Integrity Legal

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 »

This blog routinely discusses issues surrounding United States Immigration Law. However, this author must admit that we often fail to mention the human side of the Immigration and visa process. At the time of this writing the United States appears to be on the verge of making radical changes to the makeup of American Immigration law. This will likely occur through Comprehensive Immigration Reform of the US Immigration and Nationality Act and other pertinent legislation. The reasons for seeking reform vary depending upon the individual or organization. That said, the following excerpt from a news story posted on Yahoo.com poignantly elucidates the human aspect of the issues surrounding Comprehensive Immigration Reform (also known as CIR):

Seven-year-old Daisy Cuevas, thrilled to see herself on television with U.S. First Lady Michelle Obama, didn’t quite understand the predicament in which she had innocently placed her undocumented Peruvian parents. “She laughed, she jumped up and down. She was excited” after the encounter at Daisy’s suburban Washington, D.C., elementary school, the girl’s maternal grandfather, Genaro Juica, told The Associated Press. The TV appearance made the pigtailed second grader a voice of the estimated 12 million immigrants living in the United States illegally — and a source of pride for Peru’s president, who visits Washington on Tuesday. “My mom says that Barack Obama is taking away everybody that doesn’t have papers,” Daisy told the U.S. first lady on May 19 at the New Hampshire Estates Elementary School in Silver Spring, Maryland. “Well, that’s something that we have to work on, right, to make sure that people can be here with the right kind of papers,” Michelle Obama replied. “But my mom doesn’t have papers,” said Daisy, a U.S. citizen by virtue of her birth. The color immediately drained from her mother’s face. She ran crying to call her parents in Lima, then went into hiding, fearful of being deported. These are tense times for people like Daisy’s mother, a maid who arrived in the United States with her carpenter husband when she was two months pregnant with Daisy. Daisy’s parents are fearful of U.S. anti-immigrant sentiment, which for many Latin Americans is epitomized by an Arizona law taking effect in July that gives police the right to demand ID papers of anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has said it is not pursuing Daisy’s parents. Immigration investigations, it said in a statement, “are based on making sure the law is followed and not on a question-and-answer discussion in a classroom.” Nonetheless, Daisy’s mother asked the AP after the May 19 incident not to name her or her husband.

Many of those hoping for a “path to citizenship” for undocumented aliens in America feel that rectification of US Immigration policy can only be effected through reforming the Immigration laws. There are others who feel that the recently proposed CIR legislation does not go far enough in rectifying the inequities that currently exist under American Immigration law. A clarion call for further reform is especially noticeable from the LGBT immigration movement.

Hopefully, we will see Immigration reform soon, but in the meantime we may be able to learn something from this incident as it would appear that even children can see the “Equity Gap” that currently seems to exist in the realm of United States Immigration.

Tags: American Immigration, American Immigration law, American Visa, CIR, Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Daisy Cuevas, Department of Homeland Security, Equity Gap, lgbt immigration, Michelle Obama, US Department of Homeland Security, US Immigration, US Immigration Law, US Visa
Posted in Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Department of Homeland Security, General Legal Information, Legal Opinion, lgbt immigration, News | No Comments »

As the world becomes ever more integrated due to economic globalization international organized crime has increased. One issue that has become increasingly concerning for law enforcement agencies around the globe is human trafficking. Many of the people in less developed nations wish to travel to wealthier industrialized countries in order to enjoy the benefits of relatively higher wages. This leads to the growth of “human smugglers” who specialize in assisting illegal immigrants by transporting them from their home country to their desired destination. Unfortunately, a great deal of evidence has been brought to light which suggests that many of these immigrants are placed in conditions which could easily be described as inhumane and many of them are further forced to work under difficult conditions in order to pay back their smugglers for transporting them to their new country.

Recently, the website ThaiVisa.com posted the following:

“Two Japanese men have been arrested in Thailand on suspicion of people smuggling, a police spokesman said Tuesday. The first man, identified by police only by his surname, Bekku, was arrested Monday when he tried to renew his visa. The second man, Tanaka, was arrested later at his apartment in Bangkok. The pair, both in their 60s, are accused of involvement in smuggling people from Thailand and its neighbouring countries. ‘They were arrested on warrants issued by the Japanese police on charges of human smuggling,’ said the spokesman, Major General Manoo Mekmok.”

