Integrity Legal

As frequent readers of this blog may be aware, two of the most hotly debated issues in the realm of United States Immigration are: Comprehensive Immigration Reform and US Family Immigration benefits for LGBT bi-national couples. A seemingly unrelated issue is that of the upcoming United States Census. Recently, the LGBT immigration blog Immigration Equality.org discussed how the US Census and the issues of Comprehensive Immigration Reform and LGBT Visas are connected:

“Research conducted by the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) shows an excellent reason for undocumented immigrants to participate in the census: They can actually use the completed census form as proof of continuous physical presence in the U.S., should Congress enact a path to citizenship, with requires such proof for residency, in the future. Additionally, certified copies of completed census forms can be used as evidence of continuous presence in the U.S. under certain current laws as well. These include the amnesty program under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA); amelioration provisions of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act of 2000; and for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) (for when one cannot return due to war, natural disasters etc.) under the Immigration and Nationality Act Section 244…There are undocumented immigrants living in the US in same-sex binational relationships as well, and they should be counted, too. A recent Immigration Equality client, living here with his American partner for nearly 20 years, was detained upon trying to re-enter the United States after going home to visit his dying mother. By participating in the confidential census process, couples like these can be “counted,” and give voice, through their numbers, to the very real plight of binational couples who have, for too long, remain too hidden in the shadows.”

As explained above, proof of having participated in a US Census can be used as evidence to show one’s continuous residence in the United States of America. Therefore, participating in the Census can be a beneficial endeavor for certain individuals.

It is interesting to note how the issue of undocumented aliens intersects with the issue of LGBT Immigration rights as these two groups would otherwise seem to have interests that are unrelated, but at this time same sex bi-national and undocumented aliens are in legally precarious position. In this author’s opinion, Comprehensive Immigration Reform could be the solution to both of these groups’ problems, but this author believes that it is more likely that the US Courts will deal with the issue of same sex immigration when they adjudicate the Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). However, the outcome with regard to all of these issues remains to be seen.

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

Tags: gay immigration, Gay Immigration Rights, gay us visa, lgbt immigration, LGBT Immigration rights, lgbt visa, same sex us visa, same sex visa, US Visa, US Visa Thailand
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, lgbt immigration, same sex visa, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand | No Comments »

As we have previously discussed on this blog, the K1 visa (the category that is used to denote the US fiance visa) has a derivative counterpart that allows for the children of a foreign fiance or fiancee to travel to the United States with their parent. From a legal standpoint, there is nothing particularly interesting about this, but it does become interesting when holders of K2 Visas apply for adjustment of status in order to obtain United States Lawful Permanent Residence also referred to as a “Green Card.” Under the current rules, there is some question as to whether or not a K2 visa holder is allowed to adjust status after they turn 21 years of age. In a recent article posted on the Immigration Slip Opinion Blog, the author noted that issues surrounding K2 adjustment have yet to be fully addressed, but upcoming cases before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) may clarify this vexing issue:

“‘Aging out’ issues: K-2 and CSPA

There are at least seven cases currently before the BIA that raise the question of whether Congress intended that a K-2 visa holder, admitted to the United States as the child of a fiancé(e) of a U.S. citizen, would become ineligible for adjustment of status upon turning 21. In briefs submitted as amici curiae, the American Immigration Council (Immigration Council) and AILA argue that such a result would produce absurd results and could not have been Congress’s intent. After all, the statute permits – and DHS practice allows – a child of a fiancée to enter the country on a K-2 visa up until his or her 21st birthday. In numerous cases, children enter with only a few days to spare before turning 21. Interpreting the statute as allowing these children to enter until age 21, but then also requiring that an adjustment be completed before they turn 21, is simply unreasonable. The only reasonable interpretation of the statute is that a K-2 child must be under 21 at admission but not at the time of adjustment. A recent favorable 10th Circuit decision doesn’t go quite this far, but should help convince the BIA that DHS is wrong. We have asked the BIA to schedule oral argument on this issue and to decide these cases together.”

This author has yet to be convinced of Congress’s original intent, but this issue is interesting and it will be fascinating to see how this issue plays out in the Immigration Courts. A favorable decision could lead to major benefits for children of the Thai fiancees of American Citizens.

For general information about US Immigration from Thailand please see: US Visa Thailand.

