Integrity Legal

In recent weeks we have discussed the possibility that Comprehensive Immigration Reform may be in the offing. However, legislation of this magnitude is unlikely to be passed quickly. With that in mind, many different organizations have chimed in with their opinion about Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

Recently, Secretary Napolitano of the Department of Homeland Security conducted a USCIS stakeholders meeting and discussed Comprehensive Immigration Reform. The following is contained in a readout from a press release promulgated by USCIS and distributed by AILA:

“Secretary Napolitano stressed that the broken immigration system is a problem that has been ignored too long, and said today’s meeting was another important step forward in this administration’s efforts to work with our colleagues in Congress and representatives from law enforcement, business, labor, the faith community, advocacy groups and others to fix our current laws. She welcomed the input of the participants and emphasized the importance of continued collaboration between the Department and immigration stakeholders.”

The press release went on to note that support for Comprehensive Immigration reform comes from both parties as most lawmakers feel that change is needed. The Secretary noted her admiration for the spirit of cooperation exhibited by legislators:

“In today’s meeting, Secretary Napolitano commended the bipartisan proposal set forth by Senators Chuck Schumer and Lindsey Graham, which reflects the administration’s commitment to effective enforcement; addresses the need for improved legal flows for families and workers; and offers a firm but fair path to citizenship for those who are already in the United States.”

President Obama has made statements in support of Immigration reform and the Secretary voiced her willingness to work with the President and lawmakers as solutions to the immigration problems are sought:

“Secretary Napolitano looks forward to continued work with President Obama, Senators Schumer and Graham and other Congressional partners, as well as stakeholders across the country as she continues to do everything she can to build a successful new immigration system.”

This author is intrigued to see that the there seems to be increasing support for some form of immigration reform. Although the outcome of any legislative initiative remains to be seen, there are some interest groups, particularly those supporting LGBT immigration rights, who hope to see dramatic changes to the United States Immigration system.

Hammering out a bill to address the major flaws in the current system will not be easy and there are some who believe that no immigration reform will be passed until after the mid-term congressional elections.

Tags: Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Department of Homeland Security, DHS, lgbt immigration, lgbt visa, Secretary Napolitano, US Immigration, US Visa, USCIS
Posted in lgbt immigration, same sex visa, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | No Comments »

For many Thai-American couples a prenuptial agreement is an effective method of ensuring that bot parties understand the rights, obligations, and responsibilities that marriage entails. The US Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand issues a large number of visas to the fiancees and spouses of American Citizens. As this is the case, one of the ancillary issues regarding US Immigration involves prenuptial agreements as many couples opt to have a Thai Prenuptial Agreement signed prior to a marriage which is used as a basis for a K3 Visa or a CR1 Visa or they opt to have a prenuptial agreement drafted prior to a Thai fiancee’s departure to the USA on a US fiance visa (also known as a K1 visa). That being said, having a prenuptial agreement properly drafted is extremely important as failure to properly draft such an important document could lead to unforeseen problems down the road.

In previous posting on this blog, this author has discussed the importance of having a licensed US attorney act as a representative in US Immigration matters as “visa companies,” “visa agents” and fly by night operations claiming to be either lawyers, attorneys, or both cannot represent clients before the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). With regard to a Thai prenup, one should retain a licensed American attorney to draft a prenuptial agreement if for not other reason than the fact that they are trained in the working of United States law as well as the common law system in general. Unfortunately, those falsely claiming legal credentials are often drafting documents that are insufficient to ensure the security of one’s assets.

The obvious question that many people in Thailand have is: how can I be sure that the person drafting my prenuptial agreement is a lawyer? As with United States Immigration matters, the best way to verify an individual’s credentials is to ask for either a State Supreme Court License, a State Bar Association Membership Card, or a Federal license to practice law in a US Federal jurisdiction. After receiving the individual’s credentials, it may be necessary to check with the Supreme Court or Bar Association to be certain that the individual is an attorney in that jurisdiction.

Prenuptial Agreements are very important documents and they should be carefully drafted by someone with legal acumen. Entrusting something so important to those without credentials is a risky endeavor that will likely not be recognized until long after correspondence with the drafter has terminated.

For further information please see: Prenuptial Agreement Thailand.

Tags: CR1 Visa, CR1 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, prenup, Prenuptial Agreement Attorney Thailand, Prenuptial Agreement Lawyer Thailand, prenuptial agreement Thailand, Thai prenup, Thai prenups, Thai prenuptial agreement, Thailand prenup, thailand prenuptial agreement, US Visa Thailand
Posted in CR1 Visa, Fiance Visa Thailand, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, prenuptial agreement, Thai Family Law, Thailand Marriage Registration, Thailand Property, Thailand Real Estate, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand | 22 Comments »

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.

