Posts Tagged ‘citizenship’
Wednesday, April 17th, 2013
On Tuesday, April 16, 2013, a bipartisan group of senators introduced a major immigration bill that would bolster border security, legalize many of America’s 11 million undocumented immigrants and put them on a path to citizenship, dramatically overhaul the legal immigration system, and crack down on employers who hire unauthorized workers. The press conference was canceled due to the Boston bombings. The immigration bill/proposal is entitled, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013.
In summary, the proposed bill creates a new legal immigrant status, referred to as Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI), which will allow the current undocumented population to earn lawful permanent resident (or green card) status in 10 years. Also, the bill/proposal eliminates U.S. citizen sponsorship of brothers or sisters and enacts an age limitation on U.S. citizen sponsorship of married children. Further, a new guest worker visa, W visa, is created and non-immigrant work visas numbers/availability will be increased. Lastly, a merit based visa system is created for skilled workers and all employers would be required to use the E-Verify system. The immigration bill/proposal still has a long road through hearing, amendments and approval from the House of Representatives before making it to President Obama’s desk for signature and enactment into law.
Read More: http://www.gaillaw.com/files/%28K%2CC%29%20Immigration%20Bill%20Outline.pdf
Tags: 212(h), 212(i), 245(i), AAO, actor, Adam Walsh Act, adjustment of status, admission, adopted child, advance parole, affidavit of support, aged-out children, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, appeals, approval notice, arrest, arriving alien, asylum/refugee petitions, athlete, automatic citizenship, B-1, B-2, battered spouse petitions, BIA review, biometrics, Border Security, brother, C, cancellation of removal, CBP, child, citizenship, conditional status, consular, conviction, crew, crimes involving moral turpitude, crimes of moral turpitude, D, daughter, death of petitioner, death of sponsor, deferred inspection, department of homeland security, department of state, deportation, derivative beneficiaries, detention, DHS, diversity visa lottery, DNA, doctor, dual citizenship, E-1, E-2, E-3, EB-1, EB-2, EB-3, EB-4, EB-5, Economic Opportunity, embassy, employment authorization, entry without inspection, expedited removal, extreme hardship, family & employment sponsorship, farm worker, fiancé visas, Florida, forms, freedom of information act, G, good moral character, green cards, Guyana, Guyanese, H-1A, H-1B, H-1B1, H-1C, H-2B, H3, habeas corpus, Haiti, Haitian, Honduras, HRIFA, humanitarian., ICE, immediate relative, immigrant visa, Immigration Attorney, immigration lawyer, inadmissibility grounds, international adoptions, investor visas, J, joint sponsor, K-1, K-2, K-3, K-4, Kissimmee, L, labor certification, lawful permanent resident, legalization, M, marriage, marriage fraud, Miami, military, motion to reopen, musician, NAFTA, national visa center, naturalization, nonimmigrant visa, notice of hearing, notice to appear, NSEERS, nurse, O, Orlando, P, parent, passport, physician, preference category, priority worker, professor, prosecutorial discretion, public charge, receipt notice, registry, reinstatement of petitions, relief from removal, religious worker petitions, removal, request for evidence, S, SEVIS, sister, skilled worker, son, special immigrant, spouse, student visas, T, Tampa, temporary protected status, TN, tourist visa, U, unlawful presence, unskilled worker, USCIS, V, veterans, visa waiver program, voluntary departure, waivers, widow, widow petitions, withholding of removal
Posted in Legislation | No Comments »
Monday, January 14th, 2013
Beginning March 4, 2013, certain immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who are physically present in the United States will be allowed to request provisional unlawful presence waivers prior to departing from the United States for consular processing of their immigrant visa applications. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) anticipates that these changes in the rule will significantly reduce the length of time U.S. citizens are separated from their immediate relatives who engage in consular processing abroad.
Effective March 4, 2013, the new law will benefit the following individuals:
(1) crewman (or jump ships) who married US citizens, but do not have the benefit of Section 245(i);
(2) people who entered the US without inspection (EWI), who married US citizens, but do not have the benefit of Section 245(i); and
(3) people who entered the US on a K-1 fiancée visa, but did not marry the American who petitioned them, but instead married a different American; and
(4) immediate relatives of U.S. citizens with an approved Form I-130 found ineligible to adjust status in the U.S.
What is the current process for filing an unlawful presence waiver?
An unlawful presence waiver is required for individuals who depart the U.S. after remaining illegally in the U.S. and trigger a three-year or ten-year ban from returning to the U.S. Under current law, individuals identified in the above paragraph would not be eligible for lawful permanent resident status in the U.S. if a petition was filed by their U.S. citizen relative. Instead, these individuals would have to return to their native country, attend the immigrant visa interview, file the unlawful presence waiver at the U.S. Embassy and wait (sometimes 1-2 years) for a decision from the U.S. Embassy. If the waiver is granted then the individual can return to the U.S. with an immigrant visa but if the waiver is denied then the individual can submit an appeal (which can take 2-3 years).
What will be the NEW “provisional unlawful presence waiver” process?
The new waiver process will allow eligible immediate relatives to apply for a provisional unlawful presence waiver while they are still in the United States and before they leave to attend their immigrant visa interview abroad. It is anticipated that this new provisional unlawful presence waiver process will significantly reduce the time that U.S. citizens are separated from their immediate relatives. The approval of an applicant’s provisional unlawful presence waiver prior to departure also will allow the U.S. Embassy abroad to issue the immigrant visa without further delay, if there are no other grounds of inadmissibility and if the immediate relative is otherwise eligible to be issued an immigrant visa. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will be rolling out a new form, Form I-601A, for this new process.
Can I benefit from the NEW “provisional unlawful presence waiver” process if I am in removal proceedings?
DHS has decided to limit eligibility for the provisional unlawful presence waiver process to individuals whose removal proceedings are administratively closed and have not been recalendared at the time of filing the Form I-601A. If the Form I-601A is approved for an alien whose proceedings have been administratively closed, the alien should seek termination or dismissal of the proceedings, without prejudice, by Immigration Court. The request for termination or dismissal should be granted before the alien departs for his or her immigrant visa interview abroad. Applicants who leave the United States before their removal proceedings are terminated or dismissed may experience delays in their immigrant visa processing or risk becoming ineligible for the immigrant visa based on another ground of inadmissibility.
Can I benefit from the NEW “provisional unlawful presence waiver” process if I have a final order of removal?
No, the NEW provisional unlawful presence waiver process will not include aliens with final removal orders. Generally, aliens who have outstanding final orders of removal may be inadmissible on a variety of grounds other than unlawful presence, such as criminal offenses and fraud and misrepresentation. In addition, any alien who is subject to a final order of removal, decides to leave the United States, and subsequently seeks admission, is inadmissible as an alien with a prior removal.
Will I be able to benefit from the NEW “provisional unlawful presence waiver” process if I entered with a fraudulent passport or have past convictions?
This provisional waiver applies only to unlawful presence that triggers the three and ten year ban from returning to the U.S. If a person has other immigration violations, such as fraud (entry with another’s passport), criminal convictions, and the like, which also require a waiver, the person would have to depart the U.S. and file the waivers after an interview at the U.S. Embassy and wait abroad for the final decision.
Can an immigrant already living outside the U.S. benefit from the the NEW “provisional unlawful presence waiver” process?
Unfortunately, individuals who are already outside of the United States must pursue a waiver of inadmissibility through the current Form I-601 process. The NEW provisional unlawful presence waiver process will remain available only to those individuals who are currently in the United States and will be departing for consular processing abroad.
How will immigration decide whether to approve or deny my “provisional unlawful presence waiver”?
For the waiver to be approved, there must be an extreme hardship determination based on a showing of extreme hardship to a U.S. citizen spouse or parent. Documentary evidence to prove the “extreme hardship” must be submitted with the waiver form, Form I-601A.
Can an immigrant with TPS benefit from the NEW “provisional unlawful presence waiver” process?
TPS applicants who are immediate relatives of U.S. citizens can participate in the provisional unlawful presence waiver process if they are pursuing consular processing of an immigrant visa abroad.
When can I file the NEW “provisional unlawful presence waiver”?
Once you obtain an approved Form I-130 then a request for the unlawful presence waiver can be filed in the U.S. by using Form I-601A and you will be permitted to remain in the U.S. during the adjudication or decision-making process. The filing fee for Form I-601A will be $585.00.
How old do I have to be to file under the NEW “provisional unlawful presence waiver” process?
Individuals must be 17 years or older request a provisional unlawful presence waiver.
What happens if I go through the NEW “provisional unlawful presence waiver” process and my waiver is denied?
The individual may depart the U.S., attend the visa interview at the Embassy and file the waiver under the current process and wait abroad for a decision on the waiver. Also, the individual may appeal or re-file the waiver is new evidence will be submitted. If the individual wants to remain the U.S. after a denial on his provisional unlawful presence waiver then they may face removal proceedings before the immigration court.
Before deciding to proceed with the NEW “provisional unlawful presence waiver” process, speak with a experienced immigration lawyer who can assess your unique situation and conclude you will benefit from this new law and new process.
Tags: 245(i), adjustment of status, ban, C-1, card, citizenship, deportation, embassy, entry, extreme, Florida, green, hardship, illegal, immigration lawyer, jacksonville, Kissimmee, lawyer, Miami, Orlando, presence, provisional, removal, Tampa, unlawful, visa, waiver
Posted in Waivers | No Comments »
Saturday, June 16th, 2012
On June 15, 2012, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and President Obama announced that certain young people who were brought to the United States as young children, who do not present a risk to national security or public safety, and meet several key criteria will be considered for relief from removal from the country or from entering into removal proceedings. Those who demonstrate that they meet the criteria will be eligible to receive deferred action for a period of two years, subject to renewal, and will be eligible to apply for work authorization.
Under this directive, individuals who demonstrate that they meet the following criteria will be eligible for deferred action, on a case-by-case basis AND can apply for work authorization in the U.S. if they meet the following criteria:
1. Came to the United States under the age of sixteen;
2. Have continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date of this memorandum (June 15, 2012) and are present in the United States on the date of this memorandum (June 15, 2012);
3. Are currently in school, have graduated from high school, have obtained a general education development certificate, or are honorably discharged veterans of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States;
4. Have not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety;
5. Are not above the age of thirty.
Only those individuals who can prove through verifiable documentation that they meet these criteria will be eligible for deferred action and work authorization. Individuals will not be eligible if they are not currently in the United States and cannot prove that they have been physically present in the United States for a period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding June 15, 2012. Illegal immigrant children won’t be eligible to apply for this benefit of deferred action and work authorization until they turn 16, but the officials said younger children won’t be deported either.
This policy will not lead toward citizenship but will remove the threat of deportation and grant the ability to work legally, leaving eligible immigrants able to remain in the United States for an extended period. The use of deferred action confers no substantive right, immigration status, or pathway to citizenship. Deferred action means DHS will temporarily halt any removal (deportation) proceedings against you for a certain period of time (a sort of temporary deportation waiver).
For young adult immigrants, this new policy gives them an opportunity to further their education or work skill since work authorization will grant them a social security number for enrollment in college and other certificate programs. Currently, undocumented young immigrants cannot attend college or certificate programs since most do not have a social security number. The U.S. will benefit from this policy because college enrollment may increase, military enrollment may increase, and various revenue streams such as car sales and home sales may increase with young adults acquiring purchasing power through working and obtaining social security numbers.
While this guidance takes effect immediately as of June 15, 2012, USCIS and ICE expect to begin implementation of the application processes within sixty days. So, right now there is no process set out where eligible applicants can apply for deferred action or work authorization, however, the application process will be forthcoming. Also, there has been no indication as to how long the process will take for an eligible immigrant to obtain work authorization.
For individuals who are in removal proceedings and have already been identified as meeting the eligibility criteria and have been offered an exercise of discretion as part of Immigration and Custom Removal (ICE) ICE ongoing case-by-case review, ICE will immediately begin to offer them deferred action for a period of two years, subject to renewal.
Though President Obama has been criticized for implementing this policy to gain political momentum among the Latino and immigrant voters, however, this initiative is the step in the right direction for our country to retain educated young adults in a time where we need skilled and educated workers.
Tags: 212(h), 212(i), 245(i), AAO, actor, Adam Walsh Act, adjustment of status, admission, adopted child, advance parole, affidavit of support, aged-out children, appeals, approval notice, arrest, arriving alien, asylum/refugee petitions, athlete, automatic citizenship, B-1, B-2, battered spouse petitions, BIA review, biometrics, brother, C, cancellation of removal, CBP, child, citizenship, conditional status, consular, conviction, crew, crimes involving moral turpitude, crimes of moral turpitude, D, daughter, death of petitioner, death of sponsor, deferred action, deferred inspection, department of homeland security, department of state, deportation, derivative beneficiaries, detention, DHS, diversity visa lottery, DNA, doctor, DREAM, dual citizenship, E-1, E-2, E-3, EB-1, EB-2, EB-3, EB-4, EB-5, embassy, employment authorization, entry without inspection, expedited removal, extreme hardship, family & employment sponsorship, farm worker, fiancé visas, Florida, forms, freedom of information act, G, good moral character, green cards, Guyana, Guyanese, H-1A, H-1B, H-1B1, H-1C, H-2B, H3, habeas corpus, Haiti, Haitian, Honduras, HRIFA, humanitarian., ICE, immediate relative, immigrant visa, Immigration Attorney, immigration lawyer, inadmissibility grounds, international adoptions, investor visas, J, joint sponsor, K-1, K-2, K-3, K-4, Kissimmee, L, labor certification, lawful permanent resident, legalization, M, marriage, marriage fraud, Miami, military, motion to reopen, musician, NAFTA, national visa center, naturalization, nonimmigrant visa, notice of hearing, notice to appear, NSEERS, nurse, O, obama, Orlando, P, parent, passport, physician, preference category, priority worker, professor, prosecutorial discretion, public charge, receipt notice, registry, reinstatement of petitions, relief from removal, religious worker petitions, removal, request for evidence, S, SEVIS, sister, skilled worker, son, special immigrant, spouse, student visas, T, Tampa, temporary protected status, TN, tourist visa, U, unlawful presence, unskilled worker, USCIS, V, veterans, visa waiver program, voluntary departure, waivers, widow, widow petitions, withholding of removal, work permit, young adults
Posted in NEW Immigration law & policy, Work Permit/Authorization | No Comments »
Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012
On March 28, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important decision, Vartelas v. Holder, No. 10-1211, rejecting the retroactive application of a provision of an immigration law passed by Congress in 1996 that has prevented many lawful permanent residents (LPRs) from returning to the United States after a trip abroad. Citing the “deeply rooted presumption” against applying new laws retroactively, the Court ruled 6-3 that LPRs who temporarily leave the country cannot be denied readmission on account of criminal convictions that occurred before the law took effect.
The Justice Department argued that LPRs with certain criminal convictions may be barred from re-entering the United States any time they leave the country—even if the law in effect at the time of their guilty pleas did not make them eligible for deportation or ineligible for reentry to the United States. The Supreme Court properly rejected this argument, noting that the government’s interpretation effectively prevented such LPRs from ever leaving the country.
In sum, before Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) in 1996, lawful permanent residents who had committed a crime of moral turpitude could return from brief trips abroad without applying for admission to the United States. However, after enactment of IIRIRA n 1996, lawful permanent residents who had committed a crime of moral turpitude were required to reapply for admission to the U.S. and the crime of moral turpitude (even though committed before the 1996 law) would place the lawful permanent resident into removal proceedings. This U.S. Supreme Court decision concludes that a returning lawful permanent resident cannot be placed in removal proceedings for a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude that was committed before the 1996 IIRIRA laws.
Tags: 1996, 212(h), 212(i), 245(i), AAO, actor, Adam Walsh Act, adjustment of status, admission, adopted child, advance parole, affidavit of support, aged-out children, appeals, approval notice, arrest, arriving alien, asylum/refugee petitions, athlete, automatic citizenship, B-1, B-2, battered spouse petitions, BIA review, biometrics, brother, C, cancellation of removal, CBP, child, citizenship, conditional status, consular, conviction, crew, crimes involving moral turpitude, crimes of moral turpitude, D, daughter, death of petitioner, death of sponsor, deferred inspection, department of homeland security, department of state, deportation, derivative beneficiaries, detention, DHS, diversity visa lottery, DNA, doctor, dual citizenship, E-1, E-2, E-3, EB-1, EB-2, EB-3, EB-4, EB-5, embassy, employment authorization, entry without inspection, expedited removal, extreme hardship, family & employment sponsorship, farm worker, fiancé visas, Florida, forms, freedom of information act, G, good moral character, green cards, Guyana, Guyanese, H-1A, H-1B, H-1B1, H-1C, H-2B, H3, habeas corpus, Haiti, Haitian, Honduras, HRIFA, humanitarian., ICE, immediate relative, immigrant visa, Immigration Attorney, immigration lawyer, inadmissibility grounds, international adoptions, investor visas, J, joint sponsor, K-1, K-2, K-3, K-4, Kissimmee, L, labor certification, lawful permanent resident, legalization, M, marriage, marriage fraud, Miami, military, motion to reopen, musician, NAFTA, national visa center, naturalization, nonimmigrant visa, notice of hearing, notice to appear, NSEERS, nurse, O, Orlando, P, parent, passport, physician, preference category, priority worker, professor, prosecutorial discretion, public charge, receipt notice, registry, reinstatement of petitions, relief from removal, religious worker petitions, removal, request for evidence, S, SEVIS, sister, skilled worker, son, special immigrant, spouse, student visas, T, Tampa, temporary protected status, TN, tourist visa, travel, U, unlawful presence, unskilled worker, USCIS, V, veterans, visa waiver program, voluntary departure, waivers, widow, widow petitions, withholding of removal
Posted in Immigration Court, Removal/Deportation | No Comments »
Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012
In Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010), this Court held that criminal defendants receive ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment when their criminal attorneys fail to advise them that pleading guilty to an offense will subject them to deportation. The rule established through this case was that criminal defendants must be advised by their criminal attorney of the immigration consequences of a guilty or no contest plea in criminal proceedings. However, the case failed to state whether the rule applies retroactively, meaning, can criminal defendants who pled before 2010 (when the case was decided) claim ineffective assistance of counsel and challenge their prior convictions. In the State of Florida, the criminal courts have held that the Padilla decision is not retroactive and only applies to convictions after 2010.
Well, the U.S. Supreme Court will soon revisit this issue and decide whether the rule established in Padilla v. Kentucky, a 2010 decision, applies retroactively (or before 2010). The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Chaidez v. United States to determine whether Padilla applies to persons whose convictions became final before the 2010 court decision. If the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the 2010 Padilla decision is retroactive, then noncitizen convicted before 2010 that were not informed by their criminal attorney that their plea carries a risk of deportation may have an opportunity to vacate their convictions. This would allow many noncitizens who were removed/deported or currently in removal proceedings to challenge criminal convictions where they were not properly advised of immigration consequences of their pleas.
Tags: 212(h), 212(i), 245(i), AAO, actor, Adam Walsh Act, adjustment of status, admission, adopted child, advance parole, affidavit of support, aged-out children, appeals, approval notice, arrest, arriving alien, asylum/refugee petitions, athlete, automatic citizenship, B-1, B-2, battered spouse petitions, BIA review, biometrics, brother, C, cancellation of removal, CBP, child, citizenship, conditional status, consular, conviction, crew, crime, crimes involving moral turpitude, crimes of moral turpitude, criminal conviction, D, daughter, death of petitioner, death of sponsor, deferred inspection, department of homeland security, department of state, deportation, derivative beneficiaries, detention, DHS, diversity visa lottery, DNA, doctor, dual citizenship, E-1, E-2, E-3, EB-1, EB-2, EB-3, EB-4, EB-5, embassy, employment authorization, entry without inspection, expedited removal, extreme hardship, family & employment sponsorship, farm worker, fiancé visas, Florida, forms, freedom of information act, G, good moral character, green cards, Guyana, Guyanese, H-1A, H-1B, H-1B1, H-1C, H-2B, H3, habeas corpus, Haiti, Haitian, Honduras, HRIFA, humanitarian., ICE, immediate relative, immigrant visa, Immigration Attorney, immigration lawyer, inadmissibility grounds, international adoptions, investor visas, J, joint sponsor, K-1, K-2, K-3, K-4, Kissimmee, L, labor certification, lawful permanent resident, legalization, M, marriage, marriage fraud, Miami, military, motion to reopen, musician, NAFTA, national visa center, naturalization, nonimmigrant visa, notice of hearing, notice to appear, NSEERS, nurse, O, Orlando, P, padilla, parent, passport, physician, preference category, priority worker, professor, prosecutorial discretion, public charge, receipt notice, registry, reinstatement of petitions, relief from removal, religious worker petitions, removal, request for evidence, S, SEVIS, sister, skilled worker, son, special immigrant, spouse, student visas, T, Tampa, temporary protected status, TN, tourist visa, U, unlawful presence, unskilled worker, USCIS, V, veterans, visa waiver program, voluntary departure, waivers, widow, widow petitions, withholding of removal
Posted in Immigration Court, Removal/Deportation | No Comments »
Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012
In 2005, the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) issued the precedent decision Matter of Lovo-Lara, 23 I&N Dec. 746 (BIA 2005). The case involved a petitioner born in North Carolina who underwent sex reassignment surgery and then amended her birth certificate, reflecting her transition from male to female. Subsequently, she married her husband in North Carolina and filed an I-130 petition on his behalf. The Board noted that North Carolina law does not permit individuals of the same gender to marry each other. The petitioner legally amended her birth certificate to reflect her change in gender designation, and the evidence the petitioner submitted to the Board included her amended birth certificate. Consequently, the Board found North Carolina considered the petitioner to be female (per sex reassignment) under its laws and deemed her marriage to the beneficiary to be a valid heterosexual marriage. Although evidence of sex reassignment surgery was submitted in the Lovo-Lara case, the Board’s decision does not require submission of evidence of surgery in order to establish a valid heterosexual marriage. Rather, the reasoning underlying the Board’s decision suggests that the federal government should defer to how the state/local jurisdiction in which a claimed marriage takes place recognizes a legal change in gender for purposes of heterosexual marriage.
In the case of a spousal Form I-130 or I-129F involving the claimed marriage between two persons of the same birth sex, the submission of evidence is required to show that one of the individuals had in fact undergone sex reassignment surgery to show a change of gender. Benefits based upon marriage may be approved on the basis of a marriage between a transgender individual and an individual of the other gender if the Petitioner/Applicant establishes 1) the transgender individual has legally changed his or her gender and subsequently4 married an individual of the other gender, 2) the marriage is recognized as a heterosexual marriage under the law where the marriage took place (Matter of Lovo-Lara, 23 I&N Dec. 746 (BIA 2005)), and 3) the law where the marriage took place does not bar a marriage between a transgender individual and an individual of the other gender.
Tags: 212(h), 212(i), 245(i), AAO, actor, Adam Walsh Act, adjustment of status, admission, adopted child, advance parole, affidavit of support, aged-out children, appeals, approval notice, arrest, arriving alien, asylum/refugee petitions, athlete, automatic citizenship, B-1, B-2, battered spouse petitions, BIA review, biometrics, brother, C, cancellation of removal, CBP, child, citizenship, conditional status, consular, conviction, crew, crimes involving moral turpitude, crimes of moral turpitude, D, daughter, death of petitioner, death of sponsor, deferred inspection, department of homeland security, department of state, deportation, derivative beneficiaries, detention, DHS, diversity visa lottery, DNA, doctor, dual citizenship, E-1, E-2, E-3, EB-1, EB-2, EB-3, EB-4, EB-5, embassy, employment authorization, entry without inspection, expedited removal, extreme hardship, family & employment sponsorship, farm worker, fiancé visas, Florida, forms, freedom of information act, G, good moral character, green cards, Guyana, Guyanese, H-1A, H-1B, H-1B1, H-1C, H-2B, H3, habeas corpus, Haiti, Haitian, Honduras, HRIFA, humanitarian., ICE, immediate relative, immigrant visa, Immigration Attorney, immigration lawyer, inadmissibility grounds, international adoptions, investor visas, J, joint sponsor, K-1, K-2, K-3, K-4, Kissimmee, L, labor certification, lawful permanent resident, legalization, M, marriage, marriage fraud, Miami, military, motion to reopen, musician, NAFTA, national visa center, naturalization, nonimmigrant visa, notice of hearing, notice to appear, NSEERS, nurse, O, Orlando, P, parent, passport, physician, preference category, priority worker, professor, prosecutorial discretion, public charge, receipt notice, registry, reinstatement of petitions, relief from removal, religious worker petitions, removal, request for evidence, S, SEVIS, sister, skilled worker, son, special immigrant, spouse, student visas, T, Tampa, temporary protected status, TN, tourist visa, transgender, U, unlawful presence, unskilled worker, USCIS, V, veterans, visa waiver program, voluntary departure, waivers, widow, widow petitions, withholding of removal
Posted in Family-Based Visas | No Comments »
Wednesday, August 24th, 2011
When a lawful permanent resident is returning to the United States from a visit abroad, s/he is required to “apply for admission” by presenting a valid passport and lawful permanent resident card (green card) to the U.S. Custom and Border Protection Officer. A visitor presenting a tourist visa (B-1/B-2) or any other non-immigrant visa is also required to “apply for admission” by presenting a valid visa and a valid passport. In both cases, it is at the discretion of the U.S. Custom and Border Protection Officer to decide whether he will allow entry by the lawful permanent resident or visitor. Again, the mere possession of an entry document does not guarantee admission to the United States. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the U.S. immigration laws, the Officer can apply section 212 entitled “General classes of aliens ineligible to receive visas and ineligible for admission” to deny entry to a lawful permanent resident or visitor.If the U.S. Custom and Border Protection Officer denies entry to a visitor, the s/he will be requires to board a plane back to his or her native country. In the case of a lawful permanent resident, if the U.S. Custom and Border Protection Officer finds the lawful permanent resident inadmissible under section 212 of the INA, then the Officer will confiscate the lawful permanent resident card (green card) and issue a parole document, temporarily allowing the lawful permanent resident into the U.S. with the condition of him/her reporting to a U.S. Custom and Border Protection Office for further inspection or appear in Immigration Court for removal or deportation proceedings. My officer has represented many residents and visitors placed in these types of proceedings.It is important for lawful permanent residents (or green card holders) to understand that merely returning to the U.S. once a year for a few days or even very often does not “automatically revalidate” a green card where the lawful permanent resident actually resides abroad. The U.S. Custom and Border Protection Officer can independently determine that the lawful permanent resident status has been abandoned based on evidence obtained during questioning at the border.
Tags: citizenship, crime, deportation, green card, I-94, immigration lawyer, jacksonville, Kissimmee, lawful permanent resident, marriage, Miami, naturalization, Orlando, removal, sponsor, Tampa, visas, work permit
Posted in Permanent Residents | No Comments »
Wednesday, August 24th, 2011
Many newly admitted permanent residents do not know their rights while living in the United States.Follow link to this guide to understand your rights and responsibilities as a lawful permanent resident.http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/M-618.pdf
Tags: citizenship, deportation, free consultation, green cards, naturalization, orlando immigration lawyer, permanent residents, removal
Posted in Permanent Residents | No Comments »
Friday, November 5th, 2010
In the midst of the present economic crisis, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has announced an increase in the filings fees of all applications except the naturalization application.USCIS is a primarily fee-based organization, with about 90 percent of its budget coming from fees paid by applicants and petitioners for immigration benefits. The law requires USCIS to conduct fee reviews every two years to determine the funding levels necessary to administer the nation’s immigration laws,process immigration benefit requests and provide the infrastructure needed to support those activities.USCIS’s fee revenue in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 was much lower than projected, and fee revenue in fiscal year 2010 remains low. While USCIS received appropriations from Congress and made budget cutsof approximately $160 million, this has not bridged the remaining gap between costs and anticipated revenue. A fee adjustment is necessary to ensure USCIS recovers the costs of its operations while also meeting the application processing goals.
Tags: citizenship, filing fees, immigrants, Immigration, immigration lawyer, orlando immigration lawyer, visas
Posted in Fee Increase | No Comments »
