Adjustment of Status Permanent Residence
Posted on | May 15, 2012 | No Comments
Family members, U.S. citizen spouses, parents and children over 21 can file for their family to become permanent residents if:
1 the beneificiary is on a nonimmigrant visa,
2 the beneficiary is 245i eligible
3 the benificiary is the spouse or child of a U.S. ctizen and is prepared to return to their home country for the I 601 waiver of inadmissility
If you believe your relative meets any of the above criteria please call our lawer at (415) 513-4533 or email: attyconsult@yahoo.com
Tags: 245 i 10 years presence > adjustment status permanent residence > deportation removal ICE DHS holds > extreme hardhsip waivers > Fiance Visa > San Francisco Immigration Courts
ICE Continues to Detain unauthorized immigrants
Posted on | May 15, 2012 | No Comments
Despite the President’s announcement of concentrating on illegal immigrants with criminal records ICE is contniuing with its controversial program of getting local law enforcement to apprehend and detain aliens who are persons of good moral character.
For information on how you can protect yourself or a loved one from removal or deportation contact our lawyer at (415) 513-4533, (775) 826-2099 or email: attyconsult@yahoo.com
Despite Opposition, ICE Expands SComm
“Obama administration officials have announced that a contentious fingerprinting program to identify [unauthorized] immigrants will be extended across Massachusetts and New York next week, expanding federal enforcement efforts despite opposition from the governors and immigrant groups in those states. In blunt e-mails sent Tuesday to officials and the police in the two states, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials said the program, Secure Communities, would be activated “in all remaining jurisdictions” this Tuesday.” – New York Times, May 12, 2012.
Tags: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals > Adjustment of status family petition > asylum San Francisco CA > Cancellation Removal > deportation criminal conduct > ICE DHS detention Bond > Master merits hearing > prosecutorial discretion admin closure
Proposed Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers
Posted on | May 9, 2012 | No Comments
Reminder: This proposed process is not in effect. To learn more, read this alert.
What USCIS Proposes
On March 30, 2012, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) posted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register requesting public comment on its plan to create an alternative process for certain immediate relatives of U.S. citizens to apply for and receive a provisional waiver of the unlawful presence ground of inadmissibility while still in the United States, if they can demonstrate that being separated from their U.S. citizen spouse or parent would cause that U.S. citizen relative extreme hardship. The goal of the proposed process change is to reduce the time that U.S. citizens are separated from their immediate relatives while those family members go through the consular process overseas to obtain an immigrant visa.
Why We Propose It
Currently, immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who have accrued a certain period of unlawful presence in the United States are barred from returning to the United States for as long as 3 or 10 years if they leave the country. Immediate relatives can obtain a waiver of the unlawful presence bar if they show that a U.S. citizen spouse or parent will experience extreme hardship if they are required to remain outside the United States. The immediate relative also would have to show that they warrant a favorable exercise of discretion. But in order to obtain the waiver, these individuals must depart the United States and wait abroad while the waiver is processed.
Under the current process, therefore, U.S. citizens suffer unnecessarily long periods of separation while family members go through consular processing overseas to obtain an immigrant visa. The proposed process change lessens the length of separation by reducing inefficiencies in the current immigrant visa process. USCIS believes that this proposed change will streamline the immigrant visa process for immediate relatives whose only ground of inadmissibility is unlawful presence. USCIS plans to adjudicate the provisional waiver application in the United States before the immediate relative departs for his or her immigrant visa interview, which will reduce the length of time immediate relatives must spend abroad for consular processing.
What the Proposed Process Would Do
Under the proposed process, immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who would need a waiver of unlawful presence in order to obtain an immigrant visa could file a new Form I-601A, Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver, before leaving the United States to obtain an immigrant visa at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate abroad. All individuals eligible for this streamlined process are still required to depart the United States and must meet all legal requirements for issuance of an immigrant visa and admission to the United States.
An individual may seek a provisional unlawful presence waiver if he or she:
Is physically present in the United States;
Is at least 17 years of age;
Is the beneficiary of an approved immigrant visa petition (I-130) classifying him or her as an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen;
Is actively pursuing the immigrant visa process and has already paid the Department of State immigrant visa processing fee;
Is not subject to any other grounds of inadmissibility other than unlawful presence; and
Can demonstrate that the refusal of admission would result in extreme hardship to a U.S. citizen spouse or parent.
