Archive for February, 2012

h1

Non-Immigrant Visa Overstayers

February 24, 2012

If you have been charged with entering the United States without legal authorization, or have maintained residence beyond the time that was previously authorized, you are considered to be an Illegal Immigrant according to the United States government. Very often, immigrants from all over the world enter the United States legally, but without inspection, or they stay longer than they are legally allowed. These individuals are considered "Non-Immigrant Visa Overstayers", and many of them are trying to avoid various forms of misfortune or danger, such as violence or poverty.

Another form of illegal immigration is the deliberate evasion of border patrol and entry into the United States undetected and without legal permission. If you have entered the US undetected then you are one of 7 million people to commit this felony annually, while also running the risk of receiving possible jail time and deportation. If you have been previously convicted and deported, and you have once again been caught in the United States Illegally, you may be subject to four times the minimum penalty because of a US policy called The “Protect Act”.

Although it can be a scary thing, the best course of action you can take if you are an illegal immigrant is to contact a competent attorney of your presence, so that you can explore all the possible ways to obtain a visa, and to become a permanent citizen of the United States legally. If you have been arrested, are facing deportation, or you simply want to avoid these unpleasant experiences and find the best outcome for your situation, contact Immigration Attorney Susan B. Henner now at (914) 358-5200 for a free consultation and more information.

h1

National Security and Immigration Reform

February 15, 2012

With all of the discussion about national security, new state level immigration legislation is actually making it easier, not harder, for violent criminals to penetrate the U.S. borders.

If you need help with an Immigration matter in NY, contact Susan B. Henner now at 914-358-5200 or by email at Susan@sbhenner.com

“Immigration and National Security: The Illusion of Safety Through Local Law Enforcement Action”

Abstract:
Despite efforts to reform immigration law in the 1980s and the 1990s, the new laws passed in those decades by the Congress did not solve the long-term problems raised by undocumented people entering the United States. The issue arose anew after the terrorist attacks of September, 2001. While the advocates for immigration crackdowns in the 1980s and 1990s had cast the issue as one of economics and cultural transformation, immigration opponents after 9/11 painted a different picture: illegal immigration, they said, was a national security issue. If poor farmers from Mexico and Central America could sneak into the U.S. across the southwestern border, so could potential terrorists. This “re-branding” of illegal immigration gained significant traction on the national level, but resulted in no federal legislation. The immigration debate has now moved to the state level, with the focus on state laws such as Arizona’s SB 1070. These state laws have brought about something long sought by immigration opponents that they failed to attain in the national debates: local and state law enforcement agencies are now obligated to question people they stop about immigration status. While national security has not been the primary motivation of state lawmakers, the ironic result of these state laws will be a decrease in security against terrorists who might try to penetrate the land borders of the U.S.

h1

Supreme Court to Decide Immigration Issue on February 13th Involving Solicitor General

February 13, 2012

A particularly damaging issue if the Solicitor General is found to have misrepresented information. The article that follows below will be decided today.

If you need help with an Immigration matter in NY, please contact NY Immigration Attorney Susan B. Henner now at (914) 358-5200.

 

Solicitor General May Have Misled Supreme Court on Immigration
By ADAM KLASFELD

     MANHATTAN (CN) – The U.S. Office of the Solicitor General may have misled the Supreme Court about resources the government provides wrongly deported immigrants who win their appeals, a federal judge ruled, ordering the disclosure of redacted emails.

     U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff opened his blistering 20-page order with a quotation he attributed to late 19th century political commentator Peter Finley Dunne.

     "’Trust everybody, but cut the cards,’ as the old saying goes," the order states. "When the Solicitor General of the United States makes a representation to the Supreme Court, trustworthiness is presumed. Here, however, plaintiffs seek to determine whether one such representation was accurate or whether, as it seems, the Government’s lawyers were engaged in a bit of a shuffle."

     In 2009, the Office of the Solicitor General told the high court in a brief that by "policy and practice, the government accords aliens who were removed pending judicial review but then prevailed before the courts effective relief by, inter alia, facilitating the aliens’ return to the United States by parole under § U.S.C. 1182(d) (5) if necessary, and according them the status they had at the time of removal."

     The Supreme Court relied on that assurance, made without citation, to hold that deportation did not qualify as "irreparable harm" in the case of Nken v. Holder.

     On Dec. 17, 2009, the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Immigrant Defense Project, Post-Deportation Human Rights Project and Northeastern University Law Prof. Rachel Rosenbloom challenged the stated policy in a Freedom of Information Act request to six government agencies.

     In turn, the Solicitor General’s office produced a "mostly-redacted four-page chain of emails between the attorneys who argued before the Supreme Court in Nken and other government officials," the order states.

     On May 12, 2011, the civil libertarians sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Citizenship and Immigration Services, Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Justice and Department of State to lift the redactions from the emails.

     On Tuesday, Rakoff ordered the government to produce the emails, which he said seem to refute the government’s claims to the Supreme Court.

     "In Nken, the OSG made a new factual representation on appeal and cited nothing in the record to support it," the order states. "Moreover, the Government even now has come forward with nothing of consequence to support its representation beyond the facts set forth in the emails."

