Austin Immigration Lawyer Blog

As an immigration attorney in Texas, I recognize that the legal system has its faults and that the immigration system possesses its share of problems, but I also firmly believe that everyone should have access to the judicial process. It has been reported that the Department of Homeland Security has sidestepped the courts by expanding its use of the "Expedited Removal" process in which a suspect is not granted any legal representation or advice but is subject to the decisions of an immigrations or border patrol officer. These decisions often result in the deportation of the individual in question.

Expedited Removal was granted to the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agencies in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. This act allows immigration officers to remove or deport non-citizens who lack proper entry documents or have gained entry through fraudulent documents.

Initially Expedited Removal was used by these agencies only at ports of entry or along the border, but in 2004, the Bush Administration expanded its use to those areas within one hundred miles of the southern U.S. border. Individuals who are subject to Expedited Removal must lack evidence of having resided in the U.S. for more than two years. Furthermore, once the removal decision has been made by an immigration officer, the individual cannot appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals as is typical in most other immigration cases, unless the individual wishes to apply for asylum due to a substantial fear of persecution within their home country.

Individuals who receive a removal judgment are deported immediately or are detained until deportation can occur. If the individual claims the status of a citizen or documented resident, then they may be detained until able to present their case before an immigration judge. If the judgment is upheld, then the individual is barred from returning to the United States for at least five years. If fraud or misrepresentation has occurred then the individual is barred from entering the country for their lifetime.

In the past, the CBP and ICE have reserved Expedited Removal for a handful of cases and resorted to the immigration courts to process the majority of deportation proceedings. In recent years, however, immigration agencies have ramped up the use of Expedited Removal to the point that hundreds of thousands may now be deported without ever speaking to a judge or attorney. This policy is now under review in the courts in relevant cases like one involving Martha Ledesma, an undocumented alien who has been residing in the U.S. since 1991. Groups like the National Lawyers Guild and the ACLU have stepped in to support individuals like Ledesma.

This large scale deportation operation is occurring without due process. I eagerly await the decisions of judges and courts in these cases.

Continue reading ""Expedited Removal" Process Limits Access to Legal Counsel" »

On February 12, 2013 the U.S. Senate voted to ratify the Violence Against Women Act by a vote of 78 to 22. This now leaves reauthorization of VAWA up to the members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Last year, both chambers of Congress presented bills that would have renewed VAWA, but differences in provisions regarding gay, immigrant and Native American victims led to inaction. With such overwhelming support in the Senate, and removal of a controversial provision which would have increased the number of U visas, the prospects for Congressional approval are markedly improved.

As an immigration lawyer in Texas, I am often confronted with cases involving women who have been subjected to violence at the hands of their husband or a family member. This has been addressed in the past by the introduction of the U visa program, which grants battered wives, children, or siblings under the age of 18 with a four year visa that allows work eligibility. Currently the number of U visas is capped at 10,000 per year, but Senator Patrick Leahy, who authored the latest version of VAWA, had originally intended to raise this number. In order to receive bipartisan support in the Senate and improve chances of passage in the Republican controlled House, Sen. Leahy left out the U visa changes. He stated that he would seek to enter this provision into immigration reform acts that would be presented later in the year.

The Violence against Women Act was initially passed in 1994 and was reauthorized by Congress in 2000 and 2005. A key provision of VAWA allowed victims of violence to seek entry to the U.S. through the U visa program if they could establish a familial relationship with the abuser, shared residency with the abuser, maintained good moral character and had been a victim of battery or criminal cruelty in the past.

U visas are granted to individuals who have received physical or mental abuse resulting from rape, torture, false imprisonment, or a number of other criminal actions. Applicants must fill out appropriate petitions and receive certification from a law enforcement agency attesting to the applicant's status as a victim of domestic violence. Although this is established under the Violence Against Women Act, the applicant does not have to be female. Applicants do not need to possess legal immigrant status to apply for U visas.
As a seasoned immigration lawyer in Texas, I often encounter situations where a wife or family member has been criminally abused by someone at their residence. This heartbreaking situation is often complicated by the fact that those involved may not possess proper immigration documentation, which may inhibit seeking help from law enforcement. Now that VAWA appears to be poised for renewal, I am eager to begin recommending to individuals in these situations to continue to apply for U visas.

