* Dramatization
* Dramatization
Published on:

7E71222234Groups of immigrants come to the United States annually in an attempt to flee from unpleasant circumstances that await them in their respective places of origin. The best solution available for undocumented immigrants in the United States who are fleeing from some form of persecution is to petition for asylum. Typically, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration services would allow immigrants to seek asylum if they are able to corroborate the fact that they have been victims of persecution under grounds that cover race, nationality, being a member of a specific social group, religious beliefs, and political beliefs. Even if you are a victim of one of these circumstances, certain conditions still need to be met for you to qualify for asylum. The case of Gonzalez – Posadas exhibits this effectively.

Posadas is a citizen of Honduras who entered the United States as an undocumented immigrant twice. Posadas’s first entry into the U.S. resulted in his removal. The second time Posadas was discovered within U.S. territory, he was apprehended by authorities. Posadas claimed that he was a victim of threats from a Honduran gang and that he was being persecuted by members of his own family because of his sexual orientation. Immigration officials were able to qualify that Posadas’ circumstances were clear signs of persecution but still denied his petition for asylum.

Granting asylum under grounds of persecution does not extend to immigrants who are under a reinstatement of a previous order of removal. Posadas had the order of removal reinstated after he was discovered within U.S. territory for a second time under unlawful grounds. Posadas attempted to acquire protection from his circumstances under the Convention Against Torture. Posadas stated that he was raped and persecuted because of his homosexuality. Immigration officials moved to deny the petitions of Posadas for a number of reasons. The petitioner’s claims of rape went unreported. Regulatory restrictions do not count unreported incidents of rape to be sufficient to claim that an instance of persecution is existent. Posadas also failed to prove in clear and certain terms that he would be persecuted if he returns to Honduras because of his sexuality. Immigration found Posadas’ claims to be speculative at best. Even Posadas’ claims of gang threats were not covered by the regulations for asylum. Honduran men who resisted recruitment into gangs were not covered by the social group statute of USCIS asylum protocol. As a result of these factors, Posadas’ petition was denied.

If you or someone you know needs legal counsel regarding immigration and asylum issues, please contact the immigration attorneys at Lyttle Law Firm in Austin, Texas by visiting our website or calling us today at 512-215-5225.

Published on:

F50C1E8E09One of the biggest immigration questions that undocumented immigrants possess deal with the question of asylum. From a legal perspective, it is possible for an immigrant to seek asylum in the United States if they are able to substantiate the fact that they suffered persecution in their native territory for issues related to religious beliefs. Even if you happen to be an immigrant that does qualify under this statute, it is essential that you gain a strong grasp of regulatory restrictions before you can petition for asylum. A failure to do this can place your prospects in jeopardy. This is a reality that He, from China, is all too familiar with.

He took a circuitous route to enter the United States. As a native of the Fujian Province in China, He decided to enter the U.S., by passing through Indonesia and Canada in 2007. A year after He completed his journey, he decided to contract the services of a lawyer to solidify his residency status through the avenue of asylum. Citing that he was a victim of beating s and arrests as a result of his Christian beliefs in his area of origin, He petitioned for asylum. He’s request was invalidated by immigration authorities.

There are two major reasons that operate behind the decision of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to deny He’s petition for asylum. The petitioner failed to provide critical pieces of evidence that would have given him a strong case. He’s major mistake was his failure to apply for asylum within the first year of his stay in the U.S. Immigration authorities also decided that He did not require protective services because it did not seem highly probable that he would in fact face threats of torture when he returns to China.

The credibility of He’s testimony was weak and his subsequent move to file a motion for reconsideration was denied by the Board of Immigration Appeals. In this case, the move to petition for asylum proved to yield drastic consequences. A month after He filed his application for asylum, the Department of Homeland Security moved in and charged him with deportation without the possibility of parole. In the face of legal denials, He chose not to fight against the move to deny his motion for reconsideration.

If you or someone you know needs legal counsel regarding immigration and asylum issues, please contact the immigration attorneys at Lyttle Law Firm in Austin, Texas by visiting our website or calling us today at 512-215-5225.

