Immigration Visa Lawyer Blog

A water polo team assembled in the seemingly least likely of places, Afghanistan, suffered a defeat last month when the U.S. Embassy in Kabul denied visas to team members to come to California for training. The team plans to continue training at home, and they will be getting assistance from American and German coaches, who plan to go there in May to train the players and recruit new ones. Supporters of the team hope that, over time, U.S. immigration officials may be persuaded to grant visas to the players.

The water polo team is the brainchild of Marine Warrant Officer Jeremy Piasecki, who both played and coached the sport in California. He held tryouts for a team in 2008 when he discovered an abandoned swimming pool at an Afghan military base near Kabul. He recruited from the Afghan army, and after some training he has built up a team of several dozen players. Several years of fundraising led to their request for visas to spend three months training in the U.S. The team faced difficulties beyond training and fundraising. Three players died in combat, and another stepped on a land mine while guarding the pool. The entire country reportedly only has thirteen swimming pools.

The team had hoped to arrive in southern California on Christmas day. The U.S. Embassy, however, denied their visa applications in mid-December, citing concerns that the players would not leave when the visas expired and would remain in the country illegally. Media coverage does not specify which type of visa the players sought. The embassy did grant a visa to the one female player, who will learn about coaching and train with women's college players. Her plan is to return home to form Afghanistan's first national women's team.

Since the men's team cannot come to the United States to train, the trainers are going to them. The team announced in mid-January that it would send a group of coaches from the United States and Germany to Afghanistan from May through July. They will work with the current team, recruit new players for the team, and work on building a new "grass roots water polo team" in Kabul. Team leaders hope that this approach will convince U.S, officials of team members' intentions, and that they will therefore grant a future visa request.

Continue reading "Afghan Water Polo Players Denied Visas, but Continue to Train" »

Advocates for fair and reasonable treatment of immigrants had cause to celebrate last month in Arizona. Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been a controversial figure in the national immigration debate for some time, but his office received a blow from the federal government last month after a report announced evidence of discriminatory and even unconstitutional conduct. The Department of Justice (DOJ) notified the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) on December 15, 2011 that it had to reach a voluntary agreement to cease practices of racial profiling and discrimination against Spanish-speaking detainees, or it would face a lawsuit for violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) moved much more quickly, almost immediately revoking MCSO's authority to screen the immigration status of inmates in the county jails. Federal immigration authorities will handle that task for now.

Arpaio has been the subject of multiple investigations and inquiries in recent years, many directly related to how the MCSO handles immigration investigations and treats suspected undocumented immigrants. The DOJ began an investigation several years ago into allegations of discrimination and racial profiling, culminating in its December 2011 announcement. During the investigation, the DOJ threatened to sue the MCSO to compel its cooperation. Numerous lawsuits by groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and by individuals detained by the MCSO allege discriminatory or abusive acts.

A 2011 lawsuit, as one example, alleges that the MCSO kept a woman shackled during and after her delivery of a child by Caesarean section, causing injury and violating her rights. Authorities may have also violated state policies against shackling women in labor. The alleged incident occurred in 2009 after she had pleaded guilty to a forgery-related offense. She claims that guards at the jail ignored her cries for help because she was speaking Spanish. She had to find someone to translate for her.

The decision by DHS means that MCSO will have have full access to federal immigration databases under the Secure Communities program. Secure Communities is a program spearheaded by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency of DHS, allowing local law enforcement to cooperate more easily with federal immigration officials by sharing information regarding detainees' immigration status and criminal records. The program is part of a policy of the Obama administration to focus immigration enforcement efforts on individuals with criminal records and those who pose a clear threat to public safety or national security.

Continue reading "Controversial Arizona Sheriff Stripped of Authority to Conduct Immigration Screening" »

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) recently announced that it is extending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations for Nicaragua and Honduras for 18 months. TPS statuses for these countries will be effective through July 5, 2013. The agency published new Federal Register notices on November 4 offering guidance on eligibility to re-register, fees, and filing procedures.

