Integrity Legal

ผู้เขียนพบปัญหามากมายจากการที่คนเข้าเมืองติดต่อกับตัวแทนหรือผู้เชี่ยวชาญด้านการบริการคนเข้าเมืองสหรัฐอเริกาที่ไม่ได้รับอนุญาต กฎหมายอเมริกันและกฎเกณฑ์ของรัฐบาลกลางนั้นระบุชัดเจนว่า ผู้ที่จะได้รับอนุญาตในการให้บริการทางกฎหมายก่อนที่จะมาถึงขั้นตอนของการบริการพลเมืองอเมริกันและการเข้าเมือง (USCIS) หรือตัวแทนอื่นที่อยู่ภายใต้การควบคุมของกระทรวงความมั่นคงแห่งมาตุภูมิ (DHS) ผู้ที่จะให้คำปรึกษาเกี่ยวกับการเข้าเมืองสหรัฐอเมริกาคือ ทนายความที่ได้รับอนุญาตจากสหรัฐอเมริกาเท่านั้น นอกจากนี้ทนายความเหล่านั้นที่จะมีสิทธิเก็บค่าธรรมเนียมในฐานะเป็นตัวแทนของลูกความก่อนที่จะถึงขั้นตอนของDHS เช่น USCISต้องเป็นทนายความที่ได้รับอนุญาตจากศาลสูงสุดของที่ใดที่หนึ่งคือ สหรัฐอเมริกา สหพันธรัฐ หรือเขตชายแดน

เป็นที่น่าเสียดายที่มีองค์กรที่ไม่ได้รับอนุญาตอยู่ทั่วโลกที่อ้างว่าสามารถให้คำแนะนำและให้ความช่วยเหลือในเรื่องการเข้าเมืองของอเมริกัน อินเตอร์เน็ตเป็นเครื่องมือที่ดียิ่งที่จะค้นหาข้อมูลการเข้าเมืองสหรัฐอเมริกา ในขณะเดียวกันอินเตอร์เน็ตก็เป็นแหล่งของปฏิบัติการที่มีการอ้างว่า เป็นผู้เชี่ยวชาญทางกฎหมายโดยปราศจากการอบรมหรือใบอนุญาตใดๆ คุณควรที่จะหลีกเลี่ยงการให้ข้อมูลและสิทธิส่วนบุคคลเนื่องจากคุณอาจจะไม่ได้รับการคุ้มครองทางกฎหมายระหว่างทนายความอเมริกันและลูกความ

ผู้ที่ไม่ได้รับการฝึกอบรมทางกฎหมายหรือไม่มีใบอนุญาตใดๆที่จะให้บริการทางกฎหมายในเขตที่ให้อำนาจหรือในเรื่องที่เกี่ยวข้องไม่สามารถให้คำปรึกษาได้อย่างมีประสิทธิภาพหรือให้ความมั่นใจในการช่วยเหลือ เรื่องนี้เป็นเรื่องที่สำคัญในการเตรียมข้อมูลก่อนที่จะนำไปสู่ขั้นตอนของการบริการคนเข้าเมือง ตัวแทน สถานทูตสหรัฐอเมริกา หรือสถานกงสุลสหรัฐอเมริกาในต่างประเทศ ตามที่ได้กล่าวไปข้างต้นแล้วนั้น ลูกความที่ใช้บริการทางกฎหมายที่ไม่ได้รับอนุญาตโดยที่ผู้ให้บริการเห็นแก่ประโยชน์ส่วนตนมากกว่านั้นย่อมตกอยู่ในความเสี่ยง

เมื่อเปรียบเทียบราคาของการบริการทางกฎหมายนั้นเป็นเรื่องสำคัญที่จะต้องทำความเข้าใจกับบทบาทของการได้รับอนุญาตในขณะที่ตัดสินใจจะรับคำปรึกษา การให้บริการทางกฎหมายที่ได้รับอนุญาตด้วยราคาที่สมเหตุสมผลที่ได้รับอนุญาตนั้นย่อมไม่ก่อให้เกิดปัญหาแก่ลูกความ โดยทั่วไปแล้ว ผู้ที่อ้างว่ามีความเชี่ยวชาญจะดำเนินการเพื่อความมั่งคั่งของธุรกิจ เมื่อเปรียบเทียบกับการให้บริการทางกฎหมายของทนายความอเมริกันแล้ว กฎหมายอเมริกันนั้นไม่ให้ผู้ที่ไม่ได้รับอนุญาตให้คำปรึกษาเกี่ยวกับการเข้าเมือง กล่าวโดยย่อแล้ว ไม่มีใครที่จะสามารถเปรียบเทียบการให้บริการทางกฎหมายที่ผิดกฎหมาย เพราะการให้บริการที่ผิดกฎหมายนั้นไม่สามารถจะให้บริการได้เลย แม้จะด้วยราคาเท่าใดก็ตาม

หากท่านต้องการข้อมูลเพิ่มเติม กรุณาปรึกษาK1 วีซ่า ข้อมูลเพิ่มเติมเกี่ยวกับ การเข้าเมืองของสหรัฐอเมริกาในภูมิภาคเอเชียตะวันออกเฉียงใต้ โปรดดูรายละเอียดที่ USCIS

