Immigration Visa Lawyer Blog

A Houston, Texas man received excellent news on Thursday, March 8, 2012, when an immigration judge closed the deportation case pending against him. This means that the government will not attempt to return David Gonzalez to his native Costa Rica for the foreseeable future. This is a notable event because Gonzalez has a legal claim to be present in the United States based on his same-sex marriage to an American citizen. Although Gonzalez can remain in the U.S., he cannot obtain any specific immigration benefits and cannot obtain work authorization.

Gonzalez came to the United States from Costa Rica on a tourist visa in 2000. He overstayed his visa, and then met U.S. citizen Mario Ramirez several years later. The two were married in 2008 in California during the brief time when same-sex marriage was legal there.

Under federal immigration law, spouses of United States citizens can obtain immigrant visas, which allow them to legally come to or remain in the country, with no annual numerical limitation. This means there is generally no waiting period to obtain a visa. The immigrant visa is the final step before obtaining a green card. Provided both spouses meet all of the legal requirements of moral character, financial ability, and so forth, obtaining a green card through marriage to a citizen is a relatively straightforward process. The complicating factor is when a state recognizes a marriage and the federal government does not.

Under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1996, the federal government does not recognize the legality of same-sex marriages, regardless of how state governments view such marriages. Currently, a handful of states allow same-sex marriage while most do not. Because of DOMA, federal immigration officials cannot confer immigration benefits based on a same-sex marriage, even if one spouse is a U.S. citizen.

The Obama administration announced last year that it would no longer enforce DOMA. This has led to some heated political discourse and quite a bit of confusion among government agencies. One of the results of this decision is the outcome of Gonzalez's case. By declining to enforce DOMA, the administration can shift the attention of immigration authorities away from people like Gonzalez and onto other types of removal cases. To an extent, Gonzalez and others in similar situations can claim their status as a spouse of a U.S. citizen, but it only provides them a limited amount of protection.

Continue reading "Immigrant Saved from Deportation Thanks to Same-Sex Marriage, but Still Has No Affirmative Legal Status" »

The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) is a federal law that provides for additional resources for the investigation and prosecution of violent crimes committed against women, including immigration provisions protecting people who may lack legal status but also need protection from an abusive spouse, parent, or child. After two renewals of the law in 2000 and 2005, it is up for reauthorization again in 2012.

Several Democratic Senators brought VAWA up for renewal again on Thursday, March 15, in the midst of an already-charged political climate. With debates over issues like insurance coverage of contraception dominating the news in recent weeks, this is either a very opportune time to bring up this issue, or a very bad time. It is important to note, however, that VAWA offers important protections to immigrants who may have a valid claim to a green card or visa, but who cannot obtain one because of a bad domestic situation.

VAWA authorized the expenditure of $1.6 billion towards law enforcement efforts to improve the investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women. It also requires defendants who are convicted of a violent domestic crime to immediately pay restitution to their victim, and it allows civil claims against alleged abusers. The law provides funding for community programs, victim assistance services, and legal aid programs. It offers protection to victims who face eviction from their homes because of domestic violence issues.

In the immigration system, VAWA establishes a procedure for spouses, children, or parents of United States citizens or legal permanent residents to obtain an immigrant visa without the other person's involvement. Normally, a U.S. citizen or permanent resident must petition on behalf of their relative in order to obtain an immigrant visa, and they must sign off on an application to obtain a green card. The VAWA procedures are designed to protect the immigrant from the abusive relative.

A petition made under VAWA by an abused spouse may include the spouse's children under the age of 21, whether or not the children are themselves victims of abuse. A parent of a child who has been abused by another parent who is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident may petition for their child. A parent who has been the victim of abuse by a U.S. citizen son or daughter may also petition for benefits under VAWA.

Continue reading "Democrats in Congress Bring the Violence Against Women Act, Which Can Impact Immigration Cases, for Reauthorization" »

A gay couple on Long Island learned last month that they have achieved a victory, albeit a temporary one, in their struggle to keep one of them in the United States legally. After several New York politicians spoke on the couple's behalf, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) granted a reprieve to Tim Smulian, a 65 year-old citizen of South Africa, so that he may stay and care for his husband, 70 year-old New York native Edwin Blesch.

Smulian and Blesch were married in South Africa in 1999. Their marriage is legally recognized by both the state of New York and Suffolk County, where they reside. Federal law, under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), does not recognize their marriage. Smulian is in the United States on a tourist visa, which he must renew annually. Since 1999, he and Blesch have spent six months in the U.S. and six months abroad. Blesch is suffering from HIV, and he suffered a series of mini-strokes a few years ago, along with other complications from his illness. He is therefore no longer able to travel with Smulian. Smulian is trained to care for HIV patients and is Blesch's primary caregiver.

With Smulian's status as a "tourist" and Blesch's poor health, they faced separation of at least six months each year. Smulian's visa was set to expire at the end of 2011, so they applied to adjust Smulian's status to legal permanent resident as the spouse of a United States citizen. USCIS would normally deny the application, since DOMA prohibits the federal government from recognizing the legal validity of a same-sex marriage. They asked USCIS to use its discretion to grant them an exception, partly on humanitarian grounds and partly because DOMA has been the subject of multiple legal challenges.

Several politicians advocated on Smulian's and Blesch's behalf, including New York Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand. USCIS decided in early February to grant Smulian "deferred action" status, meaning the government will take no action on Smulian's case for at least a year. This does not grant Smulian any specific immigration benefit, but it does give him and Blesch time to find a way to proceed with their green card application.

Smulian's tourist visa, also known as a visitor visa, is a "nonimmigrant" visa for "pleasure, tourism or medical treatment." It requires that the visa holder intend to return to his or her country of origin when the visa expires. It often also requires that the visa holder physically leave the country in order to renew the visa, which is what Smulian and Blesch had to do every year.

Continue reading "USCIS Grants Deferred Status to Man on Tourist Visa So He May Care for Sick Husband" »

President Obama proposed to eliminate country-specific caps for certain immigrant visa categories to stimulate small-business growth. Country-specific immigrant caps are limits on the number of immigrant visa the United States will grant each year. According to a White House statement, the purpose is to attract more high skilled foreign workers, including entrepreneurs to the United States. Employers, especially those in the technology business, complain that these caps prevent them from hiring skilled workers and growing their companies in the United States.

Obama called for a comprehensive immigration reform bill, and if this is not politically possible, he will seek reforms in smaller steps. "If election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a comprehensive plan, let's at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses and defend this country," Obama said.

The Department of Homeland Security said it will implement several measures to simplify the process for immigrant entrepreneurs to do business in the United States, and also to keep more foreign nationals with science and technology degrees from U.S. universities.

Obama said the proposal was a "symbol of how important it is for us to spur entrepreneurship, to help start-ups, to move aggressively so that we can ensure more companies that create most jobs in our economy are getting a leg up from various programs that we have in our government."

Opponents of Obama's plan point to the high unemployment rate in the United States and question why the government would be extending nonimmigrant visas for highly skilled workers while many US citizens and permanent residents are unemployed and are seeking those jobs.

Obama told reporters on Tuesday that he expects Congress to pass a bill this year. However, some members of Congress are likely to oppose the proposal.

Many spouses and children of U.S. citizens qualify for legal immigration status, but are required to file the application overseas at their country of origin because they are unlawfully present in the U.S., also called "entering without inspection." If they were unlawfully present in the U.S. for more than 180 days, and then they go overseas, there is a law that bars them from reentering the U.S. for 3 years. This bar increases to 10 years if the illegal stay is longer than one year. This creates a catch-22 because if they leave the U.S. to apply for legal immigration status, they will be unable to reenter for 3 to 10 years. So, rather than go overseas to apply for legal status, many simply remain unlawfully in the U.S. to avoid being separated from their family for several years.

Many people who would be subject to the 3 or 10 year bar may be eligible for certain hardship waivers to allow them to return to the US after they apply for legal status overseas despite the 3 and 10 year bar. But critics say this process is lengthy and flawed. They are required to remain overseas until the waiver is granted before they can reenter the U.S., which is a process that can take from months to years, and there is no guarantee that the waiver will be granted. Therefore, many do not risk going overseas to apply for the waiver.

Even if a person has a legitimate relationship with a U.S. citizen, and is eligible to apply for legal immigration status, the current immigration law discourages that person from doing so. Instead, the current law actually encourages that person to remain in the United States illegally, or risk long term separation from the family.

Under the proposed rule change, announced today, foreign nationals in this situation could apply for the waiver while still in the United States. Then once the waiver is granted, they could depart and file for legal immigration status overseas at their country of origin, and then reenter the U.S. using the waiver.

