embassy Phnom Phen, US Embassy Rangoon, US Embassy Singapore, US Embassy Thailand, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand | No Comments »

With the recently announced fee increases associated with K visa applications filed overseas, there are many who feel that serious thought should be given to the type of visa a couple should petition to obtain. In the past, many couples who were thinking of marriage opted to apply for a US fiance visa, also referred to as a K1 visa. That being said, it was recently announced that the application fee for all K visas sought overseas would be increased from $131 to $350. Apparently, the resources accrued are to be used in furtherance of fraud prevention measures as well as implementation of measures meant to streamline the overall visa process. As the fee increase was only recently announced, it remains to be seen how newly acquired fees will be used on the Consular level. With that in mind, it has also been recently announced that USCIS may be raising fees for Immigrant visa petitions. For those who are unfamiliar with this blog, it should be noted that for purposes of traveling to the USA, the K1 visa and the K3 Visa are considered to be immigrant visas even though they do not automatically confer lawful permanent residence to the bearer upon entry in the USA.

Those seeking a US visa would be prudent to seriously consider their options because the costs associated with the process of applying for and obtaining a CR1 visa or an IR1 visa may be lower in some cases when compared to the costs associated with the K1 visa process. When viewed from a long term perspective the CR1 visa, although more time consuming to obtain, confers lawful permanent residence to the bearer upon entry and thereby negates the necessity of adjustment of status which is necessary for those who travel to the US on a K1 visa with the intent to marry the Petitioner and remain in the USA permanently.

In most cases, those wishing to bring a spouse to the USA are wise to bear in mind the fact that K3 visa applications, once a popular travel document for bi-national married couples, are now being administratively closed by the National Visa Center if the underlying I-130 is approved prior to, or at the same time as, the I-129f application. This has lead to many instances of spouses being required by circumstance to process a CR1 or IR1 visa rather than a K3 visa because the NVC simply will not process the K3 application.

For those interested in further information about US Immigration please see: American Visa Thailand.

Tags: American Visa Thailand, CR1 Visa, CR1 Visa Thailand, IR1 Visa, IR1 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Costs, K1 Visa Fees, K1 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, K3 Visa Thailand, US Visa Costs, US Visa Fees, USCIS Costs, USCIS Fee hike, USCIS Fee Increase
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, National Visa Center, News, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Consulate HCMC, US Consulate Singapore, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy Hanoi, US Embassy India, US Embassy Indonesia, US Embassy Jakarta, US Embassy Kathmandu, US Embassy Kuala Lumpur, US Embassy Malaysia, US Embassy Myanmar, US Embassy Nepal, US Embassy New Dehli, US Embassy Phnom Phen, US Embassy Rangoon, US Embassy Singapore, US Embassy Thailand, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US Tourist Visa, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS, Weird Law | No Comments »

A frequently discussed topic on this blog is the US Tourist Visa. The US Embassy Bangkok processes a significant number of US Tourist Visa applications each year. In the past, most non-immigrant visa applications required the submission of form DS-156. Recently, the US State Department announced that the DS-156 should no longer be used  by those seeking a US B2 Tourist Visa:

The new DS-160, Nonimmigrant Visa Electronic Application, is a fully integrated online application form that is used to collect the necessary application information from a person seeking a nonimmigrant visa. The DS-160 is submitted electronically to the Department of State via the Internet. Consular Officers use the information entered on the DS-160 to process the visa application and, combined with a personal interview, determine an applicant’s eligibility for a nonimmigrant visa.

Apparently, the DS-160 has been introduced in an effort to streamline the visa process for those seeking non-immigrant visas outside of the United States of America. To quote the above announcement further:

All U.S. Embassies and Consulates that process nonimmigrant visas now use the new online DS-160. Therefore, visa applicants will need to apply using the online DS-160 for most, but not all, nonimmigrant visa categories. Review the [State Department] FAQs for exceptions and to find out which nonimmigrant categories continue to use the DS-156 at this time.

There are many who worry that these recent changes will impact other types of applications. This worry seems to be most prevalently felt by those seeking K1 visa benefits or K3 Visa benefits for a foreign fiancee or spouse. That said, consultation with an American legal professional may be necessary in order to determine which forms should be used when filing for certain visa categories. As always, it should be noted that only a licensed American attorney is entitled to assist in American Immigration matters. That said, many find that applying for a US Tourist Visa does not require the assistance of an American lawyer as such assistance would likely add little value to such an application. However, many applicants for US family immigration benefits find that attorney assistance is beneficial.

