Integrity Legal

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued instructions to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) to dispense with the hold on deportations of same sex spouses of United States Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents which was announced approximately 2 days ago. To quote directly from an article posted on the Advocate.com entitled Official: No Hold On Gay Immigration Cases:

Wednesday morning USCIS press secretary Christopher S. Bentley told The Advocate that the agency had received legal guidance to lift the hold it had issued Monday. The guidance was issued in the form of written communications from the Office of the General Counsel at Department of Homeland Security (USCIS is a component of DHS).

Those interested in reading more about this information are highly encouraged to click on the hyperlinks immediately preceding the quotation to learn more.

Clearly, officials at the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) were attempting to provide some relief to those in the LGBT community in the USA with their same sex bi-national partners who are stuck in the currently limbo-like immigration system, as it pertains to same sex marriages. The question this blogger has is: why all of this bureaucratic runaround? There is a clear venue for resolving this issue: the United States Supreme Court, but it would seem as though the administration would like solve this issue through internal bureaucratic rule making and unilateral executive actions, but this is not the way law is made and this is not the legal way of effecting change in situations such as the one currently facing the LGBT community. Even a Supreme Court decision on this issue is unlikely to be straightforward as there are many aspects of the Full Faith and Credit Clause which come up in the context of interstate recognition of same sex marriage. However, the decision of the Supreme Court, in this blogger’s opinion, on the issue of FEDERAL recognition of same sex marriages legalized and solemnized in the sovereign States is likely to produce an outcome whereby an avenue would be created to allow same sex bi-national couples to receive immigration benefits of the same quality as those granted to different sex bi-national couples.

The announcement from USCIS on Monday about placing a “hold” on deportations of same sex partners of US Citizens and Permanent Residents came as a relief to many in the United States who may only be subject to deportation due to the onerous (and possibly UnConstitutional) provisions of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) since some same sex bi-national couples have legalized and solemnized a valid same sex marriage in one of the 6 States (along with the District of Columbia) that allows same sex marriage. The only thing precluding Federal recognition of same sex marriages performed within the jurisdiction of the sovereign States which recognize such unions is the questionably Constitutional so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) which was promulgated and enacted under the Presidency of William Jefferson Clinton.

In a recent memorandum from the Attorney General (Eric Holder) to the Speaker of the House of Representatives it was noted that the President’s administration has taken the position that same sex married couples ought to be granted the benefit of so-called “strict scrutiny” review from the Supreme Court and that the administration would discontinue in prosecuting DOMA cases against LGBT couples. This blogger has noted that such a position may not be beneficial to the overall cause of equal immigration rights as failure to get a “case or controversy” before the United States Supreme Court could lead to a situation in which this complex legal issue is not adjudicated by the Highest Court in the USA and therefore remains in the “limbo” in which this issue currently continues to languish. The Department of Homeland Security’s announcement further shows that until the provisions of DOMA, which preclude Federal recognition of same sex marriage, are overturned the position of the married LGBT community (at least in the eyes of the law and the immigration authorities) will remain precarious.

One point in the above cited article was of particular interest to this blogger. The following passage was quoted from the aforementioned article:

Bentley declined to release any of the written documents at this time, saying it was privileged communication. He emphasized that the official policy itself within DHS had never changed.

What PRIVILEGE!!!! So now the United States government, in the form of the Department of Homeland Security, invokes privilege (a legal principle generally reserved for individual natural persons when dealing with the US government) to keep their own policy memorandum regarding this issue secret? Why the secrecy? Why all of the pomp and circumstance about how important the administration’s memo was to the LGBT community when in reality it would appear to have done nothing substantive for the cause of LGBT equal rights and might have even placed the LGBT community in a less favorable position compared to their position prior to the administration’s memo to the Speaker of the House? So the Department of Homeland Security is claiming privilege when communicating with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), an American agency under DHS jurisdiction. Does anyone find it strange that the United States government now claims that civilian inter-agency memos regarding official policy which pertains to Americans and their families are privileged? It was this blogger’s belief that the United States governmental authorities are servants of the people and therefore required to provide transparency in their policy making endeavors especially when such policy making can impact a wide spectrum of the United States Citizenry and their families.

Clearly, the struggle to secure equal immigration rights for the LGBT community has yet to be won, but for those interested in this issue it is clear that there may be a long campaign to see equal treatment of same sex bi-national couples under the law of the United States of America. This blogger and this blog will continue to monitor this important and interesting issue.

