The Law Offices of Angela L. Williams, LLC

  • Welcome
  • Practice Areas
  • Professional Associations, Community Involvement and Education
  • Awards and Recognitions
  • Speaking Engagements
  • Published Work
  • Radio
  • Legislative Testimony
  • Contact Me

Tag Archives: Amnesty

Senate Immigration Bill To Heighten Border Security, Grant Legal Status

Posted on April 17, 2013 by Angie Williams Posted in Access to justice, Comprehensive Immigration Reform .

Senate Immigration Bill To Heighten Border Security, Grant Legal Status.

 

THis is a link to a Huffington Post article that has a link to the 844 page proposal from the Senate’s unfortunately names “Gang of 8.”  Pleas note there is no new law yet.  There is nothing you can apply for right now.  This is just the first step in the process of making a bill into a law.

0 Like
Tags: Amnesty, Border Security, Comprehensive reform, DREAM Act, Gang of 8, Immigration .

Notice of intent to Implement Stateside Processing of Waivers for Unlawful Presence

Posted on January 10, 2012 by Angie Williams Posted in Anchor Baby is a Hate Word, Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Consular Processing, Deportation, Immigration, Immigration Myths, Job Creation, Practice Pointers, Procedure, Wasting Money .

I have pasted the wording of the proposed procedure change that is causing such a ruckus.  It is no “backdoor amnesty” a term that quite frankly makes me want to scream for all its ignorance and purposeful hate mongering.  This rule gives people no new rights nor does it change any requirements for people obtaining legal status.  It only changes the procedure by which immediate relatives (spouses, parents or unmarried under 21 children of US Citizens) go about applying for a waiver.  Even these 3 categories do not all qualify for this new processing.  Here is a summary on who qualifies to have their waiver adjudicated here in the US prior to leaving for the consulate:

1.  You must only be inadmissible because of unlawful presence of 180 or more in the United States.  If you have any other inadmissibility issue (fraud, misrepresentation, criminal, health) you are not eligible to apply here and must continue to do the whole process in your country of birth.

2.  You must be an immediate relative.  That is a spouse of a US Citizen, the minor (under 21) unmarried son or daughter of a US citizen or the parent of a US Citizen.  Realistically the spouse of a US Citizen is going to be the category that is most helped by this change.  Here is why:  children who are under 18 do not incur unlawful presence for the purposes of this waiver.  So a child entered without inspection at age 3 and when he is 15 his mom becomes a US Citizen and makes an application for him.  That child will have to go to his country of birth for the interview but will not need a waiver because he is under 18 and has not incurred “unlawful presence” yet.  Now a child of a US Citizen who is between 18 1/2 and under 21 will be helped by this provision because he will have “unlawful presence” of either between 6 months but less than 1 year (3 year bar) or over 1 year (10 year bar) depending on when he goes to the interview.  A Parent of a US Citizen will also qualify as an immediate relative.  However they still have to qualify for the waiver.  In order to get the waiver you have to show extreme hardship to a “qualifying relative.”  For waiver purposes a “qualifying relative” is ONLY a US Citizen or permanent resident PARENT or SPOUSE.  Children are not a qualifying relative for purposes of the unlawful presence waiver.  So a US citizen child who is over 21 may apply for his or her parents.  However if the parents do not have either a US Citizen or LPR spouse or Parent they will not be eligible for a waiver.  So the “anchor baby” scenario, once again debunked, Person who enters without inspection to the US and has a child here.  That child is a US Citizen.  That undocumented person manages to escape detection from immigration until the USC child turns 21, that undocumented will still not be able to become legal through a petition by his or her 21 year old  “anchor baby” because there is not a qualifying relative necessary for that person to get a waiver for the over 1 year of unlawful presence that he or she has incurred.  So the only Parents of US Citizen children that will be helped by this law are the ones who also have a US Citizen or LPR parent or spouse in addition to the US Citizen child who is making the application.

What has not changed

1.  You must still qualify for the waiver, i.e. have the “qualifying relative” (see above), prove exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to that qualifying relative, and show that your situation warrants a favorable exercise of discretion by the service.

2.  You still have to leave the country and have an interview in the country of birth and get the visa issued there and return, making a lawful entry as a permanent resident.

3.  Absolutely everything else about the process, applications, income requirements, filing fees, medical exams etc is the same.

4.  If you are not someone who is an immediate relative you must still leave the country, so Spouses and unmarried children of Permanent Residents, Adult children of US Citizens, Married Children of US Citizens and their spouses and minor children and brothers and sisters and their spouses and minor children of US citizens and all resident applications made on behalf of an employee by an employer may not take advantage of the new process.

Why this is good

The Vast majority of waivers processed abroad are for unlawful presence.  The time that someone is out of the country waiting on one of these waivers to be adjudicated is usually between 4 and 18 months if the waiver is approved.  if the waiver is not approved the wait can be much longer, several years to the full term of the bar (3 or 10 years).  When you are talking about a mother, father or child being away from his/her family that period of time is simply too long for many families to consider taking the risk.  it is actually a deterrent in “getting in line” and “doing things legally.”  Imagine the financial and emotional state of your family if you had to be away from you spouse or child for potentially 10 years but most probably a year or more.  This hurdle is simply too high for many families to bear.  This change in procedure would encourage more people to try to legalize their status by taking some of the guess work out of many cases.  The immigrant could remain in the United States with his or her family while the waiver is being decided and only return to their countries for a brief trip.  An absence of several weeks or even a month is manageable for most families.  If they are denied in the United States they will know why, they can apply again after fixing whatever problem arose, or they will know that applying here is not an option.  Similarly, while the proposed rule change does not say one way or the other, there is a significant chance that people who are denied could be put in removal proceedings so they will have to continue with this process outside the country doing it the long way.

