Integrity Legal

In a recent press release from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) it was announced that a fee waiver form has been proposed in an effort to streamline the process whereby indigent aliens in the USA apply for relief from Immigration fees. To quote the announcement, as promulgated by USCIS and distributed by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA):

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has proposed for the first time a standardized fee waiver form in an effort to provide relief for financially disadvantaged individuals seeking immigration benefits…

Apparently, the current version of the fee waiver form is the product of time, research, and study as USCIS has attempted to provide relief to those who cannot pay the government processing fees while still maintaining the integrity of the overall system. To quote the aforementioned announcement further:

The proposed fee waiver form is the product of extensive collaboration with the public. In meetings with stakeholders, USCIS heard concerns that the absence of a standardized fee waiver form led to confusion about the criteria that had to be met as well as the adjudication standards. USCIS worked with stakeholders in developing the fee waiver form that is now posted for comment. “Our goal is to bring clarity and consistency to our processes,” said USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas. “We are doing so now in the critical area of providing the financially disadvantaged with access to immigration benefits.”

Mayorkas further stated that the method by which the proposed fee waiver form was devised – through extensive collaboration with the public – will be a hallmark of his approach to improving agency processes. Currently, applicants requesting a fee waiver must do so by submitting an affidavit or unsworn declaration requesting a fee waiver and stating the reasons why he/she is unable to pay the filing fee. The new proposed fee waiver form is designed to verify that an applicant for an immigration benefit is unable to pay the fee for the benefit sought. The proposed form provides clear criteria and an efficient way to collect and process the information.

It is admirable to see USCIS taking an active interest in providing relief to those customers who are truly in need. That said, it remains to be seen how this proposal will be received particularly in light of the fact that USCIS has recently announced shortfalls in its budget. Some feel that providing this type of relief runs counter to the notion of USCIS as a self-funded agency. In any case, this author hopes to see this proposal passed if it increases the probability of providing much needed assistance to those wishing to travel to, or remain in, the United States of America for bona fide reasons.

A Thai prenuptial agreement (also referred to as a Thai prenup) can provide a great deal of protection for individuals should a marital union be dissolved. A premarital agreement can also be very beneficial because it can provide certainty and transparency for the parties to a marriage. That said, a prenuptial agreement (Thai or otherwise) should be drafted in such a way that it provides protection for one’s property or real estate holdings as well as corporate assets and financial instruments. In Thailand, ensuring that a prenuptial agreement comports with all applicable formalities can be difficult which is why it is always prudent to consult with a Thai lawyer regarding such matters. For those foreign nationals with assets outside of the Kingdom of Thailand it may also be wise to consult with an attorney in the jurisdiction where one resides or maintains property in order to take all reasonable measures to ensure the integrity of one’s estate.

In Thailand, a prenuptial agreement must be registered at the time of the marriage in order for it to be enforceable by Thai courts. In a way, it may be better to think of prenuptial agreements as simply “nuptial  agreements” as the agreement does not exist until the simultaneous registration of that document and the marriage. Many Americans in Thailand opt to register a prenuptial agreement prior to the marriage that will act as a basis for a US Marriage Visa.

Corporate Assets

For those with corporate assets in the form of stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or options it is always prudent to seek information regarding a prenuptial agreement as such an agreement could protect one’s corporate assets in the event of a marital dissolution. In Thailand, those who have an ownership interest in a Thai company are wise to research prenuptial agreements prior to marriage in order try to maintain one’s holding in the event of a divorce.

Thai Property

Although foreign nationals cannot own land in Thailand, there are other property interests that one may have pursuant to Thai law, these include, but are not limited to: Thai Condo ownership, Thai usufructs, Thai 30 year leases, etc. Those with Thai real estate should consider a Thai prenup prior to marriage registration.

Marriage is a major event in one’s life. It can also have a significant impact upon the legal posture of one’s assets and interests. Therefore, those with an eye towards marriage should consult with a family lawyer within one’s local jurisdiction prior to marriage registration in order to help ensure that one’s assets are properly protected.

In a recent article, promulgated by The Nation Newspaper and distributed by the website ThaiVisa.com, it was announced that an American Citizen was arrested on money laundering charges on the Thai island of Koh Samui. To quote directly from ThaiVisa.com:

An American wanted by US authorities for alleged money laundering was charged on Samui Island yesterday.

Immigration police arrested Ronald Paul Shade, 39, who was allegedly fled California after international police and San Bernardino court issued arrest warrants for him. He was detained to face charges of money laundering and stealing about US$14 million.

Police said the American Embassy contacted them to trace Shade. They later found him “hiding” in Samui, which led to the arrest.

The suspect, who allegedly confessed, will be extradited to the US, according to a bilateral extradition treaty.

In the relatively recent past, occurrences such as this were relatively rare. This was likely due to the fact that the Thai Immigration database was not “tied in” to the American criminal databases and watchlists. Recently, it was announced that the Thai Immigration database would begin sharing information with their American counterparts, and vice versa. It is important to note that the United States of America and the Kingdom of Thailand share an Extradition Treaty. Therefore, an American Citizen with a pending criminal warrant, such as the suspect in the aforementioned news report, could be detained in Thailand and extradited back to the United States to face trial for the alleged offenses.

In the United States, there are various types of warrants and writs which could be issued in an attempt to compel an American Citizen, foreign national, or lawful permanent resident, to appear before a court of competent jurisdiction. For example, a bench warrant is generally issued by a Court when a defendant has failed to appear in connection with a pending civil or criminal matter. In some cases, those with a traffic citation, who fail to properly deal with the matter, are subjected to a bench warrant until such time as the underlying charge is satisfactorily resolved.

Under certain circumstances, a court in one jurisdiction will issue a fugitive warrant for the arrest of an individual in connection with an offense committed in another jurisdiction. Although this is somewhat uncommon, such matters are highly complex and those who are the subject of such a warrant should seek competent legal advice as soon as possible in an effort to deal with the matter in accordance with all relevant laws.

It would appear that Royal Thai Immigration authorities are taking a hard line against foreigners who are suspects in legal proceedings abroad. It remain to be seen whether this policy will continue to be rigorously enforced by Thai authorities, but one could easily infer that enforcement will continue and possibly become more zealous.

For further informational reading please see: warrant or Warrant For My Arrest.

As regular readers will likely note, we try to provide relevant and useful information to those interested in obtaining a US family visa from abroad. Below are the processing times for the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) Centers which process Immigrant and non-immigrant family based petitions for visas such as the K1 visa, the K3 Visa, the CR1 Visa, and the IR-1 Visa. The following processing time estimates for the California Service Center were quoted directly from the USCIS website:

As USCIS has two service centers which handle Family based Immigration adjudications it is fitting to post both both sets of processing time estimates. The following processing time estimates for the California Service Center were quoted
directly from the USCIS website:

If a family based petition is adjudicated and approved by USCIS, then it will be forwarded to the National Visa Center in New Hampshire where it will be processed and sent to the the US Embassy or US Consulate with appropriate jurisdiction. For further information about US Family Immigration generally please see: US Marriage Visa.

This blog is dedicated to providing relevant information for those with pending Immigration petitions before the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). With that in mind, it is particularly important to provide relevant information to military personnel who have a spouse or loved one processing through the American Immigration system. This author recently discovered that USCIS has posted a set for frequently asked questions  (and their answers) regarding the US Immigration process for military personnel and their families. Below is a list of Questions and Answers promulgated by USCIS and distributed by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA):

Questions and Answers for Members of the Military

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) offers immigration services and resources specifically for members of the U.S. Armed Forces and their families who are stationed in the United States and abroad. USCIS established a military assistance team to ensure that the military community receives quick and secure access to accurate information. Below is a list of answers to frequently asked questions received by our military assistance team.