Tags: Department of Homeland Security, DHS, K1 Visa, K1 วีซ่า, US Visa, USA Visa, USCIS, ทนายความอเมริกันในประเทศไทย, วีซ่าประเภท CR1, วีซ่าประเภท IR1, วีซ่าประเภท K3, วีซ่าอเมริกา, วีซ่าอเมริกาสำหรับคนไทย, ้วีซ่าอเมริกาจากประเทศไทย
Posted in สถานทูตสหรัฐอเมริกาประจำประเทศไทย, ้วีซ่าอเมริกาจากประเทศไทย | 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 »

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 »

The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as the name suggests, is tasked with, among other things, monitoring US internal and external security mainly from the perspective of Immigration. One component agency of the Department of Homeland Security is the US Customs and Border Protection Service (USCBP). This agency is tasked with securing US Ports of Entry by monitoring those entering the USA in order to counter possible terrorist threats to the American people. In a recently promulgated press release, the Department of Homeland Security announced that new cooperative measures have been initiated in concert with the French Republic. The following is an excerpt from the aforementioned press release:

Washington, D.C. – Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano today announced that the United States and France have established an arrangement to implement the Immigration Advisory Program (IAP)–which allows for the identification of high-risk travelers at foreign airports before they board aircraft bound for the United States–at Paris’ Charles De Gaulle International Airport. “Terrorism is a global threat that requires an international response,” said Secretary Napolitano. “This collaboration will enhance both the United States’ and France’s capabilities to protect our immigration systems as well as the global aviation network from abuse by terrorists and transnational criminals.” IAP allows specialized U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) personnel posted in foreign airports to utilize current targeting and passenger analysis information and/or an assessment of passengers’ documentation to identify high-risk persons bound for the United States and make “no board” recommendations to carriers and host governments. The arrangement–formalized over the weekend by DHS Assistant Secretary for Policy David Heyman and French Minister of Immigration, Integration, National Identity and Mutually-Supportive Development Eric Besson–will help combat the use of fraudulent travel documents, prevent terrorists and other criminals from entering the United States, disrupt human smuggling and strengthen cooperation between CBP and French officials. A formal signing of the IAP arrangement will follow in August.

Advocates for The International Advisory Program (IAP) seem to hope that the program will streamline the process by which government personnel identify possible threats in the form of criminals entering the USA. Of particular interest is that the program seems focused upon deterring and suppressing the use of false travel documents. It would also appear that new initiatives will be undertaken to decrease human trafficking to the USA. This has become an ever-increasing concern among immigration officials as more foreign nationals attempt to enter the USA illegally through use of organizations that attempt to “smuggle” them through US ports. This author applauds the efforts of officials in both the USA and France as they attempt to better ensure the safety of international travelers.

For information regarding US Immigration from Thailand please see: US Visa Thailand or K1 Visa Thailand.

Tags: CBP, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, DHS, Fake Passport, False Travel Documents, Human Trafficking, IAP, Immigration Advisory Program, US Immigration, US Immigration Thailand, US-French Relations, USCBP, USCIS, USDHS
Posted in Department of Homeland Security, USCBP | No Comments »

In a recent statement, the Director of the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC), Timothy J. Healy, discussed the overall methodology of the Center and how it has had a positive impact upon anti-terrorism initiatives of both the United States and the global community. The following in an excerpt from the statement, which has been distributed by AILA:

Established in 2003, the TSC is a multi-agency center that connects the law enforcement communities with the Intelligence Community by consolidating information about known and suspected terrorists into a single Terrorist Screening Database, which is commonly referred to as the “Terrorist Watchlist.” The TSC facilitates terrorist screening operations, helps coordinate the law enforcement responses to terrorist encounters developed during the screening process, and captures intelligence information resulting from screening.

Of paramount significance is the TSC’s success in making this critical information accessible to the people who need it most – the law enforcement officers who patrol our streets, the Customs and Border Protection Officers who protect our borders, and our other domestic or foreign partners who conduct terrorist screening every day. In the six years since we began operations, the Terrorist Watchlist has become the world’s most comprehensive and widely shared database of terrorist identities. The current terrorist watchlisting and screening enterprise is an excellent example of interagency information sharing whose success is due to the superb collaborative efforts between the TSC, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) and other members of the Intelligence Community.

It is interesting to note the international character of this initiative. In a previous posting on this blog the author noted that Thai Immigration authorities have begun linking their database to international and American information databases in order to more accurately investigate individuals who may be a threat to security.

On a related note, it should be mentioned that due to the new synergy that has arisen as a result of international cross referencing of criminal record databases those Americans living or staying in a foreign country could have significant problems if they have an American warrant as having a US Criminal warrant could result is passport confiscation by a Consular Officer at an American Citizen Services section of a US Consulate overseas. This usually happens when Americans with such warrants need to obtain a new passport or add pages to their current passport. In order to forestall these types of problems, it is advisable to speak to an American attorney in order to assess one’s options with regard to dealing with the matter in the legally prescribed manner.

For further information about Thai Immigration, please see: Thailand Visa.