Continue reading "Senate Reauthorizes Violence Against Women Act" »

The highest court in the Texas judicial system approved the introduction and use of standardized divorce documents in a 5-3 decision. The Texas Supreme Court's decision was hailed by some low income advocates as an improved mechanism for poor couples to dissolve their marriages, but has proven to be a growing burden upon many lower courts as well as these households. The availability of forms without proper understanding of the language or the appropriate legal procedures has led to widespread confusion which has actually increased the ultimate costs to many of these litigants. As a family law attorney in Austin, I understand the need for individuals to keep legal costs low, but going through a complicated process like a divorce without legal counsel can often be more costly than hiring a competent attorney.

The decision by the Texas Supreme Court may have been based on the belief that standardized forms would streamline the process for family courts, and expedite the resolution of the more than 80,000 divorces occurring annually. The forms approved by the Supreme Court on Nov. 13, 2012 were a result of an 18 month long process. The forms were designed to be specific to Texas law and usable by anyone in a marriage without children. The document creators intended the forms to be used by individuals of all households, but experts warn that only those couples without significant assets and cannot afford an attorney should utilize them.

Numerous complications can arise from the use of these forms if one or both parties possess assets like 401k plans or retirement accounts. Without adequate legal representation, a litigant could be passing up thousands of dollars in potential benefits.
The real cost for those seeking a do-it-yourself divorce is often not a result of lost assets, but rather the costs of a botched legal procedure. Many filers may misunderstand the language and present answers that are inaccurate. This can often result in extended legal proceedings and greater legal costs when an attorney may be required to resolve divorce proceedings that have become tangled due to improper completion of divorce papers.

The solution presented by the Family Law Cares project is to match pro bono attorneys with indigent households. This project helps attorneys who are willing to work pro bono on divorce cases communicate more effectively with one another, thereby allocating available legal resources to individuals who desperately require them. The Family Law Cares project also helps introduce new law school graduates to the legal system by giving them the opportunity to work in courtrooms and aid these couples.

As a family attorney in Austin, I realize that many couples who want to end their marriages try to take the option that presents the least up-front costs. While the forms that are available may seem attractive, there is often no substitute for experienced legal counsel.

Continue reading "Texas Supreme Court Approves Standardized Divorce Documents" »

President Obama has made some surprising claims about the security of America's southern border. Probably in response to Republican proposals that immigration reform should be tied to enhanced border security, the President stated in his State of the Union speech that the number of illegal crossings have declined to their lowest point in 40 years.

While the facts may be disputed by some, there is strong evidence that more Border Patrol agents and a sluggish U.S. economy have contributed to a much lower number of undocumented aliens entering the country. As an immigration attorney in Texas, I applaud the federal government's efforts to make the country more secure.

The number of confirmed cases of attempted crossings has declined from almost 1 million in 2005 to 286,000 in 2011. The Pew Research Hispanic Center estimates that unauthorized net immigration has dropped to virtually zero. A number of factors have contributed to this including a low demand for labor in the labor markets, an elevation in the number of Border Patrol personnel, and more deportations. The U.S. Border Patrol reported about 327,000 apprehensions at the border 2011, the lowest number since almost 321,000 in 1972.

Much of this diminished influx into the U.S. can be attributed to the strengthening of the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol. Since September 11, 2001, the number of Border Patrol agents has risen from 3,000 to almost 20,700. Additional surveillance and deterrence methods have also stymied efforts to enter the U.S. through its southern border. Almost 700 miles of fencing have been built and the CBP utilizes advanced technological systems like Predator drones to monitor the 2,000 mile long boundary. Furthermore, the government has stepped up its deportations. In 2010, almost 380,000 people were deported.

While the southern border is a hot button issue, the greater problem may actually be people who enter the United States legally, but fail to leave when their visa has expired. The Government Accounting Office estimates that of the 11 million undocumented aliens in the U.S., almost 4 or 5 million are here as a result of overstaying their visas. While these undocumented aliens may pose less of a burden upon the U.S. economy, many more of these individuals are likely to present a national security concern.

These issues have come to the forefront as the Obama administration prepares to introduce its immigration reform package. The President has spoken about providing a "clear path to citizenship" without triggers related to border security or other immigration issues. The Republicans led by Cuban-American Senator Marco Rubio, have proposed a path to citizenship, but one that is linked to enhanced border security.

As Congress and the President prepare to hammer out new immigration reforms, I am eager to see which side will get what they desire. As an immigration lawyer in Austin, I understand clearly the need to provide the 11 million undocumented aliens residing in the country with some form of legal status. Not only will this help raise taxes and lower crime, but it will benefit the nation's economy.

Continue reading "Border Security Has Deterred Undocumented Crossings" »

Like any other highly charged issue, illegal immigration is a complex one with benefits and disadvantages that often get ignored in the heat of argument. As an immigration attorney in Texas, I understand how strongly many people feel about undocumented aliens. They see only the negatives and fail to recognize that many of these newly arrived individuals and families are just as committed to being productive members of society as any established U.S. citizen.

A recent article in the New York Times by Adam Davidson presented a balanced expose on the effects of undocumented aliens on the economy. The vast majority of undocumented workers is unskilled and therefore takes the low wage jobs that many U.S. citizens would not want or would expect higher wages for. The argument that these undocumented workers depress the wages among workers without at least a high school diploma is a valid one. Studies have shown that within this class of workers which includes about 25 million individuals, undocumented aliens have depressed wages from 0.4 to 7.4 percent.
On the other hand, the wages for the other classes of workers have actually increased. A report indicates that pay for workers in other classes actually increased by 10 percent. Skilled workers and white collar professionals benefit from the cheap labor. A good example of this was exemplified by an undocumented worker who performed many of the menial tasks on the construction site that would otherwise have to be completed by a skilled worker. This included cleaning and installation of simple fixtures. This cheap labor not only allowed skilled workers to devote more of their valuable time to the tasks appropriate to their level, but it also allowed them to work in an environment that was more efficient. The minor investment in one or a few undocumented workers enabled the construction project to operate at a lower overall cost.

These workers also provide stimulatory benefits to the economy through their purchases and taxes. The anti-immigrant position has long been that these undocumented aliens take more than they receive. While it is true that many immigrants receive social benefits like education and indigent health care, they more than make up for it with the economic activity they provide. While many undocumented aliens pay Social Security as well as some form of taxes, they are often not eligible to receive benefits when they retire. This produces a net payment of $14 billion into the Social Security program annually.

While undocumented aliens do provide real and substantial benefits to the U.S. economy, the challenges lie in providing opportunities to these workers equitably. In border states, where there are large populations of undocumented aliens, there are considerable burdens upon local governments. As an immigration attorney in Texas, I recognize that there are significant integration challenges for these communities as well as wider U.S. society, but given the chance, many of these newcomers could become partners and welcome neighbors.

Continue reading "Despite Some Drawbacks, Undocumented Immigrants Help The Economy" »

As an immigration attorney, I am a keen observer of judicial decisions, especially in cases with unique circumstances. The case of Fofana v. Holder is just such a case; Moussa Fofana sought asylum in the U.S. based on the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He attested that he had been beaten by security forces in his native Republic of Guinea and feared persecution if returned. The original petition to the immigration judge, appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and his appeal to the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court were all denied.

Moussa Fofana originally attempted to enter the U.S. using a false passport and other fraudulent documents. He went before an immigration judge and testified that he was a Malinke, a persecuted ethnic minority. He also stated that he had joined a political party called Rally of People in Guinea (RPG), in which he obtained a leadership position.
He goes on to testify that he was arrested twice by Guinea security forces who beat, abused and stabbed Fofana. After his release, Fofana stated that he sought medical care. It was following this second arrest that he attempted to gain entry to the United States.
The BIA ruled against Fofana on the basis of inconsistent and implausible documentation and testimony. While testifying that his second arrest took place on April 24, 2002, and following his release two weeks later, he sought treatment from a physician, he submitted a document claiming he received medical treatment on May 22, 2002. Fofana attempted to correct this inconsistency by stating he had actually visited two doctors. The submitted document also did not indicate that Fofana had been stabbed by police, but rather had received an assault and battery.

Furthermore, Fofana stated that the arrests occurred in the aftermath of the national presidential referendum. News reports, however, record the referendum occurring in 2001, a year before of the events described by Fofana. A final contributing factor to the appeals denial was Fofana's demeanor throughout the proceedings. When asked simple questions, Fofana often responded evasively and became verbally combative.

The Eighth Circuit Court based its decision on the factual findings of BIA, which could not be refuted by the appellant. The inconsistencies in testimony and documentation which led to the decision by the IJ and BIA were not refuted in the testimony to the circuit court. Furthermore, the credibility finding used to make prior decisions was upheld to be admissible and pertinent.

The immigration system is a complex one, but there are a number of important lessons to be learned from cases like Fofana v. Holder. First, be sure of your facts. Secondly, provide documentation that supports your story. Finally, your character is as an important an issue as the facts of the case.

Continue reading "Eighth Circuit Denies Guinea Petitioner Asylum" »

As an immigration attorney, I recognize that the justice system may place seemingly unjust burdens upon foreign nationals applying for a visa, permanent residency, or citizenship.

This was highlighted in a recent case, Toro v. Sec. for the Dept. of Homeland Security, et al, in which Aracelys Toro, a Venezuelan national was denied a permanent residency status due to her Cuban husband's inadmissibility under the Cuban Refugee Act of 1966. Her husband was denied residency as a result of prior criminal violations, which led to Toro's subsequent denial as well.

Toro later appealed the decision by the U.S. Customs and Immigration Services and asked the agency to grant her residency on the basis of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 which had been amended to the Cuban Refugee Act. This statute permits battered spouses of Cuban aliens to self-petition for residency status.

USCIS again denied the petition by Toro. The decision was based on the fact that Toro's marital relationship with her husband did not qualify under the Cuban Refugee Act. USCIS declared that because her husband had been previously denied status as a permanent resident, Toro did not qualify as a "spouse of any alien described in section 1 of CAA."
Upon appeal to the Administrative Appeals Office, Toro was again denied a permanent residency. The AAO supported prior USCIS decisions stipulating that Toro's husband did not meet the qualification that he must be admissible to the U.S. for permanent residence. The AAO also supported its decision with the reasoning from the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision in the Matter of Quijada-Coto.

Toro subsequently filed a complaint in the U.S. district Court. She supported her appeal on the basis that her petition's denial was in conflict with the intent of Congressional legislators who drafted the law. She also argued that the Fifth Amendment's equal protection clause should enable her to receive permanent residency. The district court judged in favor of USCIS due to the plainness of the language in CAA.

Toro appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. This court too found in favor of USCIS. Once again the court found the simple language of the Cuban Refugee Act to unequivocally convey the intent of Congress. Therefore because Toro's husband is disqualified from seeking permanent residency, the appellant is also justly denied residency status as well. Although Toro argued that only the first two clauses should govern applications and the other three are only guidelines, the Appeals Court found no reason to support that distinction.

Toro also argued under the equal protection clause that she should not be disqualified on the basis of her husband's inadmissibility. The court found that VAWA protection in relation to self-petitioning was intended to prevent a spouse from using the petitioning process as a means of control. Because the husband had already been denied, no such control issue pertained.

As an immigration attorney, I am constantly confronted by new cases with unique circumstances. It is a source of endless fascination to me how the justice system decides such complex and groundbreaking cases. The lessons learned from Toro and similar cases help me provide advice and assistance to my clients.

For those who remember the 2007 attempt to reform immigration, it was apparent that one of the groups that pushed hardest against passage were the major labor unions, who then feared that the proposed guest worker program would undermine union membership and weaken future negotiating positions. Then Senator and now President Obama clearly recalls this because he is attempting to lay the groundwork for his new immigration reform package by reaching out to union leaders. As an immigration lawyer I am eager to see if reform efforts by the President and leaders of Congress meet with success.

President Obama met with leaders of major unions within the last few weeks. AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka, Service Employees International Union leader Eliseo Medina, and Arturo Rodriguez of United Farm Workers met with the President for an hour to discuss the relevant issues. In the press meeting afterwards, they appeared to support the President's agenda. The President is also scheduled to meet with heads of major U.S. companies like Ford Motor, PepsiCo and General Electric to also discuss immigration reform.

This is in contrast to the position of the unions only a few short years ago. The President and Congress are again likely to push for guest worker passes which are supported by businesses and the farming community. Businesses would like few restrictions on these visas, while labor groups are reluctant to grant carte-blanche to Congress. Labor groups also favor an easier path to citizenship than that proposed in 2007.

Labor leaders have voiced their desire for "data-driven" guest worker overhauls. Trumka of the AFL-CIO proposed a flexible, need dependent system that would scale up or down according to demand. This stands in stark contrast to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce which supports unrestricted number of visas.

The political math is quite different than it was in 2007. Not only is there strong bipartisan support for immigration reform, but the power of labor unions have declined in the past few years. In 2007, the legislation failed in large part due to pressure from these outside groups that convinced key Democratic leaders to vote against the measure. There may also be a shift within labor groups themselves; many of these new immigrant workers may be more amenable to union membership, thereby bolstering their falling numbers.

As an immigration attorney in the border state of Texas, I fully recognize the importance of immigrant labor in the U.S. economy. Despite some fears that border security is lacking, there have been some studies showing that more manpower at the Mexican border has slowed or halted the migration of undocumented aliens into the U.S. This has led to labor issues in key industries including farming. Hopefully, President Obama and Congress will be able to hammer out a comprehensive reform package that successfully addresses these and many other immigration issues.

Continue reading "President Obama Woos Labor Unions in Advance of Immigration Reform Push" »

In the wake of the horrific tragedies that occurred on September 11, 2001, the United States revamped its immigration system to turn away any foreign nationals could pose a threat to the country. While this natural response has helped to increase national security, it has also had a stifling effect upon businesses established by foreign-born entrepreneurs.

As an immigration lawyer in Texas, I recognize that many of the most successful and driven business people in our communities often have foreign ties.

President Obama and Congress are beginning to realize that an immigration system that turns away the world's best and brightest is putting the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage. In order to bring the most talented students and business people to America, the government has proposed the Startup Act 2.0. This act would provide 75,000 entrepreneur visas to business founders, as well as allow 50,000 Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) students to remain in the U.S.

These foreign-born entrepreneurs are a major source of economic activity and job creation. According to the Kauffman Foundation, in 2005, tech startups led by foreign-born CEOs generated almost $52 billion in revenue and employed almost 450,000 employees. Major tech companies like Google and eBay depend on thousands of foreign-born employees who have STEM backgrounds to fuel their company's innovation and competitiveness.

The Startup Act 2.0 is not a free pass for anyone who would like to begin a company; there are rigorous requirements involved. For entrepreneurs establishing a company, they must hire at least two U.S. workers immediately and raise at least $100,000 in startup capital. They must also grow to hire at least five employees within the first few years.
Startup Act 2.0 has bipartisan support as well as strong advocacy from the business community but it faces a tough battle ahead. It was sponsored by Sens. Mark Warner and Chris Coons--both Democrats--as well as Jerry Moran and Marco Rubio--Republican Senators. Companies including Microsoft, Technet and Google have come out in support of the bill. President Obama even referenced keeping talented students in America in his inaugural speech.

The uncertainty of this legislation's future is related to the broader immigration battle that is brewing. Despite its strong backing from important leaders and groups, the Startup Act 2.0 could become subsumed by a larger legislative package set forth by the President or Congressional leaders. Consequently, this critical piece of legislation may become a casualty of partisan bickering or sacrificed to ease passage.

As a highly experienced immigration lawyer in Austin, I am all too familiar with foreign born business people who attempt to establish an enterprise here but are overwhelmed by the numerous bureaucratic and legal challenges. I fully support Startup Act 2.0 and its intentions to help America foster innovation, job creation, and economic competitiveness.

Continue reading "What is the Startup Act 2.0? and What is its Role in Attracting the World's Most Talented Entrepreneurs?" »

U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, along with three other Senators, introduced a new bill in the Senate designated the Immigration Innovation Act of 2013. This bill includes a variety of provisions that would increase the number of H1-B visas and visas provided to foreign workers, while limiting the costs and restrictions for highly skilled immigrant workers to change jobs or start their own businesses. As a long-time immigration lawyer in Texas, I am optimistic that this bill will receive support from both parties and the business community.

Commonly dubbed the I-Squared Act, this bill has already received enthusiastic praise from many business leaders who recognize that attracting and retaining highly gifted students in the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines are critical for economic growth. Many U.S. companies are suffering from a skilled worker gap that is hobbling competitiveness.

The I-Squared Act would introduce a market-based system for H1-B visas. Currently, the U.S. government only provides about 65,000 of these skilled worker visas per year, but this new bill would increase this number to 115,000, with another possible extension up to 300,000 if demand is high. The new system would set periodic thresholds that would increase the cap from 5,000 up to 20,000 if the application quotas are met within a set number of calendar days. The new system would also remove the 20,000 cap on advanced degree holders and permit spouses of H1-B visa grantees to seek employment.
Other highly skilled visas would also be revamped under this bill. Visas in the E, H, L, O and P categories would be renewable, allowing these skilled workers to extend their professional stays in the country. Furthermore, many of the issues and costs associated with changing jobs would be mitigated.

Students in STEM concentrations would also receive dual intent visas that would enable them to more easily remain in the country and transition to the professional world. They would also be able to use unused and recaptured visas from prior months which would allow spouses and family members to remain with them.

There have been a number of studies showing that highly skilled immigrant entrepreneurs are major drivers of job creation and economic growth. A study by the Small Business Administration showed that immigrant entrepreneurs begin almost 350 businesses a month, which easily outnumbers the 270 businesses founded by U.S. born business people. The highly skilled STEM post-graduates from foreign countries also receive more than 3 times as many patents as U.S. advanced degree holders.

As businesses push to open the door to highly skilled workers, it is encouraging to see Congressional leaders responding appropriately. As an immigration attorney in Texas, I have too often seen skilled and unskilled workers who are willing and able to contribute to our economy turned away because of illogical immigration laws.

Continue reading "What is the Immigration Innovation Act of 2013?" »

Following the proposed immigration reforms announced by a bipartisan coalition of U.S. Senators, President Barack Obama released his four principles of immigration reform at a speaking engagement in Las Vegas. Although he did agree with the group of Senators, which included Sens. Schumer, Menendez, McCain, and Rubio, on at least some of the key tenets of an immigration reform package, the President made some declarative statements opposing some proposals the Senators presented.

As an immigration attorney practicing in Austin, Texas, I am very encouraged at the enthusiasm and swift action that leaders of both parties are exhibiting in trying to fix the problematic immigration system.

President Obama voiced his support for the Senators' proposal to ease restrictions on Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) students who desire to remain in the U.S. following graduation from college. He cited these highly gifted students as job creators in the new, technology-based global economy, and praised the Senators for their support for these skilled workers and entrepreneurs. He proposed that more start-up and investor visas be issued in order to help energize the economy. The president also supported employer enforcement and the elimination of a waiting list for families that have been separated.

