
Integrity Legal
- Legal Blog
- Integrity Legal Home
- Thai Visa
- Company in Thailand
- Real Estate Thailand
- US Visa
- Contact Us
Posts Tagged ‘DHS’
5th April 2010
ICE “Deputization” Program Investigated By DHS Inspector General
Posted by : admin
The Office the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security is responsible for making investigations into the activities of the agencies under the jurisdiction of the Department. This can be a difficult, and likely thankless, task as the Department of Homeland Security is a very large organization. The United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service (USICE) has a mandate to enforce US Immigration and Customs regulations. That being said, a recent report distributed by the American Immigration Lawyers Association discusses a recent investigation conducted by the Inspector General’s office into the activities of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the relationship between ICE and local law enforcement agencies:
“Today the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General issued a comprehensive report confirming civil rights abuses in a federal program that “deputizes” state and local law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration law. The Inspector General tells of local officers arresting individuals who have committed no offense – including even victims – for the sole purpose of identifying whether they have lawful immigration status.”
Although security and safety are important issues and it is necessary to take measures to ensure that America is safe and secure, there are many who argue that this security cannot come at the cost of American liberties and the ideals upon which America was founded. The report went further:
“Under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, state and local law enforcement agencies, acting under federal supervision, may assume federal immigration enforcement powers. This delegation of immigration enforcement power must be executed through formal written Memoranda of Agreement between the federal government and the local authority. The memoranda require state and local officers to abide by federal civil rights laws. The Inspector General found widespread lack of adequate training, guidance, monitoring or oversight. ‘The federal government has failed in its duty to train and supervise local officers. This program has turned local police into agents of fear within law-abiding communities,’ said Wolfsdorf. ‘Immigration lawyers hear reports everyday that immigrants are afraid to talk to the police and to report crimes. Through this program the federal government is undermining the ability of local authorities to ensure all Americans’ safety and security.’ The report also noted that Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) failed to provide accurate information about the program to Congress and the public.”
It is interesting to note that Department of Homeland Security personnel investigated this issue and made these issues public. The Office of the Inspector General should receive some accolades for assisting in bringing these issues to light.
For specific information about US Immigration from Thailand Please See: American Visa Thailand.
29th March 2010
DHS Secretary Discusses Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Posted by : admin
In recent weeks we have discussed the possibility that Comprehensive Immigration Reform may be in the offing. However, legislation of this magnitude is unlikely to be passed quickly. With that in mind, many different organizations have chimed in with their opinion about Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
Recently, Secretary Napolitano of the Department of Homeland Security conducted a USCIS stakeholders meeting and discussed Comprehensive Immigration Reform. The following is contained in a readout from a press release promulgated by USCIS and distributed by AILA:
“Secretary Napolitano stressed that the broken immigration system is a problem that has been ignored too long, and said today’s meeting was another important step forward in this administration’s efforts to work with our colleagues in Congress and representatives from law enforcement, business, labor, the faith community, advocacy groups and others to fix our current laws. She welcomed the input of the participants and emphasized the importance of continued collaboration between the Department and immigration stakeholders.”
The press release went on to note that support for Comprehensive Immigration reform comes from both parties as most lawmakers feel that change is needed. The Secretary noted her admiration for the spirit of cooperation exhibited by legislators:
“In today’s meeting, Secretary Napolitano commended the bipartisan proposal set forth by Senators Chuck Schumer and Lindsey Graham, which reflects the administration’s commitment to effective enforcement; addresses the need for improved legal flows for families and workers; and offers a firm but fair path to citizenship for those who are already in the United States.”
President Obama has made statements in support of Immigration reform and the Secretary voiced her willingness to work with the President and lawmakers as solutions to the immigration problems are sought:
“Secretary Napolitano looks forward to continued work with President Obama, Senators Schumer and Graham and other Congressional partners, as well as stakeholders across the country as she continues to do everything she can to build a successful new immigration system.”
