AOS approved, no major issues but there were some issues with Client’s true and correct name and her manner of entry. She was waived through and this would be known as a Quilantan approval.
Getting the Green card through marriage
Learn about citizenship and naturalization
Filed under: Green Card | Tagged: Brian D. Lerner, brian lerner, Green Card, green card through marriage, green cards, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer, quilantan, renew green card | Leave a comment »
Adjustment of status based on approved I-360 approved. Client recently moved and Client’s manner of entry into the US was questionable (she may have entered with a false document), but still got AOS approved.
Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner
Filed under: Approved I-130 | Tagged: another win for law offices of brian d. lerner, I-360, I-360 petition, Immigration, Religious Worker I-360 | Leave a comment »
Immigration Lawyer Brian Lerner can prepare any type of immigration petition. As an experienced 20 year Immigration Lawyer, he can represent you in removal proceedings, prepare adjustments, visa petitions, appeals and waivers.
California immigration lawyer can help
Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Tagged: Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Judges, Immigration Law, Immigration Lawyer | 3 Comments »
As a Los Angeles Immigration Lawyer who is a certified specialist in Immigration and Nationality Law, my firm handles every type of immigration case from deportation cases from all over the United States to visas, interviews, processes, appeals, waivers, DACA, Petitions for Review. It is critical that you get an expert Los Angeles Immigration Lawyer to represent you with your immigration problems.
Specifically, as a Los Angeles Immigration Lawyer, we do business visas, work permits, Green Cards, non-immigrant visas, deportation, citizenship, appeals and all areas of immigration, H-1B Specialty Occupation, L-1 Intracompany Transferee, E-2 Treaty Investor, O-1 Extraordinary Ability among others. We also do K-1 Fiancee and K-3 Spouse Visas. We represent people in people in deportation and removal hearings, including political asylum, withholding of removal, and convention against torture cases.
While being a Los Angeles Immigration Lawyer allows people who are local to Los Angeles to come personally into my office, I have clients from all over the United States and in several countries around the world. As a Los Angeles Immigration Lawyer, I can give consultations via Skype and Facebook. In fact, I have and do call people all over the world to let them know how they can legally get into the United States or how to get back to the United States. Therefore, don’t let the fact that I am located in the Los Angeles area and that I am a Los Angeles Immigration Lawyer deter you from calling or emailing my office to get a free 10 minute consultation.
I have been a Los Angeles Immigration Lawyer for nearly 2 decades and have experience on every area of Immigration Law. If you have a difficult case that other Immigration Lawyers do not know what to do I will give a free consultation.
Best immigration lawyer near me
Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Tagged: Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Law, Immigration Lawyer, los angeles immigration attorney, los angeles immigration lawyer | 1 Comment »
Question: Hello Attorney Lerner. I understand that you have an office in San Bernardino County and are one of the few Inland Empire Immigration Lawyers. What city is your office located?
Answer: My office in the Inland Empire is located in Upland, California. The direct number is (909) 632-1249. I have been an Inland Empire Immigration Lawyer for years. In fact, I have been practicing Immigration Law for nearly 20 years. That is two decades of helping people with immigration problems.
Question: As an Inland Empire Immigration Lawyer, what types of immigration problems do you assist for clients in the Inland Empire?
Answer: I help with all types of immigration problems, ranging from representation in Immigration Court for Removal Proceedings, to preparing and submitting Adjustment of Status, Waivers, Pardons, Appeals, Work Permits, Naturalization and Citizenship Applications, Consulate Processing, Criminal Relief and many other types of help for persons in this county (as well as all over California.)
I have offices also in Los Angeles and Long Beach. Therefore, should any client need to have a consultation with me, they can go to any of my offices.
Question: What makes you qualified as an Inland Empire Immigration Lawyer?
Answer: Regarding Immigration Law, in 2000, I passed a rigorous examination and extensive experience requirements by the State Bar of California, Board of Legal Specialization. This takes years of experience to even attempt to take the test. Many of the people who need my help in the Inland Empire, have interviews for adjustment of status or naturalization or have been called for supervised release interviews. I can help with all of these matters as an Inland Empire Immigration Attorney.
Question: Why should people of the inland empire and San Bernardino County use you as their Inland Empire Immigration Lawyer?
Answer: Immigration Law is changing all the time. This area of law is very complicated and there is absolutely no way to become an expert in this area of law unless you have years of experience and do this area of law as the primary practice of law. There are so many places in Immigration Law that a box not checked or a procedure not properly done can completely ruin an immigration case, that you do not want to leave such an important matter to anyone else than an expert Inland Empire Immigration Lawyer.
Employment based Immigration Attorney
Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Tagged: Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Law, Immigration Lawyer, inland empire immigration attorney, inland empire immigration lawyer | Leave a comment »
Immigration Reform: Is it really coming?
Question: I have heard that there is going to be immigration reform. Can you shed some light on the subject and what we might expect?
Answer: Conservatives have tended to oppose immigration reform and amnesty for undocumented workers. Prominent Republicans, however, have recently come out in support of massive immigration overhauls. We could speculate as to why this is the case, but suffice it to say, immigration is on the table and both sides are talking.
At a Jan. 29 event in Las Vegas, President Barack Obama called for broad changes to the nation’s immigration laws. President Obama said the following:
“The time has come for common sense, comprehensive immigration reform. … I’m here because most Americans agree that it’s time to fix the system that’s been broken for way too long. I’m here because business leaders, faith leaders, labor leaders, law enforcement and leaders from both parties are coming together to say now is the time to find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as the land of opportunity.”
Obama’s immigration reform proposal includes providing undocumented workers a path to citizenship, a requirement for employers to check workers’ immigration status as well as stiffer penalties for those who break immigration law.
Although in the past many GOP lawmakers have been reluctant to support immigration reform, the tides may be changing. The immigration reform tide turned once and for all on Nov. 6, 2012. The elections produced a mandate for immigration reform and now it is time to act.
The 2013 State of the Union address and the President’s call for comprehensive immigration reform led to one of the only bipartisan standing ovations. Although the anti-immigrant movement has always been loud … their influence today is much diminished. Meanwhile, the power of the immigration reform movement is growing every day in depth and breadth.
A growing number of conservatives, including Tea Party lawmakers, religious groups and conservative media leaders, are part of the growing momentum calling for comprehensive immigration reform.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who said in an interview with Politico after the 2012 elections that he plans to pursue measures that have long been avoided by his party, including carving an immigration plan with an “eventual path” to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Many Republicans are beginning to question the sources for their information on the economic and social impacts of immigration.
Question: What can we do to help?
Answer: At this point since the ball is finally rolling after the draconian 1996 Anti-immigration bill, it is time to let your representatives know you support immigration reform and to keep the pressure on to move forward. Call, e-mail, write and speak out. You can do it tactfully and methodically, but the more the congressional representatives know that their constituents are behind them with immigration reform, the more likely we will have a new and complete comprehensive immigration reform bill.
Comprehensive immigration reform
Constitutionality of immigration reform
Filed under: Immigration Reform | Tagged: Immigration, Immigration Laws, Immigration Reform, reform | 2 Comments »
Question: My husband is in detention and deportation proceedings. Can he get out?
Answer: For noncitizens and their families, nothing is more important than the noncitizen’s release from jail. These concerns can sometimes seemingly dwarf the larger issues of removability and relief. Every day, or every second, of detention only serves to increase the anxiety, stress, and impatience of the detainee and his or her family. Some noncitizens are ineligible for bond, either as a matter of law or discretion. Others, at first glance, might seem ineligible for bond but, through creative and persistent lawyering, may one day secure their freedom. This would be through getting an immigration bond.
Question: When my husband was in criminal jail, they stated there was an immigration detainer or an immigration hold. What is this?
Answer: First, immigration detainers prolong the detention of many criminal defendants. A detained noncitizen facing criminal charges is more likely to plead guilty in hopes of getting out of jail. This “rush” to plead could have serious short and long-term immigration and criminal consequences. The immigration detainer remains widely misunderstood by the defense bar. It is a preliminary step in the removal process and does not mean that the noncitizen can or will be removed.
The detainer is a surprisingly feeble legal instrument. Most defense counsel would be surprised to learn that a detainer is a non-binding “request.” The applicable regulation provides that a detainer “serves to advise another law enforcement agency that the Department seeks custody of an alien presently in the custody of that agency, for the purpose of arresting and removing the alien.” The regulation provides that a “detainer is a request that such agency advise the Department, prior to release of the alien, in order for the Department to arrange to assume custody, in situations when gaining immediate physical custody is either impracticable or impossible.”
The regulation derives its authority from the Immigration and Nationality Act “pursuant to sections 236 and 287 of the Act and this chapter 1.” The statutory language limits detainers to controlled substance violations. There are also due process concerns when an administrative agency unilaterally prolongs detention without statutory authority or legal standards.
Question: What options exist for someone with a detainer?
Answer: Many federal noncitizen defendants do not receive the benefit of pretrial release. The conventional wisdom among federal defense counsel is that an immigration detainer prevents release and renders any pretrial release futile since the noncitizen will remain detained. Federal law provides a specific mechanism to address detention of noncitizens, and in fact, requires that a noncitizen defendant be treated like any other defendant.
Question: How long can the State facility hold you while the detainer is pending?
Answer: ICE has 48 hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, to take custody of a noncitizen upon his or her release from criminal custody. If ICE fails to do so, the custody becomes unlawful and the noncitizen can challenge the detention by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus. If the custodian is a state or local official, the petition will have to be filed in state court pursuant to state procedures.
Question: When my husband was transferred to immigration detention, I did not know where he was. How could I find out?
Answer: If you know his country of birth and name or alien number, you can use ICE’s Online Detainee Locator System at https://locator.ice.gov/odls/homePage.do. If he is housed in a state or local jail, another useful online service is www.vinelink.com.
Question: Some people have said that there is mandatory detention and that some people will not qualify for bond. Can you elaborate and explain?
Answer: Three primary classes of noncitizens are ineligible for bond: (1) certain criminals and terrorists ; (2) “arriving aliens”; and (3) individuals with administratively final orders of removal. For the criminal activity, those who are inadmissible for criminal activity pursuant to INA §212(a)(2);
those who are deportable for committing one crime of moral turpitude if the sentence included a term of imprisonment of a year or more; multiple crimes of moral turpitude; aggravated felonies; controlled substance offenses ; certain firearms offenses , or certain espionage and sabotage crimes or those who are inadmissible or deportable for terrorist activities. 26
Mandatory detention only applies to those who were last released from criminal custody after the expiration of the Transition Period Custody Rules (TPCR) on October 8, 1998.
Question: If the person is under mandatory detention, can the Immigration Judge release him?
Answer: No. However, although the Immigration Judge lacks jurisdiction to release noncitizens subject to mandatory detention, they do retain jurisdiction to determine whether the person is properly included in the mandatory detention provisions. Noncitizens can challenge the mandatory detention classification by requesting a Joseph hearing. In a Joseph hearing, the noncitizen bears the burden of establishing that it is substantially unlikely that the charge of removability, triggering mandatory detention, will be upheld. If the Immigration Judge agrees, the judge will entertain a bond hearing immediately.
Thus, even though ICE may claim there is mandatory detention, creative lawyering may be able to show the person in detention is not under mandatory detention.
Question: If he is not under mandatory detention, what happens?
Answer: First, ICE will set a bond. Usually it is much higher than the Immigration Judge will set. Therefore, if you cannot pay what ICE is requesting, he should stay in detention for another few days until the first court hearing. There, a bond redetermination hearing will be conducted and most of the time the Immigration Judge will give a bond 5 to 10 times less than what was issued by ICE.