Another method to gain equal immigration rights for same sex bi-national couples is through passage of legislation such as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) which would grant same sex bi-national couples the benefit of applying for an immigrant visa for a “permanent partner” thereby circumventing the immigration restrictions imposed by DOMA. Federal legislators such as Representative Jerrold Nadler have introduced such legislation repeatedly in an effort to provide some kind of relief to those same sex bi-national couples who continue to be denied equal access to family immigration benefits. As of the time of this writing, Mr. Nadler has gone so far as to openly call for a repeal of DOMA and the promulgation of the Respect for Marriage Act a piece of legislation which would restore Federal recognition of State licensed marriage and restore, at least in part, the rights of same sex married couples who merely seek equal protection under the law.

For related information please see: same sex immigration.

Tags: Christopher S. Bentley, Defense of Marriage Act, Department of Homeland Security, DHS, DOMA, lgbt immigration, lgbt visa, Respect for Marriage Act, RFMA, Same Sex Immigration, Same Sex Marriage, same sex visa, The Advocate, uafa, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, Uniting American Families Act, USCIS
Posted in Editorial, News, Opinion, same sex visa | No Comments »

สิ่งที่เกิดขึ้นและเป็นที่น่าสนใจเมื่อเร็วๆนี้  หน่วยบริการคนเข้าเมืองและพลเมืองสัญชาติอเมริกัน (USCIS) อาจจะมีการเปลี่ยนแปลงในขั้นตอนต่างๆซึงเกี่ยวกับกระบวนการการยื่นคำขอเข้าเมืองที่เกี่ยวกับการขอวีซ่าประเภทซีอาร์-1 ไออาร์-1 วีซ่า เค-1 และวีซ่าเค-3 ซึ่งยื่นโดยพลเมืองอเมริกันและพลเมืองที่มีถิ่นฐานถาวร อ้างโดยตรงจากบันทึกของ USCIS ที่อ้างลงใน ILW.com:

บันทึกนี้ได้ให้คำแนะนำในเรื่องของศูนย์บริการ USCIS ในประเด็นของการเปลี่ยนแปลงในการจัดการของคำขอ I-130 และ คำขอ I-129F ที่ยื่นโดยผู้ยื่นคำขอที่เกี่ยวข้องกับ “ข้อหาเกี่ยวกับความผิดเล็กๆน้อยๆ” ภายใต้พระราชบัญญัติการความปลอดภัยและการปกป้องเด็กอดัม วอร์ช ปี 2006 (พระราชบัญญัติอดัม วอร์ช หรือ AWA) และเกี่ยวข้องกันกับประเด็นนี้ บันทึกนี้ปรับใช้กับคำขอที่เกี่ยวกับศูนย์บริการและไม่ใช่คำขอที่เกี่ยวข้องกับสำนักงานของ USCIS

โดยทั่วไปแล้ว คำขอ I-130 (ประเภทที่ใช้สำหรับการอ้างคำขอของวีซ่า CR-1 หรือวีซ่า IR-1)เป็นกระบวนการของ หน่วยบริการ USCIS ซึ่งเป็นกระบวนการเฉพาะและเป็นหลักฐานการชำระเงิน ในบางกรณี อาจจะเป็นไปได้ที่กระบวนการของ I-130ในสำนักงานต่างๆที่ตั้งอยู่ในต่างแดน เช่นสำนักงาน USCISในกรุงเทพฯ คำขอของ I-129f (เป็นประเภทหนึ่งของการยื่นคำขอวีซ่าคู่หมั้นสหรัฐ หรือวีซ่า K1)ซึ่งอยู่ในขั้นตอนการดำเนินงานของศูนย์บริการUSCISในสหรัฐอเมริกา เนื่องจากสำนักงานหลักไม่สามารถดำเนินการต่างๆได้ในขณะที่เขียนบทความนี้อยู่ อ้างเพิ่มเติมจากบันทึกข้อความที่กล่าวถึงก่อนหน้านี้

USCIS จะเป็นศูนย์กลางที่ VSC ในการเป็นศูนย์บริการ หากศูนย์บริการได้มีการตัดสินใจในเบื้องต้นว่ามีการประกันคำขอในฐานะที่เป็นเรื่องเกี่ยวกับ AWA ที่ VSCจะให้บริการการจัดการกับปัญหาต่างๆจากรัฐบาลกลาง รัฐ และตัวแทนท้องถิ่นอื่นๆในเรื่องที่เกี่ยวกับ AWA ดำเนินการอยู่ หรือเรื่องที่เกี่ยวกับหนึ่งในสี่ของศูนย์บริการ (ในที่นี้อ้างถึง “หน่วยบริการต้นกำเนิด” หรือ “หน่วยบริการที่ส่งไป”) ในนขณะที่เรื่องที่เกี่ยวกับAWA ต้องการที่จะจัดการแบบพิเศษ การตัดสินใจที่จะรวมอำนาจเกี่ยวกับ AWAที่ VSC จะกระทบต่อเรื่องที่อยู่ในศูนย์บริการอื่นเพียงเล็กน้อย