This author is intrigued to see that the there seems to be increasing support for some form of immigration reform. Although the outcome of any legislative initiative remains to be seen, there are some interest groups, particularly those supporting LGBT immigration rights, who hope to see dramatic changes to the United States Immigration system.
Hammering out a bill to address the major flaws in the current system will not be easy and there are some who believe that no immigration reform will be passed until after the mid-term congressional elections.
8th March 2010
Department of Homeland Security: Interim Rule Regarding Practitioners
Posted by : admin
Recently the Department of Homeland Security issued a notice that the rules regarding attorney representation would be amended in order to fall in line with the relevant Department of Justice regulations. To quote a the summary in the Federal Register which is displayed on the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) website:
“The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is amending its regulations governing representation and appearances by, and professional conduct of, practitioners in immigration practice before its components to: Conform the grounds of discipline and procedures regulations with those promulgated by the Department of Justice (DOJ); clarify who is authorized to represent applicants and petitioners in cases before DHS; remove duplicative rules, procedures, and authority; improve the clarity and uniformity of the existing regulations; make technical and procedural changes; and conform terminology. This rule enhances the integrity of the immigration adjudication process by updating and clarifying the regulation of professional conduct of immigration practitioners who practice before DHS.”
As has been discussed on this blog before, the issue of attorney representation is of great importance due to the fact that there are many disreputable organizations calling themselves such things as “visa company,” “visa agency,” or, “visa consultant” and other unscrupulous operators who go so far as to claim attorney credentials when they are, in fact, unlicensed to practice law in the United States and therefore unable to practice US Immigration law. To quote the Federal Register again:
“Definition of attorney. This rule amends the definition of “attorney” at 8 CFR 1.1(f), to conform with DOJ’s definition at 8 CFR 1001.1(f), by adding the requirement that an attorney must be eligible to practice law in the bar of any State, possession, territory, or Commonwealth of the United States, or of the District of Columbia, in addition to the other requirements for attorneys set forth in that regulation. State bar rules uniformly require licensed attorneys to maintain an active status in order to practice law; however, there has been some confusion as to the applicability of that requirement in determining eligibility to appear as a representative before DHS.”
It is interesting that this addition was made as it imposes an more stringent burden upon practitioners as anyone practicing before the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or its agencies, like the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), the United States Customs and Border Protection Service (CBP), and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service (ICE) must be eligible to practice in virtually every American jurisdiction. It should be noted that eligibility is the only new requirement added as DHS does not require that practitioners be licensed to practice in all US jurisdictions.
It should also be pointed out that attorneys are not the only individuals who can represent clients before DHS. In fact, if an individual is accredited by the Board of Immigration Appeals, then they may represent individuals in certain DHS proceedings. However, such agents are usually non-profit organizations as non-attorney representatives are NOT entitled to charge anything except nominal fees.
For related information please see US Lawyer Thailand or US Visa Thailand.
2nd March 2010
Department of Homeland Security Given a “Progress Report”
Posted by : admin
Recently, the Immigration Policy Center issued a so-called progress report for the Department of Homeland Security. For regular readers of this blog it may be recalled that the Department of Homeland Security has jurisdiction over the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), the Customs and Border Protection Service (CBP) as well as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). To quote the Immigration policy center blog:
“The month of March marks the seventh anniversary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its immigration agencies. It also marks the end of a sweeping internal review ordered by Secretary Janet Napolitano, a review which as not been made public. In order to assess the first year of immigration policy under the Obama Administration, the Immigration Policy Center releases the following Special Report which compare DHS’s actions with the recommendations (Transition Blueprint) made to the Obama Transition Team’s immigration-policy group. How does DHS stack up? The following IPC report finds a department caught between the competing priorities of old broken policy and new reforms. While DHS has failed to meet key expectations in some areas, it has engaged thoughtfully and strategically in others, and has made some fundamental changes in how it conducts its immigration business.”
