Integrity Legal

For those seeking to obtain a USA Visa from Thailand, it is almost inevitable that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) will be involved in the process. That being said, depending upon the visa being sought, USCIS may play less of a direct role in the initial process.

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Service has had an interesting recent history. Currently, the office is under the administrative jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security. USCIS former acronym was INS which stood for the Immigration and Naturalization Service. In the aftermath of  September 11, 2001 it was decided that the services provided by INS could be better facilitated under the aegis of the Department of Homeland Security and INS was folded into that agency. For a time, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service was known simply as the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS), but the acronym and name was officially changed to the current form on October 13, 2004.

For Immigrant visas that confer either conditional or unconditional lawful permanent residence (Greencard) to an alien upon entry, USCIS will play a major role in adjudicating the I-130 visa application. In certain instances where the United States Citizen has been living in the Kingdom of Thailand for a specified period of time, it may be possible to locally file an I-130 application at the USCIS office in Bangkok. This procedure is sometimes mistakenly called “Direct Consular Filing,” but, in point of fact, this appellation is misapplied. A direct consular filing can only occur at a consular section when a United States consular officer at a US Embassy or Consulate General accepts a visa application that has not first been adjudicated by USCIS either in the United States or at an office abroad. In Thailand, it is very rare for a consular officer at the US Embassy in Bangkok or the Consulate General in Chiang Mai to accept a visa application directly because there is a large local USCIS office in Bangkok.

For those making a K-1 visa application, it will be necessary to file the application at a USCIS service Center in the United States. The United States Citizen petitioner’s residence will determine what service center should be used when submitting the initial application.  For those unfamiliar with the K-1 visa, it is a fiance visa designed to allow an American’s foreign fiance to come to the USA for the purpose of marriage.

For those making a K-3 visa application, the I-129f application must be sent to a USCIS service center and not the Chicago Lockbox. The K-3 visa was designed as an expedited marriage visa for spouses of American Citizens.

F-1 visa applications and J-1 visa applications are generally submitted directly to the United States Embassy with jurisdiction over the applicant’s place of residence. US Tourist Visa applications are also submitted directly to the US Embassy.

(This is intended for educational purposes only, it is not legal advice. For Legal advice about Immigration law, contact a visa lawyer. No attorney client relationship is created between the author and any reader of this piece.)

Yesterday I received an inquiry regarding the possibility of obtaining a United States V Visa. It had been a while since I had read anything about that category so I decided to do some quick research and share a few things regarding the US V Visa.

The Immigration Category known as the V visa was created under the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act of 2000. In the provisions of this legislation, spouses and minor children (not married and under the age of twenty-one) of United States Lawful Permanent Residents (green card holders) could receive a temporary visa in order to join their family member in the United States, while the immigrant visa process is pending.

As a rule, spouses and children of American permanent residents must wait for a comparatively longer period of time to get a visa than the spouse of a United States Citizen or a child (or step-child) of a United States Citizen. That being said, lawful permanent residents cannot avail themselves of the comparative benefits of a fiance visa, also known as a K-1 visa, because that visa category is only available to those betrothed to an American Citizen.

Currently, the V visa is only available to spouses and children of Lawful Permanent Residents who filed their visa application on or before December 21, 2000, as a result of this provision, fewer and fewer V visas are being issued as the pending applications are adjudicated.

The V visa is somewhat similar to the K-3 visa because they were statutorily designed with the intention of allowing spouses and children to travel to the United States of America while their immigrant visa was processing through the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). A major difference between these two visa categories is the fact that the K-3 is still currently obtainable for the spouse of any United States Citizen and has not been effectively “phased out,” by statute. Thai being said, those that enter the United States on a K-3 visa after the approval of a K-3 application still must go through the adjustment of status process or return to Thailand in order to go through consular processing and visa interview at the US Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand because, like the V visa, the K-3 is a two year non-immigrant multiple entry visa and therefore is only issued for a validity of limited duration.

(This post is not legal advice and should not be construed as such. Please contact an Immigration lawyer for individualized legal advice. No Attorney-Client relationship is formed by reading this piece.)

