How long does it takes to get an immigration court? – Avvo.com http://ping.fm/OsWJO
The Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner
Filed under: Immigration Court | Tagged: Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Court, Immigration Judges, Immigration Law, Immigration Lawyer, Immigration Reform | Leave a comment »
Now that the Health Care is law and the debates (for now) are over, President Obama can begin pushing Immigration Reform. There are over 12 million people who are illegally here in the U.S. and it is critical that we get an immigration reform system that does not tear family apart and deport fathers and mothers from their children. Otherwise, many more people will need a deportation attorney. There are many people and immigration attorneys that want immigration reform. There are even radio shows on immigration reform. Immgration Lawyers are blogging all over about immigration reform. Large news organizations such as CNN are posting articles on Immigration reform.
Many people believe you will not have immigration reform unless President Obama is serious about enforcement. However, deportations are up and the immigration laws are definitely being enforced. A big march is planned to hopefully get the process started. Thus, it is not just President Obama that controls where immigration reform is entacted or not.
Filed under: Immigration Reform | Tagged: Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Law, Immigration Lawyer, Immigration Reform | 5 Comments »
Rare situation(Plz help)? – Yahoo! Answers http://ping.fm/kp9bO
Find a good Immigration Lawyer
Filed under: Immigration Law | Tagged: Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Law, Immigration Lawyer | Leave a comment »
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 waiver meaning
Save years of waiting time with a national interest waiver
Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner, APC
Filed under: National Interest Waiver | Tagged: Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Law, Immigration Lawyer, National Interest Waiver, National Interest Waivers, PERM, Waivers | Leave a comment »
On October 30, 2000, President Clinton signed into law H.R. 2883, the Child Citizenship Act of 2000. The new law permits foreign-born children—including adopted children —to acquire citizenship automatically if they meet certain requirements. It becomes effective on February 27, 2001. This is citizenship immigration, not naturalization.
Which Children Automatically Become Citizens Under the New Law?
Beginning February 27, 2001, certain foreign-born children—including adopted children—currently residing permanently in the United States will acquire citizenship automatically. The term “child” is defined differently under immigration law for purposes of naturalization than for other immigration purposes, including adoption. To be eligible, a child must meet the definition of “child” for naturalization purposes under immigration law and must also meet the following requirements:
Is the Law Retroactive? Is Automatic Citizenship Provided for Those Who Are 18 Years of Age or Older?
No. The new law is not retroactive. Individuals who are 18 years of age or older on February 27, 2001, do not qualify for citizenship under this law, even if they meet all other criteria. If they choose to become U.S. citizens, they must apply for naturalization and meet eligibility requirements that currently exist for adult lawful permanent residents.
Will Eligible Children Automatically Receive Proof of Citizenship—Such As Citizenship Certificates and Passports?
No. Proof of citizenship will not be automatically issued to eligible children. However, if proof of citizenship is desired, beginning February 27, 2001, parents of children who meet the conditions of the new law may apply for a certificate of citizenship for their child with INS and/or for a passport for their child with the Department of State.
What Will INS Do With Currently Pending Applications for Certificates of Citizenship?
For pending applications filed to recognize citizenship status already acquired, INS will continue to adjudicate such applications under the relevant law applicable to the case. For applications that required INS approval before an individual could be deemed a U.S. citizen, INS will adjudicate those cases under current law until February 27, 2001. On February 27, 2001, INS will adjudicate those cases under the new law and for applicants who automatically acquire citizenship as of the effective date, INS will issue certificates of citizenship reflecting the person’s citizenship as of that date.
Is Automatic Citizenship Provided for Children (Including Adopted Children) Born and Residing Outside the United States?
No. In order for a child born and residing outside the United States to acquire citizenship, the United States citizen parent must apply for naturalization on behalf of the child. The naturalization process for such a child cannot take place overseas. The child will need to be in the United States temporarily to complete naturalization processing and take the oath of allegiance.
To be eligible, a child must meet the definition of “child” for naturalization purposes under immigration law3, and must also meet the following requirements:
Filed under: Child Citizenship Act | Tagged: Child Citizenship Act, Child Citizenship Act (CCA), child citizenshjip protection act, immigrant children, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Law, Immigration Lawyer | 2 Comments »
To be eligible to file a self-petition (an application that you file for yourself for immigration benefits) you must qualify under one of the following categories:
Spouse: You may self-petition if you are a battered spouse married to a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. Unmarried children under the age of 21, who have not filed their own self-petition, may be included on your petition as derivative beneficiaries.
