Integrity Legal

The United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service (USICE or more commonly referred to by the acronym: ICE) is tasked with enforcing American Immigration and Customs law. Often ICE officers are involved in programs aimed at apprehending those in the United States illegally or those who initially came to the United States legally, but later either dropped out of lawful status or committed a criminal offense which created a legal ground for removal. For the most part, ICE seems to primarily deal with immigration violations which occur along the Southern border of the United States as this has increasingly been an area where illegal immigration occurs frequently. However, their mandate includes all immigrants and foreign nationals from countries around the globe and in a recently promulgated announcement from  the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), distributed by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), it was noted that those from Asian countries who violate US law are just as susceptible to removal. To quote directly from the aforementioned announcement:

SEATTLE – In a chartered flight that originated in Seattle on Aug. 31, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) returned 96 immigration violators to the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Japan and Cambodia; 66 of them had committed criminal offenses in the United States.

ICE’s Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) coordinated the flight that returned 66 Filipinos, 18 Indonesians, 5 Cambodians, 4 Malaysians, 2 Japanese, and 1 Vietnamese nationals to their respective countries. The group included 79 males and 17 females. These individuals came into ICE custody from locations throughout the United States and were housed at various detention facilities across the country before being transported to the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Wash., shortly before the flight.

Among the 66 who had been convicted of criminal offenses while living in the United States, their crimes included homicide, felony drug trafficking and possession, rape and other sex crimes, aggravated assault, weapons possession, grand theft, and burglary.

“This year, ICE expects to remove a record number of criminal aliens from the country and charter flights like this are a big part of making that happen,” said ICE Director John Morton. “The United States welcomes law-abiding immigrants, but foreign nationals who violate our laws and commit crimes in our communities should be on notice that ICE is going to use all its resources to find you and send you home.”

ICE officers and medical staff with the Division of Immigration Health Services accompanied aliens on the flight.

Removal from the United States is a serious matter and those immigrants present in the USA on some sort of immigrant visa are well advised to adhere to US law and maintain lawful immigration status at all times. That said, those who have been deported from the US are generally not able to lawfully reenter the United States for a statutorily prescribed period of time. Those barred from the USA may be able to reenter after an approval of either an I-601 waiver or an I-212 petition for advance permission to reenter the USA. In some cases, those removed from the United States are indefinitely ineligible for readmission to the US. USICE offices overseas seem to be tasked with making certain that those removed from the United States actually return to their home country or remain abroad in an effort to prevent from them returning to the USA unlawfully.

United States Immigration law is a complex area of American jurisprudence. The existence of an American warrant on an alien’s record or prior criminal convictions in US Courts can have a serious impact upon one’s ability to immigrate to, and remain in, the United States.

Those seeking information about specific immigration issues are well advised to contact a US attorney in order to ascertain one’s options pursuant to American Immigration law.

For related information please see: Warrant For Arrest, US Visa Indonesia, or US Visa Vietnam.

Tags: Department of Homeland Security, Deport, deportation, Deportee, expedited removal, illegal immigrant, illegal immigration, removal, Removed, undocumented alien, undocumented foreign national, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, unlawful alien, unlawful presence, US Visa Cambodia, US Visa Indonesia, US Visa Japan, US Visa Malaysia, US Visa Philippines, US Visa Vietnam, USICE
Posted in American Institute Taiwan, Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Department of Homeland Security, Extradition, US Consulate ChengDu, US Consulate Chennai, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Consulate Guangzhou, US Consulate HCMC, US Consulate Hyderabad, US Consulate Kolkata, US Consulate Mumbai, US Consulate Shanghai, US Consulate Shenyang, US Consulate Singapore, US Consulate Wuhan, US Embassy Australia, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Bangladesh, US Embassy Beijing, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy China, US Embassy Dhaka, US Embassy Fiji, US Embassy Hanoi, US Embassy India, US Embassy Indonesia, US Embassy Jakarta, US Embassy Japan, US Embassy Kathmandu, US Embassy Kiribati, US Embassy Kuala Lumpur, US Embassy Laos, US Embassy Malaysia, US Embassy Maldives, US Embassy Manila, US Embassy Myanmar, US Embassy Nauru, US Embassy Nepal, US Embassy New Dehli, US Embassy New Zealand, US Embassy Papua New Guinea, US Embassy Philippines, US Embassy Phnom Phen, US Embassy Port Moresby, US Embassy Rangoon, US Embassy Singapore, US Embassy South Korea, US Embassy Sri Lanka, US Embassy Suva, US Embassy Thailand, US Embassy Tokyo, US Embassy Tonga, US Embassy Tuvalu, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US Visa, US Visa and Immigration, USICE | No Comments »

