Thailand Call: 02-266 3698
USA Call: 1-(316)-974-0454
Integrity Legal
- Legal Blog
- Integrity Legal Home
- Thai Visa
- Company in Thailand
- Real Estate Thailand
- US Visa
- Contact Us
Posts Tagged ‘DHS’
7th December 2017
ទិដ្ឋាការប្រភេទ K-1 ពីប្រទេសកម្ពុជា៖
Posted by : admin
Khmer language translation of the video found here: ទិដ្ឋាការប្រភេទ K-1 ពីប្រទេសកម្ពុជា៖
នៅក្នុងវីដេអូនេះ យើងនឹងពិភាក្សាអំពីទិដ្ឋាការប្រភេទ K-1 សំរាប់គូដណ្ដឹង ក្នុងបរិបទនៃការដំណើរការរបស់ការិយាល័យកុងស៊ុលនៃស្ថានទូតសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិកប្រចាំនៅរាជធានីភ្នំពេញនៃព្រះរាជាណាចក្រកម្ពុជា ។
សំរាប់អ្នកដែលបានចូលមកកាន់ទំព័ររបស់យើង ហើយបានឃើញវីដេអូមួយចំនួនរបស់យើងហើយ អ្នកប្រហែលជាដឹងហើយថាយើងមានទីតាំងនៅក្នុងទីក្រុងបាងកកនៃប្រទេសថៃ ។ យើងធ្វើការដោះស្រាយជាចម្បងលើសំណុំរឿងអន្តោប្រវេសន៍ ។ ជាទូទៅគឺសំរាប់ជនជាតិថៃអាមេរិកាំង ហើយយើងធ្វើការរត់ការសំណុំរឿងជាច្រើនពាក់ព័ន្ធនឹងសំណុំរឿងអន្តោប្រវេសន៍សំរាប់គ្រួសារអាមេរិក ទិដ្ឋាការប្រភេទគូដណ្ដឹង ទិដ្ឋាការប្រភេទរៀបការ ។ល។
ដោយសារយើងមានទីតាំងស្ថិតនៅក្នុងទីក្រុងបាងកក មិនមែនមានន័យថាយើងធ្វើការផ្ដាច់មុខលើរឿងអន្តោប្រវេសន៍អាមេរិកតែនៅក្នុងប្រទេសនេះ នោះទេ ។ វាគួរអោយចាប់អារម្មណ៍ដែរ ដែលមេធាវីអន្តោប្រវេសន៍ជាច្រើនដែលធ្វើការនៅសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិកហាក់ដូចជាធ្វើការជាមួយអតិថិជនចំរុះជាតិសាសន៍ ប៉ុន្តែផ្ទុយទៅវិញ យើងនៅទីក្រុងបាងកកនេះ ហាក់ដូចជាធ្វើការតែជាមួយជនជាតិថៃ ។ ទោះបីជាយ៉ាងណាក៏ដោយ ខ្ញុំក៏ធ្លាប់បានធ្វើការជាមួយសំណុំរឿងមួយចំនួនដែរដែលពាក់ព័ន្ធនឹងស្ថានទូតសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិកប្រចាំនៅរាជធានីភ្នំពេញនៃព្រះរាជាណាចក្រកម្ពុជាដែរ ដោយសារតែប្រទេសនេះនៅជិតប្រទេសថៃ ។ សំរាប់អ្នកដោយចាប់អារម្មណ៍លើដំណើរការដោយមើលពីទិដ្ឋភាពទូទៅ ជាការល្អបំផុតគឺអ្នកគួរមើលទៅលើរឿងនេះជា២ដំណាក់កាល៖ ដំណាក់កាលមួយគឺពាក់ព័ន្ធនឹងក្រសួងសន្ដិសុខមាតុភូមិ ។ ស្ថាប័នអន្តោប្រវេសន៍ ហៅកាត់ថា USCIS ស្ថិតនៅក្រោមការគ្រប់គ្រងរបស់ក្រសួងសន្ដិសុខមាតុភូមិ នឹងចាប់ផ្ដើមដំបូងដោយធ្វើការសំរេចយល់ព្រមលើទំរង់បែបបទធានា I-129F ។ ពាក្យធានានេះ គឺជាចំនុចចាប់ផ្ដើមដំបូងនៃដំណើរការនេះ ។ អ្នកត្រូវដាក់ពាក្យធានា ហើយអ្នកត្រូវតែទទួលបានការសំរេចយល់ព្រមពី USCIS នៃក្រសួងសន្ដិសុខមាតុភូមិ មុនពេលដែលអ្នកអាចបន្តដំណើរការជាមួយនឹងទិដ្ឋាការប្រភេទ K-1 របស់អ្នក ។ បន្ទាប់ពីទទួលបានការសំរេចយល់ព្រមលើពាក្យធានារបស់អ្នកហើយ យើងនឹងនិយាយអំពីតំរូវការលំអិតពាក់ព័ន្ធនឹងពាក្យធានា ។ អ្វីដែលត្រូវកំណត់ចំណាំជាងគេបំផុតនោះ គឺដៃគូដែលដាក់ពាក្យធានាទាំងពីរនាក់ត្រូវតែនៅទំនេរនិងអាចរៀបការបានដោយស្របច្បាប់ នៅពេលដែលពាក្យធានាត្រូវបានដាក់ ។ លើសពីនេះទៅទៀត ភាគីទាំងពីរត្រូវធ្លាប់បានជួបគ្នាផ្ទាល់ក្នុងកំឡុងពេល២ឆ្នាំមុនពេលដែលពួកគេដាក់ពាក្យធានាសុំទិដ្ឋាការប្រភេទ K-1 ។ រឿងដែលសំខាន់ជាងគេដែលត្រូវចាំគឺ «អ្នកត្រូវតែនៅទំនេរនិងអាចរៀបការបានដោយស្របច្បាប់ ។ អ្នកមិនអាចស្ថិតនៅក្នុងស្ថានភាពកំពុងលែងលះនោះទេ ។ អ្នកត្រូវតែលែងលះរួចរាល់ហើយ ប្រសិនបើអ្នកមានប្ដីឬប្រពន្ធមុន ។ អ្នកត្រូវតែនៅទំនេរនិងអាចរៀបការបានដោយស្របច្បាប់ ហើយអ្វីដែលអ្នកត្រូវចងចាំ ដែរនោះគឺថា តំរូវការនេះអាចនឹងមាននៅក្នុងយុត្តាធិការនៃច្បាប់សាមញ្ញ ឬពេលខ្លះក៏មាននៅក្នុងយុត្តាធិការនៃច្បាប់រដ្ឋប្បវេណីផងដែរ ។ អ្នកមិនអាចស្ថិតនៅក្នុងស្ថានភាពមានប្ដីឬប្រពន្ធ នៅពេលដំណើរការទិដ្ឋាការប្រភេទ K-1 នោះទេ បើទោះបីជាអ្នកទាំងពីរជាប្ដីប្រពន្ធក៏ដោយ ។ អ្នកត្រូវរង់ចាំ និងស្ថិតនៅក្នងស្ថានភាពជាគូដណ្ដឹង រហូតដល់គូដណ្ដឹងបរទេសរបស់អ្នកដែលក្នុងសំណុំរឿងនេះ ជាជនជាតិខ្មែរ ចាកចេញពីរាជធានីភ្នំពេញ ទៅកាន់សហរដ្ឋអាមេរិក ហើយបន្ទាប់មកអ្នកនឹងមានរយៈពេល ៩០ថ្ងៃ ដើម្បីរៀបអាពាហ៍ពិពាហ៍ និងដាក់ពាក្យសុំផ្លាស់ប្ដូរស្ថានភាពអន្តោប្រវេសន៍ ។ ការផ្លាស់ប្ដូរស្ថានភាពអន្តោប្រវេសន៍ គឺជាដំណើរការមួយផ្សេងទៀត ។ វាកើតឡើងបន្ទាប់ពីការរៀបការនៅសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិក ។ មានវីដេអូមួយផ្សេងទៀតនៅក្នុងទំព័រនេះ ដែលពិភាក្សាជាពិសេសលើសេចក្ដីលំអិតនៃការផ្លាស់ប្ដូរស្ថានភាពអន្តោប្រវេសន៍ ។ យើងអាចនិយាយបានថា ជាមូលដ្ឋានវាគឺជាដំណើរការដែលគូដណ្ដឹងបរទេស ដែលបន្ទាប់មកនឹងក្លាយទៅប្តីឬប្រពន្ធ នឹងទទួលបានសិទ្ធិជាអ្នករស់នៅជាអចិន្ត្រៃយ៍ដោយស្របច្បាប់ ឬដែលត្រូវបានគេស្គាល់ថាជាអ្នកកាន់ green card នៅសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិក ។ អញ្ចឹង វាគឺជារឿងដែលកើតឡើងចុងក្រោយនៃដំណើរការនេះ ។ ត្រឡប់មកនិយាយពីសំណុំបែបបទធានាវិញ ដៃគូត្រូវតែបានជួបគ្នាផ្ទាល់ក្នុងកំឡុងពេល២ឆ្នាំមុនការដាក់ពាក្យ ត្រូវតែនៅទំនេរ និងអាចរៀបការបានដោយស្របច្បាប់ ។ មានពត៌មានលំអិតជាច្រើនទៀតដែលពាក់ព័ន្ធនឹងរឿងនេះ ដែលខ្ញុំនឹងមិនពិភាក្សាស៊ីជម្រៅពេកទេ ។ សន្មត់ថា ស្ថាប័ន USCIS DHS បានធ្វើការសំរេចយល់ព្រមលើពាក្យធានា ។ សំណុំរឿងនេះនឹងត្រូវបញ្ជូនយ៉ាងលឿនទៅកាន់មជ្ឍមណ្ឌលទិដ្ឋាការជាតិ ដែលដើរតួដូចជាកន្លែងលាងសំអាតឯកសារ ឬទីតាំងសំរាប់បញ្ជូនឯកសារ ដើម្បីបញ្ជូនសំណុំរឿងនេះទៅកាន់ស្ថានទូត ឬស្ថានកុងស៊ុលក្រៅប្រទេសដែលសមស្រប ហើយនៅក្នុងសំណុំរឿងនេះគឺកម្ពុជា ។ សំណុំរឿងនឹងត្រូវបញ្ជូនទៅរាជធានីភ្នំពេញនៃប្រទេសកម្ពុជា ហើយនៅពេលនោះ អ្នកត្រូវធ្វើការរត់ការតាមដំណើរការជាក់លាក់របស់ផ្នែកទិដ្ឋាការនៃការិយាល័យកុងស៊ុលរបស់ស្ថានទូតនៅទីនោះ ។