The President, however, distanced himself from the pathway to citizenship that the Senators proposed. The Congressional plan would provide citizenship, only after the borders were secured and issues with overstayed visas had been resolved. The President refused to make citizenship contingent upon these factors, which he considers nebulous and undefined. Instead, the President urged Congress to produce a "straightforward" path to citizenship that would be clear and obtainable for the majority of the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently residing in the U.S.

President Obama also laid out his intentions to eliminate multinational criminal organizations like gangs and smuggling rings, as well as "notarios" who provide fraudulent legal advice to newly arrived immigrants. Obama recognized the need for reforms in the immigration court system, which should better recognize humanitarian concerns including same sex couples and separated families.

The President also made clear his intention to act quickly on immigration reform. He declared that if Congress does not formulate an immigration package that coincides with his own provisions within the next few weeks, President Obama would send a legislative bill including all of his proposals to Congress and demand a vote. Obama appeared to be optimistic about the future of immigration reform stating that "we are finally at a moment where comprehensive immigration reform is within our grasp."

I have served the immigrant community for years, as an immigration attorney in Texas, so I understand how encouraging the actions of the President and leaders from both parties are. I am hopeful that with such a wellspring of bipartisan support for immigration reform, this broken and overly expensive immigration system can be refashioned into something that is equitable and humane.

Continue reading "President Obama Outlines His Immigration Agenda" »

U.S. District Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi of the District of Puerto Rico sentenced Rafael Joaquin Beltre-Beltre to 63 months in prison for his involvement in an identity theft ring that includes at least 53 co-conspirators. Beltre-Beltre had faced up to 15 years for identification fraud, 10 years for alien smuggling for financial gain, and 20 years for international money laundering, but was sentenced to a reduced term of imprisonment after pleading guilty to one count of each charge. As an immigration attorney in Texas, I applaud the actions of the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Judicial System in taking swift and appropriate action.

Rafael Joaquin Beltre-Beltre was a 36 year old Dominican national who assisted undocumented aliens in gaining entry to the United States by providing the identities of real Puerto Rican citizens. In exchange for financial compensation, Beltre-Beltre produced identification documents of adult and minor Puerto Rican U.S. citizens. For amounts ranging from $700 up to $2,500, Beltre-Beltre provided Social Security cards and Puerto Rican birth certificates.

Beltre-Beltre confessed to providing identities of living U.S. citizens that he knew would be used for fraudulent acquisition of U.S. passports as well as tax fraud. One such attempt to apply for a passport was recognized as fraudulent and denied by U.S. Immigration officers.
When he was arrested on January 11, 2012, Beltre-Beltre was in possession of at least a hundred identification documents of living Puerto Ricans. He also had a firearm and four blank birth certificates. He was arrested as a result of Operation Island Express, a U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement operation that sought to uncover identity trafficking networks.

The co-conspirators were found throughout the United States and, in some cases, had donned fraudulent identities themselves. Some of the network associates would collect personal information from authentic U.S. citizens residing in Savarona, Puerto Rico and then pass them on to their associates located throughout the continental United States. Using coded telephone calls, text messages, money transfers and the U.S. Postal Service, funds were exchanged for fraudulent identity documents. Of the 53 suspects charged so far, 25 have since pleaded guilty. Customers of this ring used fake documents to obtain other identification documents like a state driver's license.

Rafael Joaquin Beltre-Beltre admitted to being the network's organizer and leader. In addition to his prison sentence, Beltre-Beltre agreed to surrender $442,793 in funds he received during the course of his criminal activity. The defendant also agreed to deportation back to the Dominican Republic after his time had been served.

As an immigration attorney with years of experience handling cases, I recognize the immense damage that these criminal actions can cause. Not only do the immigrants themselves put themselves at risk for immediate deportation, but the victim whose identity has been stolen may require years of effort to clear their names.