เป็นที่เห็นได้ชัดเจนว่า หน่วยบริการการเข้าเมืองและพลเมืองอเมริกัน (USCIS) ได้มีการเปลี่ยนแปลงนโยบายเพื่อที่จะเพิ่มประสิทธิภาพในการตรวจสอบตามพระราชบัญญัติอดัม วอร์ช (AWA) ในบทบาทของศูนย์บริการในเวอร์มอนท์ซึ่งเกี่ยวข้อง

กับ AWAในบทบาทของศูนย์บริการวีซ่าแห่งชาติในกระบวนการทั่วทั้งสหรัฐเนื่องจากตัวแทนมีภาระหน้าที่ในเรื่องเกี่ยวกับคำขอวีซ่าซึ่งมาจาก USCIS และผ่านกระบวนการของสถานทูตอเมริกา หรือกงสุลสหรัฐในต่างประเทศ แม้NVCอยู่ภายใต้อำนาจของกระทรวงของรัฐในขณะที่ศูนย์บริการเUSCISวอร์มอนท์(เหมือนกับศูนย์บริการ USCIS อื่นๆ) ภายใต้เขตขอำนาจของกระทรวงความมั่นคงแห่งมาตุภูมิ (DHS)และ USCIS

To view this posting in English please see: K-1 visa.

Tags: Adam Walsh Act, AWA, CR-1 Visa, Department of Homeland Security, DHS, I-129f, I-130, IR-1 Visa, K-1 Visa, K1 Visa, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, US Visa Burma, US Visa Cambodia, US Visa Laos, US Visa Malaysia, US Visa Myanmar, US Visa Thailand, USCIS, กระทรวงความมั่นคงเเห่ง, พระราชบัญญัติอดัม วอร์ช, วีซ่า ซี อาร์วัีน, วีซ่า เคทรี, วีซ่า ไอ อาร์ วัน, วีซ่าคู่หมั้นสหรัฐ, วีซ่าสหรัฐในไทย, วีซ่าอเมริกาในไทย, วีซ่าเค วัน, ศูนย์บริการวีซ่าเเห่งชาติ, หน่วยบริการวีซ่า
Posted in สถานทูตสหรัฐอเมริกาประจำประเทศไทย | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that it would appear as though the Department of Homeland Security‘s United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) is placing certain deportations on hold if such a proceeding pertains to the same sex spouse of a United States Citizen or Lawful Permanent Resident. To quote directly from the website dailynews-update.net:

The U.S. Citizen and Immigration Service confirmed Monday that it has temporarily put some deportations of partners in same-sex marriages on hold if they could be affected by the recent Department of Justice decision to no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act.

Chris Bentley, Press Secretary for the USCIS said in a statement: “USCIS has issued guidance to the field asking that related cases be held in abeyance while awaiting final guidance related to distinct legal issues.”

The administration of this blog highly recommends that readers click on the above links to view this story in its entirety.

There are many “distinct legal issues” at play when it comes to the issue of same sex marriage and governmental recognition thereof. Those who read this web log with any frequency may have noticed that this blogger has dedicated a great deal of time to commenting and following this issue as it is truly a struggle for both the civil rights of American Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents as well as a struggle for Federal recognition of sovereign State prerogatives on the issue of marriage.

Throughout the struggle for equal marriage rights for the LGBT community there have been many legislators who have supported the cause of same sex bi-national couples. Most notably, Representative Jerrold Nadler has repeatedly introduced legislation such as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) in an effort to make headway in securing immigration benefits for same sex bi-national couples in the same manner accorded to their different-sex counterparts. Meanwhile, as noted on this blog, groups such as Immigration Equality and their Immigration Equality Action Fund Blog have recently announced a position regarding DHS issuance of Green Cards for foreign same sex partners of American Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents. Announcements such as these are important because they illuminate the extent to which the political and immigration systems are evolving in an effort to deal with this issue. Clearly, the LGBT equal rights movement has an organic base committed to seeing real change in the immigration system.

It was recently noted on this blog that the Obama administration’s Attorney General Eric Holder issued a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives noting that the administration no longer felt that pursuing so-called “Defense of Marriage Act“  (DOMA) cases was Constitutional. There are some who would argue that this action is contrary to the administration’s duty pursuant to United States law. Some members of Congress, as well as apparent presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich, have even made noises about impeachment regarding this issue. As of the time of this writing, such an action has not taken place.

This blogger personally disagrees with the American administration’s decision not to pursue DOMA cases because doing so could preclude Supreme Court adjudication due to lack of a “case or controversy” before that body. This blogger would also argue that the Supreme Court is the best adjudicator of this issue as there are many ramifications of same sex marriage recognition pursuant to the provisions of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.