Parent: You may self-petition if you are the parent of a child who has been abused by your U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse. Your children (under 21 years of age and unmarried), including those who may not have been abused, may be included on your petition as derivative beneficiaries, if they have not filed their own self-petition.
Child: You may self-petition if you are a battered child (under 21 years of age and unmarried) who has been abused by your U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident parent. Your children (under 21 years of age and unmarried), including those who may not have been abused, may be included on your petition as derivative beneficiaries
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.
Battered spouse petition, questions and answers
Battered spouse petition approved
Filed under: Battered Spouse | Tagged: Battered Spouse, battered spouse attorney, battered spouse case, battered spouse layer, battered spouse petition, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Law, Immigration Lawyer, Self-Petitioning | Leave a comment »
Notice of Receipt: You should receive an acknowledgement or Notice of Receipt within a few weeks after mailing the application and fee to BCIS .
Prima Facie Determination: Battered immigrants filing self-petitions who can establish a “prima facie” case are considered “qualified aliens” for the purpose of eligibility for public benefits (Section 501 of the Illegal Immigrant Responsibility and Immigration Reform Act (IIRIRA). The BCIS reviews each petition initially to determine whether the self-petitioner has addressed each of the requirements listed above and has provided some supporting evidence. This may be in the form of a statement that addresses each requirement. This is called a prima facie determination.
If the Service makes a prima facie determination, the self-petitioner will receive a Notice of Prima Facie Determination valid for 150 days. The notice may be presented to state and federal agencies that provide public benefits.
Approved Self-petition: If the I-360 self-petition is approved, the Service may exercise the administrative option of placing the self-petitioner in deferred action, if the self-petitioner does not have legal immigration status in the United States. Deferred action means that the Service will not initiate removal (deportation) proceedings against the self-petitioner. Deferred action decisions are made by the Vermont Service Center (VSC) and are granted in most cases. Deferred action validity is 27 months for those for whom a visa was available on the date that the self-petition was approved. All others have a validity of 24 months beyond the date a visa number becomes available. The VSC has the authority to grant appropriate extensions of deferred action beyond those time periods upon receipt of a request for extension from the self-petitioner.
Adjustment to Permanent Resident Status: Self-petitioners who qualify as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens (spouses and unmarried children under the age of 21) do not have to wait for an immigrant visa number to become available. They may file the Application To Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status) with their local BCIS office. Self-petitioners who require a visa number to adjust must wait for a visa number to be available before filing the for Adjustment of Status.
Victims of domestic violence should know that help is also available to them through the National Domestic Violence Hotline on 1-800-799-7233 or 1-800-787-3224 [TDD] for information about shelters, mental health care, legal advice and other types of assistance, including information about self-petitioning for immigration status.
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.
Filed under: Battered Spouse | Tagged: Battered Spouse, battered spouse attorney, battered spouse case, battered spouse layer, battered spouse petition, Eligibility of a Battered or Abused Parent, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Law, Immigration Lawyer | Leave a comment »
Americans value hard work and initiative. You should try to get a job as quickly as possible. Many refugees’ families like many American families find that both husband and wife must work. Lack of English language skill will not prevent you from getting a job, but it may limit the kind of job you can get when you first arrive. Changing jobs is common as English language and job skills improve. Many new arrivals study part-time to improve their English language and job skills while they work. Resettlement agencies can help identify appropriate programs.
Successful resettlement depends on a refugee’s ability and willingness to adapt to the new environment. Cooperation with the resettlement agency can be key to a successful transition. Be realistic, but be optimistic. More than two million refugees have resettled in the U.S. in the past two decades. The vast majority have made the transition to life in the U.S. and have become valued members of American society. Others have benefited from the refuge offered by the U.S. until conditions in their homelands changed and they were able to return to their homes.
Because the United States is so diverse, generalizing about what to expect is difficult. You may have heard stories from friends or relatives who have recently resettled in the United States. Remember that every resettled refugee has a different experience. Seek information from a variety of sources.
Resettlement is not a decision to be made lightly. It may mean that you cannot return to your home country for many years. It may result in permanent separation from friends and relatives. But, it may also be the beginning of a new life and new opportunities.
Find a good Immigration Attorney to help you
Immigration Attorney in California
Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Tagged: Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Law, Immigration Lawyer | 1 Comment »
Attorneys who practice Immigration Law have been somewhat at a standstill for years regarding domestic violence cases as there was no law that gave such people the protection needed. However, the Matter of R_A_ has just been decided in favor of the person who was abused via domestic violence. Senator Leahy has issued a statement regarding this case which is right on point. It shows how domestic violence cases will now get the protection of U.S. asylum laws. His memo follows:
CONTACT: Office of Senator Leahy, 202-224-4242 VERMONT
Leahy Praises Resolution In Alvarado Asylum Case,
Pushes Administration To Issue Regulations
WASHINGTON (Tuesday, Dec. 15, 2009) – Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) Tuesday praised the conclusion of a 14-year legal struggle that has resulted in the United States granting asylum to a domestic abuse survivor from Guatemala. Last week, an immigration judge granted asylum to Ms. Rody Alvarado, who fled to the United States in the 1990s seeking protection under the nation’s asylum laws.
“The details of Ms. Alvarado’s case are shocking,” said Leahy. “She suffered from horrific domestic violence in her home country of Guatemala, and sought protection in the United States under our asylum laws. Because persecution of this type had not previously been recognized as a basis for refugee or asylum protection, Ms. Alvarado was forced to fight a long legal battle to win her case.”
Ms. Alvarado fled her native Guatemala in 1995 to seek asylum in the United States as a result of sexual and domestic violence committed by her husband. Guatemalan police failed to intervene in the domestic violence despite the fact that Ms. Alvarado reported the crimes on five separate occasions. As a result, Ms. Alvarado came to the United States seeking protection under asylum laws.
Leahy continued, “The administrations of three different presidents – Clinton, Bush and Obama
– have grappled with how to handle gender-based asylum claims, but the resolution of this case brings us closer to the end of this journey. Ms. Alvarado can finally feel safe here in the United States, because she is no longer at risk of being deported to Guatemala. The Obama administration must now issue regulations to ensure that other victims of domestic violence whose abuse rises to the level of persecution can obtain the same protection as refugees or asylees.”
Through three administrations, Leahy pressed five Attorneys General and three Homeland Security Secretaries to intervene in Ms. Alvarado’s case. In a statement Friday, Leahy urged the Obama administration to issue binding regulations to address further gender-based asylum claims.
“The Obama administration has laid out a welcomed, new policy in its legal briefs in this case, and I thank the President, Secretary Napolitano, and Attorney General Holder for bringing this case to such a positive resolution. Yet, the administration’s work is not done. It must issue binding regulations so that asylum seekers whose cases have been held in limbo for years can also be resolved and that future cases are not delayed in adjudication.”
The full text of Leahy’s statement follows.
Leahy Praises Resolution In Alvarado Asylum Case, Pushes Administrati… http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200912/121509b.html
1 of 3 12/16/2009 9:51 AM
AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 09121662. (Posted 12/16/09)
Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.),
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,
On The Case of Ms. Rody Alvarado
December 15, 2009
I am pleased to learn that, after 14 years of legal struggle, Ms. Rody Alvarado has finally received asylum in the United States. The details of Ms. Alvarado’s case are shocking. She suffered from horrific domestic violence in her home country of Guatemala, and sought protection in the United States under our asylum laws. Because persecution of this type had not previously been recognized as a basis for refugee or asylum protection, Ms. Alvarado was forced to fight a long legal battle to win her case.
The administrations of three different presidents – Clinton, Bush and Obama – have grappled with how to handle gender-based asylum claims, but the resolution of this case brings us closer to the end of this journey. Ms. Alvarado can finally feel safe here in the United States, because she is no longer at risk of being deported to Guatemala. The Obama administration must now issue regulations to ensure that other victims of domestic violence whose abuse rises to the level of persecution can obtain the same protection as refugees or asylees.
Ms. Alvarado fled Guatemala in 1995 after being beaten daily and raped repeatedly by her husband. When she became pregnant, but refused to terminate her pregnancy, her husband kicked her repeatedly in the lower spine. Ms. Alvarado had previously tried to escape the abuse, seeking protection in another part of Guatemala, but her husband tracked her down and threatened to kill her if she left their home again. We know that Ms. Alvarado notified Guatemalan police at least five separate times, but the police refused to respond, telling her that her desperate situation was a domestic dispute that needed to be settled at home.