Adjustments

Q. What is the fee for the Application for Naturalization (Form N-400) filed by spouses of military members?

A. The filing fee for the Application for Naturalization (Form N-400) is $675 ($595 plus a biometrics fee of $80). Individuals who submit FD-258 Fingerprint Cards directly to USCIS with their applications are not required to pay the biometrics fee. Applicants filing from within the United States should submit a single check or money order of $675 made payable to Department of Homeland Security or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Q. I am a military member stationed abroad with my dependents. Can my dependents have their naturalization interviews conducted overseas?

A. Yes. Certain spouses or children of service members residing abroad with that service member (as authorized by official orders) may be eligible to become naturalized citizens without having to travel to the United States for any part of the naturalization process. Please see “Fact Sheet: Requirements for Naturalization Abroad by Spouses of Members of the U.S. Armed Forces” and “Overseas Naturalization Eligibility for Certain Children of U.S. Armed Forces Members” on www.uscis.gov/military for more information.

If you have an appointment for a naturalization interview and you have transferred overseas, contact USCIS by calling the Military Help Line by telephone: 1-877-CIS-4MIL (1-877-247-4645) or email: [email protected] and request to have your case transferred to your nearest USCIS overseas office.

Submitting Biometrics

Q. I am an active duty military member and am required to submit biometrics at a USCIS Application Support Center (ASC). Do I need an appointment?

A. No. Active duty military members do not need an appointment and will be accepted on a walk-in basis at any ASC in the United States. You should bring your military ID with you to the ASC.

Q. Can I submit fingerprints before I file the Application for Naturalization (Form N-400)?

A. Yes. You may submit fingerprints even if you have not yet submitted an Application for Naturalization.

Q. Where can military members or dependents that are living abroad go to have the fingerprints taken?

A. Military members and dependents stationed abroad can submit 2 properly completed FD-258 Fingerprint Cards taken by the Military Police, Department of Homeland Security officials or U.S. Embassy or Consulate officials.

Q. If my military installation does not use FD-258, can I submit another type of fingerprint document instead?

A. FD-258 is the preferred document used to submit fingerprint, however USCIS may be able to accept a comparable document, such as the Department of Defense SF-87, in place of the FD-258. Please contact the USCIS Military Help Line at 1-877-CIS-4MIL (1-877-247-4645) for more information.

General Information
Q. What are the criteria to have an application or petition expedited for military personnel?

A. USCIS reviews all expedite requests on a case-by-case basis. Some examples of situations that may
qualify for expedited processing include:
• Pending military deployment
• Extreme emergent situation
• Humanitarian situation
Please contact your local USCIS office or the USCIS Military Help Line at 1 877 CIS 4MIL (1-877-
247-4645) for more information.

Q. I am an active duty military member stationed abroad. How do I check the status of my application?

A. You can check their status of any application by clicking on the “Check My Case Status” link on the right-hand side of this page. Note: when checking the status of an I-751, you must use the receipt number from the ASC appointment notice. You may also call the USCIS Military Help Line at 1-877-CIS-4MIL (1-877-247-4645).

It is admirable that USCIS took the time to provide this information to those serving in the American military. Many feel that one of the positive aspects of the US immigration system is the care and attention provided to members of the Armed Services and their families.

For information about Immigration options for Thai spouses and Fiances of US Citizens please see: US Marriage Visa or Fiance Visa Thailand.

This blog routinely discusses issues and news relevant to US Immigration. In a recent announcement from the Office of Public Engagement, within the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), it was noted that a new Director has been named to oversee the activities of the California Service Center. The following is a copy of the announcement directly quoted from the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) website:

Dear Stakeholders,

USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas has appointed Rosemary Langley Melville, currently the Acting Regional Director in the Southeast Region, as the new California Service Center (CSC) Director. Ms. Melville will assume her new responsibilities in late August.