It should be noted that many applicants find their application for a visa denied pursuant to the Consular Officer’s application of Section 214(b) of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act. Such a finding basically means that the applicant was unable to show requisite “strong ties” to their home country and “weak ties” to the United States. Those seeking a visa to the USA should be advised that if immigration is the ultimate goal, then a tourist visa is not the proper travel document. Even if a visa application is approved by a US Consulate overseas, the foreign national could still be placed in expedited removal proceeding upon arrival at the port of entry in the USA if the Customs and Border Protection officers have reason to believe that the applicant is an undisclosed intending immigrant attempting to enter the USA.

Tags: American Department of State, American State Department, Customs and Border Protection, DOS, DS-156, DS-160, expedited removal, K1 Visa, K3 Visa, US Department of State, us embassy bangkok, us embassy thailand, US Tourist Visa, US Tourist Visa Thailand, USCBP
Posted in K1 Visa, K2 Visa, K3 Visa, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Consulate HCMC, US Consulate Singapore, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy Hanoi, US Embassy India, US Embassy Indonesia, US Embassy Jakarta, US Embassy Kathmandu, US Embassy Kuala Lumpur, US Embassy Malaysia, US Embassy Myanmar, US Embassy Nepal, US Embassy New Dehli, US Embassy Phnom Phen, US Embassy Rangoon, US Embassy Singapore, US Embassy Thailand, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US Tourist Visa, US Visa and Immigration, USCBP | 1 Comment »

In recent postings on this blog, this author has discussed proposed fee increases for Consular services at US Embassies and Consulates outside of the United States of America.  Recently the American State Department made the following announcement:

The Department is increasing fees to ensure sufficient resources to cover the rising cost of processing nonimmigrant visas. This increase applies both to nonimmigrant visas placed in passports and to border crossing cards issued to certain applicants in Mexico. The new, tiered fee structure was created to cover the higher unit costs for processing certain categories of nonimmigrant visas that are more complicated and require more in-depth consideration than most other categories of nonimmigrant visas. The Department is required to recover, as far as possible, the cost of processing nonimmigrant visas through the collection of the application fees. For a number of reasons, including new security enhancements, the $131 fee set on January 1, 2008 no longer covers the current, actual cost of processing nonimmigrant visas. Under the new schedule of fees, applicants for all visas that are not petition-based, including B1/B2 tourist and business visitor visas and all student and exchange visitor (F, M and J) visas, will pay a fee of $140. Applicants for petition-based visas will pay an application fee of $150. These categories include:

· H visa for temporary workers and trainees
· L visa for intracompany transferees
· O visa for aliens with extraordinary ability
· P visa for athletes, artists and entertainers
· Q visa for international cultural exchange visitors
· R visa for religious occupations

The application fee for K visas for fiancé(e)s of U.S. citizens will be $350. The fee for E visas for treaty-traders and treaty investors will be $390.

The last portion of this announcement is of the most pressing concern to those wishing to bring a Thai loved one to the USA. Many Americans opt to use a K1 visa to bring a Thai fiancee to the United States. In the past, many also utilized the K3 Visa to bring Thai spouses to the USA. At the time of this writing the National Visa Center (under the authority of the Department of State) is administratively closing all I-129f petitions for K3 Visas if the underlying I-130 petition has been submitted to the NVC concurrently with, or prior to, the submission of the I-129f petition. Therefore, the increase in fees is unlikely to have a major impact upon those seeking a US marriage visa as the vast majority of US Marriage visas being processed out of any US Consulate or US Embassy are immigrant visas (CR1 or IR1) rather than non-immigrant K3 visas.

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

Tags: American States Department, Consular Fees, Costs for K visa, CR1, Fee Increase, IR1, K visa fees, K1 Visa, K3 Visa, National Visa Center, NVC
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, National Visa Center, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Consulate HCMC, US Consulate Singapore, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy Hanoi, US Embassy India, US Embassy Indonesia, US Embassy Jakarta, US Embassy Kathmandu, US Embassy Kuala Lumpur, US Embassy Malaysia, US Embassy Myanmar, US Embassy Nepal, US Embassy New Dehli, US Embassy Phnom Phen, US Embassy Rangoon, US Embassy Singapore, US Embassy Thailand, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand | 7 Comments »

The issue of Comprehensive Immigration Reform seems to be more hotly debated as the mid-term Congressional elections in the United States approach. Recently, President Barack Obama was quoted as saying:

What has become increasingly clear is that we can no longer wait to fix our broken immigration system, which Democrats and Republicans alike agree doesn’t work. It’s unacceptable to have 11 million people in the United States who are living here illegally and outside of the system. I have repeatedly said that there are some essential components that must be in immigration legislation. It must call for stronger border security measures, tougher penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants and clearer rules for controlling future immigration. And it must require those who are here illegally to get right with the law, pay penalties and taxes, learn English, pass criminal background checks and admit responsibility before they are allowed to get in line and eventually earn citizenship. The outline presented today includes many of these elements. The next critical step is to iron out the details of a bill. We welcome that discussion, and my Administration will play an active role in engaging partners on both sides of the aisle to work toward a bipartisan solution that is based on the fundamental concept of accountability that the American people expect and deserve.