Second, adjudicating these waivers is very labor intensive and time intensive.  There are many many documents that are presented (normally my waiver packets are between 200-400 pages of evidence) and often there is one lone consular officer looking at all the waivers.  It takes months and sometimes years for someone to even LOOK at the application and decide if there is enough evidence to make a decision.  This new process would mean that there is less resources spent shipping documents back and forth between the consult and USCIS int he US.  There are far more resources int he form of eyes looking at documents than there are in the consults abroad.  It would expedite and stream line this process immensely saving time and money in the Department of homeland Security and the Department of State.  Money ultimately that can be used for other things.

Finally it promotes family unity.  The fact that many republicans are all up in arms over this really astounds me seeing that they are suppose to be the party of less government waste and family values.  To be honest, despite the fact that I personally have never claimed to be a republican, I am pretty disgusted at what the party has become.  I think Reagan is probably rolling over in his grave at the appalling array of potential candidates for next election, nothing but crazy, hate mongering lunatics that for some reason value never changing one’s opinion during one’s political career to adjust for different times and situations over rationality, and the ability to adjust one’s view to changed circumstances.  Here is the bottom line.  This change in procedure would promote more people becoming legal, would waste less government money and resources in processing the applications and promotes and values family unity.  If you are too closed minded to see that than what you want is not reform you want closed borders and society.  You want isolationism and to hurt the United States culturally, economically and internationally.  You want families to be split apart and for children to grow up without a parent.  You value neither family nor children.  And you should stop lying to everyone, including yourself and start calling it what it is: Racism, Ignorance and Fear of other cultures.

Do something crazy.  Read something with an open mind from under the veil of ignorance and do the radical thing of changing your mind.

 

 

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

—————————————

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules

[[Page 1040]]

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

8 CFR Part 212

RIN 1615-ZB10

Provisional Waivers of Inadmissibility for Certain Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens

AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

—————————————

SUMMARY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) intends to change its current process for filing and adjudication of certain applications for waivers of inadmissibility filed in connection with an immediate relative immigrant visa application. Specifically, USCIS is considering regulatory changes that will allow certain immediate relatives of U.S. citizens to request provisional waivers under section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended (INA or Act), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), prior to departing the United States for consular processing of their immigrant visa applications. An alien would be able to obtain such a waiver only if a Petition for Alien Relative, Form I-130, is filed by a U.S. citizen on his or her behalf and that petition has been approved, thereby classifying the alien as an “immediate relative” for purposes of the immigration laws, and he or she demonstrates that the denial of the waiver would result in extreme hardship to the alien’s U.S. citizen spouse or parent “qualifying relative.” The qualifying relative for purposes of the waiver is not necessarily the immediate relative who filed the immigrant visa petition on the alien relative’s behalf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roselyn Brown-Frei, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529- 2099, telephone (202) 272-1470 (this is not a toll free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Overview

The proposed process is intended to reduce the time that U.S. citizens are separated from immediate relatives who are required to remain outside the United States for immigrant visa application processing and during the adjudication of waivers of inadmissibility. Through this change, USCIS does not intend to modify the standard for assessing eligibility for these waivers, including whether the denial of the waiver would result in extreme hardship to a U.S. citizen spouse or parent (“qualifying relative”). For purposes of the waiver under section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) of the Act, a “qualifying relative” is a U.S. citizen spouse or parent or a lawful permanent resident spouse or parent who would suffer extreme hardship if their relative were not allowed to immigrate. For purposes of this provisional waiver program, DHS intends to limit who may participate in this program to immediate relatives who can demonstrate extreme hardship to a U.S. citizen spouse or parent. Even if they obtain a provisional waiver, eligible aliens who are required to obtain a visa through consular processing would still be required to depart from the United States to apply for an immigrant visa. The purpose of the new process is to reduce the time that U.S. families remain separated while their relative proceeds through the immigrant visa process.

Certain grounds of inadmissibility can bar aliens from being admitted to the United States or obtaining an immigrant visa, preventing U.S. citizens from reuniting with their immediate relatives. However, the Secretary of Homeland Security, through USCIS, may waive some of those grounds. An alien who is subject to one or more grounds of inadmissibility must obtain a waiver, if available, from USCIS before he or she may be issued an immigrant visa by a Department of State consular officer at a U.S. embassy or consulate overseas.

The bars to admission under section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) and (II) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) and (II), based on accrual of unlawful presence in the United States, comprise one such ground. Typically, under current processes, aliens who are immediate relatives of U.S. citizens applying for immigrant visas at Department of State consular posts must apply for waivers of unlawful presence while outside the United States after a finding of inadmissibility is made by a Department of State consular officer in conjunction with their immigrant visa applications. As a result, U.S. citizen petitioners are often separated for long periods of time from their immediate relatives who are applying for immigrant visas and have accrued a certain period of unlawful presence in the United States. This revised process, which eliminates the time-consuming interchange between the Department of State and USCIS, would significantly reduce the amount of time that American families will be separated from their immediate relatives. USCIS also believes that efficiencies can be gained through this revised process for both the U.S. Government and most applicants.