Under Section 212(a)(2)(H)(i) of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act:

Any alien who commits or conspires to commit human trafficking offenses in the United States or outside the United States, or who the consular officer, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State, or the Attorney General knows or has reason to believe is or has been a knowing aider, abettor, assister, conspirator, or colluder with such a trafficker in severe forms of trafficking in persons, as defined in the section 7102 of title 22, is inadmissible.

Clearly, United States Immigration law takes the issue of human trafficking very seriously as it should since human trafficking is a major issue that causes many deaths each year while concurrently undermining the foundations of international law. Furthermore, those who are found guilty of offenses involving human trafficking are likely to be found inadmissible to the United States of America indefinitely as this ground of inadmissibility cannot be remedied through use of an I-601 waiver.
To learn more about US Immigration please see: US Visa Thailand.

Tags: 212(a)(2)(H)(i), American Immigration Thailand, American Visa Thailand, Attorney General, Excludability, Grounds of Excludability, Grounds of Inadmissibility, Human Smuggling, Human Trafficking, I-601 Waiver, Inadmissibility, Secretary of State, US Immigration, US Immigration Thailand, US Visa Thailand
Posted in Department of Homeland Security, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, Visa Waiver | No Comments »

ในเคสที่มีการพิจารณาและไต่สวนเมื่อไม่นานมานี้โดยศาลสูงสหรัฐ ปัญหาเรื่องสิทธิผู้อพยพในการได้รับคำปรึกษาทางกฎหมายได้ถูกหยิบยกขึ้นมาและผลของคดีทำให้เกิดความเห็นและเป็นจุดเปลี่ยนของสิทธิของผู้อพยพในสหรัฐอเมริกา คดีที่ว่าคือ คดี Padilla v. Kentucky ข้อความข้างล่างคัดมาจากอีเมลของ สำนักกฎหมาย Alice M. Yardum-Hunter

คดีเกี่ยวกับ ผู้ถือกรีนการ์ดอายุ 40 ปี โจเซ่ พาดิลลา ซึ่งทนายความคดีอาญาของเขาแนะนำให้เขาไม่ต้องกังวลเกี่ยวกับผลทางกฎหมายคนเข้าเมืองเมื่อจะสารภาพว่าทำความผิดทางอาญา คำแนะนำนั้นไม่เพียงแต่ผิดแต่คำสารภาพนั้นส่งผลให้คุณพาดิลลาโดนส่งตัวออกนอกประเทศสหรัฐอเมริกา ศาลสูงเคนตักกีกล่าวว่าคุณพาดิลลาไม่มีสิทธิถอนคำรับสารภาพนั้นเมื่อเขาทราบถึงการที่จะต้องถูกส่งตัวออกนอกสหรัฐอเมริกา ศาลสูงกลับคำพิพากษานั้นและปฏิเสธสถานภาพของรัฐบาลกลาง และหลักนี้ก็ถูกหลายๆศาลนำมาใช้ในเวลาต่อมา หลักที่ว่าคือ บุคคลที่ไม่มีสัญชาติอเมริกัน จะถูกปกป้องจาก คำแนะนำโดยมิชอบ เท่านั้น ไม่ใช่จากความล้มเหลวในการที่ทนายความไม่สามารถให้คำแนะนำเกี่ยวกับผลด้านกฎหมายคนเข้าเมืองของคำรับสารภาพ ศาลชี้ว่าที่ปรึกษาของคุณพาดิลลาไม่มีความสามารถพอและคำพูดผู้อพยพไม่ควรได้รับความเชื่อถือเมื่อเขาได้เชื่อในคำแนะนำที่ผิดๆจากทนายความของตนหรือเมื่อที่ปรึกษาไม่สามารถให้คำแนะนำทางด้านกฎหมายคนเข้าเมืองได้เลย

เรื่องราวของคดีนี้ชี้ให้เห็นว่าเป็นเรื่องสำคัญที่ทนายความที่ว่าความอยู่ในประเทศสหรัฐอเมริกาจะต้องให้คำแนะนำเกี่ยวกับผลทางกฎหมายสำหรับความผิดบางฐานในมุมมองของกฎหมายคนเข้าเมืองด้วย