Many argue that the United States Immigration system needs to be modified as it is proving to be too inflexible when it comes to dealing with some of the important immigration problems of the day. A case in point is the debate on Same Sex US Immigration benefits for bi-national couples. At present, same-sex bi-national couples cannot receive the same family immigration benefits as different sex couples due to provisions in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In short these couples cannot receive a same sex marriage visa. Many hope that by placing specific legislative language akin to the provisions of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) into the Comprehensive Immigration bill this policy of providing disproportionate benefits will come to an end.

Overall, the current immigration system has improved for those seeking immediate relative immigration benefits (IR1, CR1, IR2, etc). For example, the  National Visa Center has begun administratively closing K3 Visa applications as the need for such expedited travel documents is felt to be no longer necessary for those seeking immigrant benefits since USCIS no longer has a high backlog for such petitions. The K1 visa is still processing in the same manner as it has in the past. However, some of the preference petition categories are still processing quite slowly. Also, this brief assessment does not look at employment based immigration issues associated with visa categories such as the L1 visa and the E2 visa nor does it begin to tackle to issue of undocumented workers and immigrants in the USA.

For further information on this issue please see: Fiance Visa Thailand.

Tags: Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, Fiance Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K3 Visa, lgbt immigration, LGBT US Immigration, LGBT US Visa, lgbt visa, Same Sex CR1 Visa, Same Sex IR1 Visa, Same Sex K1 visa, Same Sex K3 Visa, same sex visa, uafa, Uniting American Families Act, US Visa, US Visa Thailand
Posted in CR1 Visa, Department of Homeland Security, Fiance Visa Thailand, General Legal Information, IR1 Visa, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, lgbt immigration, National Visa Center, same sex visa, Upcoming Legislation, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Consulate HCMC, US Consulate Singapore, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy Hanoi, US Embassy India, US Embassy Indonesia, US Embassy Jakarta, US Embassy Kathmandu, US Embassy Kuala Lumpur, US Embassy Malaysia, US Embassy Myanmar, US Embassy Nepal, US Embassy New Dehli, US Embassy Phnom Phen, US Embassy Rangoon, US Embassy Singapore, US Embassy Thailand, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | No Comments »

On this blog, we try to provide up to date information regarding the processing time estimates of certain family based, and in limited instances non-family based, United States Immigration Petitions.

Below are the current processing time estimates from the USCIS Service Center in California as of February 28, 2010:

The following are processing time estimates for the USCIS Vermont Service Center as of February 28, 2010:

These estimates should not be viewed as accurate for each individual case as each case is unique and some cases take more time to process through the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) and others may take considerably little time to process through the Service Center. In any case, the assistance of a US Visa Lawyer can be helpful to clients as an authorized representative is entitled to correspond with USCIS on behalf of clients and can thereby streamline the overall visa process.

It should be noted that these estimates do not include the time that it takes to get the case processed through a US Embassy or US Consulate overseas. For those processing a Thai case, it usually takes about 6-8 weeks to process through the US Embassy Thailand.

For further information please see: Fiance Visa Thailand.

Tags: CR1 Visa, E2 Visa, Fiance Visa, I-129f, I-130, IR1 Visa, K1 Visa, K1 visa processing time, K3 Visa, K3 Visa processing time, L1 Visa, US Embassy, us embassy bangkok, us embassy thailand, us visa lawyer, US Visa Process, US Visa Processing Time, US Visa Processing Times, US Visa Thailand, USCIS, Visa Process, Visa Processing Time, Visa Processing Times
Posted in CR1 Visa, Department of Homeland Security, Fiance Visa Thailand, IR1 Visa, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, L1 Visa, lgbt immigration, same sex visa, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Consulate HCMC, US Consulate Singapore, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy Hanoi, US Embassy India, US Embassy Indonesia, US Embassy Jakarta, US Embassy Kathmandu, US Embassy Kuala Lumpur, US Embassy Malaysia, US Embassy Myanmar, US Embassy Nepal, US Embassy New Dehli, US Embassy Phnom Phen, US Embassy Rangoon, US Embassy Singapore, US Embassy Thailand, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | No Comments »

Repeatedly, this author uses this blog as a platform to try to educate the public regarding the US visa process and the problems that can arise during that process. In many cases, people are simply unaware of the rules regarding US visa issuance and this blog attempts to provide relevant information that readers may find beneficial. That being said, another frequently discussed topic is the unauthorized practice of law by “visa companies” and “visa agents” or those claiming to be American attorneys. This is not simply a tirade against such practices, but is intended to provide information regarding the detrimental impact that these individuals can have upon the interests of their “clients”.