Tags: Adjustment of Status, Adjustment of Status K1 Visa, Adjustment of Status K2 Visa, Fiance Visa, Fiance Visa Thailand, Fiance Visas, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, k2 visa thailand, US Fiance Visa, US Visa Thailand
Posted in Adjustment of Status, Fiance Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, Upcoming Legislation, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | 25 Comments »

The issue of advance parole can be extremely important for those enter the United States on a K1 visa. A K1 visa is a US fiance visa that allows the fiance of a US Citizen to enter the United States for a period of 90 days in order to marry and apply for adjustment of status. Adjustment of Status is the process of acquiring Lawful Permanent Residence (Also Known as a “Green Card”). For those who are awaiting the approval of an adjustment application a sense of being in “limbo” can set in as the applicant does not yet have permanent residence and they cannot leave the United States without falling out of status and thereby, often inadvertently, causing the entire visa process to begin anew.

There is a way that a foreign national can keep from falling out of status and still leave the United States. If the foreign national petitions for, and obtains, advance parole, then they may leave the United States and preserve both their Fiance Visa and their adjustment application.

In the past, applications for advance parole were adjudicated by local USCIS offices. However, in a recent USCIS announcement distributed by AILA, this procedure is changing:

“WASHINGTON – U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced revised filing instructions and addresses for applicants filing an Application for Travel Document (Form I-131). The change of filing location is part of an overall effort to transition the intake of some USCIS forms from USCIS local offices and Service Centers to USCIS Lockbox facilities. By Centralizing form and fee intake to a Lockbox environment, the agency can provide customers with more efficient and effective initial processing of applications and fees.”

“Beginning March 19, 2010 applicants will file their applications at the USCIS Vermont Service Center or at one of the USCIS Lockbox facilities. Detailed guidance can be found in updated Form I-131 instructions page at www.uscis.gov.”

Many people may already be asking themselves: What if I inadvertently filed my advance parole application at the wrong location because I was unaware of the change? Luckily, USCIS is dealing with this internally, at least for now:

“The USCIS Service Centers will forward incorrectly filed Form I-131 applications to the USCIS Lockbox facilities for 30 days, until Monday, April 19, 2010. After April 19, 2010, incorrectly filed applications will be returned to the applicant, with a note to send the application to the correct location.”

Since USCIS will discontinue forwarding incorrectly filed applications, those seeking advance parole should carefully study this issue before submitting an application as failure to do so could cause delays in being granted permission to leave the USA and preserve one’s status.

For further information about American Immigration from Thailand please see: US Visa Thailand.

Tags: Adjustment of Status, advance parole, American Immigration Thailand, Fiance Visa, Fiance Visa Thailand, I-131, I131, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, US Fiance Visa, US Visa Thailand
Posted in Adjustment of Status, Fiance Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | No Comments »

For many Thai-American couples a prenuptial agreement is an effective method of ensuring that bot parties understand the rights, obligations, and responsibilities that marriage entails. The US Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand issues a large number of visas to the fiancees and spouses of American Citizens. As this is the case, one of the ancillary issues regarding US Immigration involves prenuptial agreements as many couples opt to have a Thai Prenuptial Agreement signed prior to a marriage which is used as a basis for a K3 Visa or a CR1 Visa or they opt to have a prenuptial agreement drafted prior to a Thai fiancee’s departure to the USA on a US fiance visa (also known as a K1 visa). That being said, having a prenuptial agreement properly drafted is extremely important as failure to properly draft such an important document could lead to unforeseen problems down the road.

In previous posting on this blog, this author has discussed the importance of having a licensed US attorney act as a representative in US Immigration matters as “visa companies,” “visa agents” and fly by night operations claiming to be either lawyers, attorneys, or both cannot represent clients before the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). With regard to a Thai prenup, one should retain a licensed American attorney to draft a prenuptial agreement if for not other reason than the fact that they are trained in the working of United States law as well as the common law system in general. Unfortunately, those falsely claiming legal credentials are often drafting documents that are insufficient to ensure the security of one’s assets.

The obvious question that many people in Thailand have is: how can I be sure that the person drafting my prenuptial agreement is a lawyer? As with United States Immigration matters, the best way to verify an individual’s credentials is to ask for either a State Supreme Court License, a State Bar Association Membership Card, or a Federal license to practice law in a US Federal jurisdiction. After receiving the individual’s credentials, it may be necessary to check with the Supreme Court or Bar Association to be certain that the individual is an attorney in that jurisdiction.