Continue reading "Rafael Joaquin Beltre-Beltre Sentenced to 63 Months for Running an Identity Theft Ring" »

As an immigration lawyer who often represents Canadian citizens, it is important to keep up with changes for the TN category -- one of the most used visas for Canadian citizens. A few new filing options for TN status is of particular interest to my Canadian clients:

Since October 1st, 2012, USCIS began accepting applications seeking TN classification for Canadian citizens who are outside of the United States. Previously, USCIS only accepted Form I-129 in connection with extension or change of status to TN nonimmigrant. Canadians seeking to file initial applications for TN status had to make them in person at a U.S. Customs Pre-Border Protection (CBP) pre-flight inspection station, land border, or airport. Canadians now have the option of applying at a port of entry or by having their sponsoring employer file ahead of time with a USCIS service center.

Due to the unpredictability and inconsistencies sometimes faced at the border, many TN applicants are now choosing to file ahead of time. This change allows for better planning and predictability for TN applicants.

As a reminder, Immigration Officers will routinely limit the validity of the TN visa to the expiration date of the Canadian citizen's passport. For this reason, particularly if the employer is requesting a period of admission of three years, it is important to have a valid passport with an expiration date that covers the period requested.

Continue reading "New Filing Options For Canadian TN Nonimmigrants " »

The US Department of State has introduced the online "Visa Status Check", which allows both immigrant and nonimmigrant applicants to check the status of their cases at the Consular Electronic Application Center (CEAC). This is a very good improvement to the system and will allow Petitioners and Applicants to check the status of their case without depending on calling during the restricted phone hours.

Online Visa Status Check

Continue reading "State Department Introduces Online Visa Status Check " »

As an experienced immigration attorney, I am often confronted with a variety reasons for my clients desiring to stay in the United States and receive legal status. One of the most troubling is that of same sex couples who are seeking legal status. The federal government has long ignored these relationships based on the Defense of Marriage Act, which allows the federal government to only recognize relationships between opposite genders.
This is poised to change, however. In recent months, the Obama administration has shown a willingness to include language regarding same sex couples in its upcoming immigration reform proposal. Partly in response to requests by national gay and lesbian advocacy groups, the Obama administration has displayed signs that it will include legislation recognizing the familial status of same sex couples.
Last October, the Department of Homeland Security directed its immigration officers to grant consideration to long-term same sex couples as families. These new guidelines have compelled a number of U.S. Senators to ask DHS to take no action on green card applications for same sex couples until the immigration reform package receives a vote.
While many groups have taken heart in the President's recent words and actions, like his inaugural speech reference to Stonewall--a watershed moment for the gay community--there remains considerable doubt whether it is a political maneuver or a sincere provision in the immigration proposal. Many Senators in the Republican Party are unwilling to support such a provision and, therefore, any Senate bill is unlikely to include it.
The battle for passing a comprehensive immigration reform law is likely to be a difficult one. Although there is a recognition on the political left and right that gaining support from Latino voters requires a pathway to legal status for the 11 million undocumented immigrants now residing in the country, many politicians who would face enormous criticism for their support of immigration reform are unlikely to vote for such a bill.
This leads many experts to believe that the President may include a provision for gay couples without serious belief that it will survive the political wrangling the bill will engender. This has led some Congressional members to sponsor the Uniting American Families Act, which would provide same sex couples similar privileges to heterosexual couples.
Another factor is the Supreme Court's consideration of the Defense of Marriage Act in the case Windsor v. United States. If the Supreme Court strikes down DOMA, then the UAFA may become obviated, paving the way for the federal government to recognize long term gay relationships.
Although none of this is assured, there is considerable hope that same sex couples will begin to receive the recognition necessary to remain in this country. As an immigration attorney in Texas, I am eager to see how the new Congress responds to this and other immigration issues.

Continue reading "Will President Obama Include Same Sex Benefits in Immigrations Package?" »