Integrity Legal

In a previous posting on this blog the discussion centered upon the EB-3 visa. To remain on a similar topic, the Employment Based visa preference category 4 is another type of travel document which is somewhat similar to other employment based visas although some of the criteria are different. To quote directly from the official website of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), USCIS.gov:

Employment-Based Immigration: Fourth Preference EB-4

You may be eligible for an employment-based, fourth preference visa if you are a special immigrant. The following special immigrants are eligible for the fourth preference visa:

• Religious Workers
• Broadcasters
• Iraqi/Afghan Translators
• Iraqis Who Have Assisted the United States
• International Organization Employees
• Physicians
• Armed Forces Members
• Panama Canal Zone Employees
• Retired NATO-6 employees
• Spouses and Children of Deceased NATO-6 employees

Petitioning for an Employment-Based Fourth Preference Immigrant

To petition for an employment-based fourth preference immigrant, your employer must file a Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant. However, there are certain situations where you, the employee, may self-petition on your own behalf. Please review the form instructions to see if you are eligible to self petition and what required supporting evidence needs to be included.

Readers are asked to remember that the above citation is not a satisfactory substitute for a full analysis of issues associated with the EB-4 visa especially as each individual immigration case is adjudicated pursuant to the unique factual circumstances present in the given situation.

This blogger has found that some of those who research this area confuse the EB-4 visa with the E-1 visa or the E-2 visa. In some cases, this category gets confused with the EB-5 visa. Regardless, the EB-4 visa is a stand alone visa category which provides the benefit of lawful permanent residence to the bearer upon lawful admission to the United States of America. Clearly, the criteria for EB-4 visa issuance are less stringent than, say, the EB-1 visa; but this visa category is still heavily scrutinized by adjudicators and for this reason prospective EB-4 visa seekers should be prepared to undergo such an adjudication by USCIS.

Concurrently, it should also be noted that those foreign nationals seeking an EB-4 visa abroad are likely required to undergo Consular Processing at a US Embassy or US Consulate abroad in order to ultimately hope to receive a visa. Consular Officers at US Missions abroad are tasked with the responsibility of adjudicating visa applications for those foreign nationals wishing to travel to the United States of America.

For related information please see: US Visa Thailand.

Tags: Afghan Translators, Amerasian, American Consulate, American Embassy, Armed Forces Members, Broadcasters, Consular Processing, EB-1 visa, EB-2 Visa, EB-3 Visa, EB-4 visa, EB1 visa, EB2 Visa, EB3 Visa, EB4 visa, Employment Based visa preference category 4, Employment-Based Immigration: Fourth Preference EB-4, I-360, International Organization Employees, Iraqi Translators, Iraqis Who Have Assisted the United States, Panama Canal Zone Employees, Physicians, Religious Workers, Retired NATO-6 employees, Special Immigrant, Spouses and Children of Deceased NATO-6 employees, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, US Consulate, US Embassy, USCIS, Widower
Posted in EB-4 Visa | No Comments »

In a previous posting on this blog the eligibility criteria for the EB-1 visa were briefly discussed. In that same vein, this blogger felt further elaboration on other Employment Based visa categories was warranted to provide insight to readers about issues associated with other employment based preference categories. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Service‘s (USCIS) official website posted an enlightening chart to provide an overall glimpse of the eligibility criteria which this blogger felt could be of interest to readers. To quote directly from the official website of the USCIS, USCIS.gov:

Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research into these issues as the chart above is merely presented to provide something of an overview regarding eligibility. The chart above should not be viewed as an exhaustive analysis of the issues at play in a EB-2 petition.

It should be noted that second preference Employment Based petitions are carefully scrutinized as issuance of such visas is intended for those foreign professionals holding an advanced degree or an alien national of “exceptional ability”. Therefore prospective visa seekers are encouraged to note the rather high standards by which those seeking this visa category will be compared during the adjudication process.

Those seeking the visa categorized as an EB-2 are well advised to remember that adjudication of a visa petition at the Department of Homeland Security‘s USCIS may be only one phase of the overall visa process as those residing outside of the United States may be required to undergo Consular Processing at a US Embassy or US Consulate abroad.

For readers who have happened upon this blog in the past, the mention of the “national interest waiver” may bring to mind the I-601 waiver or the I-212 waiver which could be argued to be somewhat similar. Another type of waiver that could be construed as similar to the “national interest waiver” is the waiver sometimes granted by USCIS to permit the filing of multiple petitions for a K1 visa within a relatively short period of time notwithstanding the provisions of the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA).

Frequent readers may recall that the EB-5 visa is also classified as an Employment Based Visa although the criteria for EB-5 visa issuance is different from those of the EB-2 most notably as the EB-5 visa petitioner must demonstrate that a substantial investment has been made in the United States in order to hope to attain eligibility for EB-5 visa status.

The United States visa process can be overwhelming at times and for this reason many opt to retain the assistance of counsel. That stated, when retaining the services of anyone purporting to be qualified to provide advice and/or assistance regarding immigration matters it may be prudent to ascertain credentials as, pursuant to relevant US law, only a licensed American attorney is permitted to take in client fees while engaged in the practice of United States immigration law.

For related information please see: Legal.

Tags: American Consulate, American Embassy, Consular Processing, Department of Homeland Security, EB-2 Visa, EB-5 Visa, EB2 Visa, EB5 Visa, Employment Based, Employment-Based Immigration: Second Preference EB-2, employment-based second preference visa, I-212 waiver, I-601 Waiver, I601 Waiver, IMBRA, IMBRA Waiver, International Marriage Broker Regulation Act, K-1 Visa, K-1 Visa Process, K1 Visa, national interest waiver, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, US Consulate, US Embassy, USCIS
Posted in Department of Homeland Security, EB-2 Visa, EB5 Visa, I-601 Waiver, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, US Visa and Immigration, USCIS | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that there may be some geopolitical tensions arising in Asia in connection to issues associated with the use of water. To quote directly from a very insightful article apparently written by Santha Oorjitham of the New Straits Times and posted by chellaney on the blog Stagecraft and Statecraft:

[T]he lower Mekong states of Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam have a water treaty. India has water-sharing treaties with both the countries located downstream — Bangladesh and Pakistan. There are also water treaties between India and its two small upstream neighbours, Nepal and Bhutan. But China, the dominant riparian power of Asia, refuses to enter into water-sharing arrangements with any of its neighbours. Yet China enjoys an unrivalled global status as the source of trans-boundary river flows to the largest number of countries, ranging from Vietnam and Afghanistan to Russia and Kazakhstan…

The administration of this web log strongly encourages readers to click upon the relevant hyperlinks above in order to read more from this fascinating article. For readers who are unfamiliar with matters pertaining to Asia, particularly Southern Asia or Southeast Asia, it should be noted that water issues can be extremely important for Asian political actors and policy makers. Issues associated with water can have ramifications upon the economies, political institutions, and business environments in Asia and around the globe. As regional associations such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and nations such as India and China begin to become increasingly important players on the international stage it stands to reason that water issues pertaining to Asia will be considered increasingly important by those seeking news and information about the area.

Meanwhile it also recently came to this blogger’s attention that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) is taking measures in an effort to transform that agency into a more electronic environment compared to the current primarily paper-based environment in which it now apparently finds itself. To quote directly from a USCIS Executive summary as posted upon the website ILW.com:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS or Agency) is undertaking an agency-wide effort to move immigration services from a paper-based model to an electronic environment. This effort is known as USCIS Transformation. Transformation will deliver a simplified, Web-based system for benefit seekers to submit and track their applications. The new system is account-centric and will provide customers with improved service. It will also enhance USCIS’s ability to process cases with greater precision, security, and timeliness. In March 2011, the Office of Transformation Coordination and the Office of Public Engagement hosted a series of listening sessions and webinars with participants representing customers, attorneys and community-based organizations (CBOs). The purpose of these listening sessions was to inform USCIS about the benefits and challenges of moving to an electronic environment…

Those interested in learning further about this transformation from the USCIS Executive Summary are well advised to click upon the relevant hyperlinks above to find out more.

This blogger is personally pleased to see the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), an agency under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security, taking measures to create a more efficient system for adjudication of immigration and visa related petitions or applications. Frequent readers of this blog may have taken note of the fact that USCIS is the initial adjudicator of petitions for the K-1 visa (US fiance visa) as well as the CR-1 visa (US Marriage Visa) and the IR-1 visa. Hopefully, USCIS’s transformation will result in more streamlined processing of the aforementioned petitions.

For related information please see: US-Thai Treaty of Amity or Consular Processing

Tags: Afghanistan, ASEAN, ASsociation of Southeast ASian Nations, Bangladesh, Cambodia, CR-1 visa USCIS, Department of Homeland Security, IR-1 visa USCIS, K-1 visa USCIS, Kazakhstan, Laos, Nepal, Office of Public Engagement, Office of Transformation Coordination, Pakistan, Riparian, Riparian Power in Asia, Russia, Thailand, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, USCIS, USCIS Transformation, Vietnam, Water, Water Rights, water treaty, water-sharing treaties
Posted in ASEAN Business, Cambodia Business, China Business, CR1 Visa, India Business, IR1 Visa, K1 Visa, K2 Visa, Laos Business, Myanmar (Burma) Business, Russia Business, Thailand Business, US Consulate ChengDu, US Consulate Chennai, US Consulate Guangzhou, US Consulate HCMC, US Consulate Hong Kong, US Consulate Hyderabad, US Consulate Kolkata, US Consulate Macau, US Consulate Mumbai, US Consulate Shanghai, US Consulate Shenyang, US Consulate Vladivostok, US Consulate Wuhan, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Bangladesh, US Embassy Beijing, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy China, US Embassy Dhaka, US Embassy Hanoi, US Embassy India, US Embassy Islamabad, US Embassy Laos, US Embassy Nepal, US Embassy New Dehli, US Embassy Pakistan, US Embassy Phnom Phen, US Embassy Russia, US Embassy Vietnam, USCIS, Vietnam Business | No Comments »

There are many different visa categories statutorily designed for those wishing to work and/or invest in the United States of America. The very plethora of visa categories can make researching immigration issues somewhat confusing for the layman. One visa category that relatively few prospective visa seekers seem to understand is the Employment Based First Preference Visa Category, or to put it more succinctly: the EB-1 visa. The eligibility criteria for this visa category are somewhat stringent compared to other visa categories. To elucidate this fact it may be best to quote directly from and eligibility chart found by this blogger on the official website of United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) at USCIS.gov:

Readers should be aware that the above citation is not intended to be utilized as an exhaustive tool for determining EB-1 visa eligibility, but the chart above does shed light upon some of the overall eligibility criteria which will likely be scrutinized during adjudication of a petition.

There are many factors which must be taken into consideration during the adjudication of an Employment Based visa petition. Frequent readers of this blog may recall that there is another visa category classified as EB that is sometimes discussed within these pages. That specific visa is the EB-5 visa which was designed for prospective immigrants wishing to come to the United States to make a substantial investment in the American economy. In the case of the EB-1 visa, the prospective visa holder would be asked to make an investment of sorts in that their extraordinary abilities would be invested in the United States as a likely consequence of issuance of a United States travel document which grants lawful permanent residence to the bearer upon lawful admission to the US by officers of the United States Customs and Border Protection Service (USCBP).

Readers should be aware that often USCIS adjudication is not the only phase of the EB visa process as Consular Processing at a US Embassy or US Consulate abroad may also be required depending upon the unique circumstances of a given case.

For Information Related To Family Based Visa Petitions Please See: US Visa Thailand.

Tags: American Consulate, American Embassy, Consular Processing, EB-1 visa, EB-5 Visa, EB1 visa, EB5 Visa, Employment Based First Preference Visa Category, Employment Visa USA, Employment-Based Immigration: First Preference EB-1, Green Card, Lawful Permanent Residence, Lawful Permanent Resident, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, United States Customs and Border Protection, US Consulate, US Embassy, US Employment Based Visa, USA Employment Visa, USCBP, USCIS
Posted in EB-1 Visa, EB5 Visa, USCIS | No Comments »

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

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

For related information please see: US Visa Thailand.

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

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

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

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

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

There was an interesting notation on the aforementioned website:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.ผู้ที่สนใจสามารถศึกษาข้อมูลเพิ่มเติมได้จากลิงค์ที่อ้างถึงด้านบน

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

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

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

ประเด็นหนึ่งที่กล่าวอ้างข้างบนเป็นที่น่าสนใจของบทความนี้ ข้อความต่อไปนี้อ้างโดยตรงจากบทความที่กล่างมาแล้วก่อนหน้านี้

เบนท์ลีย์ปฏิเสธที่จะเผยแพร่เอกสารใดๆที่เป็นลายลักษณ์อักษรในเวลานี้ อาจกล่าวได้ว่า เป็นการสื่อสารที่ได้รับสิทธิประโยชน์ เขาเน้นว่า นโยบายอย่างเป็นทางการใน DHS ไม่มีวันเปลี่ยนแปลง

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

โดยปรากฏอย่างชัดแจ้ง การโจมตีความเท่าเทียมกันของสิทธิการเข้าเมืองของกลุ่มเพศที่สามยังไม่ได้รับชัยชนะ แต่สำหรับผู้ที่สนใจในประโนนี้อาจเป็นการรณรงค์ที่แสดงให้เห็นถึงการเยียวยาของคู่เพศเดียวกันภายใต้กฎหมายสหรัฐอเมริกา บทความนี้จคอยคัดเลือกประเด็นที่สำคัญและน่าสนใจ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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