Brian D. Lerner Immigration Attorney & Deportation Lawyer Blog

What are my G/f’s options for return to the United States after previously being a permanent resident and Green card holder? – Avvo.com http://ping.fm/C6HTY

Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Leave a comment »

Unlawful Presence for Minors

Question: I am 17 years old and do not know if I will be subject to being unlawfully present. Can you clarify?

Answer: There has been a significant change in the interpretation of unlawful presence as it relates to minors by the U.S. Consulate in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico (“CDJ”) and perhaps other U.S. consulates, with devastating results. Accordingly, the Visa Office has directed the consulate at CDJ to cease applying the “minor exception” of INA §212(a)(9)(B)(iii)(1) to unlawful presence findings under INA §212(a)(9)(C)2, resulting in denial of immigrant visas to children under the age of 18, as well as denial of immigrant visas to adults who had unlawful presence and a re-entry as a minor. This action may need Federal Court action in order to best determine how to proceed as it was not previously applied in this manner and it subject to interpretation.

Question: What is the background of this provision?

Answer: INA §212(a)(9)(B)(i)3 imposes three- and ten-year bars upon foreign nationals who have accrued specific periods of time in the U.S. INA §212(a)(9)(B)(iii) provides a series of statutory exceptions to the period of time which can be counted toward an alien’s unlawful presence. The so-called “minor exception” is found there, and exempts from unlawful presence periods of time when the alien is under 18 years of age.In practice at CDJ, the “minor exception” has been applied to the INA §212(a)(9)(C) permanent bar for aliens who have been unlawfully present for an aggregate period of one year, or who have been ordered removed under INA §235(b)(1) and INA §240, or any other provision, who then returned to the U.S. without inspection. Previously, if an alien minor was in the U.S. unlawfully for one year, was then taken home, for example, to Mexico to see his grandparents, and was brought back into the U.S. without inspection, the permanent bar of INA §212(a)(9)(C) has not been applied. This makes sense because INA §212(a)(9)(B) defines unlawful presence for “this paragraph,” and states the exceptions.Recently CDJ has been taking the position that the unlawful presence exception for minors does not apply to the permanent bar of INA §212(a)(9)(C), because the statutory exception is only listed under INA §212(a)(9)(B). As noted above, INA §212(a)(9)(C) does not include a definition of unlawful presence, but CDJ continues to “import’ that definition from §212(a)(9)(B) without applying the exceptions found therein. This by itself could be a violation of due process considering there is no notice that it would be applied in this manner.

Until a resolution is reached, minors, or those who had been unlawfully present in the U.S. as a minor, and thus, who fall under the newly-interpreted INA §212(a)(9)(C) bars, should not consular process, at least through CDJ, and perhaps at all. It is not known at this time if other U.S. consulates are applying this interpretation of the law, and if the same issue is present with theother exceptions to the unlawful presence bars found at INA §212(a)(9)(B)(iii).

Therefore, what we have is an agencies interpretation of a particular law without any guidance, caselaw or statutory provisions mandating the proper procedure. It simply does not make sense that the unlawful presence does not apply to a minor EXCEPT if it supposedly falls under the above scenerio. Congress enacted this provision and specifically excluded minors. Why would they exclude minors under this provision only to have CDJ apply it completely against minors by referring to another section? This will have to go to Court to protect those who need its protection the most – the minors.

Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Leave a comment »

Another win for the Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner: Natz application approved Client had prevoiusly applied for natz but was denied because of a conviction for violating a restraining order within the 5 year GMC period.

Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Leave a comment »

Another win for the Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner, APC: Removal proceedings terminated w/o prejudice by IJ. Respondent’s conditional residency was terminated and he was placed in proceedings after he and his now ex-wife failed to appear for their I-751 interview. We filed a hardship waiver and divorce waiver but then Client remarried and had a baby. After filing the I-130, DHS agreed to terminate.

Client should be receiving an interview notice soon.

Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Leave a comment »

Another win for the Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner, APC: Greencard holder father petitioned on clt’s behalf while she was a single child, but she was married by the time she entered. So CIS denied clt’s N-600 b/c there are no visas for marrried children of LPR’s. But this was a mistake since clt’s father petitioned, then he naturalized, then clt got married, and then she entered. So when clt was in removal proceedings, DHS agreed that clt was eligible and that clt’s visa category changed from 2nd prefernce visa category to 3rd preference visa category at entry. Proceedings were terminated.

Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Leave a comment »

New Win for the Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner, APC: In absentia MTR granted by IJ . Client was ordered removed after her case was transferred from Missouri to Los Angeles and then she failed to appear. The Notice of Hearing was sent to her correct address but she did not receive it.

Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Leave a comment »

A new case re: Motions to Reopen:

To be timely, petitioner’s motion to reopen had to be filed within 90 days of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ initial merits determination, not within 90 days of the denial of his motion to reconsider.
Soria Vega v. Holder – filed July 19, 2010

Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Leave a comment »

Please help me Public intoxication, Citizinship – Avvo.com http://ping.fm/Xesuq

Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Leave a comment »

Why I was offered only 15 days?! Why suddenly a rude and aggressive supervisor had to handle the case?!Should I complain to CBP? – Avvo.com http://ping.fm/4x3ed

Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Leave a comment »

If my spouse with L2 visa can continue to stay in US when I finish my job and go back to my home country ( I have L1-B visa)? – Avvo.com http://ping.fm/BgH2q

Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Leave a comment »