Integrity Legal

Those who read this blog with any frequency may have taken note of the fact that the administration routinely posts the estimated processing times of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) for the various relevant visa categories. To quote directly from the official website of USCIS:

Those researching American family based visas such as the K-1 visa and the IR-1 visa are asked to note that the estimated processing times noted above do not include the processing time for the National Visa Center (NVC) and the consular processing times for each US Embassy or US Consulate abroad.

For related information please see: US Visa Thailand.

Tags: advance parole, CR-1 Visa, CR-1 Visa Process, EB-5 Visa, Employment Authorization Document, IR-1 Visa Process, K-1 Visa, K-1 Visa Process, K-3 Visa, K-3 visa process, L-1 visa, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, USCIS, USCIS Processing Time, USCIS Processing Times
Posted in USCIS | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) has recently updated some of the information with regard to that agency’s official fact sheet pertaining to I-864 affidavits of support. To quote directly from the official website of USCIS:

In determining inadmissibility, USCIS defines “public charge”as an individual who is likely to become “primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance, or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.” See “Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds,” 64 FR 28689 (May 26, 1999). In determining whether an alien meets this definition for public charge inadmissibility, a number of factors are considered, including age, health, family status, assets, resources, financial status, education, and skills. No single factor, other than the lack of an affidavit of support, if required, will determine whether an individual is a public charge.

Those reading this blog are encouraged to click on the hyperlinks above to read more and gain insight into the issues associated with the I-864 affidavit of support.

It should be noted that the issues associated with the I-864 affidavit of support are significant and should not be overlooked by those seeking immigration benefits. Furthermore, the issues associated with the I-864 affidavit of support pertain not only to USCIS in the United States, but also impact the Consular processing phase of U.S. Immigration process for those who are seeking United States immigrant visas, such as the IR-1 visa and the CR-1 visa, abroad. Meanwhile, seekers of visas such as the K-1 visa (for fiancees of US Citizens) must submit a similar document to a US Embassy or US Consulate abroad in the form of an I-134 affidavit of support. Bearing this in mind, the reader should take note of the fact that the issues surrounding the I-864 affidavit of support are likely to come to the forefront for K-1 visa holders when they eventually apply for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence.

There was an interesting notation on the aforementioned website:

Note: In general, lawful permanent residents who currently possess a “green card” cannot be denied U.S. citizenship for lawfully receiving any public benefits for which they are eligible.

The reader is encouraged to bear in mind the fact that the above quotation is speaking in generalities, but the issue of naturalization in the context of the affidavit of support may be of interest to Americans thinking about bringing a loved one to the USA. The reason that Americans may find the issue of naturalization interesting when discussing family immigration stems from the fact that upon a foreign spouse’s naturalization to US Citizenship, the encumbrances placed upon the American Citizen within the provisions of the affidavit of support are extinguished as upon becoming a United States Citizen a previous foreign national becomes eligible in their own right for government benefits (where applicable). Therefore, the previous sponsor(s) are no long liable to the United States government should the newly-naturalized citizen take government benefits.

For related information please see: Certificate of Citizenship or Child Citizenship Act.

Tags: Adjustment of Status, American Citizenship, American Fiance Visa, American Marriage Visa, Certificate of Citizenship, Child Citizenship Act, CR-1 Visa, I-134, I-134 affidavit of support, I-864, I-864 affidavit of support, Inadmissibility, IR-1 Visa, K-1 Visa, Naturalization, Naturalized US Citizen, Public Charge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, US Citizenship, US Fiance Visa, US Marriage Visa, US Visa, USCIS
Posted in US Visa and Immigration, USCIS | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) has issued a new memorandum regarding the revocation of United States Passports by the United States Department of State. In order to better shed light upon this issue it may be best to quote directly from the interim USCIS memorandum itself:

DOS has authority to issue and revoke passports. Specifically, 22 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) 211a authorizes the Secretary of State and his or her designee (the U.S. Passport Office of the Bureau of Consular Affairs) to grant, issue, and verify passports. Through Executive Order No. 11295, 31 Fed. Reg. 10603, the President designated and empowered the Secretary of State with the authority to designate and prescribe the rules governing the granting, issuing, and verifying of passports.
DOS revokes passports in accordance with Title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) sections 51.60-62, and 51.65. There are also several statutes under which passports may be revoked and that are incorporated into DOS’s regulations, including: 8 U.S.C. 1504 (the passport was illegally, fraudulently or erroneously obtained); 42 U.S.C. 652(k) (for non-payment of child support); 22 U.S.C. 2714 (for certain drug traffickers); 22 U.S.C. 2671(d)(3) (non-repayment of repatriation loan); and 22 U.S.C. 212a (adds authority to revoke passports of persons convicted of sex tourism). The regulations also require DOS to send written notification of the revocation of a passport to the bearer. See 22 CFR 51.65(a).

Clearly, as can be ascertained from the above citation, the Department of State is authorized to issue and revoke United States Passports. This can be of acute concern to those abroad with an outstanding warrant in the United States as Department of State officials routinely rescind passports upon finding that an American Citizen has a pending criminal warrant, fugitive warrant, or even a warrant in connection to domestic matters such as failure to pay American child support. Once a passport is revoked, an American may be issued a travel letter for the specific purpose of returning to the United States of America. For those unfamiliar with so-called travel letters it may be best to quote directly from the Foreign Affairs Manual:

Posts should issue travel letters only in rare or unusual circumstances described in this Appendix, where it is impossible to issue a passport. These circumstances include: (1) Law enforcement related travel letters in situations other than extradition. Such travel letters must be expressly authorized by CA/PPT/L/LA, which works with the U.S. law enforcement authority on matters related to revocation of the passport of the subject of an outstanding federal warrant. (See 7 FAM 1380 Passport Denial, Revocation, Restriction, Limitation and Surrender.)