Tags: American Citizen Services, American Embassy Bangkok, American Embassy Thailand, Free Visa Pages, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, K3 Visa Thailand, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Consulate General Chiang Mai, US Embassy, us embassy bangkok, us embassy thailand, US Fiance Visa, US Marriage Visa, US Passport Fee Increase, US Visa Thailand
Posted in Fiance Visa Thailand, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 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 | 7 Comments »

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.

Tags: 601 Waiver, fiance visa bargirl, fiancee visa bargirl, I-601, I-601 Waiver, I601, I601 Waiver, Inadmissibility Prostitution, k1 visa bargirl, k1 visa prostitution, k3 visa bargirl, k3 visa prostitution, Prostitution, Prostitution Waiver, Thai fiancee worked in a bar, Thai girlfriend worked in a bar, Thai wife worked in a bar, Thailand bargirl visa, US Visa for Bargirl, US visa for girl who worked in a bar, US visa for someone who worked in a bar, US Visa Prostitution Waiver, US Visa Thailand
Posted in CR1 Visa, Fiance Visa Thailand, IR1 Visa, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 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 Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | 1 Comment »

Recently, this author came across an announcement that a new refugee bill was introduced in the United States Senate. Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democratic Senator from the State of Vermont, introduced the “The Refugee Protection Act of 2010.” The provisions of the Act would supplement the Refugee Act of 1980.

In another recent announcement the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) discussed the ways that the proposed bill will improve conditions for American refugees. The following list of improvements was quoted directly from the AILA website:

“Increased Protections for Asylum Seekers:

• Eliminate the requirement that asylum applicants file their claim within one year of arrival.
• Protect particularly vulnerable asylum seekers by ensuring they can pursue a claim even where their persecution was not socially visible.
• Ensure fair process by requiring an immigration judge to give notice and an opportunity to respond when the judge requires corroborating evidence of the asylum claim.
• Give an applicant the opportunity to explain and clarify inconsistencies in a claim.
• Enable minors who seek asylum to have an initial interview with an asylum officer in a non-adversarial setting.
• Allow the Attorney General to appoint counsel where fair resolution or effective adjudication of the proceedings would be served by appointment of counsel.

Reforms to the Expedited Removal Process:

• Require the referral of asylum seekers to an asylum officer for a credible fear interview, and, if credible fear is found, for an asylum interview.
• Authorize the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom to conduct a new study on the effects of expedited removal authority on asylum seekers.

Parole of Asylum Seekers:

• Codify the current DHS policy that asylum seekers be considered for release (“parole”) and requires DHS to issue regulations establishing criteria for parole.
• Establish a nationwide, secure “alternatives to detention” program.
• Require changes in the immigration detention system to ensure asylum seekers and others have access to counsel, medical care, religious practice, and visits from family.

Terrorism Bar to Admissibility:

• Modify definitions in the statute to ensure that innocent asylum seekers and refugees are not unfairly denied protection as a result of the material support and terrorism bars in the law, while ensuring that those with legitimate ties to terrorist activity will continue to be denied entry to the United States.

Protection for Refugees and Asylees:

• Eliminate the one-year waiting period for refugees and asylees to apply for a green card.
• Allow certain children and family members of refugees to be considered as derivative applicants for refugee status. All such applicants must pass standard security checks.
• Authorize the Secretary of State to designate certain groups as eligible for expedited adjudication as refugees.
• Prevent newly resettled refugees from slipping into poverty by adjusting the per capita refugee resettlement grant level annually for inflation and the cost of living.”

How this bill fares in the Senate remains to be seen, but one can hope that some new measure of protection will be accorded to foreign refugees seeking asylum in the United States of America, particularly in the context of expedited removal as this can cause a great deal of suffering for many of those trying to get into the United States in order to flee persecution.

United States Immigration for Refugees is a major concern in Southeastern Asia as there are many displaced ethnic and religious groups throughout the region. In most cases, refugees come from countries such as Burma or Laos, as Thailand sees few refugees departing for America. For further information regarding American visas from Southeast Asia and Thailand specifically please see: US Visa Thailand.

Tags: Asylum, expedited removal, Refugee, refugees, The Refugee Protection Act of 2010, US Immigration, US Visa, US Visa Thailand, US Visas
Posted in US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand | No Comments »

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:

The following are the processing time estimates for the Vermont Service Center as of January 31, 2010:

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.

