Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Immigration Fraud

by

District Court Denies Request for Temporary Restraining Order to Halt Syrian Re-Settlement Program in Texas

23348054250_3bfc1cd6a0_z

First Family of Syrian Refugees Arrives in Canada

In their December suit, Texas Health and Human Services Commission V. United States, et, al., the state of Texas alleged that the United States government and the International Rescue Committee unlawfully attempted to re-settle six Syrian refugees in the city of Dallas without prior  consultation and collaboration. According to Texas, the federal government failed to consult with the state regarding re-settlement of these refugees, and prevented them from receiving vital information relating to security risks posed by Syrian refugees prior to their re-settlement. Texas also claimed that the International Rescue Committee similarly failed to collaborate and consult with the Texas Health and Human Services Commission in advance prior to the re-settlement of these refugees. To protect itself, the state of Texas asked for an injunction and a temporary restraining order to halt the resettlement of Syrian refugees until security checks could confirm that these Syrian refugees do not pose a threat to the state of Texas.

On December 9, 2015 the U.S. district court denied the temporary restraining order, adding that the state of Texas failed to provide compelling evidence to suggest that Syrian refugees pose a substantial threat of irreparable injury to its citizens. Presiding district court Judge David C. Godbey added that, “the [Texas] commission has failed to show by competent evidence that any terrorists actually infiltrated the refugee program, much less that these particular refugees are terrorists’ intent on causing harm.” Although the lawsuit still stands and will likely not receive a final ruling until early next year, the district court set an important precedent in its denial of the temporary restraining order. Judge Godbey further maintained that it is not within the purview of the district court to assess what risk, if any, Syrian refugees pose to any particular state. Such risk can only be assessed by the federal government. On this issue Godbey stated that, “the Court has no institutional competency in assessing the risk posed by refugees. That is precisely the sort of question that is, as a general matter, committed to the discretion of the executive branch of the federal government, not to a district court.” The rest of the lawsuit remains in litigation.

Continue reading

by

3209934849_5f5faed197_b
It is our pleasure to bring you the latest in immigration news including recent USCIS announcements, workload updates, tips, and important reminders to avoid delays in application processing or rejections. For more information please contact our office.

Comment Period for Proposed USCIS Form Revisions:

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) have proposed changes to the following USCIS forms. DHS and USCIS invite the general public, organizations, and federal agencies to submit comments on the proposed revisions by the deadlines outlined below:

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

extreme hardship

Yesterday, USCIS released a draft version of what will eventually be used as the policy manual guide of extreme hardship. The policy manual has been created for the purpose of assisting adjudicating officers in making final determinations on the merits of waivers of inadmissibility. Certain aliens, who are found to be inadmissible under specific grounds of the law, can apply for a discretionary waiver in order to adjust their status to permanent residence. In order to do so, the alien must demonstrate their relationship to a qualifying relative (US Citizen or LPR family member) and establish that the qualifying relative would experience an “extreme hardship” in their absence. The policy manual includes guidance relating to general considerations, interpretations of existing law, and adjudication steps that will help consular officers establish whether a waiver of inadmissibility merits a favorable decision and whether the burden of proof has been satisfied by the applicant. The draft highlights important requirements that must be taken into consideration by adjudicating officers when considering the merits of a waiver application. Such requirements include 1) whether the alien has demonstrated that they possess a qualifying relative 2) the presence of an extreme hardship to the qualifying relative and 3) discretionary measures based on the totality of the facts presented. USCIS has invited the public to comment on the draft from now until November 23, 2015.

Continue reading

by

3934526517_8d71c74523_z

What are the most challenging questions for couples at a STOKES/Fraud Interview?

By Attorney Marie Puertollano, Esq.

What happens when a US Citizen Spouse and the intending immigrant spouse fail an interview pending an application for permanent residence?

Normally couples who have failed to provide sufficient documentation to an immigration officer, for the purpose of establishing their bona fide marriage—in other words that the marriage between both parties was entered in good faith and NOT to obtain an immigration benefit—may receive an appointment for a second interview also known as the STOKES or fraud interview. In some cases however a couple may be scheduled for a STOKES or fraud interview the very first time around. There are multiple reasons a couple may be scheduled for a STOKES/fraud interview. Couples should note that the burden of proof always rests on the couple. So what happens at this fraud interview? During the STOKES/fraud interview the couple is separated in different rooms and interrogated by an immigration officer. The officer will first interrogate one of the parties in a separate room. Then, the officer will question the other party asking the same exact questions.

Fraud interviews are lengthy and very complex. Officers ask very detailed questions that are challenging even for couples who have been together for many years. Our attorneys have successfully represented couples at hundreds of fraud interviews. Here are the most challenging questions that almost all couples are unprepared to answer despite having been together for many years. It is important that if a question is unclear or if the context of the question is unclear that the party ask the immigration officer for clarification.

Continue reading

by

What is President Obama’s Executive Action?

It is not a path to permanent residency. It is not a permanent solution. It is not an option for felons, undocumented individuals with criminal histories, inadmissibility issues, and recent border crossers. In fact, recent border crossers will be made a priority for deportation under the order. The order also makes border security a number one priority, increasing the chances of apprehension for recent border crossers. If you commit fraud by knowingly misrepresenting or failing to disclose the facts, you may be subject to prosecution or removal from the United States. Always be truthful and careful when presenting information and documentation to USCIS. Eligible immigrants must demonstrate that they have resided in the United States continuously for a period of at least five years. Only immigrants who have been living in the United States for at least five years are allowed to reap the benefits under the executive action. The order grants eligible individuals a temporary status allowing applicants to remain in the United States legally without fear of deportation.

Eligible individuals must be either:

  • A parent of a U.S. Citizen or lawful permanent resident as of the date of the President’s announcement of November 20, 2014, have been residing in the United States continuously for at least five years (beginning on January 01, 2010), must not be an enforcement priority, and not have inadmissibility issues

OR

  • Individuals who arrived in the United States before turning 16 years old and who can prove that they have continuously resided in the United States for at least five years (beginning on January 01, 2010) regardless of their age today. Applicants must not be an enforcement priority and not have inadmissibility issues.

Continue reading

by

15364657104_dd44282c03_o

Jose came into our office yesterday.  He had been here before.  About a year ago he came in to have a consultation with us and it seems we didn’t have the “right” answers that he wanted to hear.  This led to Jose searching for what he really wanted to hear.

For the past year, Jose has visited several immigration attorneys to confirm the information we had already given him.  The answer was always the same; except one day he found one attorney who gave him hope.  Unfortunately, the attorney took his hope, his money, and didn’t do anything to help.

We hear this story often and there isn’t a week that goes by where we don’t see a person who has entrusted their life and their savings to an inexperienced attorney, or worst yet, to an unscrupulous attorney or immigration consultant.  There are times that we have to give people the bad news – that there is nothing that can be done to help them.  The person is usually devastated and in their desperation will state “I’ll find a better attorney and he will be able to help me.”  The truth is, if you search for the answer you want to hear, you will always find someone who are willing to help you; that is they are willing help you be separated from your money – leaving you hopeless.

Continue reading

by

7512877940_2720e3be12_z
On July 19, 2014 the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s San Antonio Office issued a press release discussing fraudulent attempts made by con artists targeting the families of unaccompanied children—mostly from Central America—coming to the United States through the Rio Grande valley and Tucson border. According to the press release, these con artists operate by making themselves appear as credible entities and reaching out to the family members of unaccompanied children, seeking payment in exchange for what the families believe will cover travel and legal expenses that will allow the children to be reunited with them. These plots are deceptive and fraudulent. The San Antonio FBI office confirmed that on July 18 two fraud schemes of this sort occurred via telephone. In one instance the perpetrator(s) disguised themselves as a charitable/non-profit organization aimed at reuniting unaccompanied children with their families. Another perpetrator disguised themselves as a reputable business organization from San Antonio. According to San Antonio FBI, the payment amounts demanded by these illegitimate sources ranged from $300.00 to several thousand dollars. The press release seeks to inform the public of these occurrences and encourage the public to be extremely cautious when receiving such a request. The FBI San Antonio Office has warned the public that fraudulent schemes such as these are abound especially in instances of crisis and natural disasters. The public should be extremely wary in such times. If you have been the victim or know someone who has been a victim of such a crime contact your local FBI office.

In general to protect the public from being victimized the press release provides several guidelines:

  • Be skeptical of individuals representing themselves as officials asking for payments or donations door-to-door, via phone, mail, e-mail or social networking sites.
Continue reading

by

We have received reports of a new scam potentially victimizing aliens. According to one report, the individual will receive a call purporting to be from a USCIS officer, who will have certain correct information on the individual, including the individual’s name and address.

The caller will state that there is some discrepancy in USCIS records, and ask for confirmation of data, such as an I-94 number, an “A” number, or a visa control number. The caller will then tell the individual that there is a penalty for not clearing up the discrepancy, and that the individual is to send a sum of money via Western Union, to an address the caller provides.

Be on alert of receiving such calls, and if you do, report them to appropriate law enforcement authorities, which may include the FBI, and to the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, whose Consumer Sentinel database is accessed by criminal and civil law enforcement authorities worldwide.

Continue reading

by

What I really want to know is how could this happen in the first place, and more importantly, for such a long duration – 13 years.

Earl Seth David, also known as Rabbi Avraham David, applied for legal status for 25,000 illegal aliens based on phony claims that U.S. employers had sponsored those aliens for employment.

He operated the scheme out of his Manhattan law firm for 13 years, charging the aliens exorbitant fees of as much as $30,000, prosecutors said.

Continue reading