An immediate relative would not be eligible for the proposed process if he or she:
Has an application already pending with USCIS for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident;
Is subject to a final order of removal or reinstatement of a prior removal order;
May be found inadmissible at the time of the consular interview for reasons other than unlawful presence; or
Has already been scheduled for an immigrant visa interview at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate abroad.
Allowing immediate relatives of U.S. citizens to receive provisional waivers in the United States before departure for their immigrant visa interview at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate means that:
Immigrant visa processing times will improve because of greater capacity in the United States and fewer case transfers between USCIS and the Department of State;
Immigrant visas will be issued without unnecessary delay (if the individual is otherwise eligible); and
The period of separation and hardship many U.S. citizens would face due to prolonged separation from their family members will be minimized.
Next Steps
This new process will be implemented only after USCIS publishes a final rule in the Federal Register with an effective date. USCIS will consider all comments received as part of the proposed rulemaking process before publishing the final rule. The current waiver process remains in place and will continue to remain for those who may not be eligible for a provisional waiver.
DO NOT file an application or request a provisional waiver at this time. Any applications filed with USCIS based on this NPRM will be rejected and the application package returned to the applicant, including any fees, until the final rule is issued and the change becomes effective.
Tags: EWI and adjustment of status > extreme hardship U.S. C. spouse or parent > I 601 waiver applications in U.S. > I 601 waivers of inadmissibility > proposed regulations > return to Juarez Mexico adjustment of status
California Federal Court admonishes ICE for failure to comply with Prosecutorial Discretion
Posted on | May 2, 2012 | No Comments
In a recent decision cited below the California Federal Court in San Francisco “expresses concern” for ICE refusal to follow or comply with their own Director’s Memo of prosecutorial discretion and administrative closure. President Obama, months ago announced his new policy of focusing on illegal immigrants and lawful permanent residents who had been convicted of serious crimes for removal or deportation from the U.S.
We who practice before the Immigratin Courts here in California and Nevada have seen a lack of compliance by DHS counsel to the President’s new directive. This lack of following Presidential policies continues to harm many innocent aliens and immigrants who thru no fault of their own, get caught up in the Immigration Court System for removal and deporotation from the U.S.
Contact us via email: attyconsult@yahoo.com or call 415-513-4533
“[W]e pause to express a concern, unrelated to the grounds on which we resolve this appeal. At argument, we asked the government, for informational purposes, whether Akinsade’s case might be one in which relief from prosecution would be exercised, pursuant to the Morton Memoranda. See Memorandum from John Morton, Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to All ICE Employees (Mar. 2, 2011) (“Subject: Civil Immigration Enforcement: Priorities for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens”); Memorandum from John Morton, Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to All Field Office Directors, All Special Agents in Charge, All Chief Counsel (June 17, 2011) (“Subject: Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Consistent with the Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities of the Agency for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens”). Under the terms of the Morton Memoranda, the government announced that it would be reviewing all immigration cases as part of its initiative to focus on those who have committed violent crimes, and with the prospect of granting relief from prosecution in the exercise of discretion as to cases that met certain criteria. The government responded that Akinsade’s having filed a coram nobis petition in another proceeding challenging the constitutionality of his underlying conviction was a factor in the government’s decision not to exercise its prosecutorial discretion. See Tr. 20:4-7 (“[T]his is an individual who’s attacking his removal order and is attacking his criminal conviction. And I would doubt that [ICE officials] would exercise prosecutorial discretion in this case . . . .”); id. 22:1-7 (Whether an individual is “pursuing his rights” is “certainly in the background that could be looked at in this case in terms of why should we exercise prosecutorial discretion with respect to this particular individual. And that will be part of the mosaic that the immigration authorities would look at.”). We would be troubled if indeed it is the government’s position that petitioners will be penalized for exercising their legitimate rights to pursue their arguments fully. See Harlen Assocs. v. Inc. Village of Mineola, 273 F.3d 494, 499 (2d Cir. 2001) (holding that differential treatment based on the “‘intent to inhibit or punish the exercise of constitutional rights’” was basis for selective enforcement claim) (quoting LaTriest Rest. & Cabaret v. Village of Port Chester, 40 F.3d 587, 590 (2d Cir. 1994)).” – Akinsade v. Holder, May 1, 2012.