This would eliminate the often prolonged wait faced by foreign nationals who are forced to wait overseas, and would encourage applicants to get legal status rather than remain unlawfully. "The goal is to substantially reduce the time that the U.S. citizen is separated from the spouse or child when that separation would yield an extreme hardship," USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas said. This streamlined process would eliminate much of the economic and other hardships that result from long separation from the family.

Miriam Mendiola-Martinez, a foreign national of Mexico, filed a lawsuit in Arizona last week against Maricopa County Sheriff, Joseph M. Arpaio alleging that she was mistreated while she was pregnant as an inmate in the Sheriff's jail. She was six months pregnant when she was arrested in 2009 on charges of identity theft. The suit states that her Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by the MCSO's infliction of cruel and unusual punishment, deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs, and disparate treatment. The lawsuit alleges that MCSO and Maricopa Medical Center's unconstitutional policies, practices, acts and omissions, Ms. Mendiola-Martinez suffered immediate and irreparable injury, including physical, psychological and emotional injury and risk of death.

According to the lawsuit, Ms. Mendiola-Martinez was undernourished at the jail due to what jail staff called a "special" pregnancy diet. These pregnancy meals consisted of items such as two slices of bread, two slices of cheese or ham, undistinguishable cooked vegetables, and an occasional piece of fruit. She was also given two small cartons of milk per day. This hardly seems to be enough food for a pregnant woman eating for two.

She was taken to the Maricopa Medical Center by MCSO officers when she began to go into labor. Ms. Mendiola-Martinez gave birth to her son via Cesarean section, and she was not allowed to nurse or even hold her son after he was delivered. Officers put shackles on her feet before and after the surgery, and she was shacked to the hospital bed. Wearing only a hospital gown, Ms. Mendiola-Martinez was forced to walk through the hospital, with her hands and feet shackled. She began to bleed and could do nothing about it. She was not provided with a breast pump to safely and hygienically remove the breast milk she produced while she was separated from her infant son.

When she was discharged from the hospital, Ms. Mendiola-Martinez was not given a wheelchair to assist her, even though she was in great pain and could hardly walk. A deputy took her so quickly from the hospital that she did not receive her pain medication and discharge paperwork. A deputy then chained Ms. Mendiola-Martinez again and forced her to walk back to the nurse's station. Then, while shackled at her hands and ankles, with a bleeding surgery wound, Ms. Mendiola-Martinez was returned to the Estrella Jail.

About September 2008, the Maricopa County jails lost their accreditation from the National Commission on Correctional Health Care. On October 22, 2008, the Honorable Neil V. Wake found that the food given to inmates in the Maricopa County Jails constituted "current and ongoing violation of pretrial detainees' federal right to adequate nutrition."

On December 15, 2011, the United States Department of Justice issued the findings of the investigation it began in June 2008 in a letter addressed to Maricopa County Attorney William Montgomery. In that, letter, the Justice Department stated: "MCSO operates its jails in a manner that discriminates against its limited English proficient ("LEP") Latino inmates. Specifically, we find that MCSO, through the actions of its deputies, detention officers, supervisory staff, and command staff, routinely punishes Latino LEP inmates for failing to understand commands given in English and denies them critical services provided to the other inmates, all in violation of Title VI and its implementing regulations." The Department of Justice also noted: "MCSO fosters and perpetuates discriminatory police and jail practices by failing to operate in accordance with basic policing and correctional practices and by failing to develop and implement policing and correctional safeguards against discrimination in such areas as training, supervision, and accountability systems."

A new film, "Like Crazy," is making the rounds of film festivals, winning a top award at Sundance this year. It tells the story of two college students in Los Angeles who meet and fall in love. Jacob is an American, and Anna is a British exchange student. Anna overstays her student visa and then returns home to London. When she tries to fly back to Los Angeles, she finds herself barred by officials at the airport. This sets up the main action of the film, in which the two must find a way to continue their relationship despite the trans-North America, trans-Atlantic distance between them.

While the film primarily acts as a love story, it offers a glimpse of the issues faced by spouses, fiancees, and lovers who find themselves separated by immigration laws. An immigration lawyer certainly knows that these situations present complicated and emotional issues. Anna certainly made a mistake by overstaying her student visa. If she came to the United State on a J-1 student visa, for example, she may have been subject to a requirement that she return to her home country for at least two years, even if she did not overstay her visa period. J-1 visas typically allow a visitor to stay in the U.S. up to 30 days after their educational program ends, but they must then depart. Overstaying a student visa could lead to ineligibility to return to the U.S. for years.