Question: What do you have to show in a bond redetermination hearing?
Answer: You should show the person in detention is not a flight risk and that he has every intention of going to his hearings. Next, show that he will not be a danger to society if he is bonded out.
Question: When the bond is set, what do I do?
Answer: You will go to the designated deportation department at Immigration, pay the bond and get the receipt. Then you will bring that to the detention facility and he will be released and the case should be transferred to a non-detained calendar.
Question: Will I ever get the money back?
Answer: Yes, you will get it back if he goes to all his hearings. If he does not goto a hearing, you just gave Immigration a present.
Filed under: Immigration Bond | Tagged: bond redetermination, bond redetermination hearing, fianza, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, immigration bond, Immigration Law, Immigration Lawyer | Leave a comment »
Question: My auntie petitioned my mother when I was 3 years old. However, the visa process is so slow that it took 22 years for the visa number to become current. I was over 21 when my mother got her Green Card and the U.S. Embassy said that I aged out and could not come. Is there something that can be done without me having to wait another 10-15 years for a petition from my mother to become current?
Answer: Normally, in that case, once the child ages out, they cannot qualify to come as a derivative. There are, however, certain instances under the CSPA (Child Status Protection Act) whereby the derivative can show he or she is under the age of 21 (under immigration law.) However, in this case, that would not be applicable. Given that, the question then becomes whether you can still fall under any particular provision of the CSPA.
In this case, there was the BIA case Matter of WANG which specifically denied the priority date retention provision of the CSPA. However, the 9th Circuit Courts of Appeal has just come out with a decision which overruled the BIA and has stated essentially that this provision of the CSPA does stand and needs to be followed.
Question: What is this case and what does priority date retention mean?
Answer: First, it is necessary to understand basic immigration family petitions. You have a petitioner which is either the U.S. Citizen, or a Lawful Permanent Resident petitioning the beneficiary (which is the person who wants to come into the U.S.) Once the petition is filed (assuming it is not an Immidiate Relative) will be put into a visa line and only when the visa becomes current (sometimes many years later), can they immigrate to the U.S.
In many of these cases, the child is eligible to immigrate as a derivative at the time that the petition is filed, but once the visa number becomes current, they “age-out”. This can also occur as a direct occurrence for example from a Lawful Permanent Resident petitioning a child under 21.
Question: What exactly is the provision of the CSPA that was ruled on in the 9th Circuit case?
Answer: Well, first you have to try to do the age reduction calculation to see if the beneficiary is actually under 21 for immigration purposes. This means that even if their real age might be over 21 years their immigration age would be under 21 and they can immigrate. However, for purposes of this new case, it is only for those derivative beneficiaries and beneficiaries that have not only aged out, but cannot have their age determined to be under 21.
The CSPA in those cases under the particular provision of the CSPA, will have a petition that is automatically converted to the appropriate category. In other words, let’s say that in your example that an aunt petitioned your mother and you aged out and you cannot reduce your ‘immigration age’ to under 21. In that case, their application is automatically converted for a petition from your mother to you. This would be a Lawful Permanent Resident petitioning a son/daughter over the age of 21. This would be preference F2B.
Then the next part is the key. The CSPA allows you to then recapture or use the priority date of the petition from your auntie’s petition to your mother. As you stated, you were 3 years old when the petition was filed and you were about 24 years old when the visa number became current. This means, that under the CSPA (and now the 9th Circuit Class Action suit that agreed with the provision of the CSPA) that the priority date of the now automatically created petition is the SAME as the one your auntie filed for your mother. Therefore, the priority date will be basically over 20 years old the very moment the petition is automatically created. Since that number is now current, you can then come into the United States under this petition now. You have the petition and the visa number is current. Therefore, you can process right now to get the Green Card.
Question: So, what did the Ninth Circuit case do?
Answer: In fact, USCIS and other government agencies were denying this provision of the CSPA. They basically stated it was not supposed to do what was clearly in the law. Thus, now with the affirmation of the Ninth Circuit case, we can proceed forward with all of these CSPA cases.
