Archive for the ‘Soap Box’ Category

Obama’s Aunt Zeituni Onyango Granted Asylum

Tuesday, May 18th, 2010

President Obama’s African aunt has been granted asylum to stay in the United States, the Associated Press reports.

Zeituni Onyango, the half-sister of Mr. Obama’s late father, moved from Kenya to the United States in 2000. She first applied for asylum in 2002, citing violence in Kenya, according to the AP. Onyango’s request was rejected in 2004, but she stayed in the country, living in public housing in Boston.

When it was reported in 2008 that Onyango was possibly in the country illegally, Mr. Obama said he had no knowledge of her status.

Onyango testified on her own behalf in U.S. Immigration Court in Boston earlier this year. Her attorney’s announced that she was granted asylum in Cleveland today, the AP reports.

Immigration status of military wives makes deployments even harder.

Monday, May 10th, 2010

Three days ago the New York Times presented a well written article about Lt. Kenneth Tenebro and his family’s immigration problems.  A military member’s family is always on their mind when deployed.  The additional worry about immigration requirements and the need to appear at interviews only adds to the stress.  I knew a young sergeant once, who was married to a very nice young lady from another country.  They had done everything they could to follow the immigration laws.  While the young sergeant was deployed to the middle east as part of Desert Shield/Desert Storm his wife was put in deportation.  Her conditional status was revoked because the young sergeant failed to appear at the interview, because he was deployed overseas.   This situation had a happy ending through the quick work of an attorney, the sergeant’s father.  The immigration court was notified of the situation and the case was terminated.  I was the young sergeant, my wife is now a U.S. citizen and we have been married for more than twenty years.
Because of my family’s experiences with immigration as a military member, my office has volunteered to be part of AILA’s military assistance program.  In addition to our immigration assistance we have started a nonprofit company to provide information regarding military rights and benefits to those who intend to serve, those who are serving and those who have served.  This site can be found at www.militarycop.com

Immigration Status of Army Spouses Often Leads to Snags
By JULIA PRESTON for the New York Times
Lt. Kenneth Tenebro enlisted in the armed forces after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, signing up even before he became an American citizen.

He served one tour of duty in Iraq, dodging roadside bombs, and he would like to do another. But throughout that first mission, he harbored a fear he did not share with anyone in the military. Lieutenant Tenebro worried that his wife, Wilma, back home in New York with their infant daughter, would be deported.

Wilma, who like her husband was born in the Philippines, is an illegal immigrant.

“That was our fear all the time,” Lieutenant Tenebro said. When he called home, “She often cried about it,” he said. “Like, hey, what’s going to happen? Where will I leave our daughter?”

Immigration lawyers and Department of Homeland Security officials say that many thousands of people in the military have spouses or close relatives who are illegal immigrants. Many of those service members have fought to gain legal status for their family members — only to hit a legal dead end created in 1996, when Congress last made major revisions to the immigration laws.

Today the issue is not only personal. “It is an issue of readiness for the American armed forces,” says Representative Zoe Lofgren, the Democrat from California who leads the House subcommittee on immigration. “We have many Americans who are afraid to deploy.”

Lieutenant Tenebro would like to make a career in the military, including new missions to Iraq or Afghanistan, but for now he is not stepping forward for an overseas deployment. “Our situation has kept me at bay because of the constant worry that something might happen to my family while I am away,” he said.

With the debate over illegal immigration sharpening after a tough law passed in Arizona, immigration lawyers said the Tenebros’ case illustrates legal obstacles that have stopped immigrants from becoming legal even when they could qualify.

“We have made it impossible for many illegal immigrants to become legal,” said Charles Kuck, an immigration lawyer in Atlanta who was 2009 president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the national bar.

Many lawmakers say that existing penalties have helped curb illegal immigration and, if anything, should be increased.

Like Lieutenant Tenebro, many soldiers, anticipating rebuke and possibly damage to their careers, do not reveal to others in the military their family ties to immigrants here illegally.

“You will always hear the jokes about those who crossed the border,” Lieutenant Tenebro said. “Even though we think we did everything legally possible, it’s just not knowing what other people will think. Maybe they will find ways to hit you, without knowing the whole facts.”

Lieutenant Tenebro, 35, an Army officer now stationed at Fort Dix, N.J., said he decided to tell his story publicly for the first time after lawyers advised Mrs. Tenebro that she had little hope of being approved to remain here as a legal resident without a change in immigration law. He risks drawing the attention of his commanders and the immigration authorities to his wife’s illegal status.

Mrs. Tenebro is snagged on a statute, notorious among immigration lawyers, that makes it virtually impossible for her to become a legal resident without first leaving the United States and staying away for 10 years.

Because of the Catch-22, the severe penalty applies to Mrs. Tenebro even though she is the wife of an American citizen who is also an active duty serviceman. Lieutenant Tenebro, who was never in the United States illegally, was naturalized in 2003.

The legal boomerang that snared her and many others was created in 1996, when Congress imposed automatic restrictions on illegal immigrants, barring them from returning for periods of 3 to 10 years after they leave the country, regardless of whether they were deported or left voluntarily. However, in many cases the law also requires immigrants who are approved for legal documents to complete their paperwork at American consulates in their home countries.

The Tenebros’ immigration troubles began with a moonstruck romance. They met one weekend five years ago while Wilma was on vacation in New York at the end of a job as a housekeeper on a cruise ship. She did not return to the Philippines, and eventually she overstayed her visa.

Love led to marriage, and their daughter, who is now 3, and an expensive battle to gain legal status for Mrs. Tenebro, 37.

In 2008, Citizenship and Immigration Services, the federal agency, gave Mrs. Tenebro approval to become a legal permanent resident, as the spouse of an American citizen. In general, immigration law is intended to make it easy for foreigners who marry citizens to become legal residents.

But because of the particular visa she overstayed — known as a crewman’s visa — she is required to finish the paperwork for her green card in the Philippines. Every one of a string of lawyers the couple consulted — $7,000 in fees so far — gave them the same bad news: Even though Mrs. Tenebro has qualified for a green card, if she leaves the United States to get it, she will automatically trigger the legal bar that will block her from returning for 10 years.

In rare circumstances of severe hardship, consular officials have the authority to grant waivers allowing spouses to return here more quickly. But officials in Manila are known among lawyers for being especially reluctant to give waivers.

For his wife, Lieutenant Tenebro said, the visa offered in Manila is “like the cheese in a mousetrap. It’s like, hey, come and get it! And then, swat! They’ll get you.”

One lawyer after another suggested the same option, he said: “Wait until there is a change in the language of the law.”

Susan Timmons, who runs the military assistance program for the immigration lawyers association, said there was little lawyers could do in such cases.

“If you do try to follow the law, you run into a serious problem and you won’t be able to fix your situation,” Ms. Timmons said. Her program has received hundreds of similar cases from American soldiers, she said.

Lieutenant Tenebro said he and his wife believed they were following the rules by prolonging their courtship and waiting for several months after their marriage in February 2007 to file for her immigration papers, so it would be clear that their marriage was not fake.

They remember the first time a lawyer explained the decade-long separation they could be facing. “I didn’t want to show emotion, but it was like shock,” Mrs. Tenebro said. “I was thinking, to be away from my family is hard.”

Representative Lofgren and Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, have proposed bills that would make it easier for spouses and close relatives of Americans in the military to become legal residents. Those bills are included in immigration overhaul legislation, including measures to grant legal status to millions of currently illegal immigrants, that Democratic Congressional leaders are preparing.

But after the furor over the Arizona law, President Obama said Wednesday that he wanted to “begin work” on the overhaul — but not try to pass a bill — this year. Republicans argue that the administration should concentrate on enforcement, not on easing the law.

“Millions of individuals come to the U.S. on visas every year and don’t overstay them,” said Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, the senior Republican on the House Judiciary Committee. “Congress has already provided for remedies in appropriate cases, so there should be no need to change the rules.”

Homeland Security officials said that in the absence of Congressional action, they had been working quietly to fix immigration problems for American soldiers on a case-by-case basis, using limited authorities that already exist in law. After a preliminary review of the Tenebros’ case in response to a reporter’s questions, Citizenship and Immigration Services officials said they were working to identify legal alternatives for them.

“Keeping U.S. military families together is a vital priority,” said Matt Chandler, a Homeland Security Department spokesman.

Now, instead of a foreign mission, Lieutenant Tenebro is running a marathon every month or so, raising money for veterans coming back with injuries. At home on Long Island, Mrs. Tenebro, who cannot work legally, feels a chill every time immigration news comes on the radio.

“We just have our bags packed all the time in case immigration will come knocking on the door,” Lieutenant Tenebro said “We talk about what school to pick and what apartment to get. But it’s in the Philippines.”

5 Myths about immigration

Monday, May 3rd, 2010

5 Myths about immigration
By Doris Meissner

From the Washington Post
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Despite the fact that we are a nation of immigrants — or perhaps because of it — immigration continues to be one of America’s most contentious topics. The new law in Arizona authorizing police to arrest individuals who cannot show documents proving that they are in the country legally has set off a fresh bout of acrimony. But as in the past, much of the debate is founded on mythology.
THIS STORY
1. Immigrants take jobs from American workers.