There are many family relationships that can be used as a basis for obtaining a US visa. In cases where a betrothed couple wishes to get married and live in America there is a US fiance visa, also known as a K-1 visa. For an expedited marriage visa, some people opt utilize a K-3 visa. Further, in cases where a couple wishes to have some discretion about where the visa application will be adjudicated a K-3 visa could theoretically be used to “forum shop.” However, the classic marriage visa are the immigrant spouse visas discussed further below. Of particular interest to those applying for an immigrant spouse visa is the fact that a step-child can also receive an immigrant visa based upon the child’s relationship to the United States Citizen and foreign beneficiary.

In cases where a couple gets married overseas and wishes to immigrate to the USA, there are immigrant spouse visas known as CR-1 and IR-1 visas.  These visas require the filing and approval of an I-130 immigrant visa application.  In many cases, the foreign spouse will have children. Therefore, the question arises: what is to be done with the step children? In most cases, a step child will be able to travel to the United States in order to take up residency, but it is possible that a step child will be precluded from immediately traveling to the United States.

For step children over the age of twenty-one, an visa petition will have a lower priority than for a step child under 21 years of age. An Immediate question that usually follows up this statement: what about a child who turns 21 while the visa application is pending? Under current Immigration law the step child who was under 21 at the time of USCIS approval will have their status preserved until visa issuance, so turning 21 after petition approval will not cause the applicant to fall into a lower preference category.

Another issue with regard to step-child petitions involves the age of the step child at the time of the marriage this fact can have a crucial impact upon the step-child’s status and possibly preclude the step-child from obtaining an immigrant visa in an expedited manner. In complicated cases, it may be best to consult an Immigration lawyer, but for those who wish to deal with the matter on their own, the website of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service can be very helpful.

In cases involving K-4 visas, which are derivative of K-3 visas for step-children, some of the above analysis is correct, but due to the different nature of the K-3 application, the laws and regulations could be different. Where possible, it is usually better to obtain an Immigrant visa because the beneficiary obtains permanent residence (Green Card) upon entry into the USA.

(This article is not legal advcie. This article does not create any type of Attorney/Client relationship.)

One of the most prevalent advertising incentives utilized by people claiming to be a “visa agent,” “immigration consultant,” or “lawyer,” is the 100 percent guarantee that a visa will be issued. A variation on this scheme  is also the 100% money back guarantee if the visa is not obtained.

The most common visa category in which people run into these “guarantees” is the K-1 visa. When doing research regarding US Immigration Lawyers in Thailand, prospective petitioners and beneficiaries come across something that is seemingly too good to be true: a no-lose situation. The “agent,” does all of the work and should the visa be denied the fee will be refunded.

Sounds great right? Except for the fact that it really is too good to be true. First, no one can guarantee a visa will be obtained. Let me make this clear: NO ONE CAN GUARANTEE THAT A VISA WILL BE OBTAINED. Much like any other field of law, US Immigration has success and failure and there is a common incorrect belief that a marital, or intended marital, relationship with an American citizen gives the Thai spouse or fiancee the “right” to a marriage or fiance visa. Although an American Citizen does have the right to marry or date whomever they please, this relationship does not, in itself, create a right to United States Immigration benefits. Therefore, no visa guarantee can honestly be made regarding United States Immigration and visa regulations or how United States consular officers and USCIS adjudicators will interpret those regulations.

I have seen many cases in Thailand where an “agent” or “lawyer,” provided a 100% money back guarantee, failed to obtain a visa for his client, and did not subsequently provide a refund.

In the same vein as the 100% Guarantee is the notion that some “agents” have a special relationship with the US Embassy in Bangkok with regard to visa matters. In reality, no one has any type of special pull with Embassy and consular officials. In fact the US Embassy will occasionally comment regarding this phenomenon, if for no other reason than to explain that no person or organization has any special influence regarding Immigration or visa obtainment matters.

Although it is true that currently the US Embassy in Thailand will allow licensed American attorneys to present follow up documentation if a US visa is denied based upon section 221g of the US Immigration and Nationality Act, Embassy policy dictates that only the visa applicant may be present for the visa interview. Further, simply being able to present follow up documentation does not connote any sort of “special relationship,” but merely a policy decision.

(This posting doesn’t constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship should be inferred from reading this posting.)

When dealing with issues involving US Immigration or Immigration to Thailand, one will often run into situations where the legal systems of two sovereign states come into play. Further, dealing with diplomatic missions in the form of Embassies, Consulates, and Charges D’Affairs the concepts of jurisdiction, sovereignty, and extraterritoriality come to the forefront. In this post we will take a quick look at extraterritoriality and how it applies to United States Embassies and Consulates in Thailand and abroad.