Published on:

DHSHqA great deal of attention has been paid to the ongoing immigration reform debate brewing in the United States. Several developments have cropped up over the past few weeks that further complicate the delicate state of affairs, including conflicting opinions that cluster around President Obama’s proposals for undocumented immigrants. The controversy surrounding the President’s proposed executive action may be acquiring a decent chunk of media attention but there are other immigration issues that pose considerable ramifications for a number of immigrants. One of the more notable occurrences that have garnered a measure of importance deals with the new procedures that have been implemented by the Department of Homeland Security for immigrants who have had a history of criminal convictions.

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement arm of the DHS has recently rolled out a number of changes to the way that they handle release procedures for detained immigrants with a history of criminal convictions. All in all, there are a total of 5 changes that have been implemented. What’s interesting about these changes is that it reflects a sudden shift in the way that ICE officials deal with their policies for immigrants with criminal convictions. ICE officials have expressed that the changes should exponentially increase the level of safety that the American public currently enjoys as well as enhance the confidence that citizens have when it comes to the way that officials enforce immigration policies and regulations.

The major changes that have been stipulated by the ICE officials largely deals with methods of release and detainment of immigrants with specific criminal convictions. Immigrants who are slated for a release should be backed by the approval of a supervisor if they have a criminal conviction. Immigrants who possess serious criminal records will remain in detention even if the detention facilities are grappling with resource limitations. For detained immigrants who have been convicted of violent crimes, ICE will form a panel of senior managers to discuss the possibility of discretionary release for these specific cases. After previously detained immigrants have been released, ICE will continue to monitor them through the use of methods like personal contact and phone reporting. ICE will also bolster its methods of reporting the release of immigrants with criminal convictions to various state law enforcement arms.

Some people feel that these changes may be politically motivated. The timing of the changes that have been announced is suspect given the fact that ICE director Sarah Saldana was slated to testify before congress immediately after the changes were announced. Representatives of immigration rights organizations feel that this move is a way for the ICE director to kowtow to Congress members who don’t support immigrant concerns.

If you or someone you know needs legal counsel regarding immigration issues, please contact the immigration attorneys at Lyttle Law Firm in Austin, Texas by visiting our website or calling us today at 512-215-5225.

Published on:

chrisThe controversy gathering around President Obama’s proposed immigration policies continue to heighten as various political representatives take opposing sides in the ongoing debate. The proposed shift in immigration reform put forward by Obama’s administration could spare countless undocumented immigrants from being deported if it gets passed. The President’s proposals, however, have been met with a great deal of furor and contention from different sectors. Recently, several states have expressed support for the move to block the President’s proposals from being passed. The states who oppose the President’s executive action are adamant about the fact that these changes would yield great losses for the nation as a whole.

One of the more notable developments that have emerged from the ongoing immigration debate is the relatively quiet stance that has been taken by a New Jersey Governor. Chris Christies has decided to back efforts to block the President’s plans from being passed without much fanfare. It is interesting to note that Gov. Chris Chrsitie has been relatively quiet about his stance when it comes to the country’s immigration policies. In the past, Christie had been vocal about the President’s actions on immigration reform without clearly delineating his opinion on the revisions and changes that need to be made. While Christie’s office did not announce his decision to explicitly support the opposition of the President’s proposals with considerable fanfare, the Governor’s actions are a clear indicator of which side his opinion falls when it comes to the developing immigration reform debate.

The political forces that seek to block the President’s actions question the ability of the President to make wholesale changes in Immigration policies in such an independent manner.  The biggest point that has consistently been brought up by the people who oppose the President’s proposals is that the latter’s actions go directly against certain precepts that are established in federal law. The 26 states that have supported the move to block the policies from being passed express that the country would have to invest a significant amount of resources to bestow benefits onto undocumented immigrants who have been residing in the country illegally. While a sense of opposition is prominent, there are also supporters who back the changes that are being planned by the President’s administration. Supporters express that the act of bestowing government benefits onto these immigrants would allow them to contribute to the country’s productivity in an open and unrestricted manner thereby yielding several positive developments for the nation as a consequence.

If you or someone you know needs legal counsel regarding immigration issues, please contact the immigration attorneys at Lyttle Law Firm in Austin, Texas by visiting our website or calling us today at 512-215-5225.

Published on:

file0001770792325There have been a variety of controversies that surround issues on immigration reform and one of the latest problems that have captured the interest of numerous individuals involves President Obama’s DAPA program. The Deferred Action for Parental Accountability program that the President has cobbled together has come under fire from several sectors. The controversy that surrounds this program has risen to such a degree that a temporary suspension of its execution has been mandated by a federal judge from Texas. The effects of this suspension have affected a number of undocumented immigrants who previously held out hope that the DAPA program would provide a solution to the quandaries that they possess regarding their residency status.

