Integrity Legal

Recently we reported on this blog that the fees associated with passport issuance are likely to be increased in the near future. In a recent press release Brenda S. Sprague, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Passport Services, discussed the proposed fee increase and the policy reasons underlying the American State Department’s proposal for an increase in fees associated with American passports:

“Over the last five years, the demand for passports has increased to an average of 15 million applications per year. On February 9th, the State Department published a proposed rule in the Federal Register to increase certain fees related to U.S. passport and passport card applications. The proposed fee change is based on a comprehensive cost-ofservices study, completed in June, 2009, that was the most detailed and exhaustive study the U.S. State Department has ever conducted of its for-fee services, and updates the schedule of fees from four years ago.”

Many who are reading about this fee increase for the first time are probably wondering what the cost of passports would be under the recent proposed rule:

“Under the proposed fee schedule, the total cost for a first-time applicant aged 16 and older, who is applying for a passport book will be have $135. For those younger than 16, the price will be $105. The cost of a passport card for a first-time applicant 16 or older is $55. And for those younger than age 16, the price is $40. Passport books and cards for people who are 16 or older are valid for 10 years, books and cards issued to individuals younger than 16 are available for five years.”

When discussing this issue with American expatriates in Thailand, the initial reaction regarding this fee increase is: what are they increasing the fess and what will the new funding be used for? Hopefully the following excerpt will shed light on this issue:

“Passport fees are critically important to our keeping up with the latest developments in technology. Research and development, production, and implementation of new technologies for use in our U.S. passport books and cards must be an ongoing priority if we are to keep one step ahead of the resourceful and technologically savvy criminals, terrorists groups, and subversive elements bent on doing our nation harm. The fees cover the costs of fraud prevention initiatives such as facial recognition to help us to detect look-alike fraud and data-sharing programs that permit us to verify the validity of social security numbers, driver’s licenses, birth records, and naturalization certificates. Passport fees also help to cover the costs of providing emergency services for American citizens overseas in crises situations, something that our U.S. citizens stranded in Haiti undoubtedly appreciated.”

This issue is of critical importance to those who have American Citizen children outside of the USA. In Thailand, the usual protocol at the US Embassy in Bangkok or the US Consulate in Chiang Mai is for an American Citizen to first apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad. After this document is obtained from the American Citizen Services Section of the US Consulate in Bangkok, then a passport can be issued. However, the recently proposed rule would also increase the fees associated with Consular Reports of Birth Abroad as well. That being said, the rule has yet to be adopted as there is still an official comment period so these issues have yet to be fully resolved, but it is highly likely that the rule will be implemented and the fees will be raised apparently in an to reflect what the State Department claims are the increased costs of promulgating these travel documents.

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

In some cases, it may be necessary to file a lawsuit against the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). These instances are viewed as aberrations by most US Immigration lawyers because, for the most part, USCIS follows the statutory scheme set out by the United States Congress. In some case, a Petitioner or Beneficiary must seek to have an agency compelled to perform a function that is required pursuant to their duties in office. In cases such as this, a writ of mandamus may be the proper remedy. However, when USCIS acts outside of the rules, it may be necessary for a petitioner or beneficiary to take legal action in the form of a lawsuit in order to remedy an injustice.

Recently, the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard a case involving the adjudication of a petitioner for an EB-1 visa. To quote a recently promulgated email from the Immigration Policy Council:

“Kazarian v. USCIS, involves a theoretical physicist whose employment-based visa was denied because he did not demonstrate ‘the research community’s reactions to his [scholarly] publications’ – an arbitrary requirement with no justification in the law.”

Many people are under the mistaken impression that agencies, such as, but not limited to, USCIS, involved in the United States visa process make make unilateral decisions regarding what will be required of the petitioner and beneficiary in a given case. This is not true as the requirements for petition approval are based upon the relevant law. No agency, be it USCIS, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), nor Customs and Border Protection (CBP) may unilaterally create requirements that do not exist under US law.  This point was driven home in the case itself when the court was quoted as saying that:

“neither USCIS nor an [Administrative Appeals Office] may unilaterally impose novel substantive or evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth [in the regulations].”

This case marks a positive step in the right direction away from governmental capriciousness. In an interesting comment about this case Mr. Benjamin Johnson, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council stated:

“Immigration law is complicated enough without the immigration agency imposing additional requirements and burdens of proof that aren’t in the statute or regulations and that ultimately undermine the goal of attracting the best and brightest to our shores.”