Tags: Amity Treaty, CR1 Visa, E2 Visa, E2 Visa Thailand, I-129f, I-130, IR1 Visa, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, K3 Visa Thailand, L1 Visa, L1 Visa Thailand, Thai Girlfriend Visa, Treaty of Amity, US-Thai Treaty of Amity
Posted in Amity Treaty, CR1 Visa, Fiance Visa Thailand, IR1 Visa, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, L1 Visa, National Visa Center, US Consulate Chiang Mai, 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 | 9 Comments »

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.

Tags: Fiance Visa, Fiancee Visa, K-1 Visa, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thai Girfriend, K1 Visa Thailand, Thai Girlfriend Visa, US Tourist Visa Thailand, US Visa Denial Thailand, US visa denied Thai girlfriend, US Visa For Thai, US Visa Thai Girlfriend, US Visa Thailand, visa denial Thai girlfriend
Posted in Adjustment of Status, Fiance Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, 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 | 6 Comments »

On this blog, we have previously discussed the notion of Comprehensive Immigration Reform. Many people feel that the time has come for a complete overhaul of the American Immigration apparatus. It would seem that most groups in the United States feel that a change is necessary, but no one seems to be able to agree about what kind of change needs to occur. Recently, the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) made their opinion known in a press release:

“The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) welcomed President Obama’s announcement that his commitment to comprehensive immigration reform is unwavering and that he would proceed with an overhaul of the immigration system this year if he could attract necessary Republican support…”

The announcement went on to list the ways in which the organization hopes to see the United States Immigration system reformed:

“AILA believes any effective, long-term solution to the immigration problem must: 1) require the undocumented population to come out of the shadows and earn legal status; 2) ensure that American businesses are able to hire the workers they need to help grow our economy while protecting U.S. workers from unfair competition; 3) reduce the unreasonable and counterproductive backlogs in family-based and employment-based immigration by reforming the permanent immigration system; and 4) protect our national security and the rule of law while preserving and restoring fundamental principles of due process and equal protection.”

Another blog post promulgated on the AILA Leadership blog was somewhat more critical of the recent Presidential announcement:

“[N]ews that Senators Schumer and Graham met with President Obama about immigration reform would have been a whole lot better if they had all committed themselves to actually rolling up their sleeves and getting to the hard work of introducing a bill, rather than just talking about one.”

There seems to be a feeling among many conservatives and liberals that the Immigration reform process is not moving forward at all and any official discussion of immigration issues simply results in political rhetoric. To quote the AILA Leadership blog further:

“True, the President reaffirmed his “unwavering” commitment to comprehensive immigration reform. But he didn’t actually commit the Administration to doing anything about it at this time. Rather, Obama’s carefully worded statement made clear that he will not likely do anything about the broken immigration system until it is politically feasible. As it stands now Congress is embroiled in a nasty partisan fight over health care reform, and not likely to be receptive to an immigration overhaul as the November election nears.”

Many have asked why this blogger writes about CIR in the USA as it will likely have little practical impact upon those seeking US Immigration benefits in Thailand. This author feels that although the family-based immigration system is unlikely to see a great deal of change, Comprehensive Immigration Reform will probably have many repercussions for those processing a visa application from Southeast Asia. If nothing else, the delays caused by processing changes could have a dramatic impact upon the process as a whole.

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

Tags: American Immigration, CIR, Comprehensive Immigration Reform, US Immigration, US Immigration News, US Immigration Reform
Posted in US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand | No Comments »

On many occasions, this author has discussed the issue of the unauthorized practice of law in the context of US Immigration. This problem has been significant in certain areas of the United States as well as abroad. Certain Immigrant groups are more susceptible to fraud than others as it can be difficult for some to decipher who is eligible to represent clients before the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) and other agencies under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security.

Recently, USCIS had a collaboration session to discuss the issue of unauthorized individuals practicing law. The following is a quote from a release promulgated by USCIS’s Office of Public Engagement:

“Scope of the Problem:

• The unauthorized practice of law encompasses various activities, including:

• Applying for benefits on behalf of an immigrant who is ineligible for those benefits

• Misrepresentation of facts in documents submitted to USCIS

• Accepting an applicant’s money without ever submitting any documents to USCIS (this is the hardest to track because USCIS has no record of the unauthorized practitioner or documents submitted on behalf of the applicant)

• Other examples include unauthorized practitioners who claim to be able to obtain labor certifications for employers

• Primarily a “local issue of national scale”

• Many unauthorized practitioners promise to expedite cases, and then take an applicant’s money and disappear – applicants are willing to pay more to an unauthorized practitioner than they would to a private attorney because they may believe that notary publics can provide premium services (stems from a difference between the role of notary publics in the U.S. and other countries)