USCIS intends to limit consideration for the provisional waiver to aliens who qualify for classification as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, who have a U.S. citizen spouse or parent who would suffer extreme hardship if the waiver were denied, and for whom the sole basis for inadmissibility is unlawful presence in the United States of more than 180 days. USCIS would grant a provisional waiver if the alien meets the eligibility requirements described in this Notice, including demonstrating that the applicant’s qualifying U.S. citizen spouse or parent would suffer extreme hardship and that the applicant warrants a favorable exercise of discretion. The provisional waiver would be granted before the alien leaves the United States to attend his or her immigrant visa interview with a consular officer. The provisional waiver, however, would not become effective unless and until the alien departs from the United States. If the alien is otherwise eligible for the immigrant visa, the consular officer may then approve the issuance of the visa so that the alien may proceed to immigrate to the United States for permanent residence.

This notice of intent generally describes the proposal that USCIS is considering. USCIS will further develop, and ultimately finalize, this proposal through the rulemaking process. This effort is consistent with

[[Page 1041]]

Executive Order 13563’s call for agencies to “consider how best to promote retrospective analysis of rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.” Do not send an application requesting a provisional waiver under the procedures under consideration in this notice. Any application requesting this new process will be rejected, and the application package returned to the applicant, including any fees, until a final rule is issued and the change becomes effective.

B. Authority

The Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, section 102, 116 Stat. 2135, 6 U.S.C. 112, and section 103 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103, charge the Secretary of Homeland Security with administration and enforcement of the immigration and naturalization laws. The Secretary would effectuate these proposed changes under the broad authority to administer the Department of Homeland Security and the authorities provided under the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the immigration and nationality laws, and other delegated authority.

C. Grounds of Inadmissibility

U.S. immigration laws provide mechanisms for U.S. citizens to petition for certain family members for admission to the United States for purposes of family reunification. At the same time, however, the immigration laws prescribe acts, conditions, and conduct that bar aliens, including immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, from being admitted to the United States or obtaining an immigrant visa. Such acts, conditions, and conduct include certain criminal offenses, public health concerns, fraud, misrepresentation, failure to possess proper documents, accrual of more than 180 days of unlawful presence in the United States, and terrorism. The grounds of inadmissibility are set forth in section 212(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a).

The Secretary of Homeland Security has the discretion to waive certain inadmissibility grounds, upon the filing of a request by an alien who meets the relevant statutory requirements. If the Secretary, through USCIS, grants such a waiver, the waived ground will no longer bar the alien’s admission, readmission, or immigrant visa eligibility based on that specific ground of inadmissibility.

One of the inadmissibility grounds is described in section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(i). Under part (I) of this provision, an alien who was unlawfully present in the United States for more than 180 days but less than one year, and who then departs voluntarily from the United States before the commencement of removal proceedings, will be inadmissible for three years from the date of departure. Under part (II) of the same provision, an alien who was unlawfully present for one year or more and then departs before, during, or after removal proceedings, will be inadmissible for ten years from the date of the departure.

The three- and ten-year unlawful presence bars do not take effect unless and until an alien departs from the United States. By statute, aliens are not considered to be accruing unlawful presence for purposes of section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) if they fall into certain categories. For example, aliens do not accrue unlawful presence while they are under 18 years of age. See INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(iii)(I), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(iii)(I). Similarly, individuals with pending asylum claims generally are not considered to be accruing unlawful presence while their applications are pending. See INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(iii)(II), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(iii)(II). Battered women and children and victims of a severe form of trafficking in persons are not subject to the section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) ground of inadmissibility at all if they demonstrate that there was a substantial connection between their victimization and their unlawful presence. See INA 212(a)(9)(B)(iii)(IV)-(V), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(iii)(IV)-(V). Aliens who are subject to the unlawful presence bars must apply for and be granted a waiver in order to receive an immigrant visa and be admitted to the United States.

The Secretary of Homeland Security has the discretion to waive the three- and ten-year unlawful presence bars if the alien is seeking admission as an immigrant and if the alien demonstrates that the denial of his or her admission to the United States would cause “extreme hardship” to the alien’s qualifying relative. See INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(v), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(v). The qualifying relative for purposes of the waiver is not necessarily the relative who filed the immigrant visa petition on the alien relative’s behalf. For example, an alien applicant’s U.S. citizen spouse may have filed the immigrant visa petition on the applicant’s behalf, but the applicant’s unlawful presence waiver application may be based on extreme hardship to the applicant’s U.S. citizen parent. Because the granting of a waiver is discretionary, the alien also must establish that he or she merits a favorable exercise of discretion.

D. Current Process and Problems

An alien who must apply for permanent residence through consular immigrant visa processing outside the United States must appear for an interview with a Department of State consular officer abroad. Currently, if the consular officer determines that the alien is subject to the three- or ten-year bar, the consular officer advises the alien that he or she is eligible to apply for a section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) waiver by filing a Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility, with USCIS. Under current rules, an individual is not permitted to apply for the section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) waiver before the consular officer has made the inadmissibility determination.

Once the Form I-601 is filed, in most cases, the file is transferred from the Department of State to USCIS. USCIS adjudicates that waiver request while the alien remains outside the United States and awaits a decision. If USCIS approves the waiver, USCIS notifies the Department of State, and the Department of State may then issue the immigrant visa if the applicant is otherwise eligible. If the waiver is denied, the alien may appeal the decision to the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office and, if the denial is upheld, the alien must remain outside the United States for three or ten years before being able to reapply for an immigrant visa. However, a denial does not preclude the alien from filing another Form I-601 in the future.