What is Extraterritoriality? Extraterritoriality is a legal situation in which one is exempted from the jurisdiction of the law of the locality where one is situated. Generally, this situation results from the commencement or continuation of diplomatic discussions. In certain instances, extraterritoriality can be applicable to tangible locations such as non-native military installations and in modern times: the United Nations compound in New York City.

There is a common misconception that Embassies and Consulates have extraterritoriality. As anecdotal evidence of this misconception, people will often say things like, “the US Embassy sits upon United States soil.” For the most part, this is not the case as extraterritoriality is not conferred upon an Embassy or Consulate, but in some situations extraterritoriality may be created by Treaty. That being said, members of diplomatic legations (Ambassadors, Representatives, Consuls, Vice Consuls, Deputy Ambassadors, and Charges D’Affaires) may be accorded extraterritorial status within the foreign state to which they have been accredited. Also, the property of such representatives may have extraterritorial status. For example, an official diplomatic pouch will not be subject to search and seizure by a country other than the country with ownership of the pouch.

These legal rights were created in order to allow diplomatic agents to have the ability to freely conduct correspondence with their home nation. Also, these privileges are generally conferred as a courtesy from one sovereign to another. As a practical matter, “diplomatic immunity” puts the diplomat outside of local law. However, these privileges are usually extended reciprocally and therefore neither state is being accorded inequitable privileges.

At one time, the Kingdom of Thailand conferred extraterritorial rights upon foreigners in the country. As time went by, these rights were viewed with more resentment by Thai people. After World War II, the Thai government began renegotiating treaties with foreign governments in an effort to do away with these disproportionate extraterritorial concessions. Today, Thailand maintains normal diplomatic relations with most countries around the world.

(This is not legal advice. For such advice contact an attorney. No Attorney-Client relationship is formed between the reader and writer of this posting.)

There is some confusion regarding the American State Department’s estimates regarding visa denials from around the world. There are some who are under the mistaken impression that the State Department’s numbers are the definitive source for information regarding waivers of inadmissibility. In fact, any numbers published by the United States Department of State regarding I-601 waivers should be taken with a grain of salt because the American Department of State is not the agency tasked with handling the adjudication of I-601 waiver applications after the a United States Consular Officer at an Embassy or Consulate General has made a finding that a legal ground of inadmissibility exists in a particular Immigration case.

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) has the authority to grant waivers of inadmissibility under United States Immigration law. Therefore, USCIS’s internal statistics would be the proper government source to consult regarding the number waivers of inadmissibility applied for and ultimately granted. That being said, USCIS does not keep categorical statistics according to the Agenda of the USCIS National Stakeholder Meeting on January 27, 2009:

“Although we track the total number of Forms I-601 processed, USCIS International Operations does not have a system to track the specific grounds of inadmissibility that applicants seek to waive.”

The document that is causing the confusion regarding visa denials can be found at the following url. The first major cause of confusion in this document is the seemingly small number of findings of legal inadmissibility under section 212 (a)(2)(D)(i) for engaging in acts of prostitution or deriving profits from activities that are presumed to be prostitution. According to the table there were only 2 non-immigrant visa waivers granted in 2008 under section 212 (a)(2)(D)(i) of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). I find this number difficult to believe as this author has recently discussed the prostitution ground of legal inadmissibility with two highly experienced United States Immigration attorneys and between the two of them, they had applied for and obtained more than 2 non-immigrant visa waivers in 2008. Further, I believe it is highly likely that other prospective US Immigrants and non-immigrants were granted waivers of this ground of inadmissibility because I doubt that only two United States attorneys handled all of the waivers granted under this section of the INA in 2008; particularly if one takes into account not only other immigration attorneys, but I-601 waiver applications filed pro se as well.

For more on US Visas Please See: K-1 Visa or K-3 Visa

(This document is not intended as a source of legal advice, but for educational purposes. For legal advice contact an Attorney. No Lawyer-Client relationship should be deemed to exist between the writer and reader of this blog post.)

I was speaking with a Thai-British Dual national recently who only just obtained documentation reflecting his Thai nationality. There are some interesting misconceptions regarding Thai Nationality. One of the first major misconceptions is the idea that one is not Thai until they obtain a Thai Identification Card or a Thai passport. In point of fact, if one is born Thai, then regardless of whether they obtained a Thai ID card, they are Thai from birth.