Although immigrants account for 12.5 percent of the U.S. population, they make up about 15 percent of the workforce. They are overrepresented among workers largely because the rest of our population is aging: Immigrants and their children have accounted for 58 percent of U.S. population growth since 1980. This probably won’t change anytime soon. Low U.S. fertility rates and the upcoming retirement of the baby boomers mean that immigration is likely to be the only source of growth in what we call the “prime age” workforce — workers ages 25 to 55 — in the decades ahead. As record numbers of retirees begin drawing Social Security checks, younger immigrant workers will be paying taxes, somewhat easing the financial pressures on the system.
Moreover, immigrants tend to be concentrated in high- and low-skilled occupations that complement — rather than compete with — jobs held by native workers. And the foreign-born workers who fill lower-paying jobs are typically first-hired/first-fired employees, allowing employers to expand and contract their workforces rapidly. As a result, immigrants experience higher employment than natives during booms — but they suffer higher job losses during downturns, including the current one.
It’s true that an influx of new workers pushes wages down, but immigration also stimulates growth by creating new consumers, entrepreneurs and investors. As a result of this growth, economists estimate that wages for the vast majority of American workers are slightly higher than they would be without immigration. U.S. workers without a high school degree experience wage declines as a result of competition from immigrants, but these losses are modest, at just over 1 percent. Economists also estimate that for each job an immigrant fills, an additional job is created.
2. Immigration is at an all-time high, and most new immigrants came illegally.

The historic high came more than a century ago, in 1890, when immigrants made up 14.8 percent of our population. Today, about two-thirds of immigrants are here legally, either as naturalized citizens or as lawful permanent residents, more commonly known as “green card” holders. And of the approximately 10.8 million immigrants who are in the country illegally, about 40 percent arrived legally but overstayed their visas.
It’s worth noting that although the unauthorized immigrant population includes more people from Mexico than from any other country, Mexicans are also the largest group of lawful immigrants. As for the flow of illegal immigrants, apprehensions along the U.S.-Mexico border have declined by more than 50 percent over the past four years, while increases in the size of the illegal population, which had been growing by about 500,000 a year for more than a decade, have stopped. This decline is largely due to the recession, but stepped-up border enforcement is playing a part.
3. Today’s immigrants are not integrating into American life like past waves did.

The integration of immigrants remains a hallmark of America’s vitality as a society and a source of admiration abroad, as it has been throughout our history. Although some people complain that today’s immigrants are not integrating into U.S. society as quickly as previous newcomers did, the same charge was leveled at virtually every past wave of immigrants, including the large numbers of Germans, Irish and Italians who arrived in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Today, as before, immigrant integration takes a generation or two. Learning English is one key driver of this process; the education and upward mobility of immigrants’ children is the other. On the first count, today’s immigrants consistently seek English instruction in such large numbers that adult-education programs cannot meet the demand, especially in places such as California. On the second count, the No Child Left Behind Act has played a critical role in helping educate immigrant children because it holds schools newly accountable for teaching them English.
However, the unauthorized status of millions of foreign-born immigrants can slow integration in crucial ways. For example, illegal immigrants are ineligible for in-state tuition at most public colleges and universities, putting higher education effectively out of their reach. And laws prohibiting unauthorized immigrants from getting driver’s licenses or various professional credentials can leave them stuck in jobs with a high density of other immigrants and unable to advance.
4. Cracking down on illegal border crossings will make us safer.

The job of protecting the nation’s borders is immense, encompassing nearly 7,500 miles of land borders, 12,380 miles of coastline and a vast network of sea ports, international airports, ports of entry along the Mexican and Canadian borders and visa-issuing consulates abroad.
Since Sept. 11, 2001, we have dramatically strengthened our borders through the use of biometrics at ports of entry, secure cargo-shipment systems, intelligence gathering, integrated databases and increased international cooperation. The Border Patrol has nearly doubled in size in the past five years, to more than 20,000 agents. The Department of Homeland Security says it is on schedule to meet congressional mandates for southwestern border enforcement, including fence-building. And cooperation with the Mexican government has improved significantly.
Still, our southwest border is more a classic law enforcement challenge than a front line in the war on terrorism. Antiterrorism measures rely heavily on intelligence gathering and clandestine efforts that are unrelated to border enforcement.
The seasoned enforcement officials I have spoken with all contend that if we provided enough visas to meet the economy’s demand for workers, border agents would be freed to focus on protecting the nation from truly dangerous individuals and activities, such as drug-trafficking, smuggling and cartel violence.
5. Immigration reform cannot happen in an election year.

The politics of immigration can be explosive and can chase lawmakers away, especially as elections near, with the result that Congress infrequently and reluctantly updates immigration laws. However, all the significant immigration bills enacted in recent decades were passed in election years, often at the last minute and after fractious debates.
This list dates back to the Refugee Act of 1980, which established our system for humanitarian protection and refugee and asylum admissions. Next came the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which made it illegal to hire unauthorized immigrants and provided amnesty for 2.7 million illegal immigrants. The Immigration Act of 1990 increased the number of visas allotted to highly skilled workers. And the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act charged immigration agencies with implementing significant new law enforcement mandates.
Legislative attempts to make urgently needed changes fizzled in the House in 2005 and in the Senate in 2006 and 2007, and the to-do list for this Congress is substantial. But ruling out immigration reform, whether because Congress has other priorities or because it’s an election year, would be a mistake. The outline for immigration legislation that Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and his Democratic colleagues unveiled last week, together with the uproar over the Arizona law, may help convince lawmakers that there’s no time like the present.
Doris Meissner, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, served as commissioner of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service from 1993 to 2000.