Immigration Courts Terminating Removal, Deportation Proceedings
Posted on | April 30, 2012 | No Comments
The Obamaa Admin adopted a new policy of prosecutorial discretion and admin closure of some lucky few aliens and immigrants who are persons of good moral character and have some means to adjust status to permanent residence.
For information on Waivers I-601 and I-212 and adjustment of status to permanent residence you may contact us at attyconsult@yahoo.com or 415-513-4533
By Associated Press, Published: April 24
SANTA ANA, Calif. — Immigration officials have offered to shelve 7.5 percent of deportation cases under a massive review of the backlogged U.S. system aimed at focusing on deporting more criminals, authorities said Tuesday.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement has offered to temporarily suspend the deportation cases of roughly 16,500 people after reviewing more than 70 percent of the immigration cases pending as of mid-April, according to statistics released by the agency.
ICE officials said 2,700 cases have been shelved. The rest still require paperwork and background checks.
It was not immediately clear how many immigrants had been told of the offer or how many had accepted it.
The Obama administration announced in August that roughly 300,000 deportation cases would be reviewed and non-criminals and those illegal immigrants who posed no public safety or national security threat would likely have their cases put on hold indefinitely.
The move was welcomed by immigrant advocates but reviled by critics who called the program an attempt by the administration to work around Congress.
Since then, however, immigrant advocates have complained the government is offering to apply so-called prosecutorial discretion in too few instances, and that those whose deportation cases are put on the back burner still don’t get a work permit.So far, the approval rate “is a very low number,” said Gregory Chen, director of advocacy for the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
“You can’t expect people to not be able to feed their families and have some source of income and still survive,” he added.
Some say immigrants might do better by trying their luck in immigration court, where, for example, they could seek asylum.
More than half of immigrants whose asylum cases were decided by an immigration judge in the 2011 fiscal year actually won their cases, according to statistics from the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which runs the country’s immigration court system.
ICE deputy press secretary Gillian Christensen said the review is ongoing. The main focus is to enable authorities to focus on deporting illegal immigrants with criminal records or those who previously ignored court orders to leave the country.
“This review is designed to allow the agency to make the best use of its limited resources,” she said in a statement.
Of the cases put on hold to date, the vast majority — more than 2,000 — involve immigrants who have lived in the country for a long time and have an immediate relative who is an American citizen. About 175 are children and 180 are college students or graduates who came to the U.S. when they were under 16 and have lived in the country for more than five years, the agency said.
In addition, immigration officials said they are also putting a halt on some deportation orders.
Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, said some initially thought the program would bring sweeping change to the deportation process but the latest data shows it hasn’t turned out that way.
“I’m glad they pulled their punch,” said Krikorian, whose organization favors stricter immigration limits, “though obviously I would have preferred they not do this thing altogether.”Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Tags: Cancellation Removal > deportation hearing terminated > DREAM Act > i 601 waiver adjustment > U.S. citizen spouse extreme hardship
Will Federal Government continue to be sole authority with Immigration Law?
Posted on | April 23, 2012 | No Comments
Here is an interesting opinion in support of allowing States to set Immigratin Policy. We all of course disagree with this proposition and we think the U.S. Supreme Court will agree but who knows? Would California or San Francisco enact restrictive immigration laws? We doubt it.
John Lee Carrico call 415-513-4533 or email: attyconsult@yahoo.com
The United States Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on Wednesday in Arizona v. United States, the Obama administration’s challenge to Arizona’s immigration law, known as S.B. 1070. The law requires local law enforcement to make immigration-status determinations — traditionally the prerogative of the federal government — and to arrest people suspected of being undocumented. S.B. 1070 effectively makes undocumented status a crime under state law and penalizes unauthorized employment.
Arizona is one of several states, including Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and Indiana, that, frustrated by Congress’s idling on immigration reform, have challenged federal authority by taking it upon themselves to devise draconian policies for undocumented immigrants. Alabama’s law even requires schools to collect immigration-status data on their students.