Clearly, the Department of State only issues travel letters under rare circumstances, but US Passport revocation and travel letter issuance can occur especially in the context of Federal warrants. That said, the authority reserved to the Department of State regarding passport issuance and revocation would appear not to extend to the Department of Homeland Security‘s USCIS. To quote further from the USCIS memo cited above:

USCIS lacks the authority to revoke or confiscate a U.S. Passport. If reasons to doubt the validity of a passport come to the attention of USCIS, USCIS will not seize the passport, instruct the bearer to return the passport to DOS, or otherwise notify the bearer that there may be issues with the passport…In recent months, USCIS employees have on occasion informed customers that their U.S. Passports were invalid and should be surrendered to DOS. Upon review of certain cases, DOS determined that the passports were, in fact, valid and recognized in accordance with DOS policies and statutes. DOS has requested that USCIS direct any concerns regarding the validity of passports to DOS and not to the bearer of the passport.

It would seem from the quotation above as though the Department of State is in the best position to make a decision regarding the validity of a US Passport as such matters are within that Department’s bailiwick. As noted in the the US visa process, some matters pertaining to travel and immigration are bifurcated between the USCIS and the Department of State. Based upon the above memorandum and the Foreign Affairs Manual it would appear that Passport issues remain almost entirely within the Department of State’s mandate.

For related information please see: Arrest Warrant or Federal Warrant.

Tags: American warrant, arrest warrant, Bench Warrant, criminal warrant, Department of Homeland Security, Department of State, Department of State Passport, Federal Warrant, Foreign Affairs Manual, Fugitive Warrant, Fugitive Warrant Thailand, Passport Revocation, Travel Letter, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, US Fugitive Warrant, us passport, US Travel Letter, US warrant, USCIS, warrant
Posted in USCIS | No Comments »

สิ่งที่กำลังได้รับความสนใจในขณะนี้คือ กระทรวงความมั่นคงแห่งมาตุภูมิ (DHS) ได้ให้คำแนะนำแก่หน่วยบริการการเข้าเมืองและพลเมืองอเมริกัน (USCIS) ในการที่จะจัดการกับการชะลอการเนรเทศคู่ของคนเพศเดียวกันที่เป็นพลเมืองอเมริกันและเป็นผู้มีถิ่นฐานถาวรซึ่งมีการประกาศเมื่อ 2 วันที่ผ่านมา อ้างโดยตรงจากบทความที่เขียนในเว็บ Advocate.com ซึ่งเกี่ยวกับ การไม่ชะลอเรื่องของการเข้าเมืองของคู่เกย์

เช้าวันพุธ เลขาธิการ USCIS คริสโตเฟอร์ เอส.เบนท์ลีย์กล่าวว่า ตัวแทนได้รับคำแนะนำทางกฎหมายให้ยกเรื่องการชะลอที่เผยแพร่เมื่อวันจันทร์ที่ผ่านมา คำแนะนำนี้เป็นไปในรูปแบบของลายลักษณ์อักษรจากสำนักงานอัยการที่กระทรวงความมั่นคงแห่งมาตุภูมิ (USCISเป็นส่วนหนึ่งของ DHS)

.ผู้ที่สนใจสามารถศึกษาข้อมูลเพิ่มเติมได้จากลิงค์ที่อ้างถึงด้านบน

เป็นที่ปรากฎอย่างชัดเจนว่า เจ้าหน้าที่ของหน่วยบริการการเข้าเมืองและพลเมืองสหรัฐอเมริกา (USCIS) ด้วยความพยายามที่จะหาหนทางที่จะช่วยเหลือกลุ่มเพศที่สามในสหรัฐอเมริกากับคู่เพศเดียวกันสองสัญชาติผู้ที่อยู่ในกระบวนการเข้าเมืองนี้ เนื่องจากเป็นการปกป้องการแต่งงานของเพศเดียวกัน คำถามของผู้เขียนคือ เพราะเหตุใดจะมีทางแก้ปัญหาเรื่องของรัฐได้ เป็นสิ่งที่ชัดเจนว่า วิธีที่จะแก้ปัญหาในประเด็นนี้ ศาลสูงสุดสหรัฐอเมริกา แต่ดูเหมือนว่า ฝ่ายบริหารจะแก้ปัญหาในประเด็นนี้ผ่านทางกฎระเบียบภายในและแนวทางปฏิบัติของฝ่ายบริหาร แต่สิ่งนี้ไม่ใช่วิธีทางกฎหมาย และไม่เป็นไปตามกฎหมายที่กระทบต่อการเปลี่ยนแปลงของสถานการณ์ต่างๆเช่นที่จะกระทบต่อกลุ่มเพศที่สาม ตามทัศนะของผู้เขียน แม้คำตัดสินศาลสูงสุดของสหรัฐอเมริกาในประเด็นการรับรองของส่วนกลางให้เป็นไปตามกฎหมายและบังคับใช้ในแต่ละรัฐมีแนวโน้มที่จะส่งผลให้เป็นหนทางในการอนุญาตให้คู่เพศเดียวกันได้รับสิทธิประโยลชน์ทางการเข้าเมืองเช่นเดียวกับสิทธิคู่ต่างเพศสองสัญชาติ