เรื่องนี้ยังคงสำคัญต่อทนายความคนเข้าเมืองอเมริกันที่ทำงานอยู่นอกสหรัฐอเมริกเช่นกัน ตัวอย่างเช่น หากว่าผู้อยู่ในสหรัฐอเมริกาอย่างถาวรถูกกฎหมายอยู่ต่างประเทศและได้รับหมายเรียกในคดีอาญา หรือ หมายเรียกผู้ร้ายหลบหนี บุคคลนั้นควรจะขอคำปรึกษาจากทนายความอเมริกันที่อยู่นอกสหรัฐอเมริกา ในกรณีเช่นว่านี้ ทนายความผู้นั้น อ้างถึงหลักในคดีที่เพิ่งมีคำพิพากษาที่กล่าวไว้ข้างต้น จะต้องให้คำแนะนำเกี่ยวกับผลทางกฎหมายคนเข้าเมืองเมื่อผู้นั้นสารภาพว่าได้กระทำความผิดทางอาญาจริง

ตัวอย่างนี้แสดงให้เห็นเหตุผลอีกประการหนึ่งที่ว่าทำไมการขอคำแนะนำจากทนายที่สามารถว่าความในสหรัฐอเมริกาได้จึงมีความสำคัญยิ่งนัก เรื่องนี้ค่อนข้างสำคัญโดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่งในประเทศอย่างประเทศไทยที่มี บริษัทรับทำวีซ่า เอเจนซี่ทำวีซ่า และทนายความและนักกฎหมายที่ไม่มีใบอนุญาติ และ ไม่มีคุณสมบัติมากมาย หลายๆคนไม่คำนึงถึงคำสารภาพสำหรับความผิดทางอาญาในมุมมองของกฎหมายคนเข้าเมือง และความไม่รู้นี่เองที่สามารถนำไปสู่ความลำบากแก่ผู้อพยพที่อยู่นอกสหรัฐอเมริกา

สำหรับข้อมูลเกี่ยวกับการเข้าเมืองสหรัฐอเมริกาจากประเทศไทย โปรดดู วีซ่าเค วัน จากประเทศไทย

To learn more information in English please see: US Visa Thailand.

Tags: Padilla v. Kentucky, US Immigration, Us Immigration from Thailand, US Visa, US Visa From Thailand, US Visa Thailand
Posted in สถานทูตสหรัฐอเมริกาประจำประเทศไทย, ้วีซ่าอเมริกาจากประเทศไทย | No Comments »

In a recent case that was heard and adjudicated by the United States Supreme Court, the issue of Immigrants’ right to counsel was taken up and the outcome of the case resulted in a landmark opinion and a watershed moment for the rights of Immigrants in the United States of America. The case is known as Padilla v. Kentucky, the following quote comes from an email from the Law Corporation of Alice M. Yardum-Hunter:

The case involved a 40-year permanent resident, Jose Padilla, whose criminal defense lawyer advised him not to worry about the immigration consequences of pleading guilty to a crime. That advice was not only wrong but the guilty plea subjected Mr. Padilla to mandatory deportation from the United States. The Kentucky Supreme Court held that Mr. Padilla had no right to withdraw his plea when he learned of the deportation consequence. The Supreme Court reversed that decision and rejected the federal government’s position – also adopted by several other courts – that a noncitizen is protected only from “affirmative misadvice” and not from a lawyer’s failure to provide any advice about the immigration consequences of a plea. The Court held that Mr. Padilla’s counsel was constitutionally deficient and affirmed that immigrants should not be held accountable when they rely on incorrect advice from their lawyers or where counsel fails to provide any immigration advice at all.

The implications of this case are important for attorneys practicing in the United States as they will now be required to provide advice about the legal consequences of certain activities from an Immigration perspective.

This is also important for those American Immigration Lawyers practicing outside of the United States. For example, if an individual with lawful permanent residence in the United States is abroad and learns of a pending criminal warrant or fugitive warrant, then that individual may choose to retain the advice of a US lawyer outside of the United States. In that case, the lawyer would be required, under the provisions of this recently adjudicated decision, to provide advice regarding the immigration consequences of a guilty plea in a pending criminal matter.

This example illustrates one more reason why it is so important to retain the advice of an individual who is licensed to practice law in the USA. This is particularly important in a country such as Thailand where the existence of “visa companies,” “visa agents,” and unlicensed and non-accredited so-called “lawyers” and “attorneys” operate with little oversight. Many are unaware of the implications of a criminal pleading in an immigration context and this ignorance can lead to unforeseen difficulties for US Immigrants overseas.

For information about United States Immigration from Thailand please see: K1 Visa Thailand.