The three- and ten-year unlawful presence bars under section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) and (II) of the Act do not apply unless and until the applicant departs from the United States. At the same time, many aliens who would trigger these bars if they depart from the United States are, for other reasons, statutorily ineligible to apply for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence while remaining in the United States. Consequently, they must depart to regularize their immigration status by applying for their immigrant visas at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad. The action required to regularize the status of an alien, departure from the United States, therefore is the very action that triggers the section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) inadmissibility that bars that alien from obtaining the immigrant visa.

[[Page 1042]]

II. Proposed Waiver Process

A. Proposed Process

The proposed change would create a more streamlined and efficient process for waiver applicants whose sole inadmissibility ground is unlawful presence, while simultaneously minimizing family separation. If the waiver determination, with respect to unlawful presence, were made in advance of the immigrant visa interview and the applicant otherwise were eligible for the immigrant visa, the consular officer could simply issue the immigrant visa at the time of the visa interview. The new process thus will reduce the movement of the case back and forth between the Department of State and USCIS, which significantly prolongs the overall process and increases the time that U.S. citizens are separated from their immediate family members. Additionally, the new process would reduce U.S. Government costs associated with the movement of cases, and provide a more efficient visa process overall.

B. Affected Visa Categories

USCIS intends to limit this process change to aliens who are immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, as defined in section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), who must depart from the United States to obtain immigrant visas, and whose U.S. citizen spouse or parent would suffer extreme hardship if the applicant were denied admission to the United States. The term “immediate relative” means the spouse, parent or child (unmarried and under 21 years old) of a U.S. citizen, except that, in the case of a parent, the U.S. citizen son or daughter petitioning for an immigrant visa must be at least 21 years old. Certain self-petitioners (i.e., widows/widowers of U.S. citizen and their minor unmarried children) may also be considered immediate relatives. See INA 201(b)(2)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A)(i). Individuals applying for a waiver must also establish that the grant of the provisional waiver is warranted as a matter of discretion.

Because the focus on family unification of U.S. citizens and their immediate relatives is consistent with Congress’ prioritization in the immigration laws, USCIS has identified immediate relatives of U.S. citizens as the class of aliens to consider for this procedural change. In addition, Congress did not set an annual limitation for the number of immediate relatives of U.S. citizens admitted to the United States. Therefore, these relatives always have an immigrant visa immediately available, and the visa thus can be processed immediately upon approval.

C. Ground of Inadmissibility Considered for Provisional Waiver

USCIS intends to further limit this procedural change to waivers filed by immediate relatives of U.S. citizens whose only ground of inadmissibility is the three- or ten-year unlawful presence bar under section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) or (II) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) or (II). Aliens who require waivers for one or more additional grounds of inadmissibility, such as fraud or willful misrepresentation (section 212(i) waiver) or certain criminal offenses (section 212(h) waiver), in conjunction with their immigrant visa applications must continue to file a Form I-601 while outside of the United States in accordance with the existing process.

To qualify for the provisional waiver process, an applicant must establish not only that he or she is the immediate relative of a U.S. citizen, but also that denial of the waiver would result in extreme hardship to a qualifying relative. The qualifying relative must be a U.S. citizen spouse or parent but does not need to be the U.S. citizen petitioner. Only extreme hardship from the denial of a waiver to a qualifying U.S. citizen relative makes an alien eligible for the provisional waiver process; extreme hardship to the alien himself or herself as a result of denial does not make the alien eligible. An alien whose waiver application is based on extreme hardship to a lawful permanent resident spouse or parent must continue to apply for the waiver from outside the United States in accordance with existing procedures. Eligible aliens, furthermore, must be the beneficiaries of petitions classifying them as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, and thus have visas immediately available. Because the granting of a waiver is discretionary, eligible aliens also must establish that they merit a favorable exercise of discretion. The standard for assessing whether denial of the waiver would result in extreme hardship to the U.S. citizen spouse or parent of such aliens will remain unchanged.

D. Adjudication and Decisions

After filing the Form I-601 with USCIS, DHS envisions that an alien seeking a provisional waiver would be required to undergo biometrics collection. USCIS would deny the application for a provisional waiver if other possible grounds of inadmissibility are found or arise during adjudication.

If the application is approved, USCIS would notify the Department of State and the alien of the provisional approval. In all instances, a Department of State consular officer would make the formal inadmissibility finding during or following the immigrant visa interview abroad, and if no other grounds of inadmissibility arise, the provisional waiver under section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) of the Act granted by USCIS would facilitate immigrant visa issuance. If, however, the consular officer finds during adjudication of the immigrant visa application that the individual is subject to another ground of inadmissibility that can be waived, the alien would need to file another waiver application with USCIS.

This process would not alter the requirement that an alien depart from the United States to apply for an immigrant visa. An alien who receives a provisional waiver under section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) of the Act for the three- or ten-year bar under section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) or (II) of the Act would not gain the benefit of such waiver unless he or she departs from the United States. The departure from the United States would have to take place to activate the provisional waiver under section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) of the Act.