Under section 292.1 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations a licensed attorney is entitled to represent clients before the United States Department of Homeland Security, specifically the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) which is tasked with adjudicating US visa petitions. Many are unaware of the fact that those who assist individuals in preparing visa petitions are engaging in the unauthorized practice of law if they are not: licensed to practice law in at least one US jurisdiction while being eligible to practice law in all US jurisdictions or certified by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).

Licensure is no small matter, especially for those individuals who are “represented” by those claiming to be attorneys who are not, in fact, licensed. For example, if an American talks to an unlicensed individual about sensitive matters, then such communications would not be confidential and also would not be protected under the attorney/client privilege. If one is communicating in confidence to a licensed attorney, then such communication is “out of bounds” for US Courts. However, the same communications with one who is unlicensed could be used as evidence in a US court proceeding. Therefore, licensure is extremely important particularly in US Immigration matters involving a legal ground of inadmissibility or an I-601 waiver as certain information could be very detrimental to clients’ interests and if imparted to a licensed American attorney would be confidential, but if imparted to an unlicensed “fly by night” operator such information could be used against the client at a later date.

For all of these reasons, when an American is outside of the USA it is always prudent to check the credentials of anyone claiming to be an attorney from the United States. An individual can provide adequate credentials if they can show their license to practice law before at least on State Supreme Court in the US, or a Federal license to practice law in the USA, or a license to practice law in one of the US territorial jurisdictions (Guam, Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, etc). Anyone who refuses to provide any such credentials and yet still asserts that they are an American attorney should be avoided until proof of credentials can be provided.

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

Tags: American Attorney, American Attorney Thailand, American Lawyer, American Lawyer Thailand, Fiance Visa Thailand, I-601 Waiver, K1 Visa Thailand, US attorney, US Attorney Thailand, US Immigration Thailand, US lawyer, US Lawyer Thailand, US Visa, US Visa Thailand, Visa Process
Posted in Adjustment of Status, CR1 Visa, Department of Homeland Security, F1 Visa Thailand, Fiance Visa Thailand, IR1 Visa, J1 Visa Thailand, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, lgbt immigration, same sex visa, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Consulate HCMC, US Consulate Singapore, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy Hanoi, US Embassy India, US Embassy Indonesia, US Embassy Jakarta, US Embassy Kathmandu, US Embassy Kuala Lumpur, US Embassy Malaysia, US Embassy Myanmar, US Embassy Nepal, US Embassy New Dehli, US Embassy Phnom Phen, US Embassy Rangoon, US Embassy Singapore, US Embassy Thailand, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US Tourist Visa, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | 1 Comment »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags: American Attorney, American Attorney Thailand, American Lawyer, American Lawyer Thailand, American warrant, Fugitive Warrant, Padilla v. Kentucky, US attorney, US Immigration, US Immigration Thailand, US lawyer, US Lawyer Thailand, US Visa, US Visa Thailand, US warrant, visa agency, visa agent, Visa Company, warrant
Posted in CR1 Visa, Department of Homeland Security, General Legal Information, IR1 Visa, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, US Consulate HCMC, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy Hanoi, US Embassy India, US Embassy Indonesia, US Embassy Jakarta, US Embassy Kathmandu, US Embassy Kuala Lumpur, US Embassy Malaysia, US Embassy Myanmar, US Embassy Nepal, US Embassy New Dehli, US Embassy Phnom Phen, US Embassy Rangoon, US Embassy Singapore, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, US Warrants, USCBP, USCIS, USICE | No Comments »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags: deportation, Deported, expedited removal, removal, us visa denial, US Visa Denial Thailand
Posted in CR1 Visa, Department of Homeland Security, Fiance Visa Thailand, IR1 Visa, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Consulate HCMC, US Consulate Singapore, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy Hanoi, US Embassy India, US Embassy Indonesia, US Embassy Jakarta, US Embassy Kathmandu, US Embassy Kuala Lumpur, US Embassy Malaysia, US Embassy Myanmar, US Embassy Nepal, US Embassy New Dehli, US Embassy Phnom Phen, US Embassy Rangoon, US Embassy Singapore, US Embassy Thailand, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US Tourist Visa, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCBP, USCIS, USICE | No Comments »