• Hours & Info

    M-F: 8:00am - 6:00 p.m.
    Sat: 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
  • Past Blog Posts

  • https://api.whatsapp.com/send?phone=13104885414

Alien criminal privacy act to undergo modification of records system

In response to allegations regarding informational breaches in privacy, ICE published a Privacy Act notice of modification to an existing system of records for the Alien Criminal Response Information Management System of Records. Comments are due 3/26/10.

Criminal alien

Criminal charges

Crimes and immigration

Alien criminal privacy act to undergo modification of records system

What are Grounds of Deportation?

Aliens are subject to removal from the United States for the following grounds of deportation:

Status violations: Persons who violate their immigration status in the United States may be subject to removal. Persons inadmissible at the time of entry are subject to removal under INA § 237(a)(1)(A) [8 U.S.C.A. § 1227(a)(1)(A)], which incorporates all of the grounds of inadmissibility. Additionally, persons in the United States in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act or any other law of the United States are subject to removal INA § 237(a)(1)(B) [8 U.S.C.A. § 1227(a)(1)(B)]. For example, persons who remain in the United States longer than authorized and persons who enter the United States without inspection are within this group. Persons who fail to maintain non-immigrant status have violated their immigration status and are subject to removal. INA § 237(a)(1)(C) [8 U.S.C.A. § 1227(a)(1)(C)]. Under this provision, failure to maintain non-immigrant status and failure to comply with the terms, conditions and controls imposed under INA § 212(g) [8 U.S.C.A. § 1182(g)], concerning waivers for persons with communicable or physical or mental disorders, constitute deportable offenses. Aliens whose conditional permanent residence has been terminated are subject to removal as status violators. INA § 237(a)(1)(D) [8 U.S.C.A. § 1227(a)(1)(D)]. Aliens who have encouraged, assisted, abetted or aided illegal immigration at the time of any entry or within five years of any entry are subject to removal. INA § 237(a)(1)(E) [8 U.S.C.A. § 1227(a)(1)(E)].Finally, aliens who enter into fraudulent marriages for the purpose of obtaining immigration benefits are subject to removal. INA § 237(a)(1)(G) [8 U.S.C.A. § 1227(a)(1)(G)].
Public charge: If a person has within five years of entering the United States become a public charge resulting from causes not arising after entry, he or she will be subject to deportation under the public charge ground. INA § 237(a)(5) [8 U.S.C.A. § 1227(a)(5)].
Security and related grounds: Under INA § 237(a)(4) [8 U.S.C.A. § 1227(a)(4)], an alien is deportable who has engaged, is engaged, or at any time after entry has engaged in any activity to violate any law of the United States relating to espionage, sabotage, or laws prohibiting export of goods, technology, or sensitive information from the United States, any other criminal activity which endangers public safety or national security or any activity the purpose of which is to oppose, control, or overthrow by force, violence, or other unlawful means, the U.S. government. Under INA § 237(a)(4)(B) [8 U.S.C.A. § 1227(a)(4)(B)], an alien who has engaged, is engaging, or at any time after entry has engaged in any terrorist activity as defined in INA § 212(a)(3)(B)(iv) [8 U.S.C.A. § 1227(a)(3)(B)(iv)] is deportable. Under INA § 237(a)(4)(C) [8 U.S.C.A. § 1227(a)(4)(C)], an alien is deportable if the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe that the presence or activities in the United States of such alien may have serious adverse foreign policy consequences. Finally, under INA § 237(a)(4)(D) [8 U.S.C.A. § 1227(a)(4)(D)], Nazi war criminals and persons who have engaged in conduct defined as genocide for purposes of the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.
Failure to register and falsification of documents: Aliens in the United States are required to report any change in address to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). INA § 265 []. Failure to register a change of address is a deportable offense unless the alien can show that such failure was reasonably excusable or not wilful. INA § 237(a)(3)(A) [8 U.S.C.A. § 1227(a)(3)(A)]. An alien is deportable if he or she is convicted for a violation of INA § 266(c) [8 U.S.C.A. § 1306(c)] (fraudulent statements) or Section 36(c) of the Alien Registration Act; for a violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act; or, for a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1546 (relating to fraud and misuse of visas) regardless of sentence imposed. An alien with a final administrative order for a violation of INA § 274C (document fraud) is subject to removal. INA § 237(a)(3)(C)(i) [8 U.S.C.A. § 1227(a)(3)(C)(i)]. Finally, a person who falsely represents or who has falsely represented himself or herself to be a United States citizen to obtain benefits under the Immigration & Nationality Act, federal or state law is deportable8 U.S.C.A. § 1305. INA § 237(a)(3)(D) [8 U.S.C.A. § 1227(a)(3)(D)].
Unlawful voting: Under INA § 237(a)(6) [8 U.S.C.A. § 1227(a)(6)], any person who has voted in violation of any federal, state or local provision, statute, ordinance or regulation is subject to removal. A conviction is not required.
Criminal grounds: Aliens who are convicted of or admit to the commission of certain crimes, including multiple criminal convictions, crimes of moral turpitude, aggravated felonies, high speed flight, drug related offenses, firearms violations, and domestic violence, stalking and protective order violations, are subject to removal. INA § 237(a)(2) [8 U.S.C.A. § 1227(a)(2)].

