Filed under: best deportation attorney | Tagged: IFTTT, Instagram | Leave a comment »
Filed under: best deportation attorney | Tagged: IFTTT, Instagram | Leave a comment »
Question: I have heard that there are a large number of new immigration bills that are in Congress. Can you give a summary?
Answer: Yes, there are a significant number of bills. Whether they actually become law will only be determined by time. However, it does appear that there should be a significant number of changes in the coming year. Below are just a few of the bills introduced.
The Uniting American Families Act or the Permanent Partners Immigration Act: Introduced on June 21 by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), S. 1278 would provide a mechanism for U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to sponsor their permanent partners for residence in the United States. S. 1278 defines the term “permanent partner” to mean an individual 18 years of age or older who (a) is in a committed, intimate relationship with another individual 18 years of age or older in which both parties intend a lifelong commitment; (b) is financially interdependent with that other individual; (c) is not married to or in a permanent partnership with anyone other than that other individual; (d) is unable to contract with that other individual a marriage cognizable under the INA; and (e) is not a first, second, or third degree blood relation of that other individual. The bill is companion legislation to H.R. 3006 below.
The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2005: Introduced on January 24, 2005, by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), S. 119 would build upon the Homeland Security Act, which transferred the care and custody of unaccompanied alien children from the former INS to the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). Among other things, the bill would ensure that unaccompanied alien children have access to counsel; give ORR the authority to provide guardians to such children; establish minimum standards for the care and custody of unaccompanied alien minors; and strengthen policies for permanent protection of unaccompanied alien children. The bill is similar to legislation that Senator Feinstein introduced in the 108th Congress.
The Civil Liberties Restoration Act: Introduced on April 6 by Representative Howard Berman (D-CA), H.R. 1502 seeks to roll back some of the most egregious post-9/11 policies and strike an appropriate balance between security needs and liberty interests. Among other things, H.R. 1502 would secure due process protections and civil liberties for non-citizens in the U.S., enhance the effectiveness of our nation’s enforcement activities, restore the confidence of immigrant communities in the fairness of our government, and facilitate our efforts at promoting human rights and democracy around the world.
The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act: Introduced on May 12 by Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and others, S. 1033 would comprehensively reform our immigration laws so that they enhance our national security and address the concerns of American businesses and families. Among other things, the bill would establish a break-the-mold new essential worker visa program (the H-5A visa) while also providing a mechanism by which eligible undocumented immigrants present in the U.S. on the date of the bill’s introduction could adjust to temporary nonimmigrant (H-5B) status; promote family unity and reduce backlogs; call for the creation and implementation of a national strategy for border security and enhanced border intelligence; create new enforcement regimes; and promote circular migration patterns. House companion legislation (H.R. 2330) was introduced on May 12 by Representatives Jim Kolbe (R-AZ), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), and Luis Gutierrez (D-IL).
The Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security (AgJobs) Act of 2005: Introduced on February 10, 2005 by Senators Larry Craig (R-ID) and Edward Kennedy (D-MA), S. 359 would create an earned adjustment program for undocumented farm workers who would be eligible to apply for temporary immigration status based on their past work experience, and could become permanent residents upon satisfying prospective work requirements. The legislation would also streamline the existing H-2A foreign agricultural worker program while preserving and enhancing key labor protections. Representatives Chris Cannon (R-UT) and Howard Berman (D-CA) introduced a companion measure in the House (H.R. 884). The bill is similar to legislation that the two Senators introduced in the 108th Congress.
The Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2005: Introduced on May 4 by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), H.R. 2092 would, among many other things, increase the allocation of family-based immigrant visas; provide age-out protection for children; provide earned access to legalization; provide adjustment of status for certain children; update the registry provisions; and enhance border security.
We have fought long and hard to try to get reform of unfair immigration laws, and hopefully, this will be the year that much of the positive reform happens.
Filed under: best deportation attorney | Tagged: donald-trump, Economy, finance, Politics, trump | Leave a comment »
Filed under: best deportation attorney | Tagged: IFTTT, Instagram | Leave a comment »
Filed under: best deportation attorney | Tagged: IFTTT, Instagram | Leave a comment »
Question: I have had my case denied in Immigration Court and I have heard about the REAL ID act and am very confused if I can get some type of judicial review of my case. Can you clarify?
Answer: The REAL ID Act did not change the language of either subpart (i) or (ii) of the statute giving/denying review. Rather, the Act made two changes to the paragraph preceding these subparts. First, it specified that the phrase “notwithstanding any other provision of law” applied to “statutory and nonstatutory” law and included the habeas corpus statute, the mandamus statute, and the All Writs Act. Second, the REAL ID Act also expanded the scope of § 242(a)(2)(B) so that it now applies “regardless of whether the [discretionary] judgment, decision, or action is made in removal proceedings.” Prior to the REAL ID Act, some – though not all – courts had held that § 242(a)(2)(B) was applicable only in removal cases. Presumably, this amendment was intended to reverse these earlier court decisions.
Question: Do these amendments eliminate all mandamus and other types of affirmative suits?
Answer: No, these changes do not eliminate all jurisdiction over mandamus and other affirmative lawsuits in non-removal cases. To determine whether jurisdiction remains available in a particular case, it is necessary to carry out a several step analysis. This analysis is essentially the same as the analysis to determine whether jurisdiction exists in a removal case involving agency discretion. Consequently, court decisions interpreting § 242(a)(2)(B) in the removal context will be helpful in determining whether the provision applies in a non-removal case.
Question: What steps are involved in determining whether a court has jurisdiction under § 242(a)(2)(B) in a removal or non-removal case?
Answer: There are several items that one must look at to determine if this section applies. 1. Does the issue/case fall completely outside the scope of INA § 242(a)(2)(B)? A. INA § 242(a)(2)(B) only limits jurisdiction over certain discretionary actions and decisions. B. INA § 242(a)(2)(B) does not apply to asylum decisions.
C. INA § 242(a)(2)(B) also does not apply to naturalization decisions and D. INA § 242(a)(2) should not apply to S, T and U visas.
Question: What if the case is one that appears to have fallen under the provision not permitting discretionary review?
Answer: Again, it is necessary to do an analysis. First, has there been an actual exercise of discretion? Even where there has been an actual exercise of discretion, is this exercise of discretion the issue in the case? Is the challenged action or decision discretionary? Is the decision or action specified by statute to be discretionary? Is the grant of discretion one of pure discretion unguided by legal principles? (9th Circuit cases.)
Thus, while the REAL ID Act may seem to completely limit judicial review of cases, if you fight the matter and analyze the case, there are different ways to still get judicial review of your case.
Filed under: best deportation attorney | Tagged: history, Law, news, Politics, Supreme court | Leave a comment »
Filed under: best deportation attorney | Tagged: IFTTT, Instagram | Leave a comment »
Filed under: best deportation attorney | Tagged: IFTTT, Instagram | Leave a comment »
Filed under: best deportation attorney | Tagged: IFTTT, Instagram | Leave a comment »
Filed under: best deportation attorney | Tagged: IFTTT, Instagram | Leave a comment »
Filed under: best deportation attorney | Tagged: IFTTT, Instagram | Leave a comment »