ទិដ្ឋាការប្រភេទ K-1 មានលក្ខណៈគួរអោយចាប់អារម្មណ៍ ដោយសារវាត្រូវបានគេចាត់ទុកថាជាប្រភេទទិដ្ឋាការដែលមានគោលបំណងពីរ ។ បើយើងនិយាយតាមច្បាប់ វាស្ថិតនៅក្នុងប្រភេទទិដ្ឋាការមិនមែនអន្តោប្រវេសន៍ ប៉ុន្តែចំពោះការដំណើរការនៅក្នុងកុងស៊ុល និងដំណើរការនៃដាក់ពាក្យ វាត្រូវបានគេគិតថាមានបំណងដើម្បីទទួលបានទិដ្ឋាការអន្តោប្រវេសន៍ ដូចជាទិដ្ឋាការប្រភេទប្តីប្រពន្ធ ឬ CR-1 ឬ IR-1 ដែរ ប៉ុន្តែលើកលែងតែទិដ្ឋាការប្រភេទ K-3 ។ ដូច្នេះ ជាសរុបរួមនៅក្នុងវីដេអូនេះ ដំណើរការនៃការដាក់ពាក្យសុំយកគូដណ្ដឹងជនជាតិខ្មែរទៅកាន់សហរដ្ឋអាមេរិក ចាប់ផ្ដើមពីសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិក ដំណើរការតាមរយៈភ្នាក់ងារមួយចំនួននៅទីនោះ មុនពេលបញ្ជូនទៅដល់ស្ថានទូតសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិកប្រចាំនៅរាជធានីភ្នំពេញ ។ បន្ទាប់មកទៀត មានឯកសារជាច្រើនដែលពាក់នឹងដំណើរការរួម និងឯកសារមួយចំនួនដែលត្រូវបកប្រែពីភាសាខ្មែរ ទៅអង់គ្លេស ។ សំរាប់សេវាកម្មរបស់យើងខ្ញុំ យើងអាចធ្វើការបកប្រែឯកសារទាំងនោះបាន ដែលវាគឺជាផ្នែកដ៏សំខាន់មួយនៃអ្វីយើងត្រូវធ្វើការរត់ការជាធម្មតា ។ ជារឿយៗ ខ្ញុំត្រូវទៅរាជធានីភ្នំពេញ ដើម្បីដោះស្រាយសំណុំរឿងជាមួយអតិថិជន ហើយពេលខ្លះអាចនឹងត្រូវការការបកប្រែដែរ ។ ប៉ុន្តែនិយាយជារួមទៅ បើយើងមើលទៅលើលក្ខណៈទូទៅនៃដំណើរការនៃការដាក់ពាក្យនេះ ហើយនិងអ្វីដែលយើងអាចជួយបានប្រសិនបើចាំបាច់ គឺថាវាត្រូវចាប់ផ្ដើមចេញពីសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិក ហើយនិងមកស្ថានទូតជាចុងក្រោយ ។ ខ្ញុំគិតថាវាអាចនឹងទាមទារពេលប្រហែលជា ៨ ឬ ៩ខែជាមធ្យម សំរាប់ដំណើរការទាំងអស់ដើម្បីទទួលបានទិដ្ឋាការប្រភេទ K-1 ។ វាអាចដំណើរការលឿន ឬយឺតជាងនេះ ។ អ្វីដែលត្រូវចាំពាក់ព័ន្ធនឹងពាក្យសុំទិដ្ឋាការទៅសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិក គឺថាវាដូចជាដុំព្រិលអញ្ចឹង ដុំនីមួយៗមានលក្ខណៈពិសេសខុសៗគ្នា ហើយអ្នកអាចនឹងឃើញថាសំណុំរឿងមួយអាចនឹងដំណើរការយ៉ាងលឿនដោយនឹកស្មានមិនដល់ ។ យើងធ្លាប់រត់ការសំណុំរឿងមួយដែលដំណើរការយ៉ាងលឿន បើប្រៀបធៀបទៅនឹងសំណុំរឿងផ្សេងៗទៀតជាមធ្យម ហើយខ្ញុំគិតថានេះគឺដោយសារតែវាទៅកាន់ចំទីកន្លែង និងពេលវេលាដែលត្រូវជាទីបំផុត ដែលធ្វើអោយវាដំណើរការលឿន ខណៈពេលដែលសំណុំរឿងខ្លះដំណើរការយឺត ។ សំណុំរឿងនីមួយៗមានលក្ខណៈខុសៗគ្នាទៅតាមសំណុំរឿង និងស្ថានភាពផ្សេងៗគ្នា ប៉ុន្តែដូចអ្វីដែលយើងបាននិយាយ ទិដ្ឋាការប្រភេទ K-1 សំរាប់ពលរដ្ឋខ្មែរ គឺត្រូវចាប់ផ្ដើមចេញពីសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិក ហើយវានឹងត្រូវមកបញ្ចប់នៅក្នុងប្រទេសកម្ពុជា ។ បន្ទាប់ពីពលរដ្ឋខ្មែរនោះធ្វើដំណើរទៅកាន់សហរដ្ឋអាមេរិក ហើយរៀបការជាមួយគូដណ្ដឹងដែលមានសញ្ជាតិអាមេរិករបស់គេហើយ ពួកគេអាចដាក់ពាក្យសុំផ្លាស់ប្ដូរស្ថានភាពអន្តោប្រវេសន៍ និងទទួលបានប័ណ្ណ Green Card នៅក្នុងសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិក ។
12th November 2017
Information Regarding the K-1 Fiancee Visa Process For Citizens of Laos
Posted by : admin
Below is a transcript of the video which can be found at the following link: K-1 Visas From Laos
In this video today we are going to be discussing K-1 visas but with the specific context of Laos. As previously mentioned, we’re based here in Bangkok and for those who have checked out this channel before, you can probably surmise that a lot of our activity with respect to, especially Immigration practice surrounds the US Embassy here in Thailand and a lot of our clientele are Thai nationals. But that being said, we do deal with cases that come up with respect to nationalities within this region rather frequently so it’s not uncommon for us to have a case or cases that may or may not end up, or will likely end up at the US Embassy in Vientiane, Laos.
The overall process for those of you who are watching this video and have never really dealt with the K-1 before. The process has got to begin in the United States, you have got to deal with DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, petition needs to be filed for fiancée visa benefits and certain requirements that are inherent to the petition with some exceptions, the couple needs to have met within 2 years of initial filing for K-1 visa benefits, they have to physically have met in person at least once within 2 years of the filing. The other thing to keep in mind with respect to the K-1 visa or the petition thereof is both parties need to be legally free to marry and moreover have to remain that way throughout the process. So, this can kind of be a little bit confusing to folks; you can’t marry each other while you are going for a fiancée vise benefit because it’s specifically is a fiancée visa benefit. So you can’t get legally married to one another. Now having a party to celebrate impending nuptials or something like this, that’s a different story but something to keep clearly in mind with respect to the fiancée visa category.
The thing that’s interesting with respect to Laos is you often will see a little bit of, you’ll see the occasional Laos national living and working in Thailand who will process through the embassy down here in Bangkok because they’re living and working down here in Bangkok and where certain local jurisdictions requirements are met for consular processing here, a Lao national could theoretically process through the US Embassy in Bangkok rather than up in Laos. Depending on the circumstances of the given case, that may or may not be more or less convenient for the applicant in question but that being said, presumptively, consular processing jurisdiction is based on the nationality of the applicant so if they’re a Lao national that happens to live in Thailand, but would prefer to process up in Laos that is certainly acceptable and they can go ahead and do that.