Effective Monday, July 12th Barbara Velarde, Deputy Associate Director for Service Center Operations, assumed the role of Acting Director of the CSC with Phoenix District Director John Kramar as the Acting Deputy Director. We look forward to working together as we continue to address areas of common interest.

The California Service Center plays an integral part in US Family Visa cases as it processes a large number of visa petitions each year. For those living in certain Western US States the California Service Center is most often the processing point for K1 visa applications as well as the I-129f petitions submitted in connection with the K3 Visa category.

Those seeking traditional US Marriage Visa benefits may also have their petition processed by the California Service Center. When an I-130 petition (used by those seeking the CR1 and/or IR1 visa) is submitted to USCIS, the Lockbox Facility will usually forward the petition to either the California Service Center or its counterpart, the USCIS Service Center in Vermont. USCIS adjudicates the merits of the petition and assuming there is an approval in the case the file will be forwarded to the Department of State’s National Visa Center where it will either be quickly forwarded to the proper US Consulate or US Embassy (as is the case in the K1 visa process or the K3 visa process) or the NVC will hold the petition and begin the process of accumulating relevant documentation. After necessary documents are compiled the whole file will be forwarded to the Consular Post with appropriate jurisdiction.

If a visa application is denied by the US Consulate then the file will be sent back to USCIS for revocation. Under certain circumstances, a petitioner may challenge a USCIS revocation.

For further information regarding recent developments pertaining to Consular Processing and USCIS revocation please see: US visa denial.

This blog frequently discusses issues that are relevant to those who are in same-sex or LGBT relationships seeking United States immigration benefits for their loved ones overseas. In a posting on the blog Immigration Equality the recently handed down decision in a Massachusetts Court case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was discussed. The following is a direct quote from the July 9th posting:

Yesterday a Massachusetts federal district court judge sided with the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders and with the state of Massachusetts and found that it is unconstitutional for the U.S. federal government to refuse to recognize same sex marriages that are validly entered into in the couple’s state. This is a huge victory and we should all take a moment to celebrate! But, this battle is far from over.

Apparently, this ruling will not have a practical impact in the short term as the Court opted to “stay” the decision until the appeal process is exhausted.   The report went on to analyze the possible outcome should the United States Judicial Branch ultimately find that DOMA is unconstitutional:

If, eventually, the Supreme Court upholds the ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional, same sex couples that are validly married, would be able to receive federal benefits, including immigration, based on their marriage. Basically, this would mean that binational couples who live in the handful of states that allow same sex marriage could get immigration benefits, and couples who live in states with mini-DOMAs could not.

Many feel that the main issue in this case is that of States’ Rights. Presently, the United States government does not recognize the legality of a same sex marriage even where such a marriage was validly solemnized pursuant to the laws of a sovereign US state. This tension between the Federal and State power is often an issue in matters involving conflicting state and federal regulations. That said, where such conflict has an adverse impact upon individual rights, equal protection under the law, substantive due process, and Federal benefits, then the issue may be ripe for judicial review.

As the Immigration Equality blog accurately noted, this decision does not mark the end of the pursuit for those seeking equal US immigration rights as, at the time of this writing, those seeking a US family visa based upon an LGBT relationship (sometimes referred to as a same sex visa) still cannot obtain visa benefits notwithstanding the recently promulgated decision.

Although a judicially created solution for same sex couples may not be available for a relatively long period of time, the passage of legislation similar to the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) either within the provisions of a Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill or as stand alone legislation could create a new family based visa category for “Permanent Partners” of US Citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents.

For those interested in learning more about US Immigration issues for same sex couples in Thai please see: LGBT immigration.