One of the immigrants who is feeling the effects wrought by the suspension of the President’s DAPA program is Wilfredis Ayala. Ayala is a Long island construction worker who was previously held under immigration custody but was promptly released after the President announced the impending implementation of the DAPA program. Under the regulations of the president’s proposed program, Ayala should be able to avail of a temporary stay within the U.S. since his son was born in the country. However, after the DAPA program’s suspension was announced, the temporary respite that Ayala enjoyed quickly evaporated. It is a state that he shares along with scores of immigrants. While the President’s administration is currently appealing the decision, further decisions regarding the DAPA program’s future will have to be postponed until after a scheduled March 19 hearing.

One of the biggest concerns that grip the attention of the immigrants who are affected by the program’s suspension has to deal with the prospects of deportation. Several immigrants fear that they may be deported before the program can fully take in effect. While the President expressed that decisions regarding deportation will be held in stasis for qualified immigrants for the DAPA program, a thread of uncertainty remains given the current stance that is being adopted by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement department. Several law practitioners have gone on the record to say that officers of the ICE have communicated that their clients are no longer shielded from deportation due to the temporary suspension of the DAPA program rollout.

If you or someone you know needs legal counsel regarding immigration issues, please contact the immigration attorneys at Lyttle Law Firm in Austin, Texas by visiting our website or calling us today at 512-215-5225.

Published on:

moneyThere are a variety of immigration – related issues that have rocked the business world and affected a slew of foreign workers, One of the major areas that business executives are concerned with have to deal with the availability of work visas that are made available to various foreigners who possess the technical skills that industry leaders need from an expanding workforce. These views were fully solidified at the American Enterprise Institute through the presence of one of Google’s top executives, Eric Schmidt. Schmidt is of the opinion that one of the biggest priorities that take precedence within the sector of immigration reform has to deal with the availability of work visas to foreign workers. Schmidt is leaning towards welcoming more immigrants into the country but states that priorities should be geared towards immigrants who possess skill sets that could be utilized by burgeoning industries.

One of the biggest sources of frustration that Schmidt is grappling with when it comes to immigration reform policies has to deal with the way the U.S. Government manages its approach towards immigrants. Schmidt expressed that the trend of educating foreigners and ushering them out of the country upon the completion of their respective degrees has taken its toll on American businesses. The executive asserted that these foreign workers take their education and their skills with them and proceed to build operations that end up competing with the established ventures that already exist within the U.S.

Schmidt is adamant about the fact that extensive reform has to be paid to the way the government approaches the distribution of H – 1B visas. By neglecting to provide American educated immigrants with the opportunity to become legal residents of the U.S., Schmidt says that the country is depriving itself of several business opportunities. Allowing these immigrants to stay would mean an increase in the pool of skills that industry leaders can tap into and an exponential increase in employment rates should these immigrants opt to establish business operations of their own. It is no secret that the topic of immigration reform policy has split lawmakers into separate camps for years. Schmidt asserts that separating other immigration concerns from the possibility of expanding the H – 1B visa program would expedite developments within the area of the latter example. One of the executive’s biggest beliefs is that several lawmakers do share the same views that he harbors. Prioritizing this concern would yield massive benefits for every party involved.

If you or someone you know needs legal counsel regarding immigration issues, please contact the immigration attorneys at Lyttle Law Firm in Austin, Texas by visiting our website or calling us today at 512-215-5225.

Published on:

approvedImmigrants who intend to secure permanent resident status in the United States must be aware of the regulations that are inherent in the process. Undocumented immigrants who fail to possess a comprehensive understanding of the conditions for permanent residency are likely to run into costly pitfalls. The case of Bouras brings this reality to the fore in a sobering manner.

A native Algerian, Bouras initially entered the United States in 1997 on a nonimmigrant business visitor visa. The duration of Bouras’ visit ended up exceeding the maximum duration allowed on his visa. Bouras was living in Chicago in 2006 when he entered into a marriage with Schreiner who was living in Ohio. As a consequence of this union, Bouras was granted conditional permanent resident status since Schreiner was a U.S. Citizen.