E. Excluded Visa Categories

Aliens who would not be eligible for this provisional waiver adjudication process and aliens who are denied provisional approval of their waiver requests would continue to follow current agency processes for filing and adjudication of waiver requests. Aliens who fall under any other family- or employment-based or other visa category or whose section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) waiver eligibility would be based on extreme hardship to a lawful permanent resident alien relative would not be considered for provisional waivers. Aliens who are subject to other grounds of inadmissibility or removal also would not be considered for provisional waivers. Further, aliens with waiver applications under section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) of the Act currently pending in either administrative or judicial proceedings would not qualify for this new process.

III. Conclusion

This document outlines the key elements of USCIS’s proposed change to its current process for filing and adjudication of waivers of inadmissibility for unlawful presence for immediate relative of U.S. citizens. The focus on family unification of U.S. citizens and their immediate relatives is consistent with Congress’s prioritization

[[Page 1043]]

in the immigration laws; the new process will reduce the movement of the case back and forth between the Department of State and USCIS, which significantly prolongs the overall process and increases the time that U.S. citizens are separated from their immediate family members. The proposed change would affect only when and where certain aliens can apply for waivers of the unlawful presence grounds of inadmissibility; it would not change the extreme hardship standard for evaluating eligibility for the waiver nor would it change whether aliens subject to these grounds of inadmissibility must depart the U.S. to apply for their immigrant visas. USCIS plans to effectuate this proposal through the regulatory process. USCIS will issue a proposed rulemaking that will explain the proposal in further detail and that will invite comment from all interested parties. Note: Do not send an application requesting a provisional waiver under the procedures under consideration in this notice. Any application requesting this new process will be rejected and the application package returned to the applicant, including any fees, until a final rule is issued and the change becomes effective.

Janet Napolitano,
Secretary of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2012-140 Filed 1-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-97-P

0 Like
Tags: Amnesty, Consular Processing, Consulates, Costs, Department of State, Embassy, Family Immigration, hardship, ICE, Immigration, Long wait times, New Procedure, Out of Country, US Consulates, USCIS, Waiver .

GOP Candidates Betray the Spirit of Reagan on Immigration – Daniel Griswold – National Review Online

Posted on January 6, 2012 by Angie Williams Posted in Birth Right Citizenship, Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Economy, Immigration, Immigration Myths .

GOP Candidates Betray the Spirit of Reagan on Immigration – Daniel Griswold – National Review Online.

 

Just remember a Super Republican is the President that Passed the “amnesty” in the late 80’s.  He saw the benefit of allowing people who had been here for years and contributed to our economy, society and nation to find a way to stay.

0 Like
Tags: Amnesty, Immigration, Immigration Reform, Ronald Reagan .

What Prosecutorial Discretion is and is not by AILA

Posted on January 3, 2012 by Angie Williams Posted in Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Immigration, Notario Fraud, Politicians making things worse, Prosecutorial Discretion .

 

From AILA (American Immigration Lawyers Association).  This is an excellent public service announcement regarding the August announcement on prosecutorial discretion, what it is and what it isn’t.  There is a HUGE problem with Notarios and them scamming people out of thousands of dollars and often out of immigration benefits.  So please read and pass it on. It is in Spanish below the English in the Same Post.  La Version Espanol sigue.

DON’T GET SCAMMED!

What You Need to Know About Recent DHS Announcements

In August, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that it would be reviewing all cases pending in immigration court and temporarily closing low priority cases. In November, it announced that it had begun the case review process and issued three documents explaining the review: Memo on Case Review Process; Guidance to ICE Attorneys; and ICE Next Steps. For more information, visit www.aila.org/pd.

This case review is NOT an amnesty and it is NOT about giving people work permits or legal status. You should NOT turn yourself into the immigration authorities because of these announcements.

  •  Do NOT believe anyone who tells you they can get you a work permit (Employment Authorization Document or “EAD”) or legal status based on this case review process! Anyone who says this or makes other guarantees is not to be trusted!
  •  There is NO “safe” way to turn yourself in to immigration and there is NO guarantee that your case will be considered “low priority.” ANY person who comes into contact with immigration authorities may be arrested, detained or even removed.
  •  Only a QUALIFIED IMMIGRATION LAWYER can evaluate your case and tell you about your rights.
  •  Do NOT seek legal advice from a notario or immigration consultant.
  •  For more information about avoiding immigration scams, visit www.StopNotarioFraud.org.

    Why Is the Government Conducting This Review?

    Law enforcement agencies, including immigration, have the authority to decide which cases to prosecute and which cases to put on hold or dismiss. This authority is called “prosecutorial discretion.” Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—the agency that prosecutes immigration cases—has decided to use its prosecutorial discretion authority to put some low priority cases temporarily on hold so that it can speed up higher priority cases.

    Which Cases Are Being Reviewed?

    Right now, two reviews are taking place. The first review is occurring nationwide and includes: (1) new cases; (2) all cases with hearings on or before January 13, 2012; and (3) some cases with hearings on or before June 15, 2012. For individuals in detention, it is unclear whether or not your case will be part of this review.

    The second review is taking place in only Baltimore and Denver. ALL cases currently pending before the immigration court are being reviewed. For individuals in detention, your case is NOT part of this review.

    If you have never come to the attention of immigration authorities, do NOT turn yourself in. Your case is NOT part of either of these reviews.

AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11123061. (Posted 12/30/11) 

What Will Happen if My Case Is Chosen for Prosecutorial Discretion?

The government has said that it will be offering administrative closure to individuals with low priority cases. Administrative closure means that your immigration court case will be halted temporarily. You will not be given a new court date, but your case has not ended and can be restarted at any time.