Such laws are misguided at best, mean-spirited and racially tainted at worst. The conventional wisdom among immigration advocates is that immigrant interests will be best served if the Supreme Court makes an example of Arizona’s law by striking it down.
But in the long run, immigrant interests will be better helped if the Supreme Court upholds S.B. 1070. Laws like Arizona’s are such bad policy that, left to their own devices, they will die a natural death — and their supporters will suffer the political consequences.
Undocumented immigrants may themselves be politically powerless, but they have powerful allies. In Alabama and Georgia, dismayed farmers have watched crops rot in the fields for want of immigrant labor. Arizona is estimated to have lost more than $140 million from convention cancellations made in protest.
Even more important is the prospect of lost foreign investment. Caught in the net of Alabama’s law in November was a German Mercedes-Benz executive, who left his passport at home while out for a drive and as a result found himself in a county jail. Mercedes has a plant in Tuscaloosa that employs thousands of Alabamians and adds many hundreds of millions of dollars to the state economy. That embarrassment will make the next foreign company think twice as it scouts out a location for a manufacturing facility in the United States.
Even without such blunders, international human rights advocates, union organizers and shareholder activists are putting these laws on the corporate social-responsibility agenda. Earlier this month, opponents of Alabama’s law traveled to Berlin to press the issue at Daimler’s annual meeting. This is the kind of hassle that corporations hate. Why deal with Alabama or Arizona when you can build in North Carolina or Florida, states that have refrained from pursuing extreme anti-immigrant measures?
Similar anti-immigrant laws are often introduced but rarely enacted, as corporate interests work quietly to kill or defang them. Mississippi became the latest state to refuse to follow in Arizona’s footsteps when an illegal-immigration bill died in a State Senate committee earlier this month in the face of opposition from prominent local business groups.
Tags: immigratin reforms work authorization IRAIRA I 601 waivers > removal deportation > San Francisco Immigration Courts
Dual Intent, Misrepresentation Denial of Adjustment of Status
Posted on | April 23, 2012 | No Comments
The dual intent law is little known to intending immigrants who enter as a business or tourist visa entry intending on remaining in the United States beyond their visa stay through adjustment of status to permanent residence. If found violating this regulation a marriage petition can be denied even though there would be a finding of good faith marriage by USCIS. The consequences can be severe especially if the visa holder has been in an overstay for more than 6 months. If denied the foreign spouse must return to their home country to consular process and could incur the 3 or 10 year ban on reentry into the United States.
There is a waiver for this development (I 601 Waiver) but in a very recent marriage where there are no children the issue of said marriage the waiver or pardon may be difficult to obtain.
Our lawyer is experienced in advising clients of these matters and said consultation should take place prior to the marriage and even better, prior to the foreign national seeking entry to the U.S. as a tourist.
Call 415-513-4533 or email: attyconsult@yahoo.com
Las Vegas Office:702-836-9003 or Reno Office:775-826-2099
Tags: Adjustment of status family petition > consular process immigrant family visa > extreme hardship U.S. C. spouse or parent > I 601 waiver extreme hardship USC spouse. > I 601 waivers overstaying visa > pardon waiver 10 year ban > visitors visa lawful permanent resident petition
Prosecutorial Discretion- Immigration Strategies
Posted on | April 16, 2012 | No Comments
With the President’s recent announcement that ICE and DHS will concentrate of Removal of Illegal Aliens and Permanent Residents with criminal records only,creative Immigration Lawyers have new strategies to allow their clients to become lawful permanent residents or not lose their green cards because of a minor crime.
In addition with the Supreme Court Decision of Padilla v Kentucky 2010, it may be possible to make a guilty plea for a serious crime subject to attack in the original criminal court.
For more information you may contact our lawyer at attyconsult@yahoo.com , 415-513-4533, 702-836-9003, or 775-826-2099
Discretion and Proportionality in Immigration Law & Policy
Two experts help us understand why our immigration system is so off-kilter: “In a new report, Hiroshi Motomura, a law professor at UCLA, argues that prosecutorial discretion, as discussed in recent DHS policy memos, is only one kind of discretion. In fact, discretion plays a role in immigration law from legislation, to implementation, to arrest, to adjudication, to outcomes. He notes that the current emphasis on whether and how to charge an individual with an immigration violation overlooks the far more significant role that discretion plays earlier in the system—at the point where an arrest takes place. Motomura argues that programs such as Secure Communities, which enhance the role of state and local law enforcement in the immigration process, is the critical decision point; this is the moment where an immigrant comes into contact with not only the criminal justice system, but with the immigration system, through interlinked databases and
expectations that local law enforcement will detain undocumented immigrants for ICE.