การประกาศจาก USCIS ในวันจันทร์เกี่ยวกับ “การชะลอ” การเนรเทศของคู่เพศเดียวกันของพลเมืองอเมริกันและผู้มีถิ่นฐานถาวร เนื่องจากการบรรเทาแก่ชาวอเมริกันผู้ที่เกี่ยวข้องกับการเนรเทศตามพระราชบัญญัติ “การคุ้มครองการแต่งงาน” (DOMA) เนื่องจากคู่เพศเดียวกันสองสัญชาตินั้นเป็นไปตามกฎหมายที่การแต่งงานของคนเพศเดียวกันมีผลใน 6 รัฐ (รวมทั้งแคลิฟอร์เนีย)ซึ่งอนุญาตให้มีการแต่งงานของคู่เพศเดียวกัน สิ่งหนึ่งที่มีการรับรองจากส่วนกลางของการแต่งงานเพศเดียวกันภายใต้เขตอำนาจของรัฐที่มีอำนาจซึ่งเป็นการปฏิบัติตามรัฐธรรมนูญเรียกว่า “พระราชบัญญัติการคุ้มครองการแต่งงาน” (DOMA)ซค่งมีการร่างในสมัยของประธานาธิบดีวิลเลียม เจฟเฟอร์สัน คลินตัน

เมื่อไม่นานมานี้ ในบันทึกจากสำนักงานอัยการ (อีริค โฮลเดอร์)ถึงโฆษกสภาผู้แทนราษฎร ความว่า ฝ่ายบริหารของประธานาธิบดีเห็นว่า คู่เพศเดียวกันควรจะได้รับสิทธิในการตรวจสอบที่เข้มงวดจากศาลสูงสุดสหรัฐอเมริกาและฝ่ายบริหารไม่ได้ดำเนินการต่อพระราชบัญญัติ DOMA ต่อคู่เพศที่สาม บทความนี้บอกว่า อาจจะไม่เป็นการให้สิทธิประโยชน์ของการเข้าเมืองเนื่องจากมีการพลาดไม่มี “ข้อโต้แย้ง” ก่อนที่ศาลสูงสุดสหรัฐอเมริกาจะนำไปสู่สถานการณ์ที่มีประเด็นทางกฎหมายที่ซับซ้อนที่ไม่ได้ตัดสินโดยศาลสูงสุดของสหรัฐอเมริกาและยังคงเป็นเรื่องที่ถูกลืมในประเด็นที่ไม่มีความหนักแน่น ประกาศของกระทรวงความมั่นคงแห่งมาตุภูมิ เพิ่มเติมว่า จนกระทั่งบทบัญญัติในพระราชบัญญัติ DOMA ซึ่งจะมีการรับรองส่วนกลางในการแต่งงานของเพศเดียวกันเป็นจุดพลิกผันของการแต่งงานของกลุ่มเพศที่สาม (อย่างน้อยที่สุดในมุมมองของผู้มีอำนาจทางกฎหมาย)

ประเด็นหนึ่งที่กล่าวอ้างข้างบนเป็นที่น่าสนใจของบทความนี้ ข้อความต่อไปนี้อ้างโดยตรงจากบทความที่กล่างมาแล้วก่อนหน้านี้

เบนท์ลีย์ปฏิเสธที่จะเผยแพร่เอกสารใดๆที่เป็นลายลักษณ์อักษรในเวลานี้ อาจกล่าวได้ว่า เป็นการสื่อสารที่ได้รับสิทธิประโยชน์ เขาเน้นว่า นโยบายอย่างเป็นทางการใน DHS ไม่มีวันเปลี่ยนแปลง

ด้วยสิทธิประโยชน์ รัฐบาลสหรัฐอเมริกา ในแบบของกระทรวงความมั่นคงแห่งมาตุภูมิให้สิทธิพิเศษ (หลักการที่สำคัญที่ขะสงวนสำหรับบุคคลโดยธรรมชาติในการติดต่อกับหน่วยงานในสหรัฐอเมริกา) ในการที่จะเก็บบันทึกไว้เป็นความลับ ทำไมต้องเป็นความลับ ทำไมเรื่องที่เกี่ยวกับสิทธิประโยชน์ของกลุ่มเพศที่สามจึงไม่มีการบังคับใช้ให้เป็นธรรมและอาจจะมีการวางฐานะของกลุ่มเพศที่สามน้อยเมื่อเปรียบเทียบกับฐานะของพวกเขาก่อนที่จะมีบันทึกถึงโฆษกสภา ดังนั้นกระทรวงความมั่นคงแห่งมาตุภูมิได้อ้างถึงสิทธิประโยชน์ในการสื่อสารกับหน่วยบริการคนเข้าเมืองและพลเมืองอเมริกัน (USCIS) ตัวแทนอเมริกันภายใต้เขตอำนาจของ DHS เป็นเรื่องแปลกหรือไม่ที่รัฐบาลสหรัฐอเมริกาอ้างถึงนโยบายระหว่างตัวแทนที่จะรักษาสสิทธิของอเมริกันและครอบครัวอเมริกัน ตามความเห็นของผู้เขียนว่า เจ้าหน้าที่รัฐของสหรัฐอเมริกาทำหน้าที่รับใช้ประชาชนและดังนั้นต้องการที่จะสร้างความโปร่งใสในนโยบายโดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่งนโยบายที่มีผลกระทบในวงกว้างต่อพลเมืองและครอบครัวของสหรัฐอเมริกา

โดยปรากฏอย่างชัดแจ้ง การโจมตีความเท่าเทียมกันของสิทธิการเข้าเมืองของกลุ่มเพศที่สามยังไม่ได้รับชัยชนะ แต่สำหรับผู้ที่สนใจในประโนนี้อาจเป็นการรณรงค์ที่แสดงให้เห็นถึงการเยียวยาของคู่เพศเดียวกันภายใต้กฎหมายสหรัฐอเมริกา บทความนี้จคอยคัดเลือกประเด็นที่สำคัญและน่าสนใจ