There is also a mistaken belief that if one is born to a Thai mother outside of Thailand, then the child is not a Thai national. Again, this is not the case. Any person born to a Thai mother is Thai. Another very interesting aspect of Thai law regarding nationality is the idea that any person born of two immigrants in Thailand is Thai. This provision should not be misconstrued, under Thai law an immigrant is one who has what we call Thai permanent residence. Therefore, a child of two Non-Immigrant visa holders (Thai B Visa, Thai O Visa, Thai ED Visa, etc.) will not be born a Thai national. However, in the past what is now known as Thai permanent residence was given out quite frequently to those entering the Kingdom and as a result, the offspring of those immigrants were given Thai nationality from birth.

After reading through the provisions of the Thai nationality act, it is clear that specific legal mechanisms were created for Thai women to renounce their Thai Citizenship. Women could renounce their citizenship if they were taking the citizenship of their foreign husband (other provisions in the act were created to allow Thai citizenship to be reclaimed after renunciation should the Thai woman deem it necessary). However, there are no provisions providing for male renunciation of Thai citizenship. This begs the question: Can a Thai-born man renounce his Thai Citizenship? The answer appears to be: No.  The policy reason behind this bar on renunciation probably stems from the fact that male Thai nationals are subject to conscription for military service. Therefore, the bar on renouncing Thai citizenship seeks to limit the ability of those who may wish to avoid military service, but it creates some confusing scenarios where a Thai man seeks to obtain another nationality. There are certain countries that require renunciation of one’s prior citizenship before naturalization, but where the Thais do not recognize the renunciation it creates a situation in which a person is unable to renounce his citizenship. This then creates a precarious legal predicament because if one is required to renounce previous citizenship, but cannot do so, does this bar them from taking another citizenship?

(None of this post should be considered legal advice. For such advice contact an Attorney. No relationship with an attorney is formed by reading this post.)

Even with the current economy in a somewhat less-than-perfect state, the United States of America still boasts some of the best educational centers in the world. The United State has a great many post-secondary academic institutions and many of these institutions are considered by instructors, teachers, and professors to be the pinnacle of learning in the specialized fields on offer. As a result of America’s fairly unique position as a center of learning, many people from all over the world seek to travel to American in order to study. For nationals of many countries, traveling to the United States of America can a bit difficult, particularly if their country of origin is not a party to the US visa waiver program.

Citizens of the Kingdom of Thailand are unable to travel to the United states visa-free. As a result, any Thai national who wishes to travel to the United States to study must obtain a United States Student Visa, known in immigration circles by its categorical name: the F1 visa. The F1 visa is a non-immigrant visa, meaning that those traveling to the United States on an F-1 do so with the express intention to leave at the end of the visa’s validity.  Those who wish to apply for a US student visa must prove that they have the financial resources to pay for their entire stay in America without needing to resort to government assistance. Further, the applicant must prove that they are traveling to America to take up a bona fide course of study.

Many American’s who have a Thai loved one seek to obtain an F-1 student visa for the purpose of sidestepping the necessity of waiting for a US Family based visa petition to process. In comparison to even a K-1 visa (the US fiance visa that currently is the most expeditious family based visa that has inherent immigrant intent), the F-1 visa has a much shorter processing time. That being said, those who enter the United States of America on a non-immigrant visa, but in fact have immigrant intentions could be subject to criminal penalties as this course of action could be perceived as an attempt to provide false information to United States Immigration officials. Knowingly providing false information to American Immigration authorities could be construed as fraud and, at the least, would very likely result in a finding of legal inadmissibility against the immigrant. As a rule, it is always better for those wishing to travel to the United States to do so on the visa that most properly conveys the immigrants intentions.

For more information please see: US Visa Lawyer Thailand

(Nothing herein should be considered legal advice. For advice about the law, contact an attorney. No attorney/client relationship is made by reading this article.)

Many people around the globe long to travel to the United States. Thailand is no different as many Thai nationals seek entrance to the United States as either immigrants or non-immigrants. Those entering with non-immigrant status tend to be entering on a US tourist visa, US student visa, or an Exchange Visitor Visa. The Exchange Visitor Visa is often referred to by its Immigration category: the J1 visa. There are certain requirements for obtaining a J1 visa and it is a somewhat unique visa because it confers certain rights and restrictions not imposed upon non-immigrants entering the United States upon visas in other categories.

