Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), a data gathering, data research and data distribution organization at Syracuse University, has reported that at the end of March 2010 there are 242,776 unresolved immigration court cases, a new all-time high.
An analysis of the data reveals that the immigration court backlog is growing by 6.3 percent since TRAC’s last report at the end of 2009. This number is 30.4% higher than it was 18 months ago prior to Obama's election.
The added pressure on our immigration courts has resulted in the increase of the average length of time an individual must wait to have their matter resolved to up to 443 days.
Is this the Change you believed in?
Monday, May 24, 2010
The expedited removal order was entered by Customs and Border Protection at the Highgate Springs, Vermont Port of Entry last September. As a result of the order our client was ineligible to return to the United States for a period of five years.
Subsequent to the entry of the order our client was admitted to Harvard University and retained us for the purpose of attacking the underlying removal order to enable her to attend classes for the fall 2010 semester. We submitted the application for permission to reapply for admission with the Embassy of the United States in London England, together with a student visa application, and a comprehensive legal brief establishing both her eligibility and the grounds that merited a favorable exercise of discretion. We filed with London because our client is currently residing there pursuant to her employment with Oxford University.
The application for permission to reapply was approved on the same day as our client’s visa interview, and her student visa (F-1) was issued a few days later. She may now enter the United States to attend classes at Harvard University this August. We wish her luck!
Friday, May 21, 2010
Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse on the immigration front, it got worse.
The American Immigration Council, Immigration Policy Center (IPC) has just issued a press release that shines a bright spotlight on what the Obama administration is doing to non-violent immigration violators in the United States.
A January 2010 study done by the Warren Institute, and a second study done by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) examine the impact of Operation Streamline, which targets nonviolent border-crossers for federal criminal prosecution. These studies reveal that in President Obama's first year in office he has prosecuted more non-violent immigration related crimes than any President in the history of our country.
According to the data, under Obama 50% of all federal criminal prosecutions are for immigration violations, many of which involve illegal entry, while prosecution of violent crime has actually decreased. The end result is that under Obama's watch billions of dollars have been allocated towards targeting non-violent immigration violators for criminal prosecution. Is this how you want your tax dollar spent?
The bottom line is this: President Obama's position on immigration is right in line with what is going on in the State of Arizona, and he is a hypocrite when he chastises Arizona lawmakers for doing THE EXACT SAME THING that he has been doing since taking office: targeting immigrants.
So Mr. President, when do you plan on prosecuting the real criminals who have actually engaged in serious crimes involving drugs, weapons, and organized crime? The answer must be only after you have finished destroying millions of American families with your 1,000 deportation per day mandate.
We are on to you Mr. President, and in 2012 we won't be fooled again.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
This conviction worked its way into the Department of Homeland Security’s computers and he was denied admission to the United States as a result. At this point we were retained.
We investigated the circumstances of the conviction and obtained copies of the court records. Upon review, we determined that he had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, which would have made him inadmissible except for something known as the “petty offense exception”. He was convicted of a misdemeanor. The maximum term of imprisonment that could have been imposed was one year, and the actual term of imprisonment was six months or less.
Because this was our client's only conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude or otherwise, the conviction did not prevent him from being admissible to the United States. We wrote to the port of entry where he was denied admission, provided them with copies of the relevant documents and a letter brief setting forth the law and why our client was admissible to the United States.
Within one week, we received a response from the Chief Inspector at the POE agreeing with our position. Appropriate computer entries were made, which hopefully will prevent a reoccurrence in the future.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Friday, May 7, 2010
Frequently Asked Question: I have an approved VAWA self-petition, on which I listed my child living abroad. My child has since turned 21, but is still unmarried. Can I initiate visa processing for my child? Is my child protected by the Child Status Protection Act?
Answer: Yes. An alien who marries a United States citizen in good faith, but unfortunately, during the marriage, is battered or is the subject of extreme cruelty perpetrated by the alien’s spouse, can file an application to be classified as an “immediate relative.” The benefit of being classified as an immediate relative is that there are no annual numerical limitations on the number of immediate relatives that can be granted immigrant visas to the United States.
An abused spouse’s application to be classified as an immediate relative may include any “child” of the alien. A “child” under U.S. immigration law means an unmarried person under 21 years of age.
Sometimes, although an abused spouse included his or her child on the application, the child will turn 21 before visa processing can be initiated. This is called “aging out.” If a child ages out, then the child is no longer eligible for an immigrant visa as an immediate relative, because the child is no longer considered a “child” under U.S. immigration law.
Recognizing the injustices that could result from such “aging out,” Congress passed the Child Status Protection Act in 2002. Under the Child Status Protection Act, the age of an alien is frozen on the date on which the petition is filed to classify the alien as an immediate relative. This applies to children who are listed as derivatives on their parent’s VAWA self-petition filed prior to their 21st birthday, who remain unmarried.
This means that an alien who is an abused spouse of a United States citizen, who properly files a VAWA self-petition prior to his or her child reaching age 21, and who includes his or her child in the petition, can initiate following to join visa processing for the child. The child will benefit from the Child Status Protection Act. The child’s age will be frozen on the date the self-petition was filed, and will remain a child for immigration purposes, provided he or she remains unmarried.