The marriage between Bouras and Schreiner lasted for two and a half years. For much of the duration of their union, Bouras continued to live in Chicago while Schreiner remained in Ohio. During this period, Bouras left for Algeria alone. Bouras spent 6 months in Algeria visiting his family.

Before Bouras could successfully make the transition from being a conditional permanent resident to being an unconditional permanent resident, his union with Reiner ended in divorce. Bouras ran into complications with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services when he failed to substantiate that the marriage he had with Schreiner was born out of good faith. Consequently, the USCIS placed Bouras in removal proceedings.

During the proceedings that ensued, Bouras was the sole individual who testified in his own case. Any other witnesses, including Bouras’ ex – wife, Schreiner, failed to appear at the hearing to provide an account about the marriage. Bouras attempted to buy more time for his case. Stating that he needed a chance to have his ex – wife testify during the hearing, Bouras asked for a continuance. The immigration judge who presided over Bouras’ case failed to find “extenuating circumstances” that could justify a continuance. The immigration judge denied Bouras’ request. The lack of evidence failed to substantiate Bouras’ claims that the marriage had been in good faith. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the decision of the judge and Bouras’ case concluded.

If you or someone you know needs legal counsel regarding immigration issues, please contact the immigration attorneys at Lyttle Law Firm in Austin, Texas by visiting our website or calling us today at 512-215-5225.

Published on:

orderStrict regulations regarding immigration policies are largely a product of contemporary attitudes towards political identity. For the most part, the immigration policies that a country possesses are a reflection of its attitude regarding possible instances of immigration. The set of conditions that form the body of the United State’s immigration policies can be challenging for undocumented immigrants who attempt to secure permanent resident status. The case of Mogeni serves as a stark reminder of the difficulties posed by the country’s immigration policies to undocumented immigrants who attempt to acquire a permanent form of residence.

Mogeni is a Kenyan citizen. In 2002, Mogeni entered the United States as a non – immigrant visitor. In 2003, Mogeni decided to enter into a marriage with a U.S. Citizen named Byers. Byers and Mogeni attempted to resolve the latter’s immigrant status by filing an I – 30 petition for Alien Relative. The Department of Homeland Security denied the petition that was filed by the couple. The DHS maintained that Mogeni and Byers’ union was a sham. The conclusion of their proceedings with the DHS dissuaded Mogeni and Byers from pursuing an appeal.

The union between Byers and Mogeni ended in divorce in 2004. Mogeni then entered into another marriage with Gullie, also a U.S. citizen. Mogeni’s second marriage occurred in 2005, three months after his marriage with Byers ended. Mogeni and Gullie also attempted to file an I – 30 petition. The DHS denied Mogeni’s second attempt. The DHS brought up Mogeni’s case with his ex – wife citing that he previously tried to obtain an immigration benefit by entering into a sham marriage with Byers.

This time, Mogeni decided to file an appeal. Mogeni’s daughter from a previous marriage in Kenya, Gatere, also filed an I – 30 petition on Mogeni’s behalf. In 2006, the DHS decided to initiate removal proceedings against Mogeni. Mogeni appeared with his legal counsel during the scheduled hearing. Mogeni’s party requested for a continuance and the request was granted. From 2007 to 2012, Mogeni was able to obtain 12 continuances from an immigration judge. Mogeni’s luck ran out when he filed for his 13th request for a continuance. The immigration judge rejected Mogeni’s request and ordered the former’s removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the immigration judge’s ruling.

If you or someone you know needs legal counsel regarding immigration issues, please contact the immigration attorneys at Lyttle Law Firm in Austin, Texas by visiting our website or calling us today at 512-215-5225.

Published on:

usdhsControversy over President Obama’s plans immigration reform continues to foment political partisanship. Obama’s executive orders on immigration have Republicans rallying to impede his administration’s progress. GOP lawmakers have set up roadblocks for the President’s proposed immigration reform policies by attaching riders to the funding bill of the Department of Homeland Security. The act would effectively defund Obama’s executive action on immigration. The ensuing schism between these political camps has the DHS bracing itself for a potential shutdown. The failure to pass the security bill will have the DHS teetering over the brink of a state of abeyance, effectively idling the agency’s 240, 000 federal workers who are deemed “inessential.”