In recent posts on this blog it has been noted that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) must raise the fees associated with the processing of certain visa petitions. The L1 visa is a commonly sought travel document for those individuals working within a multinational corporation. Specifically, the L1 visa was designed to provide a specific travel document for intracompany transferees. The following is directly quoted from a recent executive summary compiled by USCIS which was distributed by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA):

On August 13, 2010, President Obama signed into law Public Law 111-230. The new law contains provisions that require petitioners to pay an additional $2,000 for certain H-1B petitions and an additional $2,250 for certain L-1 petitions. To begin public outreach on this legislation, USCIS held a teleconference on August 19, 2010 to share how USCIS will implement it…

The recent fee increase would seem to have raised some questions among petitioners, applicants, and practitioners. Therefore, USCIS officials were required to provide answers to some of the frequently asked questions. The following is quoted from the aforementioned executive summary:

During the teleconference, among other answers provided, USCIS informed the public that:

o The additional fee is required for certain H-1B or L-1 petitions postmarked on or after August
14, 2010;

o The law will remain in effect through September 30, 2014;

o This law is applicable to petitioners who employ 50 or more employees in the U.S. and more than 50% of the petitioner’s employees are in H-1B or L nonimmigrant status;

o Until the Form I-129 is updated, if a petitioner believes s/he is exempt from the requirement to pay the additional fee(s), the petitioners should include a cover letter, with their filings, that explains why the added fee does not apply. At the top of the cover letter, petitioners should include a notation of whether or not the fee is required in bold capital letters;

o If a petitioner does not include the added fee and USCIS determines the fee is required or if USCIS cannot determine if the fee is required, USCIS will issue a Request for Evidence (RFE) for the additional fee or for further explanation; and

o If the petitioner includes the increased fee, the fee should be paid by a separate check. The check should be made payable to the Department of Homeland Security. By paying the increased fee separately, USCIS will be able to more quickly issue a refund, if it is later determined that the increased fee was not required.

Employment visas to the United States of America are highly sought by foreign nationals residing in the United States as well as abroad. That said, the requirements that must be met for obtainment of such travel documents can be stringent. Therefore, the individuals seeking such visas are well advised to contact an American attorney in order to be fully advised of the processing details.

For further related information please see: E2 Visa.

Tags: American Immigration, American Visa, Department of Homeland Security, E 2 Visa, E2 Visa, Employment Visa, H-1B visa, H1B visa, L-1 visa, L-1a visa, L-1b visa, L1 Visa, L1A Visa, L1B Visa, United States Immigration, United States Visa, US Immigration, US Visa, USCIS
Posted in L1 Visa | No Comments »

Those familiar with this blog may recall that new measures have been implemented that can have an effect upon those traveling to the United States on the Visa Waiver Program. The Department of State (DOS) recently released a cable which outlines soon-to-be implemented changes to the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA). The following is quoted directly from the Department of State Cable as distributed by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA):

Summary: This cable provides additional information on implementation of the Travel Promotion Act of 2009 (TPA) and fee collection for the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA), requests posts to engage in outreach, and provides talking points. End summary.

3. As previously reported (Ref a), President Obama signed the TPA into law on March 4, 2010. The TPA will create a partnership between the U.S. government and the private sector to market the United States as a travel destination for international visitors. Fees collected from international travelers from Visa Waiver Program (VWP) countries, matched by private sector contributions, will fund the Corporation for Travel Promotion. The fees will be collected through the ESTA system, which the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) administers.

4. On August 6, 2010, DHS announced an interim final rule that amends DHS regulations to require travelers from VWP countries to pay operational and travel promotion fees when applying for ESTA beginning September 8, 2010. The total fee will be $14.00, with $4.00 to recover the cost of administering the ESTA system and $10.00 as mandated in the TPA.

5. The Department is working with DHS and the Department of Commerce to notify foreign and domestic media, the travel industry, and other stakeholders about this change. The Department requests that consular officers in VWP countries, in coordination with DHS and Commerce representatives, meet with host government officials, and airline, tourism, and other stakeholders to inform them of the new fee provisions connected to ESTA. Please contact the ESTA Program Management Office [redacted] for outreach materials or requests for ESTA representatives to travel in-country. They will do their best to accommodate. This cable is being sent as an ALDAC to facilitate all posts answering questions from citizens of VWP countries and the general public.