Mr. Geygan, Jr. to speak at AILA National Conference

Thursday, April 1st, 2010

Title: Give Us Your Tired and Hungry But Your Poor Will Need a Sponsor: Affidavits of Support
Date: 7/02/2010
Time: 12:30:00 PM – 1:35:00 PM
Description: This panel will cover the fundamentals of the affidavit of support, when it is required, and what to do when the sponsor doesn’t meet the federal poverty guidelines.

•What Obligations Does the Affidavit of Support Place on the Sponsor, and When Do Those Obligations Terminate?
•When Is an Affidavit of Support Required?
•Joint Sponsors and Household Members, When Required, Who Qualifies, Ethical Issues Concerning “Representation”
•What Qualifies as Income?
•Determining Family Size
•Supporting Documentation
•Anticipating a Request for Evidence

Operation Wetback 2010 What was once wrong is still wrong.

Wednesday, March 31st, 2010

In 1954, INS began a massive operation to deport people from the southern United States to Mexico.  At that time, agents were given a quota of 1,000 aliens to deport per day.  In 2010, that number became 1,096.  On February 22, 2010, the Deportation and Removal office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement sent an email listing the deportation goals as 150,000 criminal aliens and the balance of non-criminal aliens to be removed to total 400,000 per year.

Using a quota-based system encouraged the use of scare tactics and the deportation of United States citizens, back in 1954.  In 2009, the effects of a quota based deportation system are having the same fundamental problems.  In November 2009, ICE implemented a policy memo on how to handle charges against U. S. citizens, due to the deportation of U.S. citizens in recent times.

The ICE memo instructs agents as follows:  1) if the person is a U. S. citizen, he or she should not be arrested or put in immigration court; 2) if the evidence is not conclusive in determining that the person is a U. S. citizen, the person should be not arrested, but should be put in immigration court; and 3) if the agent has a reason to believe the person is in the United States in violation of the law, he or she should be arrested and placed in immigration court.  The issue is not with situation 1 or 3, but with situation 2.  There have been cases where the presentation of a United States birth certificate or passport was not considered sufficient evidence of U. S. citizenship.

The United States has an obligation to its citizens to protect its borders, but at the same time, people in the United States should be protected from vague laws and quota systems placed on law enforcement.  It is as unfair to the agent to evaluate him on the number of people he must remove as it is to the people with whom he comes in contact, where the agent is expected to exercise any discretion at all. 

ICE has withdrawn the quota memo, but the rational for the withdraw is troubling.  The memo, issued by Deportation and Removal Tasking, was denied to be policy, and was sent without authorization.  The retraction goes on to state the memo has been withdrawn and corrected.  A corrected memo was not provided.  I am concerned that there is a disconnect between the layers of ICE and both the agents and aliens may suffer because of this disconnect. 

OPERATION WETBACK. Operation Wetback was a repatriation project of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service to remove illegal Mexican immigrants (”wetbacks”) from the Southwest. During the first decades of the twentieth century, the majority of migrant workers who crossed the border illegally did not have adequate protection against exploitation by American farmers. As a result of the Good Neighbor Policy, Mexico and the United States began negotiating an accord to protect the rights of Mexican agricultural workers. Continuing discussions and modifications of the agreement were so successful that the Congress chose to formalize the “temporary” program into the Bracero program, authorized by Public Law 78. In the early 1940s, while the program was being viewed as a success in both countries, Mexico excluded Texas from the labor-exchange program on the grounds of widespread violation of contracts, discrimination against migrant workers, and such violations of their civil rights as perfunctory arrests for petty causes. Oblivious to the Mexican charges, some grower organizations in Texas continued to hire illegal Mexican workers and violate such mandates of PL 78 as the requirement to provide workers transportation costs from and to Mexico, fair and lawful wages, housing, and health services. World War II and the postwar period exacerbated the Mexican exodus to the United States, as the demand for cheap agricultural laborers increased. Graft and corruption on both sides of the border enriched many Mexican officials as well as unethical “coyote” freelancers in the United States who promised contracts in Texas for the unsuspecting Bracero. Studies conducted over a period of several years indicate that the Bracero program increased the number of illegal aliens in Texas and the rest of the country. Because of the low wages paid to legal, contracted braceros, many of them skipped out on their contracts either to return home or to work elsewhere for better wages as wetbacks.

Increasing grievances from various Mexican officials in the United States and Mexico prompted the Mexican government to rescind the bracero agreement and cease the export of Mexican workers. The United States Immigration Service, under pressure from various agricultural groups, retaliated against Mexico in 1951 by allowing thousands of illegals to cross the border, arresting them, and turning them over to the Texas Employment Commission, which delivered them to work for various grower groups in Texas and elsewhere. Over the long term, this action by the federal government, in violation of immigration laws and the agreement with Mexico, caused new problems for Texas. Between 1944 and 1954, “the decade of the wetback,” the number of illegal aliens coming from Mexico increased by 6,000 percent. It is estimated that in 1954 before Operation Wetback got under way, more than a million workers had crossed the Rio Grande illegally. Cheap labor displaced native agricultural workers, and increased violation of labor laws and discrimination encouraged criminality, disease, and illiteracy. According to a study conducted in 1950 by the President’s Commission on Migratory Labor in Texas, the Rio Grande valley cotton growers were paying approximately half of the wages paid elsewhere in Texas. In 1953 a McAllen newspaper clamored for justice in view of continuing criminal activities by wetbacks.