Prenuptial Agreements are very important documents and they should be carefully drafted by someone with legal acumen. Entrusting something so important to those without credentials is a risky endeavor that will likely not be recognized until long after correspondence with the drafter has terminated.

For further information please see: Prenuptial Agreement Thailand.

Tags: CR1 Visa, CR1 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, prenup, Prenuptial Agreement Attorney Thailand, Prenuptial Agreement Lawyer Thailand, prenuptial agreement Thailand, Thai prenup, Thai prenups, Thai prenuptial agreement, Thailand prenup, thailand prenuptial agreement, US Visa Thailand
Posted in CR1 Visa, Fiance Visa Thailand, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, prenuptial agreement, Thai Family Law, Thailand Marriage Registration, Thailand Property, Thailand Real Estate, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand | 22 Comments »

In a few recent blog posts, this author has discussed the proposed fee increases for services offered at US Diplomatic and Consular Posts abroad. Apparently, the Department of State will be increasing the fees associated with Passport procurement. Also, those who wish to obtain new pages in their passport will no longer be able to have pages added free of charge. Finally, although on a slightly different topic, the fees for non-immigrant family based visas is to be raised as well. For those who are unfamiliar with the details of US Immigration the US Fiance Visa (also called the K1 visa) and the Non-Immigrant US Marriage visa (Also called a K3 Visa) are issued at American Embassies overseas.

The Department of State issued some statements in a supplement regarding the proposed rule that would increase the fees for Consular Services:

“The Department of State (“Department”) published two proposed rules in the Federal Register on December 14, 2009 (74 FR 66076, Public Notice 6851, RIN 1400-AC57), and on February 9, 2010 (75 FR 6321, Public Notice 6887, RIN 1400-AC58), proposing to amend sections of part 22 of Title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the Schedule of Fees for Consular Services. The Department’s proposed rules solicited comments, and a number of comments requested additional detail on the Consular Services Cost of Service Study (CoSS) as well as time to comment on that detail. In response, the Department is providing the additional written detail below.”

The Department of State should be commended for taking the time to explain to the public the policy reasons for a fee increase. In many ways, a fee increase is periodically necessary as each US Embassy and/or US Consulate must serve the needs of the Americans using the post while at the same time stay within a budget. Balancing these two objectives can be difficult at times. The statement went further in describing the reasons behind the increase in fees, but used an analogy to make the point:

“Example: Imagine a government agency that has a single facility it uses to prepare and issue a single product–a driver’s license. In this simple scenario, every cost associated with that facility (the salaries of employees, the electricity to power the computer terminals, the cost of a blank driver’s license, etc.) can be attributed directly to the cost of producing that single item. If that agency wants to ensure that it is charging a “self- sustaining” price for driver’s licenses, it only has to divide its total costs for a given time period by an estimate of the number of driver’s licenses to be produced during that same time period.”

As this analogy points out, if an organization is just producing one product, then determining the cost of the product is relatively easy:

“However, if that agency issues multiple products (driver’s licenses, non-driver ID cards, etc.), has employees that work on other activities besides licenses (for example, accepting payment for traffic tickets), and operates out of multiple facilities it shares with other agencies, it becomes much more complex for the agency to determine exactly how much it costs to produce any single product. In those instances, the agency would need to know what percent of time its employees spend on each service and how much of its overhead (rent, utilities, facilities maintenance, etc.) are consumed in delivering each service to determine the cost of producing each of its various products–the driver’s license, the non-driver ID card, etc. Using an ABC model would allow the agency to develop those costs.”

Apparently, the Department of State, through use of modeling, has discovered the true cost of their services and is attempting  to adjust their fees accordingly. It remains to be seen how thee changes will impact expats and Americans using United States Consular Posts abroad. In Thailand, it is this author’s opinion, that this fee increase will have the biggest impact upon the American Citizen Services Unit of the US Embassy Bangkok and the US Consulate Chiang Mai as those respective units deal with issues like new passport issuance on a regular basis.