6. The Department supports the TPA goal of attracting international visitors to the United States. Our greatest diplomatic tool for sharing American values is America itself, and we recognize the critical importance of travel and tourism to our economy and job creation. The Department looks forward to working with the Corporation for Travel Promotion to ensure that prospective visitors to the United States receive comprehensive, up-to-date information on travel documents and requirements for entry.

The Travel Promotion Act mentioned above will likely have significant consequences for those foreign nationals traveling to the United States pursuant to the conditions of the visa waiver program. Therefore, those originating in a country that has visa-free travel privileges to the USA may be wise to research both the US Visa Waiver Program and the ESTA program. Fortunately, the aforementioned cable also included a Frequently Asked Questions Section. The following FAQ’s were quoted from the previously mentioned DOS cable distributed by AILA:

Q. What is the new fee charged to travelers?
A. It is $14.00. Since the implementation of ESTA, DHS has had discretion to charge a fee to cover administrative costs. DHA determined that cost to be $4.00 per registration. The TPA fee adds an additional $10.00.

Q. When will the fee go into effect?
A. ESTA registrations on or after September 8, 2010, will be subject to the fee.

Q. How do travelers pay the fee?
A. At this time, payment is required through the following credit cards: Mastercard, Visa, American Express, and Discover. Payments can also be made with a debit card that holds the Visa or Mastercard symbol. Please check with your bank on the compatibility of your debit card. We are continuing to explore other payment measures. The ESTA registration form already in use will walk users through the payment process.

Q. What types of privacy protection exist on the website?
A. “Pay.gov” uses advanced encryption to protect transactions while applicants are logged in. When accessing a profile, any account numbers entered will be masked on-screen.

Q. How long are ESTA approvals valid?
A. Each approved ESTA application will be valid for a period of two years unless the traveler’s passport expires sooner. It allows for multiple visits to the United States within that application.

Q. If I have a valid ESTA, will I have to re-register when the new fees go into effect?
A. No, existing ESTA registrations remain valid for travel through their expiration date.

Q. Is ESTA approval like a visa?
A. An ESTA approval is not a visa under U.S. law, nor does it confer the same benefits as a visa.

Q. Will this attract more international visitors to the United States?
A. Oxford Economics, a leading economic forecasting consultancy, estimates that the TPA program will generate $4 billion in new visitor spending, and lead to the creation of 40,000 new jobs.

Q. Why do VWP countries have to fund this travel promotion program through ESTA fees?
A. Some countries fund tourism promotion through airline or hotel taxes. The Travel Promotion Act legislation specified that the U.S. government fund this program through a $10 fee added to ESTA registration.

8. The following are Visa Waiver Program member countries: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brunei, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom…

At the time of this writing, the Kingdom of Thailand is not a member of the United States Visa Waiver Program. Therefore, ESTA rules have little impact upon most Thai nationals. That said, as pointed out in previous blog posts, relevant regulations may require those who have been issued a 221g refusal to disclose this refusal as a “visa denial” for purposes of travel to the USA on the Visa Waiver Program. It would seem that at the time of this writing the Department of State and the United States Customs and Border Protection Service (USCBP), an agency under the authority of the US Department of Homeland Security, view 221(G) refusals differently. Those who have been issued a 221g who still wish to travel to the United States may be wise to contact a US lawyer in order to deal with a pending 221g refusal.

Those who are from countries that do not participate in the Visa Waiver Program should seek a US visa before traveling to the USA. For information about the US Tourist Visa please see: B2 visa.

Tags: 221(g) refusal, 221g, 221g denial, B2 Visa, Department of Homeland Security, DHS, Electronic System for Travel Authorization, ESTA, United States Customs and Border Protection Service, US Tourist Visa, US Visa Waiver Program, USCBP, Visa Waiver Program
Posted in American Institute Taiwan, Department of Homeland Security, US Consulate ChengDu, US Consulate Chennai, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Consulate Guangzhou, US Consulate HCMC, US Consulate Hyderabad, US Consulate Kolkata, US Consulate Mumbai, US Consulate Shanghai, US Consulate Shenyang, US Consulate Singapore, US Consulate Wuhan, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Bangladesh, US Embassy Beijing, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy China, US Embassy Dhaka, US Embassy Hanoi, US Embassy India, US Embassy Indonesia, US Embassy Jakarta, US Embassy Japan, US Embassy Kathmandu, US Embassy Kuala Lumpur, US Embassy Malaysia, US Embassy Maldives, US Embassy Manila, US Embassy Myanmar, US Embassy Nepal, US Embassy New Dehli, US Embassy Papua New Guinea, US Embassy Philippines, US Embassy Phnom Phen, US Embassy Port Moresby, US Embassy Rangoon, US Embassy Singapore, US Embassy South Korea, US Embassy Sri Lanka, US Embassy Thailand, US Embassy Tokyo, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US Tourist Visa, US Visa, US Visa and Immigration, USCBP | No Comments »

