Visa Lawyer Blog

by

Recent hearings in the House of Representatives are showing us that the focus is not on solving the issues to pass immigration reform but focused on past problems that have been debated about before. In one House hearing before the Homeland Security committee, Secretary Jeh Johnson laid out his vision for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Among the questions the Secretary took from committee members were inquiries about deportation priorities and immigrants who overstay their visas. At the same time, the House Judiciary committee held a hearing about the president’s constitutional duties and the use of executive power in his administration. The real question is why are our House members focused on enforcing current immigration policies when the dialogue should be on immigration reform?

It is clear that many Representatives are concerned about border security more than anything. In fact, at the House hearing with Sec. Johnson, he fielded questions about whether the administration was deporting immigrants who fit the department’s stated priorities, including putting resources toward finding immigrants who overstay their visas. “If in the category of visa overstays there are those people [who are national security threats], then we need to go after those people,” Johnson said. Some House members claimed the administration wasn’t deporting enough immigrants, while Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) expressed concern that too many immigrants are being removed because of minor driving offenses and not violent crimes. These comments show how the focus is still on the current policies being implemented and less on how the changes to our policies will affect these concerns.

With the debate over the President’s constitutional authority to unilaterally implement immigration policy going on, House members assert that his broad authority is still limited. Rep. Tom Rice (R-SC) asserted that while the president has prosecutorial discretion, “he does not have the authority to exempt a specified class of up to 1.76 million individuals.” Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) explained that DACA is decided on a case-by-case basis as every individual application is examined before DACA is granted.

Continue reading

by

Reflecting back on the State of the Union Address, it has been a month since President  Obama said he was not afraid of using his executive powers to make sure immigration reform will happen. There is pressure on President Obama from those whose favor he curried heading into the 2012 election. Young immigrants, members of United We Dream (UWD), are demanding that the president stop deportations of illegals.

Young immigrants may be in luck.  Recent polls are showing that for the first time that Americans are just as concerned about what to do with people already in the country illegally as they are about securing our borders. Historically, people have been more worried about shutting down border crossings.

Further confirmation of a sea-change in attitude comes from a recent CNN poll. Last month, in answer to “What should be the main focus of the U.S. government in dealing with the issue of illegal immigration,” 54 percent selected “developing a plan that would allow illegal immigrants who have jobs to become legal U.S. residents.” Only 41 percent chose “developing a plan for stopping the flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S. and for deporting those already here.” In 2010, the numbers were significantly higher calling for tighter border security.

Continue reading

by

Recently, USCIS posted on its website that those who were given DACA in August are coming up on the expiration of their deferred action.  The recent post notifies individuals that If you wish to renew your deferred action for another two year period, Form I-821D must be submitted to USCIS again.  This form must be completed, properly signed and accompanied by a Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization (along with the accompanying filing fees for that form, totaling $465), and Form I-765WS.

USCIS also warns that if your previous period of deferred action expires before you receive a renewal of deferred action under DACA, you will accrue unlawful presence and will not be authorized to work for any time between the periods of deferred action.  It is for these reasons that USCIS encourages submission for renewal 120 days before the current period of deferred action under DACA expires.

Also as a reminder, USCIS has issued further guidance on renewing DACA by stating “An individual whose case was initially deferred under DACA by ICE may be considered for Renewal of DACA from USCIS if he or she:

Continue reading

by

Canada has recently terminated two investor immigrant programs, an act that has Chinese agencies saying the policy change is unfair. The Canadian policy is a signal to wealthy applicants that they must improve their social integration in and increase financial contributions to destination countries. “All of Canada’s immigration programs are open to anyone who meets the criteria, and do not target specific countries,” the Canadian embassy in China told China Daily.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada said in a written interview that China “has been among the top sources for more than a decade”, and immigration is a key part of Canada’s plan to “grow our economy, spur job creation, and ensure long-term prosperity for all Canadians”.

The Immigrant Investor Program requires investors to have a minimum net worth of 1.6 million Canadian dollars ($1.5 million) and to invest 800,000 Canadian dollars in the form of a multi-year, interest-free loan to the government. Canada’s Citizenship and Immigration Services have stated that: “Research shows that immigrant investors pay less in taxes than other economic immigrants, are less likely to stay in Canada over the medium- to long-term and often lack the skills, including official language proficiency, to integrate as well as other immigrants from the same countries.”

Continue reading

by

Recently, the Federal Register published two new exemptions to the Immigration and Nationality Act on Wednesday by the Departments of Homeland Security and State mean that who provided “insignificant” or “limited” material support for terror groups will no longer be automatically denied eligibility from asylum or refugee status.

An unknown number of people currently in the process of being deported, as well as about 3,000 people with pending asylum cases will be affected by this rules change. It will likely help Syrian refugees who would otherwise be blocked from receiving U.S. aid by the existing rules.
The new exemptions apply to “limited material support.” A DHS spokeswoman reported that the term is defined as “material support that was insignificant in amount or provided incidentally in the course of everyday social, commercial, family or humanitarian interactions, or under significant pressure.”
Continue reading

by
Reactions to the release of the House GOP leadership’s principles for immigration reform  tended more toward cautious praise for releasing something as a starting point, but with serious doubts about the shortcomings of the actual policy proposals. Because these principles are guidelines—without specific  detail—“cautious optimism” is probably the healthiest approach to take in understanding what the document means for reform. Summarizing what the document says doesn’t take long; understanding its nuances, particularly its omissions and departures from the past, requires a bit more digging. In reality, this new document should not be read as an unwavering set of principles, but rather  as a list of expectations and strategic choices. The first half, dealing with enforcement contains no real surprises, but the second half is full of them.

There is much rhetoric about the necessity of securing our borders and creating a zero-tolerance policy for people who violate our laws in the future. These standards endorse the use of an electronic work site verification program and the full implementation of an entry/exit registration program for tracking arrivals and departures to and from the U.S. They emphasize the necessity of enforcement of laws first, before turning to any more positive reforms. Ultimately, the enforcement section of the document merely repeats the idea that we must be able to measure enforcement successes and thwart efforts to get around the law.

The second half of the GOP stance is far more interesting, as it emphasizes rewarding hard work and merit, and puts a premium on outcomes. The authors declare that the legal immigration system needs to be reformed to avoid an over reliance on family ties or luck; instead, they prioritize rewarding foreign students who can contribute to the economy and meeting the needs of employers. Similarly, temporary work programs, particularly in agriculture, have to provide realistic and predictable means of entry to the U.S., without harming the interests of native-born workers. It is striking how the emphasis on finding a way to use the immigration system to improve the economy is an acknowledgment of the importance of immigration that has been lacking in the past.

Continue reading

by

By Ekaterina Powell, Esq.

It’s been almost a year since the procedure for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver became effective. For all this time, USCIS has routinely denied cases where there was a reason to believe that the applicant may be subject to a ground of inadmissibility other than unlawful presence.

Thus, if USCIS believed the applicant may have a criminal, national security, health-related, misrepresentation, or another ground of inadmissibility, it denied the provisional waiver application and did not look further into the extreme hardship analysis.

Continue reading

by

By Andrew Desposito, Esq

For many individuals, becoming a United States Permanent Resident and maintaining that status is a pretty simple thing. Simply living and working in the U.S. maintains the status because the purpose of being a Permanent Resident is that your home is in the United States. What happens when maintaining your home becomes an issue that immigration calls into question?

Recently, a client came to our office to help him address this issue that he faced from immigration. Trips into and out of the United States can trigger that issue with Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which can impact one’s ability to stay a Permanent Resident. Our client, who has been a permanent resident for over 25 years, had been charged with being a “Commuter” and therefore not complying with all of the requirements of being a Permanent Resident in the U.S. The reason for his frequent trips down to Mexico for short periods of time were irrelevant as far as the immigration officer was concerned. So long as the client was not returning to his permanent address, the immigration officer was not convinced that our client was maintaining his permanent residence status.

Continue reading

by

Like many other immigrants, Mery Martinez has no legal status in the United States, no health insurance and no money. Sadly, Ms. Martinez does have leukemia, and has been struggling to find treatment for the disease, first in New York and more recently in Philadelphia. A hospital emergency room rejected her on New Year’s Day because she had not yet qualified for the state assistance that could have paid for the medical attention she needed.

With rising anxiety, and a rash that she attributed to her illness, Ms. Martinez walked into a clinic last week run by Puentes de Salud, a nonprofit group of doctors, nurses and medical students that provides primary care to Philadelphia’s undocumented, uninsured and impoverished Latino immigrants.

In a consulting room provided by the University of Pennsylvania’s medical school, Ms. Martinez, 38, who is from Honduras, was examined, given a flu shot and advised on how to navigate the health system by Spanish-speaking volunteer doctors and nurses who run the clinic two evenings a week.

Puentes de Salud, which in English means “bridges of health,” was founded to provide low-cost but quality health care and social services to the growing Latino population in South Philadelphia and began treating patients in 2006. A co-founder, Dr. Steve Larson, said the organization distinguished itself from other community-health groups by addressing the underlying causes of illness, like poor nutrition, illiteracy or urban violence.

“It’s not about me writing prescriptions,” said Dr. Larson, 53, a professor of emergency medicine at the University of Pennsylvania who said he began to develop his approach to community medicine while working in rural Nicaragua in the early 1990s. “This is an underground health system.”
While Puentes operates openly in partnership with community organizations, hospitals, universities and governmental institutions, many of the patients — like Ms. Martinez — live in fear of immigration officials.

The new federal health care law does not provide assistance to illegal immigrants, who are generally ineligible for Medicaid, cannot get federal subsidies for private insurance and cannot use the new insurance exchanges to buy unsubsidized insurance with their own money.

Under the federal Affordable Care Act, such immigrants are exempt from the requirement to have insurance. They remain eligible for certain types of emergency care under Medicaid if they have low incomes and meet other criteria, and they may receive care from free and charitable clinics in some places.

Continue reading

by

Today, we celebrate the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a man whose dream of equality and human rights changed the course of history. His legacy will be remembered this week by people of all colors and creeds who still believe in the American dream and who continue to fight for equality, civil rights and the basic human dignity they deserve.

In remembering the fight Dr. King made for equal rights among all persons of any race, the similarities of his struggle and the immigration fight are easy to see. Rev. Harvey Clemons, Jr. of the Pleasant Hills Baptist Church is quoted saying, “Immigration is about human dignity and the nobility of parents of different tribes and nations facing the risk of coming to a foreign land, a land of opportunity, to work for a better tomorrow for their children…Dr. King invoked the truth, the truth being that all humans ought to be treated with a certain dignity. It would be natural for us to look to him as an example for fighting for a just cause.”

Similarly, Rev. Al Sharpton, also an outspoken advocate in the fight to end racial profiling, noted that defending civil rights should be an “everybody issue”: “We need to stop comparing disparities and start finding solutions. It is imperative for the African American community to stand together with the Latino community and for the Latino community to stand with the Asian community. You cannot have human rights for some—we need it for all. We must stand together with all our brothers and sisters against this national outrage.”

Continue reading