อีกวอธีการหนึ่งที่จะได้รับสิทธิที่เท่าเทียมกันของคู่เพศเดียวกันสองสัญชาติผ่านทางการร่างกฎหมายเช่นพระราชบัญญัติการรวมกลุ่มของครอบครัวอเมริกัน (UAFA)ซึ่งได้ให้สิทธิแก่คู่เพศเดียวกันสองสัญชาติในการขอวีซ่าคนเข้าเมืองสำหรับ “คู่ถาวร”ของเขา” ดังนั้น เป็นการหลีกเลี่ยงข้อกำหนด DOMA การร่างกฎหมายของส่วนกลางเช่นผู้แทนเจอร์รัลด์ แนดเลอร์เสนอร่างกฎหมายอีกครั้งด้วยความพยายามที่จะหาวิธีที่จะบรรเทาสิทธิประโยชน์การแต่งงานของคู่เพศเดียวกันสองสัญชาติที่ยังคงไม่ได้รับความเป็นธรรม  ในขณะที่เขียนนี้ นายแนดเลอร์ ยังคงที่จะเปิดการเรียกร้องเกี่ยวกับ DOMA และการปประกาศใช้พระราชบัญัญติการเคารพสิทธิการแต่งงานซึ่งเป็นงานการร่างกฎหมายที่ฟื้นฟูมาจากการรับรองของรัฐในการแต่งงานตามกฎหมาย อย่างน้อยที่สุดในส่วนหนึ่ง สิทธิของคู่แต่งงานเพศเดียวกันต้องการความเป็นธรรมตามากฎหมาย

To view this information in English please see: Department of Homeland Security.

Tags: Department of Homeland Security, DOMA, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, USCIS
Posted in สถานทูตสหรัฐอเมริกาประจำประเทศไทย | No Comments »

For those who follow this blog with any degree of regularity it may have noticed that the administration routinely posts the updated processing times for the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). To quote directly from the official website of USCIS:

It should be noted that these processing times only represent the processing times for USCIS. During the US visa process, an applicant for, say, a K-1 visa (US fiance visa) or a CR-1 visa (or any visa which requires an approved immigration petition) must undergo Consular Processing following USCIS approval. Therefore, in most cases the approved petition will be sent to the National Visa Center (NVC) before being forwarded to the US Embassy or US Consulate with appropriate jurisdiction. Meanwhile, those who utilize Direct Consular Filing methods or submit an I-130 petition with USCIS abroad should disregard the times noted above as they only pertain to USCIS Service Centers in the USA.

For related information please see: US Embassy Thailand or Consular Processing.

Tags: advance parole, CR-1 Visa Processing Time, CR-1 Visa Thailand, EB-5 Visa Processing Time, Employment Authorization Document, I-129f Processing Time, I-130 Processing Time, IR-1 Visa Processing Time, IR-1 Visa Thailand, K-1 Visa, K-1 Visa Processing Time, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, L-1 Visa Processing Time, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, us embassy thailand, US Visa Process, USCIS, USCIS Processing, USCIS Processing Times
Posted in USCIS | No Comments »

Those who read this blog with any degree of frequency may have noticed that the administration of this resource considers the issue of same sex marriage; and Federal recognition thereof, to be one of, if not the, foremost pending political and legal issues of the age. This opinion is based upon the fact that currently discriminatory Federal policies regarding recognition of properly solemnized and legalized State marriages between same sex couples are clearly operating in violation of long held Constitutional notions regarding State Sovereignty, Federalism, Separation of Powers, Full Faith and Credit, and Equal Protection.

Bearing the above in mind, it should be noted that there are legislators in Washington D.C. who seem committed to the cause of Equal Rights for the LGBT Community. To quote directly from a post on the website ImmigrationEqualityActionFund.org, apparently authored by Steve Ralls (Contact Details: 202-347-7007, [email protected]):

Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, and Representatives John Conyers (D-MI), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Jared Polis (D-CO), Mike Honda (D-CA), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), and Jackie Speier (D-CA) announced the re-introduction of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). This overdue legislation would allow gay and lesbian Americans to sponsor their permanent partners for legal residency in the United States, a right currently enjoyed only by married heterosexuals under immigration law. Because the U.S. does not legally recognize gay and lesbian couples and their children as families, many same-sex binational couples are torn apart. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) also introduced UAFA today in the Senate.

In previous postings on this blog, the efforts of Representative Jerrold Nadler in support of the LGBT Community and same sex bi-national couples have been noted and Representative Nadler’s current reintroduction of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) is simply one more example of this legislator’s continuing dedication to the cause of Equal Rights for the LGBT community. On a related note, it was recently pointed out that Representative Nadler is also a proponent of the so-called “Respect for Marriage Act” (RFMA) which would provide Federal recognition for same sex marriages solemnized and legalized in a sovereign State.

At the time of this momentous event this blogger would ask all interested parties in matters pertaining to Liberty, States Rights, Civil Liberties, and Personal Freedom to take heed of the current events involved in the struggle to obtain equal protection under the law for the LGBT community as a whole as well as same sex bi-national couples who are currently separated due to the current state of American Immigration law. On that point, it should be noted that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) recently attempted to put policies in place to halt deportations of foreign same sex partners of American Citizens. It would appear as though USCIS’s policy was aimed at providing some relief, akin to that once accorded to individuals impacted by the so-called “Widow’s Penalty,” to those who are currently subjected to Federal non-recognition of same sex marriages, even those lawfully solemnized and legalized in a sovereign US State,  pursuant to what are clearly Unconstitutional provisions of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA). That said, as of the time of this writing it is this blogger’s understanding that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has rescinded USCIS’s hold on such deportations thereby allowing the same sex bi-national spouse, even if the underlying marriage was solemnized and legalized in one of the Several States, to be deported.