The United States Customs and Border Protection Service (USCBP) is tasked with implementing security policy along the US borders. This organization is also responsible for screening immigrants and entrants on their way in to the United States of America (as defined by the United States Immigration and Nationality Act). Recently, an announcement was released which noted that USCBP is testing new technologies in an effort to provide further security along the border and at Ports of Entry to the United States. To quote the aforementioned publication directly:

As part of its Multi-Modal Biometrics Projects, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science & Technology (S&T) Directorate and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) are investigating iris recognition as a promising biometric modality that may become suitable to support DHS operations in the near future…

Iris scanning has been discussed in the past in connection with identity verification technology. It would seem that until recently this technology was not available for widespread use due to testing and cost considerations. Also, the technology is relatively young and, as a result, there has been little time to examine all of the ramifications of this technology:

This project is managed by the DHS Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate, co-sponsored by the National Programs and Protection Directorate, US-VISIT Program and leverages the joint expertise of DHS, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Department of Defense (DoD) and the U.S. Naval Academy. Iris recognition is a promising biometric modality that may become suitable to support DHS operations in the future. However, iris recognition has not been systematically and extensively evaluated outside of carefully controlled environments (i.e., in laboratories). The purpose of this evaluation of iris recognition technologies is to conduct field trials/studies of iris camera prototypes under conditions and environments of relevance (e.g., humidity levels, amount of sunlight, etc) to DHS operational users to assess the viability of the technology and its potential operational effectiveness in support of DHS operations.

In a way, this Iris technology has a great deal in common with identity identification through fingerprinting. In the future, some believe that eye scanning technology will be widely used in order to increase security at certain facilities. Furthermore, there are some who believe that Iris scanning, or technology similar thereto, will be used as a means of identification for quick cross referencing in various government databases. The aforementioned report went on to further note:

The iris is a muscle that forms the colored portion of the eye. It regulates the size of the pupil, controlling the amount of light that enters the eye. Although the coloration and structure of the iris is genetically linked, the details of the iris structure are not. Iris imaging requires use of a high quality digital camera that illuminates the iris using near-infrared light and takes a photograph without causing harm or discomfort to the individual. The prototype cameras in this evaluation are designed to capture iris images for different operational scenarios (e.g., standing in front of a mounted or handheld camera or walking near a camera while walking through a portal).
S&T and US-VISIT are working with the DHS Customs and Border Protection (CBP)/ Office of Border Patrol to develop a concept of operations (ConOps) to describe how the technology may be tested to support its existing operational missions.

It will likely take a relatively substantial period of time before this technology is used widely. That said, the implications of such technology could be very significant from both a privacy standpoint as well as a practical standpoint. In a final excerpt from the above cited publication:

Once identified by the DHS team, the iris camera prototypes will be provided to the U.S. Border Patrol agents. The iris camera prototype includes sensors such as floor-mounted pressure sensors, beam break sensors, motion sensors, and simple cameras. This system works by electronically capturing the iris images of individuals that are placed in front of the camera…

Although consumer use of iris scanning technology may not be the norm in the near term, there are those who believe that USCBP will have this technology at their disposal soon. Hopefully this new technology will provide increased security in a legal and non-obtrusive manner.

For related information please see: expedited removal

Tags: Department of Homeland Security, DHS, fingerprinting, Iris, iris scan, retinal scan, security technology, United States Customs and Border Protection Service, USCBP
Posted in Department of Homeland Security, USCBP | Comments Off

This author recently came across the following information regarding petitions submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The following is a direct quotation from a press release from the Organization of American States distributed by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA):

On December 27, 2002 and July 17, 2003, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (the “Inter-American Commission” or the “IACHR”) received petitions from the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), the law firm of Gibbs Houston Pauw, and the Center for Human Rights and Justice (“the petitioners”) against the Government of the United States (“the State” or “United States”) on behalf of Wayne Smith and his children and Hugo Armendariz and his children, respectively, (hereinafter collectively the “alleged victims”) in relation to Mr. Smith and Mr. Armendariz’s deportation from the United States. According to the petitions, the State violated the alleged victims’ rights protected under Articles I (right to life, liberty and personal security), V (right  to private and family life), VI (right to family), VII (right to protection for mothers and children), IX (right to inviolability of the home), XVIII (right to fair trial) and XXVI (right to due process of law) of the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man (the “American Declaration”).