K1 visas are a topic frequently discussed on this web log as they are a rather popular travel document for those American Citizens who have a foreign fiancee living outside of the United States of America. That said, in a recently filed complaint before the Federal District Court of Oregon an American Citizen, Dzu Cong Tran, asked for declaratory and injunctive relief as well as a writ of mandamus in connection with his previously filed I-129f petition on behalf of his Vietnamese fiancee. To quote the opening of the complaint:

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Nearly three years ago, the former United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) Ombudsman Mr. Prakash Khatri issued recommendations to Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and USCIS regarding necessary changes to the standards and
processes for re-adjudication of petitions returned by consular offices for revocation or revalidation, due to systemic nationwide failures of the system. Two years ago, Jonathan R. Scharfen, former Acting Director of USCIS under the Bush Administration responded to the USCIS Ombudsman’s recommendations, implementing only some of those recommendations and specifically rejecting others. This class action lawsuit involves some of the recommendations of the USCIS Ombudsman which were rejected by defendants, in addition to other issues.

Through the contradictory and unlawful practices of each defendant agency, plaintiff and class members have been aggrieved by agency action and inaction, have suffered agency action unlawfully withheld and unreasonably delayed, have been subjected to arbitrary, capricious and unlawful denials and file transfers, have been deprived of due process of law and had visa issuance and petition approval denied or unreasonably withheld contrary to constitutional right, contrary to procedure required by law, and contrary to the limitations of statutory jurisdiction and authority. Thousands of families across the country and around the
world have been separated due to a colossal sparring match between the defendant agencies, and because of internal dissent within each agency.

Specifically, Plaintiff Dzu Cong Tran, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, challenges (a) defendant U.S. State Department’s (State Department’s) policies and procedures for processing and returning approved petitions to defendant U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) with a recommendation that the petition be revoked; and (b) defendant USCIS’ policies and procedures for revoking, denying or terminating petitions returned to it by defendant State Department. Plaintiff respectfully petitions this Court for injunctive, declaratory and mandamus relief to: (a) compel State Department to schedule a
visa interview within a reasonable period from the date that State Department’s National Visa Center receives an approved I-129F petition for fiancé(e) from USCIS; (b) compel State Department to issue a K-1 visa to the fiancé(e) of a U.S. citizen or notify the petitioner and beneficiary that the petition will be returned to DHS/USCIS within reasonable period following interview; (c) compel State Department to provide a reasonable period during which a petitioner and beneficiary may rebut consular findings before the petition is returned to DHS/USCIS; (d) compel State Department to return petitions to DHS/USCIS only where substantial evidence
exists that fraud, misrepresentation, or ineligibility would lead to denial, and not where it is merely suspected; and to provide a written notice supported by the legal and factual basis for the visa denial and petition return that are not conclusive, speculative, equivocal or irrelevant; (e)compel State Department to render a final decision to approve the K-1 visa or return a petition to
DHS/USCIS within a reasonable period not to exceed 30 days from the receipt of all necessary documents from the petitioner and beneficiary, and to accomplish delivery of the petition to State Department’s National Visa Center within such period; (f) declare that 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(k)(5), which purports to limit the validity of a K-1 fiancé(e) petition (Form I-129F) to four months, is ultra vires and in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; (g) following such declaration, enjoin DHS/USCIS from limiting the validity period of any approved fiancé(e) petition; (h) declare that the Foreign Affairs Manual, at 9 FAM 40.63 N10.1, which purports to establish the materiality of an alleged misrepresentation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i), merely based upon DHS/USCIS summary revocation of the petition is ultra vires and in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; (i) issue a permanent injunction barring the State Department from placing a marker, called a “P6C1” marker, or “quasi-refusal” in a visa beneficiary’s record, and deeming the DHS/USCIS revocation of the petition as automatically establishing the permanent misrepresentation bar to any future immigration possibility; (j) compel DHS/USCIS to issue a notice to petitioner within a reasonable period of time not to exceed 30 days from receipt of the returned petition from the State Department, providing petitioner with the legal and factual basis for the consular recommendation that is not conclusive, speculative, equivocal or irrelevant; (k) compel DHS/USCIS to provide petitioner the opportunity to submit evidence to rebut the consular recommendation within a reasonable period of time; (l) compel DHS/USCIS, in the case of a reaffirmation of approval, to deliver the reaffirmed petition to the State Department within a reasonable period of time, and compel State Department to issue the K-1 visa within a reasonable period of time following reaffirmation; (m) compel DHS/USCIS, in the case of a denial, to issue a decision within a reasonable period of time, and to advise petitioner of the right to appeal the decision to the Administrative Appeals Office.