The current discriminatory practices, pertaining to the LGBT community, on the part of the United States government are so pervasive that even first-year law students are aware of the issue. The current legal discrimination faced by a same sex bi-national couple seeking immigration benefits in much the same manner as their different-sex counterparts is so noticeable that even those with only an elemental grasp of the dynamics of United States law can discern many of the issues. To quote directly from a blog post titled Why Denying Homosexuals the Right to Marry is Completely Unconstitutional, authored by Sarah McCarthy on the site My Dog Ate My Blog:

Our country (as I’ve learned over the past week) essentially works like this: states are presumed to have all the power. Our founding fathers were most worried about tyrannical government, and hence wanted to give individual states the power to govern themselves and make their own laws in almost every situation. Hence, in the U.S., we really do have 50 different sets of law governing 50 different states.

Some of these 50 States have opted to use their lawmaking powers to provide marital benefits to same sex couples wishing to marry within their jurisdiction. The administration of this blog would strongly suggest that readers click on the hyperlinks noted above to read more from the above cited posting.  As noted by Ms. McCarty above, pursuant to the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution, those powers not specifically enumerated to accrue to the Federal government are to be reserved to the States and the People respectively. Therefore, pursuant to the explicit language of the 10th Amendment and the implications present throughout the Constitution as a whole inherent State rights, such as the right to marry those within the jurisdiction of a given State, are generally considered to be beyond the bailiwick of the Federal government.

Even though legislative initiatives may ultimately prove to be effective for the LGBT community in securing some of the rights, privileges, and immunities associated with marriage it is this blogger’s opinion that only through full repeal of DOMA by the US Congress or the overturning of that legislation on Constitutional grounds by the US Supreme Court can the issue be laid to rest. In this blogger’s opinion, it is especially desirable that a “case or controversy,” such as that which recently arose in Massachusetts Federal Court, be brought before the United States Supreme Court as only that body has the authority, and possibly expertise, to delineate the application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause with regard to interstate vs. State-Federal recognition of same sex marriages.

There are some who have raised the argument that the same sex marriages which are legal in certain jurisdiction are only legal as a result of judicial fiat. However, this blogger would argue that, especially in the case of Massachusetts, there are strong indications that there is a political will manifesting itself in favor of same sex marriages, at least within that jurisdiction. To support this claim it may be best to quote directly from an article written by Pam Belluck and published by the New York Times on June 14, 2007:

Same-sex marriage will continue to be legal in Massachusetts, after proponents in both houses won a pitched months-long battle on Thursday to defeat a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

“In Massachusetts today, the freedom to marry is secure,” Governor Deval Patrick said after the legislature voted 151 to 45 against the amendment, which needed 50 favorable votes to come before voters in a referendum in November 2008.

The administration of this blog strongly encourages readers to click upon the hyperlinks above to read this story in detail. Clearly, there are those within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts who support equal marital rights for same sex couples. However, Federal recognition of same sex unions remains to be seen. Hopefully, through continued action on the part of legislators such as those mentioned above the notions of Equal Protection under the law and State sovereignty will be upheld to the benefit of all American families.

For more information please see: Same Sex Visa or same sex marriage.

Tags: Congressman Jerrold Nadler, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, Full Faith and Credit, Full Faith and Credit Clause, lgbt immigration, lgbt visa, Representative Jackie Speier, Representative Jared Polis, Representative John Conyers, Representative Luis Gutierrez, Representative Mike Honda, Representative Tammy Baldwin, Respect for Marriage Act, RFMA, Same Sex Marriage, same sex visa, uafa, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, Uniting American Families Act, US Department of Homeland Security, USCIS
Posted in same sex visa | No Comments »

This blogger recently came across a great deal of interesting information pertaining to issues surrounding the consular processing of United States visas and visa applications.

The first item of note involves a recent United States Federal Court decision which spoke to the issue of the Doctrine of Consular Non-Reviewability (sometimes referred to by the somewhat draconian sounding: Doctrine of “Consular Absolutism”). It would appear that one issue in that case revolved around the procedural usage of administrative designations made by interviewing Consular Officers at the US Consulate in Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC) which were then utilized as a basis for administratively establishing findings of misrepresentation by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) thereby creating a grounds for revoking the underlying petition. It seems that the Judge in this case did not agree with the plaintiff that usage of so-called “P6C1” tags caused any “actual injury” as “natural expiration” of immigration petitions apparently does not rise to the level of “revocation” under the circumstances in that case. To quote directly from the PDF version of the official order dated March 29, 2011 as found on the Entry Law website at EntryLaw.com:

The F&R concludes that plaintiffs have stated a claim under the APA challenging 9 F.A.M. 40.63 N10.1 as unlawful and in excess of the agency’s statutory authority. F&R 25. That provision states that where a consular officer finds what she believes to be misrepresentation with regard to a family-based immigrant visa petition, the consular officer “must return the petition to the appropriate USCIS office. If the petition is revoked, the materiality of the misrepresentation is established.” 9 F.A.M. 40.63 N10.1. Plaintiffs allege that by placing a “P6C1” marker in a visa beneficiary’s record—indicating a perceived misrepresentation—the State Department saddled plaintiffs with a “permanent misrepresentation bar to any future immigration possibility” if USCIS revokes the petition. First Am. Compl. ¶ 158.4