So basically, once the case, let’s presume it gets approved, the petition gets approved by the Department of Homeland Security, the case will move over to the national visa center. The National Visa Center acts as a sort of clearing house, or routing hub if you will, for immigrant visas, or for cases going throughout the world on behalf of the Department of State. It will then go to the Embassy in Vientiane and the Consular Section, the Immigrant Visa section of the Embassy in Vientiane will go ahead and inform the applicant what needs to be undertaken in order to finish up the process to get the visa issued. It should be noted, it’s rather an interesting aspect of the K-1 visa it that it is considered a dual intent travel document and the reason that this is interesting is because, as a dual intent travel document, it’s a non-immigrant visa category, but for practical purposes, for consular processing purposes, it is treated as if it was an immigrant visa category. So that’s something to sort of keep in mind and once the applicant obtains their K-1 visa, they can go to the United States within the window of time for the expiration of the underlying visa, and then once they arrive in the United States they can go ahead and remain in the US lawfully for 90 days but with the sole purpose of marrying their American citizen fiancée and then subsequently adjusting status to lawful permanent resident. There is another video on this channel, which specifically gets into adjustment of status. I recommend those who are interested in that topic, to specifically go to that video to check that out but suffice it to say, once one has adjusted to lawful permanent resident, the Green Card status, that’s effectively sort of the end of the process, in a way. Definitely, I look at is as a kind of conclusion of what was being sought which was bringing ones Lao fiancée into the United States to live permanently with the American citizen counterpart. So to sum up, the thing to keep in mind with respect to how this process works, it starts at the Department of Homeland Security, proceeds to the National Visa center and then finally ends up at the Consular Section of the US Embassy in Vientiane, Laos.
27th May 2017
It has come to this blogger’s attention that the new administration in the USA has promulgated policies which will place more scrutiny upon those who may be applying for visas to the USA in the future. The proposed “extreme vetting” of US visa applications in a Consular Processing context appears to be aimed at narrow subsets of “red flagged” visa applicants. In order to best summarize this policy shift, it is necessary to quote directly from a relatively recent Reuters article:
The final cable seen by Reuters, issued on March 17, leaves in place an instruction to consular chiefs in each diplomatic mission, or post, to convene working groups of law enforcement and intelligence officials to “develop a list of criteria identifying sets of post applicant populations warranting increased scrutiny.” Applicants falling within one of these identified population groups should be considered for higher-level security screening…
The new administration appears keen to narrowly target those applicants which are deemed to be appropriate for “increased scrutiny”. However, a rather recent proposal has been submitted by the U.S. Department of State requesting implementation of the emergency review procedures of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. In short, the DOS is requesting expedited processing of a request to modify the forms associated with applications for US visas. To quote directly from the US government website Regulations.gov:
The Department proposes requesting the following information, if not already included in an application, from a subset of visa applicants worldwide, in order to more rigorously evaluate applicants for terrorism or other national security-related visa ineligibilities:
- Travel history during the last fifteen years, including source of funding for travel;
- Address history during the last fifteen years;
- Employment history during the last fifteen years;
- All passport numbers and country of issuance held by the applicant;
- Names and dates of birth for all siblings;
- Name and dates of birth for all children;
- Names and dates of birth for all current and former spouses, or civil or domestic partners;
- Social media platforms and identifiers, also known as handles, used during the last five years; and
- Phone numbers and email addresses used during the last five years.
Most of this information is already collected on visa applications but for a shorter time period, e.g. five years rather than fifteen years. Requests for names and dates of birth of siblings and, for some applicants, children are new. The request for social media identifiers and associated platforms is new for the Department of State, although it is already collected on a voluntary basis by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for certain individuals.