The report itself is quite long and provides detailed information about ways in which USCIS and DHS can improve their organization. One of the most interesting recommendations calls for a concerted plan for integrated immigrants into the tapestry of American life. To quote the report directly:
“The Administration should create a national integration strategy, establish a National Office on Immigrant Integration, and gather data on the impact of government policies on immigrants, and coordinate agency decisions that affect them.”
This report went further and advocated for certain changes in the way that USCIS handles adjudications of applications and petitions for Immigration benefits:
“USCIS must clearly articulate the principles it uses to evaluate and adjudicate individual cases, and must address the complaints of recent years that too many people are denied benefits, or subjected to repeated requests for additional evidence, because adjudicators are looking for reasons to deny rather than grant benefits. Fee waivers and discretionary waivers should be applied more broadly, particularly where individuals in proceedings have immediate family members who are U.S. citizens.”
Although this author does not necessarily agree wholeheartedly with all of the assertions in this progress report, there is no doubt that there is room for improvement in any organization and the Department of Homeland Security is no different. That being said, it is a tremendous task to ascertain where resources are most needed and allocate them accordingly. Therefore, we applaud the Department’s efforts at improve the system while encouraging DHS to continue to strive for greater efficiency tempered with a respect for the due process rights of all concerned.
For more information on this and other topics related to American Immigration please see: US Visa Thailand or K1 Visa Thailand.
14th January 2010
Department of Homeland Security Suspends Removals to Haiti
Posted by : admin
Virtually all American news media outlets are reporting on the devastation and destruction brought on by the Earthquake in Haiti. We at Integrity Legal would like to take this opportunity to extend our heartfelt sympathies to all of those who have been adversely impacted by this tragedy. For those of Haitian descent or nationality currently living in the United States, the Earthquake has also had an impact upon Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy. In a recent press release, the Deputy United States Press Secretary Matt Chandler made the following statement:
“Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Assistant Secretary John Morton today halted all removals to Haiti for the time being in response to the devastation caused by yesterday’s earthquake. ICE continues to closely monitor the situation.”
We at Integrity Legal would like to let the United States Department of Homeland Security as well as Secretary Napolitano know that we appreciate their compassion in this matter as the situation places that agency in a difficult position.
When an alien in the United States is removed, they are generally sent back to their country of origin. In the case of Haitians they are sent back to Haiti, but sending a deportee back to Haiti under the current circumstance would, at the very least, be considered by most to be a rather callous initiative. By suspending removals, DHS has shown that they can respond to a difficult situation in a decisive and compassionate manner.
Removal from the United States can occur as a result of deportation proceedings in United States Immigration Court or expedited removal can occur at a United States port of entry after the finding by a Customs and Border Protection Officer that the prospective entrant should be removed from the United States.
Depending upon the method of removal, the alien will be inadmissible to the United States for a statutorily prescribed period of time. However, there may be a remedy to the issue of inadmissibility either through use of an I-601 waiver or an I-212 application for advance permission to reenter the United States. Those who have previously been removed from the US may face even stiffer penalties for trying to reenter after removal if they do not seek a waiver or advance permission to reenter.
For those who have been previously removed from the United States and wish to seek reentry, it would probably be wise to contact a licensed US Immigration lawyer in order to obtain advice about how best to proceed in attempting to obtain US Immigration benefits.
30th December 2009
Blogger Questions Role of Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
Posted by : admin
This author recently came across another blog post in which the blog’s author was discussing the role of the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA). The TSA is an agency under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security tasked with providing security to the aviation sector. The following is a direct quote from the Transportation Safety Administration website regarding the Administration’s mission and tactics:
“We use layers of security to ensure the security of the traveling public and the Nation’s transportation system. Because of their visibility to the public, we are most associated with the airport checkpoints that our Transportation Security Officers operate. These checkpoints, however, constitute only one security layer of the many in place to protect aviation. Others include intelligence gathering and analysis, checking passenger manifests against watch lists, random canine team searches at airports, federal air marshals, federal flight deck officers and more security measures both visible and invisible to the public. Each one of these layers alone is capable of stopping a terrorist attack. In combination their security value is multiplied, creating a much stronger, formidable system. A terrorist who has to overcome multiple security layers in order to carry out an attack is more likely to be pre-empted, deterred, or to fail during the attempt.”