I reject plaintiffs’ argument, and decline to follow the F&R, because plaintiffs have not properly alleged that a P6C1 marker has any effect on them. Importantly, 9 F.A.M. 40.63 N10.1 states that the materiality of a misrepresentation is only established “[i]f the petition is revoked,” and plaintiffs have not alleged that USCIS revoked the petitions. Therefore, plaintiffs have not stated a plausible claim that any future bar to immigration possibility would attach to plaintiffs as a result of the P6C1 marker. The F&R concludes that because USCIS does not act on petitions, and allows them to expire after denials, that inaction is equivalent to a revocation, and therefore would trigger the permanent misrepresentation bar. F&R 26. However, plaintiffs do not cite any authority for the proposition that the word “revoked” in 9 F.A.M. 40.63 N10.1 includes inaction that allows a petition to expire naturally. Nor have plaintiffs offered any support for the allegation that they are in fact barred from any future action. Thus, plaintiffs have not yet alleged any actual injury with respect to the P6C1 marker. Plaintiffs argue that they should not be required to show actual injury because they are entitled to assume the defendants will “enforce the law as written,” and any future action by plaintiffs would therefore be futile. F&R 27. Because I conclude that the law as written only bars petitioners whose petitions were “revoked,” and not those whose petitions expired naturally, I find no basis upon which to exempt plaintiffs from showing injury. Plaintiffs therefore do not have standing, and have not stated a claim, regarding the Department of State’s use of the P6C1 marker.

Those interested in learning more about the detailed facts of this case as well as issues pertaining to Consular Processing in general are well advised to click on the hyperlinks above to learn more about the seemingly ever evolving issues associated with the US Immigration process and the process of obtaining so-called “hybrid” family-based visas such as the K-1 visa or the K-3 visa as well as classic immigrant visas such as the CR-1 visa and the IR-1 visa from the various US Embassies, Consulates and Missions abroad.

These so-called “P6C1″ markers are not necessarily disagreeable to this blogger per se, but their usage can be troubling to those who study how the visa process works in a real-world environment. This blogger fully believes that Consular Officers are entitled to make factually based decisions which may have legal ramifications either in the form of a finding of a legal grounds of inadmissibility which may or may not be waivable through application for an I-601 waiver and/or an I-212 waiver (depending upon the situation). That said, why all of the redundancy? Where applicable, why not simply make the material misrepresentation finding of inadmissibility at the American Consulate or American Embassy abroad thereby providing a more streamlined opportunity for applicants to seek a remedy in the form of a waiver from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), if applicable? Why would the application package be sent back to USCIS with a so-called marker? The Consular Officers at US Missions abroad are adjudicators of visa applications and both the wide latitude of their discretion as well as the virtually non-reviewable nature of their factual findings are legal creations designed to lend efficiency to visa processing because the Consular Officers are in the best position to make factual determinations. Why send the petition back to USCIS with the “misrepresentation marker” at all? The USCIS is not in any discernably better position to make a determination regarding the veracity of the application. Therefore, DOS is failing to make an actual decision while simultaneously placing USCIS in a position where they cannot really claim to be able to better review the facts of the case as it was the Consular Officer who actually interviewed the applicant and adjudicated the posture of the overall application. It has been this blogger’s experience that visa applicants and petitioners are looking for some degree of certainty in the visa process. If an applicant is possibly legally inadmissible to the USA do not the notions of efficiency and equity seem to dictate quick adjudication of a finding of inadmissibility, if applicable, and visa denial, if appropriate? From the point of view of the inadmissible applicant the argument in favor of quick visa denial may possibly stem from the desire to seek a waiver in a timely manner thereafter.

Many of the Founding Fathers who drafted the United States Constitution were involved in the creation of legislation which would lead to the establishment of the Department of State. It would seem to this blogger as though these gentlemen did so because they recognized that America would need a governmental entity to deal with affairs of State, international trade matters, and Consular affairs so that average Americans could get on with their personal business and so that those of foreign origin would have an organ by which to entreat with the government of the United States of America. In an effort at providing more clarity on this topic it may be best to quote directly from Wikipedia:

The U.S. Constitution, drafted in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1787 and ratified by the states the following year, gave the President the responsibility for the conduct of the nation’s foreign relations. It soon became clear, however, that an executive department was necessary to support the President in the conduct of the affairs of the new federal government.

The House of Representatives and Senate approved legislation to establish a Department of Foreign Affairs on July 21, 1789, and President Washington signed it into law on July 27, making the Department of Foreign Affairs the first Federal agency to be created under the new Constitution.^[2] This legislation remains the basic law of the Department of State. In September 1789, additional legislation changed the name of the agency to the Department of State and assigned to it a variety of domestic duties.

These responsibilities grew to include management of the United States Mint, keeper of the Great Seal of the United States, and the taking of the census. President George Washington signed the new legislation on September 15. Most of these domestic duties of the Department of State were eventually turned over to various new Federal departments and agencies that were established during the 19th century. However, the Secretary of State still retains a few domestic responsibilities, such as being the keeper of the Great Seal and being the officer to whom a President or Vice-President of the United States wishing to resign must deliver an instrument in writing declaring the decision to resign.

Those wishing to better understand the history of the American State Department are strongly encouraged to click upon the hyperlinks noted above to read more on this engrossing topic.

Bearing the above legal opinion from the Federal Court for the District of Oregon’s Portland Division in mind, the reader may be interested to take note of the fact that some students of issues associated with Consular Processing of American visas are taking exception with some of the Department of State’s practices and proposing measures in an attempt to provide some sort of notification mechanism for complaints regarding Consular Officers at US Missions abroad seemingly aimed at curtailing what some feel are negative aspects of Consular discretion. To quote directly from Kenneth White in an article posted on ILW.com:

In contrast to other immigration-related agencies such as USCIS and CBP, the Department of State (“Department”) has no formal complaint system. The Department has a Customer Service Statement to Visa Applicants on its website,¹ yet does not indicate how to pursue a complaint for a violation of the rights specified. The “How to Contact Us” page of the Department’s website mentions “inquiries” but not complaints. The Glossary page of the Travel.State.gov/visa section of the Department’s website indicates how to file a complaint with CBP, but not the State Department. Consular websites are silent on the issue of filing complaints.