Should Congress fail to pass the bill within a limited window of time, the agency’s funding will dissipate. Speaker of the House John Boehner expressed the Republican Party’s stance on the highly controversial orders issued by Obama. The Republicans move to reject or refuse the agency’s proposed $39.7 billion budget should the President continue to pursue his stance on immigration reform. Boehner articulated that should Obama opt to withdraw his proposed orders to protect millions of undocumented foreign nationals from deportation, the Republicans would cease to obstruct the passing of the agency’s security bill.

October 2013 Federal Shutdown

A shutdown within the DHS has occurred in the past. The federal shutdown on October 2013 effectively idled about 31, 300 DHS employees according to the Congressional Research Service. The agency retained about 85 percent of its workforce deeming them “essential.” During the 2013 shutdown, DHS workers who remained continued to work without pay. Should the funding for the DHS fail to pass, events that ensued during the October 2013 federal shutdown will recur.  Employees who are deemed “essential” will report for work without pay until the agency’s funding quandaries obtain a clear resolution; an aggregate estimate of indispensable DHS staff make up about 20 to 25 percent of the agency’s workforce.

Obama’s Stance on Immigration Reform

A continued enforcement of Obama’s executive orders may deepen the conflict that currently wracks the contemporary political landscape. The President’s proposed Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) would effectively prevent the deportation of immigrants who were brought to the country by their parents when they were children. This condition applies to parents of U.S. citizens or lawful residents as well, provided they are able to pass the stipulated background checks and other applicable qualifications.

If you or any of your friends and loved ones harbor concerns and questions over shifting immigration policies, you may want to seek counsel legal counsel at the Lyttle Law Firm. Contact us today at 512-215-5225 for assistance.

Published on:

capitolThe consensus between immigration reform policies and public opinion has, to a considerable degree, consistently displayed a quality of disparity. President Obama’s executive action on immigration has received a strong sense of support from three – quarters of the American public. In spite of this fact, Obama’s recent immigration plans have been met with a potent amount of opposition from the Republican sector. 26 Republican governors have taken legal action against Obama’s administration with the assertion that the order that has been issued lies far beyond the boundaries of Obama’s authority. The GOP governor’s efforts have received a favorable ruling from a Republican – appointed judge in Texas. The latter ruled in favor of the GOP governors and issued an injunction, effectively halting the implementation of the immigration reform policy.

The American Values Atlas

The Public Religion Research Institute recently released the American Values Atlas, an online interactive map that paints a detailed picture of the changes inherent in the contemporary American religious and political topography. The AVA is designed to process huge streams of data – culled from an excess of 40, 000 telephone interviews – to provide an unprecedented account of American public opinion at a level that has previously been unheard of. Small subgroups of Americans whose opinions have long been absent from previous surveys have found a mouthpiece through the AVA. The two metrics utilized by the AVA include opinions that cluster around immigration policy and public perceptions on the impact that foreign nationals have had on the country. The results yielded by the AVA are revelatory.

Opinions on Immigration Reform Policies

On a national level, the AVA has produced results that support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Six in 10 Americans say that the best approach for dealing with undocumented immigrants who are living in the country is to provide them with a way to become citizens provided they meet specific requirements. 17 percent of the respondents from the AVA’s sample size say that foreign nationals should be allowed to become legal residents but not citizens. 19 percent of the AVA’s respondents favored the identification and deportation of immigrants. From an economic standpoint, the American public holds favorable opinions on the impact that immigrants have had on the country’s progress. 55 percent of the AVA respondents expressed that the diverse skill sets and work output that foreign nationals possess strengthen the country’s economy while a mere 36 percent state that undocumented immigrants impose a burden on the country because they take away housing, jobs, and healthcare opportunities.

The Question of Consensus

A brief look at the results that have been produced by the AVA reveals that there is a general consensus across states when it comes to immigration policy solutions. Generally, a majority of the residents of all 50 states maintain that a path to citizenship should be made available for qualified undocumented immigrants who currently reside in the country. The staggering sense of support produced by the AVA’s findings provides a stark contrast to the polarized political bickering.  Ideally, the AVA’s findings should steer political leaders to push past partisan ideology to heed the broad sense of accordance that their constituents have expressed on the issues surrounding immigration reform policies.

People with concerns regarding the shifts in immigration reform policies may want to seek legal counsel at the Lyttle Law Firm in Austin, Texas. Acquire more details by visiting their website or calling their offices at 512-215-5225.