Best deportation Attorney

Find a good Immigration lawyer 

Deportation meaning

Removal proceedings 

Drug Offense Removability Upheld

U.S. SUPREME COURT

-Criminal Law and Procedure-
State court’s upholding of jury instructions and forms that made clear that for jury to recommend a death sentence, jury had to unanimously find each of the aggravating factors outweighed any mitigating circumstances–but did not say the jury had to determine the existence of each individual mitigating factor unanimously–was not contrary to and was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Defense counsel’s allegedly deficient closing argument was not prejudicial to defendant where government had presented extensive and graphic evidence of multiple murders, defendant’s boastful and unrepentant confessions, and his threats to commit further violent acts; defense counsel referred to the mitigating evidence and appealed to the jurors’ sense of humanity; defense experts’ detailed testimony regarding defendant’s mental illness was fresh in the jurors’ minds; and defendant did not describe any other mitigating factors counsel could have mentioned.
Smith v. Spisak – filed January 12, 2010
Cite as 08-724
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0110%2F08-724

NINTH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

-Civil Procedure-
A modification order entered after a preliminary injunction has dissolved is void ab initio because at that time there was no preliminary injunction to be modified. A district court cannot prospectively modify an injunction that is not in effect, nor may a district court modify a preliminary injunction nunc pro tunc retroactively to expand or vitiate rights parties have already accrued under an injunction. If a preliminary injunction is dissolved, then a modification of that preliminary injunction cannot stand because it was entered in error.
U.S. Philips Corporation v. KBC Bank N.V. – filed January 12, 2010
Cite as 08-56296
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0110%2F08-56296

-Criminal Law and Procedure-
State’s admitted failure to disclose impeachment material relating to the credibility of a prosecution witness was not prejudicial in light of extensive impeachment material already available to defendant and where materials did not provide an independent basis for impeaching that witness. Defendant’s admission that counsel was “diligent and thorough” in attempting to locate a potential witness was fatal to his claim that failure to locate the witness constituted ineffective assistance. Evidence–that defendant was in possession of victim’s property one day after murder victim was last seen alive, described victim to authorities, and told a third party he would deny being near the scene of the crime if questioned and asked third party to destroy victim’s credit cards–taken as a whole, was sufficient to allow a rational jury to return a conviction for first-degree murder. Where record indicated that defendant was not successful in bringing out certain relevant mitigating evidence during state habeas proceedings, district court erred in focusing on defendant’s lack of success as opposed to the reasonableness of his efforts to develop such a record in state court. Absent a clear indication in the record that state court applied an unconstitutional nexus test, either as a method of assessing the weight of mitigating evidence or as an unconstitutional screening mechanism to prevent consideration of any evidence, state court did not commit constitutional error. State courts imposing or reviewing capital sentences are not required to provide an exhaustive discussion of all mitigating evidence presented as long as record indicates they reviewed such evidence. Evidence of defendant’s acquisition and use of victim’s property rationally supported application of a pecuniary gain aggravating factor; where state courts determined that single aggravating factor was sufficient to sustain death penalty under the facts of the case, it was unnecessary to review challenges to other aggravating factors for federal habeas purposes.
Schad v. Ryan – filed September 11, 2009, amended January 12, 2010
Cite as 07-99005
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0110%2F07-99005

-Immigration Law-
Board of Immigration Appeals did not err in holding that petitioner’s conviction under California Health and Safety Code Sec. 11379(a) for selling a controlled substance qualified as a basis for removability under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II)–which makes removable any alien “convicted of a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law…of a State…relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of title 21)”–where petitioner did not dispute that substance involved in conviction was methamphetamine, a controlled substance.
Hernandez-Aguilar v. Holder – filed November 25, 2009, amended January 12, 2010.

Drug charges and immigration

Drug offense

Drug trafficker 

Drug offense removability uphelod 

Marriage based visa denial procedure

A seminar will begin this month to assist clients on how to proceed when a denial is issued a seminar will be provided. This seminar will discuss concrete strategies and advice on how to proceed when your marriage-based or fiancé(e) visa application is denied at the consulate. Registration is open until 11:59pm, Monday, February 7.

Marriage based – visa petition

Marriage and immigration

Are you getting married with a US citizen?

Marriage based visa denial procedure

Denial of petitions and removal are issued for drug conviction

Removal qualifications are clarified under new standards of of petitions. CA9 denied petition, finding conviction under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11379(a), qualifies for removal, so long as substance involved is determined to have been controlled substance under the modified categorical approach.

Order of removal

Removal proceedings

Removal order: it anything that can be done?

BIA rules on withholding of removal

CA2 Holds that 8 USC § 1429 Bars Adjudication of Naturalization Application While Removal Proceedings are Pending

The Court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1429 bars DHS from considering a naturalization application where removal proceedings are pending. Thus, an immigration judge may not make a finding of prima facia eligibility for naturalization. As a result, individuals in removal proceedings may not avail themselves of 8 U.S.C. § 1239.2(f). (Perriello v. Napolitano, 09/01/09).

Naturalization application

Naturalization meaning

Naturalization certificate

US citizenship 

Deportation/Removal Case Terminated

Removal Proceedings Terminated. Person was placed into removal proceedings after he applied for Naturalization.

Client charged as an aggravated felon for his 1998 Domestic Battery conviction.

We were able to show that this crime does not qualify categorically as a crime of violence and therefore, a crime of domestic violence.

In addition, the conviction documents served by the government did not establish that client had been convicted of a crime of violence.

Removal order

Removal proceedings

Removality 

Find a good Immigration Attorney to help you

Convictions of violence and battery charges in those applying for immigration petitions

In regards to recent battery and family violence charges of those applying for immigration petitions the BIA remanded, finding respondent’s family violence battery conviction is not aggravated felony crime of violence because term of imprisonment of at least 1 year was not imposed. Matter of Kim (BIA 2010).

Family petitions

Immigration petitions 

Petitions for family members

Our Immigration Law Firm

Save Years of Waiting time with a National Interest Waiver

Question: I have many years of experience doing the work that I do and I’m very good at it. However, I do not want to wait years for a PERM visa number to be available. Are there any other options for getting a green card employment based visa?

Answer: Actionally there is another option for getting a green card employment based visa. It is called a National Interest Waiver. In these types of cases known as EB-2 cases, the employer offering the foreign national employment must file the preference petition on Form I-140, except when the alien is seeking an exemption from the job offer requirement, in which case the the foreign national or any person on his or her behalf may file the petition. To be exempt from the job offer requirement, the USCIS must determine that an exemption would be in the national interest. Hence the name ‘national interest waiver’ as a way of getting a green card employment based visa. A labor certification or PERM is not required if the job offer requirement is waived. In 1998, the government designated its first precedent decision discussing the standards governing national interest waiver requests. The case which was decided NYSDOT did make it quite difficult to get a National Interest Waiver for getting a green card employment based visa approved. The decision established stricter standards for obtaining national interest waivers than those applicable in the past. Getting a green card employment based visa meant for many having to wait years for the visa number to become current. For years, the government had declined to issue a comprehensive and controlling definition of national interest and instead had advised the Service Centers to treat petitions involving national interest waiver requests on a case-by-case basis. This made it difficult for attorneys to prepare the national interest waiver. It made it necessary to look at all options for getting a green card employment based visa. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) had issued several non-binding decisions after enactment of the national interest program that elaborated on the applicable standard. The AAO took the position that the alien’s admission must provide a benefit to the country beyond a “prospective national benefit” which all exceptional ability and advanced-degree aliens must establish prior to their admission. In the years immediately after the enactment of the national interest waiver provision, the legacy INS had granted such waivers with some frequency relying in part on these early AAO decisions. In more recent years, however, the Service Centers began applying a more exacting standard to such requests requiring petitioners to establish, for example, that the alien possesses unique knowledge, abilities, or experience that set him or her apart from others in the field. The 1998 precedent decision continued this trend. Under the standards, it is critical that the National Interest Waiver be prepared with an abundance of evidence and exacting arguments to try to get the case approved. If successful, years of waiting time will be avoided.

Question: What must be established to get a National Interest Waiver so that other options for getting a green card employment based visa need not be considered?

Answer: The AAO held that the three factors must be considered when evaluating a request for a national interest waiver. First, the petitioner must establish that the alien’s proposed employment is in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. The importance of the occupation or the field of endeavor must be established as a threshold requirement. If a particular field of endeavor is related to an important national goal, this requirement should not be difficult to meet. If this is met you will not need to see what other options exist for getting a green card employment based visa. Eligibility for a national interest waiver is not established, however, solely by a showing that the alien’s field of endeavor has intrinsic merit. Blanket waivers for national interest waivers do not exist. Each must be approved seperately.