United States Immigration is a complex and often confusing area of the law. For more information on American visas, specifically those obtained in the Kingdom of Thailand, please see: US Visa Thailand.

As readers of this blog may recall from a previous post, the Thai authorities recently announced that the fee waiver for Thai tourist visas was ending in March of this year. However, ThaiVisa.com has recently reported that the tourist visa waiver program is to be re-instituted in April of this year. Apparently, the positive impact upon the tourism sector is one of the underlying reasons for the extension of this program:

“Less than one month after Thailand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed Thaivisa.com that the free tourist visa scheme would end on March 5, 2010, the Thailand Government has announced the tourism stimulus package will continue for another year, including $US10,000 in free riot insurance for tourists. The extension of the tourism industry stimulus package was approved by the cabinet today, March 2, 2010 in response to a request from the Ministry of Tourism and Sports. The extension will be effective from April 1, 2010 and go through to March 31, 2011 and appears to leave a three and a half week window in which tourist visas for Thailand will be charged for.”

As some may recall from another previous post on this blog, many Royal Thai Embassies, Consulates, and  Honorary Consuls around the world were unhappy with the no-cost tourist visa scheme as the funds previously accrued from processing tourist visas were no longer being paid. How this recent announcement will impact the Honorary Consulates as well as the Embassies and Consulates-General remains to be seen.

Another interesting aspect of the recent announcement is the fact that foreign nationals are also to be provided with no-cost riot insurance as part of this new program to revitalize the Thai tourist industry. To further quote from ThaiVisa.com:

“The $10,000 free riot insurance coverage was introduced last year and initiated by the Tourism Council of Thailand (TCT) in response to international insurance firms’ refusal to sell insurance coverage to visitors to Thailand following the 2008 closure of Thailand airports by members of the Peoples Alliance for Democracy (PAD). When the insurance coverage was first introduced last year, Kongkrit Hiranyakit, president of TCT, said the government had set aside Bt190.75 million ($US5.820 million) for the initial six month period covering May to October, 2009, with the Ministry of Tourism and Sports responsible for paying the insurance premium of $1 per visitor. The insurance policy provides for payments of up to $10,000 in the event of death, injury, and/or trip inconvenience, and appears to only cover people in possession of a 60-day tourist visa. Resident expatriates living and working in Thailand on non-immigrant visas do not appear to be covered for death, injury or inconvenience caused by riots.”

It will be interesting to see if the provision of this insurance will cause any stir among foreign residents as all of those who do not have Thai Permanent Residence are technically considered non-immigrants and therefore only “temporarily” staying in the Kingdom. This even applies to those with a Foreign Tabien Baan (also know as a Yellow Tabien Baan) as these registrations are specifically noted as “temporary.” Even though all non-residents are classified as non-immigrants, the category of the visa determines the privileges that will be extended to the visa holder. Therefore, those with a Thai business visa are entitled to file for a Thai work permit while those holding a tourist visa are not accorded that privilege. As a result, the provision of riot insurance could be viewed as as specific privilege that is only accorded to those holding certain types of Thai visas.

For further information about Thai Immigration please see: Thai visa.

Recently, the Immigration Policy Center issued a so-called progress report for the Department of Homeland Security. For regular readers of this blog it may be recalled that the Department of Homeland Security has jurisdiction over the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), the Customs and Border Protection Service (CBP) as well as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). To quote the Immigration policy center blog:

“The month of March marks the seventh anniversary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its immigration agencies. It also marks the end of a sweeping internal review ordered by Secretary Janet Napolitano, a review which as not been made public. In order to assess the first year of immigration policy under the Obama Administration, the Immigration Policy Center releases the following Special Report which compare DHS’s actions with the recommendations (Transition Blueprint) made to the Obama Transition Team’s immigration-policy group. How does DHS stack up? The following IPC report finds a department caught between the competing priorities of old broken policy and new reforms. While DHS has failed to meet key expectations in some areas, it has engaged thoughtfully and strategically in others, and has made some fundamental changes in how it conducts its immigration business.”

The report itself is quite long and provides detailed information about ways in which USCIS and DHS can improve their organization. One of the most interesting recommendations calls for a concerted plan for integrated immigrants into the tapestry of American life. To quote the report directly:

“The Administration should create a national integration strategy, establish a National Office on Immigrant Integration, and gather data on the impact of government policies on immigrants, and coordinate agency decisions that affect them.”

This report went further and advocated for certain changes in the way that USCIS handles adjudications of applications and petitions for Immigration benefits:

“USCIS must clearly articulate the principles it uses to evaluate and adjudicate individual cases, and must address the complaints of recent years that too many people are denied benefits, or subjected to repeated requests for additional evidence, because adjudicators are looking for reasons to deny rather than grant benefits. Fee waivers and discretionary waivers should be applied more broadly, particularly where individuals in proceedings have immediate family members who are U.S. citizens.”

Although this author does not necessarily agree wholeheartedly with all of the assertions in this progress report, there is no doubt that there is room for improvement in any organization and the Department of Homeland Security is no different. That being said, it is a tremendous task to ascertain where resources are most needed and allocate them accordingly. Therefore, we applaud the Department’s efforts at improve the system while encouraging DHS to continue to strive for greater efficiency tempered with a respect for the due process rights of all concerned.

For more information on this and other topics related to American Immigration please see: US Visa Thailand or K1 Visa Thailand.

Those going through the US visa process may be aware of the I-864 affidavit of support. This document is used in order for the United States government to receive assurance that the prospective immigrant will not become a public charge in the United States. In family based immigrant visa cases involving visas such as the CR1 Visa or the IR1 visa the I-864 is used. The I-864 should not be confused with the I-134 affidavit of support which is often utilized by those seeking either a K1 visa or a K3 Visa. However, at the time of this writing, it is highly likely that use of the I-134 in K-3 cases will fall by the wayside as fewer K-3 visa applications will be forwarded on to US Embassies and Consulates abroad due to the administrative closure of new K-3 applications at the National Visa Center. That being said, non-immigrant dual intent travel documents such as the K1 fiance visa and the K3 marriage visa do not use the I-864, but use the I-134.

There are certain Immigrant visas which do not utilize the I-864 as the affidavit of support requirement is waived. These type of cases require the submission of the I-864w. To quote the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) in their own instructions for the form itself:

“The Form I-864 is legally required for many family-based immigrants and some employment-based immigrants to show that they have adequate means of financial support and that they are not likely to become a public charge. Certain classes of immigrants are exempt from the I-864 requirement and therefore must file Form I-864W instead of Form I-864 or Form I-864EZ.”

Under the Child Citizenship Act of the year 2000, there are certain children who enter the United States and become United States Citizens by operation of law upon admission at a port of entry by the Customs and Border Protection Service (CBP). These children may then apply for a certificate of citizenship which is somewhat similar to a naturalization certificate except for the fact that the child is not naturalized, but a citizen statutorily. In cases where the child would become a citizen upon entry, the obligations incurred by an I-864 would automatically extinguish upon entry since the child would be a US Citizen. Therefore, the need to adjudicate means of support are made somewhat redundant. This may be the policy reason underlying the promulgation of the I-864w.

In a recent posting on this blog we discussed a recent internal rule change at the National Visa Center (NVC). The NVC announced that effective February 1, 2010 they will no longer process I-129f petitions for marriage visa benefits if the underlying I-130 petition arrives prior to, or at the same time as, the supplemental I-129f petition. There are those who are wondering what impact this will have upon visa seekers. For those seeking a K-3 visa, the impact of this recent announcement is very important because in many cases, the NVC will require couples to seek immigrant spouse visas such as the IR-1 visa and the CR-1 visa rather than the expedited K3 visa. However, some may be confused about how this new rule will impact those seeking a fiance visa.

In order to obtain a fiance visa, the US Citizen must file an I-129f petition for a K1 visa. If the initial petition is approved, then it will be forwarded to the National Visa Center for a security clearance. After a security clearance, it will be forwarded to the US Embassy or US Consulate with proper jurisdiction. Confusion may arise because some may be placed under the mistaken impression that the I-129f petition will be administratively closed by NVC in a fiance visa case. This is not the truth, as administrative closures of I-129f petitions are only to happen in the context of applications for the K3 visa and not the K1 visa. This recent rule change will likely have no impact upon the K1 visa process as the rule is designed to change the K3 visa process exclusively.

One upshot of this recent development is that the resources that NVC was expending in processing I-129f petitions for K-3 visas may be diverted to processing Immigrant visas or K1 visas. That being said, it is this author’s opinion that the K1 visa process is quite efficient and NVC usually takes very little time to process K1 visa applications. In most cases where the visa application is to be processed by the US Embassy Thailand, there is a two week waiting time between I-129f petition approval by USCIS and the forwarding of the file from NVC to the US Embassy. By most people’s estimate, this is a reasonable period of time to wait. In the case of Immigrant visas, the NVC processing time is considerably longer as the NVC requires more documentation in Immigrant visa matters compared to non-immigrant visa cases.

US Citizenship is an aspiration for many of those individuals who opt to immigrate to the United States of America. Naturalization is the legal process that foreign nationals undertake when they wish to become a US Citizen. For many the process is somewhat confusing. The naturalization process can also seem daunting as a foreign national must spend a significant amount of time any money in order to naturalize. Recently the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) stated that funds will be made available to assist in integrating foreign nationals into the American polity, the following is a press release from USCIS promulgated by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA):

“U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced today the availability of two different
grants designed to help prepare lawful permanent residents (LPRs) for citizenship and advance integration in the United States. This year’s program will make nearly $7 million available for citizenship education in communities across the country.”

This 7 million dollar grant shows a marked increase in funding for this initiative as this program was not as heavily funded in the past. It could be inferred that USCIS is resolved to promote Citizenship education for foreign nationals:

“’Each aspiring citizen represents a personal story of sacrifice and triumph,” said USCIS Director
Alejandro Mayorkas. “This funding will increase opportunities for English language instruction, promote the rights and responsibilities that define our nation, and provide much-needed support for individuals on the path to citizenship.’”

The funding provided in these grants will help facilitate multiple goals. All of these goals are within the context of Immigration to the United States and Naturalization to American Citizenship:

The first grant will strengthen locally-based citizenship preparation programs. The second grant will
increase the capacity of members or affiliates of national, regional, or statewide organizations to offer
citizenship services in underserved communities. USCIS expects to announce an estimated 50 award
recipients in September 2010.

When comparing this initiative to its counterpart in 2009, the difference in funding becomes glaringly obvious:

During fiscal year (FY) 2009, USCIS awarded $1.2 million in grants to 13 immigrant-serving organizations across the country. These awards are currently expanding services and outreach on U.S. citizenship, educational opportunities, and available resources to nearly 70,000 LPRs in 11 states.

That being said, USCIS’s efforts to fully integrate foreign nationals into the tapestry of Americana should be applauded as it marks a positive step. There are many who feel that naturalization makes individuals more engaged in the American way of life and provides recent immigrants with an aim and goal to pursue.

For more information about this and other US Immigration issues please see: Fiance Visa Thailand.

The K3 Visa was designed as an expedited alternative to Immigrant Marriage visas such as the IR1 Visa and the CR1 Visa. At one time, it could take as long as 3 years to process a marriage visa petition, which is why Congress created the K-3 visa category. However, in recent years the need for the K-3 visa has been less acute when compared to the past as the current processing times for the aforementioned Immigrant marriage visas is about 11-12 months. When comparing this to the K3 visa processing time one can see that the K-3 visa is becoming less of a necessity.

With that in mind, the United States Department of State’s National Visa Center (NVC) recently made an important announcement with regard to K-3 visas, the following quote is from a State Department publication promulgated by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA):

“Important Notice: Effective February 1st, 2010, when both the I-129F petition for a nonimmigrant K visa and the I-130 petition for an IR-1 (or CR-1) spouse of a U.S. citizen visa have been approved by USCIS and sent to the National Visa Center (NVC), the availability as well as the need for a nonimmigrant K-3 visa ends. If the NVC receives both petitions:

The nonimmigrant K visa will be administratively closed.
The application process explained below will not be applicable and cannot be used.

The NVC will contact the petitioner and you with instructions for processing your IR-1 (or CR-1) immigrant visa. For more information on the immigrant visa process review the Immigrant Visa for a Spouse webpage. If the NVC does not receive your I-130 petition and I-129F at the same time, the NVC will process your I-129F petition. Then NVC will send the petition to the embassy or consulate in the country where the marriage took place. If your marriage took place in the U.S., the NVC will send the petition to the embassy or consulate that issues visas in your country of nationality. If your marriage took place in a country that does not have an American embassy, or the embassy does not issue visas, the NVC will send your petition to the embassy or consulate that normally processes visas for citizens of that country. For example, if your marriage took place in Iran where the U.S. does not have an embassy your petition would be sent to Turkey.”

There are some who are likely asking themselves: What does this all mean? USCIS adjudicates all visa petitions and, upon approval, forwards them to the National Visa Center (NVC). NVC processes all K3 visa applications before they go to the Consulate or Embassy abroad (for those applications which are to be processed in Thailand, the NVC handles the application prior to receipt by the US Embassy Bangkok).