TPS is a temporary immigration status granted to eligible nationals of certain designated countries. It is available to people already present in the United States, not as a means of entering the country. Countries selected for TPS usually have some condition making it unsafe for people to return, such as a natural disaster or armed conflict. Since 2003, the Secretary of Homeland Security has had authority to designate countries for TPS and to grant, extend, and terminate TPS designations. USCIS, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), has responsibility for administering the program.

TPS beneficiaries may remain in the country and obtain authorization for employment while their TPS status is in effect. Once TPS status expires, they revert to whatever immigration status they had previously. A person present in the U.S. illegally might be able to remain under a TPS designation, but would have no further benefit once the TPS designation expired. A TPS designation cannot, in and of itself, lead to a green card or some other permanent benefit.

USCIS currently administers TPS designations for nationals of six countries: El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Haiti, Somalia, and Sudan. Guatemala and Pakistan have requested TPS designations. Both Honduras and Nicaragua were selected for inclusion in the TPS program because of the devastation to the region by Hurricane Mitch in 1998, which killed at least 11,000 people and caused an estimated $6.2 billion in damage. In extending TPS for Honduras, DHS noted that "[t]here continues to be a substantial, but temporary, disruption of living conditions in Honduras resulting from Hurricane Mitch, and Honduras remains unable, temporarily, to handle adequately the return of its nationals." It used similar language for Nicaragua.

Continue reading "USCIS Grants 18-Month Extension on Temporary Protected Status for Nicaragua and Honduras" »

An immigration judge in Ohio has ordered the deportation of a dance troupe member after the group was stopped by police passing through the state on their way to Joliet, Illinois from New York. Five members of an Aztec dance group were on their way to a dance ceremony on October 21 when they were pulled over by police in Ohio, as reported by Fox News Latino. Four members of the group are from Mexico and one is from Guatemala. All five are undocumented. When police discovered their immigration status, they turned them over to Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE). Their case illustrates some of the problems faced by entertainers seeking to come to or stay in the United States.

The judge's order met with alarm in New York, where the dance group is well-known in the arts scene. Supporters in New York raised around $3,000 for the members' legal defense, and a group in Chicago has formed to help the members' families.

Four members of the group were released on bail. Of those four, two have until December to voluntarily depart the country, and two have another court date. Only one, Joel Almeida Gonzalez, was ordered deported right away. According to the judge's order, he is to be returned to Mexico on November 8.

A representative of a dance group in Chicago who is familiar with the five dancers, Roberto Ferreyra of Nahui Ollin, stated that the case demonstrates the need for a change in immigration law that would allow productive immigrants to remain in the country. "There should be a way that people who contribute to this country can work," he said. Currently, immigration law does not have a specific procedure for legal immigration of artists, unless they come on an employment-based petition. Given that entertainers and artists rarely have full-time, long-term employment with a single company or organization, this may not be a viable alternative for most. Options available specifically to artists include the "O" or "P" visa, nonimmigrant visas available to artists visiting for specific events. They only apply to temporary visits and do not, by themselves, lead to any permanent immigrant status. They also require a sponsor in the U.S. to file the petition, and they have a large number of criteria that a prospective visitor must meet.

Continue reading "Judge Orders Deportation of Undocumented Dancer Passing Through Ohio" »

A unanimous City Commission voted on October 5, 2011 to make Dayton, Ohio an "immigrant-friendly city." The "Welcome Dayton" plan aims to make the city open and welcoming to all people, regardless of citizenship. Mayor Gary Leitzell states that the plan "focuses on making our community one that treats all people kindly, fairly and humanely." The plan will involve immigrants in an effort to reverse the city's economic downturn by supporting business development by immigrants, involving immigrants in government and the community, and working to reduce language barriers.

