528

Pageviews last month

September 8, 2010

Adjustment of Status Under Section 245(i)

Decided September 1, 2010

U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals

An alien is not independently “grandfathered” for purposes of adjustment of status under
section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1255(i) (2006), simply
by virtue of marriage to another alien who is “grandfathered” under section 245(i) as the result of having been a derivative beneficiary of a visa petition.

http://http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol25/3694.pdf

September 7, 2010

IMMIGRATION UPDATED, SEPTEMBER 07, 2010

--- The U.S. Department of State has sent a new visa telegram to consular posts, providing them with more information on the new fee for Eletronic System for Travel Authorizatio (ESTA).
For more information see htt:/travel.state.gov.



---DHS expands Employment Authorization for Dependents of Foreign Officials classified as A-1, A-2, G-1, G-3, and G-4 nonimmigrats. See 75-Fed. Reg. 47699.

---An extended quote from Judge Sporkin’s decision, which found unlawful a consular manual distributed throughout American visa posts in Brazil: "The Consulate had established various policies, which all officers were required to follow in adjudicating eligibility for nonimmigrant visas. Some of the policies focused on the applicant’s physical appearance and economic status. According to the Consulate’s manual: It is helpful to circle doubtful items on the [visa application form] so that other officers have an idea of why the applicant was g-ed [This is probably a reference to Immigration and Nationality Act § 221(g), a catch-all ground of visa refusal]. Officers sometimes use abbreviations on the forms: RK = Rich kid LP = Looks poor TP = Talks poor LR = Looks rough TC = Take care . . . Some of the stated reasons for the denial of visas included: “Slimy looking[;] wears jacket on shoulders w/ earring,” . . . “LP. . . “LP!!!!!,” . . . (emphasis in original); “LR”. . . (emphasis in original); “Look Really Poor,”. . . “L[ooks] Scary,”... “Bad Appearance. Talks POOR,” . . . (emphasis in original); and “Looks + talks poor.” Id."

---USCIS implements H-1B and L-1 fee increase according to Public Law 111-230. http://www.uscis.gov

August 30, 2010

IMMIGRATION FORUM: THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD

IMMIGRATION FORUM: THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD: "BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD IN COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORMBy: Unisa Kamara, Offices of Norka M. Schell, LLC Posted by Norka M..."

THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD

BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD IN COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM

By: Unisa Kamara, Offices of Norka M. Schell, LLC

Posted by Norka M. Schell

The debate over an overhaul of our immigration system continues to top the priority of the present administration especially after the recent immigration enforcement law passed in Arizona. Opponents of an overhaul of our immigration system refer to the current economic problems of the country, call for tougher border enforcement, deportation of illegal/undocumented aliens and stricter enforcement of immigration laws with less or no emphasis on the best interest of U.S. citizen children whose parents may be subjected to deportation or removal.

Proponents of Comprehensive Immigration Reform often refer to the best interests of the U.S. citizen children of undocumented aliens, who are among the most vulnerable members of society. Reform of the nation’s immigration system is urgently needed. Thousands of U.S. citizen children have been adversely affected by harsh immigration policies of the United States. Reforming the nation’s immigration laws to take into consideration the best interests of the U.S. citizen children will positively impact our social welfare system. Congress, in considering a comprehensive overhaul of the U.S. immigration laws, must focus on its historic commitment to the principle of family unity.

We,as a society, have a moral obligation to respect children as persons and acknowledge that they are most vulnerable after their parents are deported or removed from the United States. The best interests of the U.S. citizen children must be the central concern of Congress in its consideration of immigration reform. International human rights law and domestic family law recognize children as among the most vulnerable members of our society. International human rights treaties recognize the family as the natural and fundamental unit of society. The unity and reunification of families should be ensured by any laws. (See International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms Of Racial Discrimination, Dec. 21, 1965, S. Exe. Dec. C, 95-2 (1978). Primarily, immigration in the U.S. is governed by federal law and presently, immigration laws undermine these fundamental principles.

The current harsh immigration law was enacted in 1996 when Congress passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996), and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996). Together, these laws added immigration restrictions on Lawful Permanent Residents (LPR) convicted of nonviolent and minor crimes designated as aggravated felonies. Currently, a conviction may fall into the aggravated felony category without being a felony and without involving any aggravated circumstances.

Some research documents the adverse health impacts on children living in the United States when their parents are deported (See Marcelo & Carola Suarez-Orozco, Making Up For Lost Time: The Experience of Separation and Reunification among Immigrant Families, in The New Immigration: An Interdisciplinary Reader, 179, 185 (Marcelo and Carola Suarez-Orozco ed., 2005) (hereinafter Suarez-Orozco). Studies indicate that children who witness a parent’s arrest often suffer psychological harm, including persistent nightmares and flashbacks. (See Ajay Chaudry Et Al., Urban Inst., Facing Our Future Children In The Aftermath of Immigration Enforcement 27 (2010) (hereinafter Urban Inst.)).