Tags: 9th Circuit asylum > cancellatin of removal > conviction lawful permanent residents > illegals I 601 waivers > immigration courts San Francisco ca > permanent residents crimes > removal of criminal aliens
Removals Deportations and Prosecutorial Discretion
Posted on | April 13, 2012 | No Comments
The new Obama policy of concentrating on removal of criminal aliens and administrative closure of deportation hearings for non criminal aliens gives spouses and parents of U.S. citizens an opportunity to remain in in the U.S. and pursue legal immigration. However with the exception of I 601 waivers and 245 i cases, those here without benefit of a visa will not be able to adjust status to permanent residence without significant amendments to the IRAIRA provisions of 1997. As this article points out, we need to start talking about a new more humane immigration policy to protect America’s spouses and children of illegal immigrants.
John Lee Carrico 415-513-4533, 775-826-2099, 702-836-9003 or email: attyconsult@yahoo.com
Discretion and Proportionality in Immigration Law & Policy
Two experts help us understand why our immigration system is so off-kilter: “In a new report, Hiroshi Motomura, a law professor at UCLA, argues that prosecutorial discretion, as discussed in recent DHS policy memos, is only one kind of discretion. In fact, discretion plays a role in immigration law from legislation, to implementation, to arrest, to adjudication, to outcomes. He notes that the current emphasis on whether and how to charge an individual with an immigration violation overlooks the far more significant role that discretion plays earlier in the system—at the point where an arrest takes place. Motomura argues that programs such as Secure Communities, which enhance the role of state and local law enforcement in the immigration process, is the critical decision point; this is the moment where an immigrant comes into contact with not only the criminal justice system, but with the immigration system, through interlinked databases and expectations that local law enforcement will detain undocumented immigrants for ICE.
In another report, Yale Law professor Michael Wishnie examines equities at play in immigration law. He notes that the increasingly punitive nature of immigration law post 1996 has shifted the legal equation. When a lawful permanent resident faces removal for a crime committed twenty years ago, and that removal results in a separation from family members for five or ten years, or even forever, the penalty far exceeds the violation. Wishnie argues that the changing nature of immigration law, one that increasingly relies on penalties more akin to criminal law, necessitates changing tactics and arguments in fighting removal cases.” – Immigration Impact, Apr. 11, 2012.
Prof. Hiroshi Motomura, UCLA Prof. Michael Wishnie, Yale
Tags: 245 i adjustment > administrative closure Immigration Reform > cancellation removal deportation court > crimes illegal aliens > good moral character family petitions > I-601 Waiver > marriage U.S. citizen > prosecutorial discretion a
Naturalization and English Language Requirement
Posted on | April 11, 2012 | No Comments
We are posting this new link to help you study the English test. We can also provide you the government or civics test once you have consulted with our attorney on how best to Naturalize. We also help with 245 i eligible clients and I 601 waivers as well as BIA appeals to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco CA.
John Lee Carrico (415) 513-4533 attyconsult@yahoo.com
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services sent this bulletin at 04/10/2012 11:30 AM EDT:
For Applicants: New Practice Tests for Naturalization Preparation
The Office of Citizenship recently introduced three new practice tests to help permanent residents prepare for the naturalization interview. The first activity helps you with some general commands you may hear from an Immigration Services Officer during the naturalization interview. You can download self-study flash cards and review a practice exercise before taking the practice test called “Understanding Commands for the Naturalization Interview.” There are two other activities that focus on vocabulary words that you may hear in your interview or read on the Application for Naturalization, Form N-400. You can find all three activities on the Study Materials for the English Test section of the Citizenship Resource Center.
Tags: English and naturalization > Government citizenship exam test > illegal entry green card. > permanent resident 245i i601 waivers > pre 2001 petition U.S. C.spouse > U.S. citizen naturalization