It is this blogger’s opinion that the long term implications of these policy changes will be broad. However, from reading the aforementioned notice, it appears that, at the present time, DOS personnel will only be seeking more detailed information on certain individual applicants, and not from all applicants seeking visas to the USA. How will the narrow subset of applicants subject to increased scrutiny be determined? To answer that it is necessary to quote further from the Regulations.gov website:
Department of State consular officers at visa-adjudicating posts worldwide will ask the proposed additional questions to resolve an applicant’s identity or to vet for terrorism or other national security related visa ineligibilities when the consular officer determines that the circumstances of a visa applicant, a review of a visa application, or responses in a visa interview indicate a need for greater scrutiny.
Notwithstanding the fact that enhanced scrutiny will apparently only be applied on a case by case basis and only upon those individuals who are deemed to be in need of such scrutiny it seems logical to infer that at some point these additional screening protocols may be applied on a broader basis; if for no other reason than the fact that applying such scrutiny across the board might save time and resources of Consular Officials making cases by case determinations. As it stands, as of the time of this writing, the new protocols add a degree of uncertainty to the visa application process and Consular processing in general as it is difficult to foresee what may be considered a trait which warrants heightened scrutiny. Therefore, planning for such an eventuality is problematic.
As this situation continues to evolve this blog will post further updates.
2nd July 2013
DHS Secretary Issues Statement On Immigration And Same-Sex Marriage
Posted by : admin
It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued a statement regarding the implementation of policies regarding adjudication of immigration petitions for same-sex bi-national married couples. To quote directly from the official website of DHS:
“After last week’s decision by the Supreme Court holding that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional, President Obama directed federal departments to ensure the decision and its implication for federal benefits for same-sex legally married couples are implemented swiftly and smoothly. To that end, effective immediately, I have directed U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to review immigration visa petitions filed on behalf of a same-sex spouse in the same manner as those filed on behalf of an opposite-sex spouse.”
This statement is a significant moment in the long fight for equal immigration rights for same-sex couples. In order to provide further information regarding these developments the DHS has posted some frequently asked questions on the same page as the aforementioned quotation. These FAQ’s are quoted below:
Q1: I am a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident in a same-sex marriage to a foreign national. Can I now sponsor my spouse for a family-based immigrant visa?
A1: Yes, you can file the petition. You may file a Form I-130 (and any applicable accompanying application). Your eligibility to petition for your spouse, and your spouse’s admissibility as an immigrant at the immigration visa application or adjustment of status stage, will be determined according to applicable immigration law and will not be automatically denied as a result of the same-sex nature of your marriage.
Clearly, the United States Citizen or Lawful Permanent Resident same sex spouse of a foreign national can now submit an I-130 petition for Lawful Permanent Residence (also known as “Green Card” status) for their husband or wife. In fact, it would appear that a same-sex couple in Florida was recently granted immigration benefits for the same-sex spouse. This would especially be true in a case where the couple not only was married in State recognizing same-sex marriage, but also resides in that same State or another of the 13 States which recognize such unions. An issue which is, as of yet, not so clearly delineated hinges upon a situation in which a same-sex married couple has married in a State which recognizes same-sex marriage (and performs them), but resides in a State which does not recognize such unions. To shed further light upon this issue it is necessary to quote again from the same DHS webpage, quoted above, regarding this issue:
Q2: My spouse and I were married in a U.S. state that recognizes same-sex marriage, but we live in a state that does not. Can I file an immigrant visa petition for my spouse?
A2: Yes, you can file the petition. In evaluating the petition, as a general matter, USCIS looks to the law of the place where the marriage took place when determining whether it is valid for immigration law purposes. That general rule is subject to some limited exceptions under which federal immigration agencies historically have considered the law of the state of residence in addition to the law of the state of celebration of the marriage. Whether those exceptions apply may depend on individual, fact-specific circumstances. If necessary, we may provide further guidance on this question going forward.
For those wishing to visit the official website of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) to learn more please click HERE.
For those unfamiliar with the recent Supreme Court decision striking down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) it should be pointed out that the Supreme Court’s decision did not impact section 2 of DOMA which reads as follows:
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that there are some who argue that section 2 of DOMA violates the provisions of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, no Court ruling nor Act of Congress has repealed section 2 of DOMA and, in the words of the DHS website itself, in those “fact-specific” situations in which Section 2 of DOMA may be relevant the provisions of Section 2 could prove detrimental to a same-sex bi-national couple. That being said, according to the DHS website, a petition could still be filed and it would be adjudicated accordingly.
One final point to ponder on this issue is the K-1 visa. Under current United States Immigration law it is possible for an American Citizen to apply for a Fiance Visa, also known as the K-1 visa, for a foreign fiance residing abroad, so long as the couple intends to marry in the United States within 90 days of the foreign fiance’s arrival (other regulations apply to K-1 visa holders, but for the purposes of this analysis they are not necessarily relevant). If a same-sex couple, who are not yet legally married, wishes to obtain a K-1 visa based upon their intention to wed in the United States, then it could be inferred from the DHS Secretary’s statement that they might be adjudicated in the same manner as the same petition for a different-sex couple. However, this should not be viewed as a foregone conclusion because the statements quoted above only pertain specifically to couples who are already married. Neither the Court, nor the DHS, have specifically dealt with the question of those same-sex couples who wish to seek a K1 visa based upon an intention to marry in the USA. It could be inferred from the Court’s opinion in United States v. Windsor that those same-sex couples with the intention to marry in a jurisdiction where same-sex unions are recognized should be granted the same treatment as those different-sex couples in similar circumstances; but the issue has yet to be clearly adjudicated and therefore no completely clear answer arises.
Meanwhile, one significant question remains: based upon the above information how will USCIS adjudicate K-1 visa applications for same-sex couples who wish to travel to the United States to marry in a State which recognizes same-sex marriage, but reside in a State which does not? Hopefully the answer to this question will come soon. Until then it would appear that although DHS clearly intends to adjudicate same-sex married couples’ petitions for immigration benefits in the same way as different-sex couples; it remains to be seen how same sex fiances will be treated in the eyes of U.S. Immigration law.
For information on immigrant visas please see: CR-1 Visa or IR-1 Visa.
19th August 2011
It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may be poised to begin placing holds on some deportations. In order to provide further insight it is necessary to quote directly from the website of The Washington Times, WashingtonTimes.com:
The Homeland Security Department said Thursday it will halt deportation proceedings on a case-by-case basis against illegal immigrants who meet certain criteria such as attending school, having family in the military or are primarily responsible for other family members’ care. The move, announced in letters to Congress, won immediate praise from Hispanic activists and Democrats who had chided President Obama for months for the pace of deportations and had argued he had authority to exempt broad swaths of illegal immigrants from deportation…
The administration of this web log strongly encourages readers to click upon the relevant hyperlinks above to read this article in detail.
Although this blogger has been reluctant to support blanket amnesty per se, especially for those who have entered the United States illegally; there are often unique and extenuating circumstances which require adjudication in order to equitably administer American immigration law and regulation pursuant to legislative and executive plenary power. It remains to be seen how this policy will be practically implemented.