The resulting Operation Wetback, a national reaction against illegal immigration, began in Texas in mid-July 1954. Headed by the commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization Service, Gen. Joseph May Swing, the United States Border Patrol aided by municipal, county, state, and federal authorities, as well as the military, began a quasimilitary operation of search and seizure of all illegal immigrants. Fanning out from the lower Rio Grande valley, Operation Wetback moved northward. Illegal aliens were repatriated initially through Presidio because the Mexican city across the border, Ojinaga, had rail connections to the interior of Mexico by which workers could be quickly moved on to Durango. A major concern of the operation was to discourage reentry by moving the workers far into the interior. Others were to be sent through El Paso. On July 15, the first day of the operation, 4,800 aliens were apprehended. Thereafter the daily totals dwindled to an average of about 1,100 a day. The forces used by the government were actually relatively small, perhaps no more than 700 men, but were exaggerated by border patrol officials who hoped to scare illegal workers into flight back to Mexico. Valley newspapers also exaggerated the size of the government forces for their own purposes: generally unfavorable editorials attacked the Border Patrol as an invading army seeking to deprive Valley farmers of their inexpensive labor force. While the numbers of deportees remained relatively high, the illegals were transported across the border on trucks and buses. As the pace of the operation slowed, deportation by sea began on the Emancipation, which ferried wetbacks from Port Isabel, Texas, to Veracruz, and on other ships. Ships were a preferred mode of transport because they carried the illegal workers farther away from the border than did buses, trucks, or trains. The boat lift continued until the drowning of seven deportees who jumped ship from the Mercurio provoked a mutiny and led to a public outcry against the practice in Mexico. Other aliens, particularly those apprehended in the Midwest states, were flown to Brownsville and sent into Mexico from there. The operation trailed off in the fall of 1954 as INS funding began to run out.

It is difficult to estimate the number of illegal aliens forced to leave by the operation. The INS claimed as many as 1,300,000, though the number officially apprehended did not come anywhere near this total. The INS estimate rested on the claim that most aliens, fearing apprehension by the government, had voluntarily repatriated themselves before and during the operation. The San Antonio district, which included all of Texas outside of El Paso and the Trans-Pecos, had officially apprehended slightly more than 80,000 aliens, and local INS officials claimed that an additional 500,000 to 700,000 had fled to Mexico before the campaign began. Many commentators have considered these figure to be exaggerated. Various groups opposed any form of temporary labor in the United States. The American G.I. Forum, for instance, by and large had little or no sympathy for the man who crossed the border illegally. Apparently the Texas State Federation of Labor supported the G.I. Forum’s position. Eventually the two organizations coproduced a study entitled What Price Wetbacks?, which concluded that illegal aliens in United States agriculture damaged the health of the American people, that illegals displaced American workers, that they harmed the retailers of McAllen, and that the open-border policy of the American government posed a threat to the security of the United States. Critics of Operation Wetback considered it xenophobic and heartless.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Carl Allsup, The American G.I. Forum: Origins and Evolution (University of Texas Center for Mexican American Studies Monograph 6, Austin, 1982). Arnoldo De León, Mexican Americans in Texas: A Brief History (Arlington Heights, Illinois: Harlan Davidson, 1993). Juan Ramon Garcia, Operation Wetback: The Mass Deportation of Mexican Undocumented Workers in 1954 (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1980). Eleanor M. Hadley, “A Critical Analysis of the Wetback Problem,” Law and Contemporary Problems 21 (Spring 1956). Saturday Evening Post, July 27, 1946. Julian Samora, Los Mojados: The Wetback Story (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1971).

Fred L. Koestler

 

ICE statement in response to March 27 Washington Post article
 

 

“ICE is required by Congress to submit annual performance goals as part of the budgetary process and our longstanding focus remains on smart, effective immigration enforcement that places priority first on those dangerous criminal aliens who present risk to the security of our communities.

This focus has yielded real results – between FY2008 and FY2009, criminal deportations increased by 19% and this priority continues in FY10 with 40% more criminal aliens removed to date as compared to the same period last year.

Significant portions of the memo cited in The Washington Post (3/27/10 – Becker/Hsu) did not reflect our policies, was sent without my authorization, and has since been withdrawn and corrected.

We are strongly committed to carrying out our priorities to remove serious criminal offenders first and we definitively do not set quotas.”