Supporters of the proposal cited a study by University of Dayton sociology professor Jamie Longazel on the effect of a crackdown on immigration in Hazelton, Pennsylvania. Both cities suffer from a decaying urban center and a shortage of jobs, but Hazelton's effort drove away many people who were helping grow the local economy. Professor Longazel said that Dayton has a chance to do something different which should help the city's economy grow.

The measure's supporters also make clear that the word "immigrant" is not synonymous with "illegal immigrant." Critics expressed concern that the plan could open the door, so to speak, to settlement of undocumented immigrants in the city in greater numbers. Responding to concerns about possibly harboring immigrants without legal status, the mayor said: "If you are an illegal immigrant, you will be subjected to the same federal laws as anyone else." Police Chief Richard Biehl noted studies showing that crime and recidivism rates among illegal immigrants are no higher than the general population.

Dayton's approach of leaving enforcement of immigration laws to federal officials is in marked contrast to policies adopted elsewhere in the country, particularly in states like Arizona and Alabama. Laws passed in those states often require state and local law enforcement to make determinations as to a person's immigration status. The U.S. Constitution gives authority over immigration to the federal government, which enforces its laws through agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and, formerly, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Local law enforcement often lacks training in the complex system of statuses and rights in the immigration system. Even a person who does not have documentation on their person may still have a legal right to be present in the U.S., and local law enforcement does not have the authority to make any sort of final determination.

Continue reading "Dayton, Ohio Proclaims Itself Immigrant-Friendly" »

A federal court of appeals blocked some parts of Alabama's controversial new immigration law last week, but much of the law remains in effect. While this law only applies in the state of Alabama, it has influenced lawmakers and immigration reformers all over the country. Alabama's law pits the federal government, which has authority over immigration matters under the U.S. Constitution, against a state government seeking its own reform. The outcome of this dispute, and the enactment and enforcement of the Alabama law, will have nationwide impact on immigration matters.

The law affects many aspects of government operations, including law enforcement, education, and the civil court system. It also saddles Alabama law enforcement with a duty to check people's immigration statuses, and at times to determine whether a person is present in the United States legally. As any immigration attorney knows, this is a difficult determination to make, and law enforcement without specialized training in immigration laws may not be in the best position to do so. The Obama administration took Alabama to court to challenge its legal ability to legislate immigration matters, arguing that the Constitution grants that power exclusively to the federal government. A ruling from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta last week gave partial victories to each side of the dispute.

The court's ruling blocks some of the law's more controversial provisions, but leaves many more in place. The court will review the constitutional questions presented in the case and make a more thorough ruling later. The court blocked the section requiring state officials to check the immigration status of public school students. It also blocked a provision creating a misdemeanor offense for immigrants who willfully fail "to complete or carry an alien registration card," something critics described as allowing law enforcement to demand papers from people they suspect of being undocumented, with few guidelines on how to make that determination.

Provisions of the law remaining in force include one that requires law enforcement, during lawful stops or arrests, to try to determine a person's immigration status if they suspect the person is undocumented. Another provision still in force bars state courts from enforcing contracts that involve undocumented immigrants, and another makes it a felony for undocumented immigrants to enter into "business transactions" in the state. This last provision may make it illegal for someone to apply for a driver's license or even to hook up utility services.

Continue reading "Appeals Court Blocks Portions of Controversial Alabama Immigration Law" »

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 is the second part of a two-part B-1 "Business Visa" article. Please find Part 1 here. To reiterate Part 1, the B-1 visa allows a visitor to temporarily come to the U.S. to conduct business on behalf of an overseas employer. Again, this article calls a B-1 visa the "business visa." This article provides more substantive guidance in obtaining the B-1 "Business Visa."