Tags: American Attorney, American Attorney Thailand, American Lawyer, American Lawyer Thailand, American warrant, Fugitive Warrant, Padilla v. Kentucky, US attorney, US Immigration, US Immigration Thailand, US lawyer, US Lawyer Thailand, US Visa, US Visa Thailand, US warrant, visa agency, visa agent, Visa Company, warrant
Posted in CR1 Visa, Department of Homeland Security, General Legal Information, IR1 Visa, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, US Consulate HCMC, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Cambodia, 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 Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, US Warrants, USCBP, USCIS, USICE | No Comments »

Many Americans are aware of the recent legislative changes enacted by the United States Congress with the support of President Obama. Recently, a blogger discussed this legislation:

“Having now accomplished Health Care Reform, it is apparent that President Obama has acquired the momentum and political capital to fuel the leadership necessary to fulfill the next campaign promise, that of  immigration reform.  Why then are our congressional leaders still asserting impossible?”

What is this so-called “impossible” legislative task that this writer is concerned about? Put simply, it is equal immigration rights for those bi-national couples of the same sex. Recently, Congressional Representative Gutierrez introduced a Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill, but many in the LGBT immigration community are unhappy with the Bill in its current form:

“Rep Gutierrez’s Bill, however, snubbed gay and lesbian couples, much to the upset of the LGBT community and bi-national same-sex couples, by failing to attach UAFA, the Uniting American Families Act, H.R. 1024, S. 424) a U.S.Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate discrimination in the immigration laws against gay couples seeking spousal/ partner sponsorship for green cards,  as a critical component to his version of comprehensive immigration reform.  Is he thinking that we should not have immigration equality?  Is he going to attach UAFA later in the process? Does he think UAFA should be a stand-alone Bill.”

UAFA, or the Uniting American Families Act, is an important piece of hotly debated legislation in the United States that, if enacted, would provide immigration benefits to the same sex “permanent partners” of American Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents. US Congressman Jerrold Nadler has be a strong proponent of UAFA and immigration rights for the “permanent partners” of American Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents. Exactly what the term “permanent partner” means is left open to further debate, but presently a debate is raging over placing the provisions of UAFA into a Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill:

“Nadler asserted that this would be the only way – for UAFA to pass- and that would be via passage with a larger immigration reform bill.  The votes would need to be 217 in the House and at least 51 in the Senate.  Congressman Nadler has led the fight for UAFA and is highly respected by activists and the LGBT community, reputed to be one of the most dedicated in the fight for immigration equality.  His ideas are to be trusted and his leadership followed.”

If Representative Nadler believes that same sex visas for bi-national permanent partners will ultimately come to fruition through use of a broader legislative vehicle, then this author is inclined to believe that this is the truth. However, when that broader legislative action will come about remains to be seen.

Tags: CIR, Comprehensive Immigration Reform, gay visa, Gay Visas, lgbt immigration, LGBT Visas, Same Sex Immigration, same sex visa, Same Sex Visas, uafa, Uniting American Families Act, US Immigration
Posted in Department of Homeland Security, General Legal Information, Legal Opinion, lgbt immigration, same sex visa, Upcoming Legislation, US Visa and Immigration, USCBP, USCIS, USICE | No Comments »

Traveling to the United States of America, for any purpose, can be a costly and arduous endeavor. Recently the American Immigration Lawyers Association distributed a a memorandum that was promulgated by the United States Customs and Border Protection (USCBP) Service. In this memorandum the Foreign Affairs Manual was referenced. The following is a direct quotation from that memorandum:

“The Department of State (DOS) recently revised 9 FAM 41.104 Exhibit I, entitled, “Countries that Extend Passport Validity for an Additional Six Months after Expiration.” The Inspector’s Field Manual (IFM) Appendix 15.2 will be amended to reflect the new DOS 6-month list.”

The Inspectors Field Manual is important because it notes the countries that will extend passport validity by six months past the date of passport expiration. The memorandum goes further and discusses specific countries that will no longer be recognized as allowing this type of extension past the underlying passport’s validity:

“Among the countries that have been removed from the 6-month list since the last revision of the IFM are the following: Bangladesh, Cuba, Ecuador, Holy See, Italy, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Laos, Oman, Russia, Senegal, Sudan, Syria, and Togo.“

We have posted this information in order to better inform those travelers from the aforementioned countries who are accustomed to traveling to the USA on a passport with little, or no, official validity left. It would be unfortunate for an individual from one of the countries listed above to travel to the USA only to find that they are inadmissible due to the fact that they no longer have a travel document that is recognized as valid by United States Customs and Border Protection.