     Saerom Park, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told Courthouse News in a phone interview that the Solicitor General’s assertions had "tremendous consequences."

     "We can’t go back and re-litigate that case, but we think it is important to set the record straight," Park said.

     By exposing the facts, Park hopes to build pressure to create policies to help deported immigrants that win their appeals.

     "Mainly, we are hoping to expose the scope of this problem so that we can let the immigrant advocacy community know, and put pressure on the government to put the policy in place," Park said, adding later, "We hope the Solicitor General won’t make unsupported factual assertions to the Supreme Court anymore."

     A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office declined to comment on the ruling or indicate whether it would issue an appeal. The government must lift the redactions by Feb. 13.

h1

Provisional Waivers of Inadmissibility for Certain Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens

February 11, 2012

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

8 CFR Part 212

RIN 1615-ZB10

Provisional Waivers of Inadmissibility for Certain Immediate
Relatives of U.S. Citizens

AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of
Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

———————————————————————–

SUMMARY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) intends to
change its current process for filing and adjudication of certain
applications for waivers of inadmissibility filed in connection with an
immediate relative immigrant visa application. Specifically, USCIS is
considering regulatory changes that will allow certain immediate
relatives of U.S. citizens to request provisional waivers under section
212(a)(9)(B)(v) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as
amended (INA or Act), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), prior to departing the
United States for consular processing of their immigrant visa
applications. An alien would be able to obtain such a waiver only if a
Petition for Alien Relative, Form I-130, is filed by a U.S. citizen on
his or her behalf and that petition has been approved, thereby
classifying the alien as an “immediate relative” for purposes of the
immigration laws, and he or she demonstrates that the denial of the
waiver would result in extreme hardship to the alien’s U.S. citizen
spouse or parent “qualifying relative.” The qualifying relative for
purposes of the waiver is not necessarily the immediate relative who
filed the immigrant visa petition on the alien relative’s behalf.

Read more HERE

h1

New Immigration Law Affects Provisional Waivers in US

February 10, 2012

A new Immigration law passed on January 6, 2012 will allow persons to apply for a provisional waiver HERE in the United States (rather than overseas). If you are in need of an Immigration Attorney in NY, contact Susan B. Henner at (914) 358-5200 or by email at Susan@sbhenner.com

Transcript: Press Conference: USCIS to Propose Changing the Process for Certain Waivers on Unlawful Presence, Jan. 6, 2012
USCIS TO PROPOSE CHANGING THE PROCESS FOR CERTAIN WAIVERS BASED ON UNLAWFUL PRESENCE
Press Conference

Moderator: Edna Ruano, Chief, Office of Communications
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
Jan. 6, 2012
1 P.M. EDT

Coordinator: Welcome, and thank you for standing by. At this time all participants are in a listen-only mode until the question and answer session. If you would like to ask a question at that time you may press star then one on your touchtone telephone.

Today’s conference is being recorded. If you have any objections you may disconnect at this time. I would like to turn the meeting over to Miss Edna Ruano. Ma’am, please begin.

Edna Ruano: Thank you. Hello, my name is Edna Ruano and I’m the Chief of the Office of Communications at USCIS. Welcome to today’s call with USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas.

Before we begin the call, quickly I wanted to set some guidelines for today’s call. Please introduce yourself, your name, what media outlet you represent, and there will only be one question per reporter.

Thanks again for your participation and now I will turn it over to USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas.

Alejandro Mayorkas: Thank you, Edna, and thank you, all of you, for joining us today. We have convened this call to provide you with the opportunity to learn more about the Notice of Intent that we posted in the Federal Register this morning regarding a proposed regulatory change in the processing of Waivers of Inadmissibility.
This proposed regulatory change will significantly reduce the time that U.S. citizens are separated from their spouses and children under certain circumstances while those family members are going through the process of obtaining visas to become legal immigrants to the United States.

Its purpose is to minimize the extent to which bureaucratic delays separate Americans from their families for long periods of time, specifically in cases where a Waiver of Inadmissibility due to unlawful presence is required as part of the visa process.

The proposed streamlined process will be available to spouses and sons and daughters of U.S. citizens who have accrued a certain period of unlawful presence in the United States as the waiver statute requires and can demonstrate that separation would cause an extreme hardship to their U.S. citizen spouse or parent.

The process would allow these individuals to have their waiver applications processed in the United States and receive a provisional waiver determination before they complete the visa process at a consulate outside the United States.

This proposal would not change existing laws, the requirement that immigrants leave the country to process their visas, or the standards for determining who is eligible for a Waiver of Inadmissibility.

And allow me to emphasize this last point: The law as currently written is designed to avoid extreme hardship to a United States citizen.

Existing law provides that to achieve this goal a U.S. citizen’s spouse or child who is here unlawfully can obtain a waiver and become a legal resident if their separation would cause extreme hardship to a United States citizen.
We are proposing a process change to better serve the current law’s goal, a change that will reduce the time of separation and thereby alleviate the extreme hardship to the United States citizen.

Read more HERE