Removal and deportation do have negative impacts on the physical and mental health, education and social development of U.S. citizen children. Children of deported parents are much likely to experience psychological disorders and to exhibit behavioral problems (Suarez-Orozco supra). Children’s academic performances and grades are significantly impacted after the deportation or removal of their parents. (Urban Inst. supra). Therefore, in reforming the U.S. immigration laws the best interests and well being of the U.S.

citizen children of a legal permanent resident and undocumented

aliens, in particular the seriousness of the difficulties which

these children are likely to face in countries to which their

parents would be not welcome should be taken into consideration.

Also, to be considered is the length of the marriage of their

parents, the unit of the family,and family ties with the United

States and with the country of destination.


August 26, 2010

IMMIGRATION FORUM: TRAVELERS FROM VWP COUNTRIES TO THE U.S.

IMMIGRATION FORUM: TRAVELERS FROM VWP COUNTRIES TO THE U.S.: "On August 6, 2010, DHS announced that citizens from the Waiver Program member countries start on September 8, 2010 will be required to pay a..."

August 25, 2010

TRAVELERS FROM VWP COUNTRIES TO THE U.S.

On August 6, 2010, DHS announced that citizens from the Waiver Program member countries start on September 8, 2010 will be required to pay a registration operational and travel promotion fees of $4.00 when applying for the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA).

On March 4, 2010, President Obama signed the Travel Authorization Program (TPA) into law. The TPA will create a partnership between the U.S. government and the private sector to market the United States as a travel destination for international visitors. Fees $10.00 collected from international travelers from Visa Waiver Program ("VWP") countries, matches by private sector contributions, will fund the Corporation for Travel Promotions.

The total new fee that will be charged to travelers from VWP countries is $14.00

Why do VWP countries have to fund this travel promotion program through ESTA fees?
Some countries fund tourism promotion through airline or hotel taxes. The Travel Promotion Act legislation specified that the U.S. government fund this program through a $10 fee added to ESTA registration. Read more at Department of State (DOS) website a cable (No. 00025644) which was recently released to the public.


August 23, 2010

IMMIGRATION FORUM: THE LAW OF CITIZENSHIP

IMMIGRATION FORUM: THE LAW OF CITIZENSHIP: "You probably have not thought about citizenship until recently. Citizenship is a crucial part of the immigration law, and is at the heart o..."

August 17, 2010

IMMIGRATION FORUM: BORDER SECURITY FUNDING BILL

IMMIGRATION FORUM: BORDER SECURITY FUNDING BILL: "On September 13, 2010, President Obama signed the Border Security Funding Bill which adds $600 million to put more agents and equipments al..."

BORDER SECURITY FUNDING BILL

On September 13, 2010, President Obama signed the Border Security Funding Bill which adds $600 million to put more agents and equipments along the Mexican border. The Bill will fund the hiring of 1,000 new Border Patrol agents to be deployed at critical areas along the border, 250 more immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, and 250 more Customs and Border Protection officers. It is a start to stopping the flow of illegal immigrants along the Southwest border and to help the Arizona communities.

August 16, 2010

THE LAW OF CITIZENSHIP

You probably have not thought about citizenship until recently. Citizenship is a crucial part of the immigration law, and is at the heart of immigration crisis today.
On March 26, 1790, Congress passed the nation's first citizenship statute. Since then this area of law has changed dramatically. Today numerous paths to United States citizenship are available: citizenship acquired at birth also know as jus soli; and citizenship acquired at some later time.
Throughout the world, two principles have accorded citizenship at the moment of birth. They are: jus soli and jus sanguinis. This blog's focus is on jus soli.
Jus soli is literally "right of land". Traditionally associated with the English common law and historically rooted in feudalism, the jus soli generally confers a nation's citizenship on persons born within that nation's territory.
Just sanguinis is associated with European and other civil law systems and generally bestows a nation's citizenhip on the children of its existing citizens, regardless of where the children were born.
Some politicians are campaigning to amend the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which says in Section 1, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." These politicians want to change the U.S. Constitution to prevent undocumented mothers to give birth to their children --derogatorily referred to as "anchor babies-- in the land.
In emotional terms, citizenship means different things to different people. For many, citizenship is an element of personal identity, a link either between self and nation or between self and other individuals. The strength and meanings of those bonds vary with the values and experiences of the individual and with the history and culture of the particular nation.
From the legal standing point, citizenhip carries with it a number of specific rights that aliens do not have, such as freedom from the immigration laws.
It is obvious that altering our U.S. Constitution and our citizenship policy would not solve our illegal immigration crisis.



63 convicted criminal aliens, fugitives arrested in ICE enforcement surge

63 convicted criminal aliens, fugitives arrested in ICE enforcement surge

ICE deports international fugitive to Brazil

ICE deports international fugitive to Brazil

July 28, 2010

Arizona's Immigration Law

Federal judge, Susan Bolton, blocked the most controversial section of the Arizona's new immigration law from taking effect, handling a major victory to opponents of the legislation. The law still take effect Thursday, but without many of the provisions that angered opponents including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other other laws. The Judge also put on hold a part of the law that required immigrant s to carry their papers at all the times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places. Thos sections will be on hold until the courts resolve the issue. Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com/?emc-na