The United States of America’s immigration apparatus is complex and multifaceted. This is due to the fact that two Departments have a role in the Immigration process and within each of those Departments there are multiple government agencies with different roles at differing phases of the process. For example, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) and the United States Customs and Border Protection Service (USCBP), respectively, have jurisdiction over adjudication of visa petitions and inspection of aliens upon admission to the United States. In the interim, the Department of State, through the National Visa Center and each US Embassy or US Consulate abroad, is tasked with adjudicating visa applications and making determinations regarding an individual applicant’s admissibility to the USA. In the vast majority of cases involving a US visa denial the applicant will be provided written notice of the denial along with factual and legal reasons for the denial. Amongst many other things, the aforementioned complaint alleged that the:

State Department issued the [visa] denial based on mere suspicion and failed to provide a written notice supported by the legal and factual basis for the visa denial and petition return that was not conclusive, speculative, equivocal or irrelevant.

When a US visa application is denied, the Consular Officer issuing the denial should provide a written notice of denial based upon findings of fact and conclusions of law. The complaint, in essence, would seem to be alleging that the Officer at the US Consulate in HCMC did not provide a legally sufficient basis for denial.  Of further interest within the complaint was the following allegation:

State Department, in its denial, stated that, “[i]f USCIS revokes the petition, beneficiary will become ineligible for a visa under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act.” INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), is a permanent bar to admissibility for misrepresentation. Pursuant to the Foreign Affairs Manual, 9 FAM 40.63 N10.1, State Department placed a marker, called a “P6C1” marker, or “quasi-refusal” in Ms. Pham’s records, and will deem USCIS revocation of the petition as automatically establishing the permanent misrepresentation bar to any future immigration possibility.

This is an interesting phenomenon. As the US Immigration system becomes more sophisticated Department of State refusals seem to be evermore problematic for those who may later seek admission to the United States. For example, in another post on this blog it was noted that those with a previously issued 221(g) denial from a US Embassy or US Consulate may be denied benefits under the visa waiver program pursuant regulations related to the Electronic System For Travel Authorization (ESTA). As ESTA is under the jurisdiction of the USCBP and since that agency considers 221g refusals to be denials, while the Department of State continues to refer to them as refusals, the issuance of 221g could lead to an otherwise admissible individual being deemed inadmissible to the United States. This author has never personally dealt with a situation in which a Consular Officer has denied a US visa without a factual or legal basis. Hopefully, this case will help ascertain the exact nature of visa refusals at Consulates and Embassies overseas. Bearing that in mind, the decision in a case such as this could have major ramifications upon Consular Processing procedures at virtually every US Consular Post abroad.

For further information related to the US fiance visa please see: K1 visa.

In a recent announcement from the American Department of State it was revealed that those agencies tasked with issuing US visas are to add security features to American travel documents issued to foreign nationals. To quote the announcement as posted on the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) website:

This public notice announces an amendment to the Biometric Visa Program. Section 303 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 has required, since October 26, 2004, that all visas issued by the Department must be machine-readable and tamper-resistant and use biometric identifiers. In consultation with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Department determined that fingerprints and a photo image should be required as biometric identifiers. When the biometric visa program began, available technology allowed for the efficient capture and comparisons of only two fingerscans. As a result of technological improvements, the Department instituted a ten fingerscan standard to raise the accuracy rate in matching fingerscans and enhanced our ability to detect and thwart persons who are eligible for visas.