In October 2009, the Department announced to the American Immigration Lawyers Association an address² within the Visa Office to send complaints. However, the Visa Office does not investigate the complaints: it merely recites the consular officer’s version of events. Further, the mandate of the Department’s Office of Inspector General is limited to instances of fraud, waste, and mismanagement. It is abundantly clear that a genuine Complaint Procedure must be implemented.

The administration of this web log highly encourages readers to click on the above cited hyperlinks for further detailed information about consular processing and Mr. White’s opinions thereon. This blogger agreed with a great deal of the analysis presented in this article such as the author’s somewhat economic rationale in favor of at least the argument that some sort of complaint system may be beneficial to Consular processing, to quote further from the aforementioned posting:

dollars and sense – International visitors and students spend billions of dollars every year in the United States. Hundreds of thousands of American jobs are dependent on this spending by foreigners. Competition for the travel dollar is intense, with other countries not requiring visa interviews and utilizing visa procedures that are faster and cheaper than the US. Thus, it is incumbent upon the US government to ensure that consular officers treat applicants respectfully and professionally;

The American People in general, the States as well as all sectors of the Federal government should always be aware of the tremendous amount of economic activity that occurs as a result of foreign direct investment in the United States as well as tourist dollars spent in the United States of America. Streamlined visa processing and professional Consular staff are always a good idea, but this blogger did take some exception with at least one passage in the aforementioned article:

doctrine of consular nonreviewability – There is no formal administrative or judicial review of the overwhelming majority of visa decisions, meaning that consular officers are not accountable to applicants for the decisions they make. In the view of many, this non-accountability consciously or subconsciously emboldens consular officers, leading to a fiefdom mentality;

The administration of this blog highly recommends that readers click upon the above hyperlinks to read further from this detailed and well researched article so that all quotes cited above can be understood in context. This blogger would not say that he is unequivocally in favor of the Doctrine of Consular Non-Reviewability (also colloquially referred to as the Doctrine of “Consular Absolutism“) per se, as any time a significant amount of discretion is vested in a non-elected officer of the American government one should ponder the implications of such a state of affairs, but the argument for such a doctrine within the factual context of consular processing has to take into consideration the notion of “efficiency” which would seem to presuppose that there are some decisions which given the totality of the circumstances can only be efficiently made by an adjudicator on the ground in the applicant’s home country or country with appropriate consular jurisdiction. Presumably, there are unlikely to be a great many such adjudicators and those who do exist are likely to have a great many cases and/or applications to adjudicate. Therefore, there are reasonable arguments in favor of granting wide discretion to Consular officers in matters pertaining to factual adjudication of applications, but readers should not mistake this blogger to mean that he is in favor of unlimited discretion on the part of Consular Officers. The Doctrine of Consular Non-Reviewability provides that a great deal of deference will be paid to Consular Officers’ factual decisions by the US Courts, but that is not to say that the Courts do not have jurisdiction over visa denials especially when such denials are “facially illegitimate“. Bearing this in mind, as can be seen from the case above, American Courts are generally loathe to review visa denials as doing so could be viewed by some as a waste of Court resources and because it currently appears somewhat difficult for most Courts to sufficiently review a Consular Officer’s decision in a given case from a position that is qualitatively better than the unique perspective of the Officer on the ground in the country where the application is taking place. Proving that a Consular Officer’s decision is “facially illegitimate” could seem like a virtually insurmountable standard of proof, but fortunately it is not wholly impossible to receive judicial review of visa decisions as doing so would be a truly frightening concept from a due process perspective. That stated, having all Consular Officers’ decisions reviewed by the Court system seems equally as frightening if one considers how much time, energy, and resources would need to be expended in order to maintain such a docket.

To be clear, this blogger agrees with a great deal of Mr. Kenneth White’s analysis on many of the issues associated with Consular Processing, but where this blogger takes some degree of exception relates to the notion that officers have a “fiefdom” mentality. Although this blogger certainly cannot speak for everyone who has undergone Consular Processing, it has never been this blogger’s personal opinion that Consular Officers have a “fiefdom-mentality”. That stated, as an American Resident Abroad, this blogger must say that it does not seem like such a bad thing for American civil servants abroad, Consular Officers included, to take some pride in their position as a representative of America and the American people. As such, an Officer taking an interest in the efficiency and business of their US Embassy or US Consulate may also be prudent to take a personal interest in the overall impact of Post policies and procedures upon applicants, petitioners, and their families.

The notion of a Consular Complaint Box is something that should be pondered by interested parties long and hard especially in light of the fact that the Doctrine of Consular Non-Reviewability appears to still be as virtually unshakable as it ever has been. Therefore, the main question regarding a Consular Complaint Box that this blogger feels should be posed is: what benefit will the public receive from such an undertaking? If the Consular Officers continue to be endowed with virtually non-reviewable authority what good is it to be able to complain about it? What good would this do? This does not provide a tangible remedy to the applicant in the event of an adverse decision. Furthermore, would not the implementation of such a policy result in simply further paperwork for Department of State employees, but under such circumstances to no particularized end? In this blogger’s opinion, it is probably better that DOS use what resources it has with regard to Consular Processing to one end alone: efficiently adjudicating visa applications as that is clearly within their mandate. That stated, a complaint system to deter truly rude behavior as noted in Kenneth White’s article above may ultimately prove appropriate, but this blogger might make further suggestions. For example, how about something akin to an “Alien Miranda Warning”. Where American peace officers are required to Mirandize suspects so as to put them on constructive notice of rights like the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney it could prove beneficial for all concerned in the immigration process if Consular Officers made it clear that foreign applicants could seek the advice and counsel of licensed American attorneys regarding pending or prospective immigration matters pursuant to section 8 CFR 292.1, as amended. Such a suggestion should not be construed to be advocating attorney consultation regarding submission of complaints. Instead, attorneys may be best equipped to apprise prospective visa seekers of relevant immigration law as well as the regulations pertaining to application for various United States visa categories. One aspect of the issues surrounding Consular Processing that seems to be of little concern to the public-at-large involves doomed applications made by those who truly cannot overcome statutory presumptions such as that enshrined in section 214(b) of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act. The time and resources expended by Posts to adjudicate and deny visa applicants pursuant to section 214(b) of the INA and the time and resources needlessly expended by the applicants who are denied under this section of the INA could often be saved through effective assistance of counsel in providing advice and information regarding the likelihood of visa application approval based upon the unique facts of a given case. In short, perhaps informing applicants and petitioners of the issues associated with US Immigration rather than creating a mechanism to complain to what appears to be rather overworked Consular Officers is the appropriate course of action at this juncture. Hopefully, by thus informing concerned parties regarding US Immigration matters the negative overall impact from so-called “visa companies”, notarios, visa agents, and fake lawyers can be diminished to the benefit of the prospective immigrant community and the American People.