In news related to the struggle for LGBT Equality, it recently came to this blogger’s attention that the federal delegation from the sovereign State of New York may be more supportive of DOMA repeal since a Congressional Representative from that State was recently noted for comments on this issue. In an effort to provide further insight it is necessary to quote directly from the website Towleroad.com:
After waiting for New York State to legalize gay marriage, Democratic Rep. Bill Owens now says he supports the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act that prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage. “I indicated I would not become a co-sponsor until New York took action,” said Owens, who represents the Empire State’s 23rd Congressional district. “Once they did that, I felt I had an obligation to the citizens in the state to make sure they weren’t adversely impeded by federal law.” Owens continued, “I think that people should have the freedom to make those kinds of decisions…”
The administration of this web log asks readers to click on the hyperlinks above to read this article in detail.
For those who are unaware of the evolving nature of this issue it should be noted that the provisions of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) preclude federal recognition of same sex marriage. This federal non-recognition is enforced even where one of the sovereign American States has legalized and/or solemnized the underlying same sex marriage. There are some who would argue that this activity violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution while others could argue that such discrimination violates the Equal Protection Clause. In any case, the result in an immigration context is that same sex bi-national couples (even those who have entered into a same sex marriage in a US State) cannot receive the same visa benefits (such as the CR-1 visa, IR-1 visa, or K-1 visa) as their different-sex counterparts. Some federal legislators, such as New York delegation member Representative Jerrold Nadler, have attempted to remedy this problem through introduction of bills such as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA: to address the specific issue of discrimination in an immigration context) and the Respect For Marriage Act (RFMA: a proposal which would accord federal “certainty” to State licensed same sex marriages). However, it remains to be seen whether such legislation will ultimately see passage.
In news related to the aforementioned issues it also came to this blogger’s attention that further “mainstream media” attention is being focused upon the case of the same sex bi-national couple who were married in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, but face the prospect of separation due to the fact that the American government may remove the foreign spouse since their marriage is not recognized pursuant to the provisions of DOMA. In an effort to provide further detail this blogger is compelled to quote directly from the official website of The Washington Post, WashingtonPost.com:
Mr. Makk’s case illustrates the profound injustices meted out by DOMA, which was passed in 1996. The Obama administration this year denounced the Clinton-era law as unconstitutional because it deprives same-sex couples equal protection of the law. In April, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. put on hold the deportation of a British man who has lived in the United States since 1996 but who never obtained a green card or citizenship. The man, Paul Wilson Dorman, has been in a committed same-sex relationship for 15 years and entered into a civil union with his partner, a U.S. citizen, in 2009. Mr. Holder asked an immigration court to determine whether Mr. Dorman should be considered a “spouse” under New Jersey law and thus entitled to stay in the country. Mr. Makk’s deportation should also be put on hold, as should those involving anyone in legally recognized same-sex relationships whose only infraction involves immigration status…
The administration encourages readers to click upon the hyperlinks noted above to read this article in detail as this situation is poignant indeed.
Although this blogger can at times get caught up in the rather academic details of the debate on federal recognition of same sex marriage readers should be aware that this issue has a truly human context since couples like the one noted above could have their personal lives substantially disrupted as a result of federal policy with respect to same sex couples. There is some speculation that this matter may ultimately see resolution in the US Courts, but until such time as a final decision is made on the matter same sex couples and the Greater LGBT community in America are left to hope that their federal legislature will pass legislation akin to the RFMA or the UAFA. Perhaps in the meantime officers in the American immigration system can utilize their statutory authority and plenary powers to provide equitable relief to those who find themselves facing the prospect of being separated from their loved ones due to questionably Constitutional law.
For information pertaining to legal services in Southeast Asia please see: Legal.
15th August 2011
It recently came to this blogger’s attention that a senior American diplomat was recently noted for discussing matters pertaining to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Asia-Pacific region. In order to provide further insight into these developments it is necessary to quote directly from the DAWN website, DAWN.com:
Kurt Campbell, the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, added in an interview with The Australian newspaper that there was more to US-Asia diplomacy than Washington’s relationship with Beijing. “One of the most important challenges for US foreign policy is to effect a transition from the immediate and vexing challenges of the Middle East to the long-term and deeply consequential issues in Asia,” Campbell said. He made clear this did not mean Washington would neglect its responsibilities in the Middle East, but was rather a desire to deepen relations with the Asian region. And while efforts were being made to enhance Washington’s dialogue with China, it was more than just relations with Beijing that were important. “I think what you see is an across-the-board effort (by the US) to articulate India as playing a greater role in Asia,” said Campbell, a key aide to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton…
This blogger asks readers to click on the hyperlinks noted above to read this interesting article in detail.
It was interesting for this blogger to note that there appears to be something of a shift in attitude toward the ASEAN region as Asia in general is viewed as playing an increasingly important role in the global economy. As the Asia-Pacific and ASEAN regions continue to show signs of future growth it stands to reason that countries such as China and India, or any of the so-called BRICS countries for that matter, will become economically more connected to the geographic area. Meanwhile, hopefully American policies in the region will be such that further Asian-American trade and business is generated.
In matters related to American immigration, it recently came to this blogger’s attention that the American Bar Association has recently made resolutions regarding the unlicensed practice of law in an immigration context. In order to provide further details on these developments it is necessary to quote directly from the official website of Law Professor Blogs, LawProfessorBlogs.com:
FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association supports measures to combat the unauthorized practice of immigration law (UPIL) and immigration practitioner fraud.
FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association encourages federal, state, and local governments to adopt laws that:
(a) Create a private right of action for victims of UPIL or immigration practitioner fraud.
(b) Provide criminal penalties for engaging in UPIL or immigration practitioner fraud that would give federal and state authorities the right to investigate and prosecute those engaging in UPIL or immigration practitioner fraud.
FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) to make accommodations for victims of immigration practitioner fraud, including:
(a) Allowing the withdrawal without prejudice of submissions in cases in which a noncitizen can establish that his or her immigration filings were created or submitted by an individual engaged in UPIL or immigration fraud or alternatively, developing a means for submitting corrected filings which will supersede the documents previously filed.
(b) Allowing the U non-immigrant visa to be available for victims of immigration fraud who cooperate with federal, state, or local law enforcement, as well as state bars…
The administration of this web log asks readers to click upon the relevant hyperlinks noted above to read these resolutions in detail.
Clearly the ABA is taking policy stances in an attempt to reverse the trend of unlicensed legal practitioners preying upon an unsuspecting public in immigration matters. As previously noted in the pages of this web log, those seeking advice and counsel regarding US visa matters are well advised to check the credentials of anyone claiming qualification to practice American immigration law as only a licensed American attorney is permitted to accept client fees in order to engage in the practice of American law. Hopefully, policies will be officially promulgated to address the problem of unscrupulous individuals and organizations defrauding the public.
For information related to legal services in Southeast Asia please see: Legal.
10th August 2011
It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the Department of Homeland Security‘s United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) is apparently compelling an Australian man, who is currently a partner in a same sex marriage with an American Citizen, to depart the USA. In order to provide further clarity on this situation it is necessary to quote directly from the official website of the San Fransisco Chronicle, SFGate.com:
Citing the Defense of Marriage Act, the Obama administration denied immigration benefits to a married gay couple from San Francisco and ordered the expulsion of a man who is the primary caregiver to his AIDS-afflicted spouse. Bradford Wells, a U.S. citizen, and Anthony John Makk, a citizen of Australia, were married seven years ago in Massachusetts. They have lived together 19 years, mostly in an apartment in the Castro district. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services denied Makk’s application to be considered for permanent residency as a spouse of an American citizen, citing the 1996 law that denies all federal benefits to same-sex couples. The decision was issued July 26. Immigration Equality, a gay-rights group that is working with the couple, received the notice Friday and made it public Monday. Makk was ordered to depart the United States by Aug. 25. Makk is the sole caregiver for Wells, who has severe health problems…
The administration of this web log encourages interested readers to click upon the relevant hyperlinks noted above to learn further details from this interesting story.
Frequent readers of this web log may recall that the provisions of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) preclude the federal government from recognizing a same sex marriage for purposes of distributing federal benefits. Therefore, same sex bi-national couples cannot acquire the same travel documents and visa benefits (such as the K-1 visa, CR-1 visa, or an IR-1 visa) as a different-sex couple notwithstanding the fact that the couple may be legally married in one of the State jurisdictions which legalize and/or solemnize such unions. It should be noted that legislation such as Representative Jerrold Nadler‘s Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) or the Respect for Marriage Act would rectify this situation to one degree or another. As of the time of this writing it remains to be seen whether this legislation will ultimately see enactment.
Meanwhile, in news of further interest to those who follow immigration matters; it recently came to this blogger’s attention that DHS has issued an announcement regarding a nationwide program to be administered by the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service (USICE, sometimes colloquially referred to as ICE). To provide further insight it is necessary to quote directly from the official website of the Washington Times, WashingtonTimes.com:
The District could be forced to participate in an immigration-enforcement program now that the federal government has issued a letter to states that voided their participation agreements and emphasized the program’s mandatory nature. The Department of Homeland Security sent the letter last week to governors of 39 states, including Maryland and Virginia, after three states expressed interest in opting out of their contracts with the federal Secure Communities program. The program allows U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to access fingerprints collected by state and local law enforcement and shared with the FBI. It was started in 2008 and has helped ICE identify and deport more than 86,000 convicted criminal aliens. “This is to avoid any further confusion,” ICE spokeswoman Nicole Navas said Monday. “We’ve made it clear. There’s no opting out.” DHS voided the agreements to clarify that they essentially served no purpose, and that states are required to remain in the program. Federal officials no longer will seek agreement with newly enrolled states and jurisdictions, and will simply notify them when they plan to implement the program…
This blogger asks readers to click upon the relevant hyperlinks noted above to read this article in detail.
Matters pertaining to immigration can be difficult to understand especially in the context of the United States Constitution since many of the immigration-related powers of the American Legislature and Executive are plenary in nature. How such powers interact with States’ Rights can be difficult to ascertain as the legal principles involved can be quite subtle. In any case, the ultimate resolution of this issue remains to be seen. Hopefully, a solution will present itself which will prove amenable for all concerned.
For information related to United States immigration from Thailand please see: Legal.
12th July 2011
It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the often venerated alternative media outlet ZeroHedge.com has posted an analysis of issues pertaining to a proposed change to the forms used by those seeking a US Passport. To provide further insight it is necessary to quote directly from the Zero Hedge website, ZeroHedge.com
In the US, the government now requires all citizens to have a passport in order to pass the border, even when driving into Mexico or Canada. Obtaining a passport, however, is neither free nor guaranteed. You must apply, pay an ever-increasing fee, and wait for weeks to be approved and receive it. Recently, the State Department quietly proposed a new ‘biographical questionnaire’ in lieu of the traditional passport application. The new form requires you to provide things like:
- names, birth places, and birth dates of your extended family members
– your mother’s place of employment at the time of your birth
– whether or not your mother received pre-natal or post natal care
– the address of your mother’s physician and dates of appointments
– the address of every place you have ever lived in your entire life
– the name and address of every school you have ever attendedMost people would find it impossible to provide such information, yet the form requires that the responses ‘are true and correct’ under penalty of imprisonment. Naturally, the privacy statement on the application also acknowledges that the responses can be shared with other departments in the government, including Homeland Security. If this proposal passes, then US citizens will have a nearly insurmountable hurdle to obtain a passport and be able to leave the country at will…
The administration of this blog asks readers to click upon the relevant hyperlinks noted prior to this excerpt. Also, it is advisable to click upon the hyperlinks contained within this quotation in order to understand this situation in context.
Each year, many Americans traveling abroad, or those Americans resident abroad, renew their passport at an American Citizen Services section of a US Embassy or US Consulate abroad. It has always been this blogger’s opinion that personnel of the Department of State who handle such matters do so in an efficient and courteous manner. Meanwhile, many United States Citizens opt to seek passport renewal in the USA. This blogger has undertaken both endeavors and in each case the officers involved processed the request quickly and with little difficulty. Although it remains to be seen how the proposed questionnaire would actually impact the processing of passport issuance requests one can hope that the process will not become overly cumbersome.
In news pertaining to the struggle for LGBT Equality, it recently came to this blogger’s attention that a woman in the sovereign State of New York is challenging the legal status and Constitutionality of the provisions of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA). In order to provide the reader with some relevant insight it is necessary to quote directly from an article by Mark Hamblett for the New York Law Journal posted on Law.com:
Challengers to the federal Defense of Marriage Act insist that every justification offered by Congress for defining marriage exclusively as between a man and a woman is contrary to logic and the law. In summary judgment papers filed in the Southern District of New York, lawyers for Edith Schlain Windsor argue that there is no good reason for treating her marriage to the late Thea Clara Spyer any differently than a heterosexual union. Read Ms. Windsor’s motion and memorandum. Ms. Windsor’s lawyers call the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) a radical measure and a clear violation of the right to equal protection of the laws under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. “DOMA is a sweeping statute that rewrites over one thousand federal laws and overturns the federal government’s long-standing practice of deferring to state determinations of marital status,” the lawyers claim in a memorandum asking Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV for summary judgment in the case of Windsor v. United States, 10-cv-8435. “Throughout history, the federal government has never married people, leaving that to the states…”
This blogger asks readers to click upon the hyperlinks noted above to read about this case in detail.
Those unfamiliar with the current predicament of the LGBT community should note that in immigration matters same sex bi-national couples, even those who have entered into a same sex marriage in one of the sovereign American States which legalize and/or solemnize such unions, are unable to petition for the same immigration benefits as their different-sex counterparts. In order to attempt to remedy this particular discrepancy Representative Jerrold Nadler recently introduced legislation such as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). The Respect for Marriage Act was also introduced by Representative Nadler in order to remedy the issue of “certainty” in such cases. As of the time of this writing, neither of these bills has seen enactment although there has been recent news that the Senate Judiciary Committee may be holding hearings pertaining to the Respect for Marriage Act soon. On a related note, the Reuniting Families Act, which apparently includes UAFA-like language, was lately introduced by Representative Mike Honda although passage of this legislation remains to be seen.
There is certainly an “equal protection” component to any argument against DOMA, but relatively few commentators seem to take note of the fact that the way DOMA is currently enforced may also violate notions of States’ Rights. Generally, matters pertaining to the prerogatives of the Several States are debated by the United States Congress before enactment of legislation which maintains interstate compliance with the provisions of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. In this case, Congress has arguably abrogated the notion of Full Faith and Credit inherent in the provisions of the Full Faith and Credit Clause since section 3 of DOMA effectively renders the prerogatives of the sovereign States ineffective when it comes to the issue of same sex marriage.