For some people, administrative closure is helpful because it means that no decision about whether or not they should be deported from the U.S. will be made while the case is closed. However, for others, administrative closure may NOT be helpful. For example, if you have applied for legal status, the immigration judge cannot make a decision on your application if your case is closed.

If your case is chosen for administrative closure, someone from the government will contact you. You will need to choose whether or not you want your case to be closed. If you have questions about what is best in your situation, you should consult a reputable immigration attorney.

Will I Get a Work Permit if My Case Is Chosen for Prosecutorial Discretion?

The government has said that you will not be able to apply for a work permit just because your case has been administratively closed. If you do not have a work permit now, you will probably NOT be able to get a work permit once your case is closed.

What Will Happen if My Case Is NOT Chosen for Prosecutorial Discretion?

If your case is not chosen for prosecutorial discretion, nothing will change for you.

What Is a “Low Priority” Case?

Only the government can decide whether or not your case is a low priority case. The cases that ICE considers low priority are listed in the Guidance to ICE Attorneys. These include cases involving members of the Armed Forces or their family members, people who came to the U.S. when they were very young, victims of serious crimes, those with serious medical conditions, and people who have been in the U.S. for a very long time and have many ties to this country, among others. However, just because a case seems to fall into one or more of those categories does NOT automatically mean that it will be considered “low priority.”

What Is a “High Priority” Case?

The cases that ICE considers high priority are listed in the Guidance to ICE Attorneys. They include cases of individuals with criminal convictions, gang members, those who entered the U.S. within the last three years, suspected terrorists, and those who have previously been removed from the U.S.

Do I Need a Lawyer?

Immigration law is complex and if you have questions about your immigration case, you may want to speak with a qualified immigration attorney about your situation. REMEMBER, it is important that you speak with an attorney you can trust and who will give you accurate advice. It is unlawful for an immigration consultant, notary public or “notario publico” to provide legal advice. For more information on protecting yourself from immigration scams, visitwww.stopnotariofraud.org.

What Do I Need to Do Now?

You do not need to do anything to have your case reviewed. This will happen automatically if your case is part of the review process. However, if you would like your case to be administratively closed, you may want to give the government more information about your case to show why you should get prosecutorial discretion. Remember that any information you provide will become part of your immigration file and can be used against you. If you would like to give the government additional information, we strongly encourage you to contact a qualified immigration attorney for assistance.

AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11123061. (Posted 12/30/11) 

¡QUE NO LE ESTAFEN!
LO QUE USTED DEBE SABER SOBRE LOS COMUNICADOS MAS RECIENTES

DEL DEPARTAMENTO DE LA SEGURIDAD DE LA PATRIA

En agosto, el Departamento de Seguridad de la Patria (DHS por sus siglas en ingles), informo que estaría revisando todos los casos pendientes ante un juzgado de inmigración y cerrando temporalmente aquellos casos de baja prioridad. En noviembre, anunció que había comenzado el proceso de revisión de casos y había emitido tres documentos explicando la revisión: Memorándum sobre el proceso de revisión de casos; guía para los abogados de la agencia de imposición de inmigración y aduanas (ICE por sus siglas en ingles); y los siguientes pasos para la agencia de imposición de inmigración y aduanas. Para más información, visite la página de Internet www.aila.org/pd.

Esta revisión de casos NO es una amnistía y NO se trata de darles a personas permisos de trabajo ni estatus legal. Usted NO deber entregarse a las autoridades de inmigración debido a estos comunicados.

  • ¡NO crea a nadie quien le diga que le pueda conseguir un permiso de trabajo (el documento de autorización laboral o EAD por sus siglas en ingles) o estatus legal basándose en este proceso de revisión de casos! ¡Cualquier persona que diga esto u ofrezca otras garantías no es de fiar!
  • NO existe ninguna manera “segura” de entregarse a inmigración y NO existe garantía de que su caso será considerado como de “baja prioridad”. CUALQUIER persona que entre en contacto con las autoridades de inmigración puede ser arrestada, detenida o incluso removida.
  • Solamente un ABOGADO TITULADO DE INMIGRACIÓN puede evaluar su caso e informarle sobre sus derechos.
  • NO pida consejo legal a un notario ni de un asesor de inmigración.
  • Para mas información de como evitar estas estafas de inmigración, visite la página de internet www.StopNotarioFraud.org.

    ¿Por qué el gobierno está realizando esta revisión?

    Las agencias del orden público, incluyendo inmigración, tienen la autoridad para decidir cuales casos van a procesar y cuales casos van a poner en espera o desestimar. Esta autoridad se denomina “facultad discrecional”. La agencia de imposición de inmigración y aduanas (ICE por sus siglas en ingles) ‐–la agencia que procesa los casos de inmigración— ha decidido utilizar la autoridad concedida de facultad discrecional para poner algunos casos, de manera temporal, en estatus de espera, para así poder acelerar los casos de alta prioridad.

    ¿Cuales casos están siendo revisados?

    Actualmente se están llevando a cabo dos revisiones. La primera revisión está tomando lugar a nivel nacional e incluye: (1) casos nuevos; (2) todos aquellos casos que tengan una audiencia en o antes del 13 de enero de 2012; y (3) algunos casos con audiencias en o antes del 15 de junio de 2012. Para aquellos individuos que estén detenidos, no esta claro si su caso va a formar parte de esta revisión.

page3image24688
page3image24960
AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11123061. (Posted 12/30/11) 

La segunda revisión se está llevando a cabo solamente en Baltimore y Denver. TODO caso actualmente pendiente ante un juzgado de inmigración será revisado. Para aquellos individuos que estén detenidos, su caso NO formará parte de esta revisión.