Tags: Consular Absolutism, Consular Complaint Box, Consular Non-Reviewability, Consular Processing, CR-1 Visa Process, Department of State, DOS, I-212 waiver, I-601 Waiver, IR-1 Visa Process, K-1 Visa Process, K-3 visa process, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, US Consulate, US Consulate HCMC, US Embassy, US Visa Process, USCIS
Posted in US Consulate ChengDu, US Consulate Chennai, US Consulate Guangzhou, US Consulate HCMC, US Consulate Hong Kong, US Consulate Hyderabad, US Consulate Kolkata, US Consulate Macau, US Consulate Mumbai, US Consulate Shanghai, US Consulate Shenyang, US Consulate Singapore, US Consulate Vladivostok, US Consulate Wuhan, US Embassy Australia, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Bangladesh, US Embassy Beijing, US Embassy Brunei Darussalam, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy China, US Embassy Dhaka, US Embassy Fiji, US Embassy Hanoi, US Embassy India, US Embassy Indonesia, US Embassy Iraq, US Embassy Islamabad, US Embassy Jakarta, US Embassy Japan, US Embassy Kathmandu, US Embassy Kiribati, US Embassy Kuala Lumpur, US Embassy Kyrgyz Republic (Kyrgyzstan), US Embassy Laos, US Embassy Malaysia, US Embassy Maldives, US Embassy Manila, US Embassy Mauritius, US Embassy Mongolia, US Embassy Myanmar, US Embassy Nauru, US Embassy Nepal, US Embassy New Dehli, US Embassy New Zealand, US Embassy Pakistan, US Embassy Papua New Guinea, US Embassy Philippines, US Embassy Phnom Phen, US Embassy Port Moresby, US Embassy Rangoon, US Embassy Russia, US Embassy Singapore, US Embassy South Korea, US Embassy Sri Lanka, US Embassy Suva, US Embassy Tokyo, US Embassy Tonga, US Embassy Turkmenistan, US Embassy Tuvalu, US Embassy Uzbekistan, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US State Department | No Comments »

It would appear as though government shutdown has been averted, at least for the time being as an apparent bi-partisan initiative has resulted in continued funding for the United States government. To quote directly from ABC News on go.com:

Barely more than an hour before a midnight deadline Friday night, officials announced a deal to avert a government shutdown. “We will cut $78.5 billion below the president’s 2011 budget proposal, and we have reached an agreement on the policy riders,” House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., wrote in a joint statement.

The agreement would cut $37.67 billion from the 2010 budget and keep intact funding to Planned Parenthood, sources from both parties told ABC News.

“We protected the investments we need to win the future,” President Obama said after the deal was struck. “At the same time, we also made sure at the end of the day this was a debate about spending cuts — not social issues like women’s health and the protection of our air and water. These are important issues that deserve discussion, just not during a debate about our budget.”

Readers of this blog are highly encouraged to visit the above links to gain more insight on this story.

On a related note, credit where credit is due regarding the preparations seemingly undertaken by the officers of the Department of State in trying to front load their efforts as much as humanly possible regarding previously-approved visa issuances as the prospect of Government Shutdown became more acute.

On a less related note, those interested in the struggle for equality for the LGBT community in the context of the United States immigration process should take note of the fact that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) attempted to put a hold on deportations involving same sex bi-national couples before having that hold rescinded by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). USCIS, your efforts to help keep bi-national families together has not gone unnoticed.

It would seem as though the ultimate resolution on this issue will come either in the form of a legal opinion from the United States Supreme Court, as in a case such as that from the Massachusetts Federal Court and others in the US Courts currently working their way through the appellate process, or through enactment of legislation which would repeal, hopefully at the very least, the Federal recognition provisions currently embodied in the language of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) similar to the legislation colloquially referred to as the Respect for Marriage Act and/or the Uniting American Families Act.

Tags: American government shutdown, Defense of Marriage Act, Department of Homeland Security, Department of State, House Speaker John Boehner, LGBT community, LGBT Equal Immigration, President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, Uniting American Families Act, US government shutdown, USCIS
Posted in Editorial, News, Opinion | No Comments »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For related information please see: same sex immigration.

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

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

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

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

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

เป็นที่เห็นได้ชัดเจนว่า หน่วยบริการการเข้าเมืองและพลเมืองอเมริกัน (USCIS) ได้มีการเปลี่ยนแปลงนโยบายเพื่อที่จะเพิ่มประสิทธิภาพในการตรวจสอบตามพระราชบัญญัติอดัม วอร์ช (AWA) ในบทบาทของศูนย์บริการในเวอร์มอนท์ซึ่งเกี่ยวข้อง

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

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

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