Deportation, also referred to as removal, is the process whereby foreign national(s) residing or remaining temporarily in the United States, either lawfully or unlawfully, are sent back to their home country (or another country outside of the United states) usually following proceedings in which a tribunal adjudicates the legality of a foreign national’s presence in the United States. To quote the aforementioned press release further:

Regarding the merits of the case, the petitioners allege that Messrs. Smith and Armendariz, both of whom were legal permanent residents in the United States, were subjected to deportation without permitting them to present a meaningful defense in administrative and judicial courts, including the following alleged internationally-required consideration of humanitarian equities to deportation: the alleged victims’ length of legal residency in the United States; the alleged victims’ family ties in the United States; the potential hardship on the family members left behind in the United States; the alleged victims’ links with their countries of origin; the extent of the alleged victims’ rehabilitation and social contribution to the United States; any medical or psychological considerations; and the gravity of the alleged victims’ offense and the age when it was committed.

Lawful Permanent Residence (LPR) is a legal status in the United States also referred to as “Green Card” status. Those American Citizens married to a foreign national often seek a CR1 Visa or an IR1 Visa in order to obtain the benefits of lawful permanent residence for their foreign loved one(s). Under certain circumstances an alien present in the United States in lawful permanent resident status can be stripped of said status if they have committed certain “aggravated” criminal offenses or other acts which are deemed to be grounds for removal from the USA, or grounds of inadmissibility to the United States (if the LPR has been abroad and is seeking readmission to the USA or if State law allows activity which Federal law deems to be a legal grounds of inadmissibility) . To further quote the aforementioned press release:

In its response on the merits, the State asserts that under international law each sovereign nation has the right to establish reasonable, objective immigration laws that govern the circumstances under which non-citizens may reside in its country. From this principle, the State argues that the statutory scheme established by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (hereinafter “IIRIRA”) and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (hereinafter “AEDPA”) is a reasonable exercise of sovereign authority to protect U.S. citizens and other non-citizens alike who reside in the United States. Under IIRIRA and AEDPA, a legal permanent resident who has been convicted of an “aggravated felony,” is deportable without the opportunity of receiving a waiver of deportation from an immigration or federal judge. In addition, the State asserts that the petitioners interpret the relevant articles under the American Declaration too expansively and that they fail to recognize the proviso in Article XXVIII of the American Declaration, which permits Member States under certain circumstances to curtail a person’s individual rights in order to preserve the rights and security of others. The State asserts that the mandatory deportation of a non-citizen convicted of an “aggravated felony” is such a circumstance.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) is a significant piece of Immigration legislation in that it changed some of the procedures relevant to removal. Specifically, expedited removal, a comparatively quick removal proceeding often conducted by Officers of the Customs and Border Protection Service (USCBP), was essentially created by the  provisions of the IIRAIRA. In recent years, some believe that deportation of “aggravated felons” in LPR status has increased, but that some of those removed from the USA have had certain due process rights violated in the course of their removal. The case in question seems to rely upon arguments based upon this supposition. To quote the aforementioned press release further:

After having reviewed the positions of the parties and their accompanying evidence, the IACHR concludes that the United States is responsible for violations of Wayne Smith and Hugo Armendariz’s rights protected under Articles V, VI, VII, XVIII, and XXVI of the American Declaration. The Inter-American Commission further concludes that it is well-recognized under international law that a Member State must provide non-citizen residents an opportunity to present a defense against deportation based on humanitarian and other considerations, such as the rights protected under Articles V, VI, and VII of the American Declaration. Each Member State’s administrative or judicial bodies, charged with reviewing deportation orders, must be permitted to give meaningful
consideration to a non-citizen resident’s defense, balance it against the State’s sovereign right to enforce reasonable, objective immigration policy, and provided effective relief from deportation if merited. The United States did not follow these international norms in the present case. The IACHR presents its recommendations to the State regarding these violations of the American Declaration.

One can speculate as to the ultimate result of the above decision by the IACHR as the above finding could have implications  in future removal proceedings as agents of the United States government as well as Immigration adjudicators may be required to provide future prospective deportees with an opportunity to form a defense strategy based upon humanitarian considerations. The exact nature of future defenses based upon humanitarian grounds remains to be seen, but this finding may place more rights in the hands of those foreign nationals in American removal proceedings.

For related information please see: I-601 waiver.

Tags: CR1 Visa, Department of Homeland Security, DHS, expedited removal, Human Rights, I-212, I-601 Waiver, IACHR, IIRAIRA, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, IR1 Visa, Lawful Permanent Residence, LPR, United States Customs and Border Protection, USCBP
Posted in CR1 Visa, Department of Homeland Security, I-601 Waiver, USCBP | No Comments »

Those who keep up with Immigration news have no doubt noticed the increasing tensions that have been caused by problems along the Southwestern Border of the United States. In a recent announcement distributed by the American Immigration Lawyers Association it was noted that a new Senate Bill was passed which could provide new funding for increased border security initiatives. To quote the announcement directly:

On 8/5/10, with hours left before the beginning on the August recess, the Senate passed a $600 million emergency spending bill aimed at increasing border security. The bill, titled the Emergency Border Security Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2010, was passed by a voice vote.

Senator Schumer (D-NY), along with several Democratic colleagues, introduced the Border Security Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2010 (S.3721) and used it as a substitute amendment to H.R. 5875, a bill passed by the House of Representatives on 7/28/10. Further action is required before H.R. 5875, as passed by the Senate, can be sent to President Obama’s desk for signature.

It is unclear at this point if the House of Representatives, which is set to return for a short two day session on 8/09/10, will take up the Senate measure or whether they will wait until September…

In response to the passage of this Bill, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, made the following statement:

“I commend the Senate for passing the Southwest Border bill to add important, permanent resources to continue bolstering security on our Southwest border. These assets are critical to bringing additional capabilities to crack down on transnational criminal organizations and reduce the illicit trafficking of people, drugs, currency and weapons. Over the past eighteen months, this Administration has dedicated unprecedented personnel, technology, and resources to the border and we will continue to take decisive action to disrupt criminal organizations and the networks they exploit. I encourage the House to act quickly on this bill to strengthen our historic border security efforts.”

The final resolution remains to be seen, but there are many who feel strongly about this issue and it is likely that the subject of undocumented immigration will remain controversial heading into the upcoming Congressional elections. That said, Comprehensive Immigration Reform may still be on the horizon notwithstanding bills passed in an effort to deal with the current issues along the US-Mexican border.

For related information please see: Comprehensive Immigration Reform. For information about bringing a loved one to the United States with proper documentation please see: K1 visa or US Marriage Visa.

Tags: American Immigration law, American Immigration Policy, Border Security Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2010, Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Department of Homeland Security, DHS, Emergency Border Security Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2010, H.R. 5875, K1 Visa, S.3721, Secretary Napolitano, US Immigration Law, US Immigration Policy, US Marriage Visa, US Senate, US Southwestern Border
Posted in Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Department of Homeland Security, K1 Visa, News, Upcoming Legislation | No Comments »

In other postings on this blog we have discussed the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in the context of both American Immigration as well as national security. This author recently came across an announcement from the TSA about the methods the agency employs in seeking to prevent activity that could be harmful to the public. To quote the announcement directly:

Under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has “responsibility for security in all modes of transportation.”1 TSA uses an operations center incident management system called WebEOC to perform incident management, coordination, and situation awareness functions for all modes of transportation. The system will store information that it receives about the following categories of individuals: 1) individuals who violate, or are suspected of violating transportation security laws, regulations, policies or procedures; 2) individuals whose behavior or suspicious activity resulted in referrals by Ticket Document Checkers (TDC) to Behavior Detection Officer (BDO) or Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) interview (primarily at airports); or 3) individuals whose identity must be verified, or checked against federal watch lists. Individuals whose identity must be verified includes both those individuals who fail to show acceptable identification documents to compare to boarding documents and law enforcement officials seeking to fly armed. The system also collects and compiles reports from federal, state, local, tribal, or private sector security officials related to incidents that may pose a threat to transportation or national security. TSA is republishing this PIA to clarify that the TSA Operations Center will record telephonic communications. The PIA previously disclosed in section 1.4 that telephone calls were a source of information but did not explicitly state that telephone calls would be recorded. Daily reports will be provided to executives at TSA and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to assist in incident and operational response management.

Those interested in this issue may also be interested in the type of information that the TSA is collecting. To quote the aforementioned announcement further:

TSA will collect information about the following categories of individuals: 1) individuals who violate, or are suspected of violating transportation security regulations, policies or procedures; 2) individuals whose suspicious activity resulted in BDO or LEO interview; 3) individuals whose identity must be verified or checked against Federal watch lists. The information collected may include the full names of individuals, aliases and nicknames, date of birth, place of birth, age, sex, race, nationality, languages spoken, passport number, driver’s license number, and telephone number, home and business addresses; Social Security Numbers, height and weight, eye color, hair color, style and length, facial hair, scars, tattoos and piercings, clothing (including colors and patterns) and eyewear, description of personal carry-on and/or baggage items. The system also collects and compiles reports from Federal, state, local, tribal, or private sector security officials related to incidents that may pose a threat to transportation or national security. Additionally, the TSA Operations Center records telephonic communications between or among TSA and transportation security stakeholders or other law enforcement or security agencies regarding threats to transportation security. Callers receive notice that the call may be monitored or recorded.