Second, the national interest waiver must be shown that the proposed benefit will be national in scope. If this can be shown, then getting theis type of green car employment based visa becomes much easier. The emphasis of this factor is on the existence of a national goal that the alien’s proposed undertaking will promote. Merely serving a regional, local, or private interest is not sufficient. The correlation between the national goal and the alien’s activity need not be direct, however. For example, in the 1998 case, the beneficiary’s occupation-the proper maintenance and operation of New York’s bridges and roads connecting the state to the national transportation system-met this threshold. While the alien’s employment was limited to a particular geographic area, the AAO noted that New York’s bridges and roads connect the state to the national transportation system. The proper maintenance and operation of these bridges and roads therefore serve the interests of other regions of the country.

Finally, it must be established that the “significant” benefit derived from this particular alien’s participation in the “national interest” field of endeavor “considerably” outweighs the “inherent” national interest in protecting U.S. workers through the labor certification process. This would be the key in getting the national interest waiver for this type of green card employment based visa. This standard sets up a balancing of interests, with the national interest in the labor certification process weighing in on one side as a strong adverse factor in granting the national interest waiver.

Thus, to get the national interest waiver is not easy. However, when you weigh putting together a good petition with a chance of success verses waiting years for other types of green card employment based visas, it is a good alternative to try to obtain residency.

National interest waivers 

National interest waiver meaning

Save years of waiting time with a national interest waiver

Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner, APC

Presentation of Case for Refugee Status

Case Presentation to the INS

The steps that refugee applicants follow before their eligibility interviews with BCIS officers vary. Many applicants are referred to the United States Refugee Program (USRP) for resettlement consideration by officials of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), while a smaller number are referred by a U.S. Embassy or Consulate. Other applicants are eligible to apply for the USRP directly because they are of nationalities designated as being of special humanitarian concern and in processing priorities eligible for resettlement consideration. Generally, voluntary agencies or the Joint Voluntary Agency (JVA) representatives conduct pre-screening interviews and prepare cases for submission to BCIS ; they complete the required forms and compile any necessary documents. In the in-country processing programs, applicants usually register their interest in refugee resettlement by mailing completed preliminary questionnaires to the appropriate processing entity. However, if there is insufficient evidence, it could ultimately be denied by the Court of Appeal. If the foreign national has not received residency in a third country, then they can apply to the U.S. For example, if Canada denied asylum to a foreign national, then they can apply to the U.S.

Eligibility Determination

Eligibility for refugee status is decided on an individual, or case-by-case, basis. A personal interview of the applicant is held by an BCIS officer. The interview is non-adversarial and is designed to elicit information about the applicant’s claim for refugee status.

The BCIS officer must determine whether the applicant has suffered past persecution, or has a well-founded fear of future persecution, on the basis of political opinion, religion, nationality, race, or membership in a particular social group. This determination requires the examination of objective and subjective elements of an applicant’s claim. Conditions in the country of origin are taken into consideration and the applicant’s credibility is assessed. BCIS refugee determinations are made according to a uniformly applied worldwide standard. Generally, all refugee applicants, with certain exceptions, are subject to the same adjudication criteria.

Legislation has altered the refugee adjudication process in certain cases. The Lautenberg Amendment (a provision of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for Fiscal years 1990 through 1994 and subsequently extended) mandated that the Attorney General identify categories of former Soviets (specifically Jews, Evangelical Christians, Ukrainian Catholics, and Ukrainian Orthodox), Vietnamese, Lao, and Khmer, who are likely targets of persecution. Under this legislation, a category applicant may establish a well-founded fear of persecution by asserting a fear of persecution and asserting a credible basis for concern about such fear.

Under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), the definition of refugee was expanded to include persons who have resisted or been subjected to, or have a well-founded fear of being subjected to coercive population control measures.

Post BCIS Interview Processing

After the BCIS interview, those applicants who are found eligible for refugee status must satisfy medical and security criteria and must be assigned a sponsor assurance. A refugee admission number is allocated to the applicant and is then subtracted from the annual ceiling. Transportation arrangements are made through the International Organization for Migration (IOM). If the refugee is unable to finance his or her transportation costs, the refugee may be eligible for a travel loan, whereby he or she must agree to repay the cost of airfare.

At the port of entry, BCIS admits the refugee to the United States and authorizes employment. After one year, a refugee is eligible for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident. Five years after admission, a refugee is eligible for naturalization to U.S. citizenship.


There are numerous immigration laws that could result in the denial of this visa if not properly prepared.  If the petition is put together correctly and professionally by a qualified immigration law firm, the chances of approval is greatly increased.

Bureau of population refugees and immigration

Central American refugees

Cuban refugee adjustment act

Information regarding asylum, refugee and relative petitions to the US to be offered by the government