- Assistant Secretary John Morton

Additional facts:

  • Criminal removals/ returns increased by almost 22K between FY2008 and FY2009.
  • Overall, criminal and non-criminal removals/ returns increased by 5% between FY2008 and FY2009, while criminal removals/ returns alone increased by 19%

H-1B Attorney Fee Statement

Tuesday, March 16th, 2010

Geygan & Geygan, Ltd. has agreed to continue it’s attorney fee program for H-1B visas for 2010.  This fee program first began out of the insufficient H-1B numbers and to minimize some of the risks to our clients.

Under our fee structure $1,000.00 is paid as attorney fee when the firm is hired.  The filing fees are to be paid when the application is filed.  The balance of attorney fees, $1,000.00 is not due until an H-1B visa is granted by either USCIS or the Department of State.

Any questions regarding this fee structure should be directed to Thomas J. Geygan, Jr. either by telephone (513)793-6555 or email ThomasJr@geygan.com

Víctimas de tráfico humano: estatus T de no inmigrante

Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010

El tráfico humano, llamado también tráfico de personas, es una forma de esclavitud moderna en la que los traficantes atraen a las personas con falsas promesas de empleo y de una vida mejor.  Frecuentemente, los traficantes se aprovechan de personas pobres y desempleadas a las que les falta acceso a servicios sociales.  El estatus T de no inmigrante (visado T) protege a las víctimas de tráfico humano y permite que las víctimas se queden en los Estados Unidos para ayudar en una investigación o en el procesamiento penal del tráfico humano.

Elegibilidad de no inmigrante T

Puede que sea elegible para un visado T si:

  • Es o ha sido víctima del tráfico humano según lo define la ley 
  • Está en los Estados Unidos, Samoa Americana, la Comunidad de las Islas Marianas del Norte, o en un puerto de entrada debido al tráfico humano 
  • Cumple con las peticiones razonables de ayuda en la investigación o procesamiento penal del tráfico humano de una agencia policial (o tiene menos de 18 años o no puede cooperar debido a algún trauma físico o psicológico) 
  • Demuestra que sufriría penuria extrema relacionada con daños personales extraordinarios y serios si se le hiciera salir de los Estados Unidos 
  • Es elegible para que se le admita en los Estados Unidos.  Si no es elegible para que se le admita, puede solicitar dispensa con un Formulario I-192, Solicitud de permiso adelantado para ingresar como no inmigrante

Para solicitar el estatus T de no inmigrante 

Para solicitar un visado T, presente:

  • Formulario I-914, Solicitud de estatus T de no inmigrante 
  • Tres fotografías de tamaño de pasaporte 
  • Una declaración personal explicando cómo ha sido víctima del tráfico humano (en el Formulario I-914) 
  • Evidencia que demuestre que satisface los requisitos de elegibilidad

Nota: Se le aconseja que presente el Formulario I-914, Suplemento B, Declaración de oficial policial para víctima de tráfico de personas, para demostrar el apoyo de una agencia policial.  El Formulario I-914, Suplemento B sirve como la evidencia principal de que usted es una víctima de tráfico humano y de que ha cumplido con las peticiones razonables de una entidad policial.

Vea los enlaces para los formularios de visado T que aparecen a la derecha de la página.

Para peticionar a los miembros de la familia que sean elegibles

Ciertos miembros de familia son elegibles para una visa T derivada.

Si usted tiene… Entonces…
Menos de 21 años Puede presentar una solicitud a beneficio de su cónyuge, sus hijos, sus padres, y sus hermanos solteros menores de 18 años.
21 años de edad o más Puede peticionar a su cónyuge y sus hijos.

 

Para peticionar a un miembro elegible de su familia, debe tramitar un Formulario I-914, Suplemento A, Solicitud para miembro de la familia inmediata de beneficiario de T-1, al mismo tiempo que presenta su solicitud o más adelante.  Vea los enlaces del visado T que aparecen a la derecha de la página.  Para solicitar residencia permanente (una Tarjeta verde [Green card]) para usted mismo o para un miembro de su familia que sea elegible, vea el enlace de “Tarjeta verde para un no inmigrante T” que aparece a la derecha de la página.

Human Trafficking

Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010

If you suspect an act of human trafficking in your area, you can report a tip to the National Human Trafficking Resource Center Hotline at 1-888-373-7888. This national, toll free hotline is available to answer calls from anywhere in the country, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, every day of the year.

President Barack Obama proclaimed January 2010 as National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month.  I was very glad to hear this.  I have worked in many countries where human life is valued much more cheaply than it is here in the United States.  Below are two examples that the Department of Justice has successfully prosecuted:

One case involved the trafficking of two young girls, including a 13 year-old, from rural Mexico to Tennessee with the intent of forcing them into prostitution.  In December a woman from Tennessee was sentenced to 190 months in prison on sex trafficking and conspiracy charges.  Her co-defendant was sentenced to 50 years in prison in 2008.  Both pleaded guilty and admitted to fraudulently luring the two young girls.  The multi-agency investigation and federal prosecution resulted in the successful conviction of 11 defendants.