Although many people hear the “your call may be monitored” message when calling a telecommunications service some do not take this message to heart. That said, those making innocuous communications are unlikely to worry about the government recording their conversations. However, there are those who feel that this is still an invasion of privacy. In the post-911 era, the precautions taken by security officials are more stringent compared to those which were enacted prior to that tragic day. This author personally feels that protection and security are important, but those in positions of responsibility should refrain from exercising their power in a rash manner. It has always been the experience of this author that all government personnel are courteous and diligent in their efforts to provide security and maintain the policies laid out by the American Congress and the Executive Branch of government.

For more information please see: US Visa Thailand.

Tags: Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, TSA, US Immigration, US Visa Thailand
Posted in Department of Homeland Security | No Comments »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags: Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, US Border, US Immigration, US military, USCBP
Posted in Department of Homeland Security, USCBP | No Comments »

Marriage Fraud as well as Immigration Fraud are a serious issues in the eyes of those agencies tasked with the job of adjudicating visa petitions and enforcing American law with regard to admission to the United States. With that in mind, it should be noted that domestically the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service (USICE) has jurisdiction to enforce immigration regulations as well as decisions issued by Immigration courts. The following is a direct quote from a recently promulgated press release from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service:

LOUISVILLE, Ky. – A U.S. citizen, who was paid to engage in a phony marriage with a Cambodian national to evade immigration laws, pleaded guilty Tuesday in federal court. The guilty plea resulted from an investigation by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Justin Michael Martin, 25, of Georgetown, Ky., pleaded guilty June 22 in the Western District of Kentucky
to conspiracy to commit marriage fraud and marriage fraud. Martin admitted that between Jan. 1, 2000 and April 7, 2010, he knowingly reached an agreement with Yota Em, Phearoun Peter Em, aka Sophea Lim, and Michael Chanthou Chin to knowingly enter into a marriage to evade U.S. immigration laws. Martin admitted that Phearoun Peter Em drove Martin to a U.S.
Post Office in Lexington to apply for a U.S. passport, and that Phearoun Peter Em paid the passport
application fee. On June 17, 2004, Michael Chanthou Chin drove Martin and others to the Louisville airport. In exchange for a fee, Martin, Phearoun Peter Em, and others traveled from Kentucky to Cambodia. Once in Cambodia, Martin met with Cambodian national Yota Em and agreed to marry her to evade the immigration laws of the United States.

Photographs were taken of Martin and Yota Em during an engagement ceremony on June 25, 2004, and at other locations in Cambodia. While in Cambodia, members of the conspiracy paid for Martin’s lodging, food, transportation, sexual services from a Cambodian female, and other expenses.
On June 27, 2004, Martin returned to the United States and was met at the airport by Michael Chanthou Chin. Thereafter, certain immigration forms were completed by Martin and Yota Em, which falsely represented the marriage as genuine. On Sept. 27, 2005, Yota Em entered the United States using a K-1 (fiancée) visa. On March 5, 2007, Yota Em and Martin participated in a civil marriage ceremony in Lexington, knowing that the marriage was not entered into in good faith, was in exchange for something of value, and that the purpose of the marriage ceremony was to enable Yota Em to obtain U.S. permanent resident status in the United States. Phearoun Peter Em and Michael Chanthou Chin served as witnesses at the civil marriage ceremony.

Martin and Yota Em subsequently participated in a marriage interview with immigration officials in Louisville and falsely claimed that they married in good faith. Phearoun Peter Em acted as an interpreter for Yota Em. On June 30, 2009, Martin and Yota Em were divorced. The marriage between Martin and Yota Em was fraudulent and was entered into solely to evade U.S. immigration laws. Martin admitted that he was paid about $7,000 for participating in the marriage fraud scheme.
Defendant Yota Em is currently a fugitive. Anyone with information about her whereabouts should call 1-866-DHS-2ICE. The maximum potential penalties for Martin are 10 years’ imprisonment, a $500,000 fine, and supervised release for a period of six years.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Ann Claire Phillips, Western District of Kentucky, is prosecuting the case. For more information, visit www.ice.gov.