How the whole issue of same sex marriage, and American government recognition thereof; will ultimately be decided remains to be seen, but for advocates of equal LGBT immigration rights this recent USCIS decision is definitely a positive one.

For related information please see: LGBT visa.

Tags: Chris Bentley, Defense of Marriage Act, Department of Homeland Security, deportation, DOMA, expedited removal, Full Faith and Credit Clause, Immigration Equality Action Fund Blog, Jerrold Nadler, LGBT marriage, lgbt visa, removal, Same Sex Bi-National Couples, Same Sex Marriage, uafa, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, Uniting American Families Act
Posted in same sex visa | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the Department of Homeland Security has issued a final rule regarding the implementation of the REAL ID Act of 2005. To quote directly from the official website of the Department of Homeland Security:

The Department of Homeland Security has issued a final rule to establish minimum standards for state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards in accordance with the REAL ID Act of 2005.

These regulations set standards for states to meet the requirements of the REAL ID Act, including:

• information and security features that must be incorporated into each card;
• proof of identity and lawful status of an applicant;
• verification of the source documents provided by an applicant; and
• security standards for the offices that issue licenses and identification cards.

This final rule also provides a process for states to seek an additional extension of the compliance deadline to May 11, 2011, by demonstrating material compliance with the core requirements of the Act and this rule.

For those who are unfamiliar with the REAL ID Act, this piece of legislation greatly altered the dynamics of identity documentation in the United States. As usual, Wikipedia concisely describes some of the implications of the REAL ID Act in the context of State driving licenses, to quote directly from Wikipedia:

After 2011, “a Federal agency may not accept, for any official purpose, a driver’s license or identification card issued by a state to any person unless the state is meeting the requirements” specified in the REAL ID Act. States remain free to also issue non-complying licenses and IDs, so long as these have a unique design and a clear statement that they cannot be accepted for any Federal identification purpose. The federal Transportation Security Administration is responsible for security check-in at airports, so bearers of non-compliant documents would no longer be able to travel on common carrier aircraft without additional screening unless they had an alternative government-issued photo ID.^[16]

Clearly, advocates of a limited Federal government may take some exception with some of the notions outlined above. There are some who have voiced concerns regarding the Federal government’s role in the context of the REAL ID Act as advocates in favor of civil liberties and privacy rights have mentioned some of the more eerie implications of the REAL ID Act. States Rights proponents and Constitutional scholars have also raised interesting issues in discussions regarding the REAL ID Act. Some even speculate as to the scope of an agency such as DHS when examining programs such as the implementation of the REAL ID Act in conjunction with technology such as the Iris scanners and DNA screeners previously mentioned on this blog. Notwithstanding controversy, the REAL ID Act and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) seem to be increasingly ubiquitous issues in the dual pantheons of both the so-called “Alternative Media” as well as the “Mainstream Media“.

As the role of the DHS and the TSA becomes more defined it seems likely that new and interesting legal, social, and political issues will will arise as a result.

Tags: Civil Libertarians, Department of Homeland Security, DNA Screener, Iris Scanner, privacy rights, REAL ID Act, REAL ID Act of 2005, States' Rights, Transportation Safety Administration, Transportation Security Administration, TSA, US Constitution
Posted in Department of Homeland Security, Editorial, News, Opinion, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention through the Huffington Post website that a legislator in the sovereign State of New Hampshire has introduced a bill that could criminalize certain activities of the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA). To quote directly from the story posted on the Huffington Post official website:

A Republican state representative from New Hampshire named George Lambert has co-sponsored a bill that would make it a felony to touch or view someone’s private parts without probable cause.

Lambert was interviewed by MSNBC on Wednesday to discuss the bill, which would apply to TSA pat downs, as well as the agency’s x-ray scanners. The bill would essentially make it a sexual assault to conduct an invasive pat down or look at images of a traveler on one of the TSA’s new high-tech scanners.

Clearly, the TSA’s current policies on so-called “pat downs” (which many argue are unduly invasive and violate Constitutional protections prohibiting unreasonable search and seizure) and scanning are under fire from many different circles. However, the question must be posed: is New Hampshire Constitutionally permitted to enforce criminal sanctions against TSA officers? TSA officers operate under the jurisdiction of the United States Federal government’s Department of Homeland Security. Most currently binding American jurisprudence has found against the notion that State’s may enforce State law against Federal agents or institutions. The most notable case in this vein is probably McCulloch v. Maryland. In the language of the McCulloch decision, the Court found that the State of Maryland did not have the right to levy a tax upon the Bank of the United States. This decision set the stage for the, now rather sophisticated, premise that the States’ power to enforce State law is curtailed when attempting to enforce that law against the Federal government. Through later cases, this notion was expanded upon. This blogger recently found an interesting article on this topic entitled: What Kind of Immunity? Federal Officers, State Criminal Law, and the Supremacy Clause. This article delves deeply into the issues associated with Federal preemption of State prerogatives in matters pertaining to Federal operations and Federal agents and this blogger highly recommends those interested in this issue click on the link above to read this article.