Tags: American Citizen Services, American Embassy Bangkok, American Embassy Thailand, Free Visa Pages, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, K3 Visa Thailand, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Consulate General Chiang Mai, US Embassy, us embassy bangkok, us embassy thailand, US Fiance Visa, US Marriage Visa, US Passport Fee Increase, US Visa Thailand
Posted in Fiance Visa Thailand, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, Upcoming Legislation, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Consulate HCMC, US Consulate Singapore, 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 Thailand, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand | 7 Comments »

Although delicate, the issue of prostitution in Thailand and the impact upon United States Immigration is something that an American Immigration attorney in Thailand should discuss, if for no other reason than the fact that there is a great deal of misinformation about this topic throughout the internet.

First, the relevant law: The United States Immigration and Nationality Act §212(a)(2)(D) has the following to say on the topic of inadmissibility and prostitution:

(D) Prostitution and commercialized vice

Any alien who—

(i) is coming to the United States solely, principally, or incidentally to engage in prostitution, or has engaged in prostitution within 10 years of the date of application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status,

(ii) directly or indirectly procures or attempts to procure, or (within 10 years of the date of application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status) procured or attempted to procure or to import, prostitutes or persons for the purpose of prostitution, or receives or (within such 10-year period) received, in whole or in part, the proceeds of prostitution, or

(iii) is coming to the United States to engage in any other unlawful commercialized vice, whether or not related to prostitution,

is inadmissible.

It should be noted that legality is not an issue when it comes to prostitution as even a legal act of prostitution is a legal ground of inadmissibility from the United States of America. In the US State of Nevada, prostitution is legal provided the brothel has a license and comports to certain regulatory rules with regard to health and advertising. However, the act of prostitution itself is not illegal under in Nevada so long as the prostitute works in a licensed establishment. Regardless of the fact that the act may be legal, the Immigration and Nationality Act still makes the act a legal grounds of inadmissibility if it occurred within 10 years of the application for admission to the United States of America.

This seemingly glaring disjunction is the result of the American doctrine of Federalism. In the US, there is one sovereign in the form of the Federal government and 50 sovereigns in the form of the 50 US states. It is possible that State and Federal law will occasionally conflict. For Immigration purposes, the Federal regulations and statutes are controlling over state law. Therefore, regardless of the fact that an act of prostitution may be legal in a US state, it may still be a legal grounds of inadmissibility if it occurred within 10 years of an application for admission to the USA.

In Thailand this is important to note because prostitution is only vaguely defined in criminal statutes. Under the provisions of the Thai Prevention and Suppression of Prostitution Act of 1996 the definition of prostitution is defined as:

“‘prostitution’ means sexual intercourse, or any other act, or the commission of any other act in order to gratify the sexual desire of another person in a promiscuous manner in return for money or any other benefit, irrespective of whether the person who accepts the act and the person who commits the act are of the same sex or not…”

The obvious problem with this definition is the phrase “in a promiscuous manner.” Authorities in Thailand seem to operate under the assumption that acts of prostitution occurring in private are not promiscuous and therefore do not meet the legal definition of prostitution. The United States immigration authorities do not take this view and their view of prostitution falls in line with the more traditional definition which mandates finding of previous engagement in acts of prostitution if the individual in question was paid in exchange for providing sexual gratification.

If a Consular Officer at a US Embassy or US Consulate abroad finds an alien inadmissible because the alien has engaged in prostitution within 10 years of filing an application for a US visa, then the alien will not be able to obtain a US visa, nor will they be allowed to enter the United States of America. This decision is not subject to appeal.

What is the solution if an alien is found inadmissible based upon a finding that they have engaged in prostitution within 10 years of applying for a US visa? Fortunately, the Immigration and Nationality Act provides a remedy for those who are found inadmissible under these circumstances. An I-601 waiver may be filed with USCIS and if approved, the alien will be able to seek admission to the United States of America.

Throughout the internet there are those who claim that the best way to avoid this issue is to lie to a Consular Officer or “omit certain facts.” This practice is highly inadvisable. First, it is illegal and in some cases punishable by five years in a federal penitentiary and a $250,000 fine. Second, it could lead to further problems for an alien because lying to a Consular Officer could result in a finding that the alien had engaged in fraud and misrepresentation which is a separate ground of inadmissibility. Third, such advice is highly unethical and reflects adversely upon anyone who advises a client to lie to a Consular Officer or in a visa application. Run, don’t walk, away from anyone who gives this kind of advice as it is unethical, illegal, and could result in a permanent bar to entering the United States.

Our firm’s policy is to disclose all legally relevant facts and deal with the legal consequences in a straightforward manner.

For More Information Please See: US Visa Thailand.

Tags: 601 Waiver, fiance visa bargirl, fiancee visa bargirl, I-601, I-601 Waiver, I601, I601 Waiver, Inadmissibility Prostitution, k1 visa bargirl, k1 visa prostitution, k3 visa bargirl, k3 visa prostitution, Prostitution, Prostitution Waiver, Thai fiancee worked in a bar, Thai girlfriend worked in a bar, Thai wife worked in a bar, Thailand bargirl visa, US Visa for Bargirl, US visa for girl who worked in a bar, US visa for someone who worked in a bar, US Visa Prostitution Waiver, US Visa Thailand
Posted in CR1 Visa, Fiance Visa Thailand, IR1 Visa, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Consulate HCMC, US Consulate Singapore, 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 Thailand, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | 1 Comment »

Recently, this author came across an announcement that a new refugee bill was introduced in the United States Senate. Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democratic Senator from the State of Vermont, introduced the “The Refugee Protection Act of 2010.” The provisions of the Act would supplement the Refugee Act of 1980.

In another recent announcement the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) discussed the ways that the proposed bill will improve conditions for American refugees. The following list of improvements was quoted directly from the AILA website:

“Increased Protections for Asylum Seekers:

• Eliminate the requirement that asylum applicants file their claim within one year of arrival.
• Protect particularly vulnerable asylum seekers by ensuring they can pursue a claim even where their persecution was not socially visible.
• Ensure fair process by requiring an immigration judge to give notice and an opportunity to respond when the judge requires corroborating evidence of the asylum claim.
• Give an applicant the opportunity to explain and clarify inconsistencies in a claim.
• Enable minors who seek asylum to have an initial interview with an asylum officer in a non-adversarial setting.
• Allow the Attorney General to appoint counsel where fair resolution or effective adjudication of the proceedings would be served by appointment of counsel.

Reforms to the Expedited Removal Process:

• Require the referral of asylum seekers to an asylum officer for a credible fear interview, and, if credible fear is found, for an asylum interview.
• Authorize the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom to conduct a new study on the effects of expedited removal authority on asylum seekers.

Parole of Asylum Seekers:

• Codify the current DHS policy that asylum seekers be considered for release (“parole”) and requires DHS to issue regulations establishing criteria for parole.
• Establish a nationwide, secure “alternatives to detention” program.
• Require changes in the immigration detention system to ensure asylum seekers and others have access to counsel, medical care, religious practice, and visits from family.

Terrorism Bar to Admissibility:

• Modify definitions in the statute to ensure that innocent asylum seekers and refugees are not unfairly denied protection as a result of the material support and terrorism bars in the law, while ensuring that those with legitimate ties to terrorist activity will continue to be denied entry to the United States.

Protection for Refugees and Asylees:

• Eliminate the one-year waiting period for refugees and asylees to apply for a green card.
• Allow certain children and family members of refugees to be considered as derivative applicants for refugee status. All such applicants must pass standard security checks.
• Authorize the Secretary of State to designate certain groups as eligible for expedited adjudication as refugees.
• Prevent newly resettled refugees from slipping into poverty by adjusting the per capita refugee resettlement grant level annually for inflation and the cost of living.”

How this bill fares in the Senate remains to be seen, but one can hope that some new measure of protection will be accorded to foreign refugees seeking asylum in the United States of America, particularly in the context of expedited removal as this can cause a great deal of suffering for many of those trying to get into the United States in order to flee persecution.

United States Immigration for Refugees is a major concern in Southeastern Asia as there are many displaced ethnic and religious groups throughout the region. In most cases, refugees come from countries such as Burma or Laos, as Thailand sees few refugees departing for America. For further information regarding American visas from Southeast Asia and Thailand specifically please see: US Visa Thailand.

Tags: Asylum, expedited removal, Refugee, refugees, The Refugee Protection Act of 2010, US Immigration, US Visa, US Visa Thailand, US Visas
Posted in US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand | No Comments »

Many people contact this author in order to ask questions about the United States Immigration process. Sometimes, a question becomes so common that I feel the need to post an article about the subject on this blog. The question that has been recently posed with great frequency is: Can I get my Thai girlfriend to the United States on a US tourist visa? Strictly speaking, yes, but this answer needs to be highly qualified. Anyone who is approved for a US tourist visa can go to the United States and request admission, but obtaining approval of a US tourist visa application can be difficult for the boyfriend or girlfriend of an American Citizen. The difficulty arises under the provisions of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act.

Pursuant to Section 214(b) of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act a Consular Officer at a United States Embassy or United States Consulate-General is required to make a presumption that a non-immigrant visa applicant is actually an intending immigrant unless they can prove otherwise. This, in turn, leads to a factual analysis by the Consular Officer. The Consular Officer must believe that the applicant has “strong ties” to their home country, or any other country outside of the USA, and “weak ties” to the United States. In many cases, the mere existence of a US Citizen boyfriend or girlfriend will mitigate against any “strong ties” abroad and lead to a visa denial under section 214(b). This reasoning on the part of US Embassy personnel should not be misconstrued as a personal denial. Instead, the officer is legally compelled to deny a tourist visa application if the applicant cannot overcome the presumption imposed by section 214(b).

Many people then ask the question: can this visa denial be appealed? No, although an applicant may ask for a tourist visa application to be reopened. That being said, in virtually all cases, the denial will be upheld. A Consular Officer’s factual findings are not subject to appeal based upon the doctrine of Consular Absolutism. However, a legal finding may be subject to reversal. With that in mind, one should recognize that a visa denial under section 214(b) is a factual determination and therefore not generally subject to reversal.

If a couple truly has a bona fide intention to marry in the USA and apply for adjustment of status, then a tourist visa is really not the correct travel document as it specifically precludes immigrant intent (unlike a dual intent travel document such as a K1 visa or an L1 visa). Therefore, if the couple wishes to marry and adjust status, then a Fiance Visa is a more appropriate travel document. However, the couple must have a truly bona fide intention to marry and not simply a pretextual intention in order to pursue US Immigration benefits.

For further information for about visas in general and the complex issues surrounding family based petitions please see: US Visa Thai Girlfriend.

Tags: Fiance Visa, Fiancee Visa, K-1 Visa, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thai Girfriend, K1 Visa Thailand, Thai Girlfriend Visa, US Tourist Visa Thailand, US Visa Denial Thailand, US visa denied Thai girlfriend, US Visa For Thai, US Visa Thai Girlfriend, US Visa Thailand, visa denial Thai girlfriend
Posted in Adjustment of Status, Fiance Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Consulate HCMC, US Consulate Singapore, 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 Thailand, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US Tourist Visa, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand | 6 Comments »

On many occasions, this author has discussed the issue of the unauthorized practice of law in the context of US Immigration. This problem has been significant in certain areas of the United States as well as abroad. Certain Immigrant groups are more susceptible to fraud than others as it can be difficult for some to decipher who is eligible to represent clients before the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) and other agencies under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security.

Recently, USCIS had a collaboration session to discuss the issue of unauthorized individuals practicing law. The following is a quote from a release promulgated by USCIS’s Office of Public Engagement:

“Scope of the Problem:

• The unauthorized practice of law encompasses various activities, including:

• Applying for benefits on behalf of an immigrant who is ineligible for those benefits

• Misrepresentation of facts in documents submitted to USCIS

• Accepting an applicant’s money without ever submitting any documents to USCIS (this is the hardest to track because USCIS has no record of the unauthorized practitioner or documents submitted on behalf of the applicant)

• Other examples include unauthorized practitioners who claim to be able to obtain labor certifications for employers

• Primarily a “local issue of national scale”

• Many unauthorized practitioners promise to expedite cases, and then take an applicant’s money and disappear – applicants are willing to pay more to an unauthorized practitioner than they would to a private attorney because they may believe that notary publics can provide premium services (stems from a difference between the role of notary publics in the U.S. and other countries)

• Some attorneys lend their names and bar numbers to UPL practices – these attorneys can be disciplined for failure to supervise, but there is nothing that can be done to the unauthorized practitioners

• Unauthorized practitioners sell forms through their websites and conduct phone consultations

• There are companies overseas that claim to provide assistance with the “green card lottery”

• In recent years, there has been an increase in internet-based scams

• Unauthorized practitioners include ex-government officials, including previous employees of INS, USCIS, DHS, and DOS

• Unauthorized practitioners often threaten to report applicants to USCIS or ICE when they complain about fees or lack of service

• Most serious threat is mom and pop shops that advertise with flyers and in local papers or through referrals and hand out business cards advertising themselves as notary publics or attorneys

• Applicants have an incentive to protect unauthorized practitioners because once an unauthorized practitioner is caught, all cases are reopened

• Some therapists working with U visa applicants assist clients with preparing/filing forms”

Unfortunately one of the worst consequences of hiring an unauthorized representative is that the applicant’s case may be reopened and scrutinized if it is found that they were assisted by someone without authorization to practice US Immigration law. US immigration lawyers routinely “clean up the mess” caused by those without the knowledge base or ethical standards required to represent clients in American Immigration proceedings.  For this reason, it is always prudent to ascertain at the outset if an individual is really entitled to practice law. This can be learned by asking to see a copy of the individual’s US license to practice law in the Supreme Court of one of the 50 states or a territory of the United States. A Bar Association Membership Card can also shed light on an individual’s credentials. In the case of non-profit entities, a copy of a document confirming the organization or individual’s accreditation by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) may also be used to prove an ability to represent people before the Department of Homeland Security.

For those seeking advice about US Immigration from Thailand please see: US Lawyer Thailand or US Visa Thailand.

Tags: American Immigration, unlicensed practice of law, UPL, US Immigration, US Immigration Law, US Immigration Thailand, US Lawyer Thailand, US Visa, US Visa Thailand, USCIS
Posted in Legal Opinion, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | No Comments »

There are many people of all nationalities who submit applications for a US Tourist Visa at the US Embassy Thailand. Although these applications are quite common, they are becoming increasingly subject to denial pursuant to section 214(b) of the United States Citizenship and Nationality Act. This provision basically requires that the Consular Officer make a presumption that the tourist visa applicant is an undisclosed immigrant unless the applicant can provide strong evidence to the contrary. This creates the “strong ties” vs. “weak ties” analysis which requires that the applicant show “strong ties” to a country outside of the United States and “weak ties” to the USA. This can be a very problematic provision especially for those Americans who wish to bring a Thai significant other back to the US.

The existence of an American Citizen boyfriend can be very detrimental for a Thai’s B2 visa application (or any non-immigrant visa application for that matter ex: F-1 visa, J-1 visa, B-1 visa, etc). The detriment arises from the fact that the applicant has a primary relationship with an American and therefore could be construed to have a “strong tie” to the USA. Some couples try to get around this problem by “not mentioning” the existence of a relationship with an American. This is not a good idea, in this author’s opinion, because any dishonesty, even dishonesty by omission, is unethical and could be viewed by the Embassy and/or Consulate as an attempt to defraud the US government. For an American Citizen, a finding of fraud and misrepresentation could lead to penalties, but such a finding could have a highly negative impact upon the applicant’s chances of ever obtaining a US visa in the future as fraud and misrepresentation is considered a legal grounds of inadmissibility to the USA that would likely only be remedied upon the approval of an I601 waiver.

However, the DS-156 form that is used to apply for a US tourist visa does not ask “do you have an American boyfriend/girlfriend?” Instead the forms asks:

“Are Any of The Following Persons in The U.S., or Do They Have U.S. Legal Permanent Residence or U.S. Citizenship? Mark YES or NO and indicate that person’s status in the U.S. (i.e., U.S. legal permanent resident, U.S. citizen, visiting, studying, working, etc.)”

The form then allows the applicant to note family relationships, including “fiance/fiancee.” The reason this is being discussed is due to the fact that the rest of the form’s questions can be relatively easily answered. For example,  one can say with near certainty if they have a US Citizen husband, but “fiance” is another, more opaque, concept. Defining “fiance” is difficult as relationships, prior to marriage, are fairly fluid from a legal standpoint. In this author’s opinion, if the applicant has a romantic relationship with an American Citizen, then this fact should be disclosed to the Consular Officers either in writing or at the visa interview, but if there is any inkling that marriage and adjustment of status may be a possibility, then it may be better to forgo an attempt at a tourist visa, as this is not really the proper travel document, and submit a petition for a K1 visa.

For further information, please see: US Visa Thailand.

Tags: B-2 Visa, B-2 Visa Thailand, B2 Visa, B2 Visa Thailand, Fiance Visa Thailand, Fraud and Misrepresentation, K-1 Visa, K-1 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, US Tourist Visa, US Tourist Visa Thailand, US Visa Thailand
Posted in Adjustment of Status, Fiance Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Thailand, US Tourist Visa, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand | No Comments »