In another case two defendants plead guilty in a forced labor case in Hawaii.  Farm co-owners pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit forced labor. The men admitted to conspiring with one another and others to hold 44 Thai agricultural workers in service at their farm through a scheme of debts, threats of harm and restraint.  They each face up to five years in prison for their roles in the labor trafficking scheme.

Please know that if someone is a victim of human trafficking there are visas.  Below please find some questions and answers from USCIS’s website regarding the “T” & “U” visas:

T Nonimmigrant Status (T Visa) is set aside for those who are or have been victims of human trafficking and are willing to assist law enforcement in the investigation or prosecution of acts of trafficking.  Below are Questions and Answers pertaining to T nonimmigrant status. 

Background
In October 2000, Congress created the “T” nonimmigrant status by passing the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (VTVPA). The legislation strengthens the ability of law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute human trafficking, and also offer protection to victims.

Questions and Answers

Q.   What Is Human Trafficking?
A.   Human trafficking, also known as trafficking in persons, is a form of modern-day slavery in which traffickers lure individuals with false promises of employment and a better life. Traffickers often take advantage of poor, unemployed individuals who lack access to social safety nets. The T nonimmigrant visa allows victims to remain in the United States to assist federal authorities in the investigation and prosecution of human trafficking cases. 

To consider a situation ‘trafficking’ depends on the type of work, and the use of force, fraud, or coercion to obtain or maintain work.

Under Federal law, the term “severe forms of trafficking” can be broken into two categories:

• Sex trafficking:  recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act where the commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or the person being induced to perform such act is under 18 years of age.

• Labor trafficking: recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.

Q.   Do Federal Laws Prohibit Trafficking In Persons?
A.   Yes. The Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution outlaws slavery and involuntary servitude (holding another in service through force or threats of force.) The Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (VTVPA) supplements existing laws that apply to human trafficking, including those passed to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment. The VTVPA also establishes new tools and resources to combat trafficking in persons, and provides an array of services and protections for victims of severe forms of trafficking.

Q.   Is There Any Immigration Relief Available For a Victim of a Severe Form of Trafficking In Persons?
A.   Yes. Victims of severe forms of human trafficking are eligible for a T Nonimmigrant status (T visa). The T nonimmigrant visa allows victims to remain in the United States to assist in the investigation or prosecution of human traffickers. Once a T nonimmigrant visa is granted, a victim can apply for permanent residence after three years.

Q.   How Do You Become Eligible For T Nonimmigrant Status?
A.   To qualify for T nonimmigrant status you must:
• Be or have been a victim of severe trafficking in persons.
• Be physically present in the United States, American Samoa, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or at a port of entry on account of trafficking.
• Comply with any reasonable request from a law enforcement agency for assistance in the investigation or prosecution of human trafficking.
• Demonstrate that you would suffer extreme hardship involving severe and unusual harm if you were removed from the United States. 

If under the age of 18 at the time of the victimization, or if you are unable to cooperate with a law enforcement request due to physical or psychological trauma, you may qualify for the T nonimmigrant visa without having to assist in investigation or prosecution.

You must also be admissible to the United States or obtain a waiver of admissibility.

Q.   What is the Application Process to Obtain a T Nonimmigrant Visa?
A.   If you are a victim of a severe form of trafficking, you must submit a Form I-914, Application for T Nonimmigrant Status. The Form I-914 requests information regarding your eligibility for T nonimmigrant status, as well as admissibility to the United States. You must also include a statement in your own words about your victimization. You may submit a law enforcement agency endorsement using Form I-914, Supplement B, Declaration of Law Enforcement Officer for Victim of Trafficking in Persons. You also have the option to submit secondary evidence of compliance with reasonable requests for assistance. This evidence may include: trial transcripts, court documents; police reports, news articles and affidavits.

Q.   Are There Fees That I Must Pay To Apply?
A.   There is no fee to file a Form I-914, Application for T Nonimmigrant Status. You may submit a request for a waiver of the filing fees for all other forms associated with filing your Form I-914.

Q.   Can My Family Members Also Obtain T Nonimmigrant Status?
A.   Yes. Immediate family members are eligible for derivative nonimmigrant status.

If the principle applicant is….  Then…
Under 21 years of age They may apply on behalf of spouse, children, parents and unmarried siblings under age 18.

21 years of age or older They may apply on behalf of spouse and children.
To apply for family members, you must submit a Form I-914 Supplement A, Application for Immediate Family Member of T-1 Recipient. Your family member’s application can be filed at the same time as you or at a later time.

Q.   Are There a Limited Number of T Nonimmigrant Visas Given Each Year?
A.   Yes.  Congress has limited the number of T nonimmigrant visas granted each year to 5,000. This does not apply for family derivative visas. Once the cap is reached, applicants will be placed on a waiting list. This waiting list allows those applicants who cannot be granted a visa due to the numerical limitation to obtain priority in the following year.