Is there anything the young lovers in the film could do? Overstaying the visa made it difficult, if not impossible. If the two were to get engaged, and she did not overstay her student visa, they might be able to get a fiancee visa, known as a K-1. An American usually petitions for a K-1 while the fiancee is still abroad. Both fiancees must show they are legally eligible to get married in the petitioner's state of residence. They must show evidence that they will not become public charges, and that the engagement is legitimate. One specific requirement is proof that the fiancees have met in person at least once in the previous two years, which is intended to deter sham marriages. They must get married within 90 days of the immigrant's arrival in the U.S.

Continue reading "New Film Addresses the Issue of Student Visas, Immigration, and Young Love" »

If you filed an employment-based adjustment of status (I-485) application between July 1, 2007 and August 17, 2007, you were definitely not alone. Approximately 325,000 adjustment (I-485) applications were filed during this period. This is because the visa bulletin briefly became current for all employment-based visa categories, except "other workers." Since the visa bulletin retrogressed, many of these adjustment applications reverted to a "pending" status. Many of our clients have asked what they can do in this frustrating situation.

Adjustment (I-485) Switching: The Permissible Line-Jumping
This article addresses the issues of transferring I-485 applications (in a process called "I-485 switching," transferring adjustment applications, or adjustment conversion) to a new or subsequent family or employment-based immigrant visa petition. Thousands of people are eligible for this benefit and didn't even know it! These procedures are invaluable to aleviate the backlog created by the onslought of I-485 applications sent to the Service Centers in 2007. Properly done, you can dig your case out of the "blizzard of I-485" saving yourself and the Service years of pending paperwork and frustrating processing delays.

Transferring Adjustment Applications to New Family or Employment Based Immigrant Visa Petitions
The AFM under section 23.2(l) provides several examples of when an applicant for adjustment under one category (preference or immediate relative) will prefer to have his or her application considered under another category. These examples include:

1. An alien who originally applied for adjustment based on an approved I-140 petition and married a U.S. citizen while the I-485 was pending, but who now prefers to adjust based on an I-130 filed by the new spouse;
2. An alien who originally applied for adjustment as the spouse of a U.S. citizen, but now prefers to be granted adjustment under an employment-based category in order to avoid having to deal with the conditional residency requirements of section 216 of the Act;
3. A Cuban national who applied for adjustment under section 202 of NACARA, but who now prefers to be granted adjustment under the Cuban Adjustment Act in order to receive the "rollback" provisions of the latter.

What this means is that an existing application for adjustment can be converted to another based on a different I-140 or I-130 for an immediate relative petition, which could include a new priority date or visa classification. Therefore, it is possible to reverse the principal/derivative classification and process and application sooner based on the spouse's priority date or classification. Exceptions are found in cases involving automatic revocation of employment-based petitions, fraud, or the denial of the original I-140 petition. If the exceptions do not apply to your case, then read on.

Guidelines: How to Transfer an Adjustment Application
There is no specific form for requesting a transfer of adjustment, but it must be done in writing. You do not need to pay a new fee or file a new I-485 application. If USCIS erroneously advises you that a new fee is required, you may obtain a fee refund. To make your request, you should provide clear information to the Service Center so it can make a determination that an earlier priority date or different visa classification can be applied to your pending adjustment (I-485) application. You must be able to demonstrate that you continuously maintained eligibility for the application originally filed. This is important in the section 245(c) and 245(k) interplay.

Continue reading "Adjustment (I-485) Backlog: Tips to Dig Out of the "Blizzard of I-485"" »

If you have filed for a green card (I-485) and submitted a request for work authorization (I-765) and advanced parole travel document (I-131), and you must travel before your I-131 can be adjudicated in the normal processing time, you can request expedited processing of the I-131. This article addresses those expedited I-131 procedures:

You MUST Make a Request
Typically, anyone who files Form I-485 in the U.S. also files Forms I-765 and I-131 concurrently with the Form I-485. If you have found that you must travel before your Advanced Parole Travel Document Form I-131 can be adjudicated within normal processing times, you can call the USCIS National Customer Service Center (NCSC) or make an info pass appointment at your local field office. Here in Columbus, Ohio, infopass appointments are simple to make and are usually scheduled within 3-5 days.