Si usted nunca ha sido considerado por las autoridades de inmigración, NO se entregue. Su caso NO forma parte de ninguna de estas dos revisiones.

¿Que sucederá si mi caso es elegido por la facultad discrecional?

El gobierno ha indicado que estará ofreciendo una clausura administrativa a individuos con casos de baja prioridad. Un cierre administrativo significa que su caso ante un juzgado de inmigración será interrumpido temporalmente. No le darán una nueva fecha para una audiencia, pero su caso no se ha terminado y puede volverse a iniciar en cualquier momento.

Para algunas personas, la clausura administrativa puede ser beneficioso porque significa que ninguna decisión sobre si usted debe de ser deportado de EE.UU. será decidido mientras el caso esté cerrado. No obstante, para otros, la clausura administrativa puede NO ser beneficiosa. Por ejemplo, si usted ha solicitado estatus legal, el juez de inmigración no puede tomar una decisión sobre su solicitud si su caso está cerrado.

Si su caso es seleccionado para la clausura administrativa, alguien del gobierno se pondrá en contacto con usted. Usted deberá decidir si quiere o no que su caso sea cerrado. Si usted tiene alguna pregunta sobre que es lo mejor para su situación, deberá consultar con un abogado de inmigración acreditado.

¿Obtendré un permiso de trabajo si mi caso es seleccionado para la facultad discrecional?

El gobierno ha indicado que usted no podrá solicitar un permiso de trabajo solamente porque su caso ha sido cerrado administrativamente. Si usted no tiene un permiso de trabajo ahora, lo más probable es que NO podrá obtener un permiso de trabajo una vez que se cierre su caso.

¿Que sucederá si mi caso NO es seleccionado para la facultad discrecional?
Si su caso no es elegido para la facultad discrecional, no habrá cambios para usted. ¿Que es un caso de “baja prioridad”?

Solamente el gobierno puede decidir si su caso puede ser considerado de baja prioridad. Los casos que la agencia de imposición de inmigración y aduanas (ICE por sus siglas en ingles) considera de baja prioridad están anotados en la guía para abogados de ICE. Estos incluyen casos afectando a miembros de las fuerzas armadas o sus familiares, personas que vinieron a los EE.UU. cuando eran aun muy jóvenes, victimas de un crimen agravado, aquellos que tengan una condición medica grave, y personas que hayan permanecido en los EE.UU. por mucho tiempo y tienen muchas conexiones con este país, entre otros. No obstante, solo porque un caso parezca que posea una o más de estas categorías NO significa que automáticamente serán considerados de “baja prioridad.”

¿Que es un caso de “alta prioridad?

Los casos que la agencia de imposición de inmigración y aduanas (ICE por sus siglas en ingles) considera de alta prioridad están anotadas en la guía para abogados de ICE. Incluyen casos de individuos con convicciones criminales, miembros de bandas organizadas, aquellos que hayan entrado a los EE.UU. dentro de los últimos tres años, sospechosos de terrorismo, y aquellos que hayan sido removidos de EE.UU. con anterioridad.

¿Necesito un abogado?

Las leyes de inmigración son complejas y si usted tiene preguntas sobre su caso de inmigración, es aconsejable que hable con un abogado de inmigración calificado sobre su situación particular. RECUERDE, es importante que hable con un abogado de confianza y quien le puede ofrecer consejo veraz. Es ilícito que un asesor de inmigración, un notario o un “notario publico” imparta consejo legal. Para más información en cómo protegerse de estafas de inmigración visite la página de internet www.stopnotariofraud.org.

page4image31480
AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11123061. (Posted 12/30/11) 

¿Que debo de hacer ahora?

Usted no necesita hacer nada para que su caso sea revisado. Esto va a suceder de manera automática si su caso es parte del proceso de revisión. No obstante, si usted desea que su caso sea clausurado administrativamente, es aconsejable que provea al gobierno con más información sobre su caso para demonstrar por qué le deben conceder la facultad discrecional. Recuerde que cualquier información que usted presente formará parte de su expediente de inmigración y puede ser usado contra usted. Si usted desea enviarle al gobierno información adicional, le aconsejamos energéticamente que se comunique con un abogado titulado de inmigración para que le ayude.

AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11123061. (Posted 12/30/11) 
2 Like
Tags: Amnesty, Attorney, immigration "consultant", misconceptions, Misinformation, Morton Memo, Notario, Notario fraud, Prosecutorial Discretion .

Pages

  • Welcome
  • Practice Areas
  • Professional Associations, Community Involvement and Education
  • Awards and Recognitions
  • Speaking Engagements
  • Published Work
  • Radio
  • Legislative Testimony
  • Contact Me

Address of Office

The Law Offices of
Angela L. Williams, LLC
4049 Pennsylvania Suite 201
Kansas City, MO 64111
(816)531-2166 (T)
(816)531-2444 (F)
angie.williams@me.com
www.williamslawkc.com

Find me on:

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn

Call me on Skype

Call me! - Angela Williams
» Get Skype, call free!