It is unfortunate to see this type of fraud occurring as it makes it increasingly difficult for bona fide couples to receive immigration benefits due to the fact that the American government must expend resources in an effort to catch fraudulent visa petitions and applications. As time and resources are spent investigating visa fraud, the overall visa process for all applicants could slow down. That said, Officers of the United States government should be commended for their diligence in apprehending the individuals involved in the conspiracy noted above. Fraud Prevention is a serious issue that must be dealt with in order to forestall an erosion of the integrity of the US Immigration system.

In recent weeks it has been announced that fees associated with the K1 visa and the K3 Visa are increasing. There is speculation that the funds derived from the increase in fees will be used to combat immigration fraud on a wider scale as the fee is being increased by the Department of State for those applications filed at a US Consulate or US Embassy abroad. Many feel that the funds will likely be used to increase the resources available to each Fraud Prevention Unit attached to US Missions overseas. Hopefully, by increasing resources available to Fraud Prevention Units outside of the USA, there will be fewer people entering the United States illegally based upon sham relationships.

Tags: Conspiracy to Commit Marriage Fraud, Department of Homeland Security, DHS, Fiance Visa Fraud, Fraud Prevention, Fraud Prevention Unit, ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Marriage Fraud, Marriage Visa Fraud, Sham Marriage, US Consulate, US Embassy, US Immigration, US Immigration Fraud, US Visa, US Visa Cambodia, US Visa Fraud, USICE
Posted in Department of Homeland Security, K1 Visa, K3 Visa, US Consulate ChengDu, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Consulate Guangzhou, US Consulate HCMC, US Consulate Shanghai, US Consulate Shenyang, US Consulate Singapore, US Consulate Wuhan, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Bangladesh, US Embassy Beijing, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy China, US Embassy Dhaka, US Embassy Hanoi, US Embassy India, US Embassy Indonesia, US Embassy Jakarta, US Embassy Kathmandu, US Embassy Kuala Lumpur, US Embassy Malaysia, US Embassy Myanmar, US Embassy Nepal, US Embassy New Dehli, US Embassy Phnom Phen, US Embassy Rangoon, US Embassy Singapore, US Embassy Thailand, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US Visa, US Visa and Immigration, USICE | 1 Comment »

In a recent press release it was announced that the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has the capability and resources to implement a program that will check 100% of the domestic airline passengers traveling in the United States  against terrorist watchlists.  To quote the press release directly:

Washington, D.C.—Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano today announced that 100 percent of passengers traveling within the United States and its territories are now being checked against terrorist watchlists through the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) Secure Flight program—a major step in fulfilling a key 9/11 Commission recommendation.

Before Secure Flight, airlines conducted passenger watchlist checking. “Secure Flight fulfills a key recommendation of the of the 9/11 Commission Report, enabling TSA to screen passengers directly against government watchlists using passenger name, date of birth, and gender before a boarding pass is issued,” said Secretary Napolitano. “This program is one of our many layers of security—coordinated with our partners in the airline industry and governments around the world—that we leverage to protect the traveling public against threats of terrorism.”

Under Secure Flight, TSA prescreens passenger name, date of birth and gender against government watchlists for domestic and international flights. In addition to facilitating secure travel for all passengers, the program helps prevent the misidentification of passengers who have names similar to individuals on government watchlists.
“We are quite pleased to see the positive outcome from the collaborative work that ATA, its member airlines and TSA have invested in the development of the Secure Flight program,” said Air Transport Association (ATA) President and CEO James C. May. “We are especially pleased that TSA phased program implementation to ensure that commercial airline travelers experience a seamless transition.”

99 percent of passengers will be cleared by Secure Flight to print boarding passes at home by providing their date of birth, gender and name as it appears on the government ID they plan to use when traveling when booking airline tickets. Individuals found to match watchlist parameters will be subjected to secondary screening, a law enforcement interview or prohibition from boarding an aircraft, depending on the specific case.

The Transportation Security Administration began implementing Secure Flight in late 2009 and expects all international carriers with direct flights to the U.S. to begin using Secure Flight by the end of 2010.

This author must applaud the efficiency of both the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the DHS in their efforts to track all domestic air travelers in the United States of America. Although this is unlikely to have a major impact upon foreign nationals traveling to the USA as first time immigrants, it should be noted that when American  security agencies focus their efforts the results can be rather astonishing. This is particularly true in the current information age as DHS and TSA have proven that they can use all of the tools at their disposal to more effectively  implement policies that conform to their mandate.  There are likely many domestic air travelers in the USA who feel reassured by the American government’s constant efforts to increase security.

For related information please see: US Immigration.

Tags: 100% domestic passengers checked against terrorist watchlists, Department of Homeland Security, DHS, domestic travel in the USA, Transportation Security Administration, TSA
Posted in Department of Homeland Security | No Comments »