Articles Posted in Immigrant Visas

cartoon-2897720_1920

If you have applied for the I-130/485 based on marriage to your US Citizen spouse, chances are you are anxiously awaiting an interview. In this post we will cover the documentation you need to provide at the I-485 interview to prove the bona fides of your relationship. The most common question clients ask is, what a bona fide marriage is and how do I prove that I have a bona fide marriage.

A bona fide marriage is one that was entered in good faith and not with an intention to deceive. A green card applicant does not have a bona fide marriage if he or she entered the marriage solely to receive an immigration benefit from USCIS. Immigration officers are trained to identify fraudulent or “sham” marriages where either party or both parties have entered the marriage simply for the green card applicant to obtain his or her permanent residence in the United States, without any sincere intention to live together in the same household or form a marital bond.  Immigration officers search for inconsistencies in any answers provided by either party to the marriage, and carefully scrutinize supporting documentation provided by the couple with the initial I-485 filing.

There are various forms of documentation that are strong evidence proving the bona fides of a relationship. Generally speaking, evidence of cohabitation, joint ownership of assets and joint responsibility for liabilities, and birth certificates of children born to the marriage are strong evidence proving that a marriage is genuine.

Cohabitation: One of the most important aspects of proving bona fide marriage is to show cohabitation—that you are living with your spouse. You can show evidence of cohabitation by providing a copy of your lease agreement showing both of your names on the lease if you are renting an apartment. If your spouse maintains ownership of a private residence, your spouse can provide a copy of the deed including both of your names, or if the green card applicant’s name is not yet on the deed, the petitioner can provide a statement as evidence of cohabitation. Other documents that can be shown to prove cohabitation include joint utility bills such for gas and electricity, water, internet bills, phone bills, etc. that contain both of your names. In addition, any mail sent to your residential address containing both of your names may be used as evidence of cohabitation. The strongest evidence showing cohabitation however is a copy of the lease agreement or deed containing both names.

Continue reading

mailbox-595854_1920

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has released a new policy memorandum that will have wide ranging implications for immigrants. Beginning September 11, 2018, USCIS will use their discretion to deny an application, petition, or request filed with USCIS without first issuing a Request for Evidence (RFE) or Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID), if insufficient evidence is sent with the initial filing of the application or if the evidence provided does not establish the applicant’s eligibility for the benefit requested.

The new policy memorandum “Issuance of Certain RFEs and NOIDs; Revisions to Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 10.5(a), Chapter 10.5(b)” supersedes the 2013 policy memorandum titled “Requests for Evidence and Notices of Intent to Deny” which previously governed an officer’s discretion to deny an application, petition, or request without first issuing a request for evidence. Previously, the 2013 memo required requests for evidence to be issued where the initial evidence was unsatisfactory or did not establish the applicant’s eligibility for the benefit requested.

As of September 11, 2018, USCIS now has the power to deny petitions lacking initial evidence without sending a Request for Evidence or Notice of Intent to Deny to cure the defect. This is bad news for applicants of immigrant and non-immigrant visa types, because applicants who have not provided sufficient evidence to USCIS to establish that they are eligible for the benefit requested can be denied without having the opportunity to cure the defect.

Continue reading

boy-926103_1920

DHS Statement on Family Reunification

The Department of Homeland Security recently issued a statement outlining the administration’s four-point plan to reunite minor children separated from their parents at the border. Beginning July 10, 2018, HHS and DHS will coordinate the reunification of children under 5 years of age currently in the custody of HHS, with parents who are in DHS custody.

#1 Verification of Parental Relationship

The administration will first ensure that a parental relationship with the child has been verified before reunifying the child with his or her parent. In addition, the parent must undergo a background check to ensure that reunification will not compromise the safety and welfare of the child. If a parent is found unsuitable for reunification purposes, in the course of a background check, the child will not be reunified with the parent. Parents who are in the custody of the U.S. Marshall or in a state or county jail for other offenses may not be reunified with their child.

#2 Transportation of Parents to ICE custody

Parents separated from their children will be transported to ICE custody where they will be reunited with their parents. Beginning July 10, 2018, DHS will coordinate physical reunification of minor children under 5 years of age with parents transported to ICE custody, provided the parent has been cleared for parentage and poses no danger to the child.

#3 Preparation of Children under Five Years of Age for Transportation

The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) will coordinate transportation of minor children under the age of five for reunification purposes. Children will be transported under supervision and their possessions will be brought with them to ICE custody.

Continue reading

supreme-court-544218_1920

Earlier this week, the United States Supreme Court handed down a controversial decision upholding the President’s latest travel ban in the case Trump, President of the United States, Et Al. v. Hawaii Et Al. The 5-4 decision reflected a deeply divided court, but ultimately the conservative justices on the court banded together ruling in favor of the Trump administration.

Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, ruled that the latest travel ban was “squarely within the scope of Presidential authority.” Justices Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg dissented. Despite concurring with the majority opinion Justice Kennedy added, “An anxious world must know that our Government remains committed always to the liberties the Constitution seeks to preserve and protect, so that freedom extends outward, and lasts.”

As you may recall in September of 2017 the President issued Executive Order No. 9645, entitled “Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats.” The purpose of this executive order was to identify any deficiencies from several foreign countries needed to adequately assess whether nationals from particular countries seeking to enter the United States presented security or safety threats to the United States. The order specifically called for global requirements for information sharing among these countries, and increased immigration screening and vetting of individuals from particular countries of concern. The President exercised his broad authority under the constitution to place entry restrictions on nationals of eight foreign countries whose information systems for managing and sharing information about their nationals was deemed inadequate by the current administration. These countries included—Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, and Somalia.

Continue reading

passport-315266_1280

TPS Updates: Re-Registration Period is Now Open for Hondurans with TPS

Current beneficiaries of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) under the Honduras country designation, who wish to maintain their TPS benefits, such as ability to continue working in the United States through the official termination date of the TPS program on January 5, 2020, must re-register for TPS benefits between June 5, 2018 and August 6, 2018.

Re-registration instructions are now available on the USCIS TPS website.

Re-registration Procedure:

Applicants must file Form I-821 Application for Temporary Protected Status as well as Form I-765 Application for Employment Authorization, preferably at the same time, but applicants may also file Form I-765 separately at a later date.

New EADs with a January 5, 2020 expiration date will be issued to Honduran TPS beneficiaries who apply within the re-registration period ending on August 6, 2018. USCIS will make every effort to issue new EADs before current EADs expire, however there are no guarantees given the amount of time required to process TPS re-registration applications.

USCIS has automatically extended the expiration date on EADs issued under the TPS designation of Honduras for 180 days, through January 1, 2019. This extension applies to individuals who have EADs that expired on January 5, 2018 and applied for a new EAD during the last re-registration period but have not yet received a new EAD.

Continue reading

question-mark-2492009_1920

In this post, we would like to keep our readers informed about Visa Bulletin projections for the month of May and June. Charles Oppenheim, Chief of the Visa Control and Reporting Division of the U.S. Department of State provides a monthly analysis of each month’s Visa Bulletin including discussion of current trends and future projections for immigrant preference categories.

Below are the highlights of those trends and projections:

Check-in with DOS’s Charlie Oppenheim: May 2018

Employment Based Categories

For the month of May, the following categories remained steady with no changes in the final action dates:

  • EB-1 China and India
  • EB-2 India
  • EB-3 China and Philippines
  • EB-4 El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras and
  • EB-5 China

Categories that experienced some forward movement included:

  • EB-2 China to move forward one month to September 1, 2014
  • EB-3 India to advance three months to May 1, 2008
  • EB-3 Other Workers—China to move forward one month to May 1, 2007
  • EB-4 Other Workers—India to move forward about 3 months to May 1, 2008
  • EB-4 Mexico to advance 5 weeks to October 22, 2016

Continue reading

memorial-day-3432665_1920

On behalf of our Law Office, we would like to wish you a safe and Happy Memorial Day as you spend it with your loved ones. We would like to extend a thank you to our service men and women and their families this memorial day weekend. May God bless you and the United States of America.

8539048913_3328e8545c_z

On Friday, March 30, 2018, the Department of State published a 60 day notice in the Federal Register entitled “Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Application for Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration,” proposing to require immigrant visa applicants to submit five years of social media history as part of the information requested on the DS-260 Immigrant Visa Electronic Application used by applicants to schedule Immigrant Visa interviews at U.S. Embassies and Consulates worldwide. The DS-260 is an Electronic Form that is completed by immigrant visa applicants and used by consular officials to determine whether the applicant is eligible for an immigrant visa.

Specifically, the Department wishes to, “add several additional questions for immigrant visa applicants. One question lists multiple social media platforms and requires the applicant to provide any identifies used by applicants for those platforms during the five years preceding the date of the application.”

Information provided by immigrant visa applications relating to their social media will be used to enhance “vetting” of applicants to verify their identity, ensure that they meet all visa eligibility requirements, and to prevent individuals from entering the country who pose a threat to the county’s national security, or have been associated with a terrorist organization.

Continue reading

37221006305_57c3571daa_z
Andrew, a real estate professional and Vice President of a large real estate firm headquartered in Asia, came to our office to discuss the possibility of filing for an EB-2 National Interest Waiver. To receive a national interest waiver, the applicant must demonstrate a high level of achievements and unique skills pertaining to their position to justify a waiver of the requirements of a job offer and labor certification filing.

The challenge in Andrew’s case was the absence of demonstrated achievements in the real estate business, and various non-disclosure agreements the client had signed restricting the documentation he could provide to demonstrate his exceptional ability in the industry, based on the high net worth projects he had worked on in the real estate industry. There were however other strengths that Andrew possessed that would qualify him for the national interest waiver. Andrew possessed a law degree from his home country, a master’s degree in taxation, a master’s degree in real estate from an ivy league university, and he was licensed to practice law in the United States. In addition to possessing these advanced degrees, two of which were received in the United States, Andrew’s career in the real estate sector spanned nearly 21 years.

The difficulty however remained in that Andrew did not have many documents to present to USCIS demonstrating his achievements as an entrepreneur and real estate investor, and the projects he was working on could not be disclosed based on the confidentiality agreements he had signed. Our experienced staff and attorneys decided that the best strategy in Andrew’s case was to highlight his education and vast experience in the industry having maintained high level positions in the industry, leading international real estate teams, heading overseas real estate and property management implementation strategies across various continents, and initiating/implementing domestic real estate acquisition projects totaling more than $4 billion in investment. We are happy to report that our strategy was successful and Andrew’s national interest waiver was recently approved. Here is how we did it.

7022830203_d8c85dc863_z

During the last few days, the Supreme Court has been very busy taking up the issue of immigration. On Tuesday in a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court handed down a controversial ruling strengthening the power of the Trump administration to detain undocumented immigrants facing deportation proceedings for extended periods of time. The Court rejected the opinion of federal judges in California who had previously ruled that detained immigrants facing removal proceedings have a right to a bail hearing after six months in jail.

Today, the Court emphatically disagreed, ruling in the case Jennings v. Rodriguez, that those who face deportation will remain detained while their cases are being considered by an immigration judge. Justice Samuel Alito speaking for the Court said that federal immigration law does not require bail hearings, and that the Ninth Circuit Court has no authority to allow for such hearings.

The Court handed down this ruling after immigrants’ rights activists brought a class action suit representing thousands of non-citizens who had been arrested and held for deportation. Many of these individuals sought asylum in the United States based on a credible fear of persecution. Although the majority of these individuals eventually went on to win their cases in immigration court, they were detained for a year or longer while their cases remained pending. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal had previously ruled that such individuals should have a right to a bail hearing after 6 months, and a right to be released from detention provided they could prove to the Court that they are not a danger to the community or a flight risk.

Continue reading