It would appear from the plain language of the McCulloch decision that the States’ ability to enforce actions against the Federal government are not restricted completely. To quote directly from page 2219 of the What Kind of Immunity? article noted above, the article’s authors, Seth P. Waxman and Trevor W. Morrison, cited a section of the McCulloch decision which is noteworthy:

[N]o principle [of state power] . . . can be admissible, which would defeat the legitimate operations of a supreme government. It is of the very essence of supremacy, to remove all obstacles to its action within its own sphere, and so to modify every power vested insubordinate governments, as to exempt its own operations from their own influence.

At first blush, the above citation may appear to fully favor the Federal authorities on the issue of whether the sovereign State of New Hampshire has the authority to enforce criminal penalties against TSA officers, but one phrase is critical to an analysis of New Hampshire’s proposed legislation and that phrase is “legitimate operations“. In the McCulloch case, the Bank of the United States was deemed to be a legitimate operation of the Federal government notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution did not expressly permit such an institution because the Court reasoned that the Federal government, through the Necessary and Proper Clause, could establish a bank so as to facilitate the express Federal powers granted under the Taxing and Spending Clause. In short: the Federal government’s ability to tax and spend is considered a “legitimate operation” of the Federal government and if a bank facilitates that operation, then it is operating lawfully.

This analysis begs the question: Is groping Americans’ genitalia (also referred to as “enhanced pat downs”) and capturing nude body scanner images a “legitimate operation” of the Federal government? If not, then the State may have a right to enforce State criminal law against those who engage in such activity. That said, this issue is far from resolved and the State of New Hampshire has yet to actually promulgate this legislation, but clearly the issues noted above make for interesting jurisprudence.

For related information please see: US States.

Tags: Department of Homeland Security, DHS, Enhanced Pat Downs, Federalism, George Lambert, McCulloch v. Maryland, New Hampshire, Preemption, Seth P. Waxman, Sovereign State of New Hampshire, State Representative George Lambert, States' Rights, Supremacy Clause, Transportation Safety Administration, Trevor W. Morrison, TSA, TSA Body Scanners, TSA Genital Groping, TSA Groping, US Constituion
Posted in Department of Homeland Security, States' Rights, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), US Constitution | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the Department of Homeland Security may soon be utilizing a portable DNA screener which can establish kinship via DNA comparison in a relatively quick span of time. To quote directly from the website Nextgov.com (a site dedicated to providing information about the confluence of technology and government):

[P]lans to begin testing a DNA analyzer that’s small enough to be easily portable and fast enough to return results in less than an hour.

The analyzer, about the size of a laser printer, initially will be used to determine kinship among refugees and asylum seekers. It also could help establish whether foreigners giving children up for adoption are their parents or other relatives, and help combat child smuggling and human trafficking, said Christopher Miles, biometrics program manager in the DHS Office of Science and Technology.

The administration of this web log highly recommends that readers click on the links above to read this interesting article in its entirety.

This technology could have some remarkably positive implications. For example, as noted above, the ability to quickly determine a genetic link between two individuals could expedite the processing of requests for American immigration benefits such as asylum or conferral of refugee status. Moreover, such technology could be tremendously useful in adjudications pertaining to issuance of a Certificate of Citizenship or Consular Report of Birth Abroad. Also, technology such as this could truly be useful in combating problems such as human trafficking (hopefully with particular emphasis upon trafficking in children). This being said, There are some eerily Orwellian aspects to technology such as this. To continue quoting from the above cited article on Nextgov.com:

Eventually, the analyzer also could be used to positively identify criminals, illegal immigrants, missing persons and mass casualty victims, he said.

The implications for so-called “criminals,” (a term often applied loosely by law enforcement personnel) could be serious. Usage of technology such as that noted above, when utilized against American Citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents in matters which could have an impact upon individual civil liberties, needs to comport with the protections guaranteed to individuals under the United States Constitution and enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

Some may ponder: “Why does this blogger take issue with technology such as that noted above when utilized against US Citizens, while being less concerned for the rights of refugees and asylum seekers?” The short answer: prospective immigrants outside of the United States have virtually no “rights”. Those seeking immigration benefits are seeking just that: BENEFITS. While American Citizens and those already admitted to the United States in Lawful Permanent Resident status (or another lawful visa status) are guaranteed certain protections from governmental intrusion.

Widespread usage of this technology has yet to be implemented, but one thing is clear: technology is revolutionizing all aspects of the US Immigration process.