Making the Expedited Advanced Parole Request with the USCIS Field Office
Once you make an infopass appointment at the local field office, that office will determine whether you have has your fingerprints taken at an Application Support Center (ASC). If you haven't yet had your biometrics, the field office will schedule a walk-in appointment. The field office will then notify the office where the I-131 Travel Document/Request for Advanced Parole is pending, either the service center or the National Benefits Center ("NBC"), and request expedited handling. If the Field Office Director grants the request, he or she will inform the center that he or she has authorized expedited handling of the application and that the requisite biometrics have been captured.

Making the Expedited Advanced Parole Request Contact USCIS at 1-800-375-5283
If you contact the NCSC, the customer support representative will make a "service request" and forward the expedite request to the center having jurisdiction over the application. If the center determines that adjudication of the application should be expedited, it will determine whether you have already been to the ASC for biometric collection and, if not, schedule a walk-in appointment. You can contact both the NCSC and schedule an infopass appointment to make a request.

Continue reading "Expedited Advanced Parole Travel Document Requests (Form I-131)" »

As the Democrats and Republicans of congress continue to negotiate a compromise to the federal budget that is set to expire Friday, April 6th, 2011 at midnight, immigration attorneys in Columbus, Ohio have turned their attention to how a government shutdown will affect the normal adjudication of visas. Visa applications, including employment based I-140 and H-1B petitions as well as family based petitions including I-130 and I-485 applications, filed in the United States are usually adjudicated at one of the USCIS service centers throughout the country. These service centers are staffed by immigration officers who adjudicate visa applications. These immigration officers are employees of the federal government and could be furloughed if the federal government shuts down for lack of congressional funding.

Historically, government shutdowns have resulted in delays for visa adjudication. The reason for the potential delay is based upon the wording of the federal Antideficiency Act. This law states that in the event of a governmental shutdown the only governmental employees that will be permitted to continue to carry out their work will be employees who prevent or respond to "emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property." The law goes on to state that "ongoing, regular functions of government the suspension of which would not imminently threaten the safety of human life or the protection of property" are not to continue their operations during a shutdown. Officers who adjudicate visas at the service centers will most likely not be deemed essential to the protection of safety or property and will be furloughed. With no-one to adjudicate visas, visa applications will be backlogged to some extent. However, other aspects of United States immigration policy will continue to be enforced. Customs and border patrol officials, for example, should remain active.

While the chance of a government shutdown is small, it remains a definite possibility. Also, delays in US postal service operations could occur. Therefore, foreign nationals and attorneys should be cognizant of the potential for delays in the adjudication and delivery of visa petitions and applications to the USCIS service centers.

Continue reading "Government Shutdown Could Effect Visa Adjudications" »

This article is the second installment following up and providing a conclusion to the first segment which provides the final techniques utilized by the Columbus Immigration Lawyers at The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates regarding the preparation of a Motion to Reopen/Reconsider or Request for Evidence (RFE) responses. Again this article focuses on the RFE response, but its techniques are applicable to any written brief or statement made in response to USCIS.

Critique the Request for Evidence Itself
A major component of drafting the response to an RFE is the need to critique the request itself. The immigration officer may not have developed the facts in a complete and accurate manner. It is your job to comprehensively develop those facts (often by use of affidavits). By showing inconsistencies and other problems with the facts, as developed by the immigration officer, you begin to establish credibility to your case. The Immigration Lawyers at The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates are very experienced at analyzing the facts and respectfully presenting them correctly to the USCIS in an RFE response.

Secondly, you must scrutinize the quality and quantity of the legal research conducted by the immigration officer. Determine if the officer identified all the relevant legal authority. Often times, RFE's will present "biolerplate" legal authority. Did the immigration officer properly interpret the law? Did the officer correctly apply the law to the issue and the facts in the case at hand? Did the officer include legal authorities in the RFE, but not use them in the analysis or argument? Don't leave these questions unanswered. If there are flaws in the legal research conducted by the immigration officer, or flaws in the ways by which the officer cited legal authorities, point it out.

Finally, test the immigration officer's arguments. Has the officer adequately connected the issues with the facts and law? Have convincing analogies been developed by the officer? Has the officer adequately answered the questions asked? If there are flaws in the officer's arguments, point them out.