Thai Authorities generally require that those applying for a Thai visa have at least 6 months of stated validity on their passport. This is due to the fact that Thai officials do not like to issue visas with a validity that stretches substantially past the the date of the underlying passport’s validity period. In some cases, a Thai tourist visa can be obtained when there is little validity left on the passport, but these cases are rare. In cases involving the multiple entry one year Thai business visa or the one year Thai O visa, it has become practically a hard and fast rule that the validity of the passport be more than 6 months before a visa will be issued.

For further information about passports and travel to the USA please see: US Visa Thailand. For further insight into Thai Immigration matters please see: Thailand visa.

Tags: passport, Thai Immigration, Thai O Visa, Thai Visa, Thailand Business Visa, Thailand Immigration, Thailand Visa, United States Customs and Border Protection, US Immigration, US Visa, US Visa Thailand, USCBP
Posted in Department of Homeland Security, General Legal Information, Thailand Visa, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCBP | 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 »

As this author has discussed in previous blog posts, one major reason for US visa denial is based upon a finding that a legal grounds of inadmissibility exists in a given case. One legal grounds of inadmissibility is based upon a finding by the Consular Officer that the applicant committed a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT). That being said, at times it can be difficult to determine whether or not an individual’s prior actions would be considered a crime involving moral turpitude. The Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) provides some insight into what types of crimes are considered to be crimes involving moral turpitude, the following are excerpts from the FAM:

“9 FAM 40.21(a) N2.3-1 Crimes Committed Against
Property
(CT:VISA-1318; 09-24-2009)
a. Most crimes committed against property that involve moral turpitude
include the element of fraud. The act of fraud involves moral turpitude
whether it is aimed against individuals or government. Fraud generally
involves:
(1) Making false representation;
(2) Knowledge of such false representation by the perpetrator;
(3) Reliance on the false representation by the person defrauded;
(4) An intent to defraud; and
(5) The actual act of committing fraud”

Property Crimes are not the only activities that can be construed as crimes involving moral turpitude as criminal actions which violate or undermine governmental authority are also considered to be CIMT:

“9 FAM 40.21(a) N2.3-2 Crimes Committed Against
Governmental Authority
(CT:VISA-1318; 09-24-2009)
a. Crimes committed against governmental authority which fall within the
definition of moral turpitude include:
(1) Bribery;
(2) Counterfeiting;
(3) Fraud against revenue or other government functions;
(4) Mail fraud;
(5) Perjury;
(6) Harboring a fugitive from justice (with guilty knowledge); and
(7) Tax evasion (willful).”

The FAM also goes on to note the various activities that may not be considered CIMT. However, it is incumbent upon the adjudicating officer to examine the facts of a given case and make a decision as to whether the underlying actions that gave rise to a criminal conviction in fact constitutes a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude for purposes of visa issuance. If the officer decides that a CIMT was committed, then the visa application will likely be denied. Under the doctrine of Consular NonReviewability (also known as Consular Absolutism) this decision is not subject to appeal. However, the applicant make be able to overcome the visa denial by applying for, and obtaining, an I-601 waiver.

Of interest to some may be the recent Circuit Court decision which held:

“An order of removal from the United States was entered against Petitioner Armando Alvarez-Reynaga based on his felony conviction for receipt of a stolen vehicle in violation of section 496d(a) of the California Penal Code. His petition for review presents the questions of whether a conviction under that statute qualifies categorically as a conviction for an aggravated felony, and whether it qualifies categorically as a crime involving moral turpitude. We conclude that it qualifies as the first, but not the second. We deny the petition for review.”

As the law continues to evolve, so to does the definition of CIMT and the activities that are considered to be covered by the CIMT provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

For more information about US Visas from the Kingdom of Thailand please see: US Visa Thailand.

(Readers should be advised that the above does not constitute a full analysis of CIMT issues. Each application has its own unique set of facts and those facts must be analyzed on an individual basis in order to form a professional opinion.)

Tags: 601 Waiver, American Immigration Thailand, American Visa Thailand, CIMT, Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude, FAM, Foreign Affairs Manual, I-601 Waiver, I601 Waiver, Inadmissibility, US Family Visa, US Immigration, US Immigration Thailand, us visa denial, US Visa Denial Thailand, US Visa Denied, US Visa Denied Thailand, US Visa Thailand, Waiver
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 Consulate Chiang Mai, US Embassy Thailand, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS, Visa Waiver | No Comments »

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.

Tags: American Visa Thailand, Department of Homeland Security, DHS, Office of Inspector General DHS, US Immigration, US Visa, USICE
Posted in Department of Homeland Security, General Legal Information, Legal Opinion, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USICE | No Comments »