For related information please see: DHS Iris Scanners.

Tags: Asylum, Asylum DNA Screener, CBP DNA Screener, Department of Homeland Security, DHS DNA Screener, DHS DNA Testing, DNA Screener, DNA Screening, DNA Test, ICE DNA Screener, Refugee, Refugee DNA Screener, Refugee Status, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, United States Customs and Border Protection, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US Immigration, US Immigration DNA Screener, US Immigration Technology, US Visa, US Visa DNA Screener, USCBP, USCIS, USICE
Posted in Department of Homeland Security, USCBP, USCIS, USICE | No Comments »

It has recently come to this blogger’s attention through anecdotal evidence that there may have been a relatively significant increase in the number of I-601 waiver petitions filed by American Citizens in both the Kingdom of Thailand as well as the greater area that comprises the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Apparently, the majority of these cases are being handled pro se (without attorney representation). It would appear that these pro se filings are being subjected to Requests For Evidence (RFE) which can be time consuming. Furthermore, there are some who also speculate that such petitions could see a higher denial rate.

Those who read this blog may have taken notice of the fact that this blogger takes the practice of United States Immigration law seriously. That said, there is nothing inherently wrong with American Citizens unilaterally petitioning their government for United States Immigration benefits pro se. This blogger has no problem with those who wish to seek immigration benefits without the assistance of counsel, but those pondering this course of action should be aware of the risks. First, the assistance of an American attorney in the US Immigration process can prove highly beneficial as such a professional can provide insight into the dynamics of immigration law as well as the regulations which are used to enforce that law.

Immigration law could be likened to dermatological medicine insofar as the routine cases that arise in an immigration context are sometimes easily taken care of by the petitioner or beneficiary themselves much the same way that a case of acne could be alleviated without the need to visit a dermatologist. Meanwhile, some issues which arise in immigration law can be extremely complicated and therefore such matters may require the assistance of one with a great deal of experience in matters pertaining to American immigration law. This state of affairs brings to mind a hypothetical situation involving dermatologists who specialize in skin cancers and various other skin maladies which are not commonly known to laymen. To take this hypothetical further, a patient afflicted with skin cancer is usually unable to treat themselves. To use this hypothetical as an analogy in an immigration context: those seeking an I-601 waiver are in a situation, similar to the skin cancer patient mentioned above, which may require professional assistance as failure to retain an attorney could increase the chances that an I-601 waiver (or for that matter an I-212 waiver) will be ultimately denied.

The standard of proof in an I-601 waiver is “extreme hardship” and this standard is not easily overcome. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) has noted that “extreme hardship” does not mean “mere separation,” of the couple, but is, in fact, something more substantial. American Immigration lawyers expend a great deal of time and effort to see that I-601 waiver petitions are well founded. As a result, such petitions may be at a lower risk of being denied. Bearing this in mind, no attorney, or anyone else for that matter, can foresee what the outcome of a waiver petition will be. Those reading this posting should not misconstrue the author’s message by inferring that retaining an attorney will result in a guaranteed outcome as this is simply not the case. Should an I-601 waiver petition be denied, then it may be possible to have the case reconsidered in a Motion to Reopen or through an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Under such circumstances, the case will be adjudicated based upon an “abuse of discretion” standard which is not easily overcome. Therefore, submitting a well founded I-601 waiver petition the first time can be imperative for those wishing to have a legal grounds of inadmissibility waived.

As always, those seeking representation or counsel in matters related to American immigration should check the credentials of anyone in Southeast Asia claiming expertise in such matters. Only an attorney licensed to practice law in the United States is entitled charge fees to represent clients before the Department of Homeland Security, USCIS, or American Missions abroad.

For related information about this issue please see: US Visa Denial.

Tags: American Attorney, American Lawyer, ASEAN, ASsociation of Southeast ASian Nations, Board of Immigration Appeals, Department of Homeland Security, I-212 waiver, I-601 Waiver, I212 waiver, I601 Waiver, pro se, pro se waiver, Request For Evidence, RFE, US Immigration, US Visa, us visa denial, USCIS, USCIS RFE
Posted in I-601 Waiver | No Comments »

Those who have read this web log with any frequency in the past may have noticed that the administration routinely posts information regarding attorney licensure and the practice of United States Immigration law. Recently, this blogger discovered some interesting information on this subject while researching the issue on the official website of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). To quote some of that information directly:

It should be reiterated that only a licensed American attorney has the unfettered privilege of practicing American immigration law before the Department of Homeland Security and the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). Although charitable organizations in the USA may be accredited to represent individuals before the USCIS and/or the US Immigration Courts, such representation is conducted on a not-for-profit basis. Licensed American attorneys are generally in a good position to provide advice and counsel regarding immigration matters due to education and experience. However, so-called “immigration consultants,” “visa agents,” and “visa companies” lack both the credentials and qualification to provide advice and representation of clients before USCIS, DHS, and/or the Department of State (DOS). To quote the USCIS website further:

Attorneys must be a member in good standing of the bar of a U.S. State (or U.S. possession, territory, Commonwealth, or the District of Columbia) and not be under any court order restricting their practice of law. Attorneys will check the first block on Form G-28 and must provide information regarding their admission to practice.

Only attorneys and accredited representatives may communicate on your behalf regarding your application with USCIS.

In choosing an attorney, you should:

• Ensure that the attorney is a member in good standing of the “bar” of a U.S. State (or possession, territory, Commonwealth or District of Columbia)
• Ensure that the attorney is not under any court order restricting their practice of law
• Review the current attorney licensing document for the attorney and contact the relevant State bar admission authorities to verify the information.  See the “American Bar Association – State Bar Associations” link to the right for a list of state bar associations.
• Review the “List of Currently Disciplined Practitioners” in the link to the right. This is where the Executive Office for Immigration Review lists if an attorney has been expelled or suspended from practice before USCIS/DHS
• Review the “List of Previously Disciplined Practitioners” available from the “List of Currently Disciplined Practitioners”  page on the EOIR website

A lawfully admitted attorney should honor your request for this information, as State Bar practice rules require disclosure of this information to clients. Before you pay attorney fees for help with your immigration case, make sure that the individual is a licensed attorney.

You should also review the lists of currently disciplined and previously disciplined practitioners on the Executive Office for Immigration Review website. These lists will help you to determine whether the attorney has been expelled or suspended from practice before USCIS/DHS.  To review these lists, please see the links in the “External Links” section of this page.

Those wishing to retain professional assistance during the United States Immigration process are well advised to take note of the citation quoted above as this information is very useful for those seeking attorney assistance. That said, the forthcoming quote deals with the issue of fake lawyers, visa agents, notarios, and immigration consultants who have been known to imitate genuine American attorneys in an effort to further their own interests while simultaneously fleecing an unsuspecting public (both immigrants and American Citizens). To quote the USCIS website one further time:

Notarios, notary publics and immigration consultants may NOT represent you before USCIS.

Those wishing to bring their loved one from another country for family reunification in the USA should take note of the above quotation. In Thailand, for example, there are some fly-by-night operators claiming both expertise in immigration law as well as qualification, without actually possessing either. For this reason, it is always prudent to ask for the licensure information of those claiming the ability to represent individuals before USCIS, DHS, and DOS.

Licensed foreign lawyers may, under some circumstances, be able to provide some limited representation, but only upon authorization from USCIS, those interested should consult the USCIS website directly as this issue is not the intended topic of this posting.

For related information please see: K1 Visa Thailand.

Tags: American Attorney, American Visa Attorney, American Visa Lawyer, American Visa Thailand, Department of Homeland Security, fake immigration attorneys, fake immigration lawyers, immigration consultant, K-1 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa Thailand, notario, US Immigration attorney, US Immigration Lawyer, US Visa Attorney, US Visa Cambodia, US Visa China, US Visa Hong Kong, US Visa India, US Visa Indonesia, US Visa Japan, US Visa Korea, US Visa Laos, us visa lawyer, US Visa Malaysia, US Visa Myanmar, US Visa Sri Lanka, US Visa Taiwan, US Visa Thailand, US Visa Vietnam, USCIS, visa agent, visa agents
Posted in K1 Visa Thailand, USCIS | No Comments »

Those who keep up with the news in the United States of America may have seen recent news reports regarding the recent shooting of a United States Representative and Federal District Court Judge. To quote directly from the website Indianexpress.com:

Representative Gabrielle Giffords, an Arizona Democrat, and 18 others were shot Saturday morning when a gunman opened fire outside a supermarket where Giffords was meeting with constituents.

Six of the victims died, among them John M Roll, the chief judge for the United States District Court for Arizona, and a nine-year-old girl…

It seems as if the shootings were motivated by the suspected gunman’s opposition to the political and legal positions held by some of the victims with respect to United States Immigration policy. To quote Indianexpress.com further:

The shootings raised questions about potential political motives, with Pima County Sheriff Clarence W Dupnik blaming “the toxic political environment in Arizona”.

Giffords, who represents the Eighth District in Arizona, has been an outspoken critic of the state’s tough immigration law, which is focused on identifying, prosecuting and deporting illegal immigrants, and she had come under criticism for her vote in favour of the health care law. Friends said she had received threats over the years.