Tags: AILA, American Citizen Services, criminal warrant, DHS, FBI, New Passport, passport, Terrorist Screening Center, Terrorsit Watchlist, TSC, US Consulate, warrant
Posted in Department of Homeland Security, General Legal Information, Legal Opinion, Thailand Visa, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, US Warrants, USCBP, USCIS, USICE | No Comments »

For related information in English please see: Request for Evidence.

ในกระทู้คราวก่อน เราได้พูดถึงคำขอวีซ่าเบื้องต้นสำหรับคนรักต่างชาติของบุคคลสัญชาติอเมริกัน ในกระทู้นี้เราจะพูดถึงสิ่งที่ต้องทำในกรณีที่คุณได้รับแบบขอหลักฐานเพิ่มเติมจาก USCIS หลังจากที่ USCIS ได้รับคำขอของบุคคลสัญชาติอเมริกัน ก็จะส่งหนังสือแจ้งที่เรียกว่า Notice of Action 1 หรือ NOA 1 ให้ สำหรับคำขอวีซ่าที่ประสบความสำเร็จก็จะมีการส่ง Notice of Action 1 ตามด้วย Notice of Action 2 หรือหนังสือแจ้งการอนุมัติ อย่างไรก็ตาม ยังคงมีกรณีที่ USCIS เรียกเอกสารเพิ่มเติม ในกรณีที่เรียกหลักฐานเพิ่มเติม (RFE ) ส่วนใหญ่มักเกิดมาจากการที่เอกสารที่ยื่นไปนั้นใช้ไม่ได้ ซึ่งเป็นเหตุผลที่ว่าทำไมต้องยื่นเอกสารที่มีความชัดเจนในการยื่นคำขอวีซ่าต่อ USCIS

เพื่อแก้ปัญหาการได้รับแบบเรียกหลักฐานเพิ่ม คู่รักหลายๆคู่เลือกใช้บริการทนายความด้านกฎหมายคนเข้าเมืองเพื่อช่วยยื่นคำขอวีซ่าให้ ทนายความที่มีประสบการณ์สามารถทำนายได้ว่าเจ้าหน้าที่คาดหวังจะดูเอกสารอะไรในการที่จะพิจารณาคำขอให้ อย่างไรก็ตามการจ้างทนายไม่ได้การันตีว่าคุณจะไม่ได้รับแบบเรียกขอหลักฐานเพิ่ม แต่ถ้าคุณได้รับแบบดังกล่าว ทนายความก็สามารถดำเนินการแทนคุณได้อย่างมีประสิทธิภาพ

แบบเรียกขอหลักฐานเพิ่มจะบอกว่าเอกสารอะไรที่ขาดไปหรือใช้ไม่ได้ หลังจากที่ได้ระบุตัวเอกสารแล้ว เจ้าหน้าที่จะพิจารณาว่าคุณจะแก้ปัญหานั้นได้อย่างไรและจะมีกำหนดยื่นเอกสารภายในระยะเวลาเท่าไรโดยการส่งคำขอเอกสารเพิ่มเติมให้แก่คุณ

อนึ่ง RFE ก็คล้ายๆกับแบบปฏิเสธวีซ่า 221 (g) จากสถานทูตสหรัฐ สาเหตุที่มันเหมือนกันก็เพราะว่าผู้ขอวีซ่าต้องยื่นเอกสารที่ถูกร้องขอก่อนที่จะมีการอนุมัติให้ดำเนินการใดๆต่อไปได้ ความต่างก็คือ เจ้าหน้าที่ที่ออกแบบคำขอ ในขณะที่ แบบ 221g นั้นออกโดยเจ้าหน้าที่สถานทูตแต่ แบบขอหลักฐานเพิ่มเติมออกโดยเจ้าหน้าที่กระทรวงความมั่นคง ในกรณีทั้งสองเอกสารที่ถูกร้องขอเพิ่มเป็นไปเพื่อประกอบการพิจารณาเพื่อให้มั่นใจว่าผู้รับผลประโยชน์ในคำขอวีซ่าสมควรได้รับสิทธิประโยชน์จริง

ในกรณีคำขอวีซ่า K1 เจ้าหน้าที่มักเรียกหลักฐานที่แสดงความสัมพันธ์ที่แท้จริงหรือสถานภาพของฝ่ายใดฝ่ายหนึ่ง ในกรณีคำขอวีซ่า K3 หรือ CR1 เจ้าหน้าที่มักขอหลักฐานยืนยันสถานภาพสมรสของคู่รักหรือสถานภาพของบุคคลก่อนการสมรสจะมีขึ้น

Tags: 221 (g), 221g, CR1, Department of Homeland Security, DHS, K1, K3, NOA1, Notice of Action 1, Request For Evidence, RFE, US Immigration, US Immigration Application, US Immigration PEtition, US Visa, US Visa Application, US Visa Petition, USCIS
Posted in CR1 Visa, Fiance Visa Thailand, IR1 Visa, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS, สถานทูตสหรัฐอเมริกาประจำประเทศไทย, ้วีซ่าอเมริกาจากประเทศไทย | No Comments »