While the Department of Homeland Security is the primary agency with the mandate to facilitate the obtainment of exchange visitor visas, the Department delegates the task of exchange sponsorship to others, namely businesses, organizations, and other government agencies. Those organizations responsible for carrying out this Department of Homeland Security delegated mandate assist J1 applicants in entering the United states of America in order to engage in one of the following vocations:

1. Au pair (Nanny)

2. Camp Counselor

3. Student, college/university

4. Student, secondary

5. Government Visitor

6. International Visitor (reserved for U.S. Department of State use)

7. Alien physician

8. Professor

9. Research Scholar

10. Short-term Scholar

11. Specialist

12. Summer work/travel

13. Teacher

14. Trainee

For more information on each of these vocations please see the United States Department of State Website

Those wishing to engage in the above activity may be eligible to receive a J1 visa. That being said, documentation and interviews will most likely be required before the J-1 visa will be issued by the US Embassy in Thailand. As with any United States Visa, final visa application approval is provided by US State Department consular officers working at posts in Thailand. There are two diplomatic posts in Thailand which handle J1 visa petitions: the US Embassy in Bangkok (already mentioned) and the United States Consulate General in Chiang Mai.

As mentioned previously on this website, those seeking to bring a loved one to the United States on a J-1 visa because they wish to bypass comparatively longer processing times for family based visas should think twice before doing so. First of all, obtaining a non-immigrant visa when the applicant actually has immigrant intent is viewed by US officials as defrauding the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service. Further, obtaining and entering the USA on a J1 visa may be a bad tactical decision for those wishing to bypass K-1 visa or K-3 visa wait times because a J1 visa entrant may have a 2 year foreign residency requirement imposed upon them before they may reenter the United States. As a general rule, if one wishes to bring a loved one to the USA on a Fiance visa or Marriage visa, then it is best to use those designated visa categories rather than the J-1 visa.

(Please be aware that none of the above is intended for any use other than education. This is not legal advice. For legal advice contact a licensed US Attorney. No attorney-client relationship shall be created between the author and any reader of this posting.)

Massachusetts  fired the opening salvo in what appears to be a major battle for same sex immigration rights. The Commonwealth is suing the Federal government of the United States. Specifically repugnant to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.  The first pillar of the case brought against the USA is based upon the idea that the provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) deny those same sex couples married in the Commonwealth the “essential rights and protections” accorded to different sex couples.

A further, and in my opinion more compelling, argument deals with the issues of state versus federal sovereignty. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts asserts that the United States government does not have the right to dictate to the states about what will and will not constitute marriage. By refusing to acknowledge a valid same-sex marriage legally executed in a state (in this case the Commonwealth of Massachusetts), the Federal government is refusing to provide Federal benefits to married same-sex couples, while providing benefits to married different-sex couples. This denial violates the doctrine of “states’ rights” which contends that the states, not the federal government, are endowed with the inherent right to regulate the citizenry.

Hillary Sorin wrote the following on this issue:

“Five states now legally marry same-sex couples, but these couples are denied the federal protections and programs available to married straight couples. These include income-tax credits, employment and retirement benefits, health insurance coverage, Social Security payments and immigration benefits for spouses of U.S. citizens.”

Of particular interest to readers of this blog is probably the fact that DOMA effectively precludes US Family based visas because the Federal government refuses to recognize a same sex marriage (or an intention to obtain a same sex marriage) within the United States.

If DOMA were to be repealed then it is logical to assume that those same sex bi-national couples who marry in Massachusetts (or any state where same-sex marriage is legal) would be able to obtain a Permanent Resident Visa (CR-1, IR-1) based upon that valid marriage. Further, an unmarried  same sex couple with an intention to travel to the United States for the purpose of marriage could conceivably obtain a K-1 visa if the Defense of Marriage Act was no longer Federal law.

This case will be very interesting to follow because the ramifications on Immigration law will be tremendous as the whole field of US Family Immigration will likely be opened up to those couples previously unable to obtain US Immigration benefits.

(Please note that the author has no intention that reader use this information in place of legal advice. For advice on the law, please contact a licensed attorney. No attorney-client relationship is created between the author and any reader of this article.)