Generally, immigration issues are considered somewhat mundane by those who are interested in American policy, but the American immigration debate has grown increasingly intense since the State of Arizona recently passed controversial legislation aimed at stemming the inflow of illegal and/or undocumented immigrants entering the State of Arizona by way of the international border between the United States of America and its southern neighbor Mexico. To quote directly from an article in the New York Times from April 2010:

Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed the nation’s toughest bill on illegal immigration into law on Friday. Its aim is to identify, prosecute and deport illegal immigrants. The move unleashed immediate protests and reignited the divisive battle over immigration reform nationally. Even before she signed the bill at an afternoon news conference here, President Obama strongly criticized it.

It is interesting to note that American Presidents rarely ever even comment upon legislation passed at the State level as State legislation is often viewed as being within the exclusive bailiwick of State authorities. However, there are strong arguments that Arizona’s passage of the aforementioned legislation represents an infringement upon the Federal government’s right to set and maintain United States Immigration policy. The New York Times’ article went on to note further:

The Arizona law, he added, threatened “to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.”

The law, which proponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Opponents have called it an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status.

The Arizona law represents an interesting controversy from a legal perspective as fundamental Constitutional issues such as Separation of Powers and Federalism are directly impacted by the enactment and subsequent enforcement of this law. The tragic aspect of this situation is that the immigration issue is one which could, and arguably should, be solved through the legislative process and reasoned debate. The fact that American immigration policy may be at the source of the recent shootings is tragic due to the loss of life. Also, it is likely that this shooting will exacerbate an already heated debate on the issue of Comprehensive Immigration Reform and the enforcement of US Immigration law in general.

For related information on American immigration please see: I-601 waiver or Department of Homeland Security.

Tags: American Immigration, American Immigration News, CIR, Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Department of Homeland Security, DHS, illegal immigration, Judge John M Roll, Representative Gabrielle Giffords, State of Arizona, Undocumented Immigration, US Immigration, US Immigration News, US Southwestern Border, US-Mexico Border
Posted in Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Department of Homeland Security, News | No Comments »

This blogger recently cam across an interesting report from the Department of Homeland Security. As discussed in previous postings on this blog, the Southwestern border of the USA has been the scene of increasing efforts by American State, Federal, and local authorities to stem the flow of undocumented immigrants to the USA. To quote directly from the report:

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano today held a quarterly conference call with sheriffs and police chiefs from 30 jurisdictions along the Southwest border to discuss the Department’s ongoing support for state and local law enforcement in their efforts to keep their communities safe from violence and other threats.

It would appear the the Department of Homeland Security is working more closely with local authorities in order to increase security along the United States-Mexican border. The aforementioned report went on to further note:

Since January 2009, DHS has committed unprecedented resources along the Southwest border. The Border Patrol is better staffed today than at any time in its 86-year history, having doubled the number of agents from approximately 10,000 in 2004 to more than 20,500 today. In addition, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has doubled the number of personnel assigned to Border Enforcement Security Task Forces; increased the number of intelligence analysts working along the U.S.-Mexico border; quintupled deployments of Border Liaison Officers; and begun screening 100 percent of southbound rail shipments for illegal weapons, drugs, and cash—for the first time ever.

Secretary Napolitano also highlighted critical programs that assist state and local law enforcement in making their communities safer. In July, DHS announced more than $47 million in fiscal year 2010 Operation Stonegarden grants for Southwest border states. Based on risk, cross-border traffic and border-related threat intelligence, 82 percent of 2009 and 2010 Operation Stonegarden funds went to Southwest border states—up from 59 percent in 2008.

DHS has also expanded the Secure Communities initiative—which uses biometric information and services to identify and remove criminal aliens in state prisons and local jails—from 14 jurisdictions in 2008 to more than 800 today, including all jurisdictions along the Southwest border.

The Department of Homeland Security’s role has increased dramatically along the Southern border of the USA. In a previous blog post this author noted that the Department of Homeland Security’s United States Customs and Border Protection Service (USCBP) has been using sophisticated technology such as iris scanners in an effort to bio-metrically monitor travelers crossing the border between the USA and Mexico. Pursuant to legislation passed in the 1990s Customs and Border Protection has the authority to place foreign individuals into expedited removal proceedings which can result in a bar to admission for the foreign national for 5 years after the proceedings have concluded.

The situation along the Southern US border may become more tense as inflows of undocumented immigrants are likely to continue necessitating further action by authorities such as USCBP and local law enforcement. It is hoped that this problem can be dealt with in such a way that it does the least amount of harm to all concerned.

Fore related information please see: I-601 waiver or US Visa Denial.

Tags: American Immigration, American Visa, Border Security, Department of Homeland Security, illegal immigration, immigration law, Southwestern Border, Undocumented Immigration, United States Customs and Border Protection, Unlawful Immigration, US-Mexican Border, USCBP, Visa Law
Posted in Department of Homeland Security, I-601 Waiver, USCBP | No Comments »