Integrity Legal

A frequently discussed topic on this blog is that of LGBT immigration rights. Recently the United States Department of State made an announcement about new guidelines that will be implemented with regard to those seeking corrected passports and Consular Reports of Birth Abroad to reflect gender change. The following is a direct quote from the announcement:

The U.S. Department of State is pleased to use the occasion of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Pride Month to announce its new policy guidelines regarding gender change in passports and Consular Reports of Birth Abroad. Beginning June 10, when a passport applicant presents a certification from an attending medical physician that the applicant has undergone appropriate clinical treatment for gender transition, the passport will reflect the new gender. The guidelines include detailed information about what information the certification must include. It is also possible to obtain a limited-validity passport if the physician’s statement shows the applicant is in the process of gender transition. No additional medical records are required. Sexual reassignment surgery is no longer a prerequisite for passport issuance. A Consular Report of Birth Abroad can also be amended with the new gender. As with all passport applicants, passport issuing officers at embassies and consulates abroad and domestic passport agencies and centers will only ask appropriate questions to obtain information necessary to determine citizenship and identity.

The new policy and procedures are based on standards and recommendations of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), recognized by the American Medical Association as the authority in this field.

Although this announcement marks a watershed moment for transgender rights, there are many who feel that a more pressing issue is that of US visa benefits for those couples in a bona fide LGBT relationship. At present, statutes such as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) preclude Immigration benefits for bi-national same sex couples. Meanwhile, different sex couples enjoy immigration benefits notwithstanding the fact that same sex couples may have been married under exactly the same conditions as their different sex counterparts. Many feel that this disparity is unconstitutional and illegal. However, this assertion has yet to be fully analyzed by US Courts.

There are some American legislators who are attempting to deal with this perceived inequality through passage of legislation such as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). Some hope that so-called Comprehensive Immigration Reform will include some provision for same sex bi-national couples hoping to obtain same sex visa benefits.

Tags: consular report of birth abroad, CRBA, lgbt immigration, Same Sex Marriage, same sex visa, Transgender Passport, us passport, US Visa
Posted in lgbt immigration, same sex visa | 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 »

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 »

The issue of Comprehensive Immigration Reform seems to be more hotly debated as the mid-term Congressional elections in the United States approach. Recently, President Barack Obama was quoted as saying:

What has become increasingly clear is that we can no longer wait to fix our broken immigration system, which Democrats and Republicans alike agree doesn’t work. It’s unacceptable to have 11 million people in the United States who are living here illegally and outside of the system. I have repeatedly said that there are some essential components that must be in immigration legislation. It must call for stronger border security measures, tougher penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants and clearer rules for controlling future immigration. And it must require those who are here illegally to get right with the law, pay penalties and taxes, learn English, pass criminal background checks and admit responsibility before they are allowed to get in line and eventually earn citizenship. The outline presented today includes many of these elements. The next critical step is to iron out the details of a bill. We welcome that discussion, and my Administration will play an active role in engaging partners on both sides of the aisle to work toward a bipartisan solution that is based on the fundamental concept of accountability that the American people expect and deserve.

Many argue that the United States Immigration system needs to be modified as it is proving to be too inflexible when it comes to dealing with some of the important immigration problems of the day. A case in point is the debate on Same Sex US Immigration benefits for bi-national couples. At present, same-sex bi-national couples cannot receive the same family immigration benefits as different sex couples due to provisions in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In short these couples cannot receive a same sex marriage visa. Many hope that by placing specific legislative language akin to the provisions of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) into the Comprehensive Immigration bill this policy of providing disproportionate benefits will come to an end.

Overall, the current immigration system has improved for those seeking immediate relative immigration benefits (IR1, CR1, IR2, etc). For example, the  National Visa Center has begun administratively closing K3 Visa applications as the need for such expedited travel documents is felt to be no longer necessary for those seeking immigrant benefits since USCIS no longer has a high backlog for such petitions. The K1 visa is still processing in the same manner as it has in the past. However, some of the preference petition categories are still processing quite slowly. Also, this brief assessment does not look at employment based immigration issues associated with visa categories such as the L1 visa and the E2 visa nor does it begin to tackle to issue of undocumented workers and immigrants in the USA.

For further information on this issue please see: Fiance Visa Thailand.

Tags: Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, Fiance Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K3 Visa, lgbt immigration, LGBT US Immigration, LGBT US Visa, lgbt visa, Same Sex CR1 Visa, Same Sex IR1 Visa, Same Sex K1 visa, Same Sex K3 Visa, same sex visa, uafa, Uniting American Families Act, US Visa, US Visa Thailand
Posted in CR1 Visa, Department of Homeland Security, Fiance Visa Thailand, General Legal Information, IR1 Visa, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, lgbt immigration, National Visa Center, same sex 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, USCIS | No Comments »

Repeatedly, this author uses this blog as a platform to try to educate the public regarding the US visa process and the problems that can arise during that process. In many cases, people are simply unaware of the rules regarding US visa issuance and this blog attempts to provide relevant information that readers may find beneficial. That being said, another frequently discussed topic is the unauthorized practice of law by “visa companies” and “visa agents” or those claiming to be American attorneys. This is not simply a tirade against such practices, but is intended to provide information regarding the detrimental impact that these individuals can have upon the interests of their “clients”.

Under section 292.1 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations a licensed attorney is entitled to represent clients before the United States Department of Homeland Security, specifically the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) which is tasked with adjudicating US visa petitions. Many are unaware of the fact that those who assist individuals in preparing visa petitions are engaging in the unauthorized practice of law if they are not: licensed to practice law in at least one US jurisdiction while being eligible to practice law in all US jurisdictions or certified by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).

Licensure is no small matter, especially for those individuals who are “represented” by those claiming to be attorneys who are not, in fact, licensed. For example, if an American talks to an unlicensed individual about sensitive matters, then such communications would not be confidential and also would not be protected under the attorney/client privilege. If one is communicating in confidence to a licensed attorney, then such communication is “out of bounds” for US Courts. However, the same communications with one who is unlicensed could be used as evidence in a US court proceeding. Therefore, licensure is extremely important particularly in US Immigration matters involving a legal ground of inadmissibility or an I-601 waiver as certain information could be very detrimental to clients’ interests and if imparted to a licensed American attorney would be confidential, but if imparted to an unlicensed “fly by night” operator such information could be used against the client at a later date.

For all of these reasons, when an American is outside of the USA it is always prudent to check the credentials of anyone claiming to be an attorney from the United States. An individual can provide adequate credentials if they can show their license to practice law before at least on State Supreme Court in the US, or a Federal license to practice law in the USA, or a license to practice law in one of the US territorial jurisdictions (Guam, Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, etc). Anyone who refuses to provide any such credentials and yet still asserts that they are an American attorney should be avoided until proof of credentials can be provided.

For further information about US Immigration from Thailand please see: K1 Visa Thailand.

Tags: American Attorney, American Attorney Thailand, American Lawyer, American Lawyer Thailand, Fiance Visa Thailand, I-601 Waiver, K1 Visa Thailand, US attorney, US Attorney Thailand, US Immigration Thailand, US lawyer, US Lawyer Thailand, US Visa, US Visa Thailand, Visa Process
Posted in Adjustment of Status, CR1 Visa, Department of Homeland Security, F1 Visa Thailand, Fiance Visa Thailand, IR1 Visa, J1 Visa Thailand, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, lgbt immigration, same sex 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 Tourist Visa, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | 1 Comment »

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 »

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 »

This author has repeatedly discussed the problems arising from the unauthorized practice of law as so called “visa agents” and “visa companies” as well as those masquerading as legitimate attorneys can cause many problems for bi-national couples. With this in mind, we will briefly discuss the proliferation of “Do It Yourself” Kits and the American Visa Process.

Throughout the internet, it is becoming increasingly easy to find those touting “Kits” to provide guidance to those who are processing their own visa petition and application. First, it should be noted that this author is not concerned by those who opt to process their own US visa petition or US visa application. In fact, the right to unilaterally petition one’s government for benefits is something that should be preserved at all costs. However, some opt to seek counsel in processing their US visa application. In these cases, the use of a “kit” could prove more detrimental than beneficial. For example: most so-called “kits” simply provide information that is already freely available. In many cases, individuals find that when their “kit” arrives it contains information that could easily have been found on either the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) website or the website of the Department of State. In some cases, information found in these “kits” can prove to be less than useful as some have found that information contained in a “visa kit” is out of date.

United States Immigration law encompasses rules and regulations promulgated by multiple government agencies as well as local law in foreign jurisdictions and the local Embassy or Consulate procedures in nearly every country on the planet. It is extremely difficult to imagine a “kit” that could provide guidance for all possible scenarios that could arise throughout the process of obtaining a visa for a foreign loved one.

A case in point, only recently was it announced that the K3 Visa application would be administratively closed. It is hard to imagine that one who purchased a kit right before this change was announced would have up-to-date information regarding the processing of a US marriage visa. This is just one example of how “Kits” cannot be used as effectively as competent legal advice from a professional.

Many “kit” retailers provide a 100% Guarantee or some other form of guarantee. As has been repeated many times on this blog, no ethical individual, attorney or otherwise, can guarantee the outcome of any case pending before USCIS, the National Visa Center, or a US Embassy abroad. Those thinking about purchasing a “Kit” may be wise to simply save their money.

For related information please see: K1 visa.

Tags: American Visa Process, Do it yourself, Do It Yourself Visa Kit, I-129f Kit, I-130 Kit, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Kit, K3 Visa, K3 Visa Thailand, US Visa, US Visa Process, Visa Process
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, National Visa Center, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | 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 »