Q.   Can I Legally Work in the United States If I Have T Nonimmigrant Status?
A.   Yes. When USCIS grants T nonimmigrant status, an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) is granted at the same time. The information for the EAD is generated from the Form I-914. There is no need to file a Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, along with the application for a T nonimmigrant status. 

Q.   How Long Am I Allowed to Remain in the United States With My T Nonimmigrant Visa?
A.   The T nonimmigrant visa is valid for 3 years and a visa holder may be eligible to apply for permanent residence (Green Card) after 3 years in T nonimmigrant status.

Q.   How Can I Apply For Permanent Residence (Green Card)?
A.   You may apply for permanent residence by submitting Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. You must have been lawfully admitted to the United States as a T nonimmigrant and must continue to hold such status at the time of application.

To qualify for permanent residence, you must:
• Be physically present in the United States for a continuous period of at least three years in T nonimmigrant status, or a continuous period during the investigation or prosecution of the acts of trafficking, provided that the Attorney General has certified that the investigation or prosecution is complete, whichever time is less.
• Maintain good moral character during your stay in the United States.
• Have complied with any reasonable request for assistance in investigation or prosecution or demonstrate extreme hardship involving unusual and severe harm upon removal from the United States.
• Be admissible to the United States, or obtain a waiver of admissibility. 

For more information on green cards, see the “Green Card for a T Nonimmigrant” link to the right.

Q.   Is A Victim of Trafficking Eligible For Any Services And Benefits?
A.   Victims of trafficking may be eligible for a number of federally funded benefits and services regardless of immigration status if they have been certified by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). Once a victim has been certified, they are eligible for the same services as a refugee. If the victim is under the age of 18, he or she is eligible for certain benefits without the requirement of certification. 

For more information about the certification process, please see the “Health and Human Services” link to the right.

Q.   Are There Any Other Forms of Immigration Relief Available to Victims of Trafficking?
A.   Yes. Another status granted to victims of human trafficking is U nonimmigrant status (U visa). To apply for a U visa, victims must file a Form I-918, Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status. U visas are awarded to people who have suffered substantial physical or mental abuse as a result of having been a victim of specified criminal activity.

If you suspect an act of human trafficking in your area, you can report a tip to the National Human Trafficking Resource Center Hotline at 1-888-373-7888. This national, toll free hotline is available to answer calls from anywhere in the country, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, every day of the year.

State of Immigration Reform

Thursday, January 28th, 2010

Last night President Obama included as part of his State of the Union address:

 “And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system – to secure our borders , enforce our laws so that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation.” 

As reported in the Washington Post in August of 2009 President Obama expected draft legislation for immigration reform in 2009, but that immigration reform would fall behind  more pressing issues, including health-care reform, energy legislation and financial regulatory changes.

I was in a conference call regarding immigration reform yesterday for about an hour.  The reoccurring message was that our representatives needed to know that they had our support for immigration reform.  The received a large amount of phone calls and emails from those who oppose immigration reform.  They need to receive an amount of emails or calls as large or larger to vote in favor of immigration reform.

To make the process of contacting your representatives as easy as possible I have included a link below.  This link will help you find your representative, has a editable email message, you would need to fill in your name.  There is no cost to use this.  The cost to not contact your representatives is to not have a working immigration system for another year.   email your congressman

The real free credit report

Tuesday, January 19th, 2010

Want a Free Annual Credit Report?

The Only Official Website is annualcreditreport.com

The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires each of the nationwide consumer reporting companies – Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion – to provide you with a free copy of your credit report, at your request, once every 12 months. The three companies have set up one central website, toll-free telephone number, and mailing address through which you can order your free credit report. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the nation’s consumer protection agency, wants you to know that, if you want to order your free annual credit report online, there is only one authorized website:annualcreditreport.com.

To Order Your Free Annual Credit Report

Many other websites claim to offer “free credit reports,” “free credit scores,” or “free credit monitoring.” But, be careful. These sites are not part of the official annual free credit report program. And in some cases, the “free” product comes with strings attached. For example, some sites sign you up for a supposedly “free” service that converts to one you have to pay for after a trial period ends. If you don’t cancel during the trial period, you may be agreeing to let the company start charging fees to your credit card.

These sites often look like the official site at annualcreditreport.com. Some use terms like “free report” in their names; others have website names that purposely misspell annualcreditreport.com in the hope that you will mistype the name of the official site. Some of these “imposter” sites direct you to other sites that try to sell you something or collect your personal information.If you want to order your free annual credit report online, carefully type in the name: annualcreditreport.com, or go to the FTC’s website which has a link to it. Once you have filled out certain information at annualcreditreport.com, you will be directed to individual websites operated by the three nationwide consumer reporting companies. You may get offers to buy additional products or services while on the companies’ websites, such as credit scores or credit monitoring products, but you are not required to make a purchase to receive your free annual credit reports.

This does not have a fun commercial, or a snappy jingle, but you get the right information free as you are entitled.

Recent Comments

Comments

    Tag

    Tag