Revise, Revise, Revise....then Revise One More Time!
As Justice Louis Brandeis stated: "There is no such thing as good writing. There is only good rewriting." Justice Brandeis often revised his writing 15 or more times before he was satisfied. While this is obviously extreme, it is suggested that you revise your writing at least three times, more if time and money permit. Excessive use of passive voice, timid phrasing, vague words and other examples of poor writing are often found in first drafts. The lawyers at The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates spend the time to make sure your case is prepared with great diligence to grammer, form, substance and style.

As this article demonstrates, regardless of the inherent strengths or weaknesses of a given case, there is much that can be achieved by mastering the art of preparing a successful RFE response, Motion to Reopen/Reconsider brief or appeal. Our lawyers know this more than anyone!

Continue reading "Drafting a Motion to Reopen/Reconsider or Request for Evidence Response to USCIS: Proven Techniques for Success (Part 2)" »

USCIS provides minimal guidance regarding the preparation of a Motion to Reopen/Reconsider or Request for Evidence (RFE) response. Unlike other USCIS procedures, CIS does not require the completion of a form when filing an RFE response. This little guidance provides a wide range of possibile methods to responding to the RFE. This article presents techniques that the Columbus Immigration Lawyers at The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates have implemented for preparing a successful responses to USCIS and focuses on the brief in support of an RFE response.

Prepare a Roadmap: Presentation Matters
While this might sound obvious, the most important element of the RFE response is drafting the response itself. Don't spend all your time meeting with the client, gathering facts and conducting legal research. Too often, not enough time is spent on planning and presentation. Remember, an RFE has a strict deadline that often poses a tight timetable to prepare the supporting documentation and legal arguments. As the saying goes, "plan the work; work the plan." This is an axiom the lawyers at The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates live by. You must leave sufficient time to prepare a polished product. Preparing a polished written RFE response does not simply happen. It requires good planning, organization and writing.

Focus on the Facts: Don't Drive from Boston to Chicago via Nashville!
Regardless of what factual informaiton you decide to present, you must determine the order in which to present the facts. Consider the following illustration: If you decide to drive from Boston to Chicago, it is unlikely you would drive first to Baltimore, then to Nashville and finally to Chicago, unless of course time and money were of no concern. Likewise, the immigration officer will expect to see some logical order to the presentation of the facts in your RFE response letter. Don't confuse the Immigration officer by driving from Boston to Chicago via Nashville!

There are various approaches for ordering the presentation of the facts: chronological, biographical (e.g., describing key individuals along with facts associated with them), or transactional. Employ whatever approach you use consistantly throughout the RFE response. Your facts should be presented persuasively without being argumentative. Facts, not opinions, will convince the USCIS officer to look favorably upon your client's case.

Continue reading "Drafting a Motion to Reopen/Reconsider or Request for Evidence Response to USCIS: Proven Techniques for Success (Part 1)" »

USCIS has implemented a new fee schedule. To access the new fee schedule, The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates directs you to visit the USCIS website here.

After passing through the House of Represenatives, the Senate has failed to deliver on passing the bipartisan DREAM Act. The DREAM Act stands for the Development, Relief and Education of Alien Minors and was drafted to provide a conditional pathway to legal permanent residence for certain unauthorized youth who, as children, were brought to the U.S. illegally if they can provide that they completed high school, have good moral character and complete at least two years of higher education or serve for at least two years in the U.S. military.

It appeared to all parties who have monitored this bill that the inability to pass the DREAM Act into law was chiefly due to politics. This bill can be seen as a litmus test for greater reform which worries and frustrates immigration practitioners. There is still hope for furtuer legislation however as interested parties such as the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and others will continue its efforts to lobby for the law's passage because they see the Senate's failure as nothing more than politics

The bill provides a path for those illegal children who came to the U.S. involuntarily and are here illegally through no fault of their own. The children who would have benefited under the DREAM Act would help the American economy by being educated in institutions of secondary education and/or by serving the U.S. armed forces. By not passing the bill, the U.S. Senate is basically saying that it does not want to deal with immigration issues, even logical ones, which should seem to spell doom for any Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the near future.

The Department of Justice announced that it has awarded $720,321 in grants to 13 organizations throughout the country to conduct public education programs for workers and employers about federal protections against immigration-related job discrimination. The grants range from $43,664 to $88,000, and are awarded by the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices. Recipients will assist discrimination victims; conduct seminars for workers, employers and immigration service providers; and place advertisements in local communities through mainstream and ethnic media to educate workers and employers about their rights.