Most Americans agree that security is a major issue and should be dealt with in a serious and professional manner. However some argue that the TSA is not effectively dealing with terrorism and security issues plaguing the United States. To quote the aforementioned blog post:
“The TSA isn’t saving lives. We, the passengers, are saving our own. Since its inception, the TSA has been structured in such a way as to prevent specific terror scenarios, attempting to disrupt a handful of insanely specific tactics, while continuing to disenfranchise and demoralize the citizens who are actually doing the work that a billion-dollar government agency—an agency that received an additional $128 million just this year for new checkpoint explosive screening technology—has failed to do.”
There is little doubt that no government agency can foresee and forestall any and all terror plots, but the effectiveness of the TSA brings up many questions regarding the efficient use of taxpayer funds in prosecuting the “War on Terror.” In many ways, these fundamental questions must continually be asked, if for no other reason than, to provide an opportunity for Americans Citizens and policymakers to periodically reassess the anti-terrorism measures being undertaken by the US government. The debate over the TSA is only just beginning, but hopefully a communal discourse on these issues will provide benefits to all Americans in the form of a safer and more efficient aviation environment.
For more on traveling to the USA, please see US Visa Thailand.
19th December 2009
Embassy Fees May be Raised for Non-Immigrant Visas: K1 and K3 as well?
Posted by : admin
The United States Department of State wishes to amend the current rule regarding the fees to be charged to applicants for non-immigrant visas overseas. The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) has recently released information regarding the proposed rule change. Below is a direct quote from this announcement:
“This rule amends the Schedule of Fees for Consular Services (Schedule) for nonimmigrant visa application and border crossing card processing fees. The rule raises from $131 to $140 the fee charged for the processing of an application for most non-petition-based nonimmigrant visas…The Department of State is adjusting the fees to ensure that sufficient resources are available to meet the costs of providing consular services in light of an independent cost of service study’s findings that the U.S. Government is not fully covering its costs for the processing of these visas under the current cost structure.”
Although it is fairly self evident that this proposed rule change will affect non-immigrant visa categories such as the J1 visa, the F1 visa, the B1 visa, and the B2 visa (commonly referred to as the US Tourist Visa) there is some question as to whether or not this rule change will have an impact upon those seeking a K1 visa or a K3 visa. As can be read in the above quotation, the rule should only impact “non-petition based non-immigrant visas…” As K1 visa applications and K3 visa applications are both based upon an underlying visa petition made to USCIS this proposed rule begs the question: how will it impact K visa applicants?
The K1 visa and the K3 visa are non-immigrant dual intent visas. They are non-immigrant in that they do not allow the visa holder to remain in the United States indefinitely upon entry, but they allow for the bearer to apply for adjustment of status at a later date (provided certain prerequisites are met; in the case of the K1, marriage to the original petitioner).
This author believes that is is likely that the final rule will include a provisions raising the fees for the K visas as well as the other non-immigrant visa categories. Immigrant visa fees are in a separate category and for those filing a petition in the USA, these fess are paid directly to the National Visa Center (NVC). Many people are under the mistaken impression that in family visa cases the fees paid initially to USCIS are all-inclusive. This is not the case as the US Embassies and US Consulates are under the jurisdiction of DOS while USCIS is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) therefore, processing fees must be made to each agency at different stages.