Recent Posts

  • Kansas Citys Best of the Bar for 2014 – Kansas City Business Journal
  • As Another Young Boy Commits Suicide in an Adult Prison, We Must Rethink the Prosecution of Children as Adults | Marsha Levick
  • U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan officiates her first same-sex wedding – LGBTQ Nation
  • Feds to Open Massive Family Detention Center in November
  • AILA Leadership Blog » Artesia Betrays America: Part II

Archives

  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • August 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • March 2011
  • August 2010
  • April 2010

Blog Topics

News

  • Huffington Post
  • Reason.com

Political Organizations

  • ACLU
  • ACLU Blog of Rights
  • Human Rights Campaign

Pro Immigrant Organizations

  • ACLU Immigrant Rights Project
  • Immigration Policy Center

USCIS News Feeds

  • Federal Register Announcements
  • TPS News Updates
  • USCIS Form Update Feed
  • USCIS News
  • USCIS Website

Tags

14th Amendment Alabama Amnesty Arizona Artesia Asylum Children CIR Comprehensive Immigration Reform DACA deferred action Deportation DOMA DREAM Act E-Verify GOP humanitarian crisis ICE Immigraiton Immigration Immigration Myths Immigration Reform Kansas City Kris Kobach Kris Kobach (KS Secretary of State) LGBT Lies Marriage Equality Minors Missouri Missouri Senate Obama Prosecutorial Discretion Reform Removal SB590 Senate state based immigration State immigration laws Stupid Things Politicians Say Terror babies unaccompanied minors Waiver wasting money Will Kraus

DISCLAIMER: Nothing provided in this website should be considered to be legal advice or a legal opinion. This web site is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. The receipt of material from the web site or from Email transmission does not constitute an attorney-client relationship and under no circumstances should you construe any interaction with this website as creating an attorney-client relationship. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. The members of the firm are responsible for the content of this website.

All Photos and Writings are the Sole Property of Angela Williams, All Rights Reserved.

Pages

  • Welcome
  • Practice Areas
  • Professional Associations, Community Involvement and Education
  • Awards and Recognitions
  • Speaking Engagements
  • Published Work
  • Radio
  • Legislative Testimony
  • Contact Me

Archives

  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • August 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • March 2011
  • August 2010
  • April 2010

Categories

  • Access to justice (19)
  • American Bar Association (8)
  • Anchor Baby is a Hate Word (6)
  • Artesia (7)
  • Asylum (11)
  • Attorney-Client Relationships (4)
  • attrition through enforcement (9)
  • Barney Fisher (R-MO House) (2)
  • Birth Right Citizenship (6)
  • Border Issues (10)
  • Central America (6)
  • Change in Regs (8)
  • Comprehensive Immigration Reform (50)
  • Constitution (9)
  • Consular Processing (9)
  • Criminal Law (3)
  • DACA (11)
  • Deferred Action (1)
  • Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (11)
  • Deportation (32)
    • US Citizens Mistakenly Deported (2)
    • Yearly Removal Numbers (2)
  • Document Discrimination (2)
  • DREAM Act (14)
  • E-Verify (5)
  • Economy (6)
  • Employer Penalty (1)
  • Employment Immigration Law (1)
  • Employment Visas (1)
  • Executive Orders (1)
  • Federal Criminal Law (2)
  • Federal Power (4)
  • Gang Violence (4)
  • Gangs (4)
  • Humanitarian Crisis (8)
  • I-9 (1)
  • ICE (3)
  • Immigration (91)
  • Immigration Discrimination (8)
  • Immigration Myths (25)
  • Indigent Defense (7)
  • Inspirational Thoughts (3)
  • Jason Smith (R-MO House) (4)
  • Job Creation (7)
  • Kansas State Legislature (4)
  • KIND (6)
  • LGBT Issues (16)
  • List of Shame (35)
    • Bart Karman (R-MO House) (3)
    • Chuck Gastenberger (R-MO House) (3)
    • Kris Kobach (KS Secretary of State) (20)
    • Mike Kelley (R-MO House) (2)
    • Re. Virgil Peck (KS State Rep-R) (1)
    • Rep. Jerry Nolte (MO State Rep-R) (5)
    • Sen. Brian Nieve (MO State Senate-R) (8)
    • Sen. Will Kraus (MO State-R) (10)
    • Wanda Brown (R-Mo House) (3)
  • Marriage Equality (4)
  • Missouri (4)
  • Missouri Court of Appeals (2)
  • Missouri CriminalLaw (2)
  • Missouri House of Representatives (4)
  • Missouri Senate (15)
  • Mitt Romney (2)
  • Notario Fraud (4)
  • Office News (58)
  • Other Appalling State Legislation (15)
  • Padilla (1)
  • Perspective (8)
  • Politicians making things worse (32)
  • Practice Pointers (5)
  • Presentation Materials (1)
  • Procedure (10)
  • Prosecutorial Discretion (6)
  • Public Defenders (1)
  • Secured Communities (5)
  • Self-Deportation (10)
  • SIJS (7)
  • Speaking Engagements (1)
  • State Based Immigration Laws (28)
  • State's Rights (17)
  • Supremacy Clause (15)
  • TPS (2)
    • El Salvador (2)
  • Unaccompanied Minors (5)
  • Uncategorized (1)
  • Unskilled Labor Visas (1)
  • Victims (1)
  • Voter Fraud (3)
  • Waivers (6)
  • Wasting Money (16)

WordPress

  • Log in
  • WordPress

CyberChimps WordPress Themes

© The Law Offices of Angela L. Williams, LLC