Integrity Legal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags: 601 Waiver, American Immigration Thailand, American Visa Thailand, CIMT, Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude, FAM, Foreign Affairs Manual, I-601 Waiver, I601 Waiver, Inadmissibility, US Family Visa, US Immigration, US Immigration Thailand, us visa denial, US Visa Denial Thailand, US Visa Denied, US Visa Denied Thailand, US Visa Thailand, Waiver
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, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Embassy Thailand, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS, Visa Waiver | No Comments »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags: American Immigration, American Visa, American Visa Thailand, Child Citizenship Act, CR1 Visa, CR1 Visa Thailand, Expedited Naturalization, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, Naturalization, USCIS
Posted in Adjustment of Status, CR1 Visa, Fiance Visa Thailand, IR1 Visa, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | No Comments »

The Department of Homeland Security has a broad mandate to enhance the security of the United States. In many cases, the exact tactics employed by Department personnel are kept private in order to facilitate efficient implementation. That being said, oftentimes, the Department will make statements regarding general changes in policy. The following is quoted from a recent Department of Homeland Security Press Release which has been further distributed by the American Immigration Lawyers Association:

“Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano today announced that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will begin implementing new enhanced security measures for all air carriers with international flights to the United States to strengthen the safety and security of all passengers—superseding the emergency measures put in place immediately following the attempted terrorist attack on Dec. 25, 2009.”

This announcement is interesting to note as it illustrates the ever-evolving nature of the Department of Homeland Security’s duties. To quote the press release further:

“These new, enhanced measures are part of a dynamic, threat-based aviation security system covering all passengers traveling by air to the United States while focusing security measures in a more effective and efficient manner to ensure the safety and security of the traveling public. Passengers traveling to the United States from international destinations may notice enhanced security and random screening measures throughout the passenger check-in and boarding process, including the use of explosives trace detection, advanced imaging technology, canine teams, or pat downs, among other security measures.”

Finally, the press release went on to provide answers to questions that those within the Department felt would be frequently asked:

“Is the list of 14 countries of concern still in use?

These measures supersede the list of countries concern put in place as an emergency measure on January 3, 2010. The enhanced security measures that are going into effect are tailored to intelligence about potential threats and are focused on all passengers from all countries. They are part of a dynamic, threat based process covering all passengers traveling to the United States while focusing security measures in a more effective and efficient manner to ensure the safety and security of all those traveling by air to the United States.

Is this a weakening of the current posture system?

It’s a strengthening of the system. These new, more flexible security protocols are tailored to reflect the most current information available to U.S. authorities and are based on real-time, threat-based intelligence that will now be applied to all passengers traveling to the United States. Which countries are affected by the new directives? The security measures apply to all passengers on international flights directly to the U.S. worldwide.

What can passengers expect to see at airports?

Passengers traveling to the U.S. from international destinations may notice enhanced security and screening measures throughout the passenger check-in and boarding process which could include explosives trace detection, use of advanced imaging technology, canine teams or pat downs, among other security measures to keep air travel safe.”

Many people, including this author, sometimes forget the rather daunting task of the Department of Homeland Security. On this blog, DHS is usually only discussed in the context of US Immigration, while in many ways their job is more than simply adjudicating visa petitions (USCIS), enforcing Immigration law (USICE), and patrolling America’s borders (USCBP).

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

Tags: American Immigration, American Immigration Thailand, American Visa, American Visa Thailand, Department of Homeland Security, US Immigration, US Visa, US Visa Thailand
Posted in US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | 1 Comment »

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

“‘Aging out’ issues: K-2 and CSPA

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

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

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

Tags: Adjustment of Status, Adjustment of Status K1 Visa, Adjustment of Status K2 Visa, Fiance Visa, Fiance Visa Thailand, Fiance Visas, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, k2 visa thailand, US Fiance Visa, US Visa Thailand
Posted in Adjustment of Status, Fiance Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, Upcoming Legislation, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | 25 Comments »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags: Adjustment of Status, advance parole, American Immigration Thailand, Fiance Visa, Fiance Visa Thailand, I-131, I131, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, US Fiance Visa, US Visa Thailand
Posted in Adjustment of Status, Fiance Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | No Comments »

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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »

Recently the Department of Homeland Security issued a notice that the rules regarding attorney representation would be amended in order to fall in line with the relevant Department of Justice regulations. To quote a the summary in the Federal Register which is displayed on the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) website:

“The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is amending its regulations governing representation and appearances by, and professional conduct of, practitioners in immigration practice before its components to: Conform the grounds of discipline and procedures regulations with those promulgated by the Department of Justice (DOJ); clarify who is authorized to represent applicants and petitioners in cases before DHS; remove duplicative rules, procedures, and authority; improve the clarity and uniformity of the existing regulations; make technical and procedural changes; and conform terminology. This rule enhances the integrity of the immigration adjudication process by updating and clarifying the regulation of professional conduct of immigration practitioners who practice before DHS.”

As has been discussed on this blog before, the issue of attorney representation is of great importance due to the fact that there are many disreputable organizations calling themselves such things as “visa company,” “visa agency,” or, “visa consultant” and other unscrupulous operators who go so far as to claim attorney credentials when they are, in fact, unlicensed to practice law in the United States and therefore unable to practice US Immigration law. To quote the Federal Register again:

“Definition of attorney. This rule amends the definition of “attorney” at 8 CFR 1.1(f), to conform with DOJ’s definition at 8 CFR 1001.1(f), by adding the requirement that an attorney must be eligible to practice law in the bar of any State, possession, territory, or Commonwealth of the United States, or of the District of Columbia, in addition to the other requirements for attorneys set forth in that regulation. State bar rules uniformly require licensed attorneys to maintain an active status in order to practice law; however, there has been some confusion as to the applicability of that requirement in determining eligibility to appear as a representative before DHS.”

It is interesting that this addition was made as it imposes an more stringent burden upon practitioners as anyone practicing before the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or its agencies, like the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), the United States Customs and Border Protection Service (CBP), and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service (ICE) must be eligible to practice in virtually every American jurisdiction. It should be noted that eligibility is the only new requirement added as DHS does not require that practitioners be licensed to practice in all US jurisdictions.

It should also be pointed out that attorneys are not the only individuals who can represent clients before DHS. In fact, if an individual is accredited by the Board of Immigration Appeals, then they may represent individuals in certain DHS proceedings. However, such agents are usually non-profit organizations as non-attorney representatives are NOT entitled to charge anything except nominal fees.

For related information please see US Lawyer Thailand or US Visa Thailand.

Tags: AILA, CBP, Department of Homeland Security, DHS, ICE, US Attorney Thailand, US Immigration attorney, US Immigration Lawyer, US Lawyer Thailand, US Visa Attorney, us visa lawyer, US Visa Thailand, USCIS
Posted in General Legal Information, Upcoming Legislation, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | No Comments »