30th August 2009
DHS Promulgates New Rules Regarding the Search of Media Devices
Posted by : admin
The United States Department of Homeland Security recently announced rule changes that will effect those traveling to the United States of America. Under the new rules, clearer lines have been drawn with regard to searches of media devices belonging to those entering the USA. To quote an official press release from the US Department of Homeland Security:
“The new directives address the circumstances under which U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can conduct border searches of electronic media—consistent with the Department’s Constitutional authority to search other sensitive non-electronic materials, such as briefcases, backpacks and notebooks, at U.S. borders.”
These new rules will have an important impact upon those Americans residing in Thailand who return to the United States of America on a regular basis. These rule changes are even more important for the fiance or spouse of a US citizen traveling to the United States on a K1 or K3 visa. In many cases, the Thai fiancee or spouse has a less than perfect grasp of the English language and therefore cannot adequately communicate with the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) Officers. Therefore, it may be wise for the American citizen loved one to research the situation in order to explain to the Thai entrant the possible issues that may arise at the port of entry into the United States.
One interesting aspect of this rule change deals with the right of the person being searched to be present while the search takes place:
Searches of electronic devices should be conducted in the presence of the individual whose information is being examined unless there are national security, law enforcement, or other operational considerations that make it inappropriate to permit the individual to remain present. Permitting an individual to be present in the room during a search does not necessarily mean that the individual will be permitted to witness the search itself. If permitting an individual to witness the search itself could reveal law enforcement techniques or potentially compromise other operational considerations, the individual will not be permitted to observe the search itself.
It is important to note that the United States government has a great deal of unfettered search authority because they consider someone who has not actually been admitted into the US to be outside of the jurisdictions of the US constitution. Therefore, since the constitution does not apply, then normal rules restricting unlawful search and seizure do not apply. This can have a major impact upon an alien seeking entry to the USA, because they will not be accorded the same legal protections as they would after having been admitted.
30th June 2009
US Visa Waiver & ESTA: Electronic System for Travel Authorization
Posted by : admin
There are some countries whose nationals have the right to travel to the United States of America without first obtaining a visa. The US Visa Waiver Program (VWP) was designed to allow certain foreign nationals visa-free travel to the United States. The visa waiver program should not be confused with an I-601 waiver of the grounds of inadmissibility.
Since September 11, 2001 the the Department of Homeland Security, United States Customs Department, United State Immigration and Citizenship Service (USCIS), the Transportation Safety Authority, and other United States Federal agencies have been formulating ways to better maintain security with regard to international travel. It was determined that the Visa Waiver program might be used by possibly hostile parties as a method for entering the United States in order to conduct harmful activity. As a result of this policy decision, the US authorities have attempted to implement a precreening process for thse entering the United States via the Waiver Program. This process is known by its acronym: ESTA.
The Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) was made operational under Section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended by Section 711 of the “Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007,” Pub. L. No. 110-53. The Act compelled the Department of Homeland Security to institute a systematic method to verify the fitness of travelers to the USA and make sure such travelers pose no imminent threat to American safety.
The ESTA is a no-cost, fully computerized program used to ascertain the qualifications of those traveling to the United States of America through the use of the American Visa Waiver Program. The Electronic System for Travel Authorization gathers similar information as that required on Form I-94W. An ESTA application can be tendered at any point before traveling to the United States of America. That being said, the United States Customs and Immigration Service (USCIS) and the Department of Homeland Security advise that travelers submit an ESTA application when they begin setting a travel itinerary.
As of January 12, 2009, those who are citizens of any country that participates in the Visa Waiver Program must obtain travel approval from ESTA before they will be allowed to enter the USA under VWP.
Some people are under the misconception that ESTA is a visa. An ESTA approval is not a visa. Instead it is a prescreening for entry into the United States visa free.
For those who have trouble with the English language, the website has been translated into Czech, Danish, Dutch, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Hungarian, Icelandic, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Latvian, Lithuanian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish, and Swedish.
(Please note: this is intended for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney/client relationship is created between author and reader).
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.