• Some attorneys lend their names and bar numbers to UPL practices – these attorneys can be disciplined for failure to supervise, but there is nothing that can be done to the unauthorized practitioners

• Unauthorized practitioners sell forms through their websites and conduct phone consultations

• There are companies overseas that claim to provide assistance with the “green card lottery”

• In recent years, there has been an increase in internet-based scams

• Unauthorized practitioners include ex-government officials, including previous employees of INS, USCIS, DHS, and DOS

• Unauthorized practitioners often threaten to report applicants to USCIS or ICE when they complain about fees or lack of service

• Most serious threat is mom and pop shops that advertise with flyers and in local papers or through referrals and hand out business cards advertising themselves as notary publics or attorneys

• Applicants have an incentive to protect unauthorized practitioners because once an unauthorized practitioner is caught, all cases are reopened

• Some therapists working with U visa applicants assist clients with preparing/filing forms”

Unfortunately one of the worst consequences of hiring an unauthorized representative is that the applicant’s case may be reopened and scrutinized if it is found that they were assisted by someone without authorization to practice US Immigration law. US immigration lawyers routinely “clean up the mess” caused by those without the knowledge base or ethical standards required to represent clients in American Immigration proceedings.  For this reason, it is always prudent to ascertain at the outset if an individual is really entitled to practice law. This can be learned by asking to see a copy of the individual’s US license to practice law in the Supreme Court of one of the 50 states or a territory of the United States. A Bar Association Membership Card can also shed light on an individual’s credentials. In the case of non-profit entities, a copy of a document confirming the organization or individual’s accreditation by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) may also be used to prove an ability to represent people before the Department of Homeland Security.

For those seeking advice about US Immigration from Thailand please see: US Lawyer Thailand or US Visa Thailand.

Tags: American Immigration, unlicensed practice of law, UPL, US Immigration, US Immigration Law, US Immigration Thailand, US Lawyer Thailand, US Visa, US Visa Thailand, USCIS
Posted in Legal Opinion, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | No Comments »

This blog regularly discusses scam artists and fly by night operators who claim to be licensed US immigration lawyers, US “visa agents”, or “immigration consultants.” However, it was has been rare to see these people brought to justice. In recent months the New York State Attorney General has been increasingly putting pressure upon these types of operators. In a recent posting on the AILA (the American Immigration Lawyers Association) Leadership Blog the writer reports that the Attorney General’s efforts are finally bearing fruit:

“The latest victory in the fight against immigration fraud and victimization was announced by Cuomo’s office on March 1, 2010. The Attorney Generals’ Office has won a court judgment of more than $3 million against a “consultant” in Queens who has targeted and defrauded immigrants. In this case, the “consultant” routinely charged a retainer of $7,000 with fees often reaching up to $15,000 per person for the promise of permanent residence. The consultant wrongly claimed that she could get permanent resident status through alleged relationships with government officials. Of course, the services were never performed and the consultant routinely refused to give refunds or return documents.”

Refusals to provide refunds when appropriate, refusals to remit documentation, an inability to complete necessary tasks, and contentions of “special influence” are all hallmarks of these types of operators as most of these activities are either unethical or illegal. Those harmed in the matter discussed above at least have been granted some measure of recompense as the AILA Leadership Blog noted:

“As a result of Cuomo’s lawsuit, the New York Supreme Court has ordered the consultant to pay full restitution to 37 families who came forward and demonstrated that they were defrauded by this consultant. An additional $2.7 million in penalties was imposed for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and misrepresentation of services that could be performed. The consultant is also permanently restricted directly and indirectly from engaging in the business of immigration-related services.”

Hopefully, this judgment will grant some relief to those detrimentally affected by this individual’s actions. In a final quote from the Blog:

“…New York City and State continues and serves as an example for all who are committed to fighting immigration fraud and the unauthorized practice of law.”

This author could not agree more adamantly. I applaud the efforts of Attorney General Cuomo as the unlicensed practice of law is a serious issue that can have very unfortunate consequences for the “clients” of those claiming to be attorneys. As always, if seeking legal advice about any matter make certain that the person providing the advice can produce a license to practice law in the jurisdiction where they are practicing. In the case of US Immigration law, an American attorney should be able to produce a Bar Card or license promulgated by the highest court in one of the 50 United States as defined in the US Immigration and Nationality Act.

For information about US Immigration attorneys in Thailand, please see: US Visa Thailand.

Tags: Atorney General Cuomo, immigration consultant, unlicensed practice of law, US Immigration, visa agent, Visa Company
Posted in General Legal Information, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand | No Comments »