In essence, the NVC will no longer process K-3 visa applications if an Immigrant visa application is received by the NVC prior to, or at the same time as, a K3 application. As a practical matter, all K-3 petitions have an Immigrant visa counterpart. It is believed that, most of the time, the NVC receives these applications either in tandem or nearly simultaneously. There may be a few instances where a K-3 application will make it to NVC prior to the Immigrant visa application, but for the most part this is not the case. As a result, it is highly likely that the K-3 visa will no longer be available to those seeking marriage visa benefits because the Immigrant visa application will reach the NVC prior to, or at the same time as, the K-3 application.

A common method of land ownership in Thailand is through use of a Thai Limited Company. In many cases, a juristic person is incorporated to hold Thai property on behalf of the principal investors in the company.  Over the past three years the Thailand Real Estate market has been somewhat stagnant, but recently there seems to have been something of an upward trend in Real Estate transactions. This has resulted in the Ministry of the Interior raising the fees for land transactions, particularly with respect to land transactions executed on behalf of a corporation. To quote a Pattaya Times article promulgated on the website Thaivisa.com:

“‘A nationwide increase in land offices fees will go in effect on March 2,’ a spokeswoman for the Ministry of Interior announced in Bangkok. The fees for purchases and sales involving a Thai company limited which most foreigners use to buy land will go up from one percent to six and a half percent of appraised or contract value, whichever is higher. The head of the Chonburi Land Office, Director Vaiyavuth Surapruik, said, ‘In 2008 the fees were lowered to help the economy. This has stimulated the sale of properties. Since the fees were lowered almost two years ago there has been no slow-down in the number of transactions at the land office in Banglamung which services Pattaya so now fees will go back up in order to increase government revenues.’”

On the one hand, the recovery of the Thailand Property market is definitely a positive development, and hopefully a sign of an underlying upsurge in the overall Thai economy. This upswing in Thai property sales may also be indicative of an overall upward trend in the world wide economy. However, for those who are thinking of purchasing Thai property be it land or another form of Thai Real Estate such as a Thai Condo, this development will likely be viewed negatively as it will result in increased fees for the buyer or seller of Thai property.

This fee increase will also have an impact on individuals as the aforementioned article concluded:

“Property transfered between individuals will be charged three percent fees if owned for more than two years by the current owner. If owned less than two years the fee is higher, between five and six and a half percent.” [sic]

Property transfers between individual foreigners is probably as common, if not less common, than property transfer between corporations controlled by foreigners. That being said, under certain conditions a foreigner can own a Thai Condominium in freehold and therefore could be effected by these increased individual transfer fees.

For related information on this blog please see: Thailand Property Law.

As many readers are probably aware, the United States of America and Cuba have had long standing political tensions. Official US policy regarding Cuba has remained largely unchanged over the past 40 years, but recently officials from the American State Department have been conducting meetings with Cuban authorities in order to come to some sort of agreement regarding migration between the two countries. The quotes cited below are from a recently promulgated State Department publication:

“On Friday, February 19, 2010 the United States and Cuba met in Havana to discuss implementation of the U.S.-Cuba Migration Accords. This was the second such meeting since the decision to renew the Talks in 2009. In the course of the meeting, the U.S. team, led by Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Craig Kelly, reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to promote safe, orderly, and legal migration.”

Many feel that the current state of the US-Cuban relationship has lead to a situation where the security of the United States and Cuba is affected. Also, US officials are seeking to be given access to information about those who are sent back to Cuba. Therefore, an accord with Cuba seems to increasingly be considered a necessity:

“The agenda for the talks reflected longstanding U.S. priorities on Cuba migration issues, including: ensuring that the U.S. Interests Section in Havana is able to operate fully and effectively; ensuring that the U.S. Interests Section in Havana is able to monitor the welfare of repatriated migrants; and gaining Cuban government acceptance for the repatriation of all Cuban nationals who are excludable on criminal grounds…The United States views these talks as an avenue to achieve practical, positive results that contribute to the full implementation of the Accords and to the safety of citizens of both countries.”

This blog is mostly concerned with American Immigration issues for foreign nationals in Southeast Asia. That being said, we try to provide information about US Immigration generally. Although the above issues do not directly impact US Immigration from Thailand, an accord with Cuba on these Immigration issues would likely mark a watershed moment in Cuban-American relations.

At one time, it was difficult for people from Communist countries to travel to the United States. Since the end of the cold war and the “thawing” of relations between the United States and China, Cuba has remained a country with few official ties to the United States. The above accord, may mark the beginning of friendlier relations between the two countries.