Getting the green card through marriage
Is it easy to get a green card?
Filed under: Green Card | Tagged: Brian D. Lerner, brian lerner, california immigration lawyer, child status protection act, cspa, Family Petition, Immigration, Immigration Lawyer, Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner | 10 Comments »
Can you get the Green Card even if your over 21 years old?
Question: My auntie petitioned my mother when I was 3 years old. However, the visa process is so slow that it took 22 years for the visa number to become current. I was over 21 when my mother got her Green Card and the U.S. Embassy said that I aged out and could not come. Is there something that can be done without me having to wait another 10-15 years for a petition from my mother to become current?
Answer: Normally, in that case, once the child ages out, they cannot qualify to come as a derivative. There are, however, certain instances under the CSPA (Child Status Protection Act) whereby the derivative can show he or she is under the age of 21 (under immigration law.) However, in this case, that would not be applicable. Given that, the question then becomes whether you can still fall under any particular provision of the CSPA.
In this case, there was the BIA case Matter of WANG which specifically denied the priority date retention provision of the CSPA. However, the 9th Circuit Courts of Appeal has just come out with a decision which overruled the BIA and has stated essentially that this provision of the CSPA does stand and needs to be followed.
Question: What is this case and what does priority date retention mean?
Answer: First, it is necessary to understand basic immigration family petitions. You have a petitioner which is either the U.S. Citizen, or a Lawful Permanent Resident petitioning the beneficiary (which is the person who wants to come into the U.S.) Once the petition is filed (assuming it is not an Immidiate Relative) will be put into a visa line and only when the visa becomes current (sometimes many years later), can they immigrate to the U.S.
In many of these cases, the child is eligible to immigrate as a derivative at the time that the petition is filed, but once the visa number becomes current, they “age-out”. This can also occur as a direct occurrence for example from a Lawful Permanent Resident petitioning a child under 21.
Question: What exactly is the provision of the CSPA that was ruled on in the 9th Circuit case?
Answer: Well, first you have to try to do the age reduction calculation to see if the beneficiary is actually under 21 for immigration purposes. This means that even if their real age might be over 21 years their immigration age would be under 21 and they can immigrate. However, for purposes of this new case, it is only for those derivative beneficiaries and beneficiaries that have not only aged out, but cannot have their age determined to be under 21.
The CSPA in those cases under the particular provision of the CSPA, will have a petition that is automatically converted to the appropriate category. In other words, let’s say that in your example that an aunt petitioned your mother and you aged out and you cannot reduce your ‘immigration age’ to under 21. In that case, their application is automatically converted for a petition from your mother to you. This would be a Lawful Permanent Resident petitioning a son/daughter over the age of 21. This would be preference F2B.
Then the next part is the key. The CSPA allows you to then recapture or use the priority date of the petition from your auntie’s petition to your mother. As you stated, you were 3 years old when the petition was filed and you were about 24 years old when the visa number became current. This means, that under the CSPA (and now the 9th Circuit Class Action suit that agreed with the provision of the CSPA) that the priority date of the now automatically created petition is the SAME as the one your auntie filed for your mother. Therefore, the priority date will be basically over 20 years old the very moment the petition is automatically created. Since that number is now current, you can then come into the United States under this petition now. You have the petition and the visa number is current. Therefore, you can process right now to get the Green Card.
Question: So, what did the Ninth Circuit case do?
Answer: In fact, USCIS and other government agencies were denying this provision of the CSPA. They basically stated it was not supposed to do what was clearly in the law. Thus, now with the affirmation of the Ninth Circuit case, we can proceed forward with all of these CSPA cases.
Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Tagged: Brian D. Lerner, brian lerner, california immigration lawyer, child status protection act, cspa, Family Petition, Immigration, Immigration Lawyer, Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner | 10 Comments »
Immigration Lawyer
Brian D. Lerner Immigration Attorney & Deportation Lawyer Blog 