As implied above, the Department of States is not the only American agency which will have a role in creating more effective security enhancements for American visas. The Department of Homeland Security will also play a part in this important endeavor. To further quote the announcement posted on the AILA website:

In establishing the Biometric Visa Program, the Department coordinated closely with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Biometric Visa Program is a partner program to the DHS US-VISIT Program that is in effect at U.S. ports of entry and that uses the same biometric identifiers. By coordinating these two programs, the two departments have ensured the integrity of the U.S. visa. This is accomplished by sending the fingerscans and photos of visa applicants to DHS databases. When a person to whom a visa has been issued arrives at a port of entry, his or her photo is retrieved from a database and projected on the computer screen of the Customs and Border Protection officer. The person’s fingerscans are compared to the fingerscans in the database to ensure that the person presenting the visa is the same as the person to whom the visa was issued.

The new security features are likely be used for visa categories such as the K1 visa, the K3 Visa, and the common US Family Immigrant visas (CR1 Visa, IR1 visa) not to mention the non-immigrant visa categories such as the B1 visa and the B2 visa. That said, it seems unlikely that this will have an adverse impact upon those who seek a US visa in compliance with relevant US law.

Although the full-scale implementation of this program has yet to take effect, there are many who feel that more effective security measures will help ensure that there will be less fraud perpetrated against the United States government by foreign nationals wishing to illegally enter the USA.

For further information specifically related to US Consular Processing in Thailand please see: US Embassy Thailand.

Although this blog rarely discusses issues surrounding the physical borders of the United States, when important legislation is proposed it should be noted. In a recent publication promulgated by the Congressional Research Service, Chuck Mason, a legislative attorney, summarized the current legal situation arising along the Southern Border of the United States of America. The following is a direct quotation from the aforementioned  publication:

The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is charged with preventing the entry of terrorists, securing the borders, and carrying out immigration enforcement functions. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a component of DHS, has primary responsibility for securing the borders of the United States, preventing terrorists and their weapons from entering the United States, and enforcing hundreds of U.S. trade and immigration laws. Within CBP, the U.S. Border Patrol’s mission is to detect and prevent the illegal entry of aliens across the nearly 7,000 miles of Mexican and Canadian international borders and 2,000 miles of coastal borders surrounding Florida and Puerto Rico.

The United States Customs and Border Protection Service (USCBP) is tasked with an incredibly broad mandate. In many ways, the consolidation of the immigration agencies formerly under the authority of the Department of Justice was necessary as prior to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security the bureaucratic hurdles encountered by agents in the field could apparently be nearly insurmountable. Since the formation of the Department of Homeland Security it would appear that the task of monitoring the US border has become more streamlined. However, there are some who feel that more manpower is required to properly patrol the American border. Some feel as though intervention by the US military is necessary. To quote the previously mentioned report:

Although the military does not have primary responsibility to secure the borders, the Armed Forces generally provide support to law enforcement and immigration authorities along the southern border. Reported escalations in criminal activity and illegal immigration, however, have prompted some lawmakers to reevaluate the extent and type of military support that occurs in the border region. On May 25, 2010, President Obama announced that up to 1,200 National Guard troops would be sent to the border to support the Border Patrol. Addressing domestic laws and activities with the military, however, might run afoul of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA), which prohibits use of the Armed Forces to perform the tasks of civilian law enforcement unless explicitly authorized. There are alternative legal authorities for deploying the National Guard, and the precise scope of permitted activities and funds may vary with the authority exercised.

As legal restrictions likely apply to usage of the Armed Forces personnel in patrolling the US border, some members of Congress have taken steps to see to it that intervention by US troops is authorized:

In the 111th Congress, various types of legislation have been introduced, including S. 3332 and H.R. 4321, which, if enacted, would authorize the utilization of National Guard troops along the southern border. Additionally, H.Con.Res. 273 expresses the sense of Congress that the escalating violence along the southern border is a national threat and that National Guard troops should be deployed to the border.

Although it remains to be seen how the current situation will play out, there are those who feel that no matter the what outcome, the United States is at a watershed moment with regard to its policy on border protection.