* Dramatization
* Dramatization
Published on:

nepal-399_1280For undocumented immigrants, the nature of their status can pose considerable problems for them over the course of their stay in the United States. Fortunately, there are a few things that immigrants can do to address this concern. One of the more interesting possibilities that immigrants can do is to check if their specific conditions allow them to secure a Temporary Protected Status from U.S. Homeland Security. If your specific conditions match the requirements stipulated by the Department of Homeland Security, you stand to gain a tremendous amount of comfort from the benefits included in the Temporary Protected Status.

There are a number of ways that a country may be eligible for Temporary Protected Status. If you are an immigrant who hails from an area that is torn with frequent conflict and wars, this condition may be granted. Areas wracked by tumultuous disasters like earthquakes, epidemics, and other natural disasters can also be considered for Temporary Protected Status. The nation of Nepal, which was recently hit by a major earthquake, has been given the Temporary Protected Status by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Both people who have been habitual residents of Nepal and Nepalese nationals who are currently residing in the United States may apply for Temporary Protected Status during the registration period of June 24, 2015 through December 21, 2015.

If you are eligible for Temporary Protected Status, the benefits that may be derived are considerable. Immigrants covered by the Temporary Protected Status cannot be removed from the United States. An employment authorization document will also be given to eligible immigrants, thereby making the task of finding gainful work easier. You are also able to have travel authorization under the regulations of the Temporary Protected Status. It is important to note that this designation does not automatically grant you a permanent resident status. Registering for the Temporary Protected Status allows you to take advantage of the benefits mentioned above. You are still able to apply for immigration benefits that you may be eligible for while you are under the Temporary Protected Status.

Nepalese nationals who are interested in registering for the Temporary Protected Status need to do so during the 180 day registration period from June 24, 2015 through December 21, 2015. Applying for the Temporary Protected Status requires the knowledge of a capable team of lawyers. 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:

airport-802008_1280Several immigrants want to live in the United States but the encompassing authority of the U.S. government to deny them entry is a major hindrance to their dreams and ambitions. While there are a number of ways that undocumented immigrants can explore in an attempt to live in the U.S., there is no guarantee that government authorities will grant them the legal status that they want. One way of entering the United States legally is through marriage to a U.S. citizen. It is important for immigrants to be aware of the fact that this is far from being a guaranteed method of entering U.S. territory. Recently, a resident of California failed to obtain an entry visa for her husband who hails from Afghanistan.

Fauzia Din, a citizen of the U.S., sought to gain an entry visa for her husband, Kanishka Berashk. Berashk, an Afghan, worked for a government agency while his country was under the regime of the Taliban. The Supreme Court found this connection to be enough grounds for refusing him entry into U.S. territory. Citing a provision in the law that dealt with terrorist activities, the Supreme Court justices refused to grant Berashk an entry visa. The case proves to be a sobering display of the considerable power that the U.S. government has to bar immigrants from entering U.S. territory.

The Supreme Court justices imposed its verdict by a 5-4 vote in favor of denying Berashk’s request for an entry visa. Din expressed dismay upon receiving the ruling stating that she expected the Supreme Court to grant them their request because of her “constitutional right to live in the United States with her spouse.” The 5 justices who decided to veto the couple’s request declared that the constitutional right to live in the U.S. with one’s spouse does not, in fact, exist. The justices went further by saying that even if the said right did exist, the court still fulfilled the requirement of due process by refusing to grant Berashk entry because of the law’s provision on terrorism.

Some of the justices who voted in favor of Din and Berashk’s request stated that the law’s provision on terrorism is senseless because it could be used to refer to a broad sweep of human activity. In this case, Berashk’s work as a civil servant was used against him as a result of the law’s reference to terrorist activities. The justices who favored Din and Berashk’s case did state that government failed to fulfill Din’s right to live with her husband.

Cases involving the complexities of immigration law require the knowledge of a capable team of lawyers. 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:

chainlink-690503_1280Several undocumented immigrants attempt to enter the United States every year only to be caught by immigration authorities. More often than not, most of these cases are brought to detention facilities until they are deported back to their countries of origin. A considerable amount of these immigrants come from violent nations in Central America. They flee to the United States in the hope of escaping extreme poverty and violent backgrounds. Lilian Oliva Bardales was one of these immigrant cases. Bardales fled Honduras but was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement authorities. Bardales was placed in a Texas detention center and was deported back to her country. The experiences of immigrants in a detention center can be unpleasant. Bardales’ case is one of them.

Bardales’ first attempt to enter the United States was in May 2014. At that time, Bardales tried to enter the U.S. on her own. She was deported immediately during her first attempt. A few months after her first attempt, Bardales attempted to enter the U.S. again. This time, she brought her son along with her. Bardales and her son attempted to cross the Rio Grande to enter Texas when they were apprehended by U.S Immigration authorities.

Bardales and her son were taken to a detention center for migrants in Texas. Initially, Bardales was optimistic about her case. Given the fact that she was fleeing from Honduras because of a violent ex-partner, Bardales thought that she stood a great chance of being granted asylum. The hope that Bardales had quickly dwindled as her stay in the detention center increased from days to months. After Bardales’ son turned 4 in the Texas detention center, Bardales’ disposition took a turn for the worst. On June 3, Bardales locked herself inside a bathroom and cut her wrist using her broken ID bracelet.

Officials in the detention center found Bardales bleeding on the bathroom floor. She was immediately separated from her son and forced to strip her clothes off. Bardales’ account of that event casts the authorities in an unfavorable light. Bardales asked the officials not to make her take her clothes off and not to separate her from her son. The authorities threatened to tear Bardales’ clothing off if she didn’t cooperate. After she was stripped, Bardales was placed in isolation and transferred to a hotel. Bardales was deported back to Honduras before she could obtain legal aid. Currently, she lives with relatives in Honduras, contemplating her next step.

Cases involving immigrants and detention require the knowledge of a capable team of lawyers. 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:

justice-471888_1280Undocumented immigrants who are facing removal proceedings need to have a strong legal basis to be able to evade deportation. Several immigrants who have entered the U.S. through less than legal means run the risk of being apprehended by immigration authorities. Once removal proceedings have been initiated, there might still be a chance for an immigrant to avoid the verdict of deportation. If an immigrant’s Fourth Amendment rights are violated, it is possible to file a petition to suppress the evidence that is brought against the immigrant and terminate the removal proceedings. In order for this to happen, it is crucial that enough evidence is brought to substantiate that the violation of the immigrant’s Fourth Amendment rights is egregious.

The case of Maria Yanez – