Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Deportation & Removal

by

2529706103_d43e75cd10_z

Following a recent surge in apprehensions of undocumented immigrants at the Southwest border, the Department of Homeland Security announced that, beginning January 1st Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) engaged in a concerted nationwide crackdown, taking adults and some children into custody, who have evaded their orders for removal. In a recent press release, the Secretary of DHS, Jeh Johnson indicated that the crackdown occurred as a result of President Obama’s November 2014 executive action on immigration, which put in place new priorities for removal, including the removal of convicted criminals, individuals posing a threat to national security, individuals apprehended at the border or who were found to have entered the United States unlawfully after January 1, 2014. In November 2014 President Obama had implemented these new priorities in an effort to secure the border. In the press release, Jeh Johnson added, “as I have said repeatedly, our borders are not open to illegal migration; if you come here illegally, we will send you back consistent with our laws and values…individuals who constitute enforcement priorities, including families and unaccompanied children will be removed.”

According to the Department of Homeland Security, Central American migrants were removed and repatriated at an increasing rate since the summer of 2014. During this time, there was a surge in the number of families and unaccompanied children from Central America attempting to cross the southern border illegally. In response to this surge, DHS collaborated with the Mexican, Guatemalan, Honduran, and Salvadorian governments to decrease these numbers. According to Jeh Johnson the collaborative efforts were temporarily successfully. In 2015 the number of apprehensions by the U.S. Border Patrol decreased dramatically to 331, 333. Fiscal year 2015 experienced the lowest amount of apprehensions on the southern border since 1972. Recently, an increased rate of apprehensions resurfaced. This sudden spike resulted in the January 1st crackdown prompting ICE to action. As part of the crackdown, dozens of female agents and medical personnel were deployed to assist with the apprehension and removal process. According to DHS, in cases involving medical urgency or other reasons, ICE exercised prosecutorial discretion. As stated by DHS, enforcement operations will continue as needed in collaboration with state and local law enforcement.

Continue reading

by

3549356643_457f255e03_z

Tashfeen Malik, a Pakistani citizen, and her husband Syed Rizwan Farook, a naturalized United States Citizen, are known globally as the couple behind the San Bernardino shootings, which took the lives of 14 people and left 21 injured. Twenty-eight-year-old Syed Farook was identified as an environmental health services inspector employed by the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health. He was attending a holiday party at the Inland Regional Center where he worked. Reports confirm that a dispute occurred between Syed and an attendee of the party causing Syed to leave the party. He later returned with his wife Tashfeen dressed in tactical gear carrying assault weapons and semi-automatic pistols. Days after the attack, it became known that the assault was inspired but not directed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), the terrorist group which claimed responsibility for coordinated attacks that occurred in Paris just last month. Through a radio message disbursed online, ISIL confirmed that the duo were indeed supporters of the group praising them for their efforts, but stopping short of taking credit for the attack. The FBI has since confirmed that the couple had been ‘radicalized’ for some time before the actual attack took place, though it is not clear how the couple became radicalized, how they rehearsed the attack, and whether the couple maintained ties to any other terrorist organizations. It is known that Syed and his wife Tashfeen had visited gun ranges in the Los Angeles area for target practice just days before the December 2nd assault at the Inland Regional Center, a social services facility located in San Bernardino, California where Syed was employed.

Investigations have revealed that Syed and Tashfeen met one another on a Muslim dating site a couple of years ago. The relationship flourished, and eventually Tashfeen Malik obtained and entered the United States legally on a K-1 fiancé visa. Last year, Tashfeen became a United States lawful permanent resident through her marriage to Syed, a naturalized citizen. In response to the recent terror attacks around the world and the Syrian refugee crisis, President Obama delivered a rare address to the nation from the Oval Office yesterday evening declaring the San Bernardino massacre an “act of terrorism designed to kill innocent people.”

In his address, President Obama outlined his administration’s four-tier strategy to defeat ISIL and discussed necessary measures that must be taken by Congress to bring about legislation that will protect our country from extremism and combat the war on terror. Such measures include the following:

Continue reading

by

katie

It is our pleasure to introduce our readers to our esteemed Paralegal and Case Manager Katie Foley who has worked at the Law Offices of Jacob J. Sapochnick since 2010. Ms. Foley, originally from Santa Cruz, California holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Liberal Studies from Cal State East Bay and her paralegal certificate from San Diego Miramar College. Throughout her career, Katie Foley has assisted our attorneys with various different types of immigration petitions including family-based petitions, employment based petitions (H-1B, E-2 etc.), deferred action, marriage visas, I-751 petitions, fiancé visas, consular processing, naturalization, temporary visas (B-1/B-2, J-1, F-1 etc), deportation and removal cases.  She has successfully processed hundreds of applications and in the process has formed long standing relationships with our clients. In her role as case manager, she assists our legal assistants with their case loads and provides direction as needed. Ms. Foley is an outstanding member of our firm for her impressive attention to detail, her understanding of the law, and the extensive guidance she provides our clients to ensure every case has a successful outcome. She provides all of our client’s strong personal support and comprehensive step-by-step instructions for each immigration process. If you are an international or out of state client, not to worry, Ms. Foley has perfected an easy online case processing system to assist clients with their immigration concerns no matter where they reside. In her free time, she enjoys lap swimming, barbecues, and gardening. To read more about Ms. Foley please click here.

For immigration questions please call our office. Your Immigration is our Passion.

by

3021087753_980feb0669_z

Yesterday night, in a 2-1 vote the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals voted to uphold the lower court’s decision in Texas v. United States blocking President Obama’s extended Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) programs from going into effect.

The expanded DACA and new DAPA provisions were announced November of last year as part of Obama’s executive actions on immigration giving eligible undocumented individuals a legal status in the United States. The expanded DACA program would have made millions of law abiding undocumented aliens (with no criminal history) eligible for employment authorization and social security benefits. To qualify, expanded DACA applicants would need to provide documented evidence proving their continuous physical presence in the United States from January 1, 2010 onward. In exchange, the United States government would recognize these individuals as law abiding residents and safeguard them against deportation. The move was significant since it would mean that undocumented individuals would no longer need to live on the fringes of society. By granting these individuals an immigration classification, insurance companies would become accessible to them for the first time ever.

Similarly, Obama’s DAPA program would have extended eligibility of deferred action to parents of US Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents born or or before November 20, 2014 the date of the DAPA program’s announcement. As part of the application process, DAPA applicants would be required to undergo extensive background checks and prove continuous residence since January 1, 2010 among other provisions. Click here for more information on DAPA.

Continue reading

by

5472552839_62d81a34e8_z

In this blog we are answering 5 of your most frequently asked questions received on our social media platforms and our website. Please remember that every case is different and every immigration journey is unique. You should not compare your situation to anyone else’s. We hope that our answers will provide you with further guidance while you embark on your immigration journey. If you have any further questions, please call our office for a free legal consultation. We serve international clients and domestic clients in all 50 states. We thank you for your continued trust in our law office.

Qualifying for 245i and Adjustment of Status

Q: My ex-husband filed an adjustment of status application on my behalf based on 245i. We separated before we received our initial interview appointment and later divorced. I have since remarried. Can my husband apply for my permanent residence now that we are married?

A: Thank you for your question. Certain individuals who have a qualifying relative willing to file an immigrant visa petition on their behalf, are eligible to adjust their status under 245i Immigration and Nationality Act if they entered the country without inspection (unlawfully) and were the beneficiary of a visa petition or application for labor certification filed on specific dates outline below. Before proceeding with a new green card application, you should make sure you qualify for 245i and have all of the necessary documents to prove your eligibility. 245i applicants must provide documented evidence of their physical presence in the United States and evidence that the visa petition or application for labor certification was filed on their behalf by providing the receipt notice of the petition also known as the I-797 Notice of Action.

Continue reading

by

lupe

It is our pleasure to introduce our incredibly skilled operations manager and immigration consultant, Lupe Lopez. If you have called or stopped by our San Diego office for a consultation, chances are you have already met with her to discuss your needs. Throughout her immigration career, Ms. Lopez has assisted thousands of clients with their immigration concerns. There is no situation or immigration story she hasn’t heard and no shortage of extraordinarily challenging cases she has assisted with. Her compassion and empathy working with clients who have faced family separation and other adversities is unmatched.

Ms. Lopez holds over 12 years of experience in the field of immigration legal services. Her expertise includes filing waivers of inadmissibility, I-360 VAWA petitions, removal proceedings, nonimmigrant waivers, business, investment, and family immigration petitions. Ms. Lopez possesses a B.S. in Human Resource Management and a Certificate in Labor Relations. She is currently in the process of becoming Dale Carnegie certified. Aside from serving as an immigration consultant, Ms. Lopez is also our Operations Manager, ensuring that we deliver the highest level of customer service with proven results. She helps train, organize, and improve our operations systems which allow us to gain the customer trust, loyalty, and satisfaction. In her capacity as operations manager, she addresses both internal concerns and client concerns keeping our standards for excellence above our competitors.

Continue reading

by

Senate

On October 20, 2015 Democrats in the Senate successfully blocked the Republican backed bill S. 2146: Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act from moving forward with a vote of 54-45. At its core, the bill aimed to hold sanctuary jurisdictions accountable for noncompliance of federal orders including detainment of undocumented immigrants, increasing penalties for individuals caught re-entering the United States after their removal, and providing protection to state and local law enforcement officials cooperating with federal law enforcement officials. The bill was introduced by Republicans after an act of violence took the life of a San Franciscan woman at the hands of an alleged undocumented immigrant with a felony record, who had also been the subject of multiple removals. Public outcry ensued after the city sheriff released the perpetrator despite a federal immigration detainment order. According to Republicans, San Francisco is one of hundreds of sanctuary cities that refuse to comply with federal immigration orders to facilitate the detainment and removal of undocumented immigrants.

Among its provisions, the bill aimed to crackdown on so called ‘sanctuary cities’ notorious for their noncompliance by limiting government funding. By cutting necessary funding, Republicans hoped that this would force cooperation between local law enforcement officials and federal law enforcement officials including ICE officers. Republican Senator Vitter who introduced the bill, argued that the violent crime that occurred in San Francisco was just one example highlighting the magnitude of compliance concerns. According to Vitter, ‘sanctuary cities’ like San Francisco have repeatedly refused to comply with orders of detainment issued by the Department of Homeland Security. Prior to the vote, the White House had warned Senate Republicans that if the bill did pass with the 60 necessary votes, they could expect the President to veto the bill. Although the bill was criticized by Democrats for stereotyping undocumented immigrants and making sweeping allegations against the undocumented immigrant community, the bill raises serious competence and compliance concerns.

Continue reading

by

5484331458_0d2bc4f7e9

On Monday May 4, 2015 a federal appeals court heard arguments in the case Joseph Arpaio v. Barack Obama, et al, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 14-5325. Back in November of 2014 in the wake of Obama’s executive actions, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio sued President Barack Obama shortly after he announced his executive order extending Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA)—a plan which would shield over 4.7 million eligible undocumented immigrants from removal proceedings. Arpaio along with 26 other states sued the administration claiming that the president had overstepped his executive power and that the executive actions were unconstitutional.

In the Arpaio case, two out of the three presiding judges from the District of Columbia ruled that Arpaio did not have standing to sue and that he had failed to prove that he was directly harmed by the executive actions. Arpaio had previously claimed that the executive actions directly harmed him because criminals would not be deported as a result of Obama’s executive actions. However, eligible recipients of extended DACA and DAPA would be required to demonstrate strong ties to the United States by providing documented evidence of their continuous residence in the United States, have no criminal record, and/or have U.S. born children.

Continue reading

by

7526267232_2e3a502b29_z

On Monday February 16, 2015 Judge Andrew Hanen of the U.S. District Court in Brownsville, Texas issued a preliminary injunction temporarily preventing President Obama’s executive actions on immigration (expanded deferred action) from going forward. The injunction does not make Obama’s executive actions illegal, however it does prevent the Obama administration from implementing expanded DACA and DAPA until the courts determine the constitutionality of the executive actions announced by Obama on November 20, 2014. According to Judge Hanen, 26 states brought the suit to his attention, all of whom he determined had standing to sue. A lawsuit against President Obama is expected to move its way through the court system in the coming months. The injunction claims that the President lacks the constitutional power to make such executive actions. As a result of the injunction, USCIS will no longer accept applications for DACA on February 18th the date that USCIS initially announced it would begin to accept applications. Additionally, plans to accept requests for DAPA will be suspended until further notice.

The Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson announced that while he disagreed with the injunction, that the Department of Homeland Security would be forced to comply. Nevertheless, the Department of Justice plans to appeal on behalf of the federal government.

Will the court order affect existing DACA?

Continue reading

by

Father Holding Daughter's Hand

What is DAPA? DAPA allows eligible applicants, who do not have a criminal history, and who do not otherwise pose a threat to national security, to request deferred action having met certain conditions for a period of up to three years. DAPA allows parents of US Citizen or lawful permanent resident children to be granted an employment authorization card. DAPA also safeguards individuals against deportation.

To qualify under Obama’s executive action, an undocumented parent of a U.S. Citizen or lawful permanent resident child must meet the following conditions:

  • The applicant must have lived in the United States continuously since January 01, 2010 to the present
  • The applicant must have had a son or daughter on November 20, 2014 irrespective of age or marital status, who is either a US Citizen or lawful permanent resident
  • The applicant must have been physically present in the United States as of November 20, 2014, the date of President Obama’s announcement
  • The applicant must have had no lawful status on November 20, 2014, the date of President Obama’s announcement
  • The applicant must have been physically present in the United States on November 20, 2014 and at the time of requesting DAPA with USCIS

If you have been convicted of any of the following you may not be eligible for DAPA:

  • Felony
  • Misdemeanor or three or more other misdemeanors
  • Are a threat to national security
  • Are an enforcement priority for removal

When Can I Apply? Currently applications are not being accepted, however USCIS has indicated that requests for DAPA will begin to be accepted in mid to late May of this year.

Continue reading