Bona Fide Nonimmigrant Intent
To obtain the B-1 business visa, you must have bona fide nonimmigrant intent. Nonimmigrant is simply the legal term for the word "temporary." Bona fide nonimmigrant intent is shown through providing the consulate officer with the following:

1. Evidence that you maintain a foreign residence
2. Intent to leave the US
3. Permission to enter a foreign country at end of trip
4. Adequate financial arrangements to travel to, sojourn in, and depart from the US

Generally, consulates scrutinize B-1 cases differently depending on whether you have a large, recognizable employer, or a small, perhaps self-owned business. I will discuss the different approaches for presenting evidence vis-a-vis whether you are conducting business on behalf of a large or small business.

Large Well-Known Employers
The B-1 business visa can be obtained by showing the consulate officer a letter from the large well known company stating the reason for the business trip, setting forth a legitimate business activity. The letter must also include the specifics of the trip, including the required period of stay in the U.S., confirmation of travel arrangements and accommodations, an itinerary, and other documentation appropriate to the business activity being conducted. Finally, the letter must include an affirmation that the business employee's travel expenses and means of support during the trip will be covered by the employer.

For example, if a business trip is meant to finalize negotiations on a sales contract in the U.S., include letters from the other party establishing the meeting dates for the negotiations and submit your hotel accommodations itinerary and plane ticket information. If this is done, the consulate officer will certainly find bona-fide nonimmigrant intent.

Small Businesses or Self-Employed Business Owners
Smaller companies must make a more detailed showing of the above-mentioned "bona fide nonimmigrant" intent factors. Financial arrangements must be adequate to defray expenses. This is shown by providing the officer with a round trip ticket or hotel accommodations. You must also have specific and realistic plans. This is shown by submitting travel plans and hotel accommodations, a detailed itinerary to demonstrate purpose of trip. If you are coming to the United States for training, you must submit the training schedule. The time period must be consistent with the stated purpose of the trip. In other words, if you are telling the consulate officer you are coming here for a two-week contract negotiation, you should not seek six months of B-1 visa time in the U.S. You must match the period with stated purpose. Finally, you must show permanent employment or business connections with the home country to ensure his return home.

Continue reading "How to Visit the U.S. with a Visitor (B-1) Visa to Conduct Business on Behalf of Overseas Employer (Part 2) " »

The B-1 visa allows a visitor to temporarily visit the United States for business. For the purposes of this article, I will call the business B-1 visa a "business visa." This article provides general information and some easy-to-follow steps in obtaining the B-1 "Business Visa." It is part one of a two-part series. Please find Part 2 here.

The B-1 "Business Visa" - Not an Easy Visa!
While it may seem simple at first blush, obtaining a business visa under the B visa category poses traps for the unwary and involves providing a very particular kind of evidence in many cases. This is chiefly due to the fact that a business visa absolutely cannot involve employment in the United States, which seems contradictory to those who are not well-versed in immigration law and procedure. The lawyers at The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates have been successfully helping individuals obtain the B-1 business visa for almost two decades. Contact our firm today for a consultation.

The B-1 "Business Visa" General Requirements
There are five general requirements that the Department of State has specified for issuance of a B-1 business visa. In order to be classified under the B-1 guidelines, you must be entering the U.S. for a limited duration. Second, you must intend to depart the U.S. when your business activity is complete. Third, you have to maintain a foreign permanent residence while you are in the U.S. Fourth, you must have adequate financial arrangements to travel to, sojourn in, and depart from the U.S. This is typically shown by either a round trip ticket or proof of hotel accommodations. Finally, you must be engaged solely in legitimate activities relating to your business or pleasure.

Conducting Business on Behalf of an Overseas Employer
The B nonimmigrant visa category covers alien visitors for business (B-1) and pleasure (B-2). The business visa provides an excellent way for an overseas company to send an employee to the United States for a legitimate business activity. It is often utilized in lieu of the H-3 Visa for a number of reasons, speed being a very good one. A key condition of the B visa category is that the alien cannot engage in gainful employment (labor for hire) in the U.S. A crucial factor is whether the alien will be paid a salary from a U.S. employer or otherwise engage in activity here that results in payment to the alien of fee for services. If so, the B-1 business visa will not be approvable.

Continue reading "How to Visit the U.S. with a Visitor (B-1) Visa to Conduct Business on Behalf of Overseas Employer (Part 1) " »

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)" »

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.

This question has been raised by a few of our clients. If you have not turned in your I-94 upon departure, the US will have no record of your departure. This means, according to the US, you are still in the country because your departure was not recorded properly. This article offers assistance to correct this problem.

Ooops, I did not return my I-94 upon Departure
If you leave the country and the CBP (Customs and Border Patrol) officer forgets to collect your I-94, you will be ok if you left by airplane or a cruise ship. Your departure will be automatically verified. So, you do not need to contact the U.S. officials regarding your exit. To be safe, hold on to your outbound boarding pass. This will help CBP officials next time you enter the U.S. andit will expedite the re-entry process so you do not have to explain the error.

However, if you left the U.S. by crossing the boarder on foot or a private plane, you need to take the following actions so that the U.S. government can properly track your exit. The reason for this is that if you don't validate your exit from the U.S., or if you cannot reasonably prove you departed within the time frame given to you when you entered, the next time you apply for admission to the United States, the CBP officer presumes you stayed in the country past your authorized period of stay indicated on the I-94 arrival record. This can cause CBP to summarily dismiss you from the country. Or if you applied for a visa at a U.S. consulate abroad, it may cause CBP to cancel the visa at the border causing you to have to return home and do the process all over again! If you leave on foot or by private plane and did not turn in your I-94, then the following guidelines will govern what steps you need to take.

Entered under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP)
You must register your exit if you entered pursuant to the VWP. This is because if your I-94 was not taken by a CBP officer when you left, and you entered under the VWP you cannot re-enter the U.S. unless you obtain a visa at a consulate abroad. This is because under the Visa Waiver Program, foreign nationals who remain beyond their authorized stay in the U.S. cannot reenter the U.S. in the future without obtaining a visa from a U.S. Consulate. This is applicable to those foreign nationals who leave the U.S. by land through Canada or Mexico to catch an onward flight home. If you do not register your exit within a reasonable time and you try to re-enter the U.S., the CBP officer will very likely order your immediate return home. Do not worry if you are a VWP visitor and you left the U.S. by a commercial aircraft or cruise ship.

Registering your Exit
To register your exit, first send your I-94 departure record together with any evidence that proves you left the United States to:

DHS - CBP SBU 1084 South Laurel Road London, KY 40744

You do not want to mail your I-94 to any U.S. consulate abroad or to the CBP. Simply mail it to the above address and your information will be updated. Mail the I-94 with as much of the information of your exit as possible. CBP will consider any of the following:

• If you flew home from Canada or Mexico, send the boarding passes from those countries
• Send copies of all the pages of your passport including the departure stamp indicating your entry to another country
• Pay stubs from your employer to show you worked in another country after you left.
• Bank statements showing transactions in another country after you left the United States.
• Any school records showing you attended school in another country after you left the United States, and
• Other such evidence showing that you were living abroad after you left the United States.

Continue reading "Columbus Immigration Lawyer: What happens if I left the U.S. and did not return my I-94 (Departure Record) to CBP?" »

In a well reasoned order handed down by Judge Susan R. Bolton of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, the most unreasonable, atrocious and unconstitutional aspects of Arizona's Senate Bill 1070 were blocked, or rather, enjoined from taking effect with the remainder of the legislation on July 29, 2010. In what almost certainly will set the stage for an appeals process culminating in review of state government's power to supplement federal law in the area of immigration, Arizona has appealed this ruling to the United States Circuit Court for the Ninth Circuit. If the Ninth Circuit rules on the matter before the end of the year, the case could be heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in its next session, and possibly decided within a year from now.

While the most egregious aspects of SB1070 have been strategically excised from the whole of the bill by the order of Judge Bolton, the bill ultimately stands and the remaining portions went into effect July 29, 2010. Because the process for enjoining and appealing this bill as well as its ramifications may not be entirely clear, I have briefly summarized the judge's legal opinion and the effects that this ruling has on SB1070 in board terms. As a reminder, this attorney and The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates has offered the following aspects of Arizona law for the purposes of public discussion and discourse only. This lawyer does not suggest nor insinuate that he is licensed practice civil or criminal law in the state of Arizona.

Summary

Senate Bill 1070 took effect in Arizona on July 29, 2010. Judge Susan Bolton only blocked certain parts of the bill from taking effect with the rest of the bill. Such a legal challenge and outcome was fully anticipated by the drafters of SB1070, who made certain aspects of the bill severable, or able to be separated, without destroying the entire bill. The US Department of Justice, the adversary to SB1070 in this instance, specifically chose certain aspects of the bill to challenge, leaving other aspects unopposed. Some of the most important aspects of SB1070 that remain in effect or fully enforceable by officers in Arizona are as follows:

• Provision allowing residents of the state to sue any state official or agency that restricts enforcement of federal immigration law to any extent less than the maximum allowed by federal law;
• Creating a crime for stopping a vehicle to pick up day laborers if the stopping creates an impediment to normal movement of traffic;
• Creating crimes for intentionally or knowingly employing unauthorized aliens; and
• Transporting or encouraging unlawfully present aliens to come to Arizona.

Interestingly, law enforcement officers and public employees are caught in a catch 22 situation regarding their role in Arizona's immigration scheme. Specifically, all agencies of the State of Arizona are required to carry out federal law in regard to federal immigration rules or risk being sued. However, it is reasonable to believe that most employees of the state of Arizona are not experts in Federal Immigration law, leaving such agencies and employees potentially open to suit for actions they do not know are unlawful.

The following are aspects of the bill that have been enjoined, or stopped from enforcement, by the federal court:

• Requirement that under reasonable suspicion of unlawful presence in the United States, that police officers make a reasonable efforts to ascertain the immigration status of the person, and ascertain the immigration status of a person upon release from arrest;
• Creation of a crime for failure to apply for or carry immigration papers;
• Create a crime for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for or perform work; and
• Authorize the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable (formerly called deportable) from the United States.

Despite the injunction of this law, there are aspects of the enjoined portions of SB1070 that seem to have overlapping effects with current law enforcement procedure in Arizona. Sheriff Arpaio of Maricopa County (the Phoenix metro area) of Arizona is still conducting his "sweeps" pulling over cars for minor violations and then taking the opportunity to lead the detained person down a path of questioning to eventual disclosure of his or her immigration status. While it is unclear where to draw the lines between enforceable state law and unenforceable enjoined provisions of SB1070, what is clear is that violating a federal injunction is grounds for a charge of contempt of court. In the spirit of SB1070, it is only just that such a person violating an order handed down by a federal judge should be prosecuted to the full extent of the federal law.

Discussion of the Enjoined Sections of SB1070

The legal ruing handed down by the federal court in this case is what is known as a preliminary injunction. This order stops conduct from being carried out as requested by the moving party from occurring while the merits of the case have yet to be decided, i.e. the case has not yet gone to trial. This is essentially a temporary stop. The ruling on a temporary injunction may be appealed to the next highest court. This is the action that the State of Arizona has taken, asking the Ninth Circuit, the court above the US District Court for Arizona, to hear its argument.

Judge Bolton took the most appropriate action by only enjoining or blocking the aspects of the bill that were likely be won by the US Department of justice at trial, while letting other aspects of the law go into effect. The drafters of SB1070 intentionally wrote the bill to allow this type of severability, or the ability for sections of the law to be blocked without destroying the entire bill. As a consequence, Judge Bolton has essentially narrowed the issues that will be argues at the next level to the issues below.

Continue reading "The Most Appalling and Unconstitutional Aspects of Arizona's SB1070 Blocked by Federal Court" »