Over the past 14 years, Ms. Alvarado’s case has been considered by immigration judges, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and three different Attorneys General. Throughout this extensive consideration, the core facts of her case have never been disputed. All parties have agreed that Ms. Alvarado suffered extreme abuse at the hands of her husband, and that the Guatemalan government would not protect her. All parties agreed that she has a well-founded fear that she would be abused again if she was forced to return to Guatemala.
The dispute in Ms. Alvarado’s case centered on whether the abuse she suffered was persecution under the terms of the Refugee Convention and applicable U.S. law. To obtain protection in the United States, an asylum seeker must demonstrate that they have a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.
I first wrote to Attorney General Janet Reno in December 1999, when the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed Ms. Alvarado’s grant of asylum, concluding that her abuse was not persecution on account of membership in a particular social group. This decision was particularly troubling because it left unclear what grounds, if any, could be applied to a victim of severe domestic abuse who cannot obtain the protection of her country of origin. I wrote to Attorney General Reno again in February and September 2000 asking her to exercise her authority to review the case, called Matter of R-A-, and to reverse the BIA’s decision.
Unfortunately, the case was not reversed at that time, and it then languished for years. I wrote to Attorney General Ashcroft in June 2004 asking him to work with the Department of Leahy Praises Resolution In Alvarado Asylum Case, Pushes Administrati… http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200912/121509b.html
2 of 3 12/16/2009 9:51 AM
AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 09121662. (Posted 12/16/09)
Homeland Security (DHS) to issue regulations to govern cases such as Ms. Alvarado’s and to then decide her case in accordance with such rules. When he was a nominee to be Attorney General in January 2005, I asked Mr. Alberto Gonzales to commit to taking up the case and resolving it if he was confirmed. Mr. Gonzales promised to work with DHS to finalize regulations, but did not take any action during his years as Attorney General.
Ten years after I and other members of Congress first sought appropriate action and the fair resolution of this case, we celebrate the long-overdue outcome. While I dismayed at the length of time Ms. Alvarado has lived with fear and uncertainty, the final resolution of this case gives me hope that abuse victims like Ms. Alvarado who meet the other conditions of asylum will be able to find safety in the United States.
The Obama administration has laid out a welcomed, new policy in its legal briefs in this case, and I thank the President, Secretary Napolitano, and Attorney General Holder for bringing this case to such a positive resolution. Yet, the administration’s work is not done. It must issue binding regulations so that asylum seekers whose cases have been held in limbo for years can also be resolved and that future cases are not delayed in adjudication. I urge the administration to immediately initiate a process of notice and comment rulemaking so that asylum seekers,
practitioners, and other experts can contribute to the formulation of new rules.
Today, I commend Ms. Alvarado on the courage she has demonstrated over for many years while seeking protection in the United States. I congratulate her and wish her all the best as she finally experiences true freedom from persecution and the full scope of liberties enjoyed by Americans.
Leahy Praises Resolution In Alvarado Asylum Case, Pushes Administrati… http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200912/121509b.html
3 of 3 12/16/2009 9:51 AM
AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 09121662. (Posted 12/16/09)
UT and VAWA changes for those who are victims of sex trafficking crimes and domestic violence
Filed under: Domestic Violence | Tagged: Domestic Violence, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Law, Immigration Lawyer, VAWA, vawa attorney, vawa lawyer | Leave a comment »
EOIR will open the Saipan Immigration Court in Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands, on 11/30/09. The Saipan Immigration Court will conduct immigration court proceedings for respondents in the Northern Mariana Islands.
Eoir has taken disciplinary action against 16 attorneys
Filed under: EOIR | Tagged: Appointment of Juan Osuna as Acting Director for the EOIR, EOIR, EOIR has taken disciplinary action against 16 attorneys for violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, eoir IJ Benchbook, EOIR-59, Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR), First Immigration Judge to join EOIR in 2011, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Law, Immigration Lawyer | Leave a comment »
Immigration Lawyer
Brian D. Lerner Immigration Attorney & Deportation Lawyer Blog 