The issues associated with DOMA have yet to be fully resolved, but it seems likely that these matters may remain contentious both inside the Courtrooms of America and elsewhere.
9th June 2011
DOJ, DHS และ FTC รวมตัวกันเพื่อที่จะเผชิญกับ “การฉ้อฉลในการเข้าเมือง”
Posted by : admin
เมื่อเร็วๆนี้สิ่งที่น่าสนใจสำหรับผู้เขียนคือกระทรวงยุติธรรมของสหรัฐอเมริกา โดยความร่วมมือกับกระทรวงความมั่นคงแห่งมาตุภูมิและคณะกรรมการการค้าส่วนกลาง(FTC) มีมาตรการในการต่อสู้กับการฉ้อฉลที่เกี่ยวกับบริการการเข้าเมืองสำหรับผู้ที่ประสงค์จะเดินทางมาสหรัฐอเมริกา อ้างโดยตรงจากประกาศที่เผยแพร่ในเว็บไซต์กระทรวงยุติธรรมของสหรัฐอเมริกา Justice.gov
ตัวแทนส่วนกลางที่เผชิญกับการฉ้อฉลการเข้าเมือง DHS, DOJ และ FTC ซึ่งเกี่ยวข้องกับส่วนของรัฐและท้องถิ่นในความพยายามที่ไม่อาจคาดการณ์ได้
วอชิงตัน- รัฐบาลสหรัฐอเมริกาเปิดเผยข้อมูลเกี่ยวกับปฏิบัติการแห่งชาติที่จะต่อสู้กับการบริการการเข้าเมืองในวันที่ 9 มิถุนายน เวลาบ่ายโมงตรง กระทรวงความมั่นคงแห่งมาตุภูมิ (DHS)และกระทรวงยุติธรรม (DOJ) และคณะกรรมการการค้าส่วนกลาง (FTC)เป็นแกนนำในความพยายามครั้งประวัติศาสตร์
หน่วยบริการพลเมืองสหรัฐอเมริกาและการเข้าเมือง(USCIS)ของกระทรวงความมั่นคงแห่งมาตุภูมิ (DHS) แกนนำตัวแทนมีหน้าที่รับผิดชอบในการควบคุมระบบกฎหมายคนเข้าเมืองสหรัฐอเมริกาซึ่งจะมีการเริ่มต้นประกาศในขณะที่มีการจัดนิทรรศฏารในเจ็ดเมืองทั่วประเทศเช่นเดียวกับที่มีการจัดที่วอชิงตันดี.ซี.
การดำเนินการที่ไม่ได้รับอนุญาตเกี่ยวกับกฎหมายคนเข้าเมืองเป็นเรื่องที่อันตรายต่อระบบความเชื่อถือของการเข้าเมืองและผู้ที่ตกเป็นเหยื่อของกลุ่มคนเข้าเมือง เพื่อความเข้าใจในพฤติกรรมที่หลอกลวง ส่วนกลาง รัฐ และส่วนท้องถิ่นมีส่วนร่วมกันในการที่จะเผชิญกับการบริการการเข้าเมืองในทุกๆทาง การเริ่มต้นได้วางมาตรรการสามอย่างดังนี้ การบังคับ การศึกษาและความร่วมมือ แต่ละฝ่ายต่างมีบทบาทสำคัญในการที่จะทำให้ความพยายามของชาติบรรลุเป้าหมาย การเป็นตัวอย่างในการเริ่มต้นของรัฐบาลและชุมชนสามารถที่จะจัดการกับปัญหาร้ายแรงร่วมกันได้อย่างมีประสิทธิภาพ
ผู้เขียนบทความนี้แนะนำให้ผู้อ่านหาข้อมุลเพิ่มเติมโดยการคลิกที่ลิงค์ด้านบนเพื่อศึกษาเกี่ยวกับการประกาศเริ่มต้นของกระทรวงยุติธรรม
เป็นเรื่องที่ไม่ดีที่มีหลายๆองค์กรได้ทำลายชื่อเสียงของตนเองในเขตอำนาจนั้นๆ เช่น การรวมกลุ่มของสมาคมเอเชียตะวันออกเฉียงใต้ (ASEAN) และในท้องถิ่นอื่นๆทั่วโลกที่จำเป็นต้องมีคุณสมบัติที่สำคัญที่จะให้คำแนะนำ คำปรึกษา และความช่วยเหลือในเรื่องวีซ่าสหรัฐอเมริกาและการเข้าเมือง
กระบวนการเกี่ยวกับวีซ่าสหรัฐอเมริกานั้นเป็นกระบวนการที่อาจสร้างความสับสนให้แก่กฎหมายและกระบวนการเข้าเมือง ผู้ที่กำลังมองหาทนายความอเมริกันในการที่จะช่วยดำเนินการเรื่องวีซ่าเช่น ซีอาร์-วัน, วีซ่าไออาร์-วัน,วีซ่าเค-วัน,วีซ่าอีบี-ไฟว์ หรือวีซ่าแอล-วัน (ชื่อแสดงถึงประเภทของวีซ่า) เพื่อที่จะให้มีความน่าเชื่อถือในการเลือกประเภทที่เหมาะสมกับสถานการณ์ต่างๆ สิ่งที่จะแนะนำเพิ่มเติมเกี่ยวกับทนายความที่ได้รับอนุญาตเท่านั้นจะมีสิทธิที่จะได้รับค่าธรรมเนียมในการที่จะปฏิบัติตามกฎหมายคนเข้าเมืองสหรัฐอเมริกาตาม 8 CFR 292.1
โดยทั่วไปแล้ว ก่อนที่จะดำเนินการขอวีซ่าภายใต้กระบวนการกงสุลที่หน่วยการปฏิบัติภารกิจในต่างแดน (สถานทูตสหรัฐอเมริกา, สถานกงสุลสหรัฐอเมริกา,สถาบันอเมริกัน) หน่วยงานเหล่านั้นต้องได้รับการอนุมัติคำขอจากหน่วยบริการพลเมืองสหรัฐอเมริกาและคนเข้าเมือง (USCIS)
To view this posting in English please see: US Visa Thailand.
6th June 2011
DOJ, DHS, and FTC Collaborating To Combat “Immigration Scams”
Posted by : admin
It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the Department of Justice, in association with the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), is taking measures to combat scams involving immigration services for those wishing to travel to the USA . To quote directly from a recent announcement posted upon the official website of the Department of Justice, Justice.gov:
Federal Agencies Combat Immigration Services Scams
DHS, DOJ and FTC Collaborate with State and Local Partners in Unprecedented EffortWASHINGTON—The U.S. government will unveil a national initiative to combat immigration services scams on June 9 at 1 p.m. The Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are leading this historic effort.
DHS’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the lead agency responsible for administering the U.S. legal immigration system, will announce the initiative while hosting events in seven cities around the country as well as the national launch in Washington, D.C.The unauthorized practice of immigration law is an exploitative practice that endangers the integrity of our immigration system and victimizes members of the immigrant community. Understanding the gravity of this deceptive practice, federal, state and local partners have come together to combat immigration services scams on all fronts. The initiative is set upon three pillars: enforcement, education, and continued collaboration. Each agency plays a critical role to ensure the success of this national effort. This initiative exemplifies how government and community can work together to effectively address a serious problem…
The administration of this web log encourages readers to click upon the relevant hyperlinks noted above to learn more about the Justice Department’s recently announced initiative.
Unfortunately, there are many less-than-reputable organizations in jurisdictions such as those which comprise the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and other locales around the world falsely purporting to have the necessary qualifications to provide advice, counsel, and assistance pertaining to United States visas and immigration.
Processing a United States visa can be a cumbersome and overwhelming process for those unfamiliar with relevant immigration law and procedure. Those thinking about retaining an American lawyer to assist in the acquisition of visas such as the CR-1 visa, IR-1 visa, K-1 visa, EB-5 visa, or L-1 visa (to name just a few visa categories) are encouraged to ascertain the credentials of those claiming knowledge of such matters. This is encouraged because only properly licensed attorneys are permitted to accept fees to engage in the practice of U.S. immigration law pursuant to 8 CFR 292.1.
In general, before a visa applicant can undergo Consular Processing at US Mission abroad (US Embassy, US Consulate, American Institute, etc) they must first receive an approved petition from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS).
For related information please see: US Visa Thailand or Legal.
Pages
Archives
- June 2023
- April 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- March 2015
- January 2015
- November 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- October 2012
- September 2012
- April 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- October 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
Categories
- Adjustment of Status (51)
- American Business (27)
- American Institute Taiwan (33)
- arrest warrant (2)
- ASEAN Business (84)
- ASEAN Visa (22)
- Australian Migration (1)
- Brazil Business (2)
- Cambodia Business (26)
- China Business (51)
- Comprehensive Immigration Reform (16)
- CR1 Visa (147)
- Department of Homeland Security (99)
- Transportation Security Administration (TSA) (10)
- USCBP (39)
- USICE (23)
- E1 visa (13)
- E2 Visa (17)
- EB-1 Visa (7)
- EB-2 Visa (7)
- EB-3 Visa (7)
- EB-4 Visa (7)
- EB5 Visa (34)
- Ecommerce (6)
- Editorial (24)
- Election 2012 (6)
- F1 Visa Thailand (25)
- Fiance Visa Thailand (178)
- Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) (3)
- Gaming Law (7)
- General Legal Information (115)
- I-601 Waiver (24)
- India Business (7)
- Indonesia Business (6)
- IR1 Visa (114)
- J1 visa (15)
- J1 Visa Thailand (29)
- K-3 Visa Thailand (160)
- K1 Visa (195)
- K2 Visa (104)
- K1 Visa Thailand (212)
- K2 Visa Thailand (77)
- K3 Visa (158)
- L1 Visa (36)
- Laos Business (22)
- Legal News (19)
- Thailand Legal News (12)
- Legal Opinion (107)
- Legal Process Outsourcing (5)
- lgbt immigration (97)
- same sex visa (95)
- Malaysia Business (14)
- Miscellaneous (107)
- Myanmar (Burma) Business (19)
- National Visa Center (47)
- News (86)
- Online Gaming (7)
- Opinion (29)
- prenuptial agreement (3)
- Russia Business (6)
- South Africa Business (3)
- T Visa (1)
- Thai Family Law (24)
- Thailand Business (158)
- Thailand company (35)
- Amity Treaty (20)
- Thailand Condo (11)
- Thailand Customs (1)
- Thailand Embassy (20)
- Thailand Marriage Registration (22)
- Thailand Notary (3)
- Thailand Property (39)
- Thailand Real Estate (39)
- Thailand Visa (153)
- Thailand Work Permit (16)
- Upcoming Legislation (61)
- US Business (27)
- US Company Registration (13)
- US LLC (9)
- US Citizenship (27)
- US Constitution (22)
- States' Rights (16)
- US Consulate HCMC (70)
- US Emassy Mongolia (10)
- US Embassy Afghanistan (4)
- US Embassy Kabul (4)
- US Embassy Australia (35)
- us embassy bangkok (178)
- US Embassy Bangladesh (51)
- US Embassy Dhaka (51)
- US Embassy Brunei Darussalam (10)
- US Embassy Burma (90)
- US Embassy Myanmar (86)
- US Embassy Rangoon (84)
- US Embassy Yangon (84)
- US Embassy Cambodia (85)
- US Embassy China (64)
- US Consulate ChengDu (52)
- US Consulate Guangzhou (53)
- US Consulate Hong Kong (28)
- US Consulate Macau (28)
- US Consulate Shanghai (53)
- US Consulate Shenyang (53)
- US Consulate Wuhan (52)
- US Embassy Beijing (51)
- US Embassy Fiji (39)
- US Embassy Kiribati (38)
- US Embassy Nauru (38)
- US Embassy Suva (38)
- US Embassy Tonga (38)
- US Embassy Tuvalu (37)
- US Embassy India (81)
- US Consulate Chennai (49)
- US Consulate Hyderabad (48)
- US Consulate Kolkata (48)
- US Consulate Mumbai (47)
- US Embassy New Dehli (71)
- US Embassy Indonesia (72)
- US Embassy Jakarta (71)
- US Embassy Iraq (23)
- US Embassy Japan (52)
- US Embassy Kyrgyz Republic (Kyrgyzstan) (9)
- US Embassy Laos (51)
- US Embassy Malaysia (74)
- US Embassy Maldives (44)
- US Embassy Mauritius (33)
- US Embassy Mongolia (33)
- US Embassy Nepal (71)
- US Embassy Kathmandu (69)
- US Embassy New Zealand (35)
- US Embassy Pakistan (28)
- US Embassy Islamabad (27)
- US Embassy Papua New Guinea (42)
- US Embassy Philippines (45)
- US Embassy Manila (44)
- US Embassy Russia (13)
- US Embassy Singapore (69)
- US Embassy South Korea (44)
- US Embassy Sri Lanka (45)
- US Embassy Tokyo (49)
- US Embassy Turkmenistan (8)
- US Embassy Uzbekistan (8)
- US Embassy Vietnam (78)
- US Consulate HCMC (1)
- US Embassy Hanoi (75)
- US State Department (64)
- US Mission ASEAN (9)
- US Taxes (7)
- US Tourist Visa (69)
- US Visa (97)
- US Visa and Immigration (414)
- US Embassy Thailand (187)
- US Consulate Chiang Mai (120)
- US Embassy Thailand (187)
- US Visa Thailand (299)
- US Warrants (20)
- Extradition (13)
- USCIS (184)
- Vietnam Business (11)
- Visa Waiver (39)
- Weird Law (8)
- ข่าวกฎหมาย (1)
- ข่าวในพม่า (2)
- ธุรกิจในนพม่า (2)
- ตลาดหลักทรัพย์กัมพูชา (1)
- ธุรกิจกัมพูชา (1)
- ธุรกิจในกัมพูชา (1)
- ธุรกิจในประเทศจีน (6)
- ธุรกิจในประเทศลาว (2)
- ธุรกิจในอาเซียน (1)
- ธูรกิจในประเทศไทย (6)
- บริการทางกฎหมายจีน (2)
- บริษัทอเมริกัน (5)
- ธุรกิจในอเมริกา (2)
- ภาษีอเมริกัน (1)
- วีซ่าคู่เพศเดียวกัน (3)
- วีซ่าไทย (1)
- โนตารี (1)
- ้วีซ่าอเมริกาจากประเทศไทย (59)
-
RSS Feeds
The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely on advertisement. Before you decide, ask us to send you free written information about our qualifications and experience. The information presented on this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship.