Visa Lawyer Blog

by

Back in 2011, the Department of Homeland Security had instructed ICE enforcement agents to refrain from detaining individuals at sensitive locations. This 2011 memo required ICE agents to have prior approval before going to certain “sensitive locations”, including schools, churches, and hospitals. The list did not include courthouses among its list of sensitive locations. Recently, ICE has been making arrests at courthouses in and around the Bakersfield area.

The ACLU reported on the recent arrests made by ICE at the Kern County courthouses and noted that “ICE agents have repeatedly raided Kern County courthouses in recent years, rounding up residents waiting to pay fines, appear in court, get married, and even – in one case reported to the ACLU – get a domestic violence restraining order. ICE’s tactics are in tension with their own written policies, which state they will not conduct enforcement actions at “sensitive” locations. Ironically, the raids have kept people from paying tickets and attending court.”

In response to these arrests at courthouses, the ACLU wrote directly to ICE to address what they feel is a location that should be added to the “sensitive locations” list that was in the 2011 memo. The rationale for this is pretty clear, it is in the public interest for individuals that have court matters to be able to go to court without fearing being detained by ICE. Those with minor traffic offenses, seeking court orders for domestic violence matters and temporary restraining orders will be deterred from going to court if they fear being detained.

Continue reading

by

Back in June, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the DOMA case that granted same-sex couples federal benefits in states that recognize same-sex marriages. This decision also had a far-reaching effect on immigration laws that allows for same-sex couples to remain together in the U.S. by petitioning for their spouses. Our office recently had some immigration interviews for these marriage cases, which was new for our attorneys and for the immigration officers who must handle these types of cases.

When it comes to a marriage interview, the interviewing officer asks questions to determine the bona fides of the marriage. Some of these questions concern relationships with family members to see how involved the families of the petitioner and beneficiary are in the lives of the couple there at the interview. This notion does not necessarily apply when it concerns a same-sex relationship, since the families of the couple may not approve of the relationship. For some cultures, because it is wrong to be in a same-sex marriage and is constantly disapproved, leaving the couple alienated from their families. In this context, it is interesting for our clients when they are faced with questions from the officer regarding family relationships.

For one of our interviews, the immigration officer was presented with correspondences between the couple where one of them was referred to by a female name because they were pretending to their family to have a girlfriend when they had a boyfriend. This sort of difference would be a concern for the immigration officer in the past, but because of the sensitivity that same-sex couples face with having to address this issue with their families, the officer understood the circumstances and accepted those reasons while accepting the correspondences as genuine between the couple.

Continue reading

by

USCIS confirmed on October 23, 2013 that change of employment location within the same MSA does not require an amended H-1B petition. This is an important clarification from USCIS’ position on the issue was unclear.

Under USCIS regulations, amended H-1B petition is required if there is a material change in employment terms. However, there has been inconsistency in USCIS’ treatment of the changes in job location. While past USCIS guidance (Efren Hernandez letter, October 23, 2003) suggested that location changes, without any other changes in the employment relationship, do not constitute “material changes,” as a practical matter, USCIS has often denied H-1B petitions when during FDNS inspections the beneficiary could not be found at the job location that was provided to USCIS with the H-1B petition. USCIS, contrary to its own guidance, insisted that an amended H-1B had to be filed whenever the place of employment changes. This presented significant challenges to many employers who move offices within the same Metropolitan Statistical Area or who place employees at another job location not anticipated at the time of filing of H-1B petition. For employers who have a significant H-1B workforce that means thousands of dollars in USCIS filing fees.

The policies of USCIS and DOL seemed contradictory when it came to changes in job locations within the normal commuting distance of the place of employment. Under the DOL’s regulations, no new LCA is required to be filed if the employee moves within the “area of intended employment,” which is the area within a normal commuting distance of the place of employment. The normal commuting distance is not defined and has to be analyzed on a case by case basis. Normally, moves within the same Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) are considered to be within the normal commuting distance. Thus, any moves in job location within the same MSA generally do not require filing of a new LCA.

Continue reading

by

When an applicant is facing the deadline to remove the conditions of his or her lawful permanent residency status, and the marriage on which the initial I-130 petition and conditional residence were based is on life support, deciding how and when to file the Form I-751 Petition to Remove the Conditions of Residence requires careful planning. The following provides a summary of the I-751 available waivers.

Differences Between Jointly-Filed Petitions and Waivers

There are some key differences between I-751 Petitions filed jointly and those filed under one of the waiver provisions. If a conditional permanent resident (CPR) is filing an I-751 Petition jointly, with the petitioning spouse, and files after the expiration date of the LPR card, he or she will need to include an explanation of the late-filing with the I-751 Petition. However, if filing under one of the waiver grounds, the CPR does not need to provide such an explanation. A waiver can be filed prior to or after the expiration of the LPR card up until the date an immigration judge issues a final order of removal.

Continue reading

by

An eleventh hour deal was finally struck between Democrats and Republicans to reopen the government while they work out a long term fiscal budget for the federal government. The deal calls for the government to remain open until January 15, 2014 while Congress works on a long term budget over the next few months. The debt ceiling was also raised until February 7, 2014, meaning Congress spending and borrowing power remains in effect until that date. The impact of this deal has some very important, short term effects on some of the operations concerning our immigration matters. Some of these include the following:

– The Department of Labor is back in operation, meaning business employers can petition for immigrant workers again and that iCERT and PERM services are available.

– E-Verify is back in operation, meaning employers can verify their employees immigration statuses again

Continue reading

by

Can undocumented immigrant lawyers practice law in the U.S.? That is a question that some states have been considering for several years now. Recently, a bill was passed in California that now permits undocumented immigrant lawyers to practice law in California. Last week, Gov. Jerry Brown signed AB 1024 into law, allowing undocumented immigrant lawyers to practice law in the state of California.

The bill was inspired by Sergio Garcia, 36, who had been waiting for four years to have the opportunity to practice law in California. In 2009, he graduated from Cal Northern School of Law, passed the bar exam and the moral character requirement but was denied a license because of his immigration status. Due to Sergio Garcia’s case, California is the first state in the nation to allow undocumented immigrants to practice law in the U.S. When he got the call from Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D), the author of the bill, telling him that his battle was over, Garcia said he let out “happy tears.” “I got choked up. I allowed myself to relieve the stress and everything I have felt,” he said. “But more than being happy for myself, I am just happy for people in my same situation who are not going to have to suffer in making their dream of becoming an attorney a reality”
A San Diego criminal immigration attorney, Narciso Delgado-Cruz, whose clientele is nearly 95 percent Latino, said the greatest impact this new law will have on the profession is the change in perspective. There will be new lawyers with a different “worldview,” he said. “It’s not only about being able to communicate,” Delgado-Cruz said. “Clients want to be understood, they like it when a lawyer can relate to their struggles, their fears and their dreams.”
On the same token, Garcia, who plans on practicing civil litigation and some immigration law, said the immigrant community is “extremely underserved” and they need lawyers that understand their challenges. “The ability to be of service to the community and be a vehicle for social change and equality is a great thing that will help not only society but the economy in general,” he said.

But some argue the law goes too far – particularly because lawyers take an oath to uphold the law and, critics say, are breaking it by being in the country illegally. “…If you are a lawyer who knowingly is breaking the law,” wrote Tod Robberson, an editorial writer for the Dallas Morning News, ”why should anyone trust you?”

Continue reading

by

In recent news, despite the government shutdown, immigration reform is still on the minds of many who want that change to happen. Amid the political gloom of a government shutdown and the threat of default if a budget compromise is not brokered soon, immigration reform advocates are hardly basking in the momentum they enjoyed this summer. But backers of a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants are keeping up the public fight in spite of a bleak outlook for legislative action this year.

Thousands descended on the National Mall on Tuesday, chanting “Si se puede” — “Yes we can”– as mostly Democratic lawmakers told them not to give up the push for reform. Despite the gridlocked political climate, many in attendance remained optimistic, but frustrated.

“I’m not sure when it’s going to, but I think it’s going to happen. We have momentum, like a snowball that is rolling,” said Juan Frias, a Fairfax, Va., a resident originally from Mexico. “But we know this will not be easy.”
“Congress needs to get their act together,” said Rebecca Diaz, a Puerto Rican who moved to Washington, D.C., one year ago. “I’m going to fight for immigration reform right now. Not in a year, not in five months, right now,” she said.

That fight meant a trip to jail for some, including some lawmakers. Eight House members outspoken about the immigration issue — including Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., and civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga. — were among those arrested for civil disobedience during a march after the organized rally and charged with “crowding, obstructing, and incommoding” near the Capitol.

With the ongoing shutdown, the rally’s location on the National Mall was itself the subject of controversy. A week after World War II Honor Flight participants made national headlines for fighting for access to the shuttered national memorial honoring their service, critics said that immigration rights ralliers – including some who might be undocumented immigrants – should not be able to use space that would otherwise be closed because of the funding lapse.

The National Park Service granted the host organizations access to the area for “First Amendment activities.”
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., commended the park service for “bending over backwards” to ensure the rally took place on the National Mall, directly between the Washington Monument and the Capitol.

Legislative progress on a comprehensive immigration bill –once seen as on track to being signed by the president after a bipartisan Senate vote to advance it – has all but halted. House Speaker John Boehner declined to put the Senate-passed bill up for a vote, waiting instead on “piecemeal” legislation from GOP House members. A years-in-the-making effort by a coalition of bipartisan House members to create their own comprehensive bill gradually crumbled.

Continue reading

by

While immigration news of late has not been too positive with Congressional immigration reform being stalled while the U.S. government works on resolving its own budget situation, California recently passed a law that will have a positive impact on the immigration community. Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the Trust Act, a law that rejects the cloud of suspicion that the Obama Administration has cast over immigrant communities and sets the immigration debate in the right direction.

The TRUST Act ensures that California law enforcement will not submit to requests by ICE to hold people who have been charged with or convicted of only minor crimes for extra time in order to facilitate their transfer to immigration. The bill was considered, drafted, and passed by the California legislature as a response to the overly common experience of an interaction with law enforcement resulting in deportation, which sent a chilling effect throughout California communities and endangered public safety by making people afraid to call the police. A recent study showed that 40% of Latinos in Los Angeles were less likely to call police even when victim of a crime due to the police’s perceived involvement in immigration. If it is more important to prevent crime from happening in our communities, then people need to know they can trust the police are focused on that over any other issue.

Under the new policy, California law enforcement will no longer blindly comply with every immigration hold request from ICE. Instead, California officials will only detain a person for immigration if that person meets any of the following criteria:

Continue reading

by

The “green card marriage based interview,” which both of the Petitioner and Beneficiary are required to attend as part of the green card process, should not be presumed as a walk in the park; it has the possibility of being a very intense and painful event. You can take the stress and anxiety out of the event through thorough smart preparation. Check out our Tips for success and good Luck!

(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = “//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1”; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));

Post by San Diego Immigration Lawyer, Jacob J. Sapochnick.
Continue reading

by

Since the Government Shutdown announced, I keep getting calls about the impact on Immigration Matters. Clients on H1B visas working for the government want to know how this will affect their legal status; Applicants in removal proceedings are wondering when the next hearing date will be scheduled. The bottom line this is a real mess.

Most of the country’s immigration courts are either closed or working limited schedules because of the United States government’s shutdown. That means some immigration court decisions could be delayed for months.

If the shutdown goes on for days, it means some immigration cases could languish in the already backlogged system.

Continue reading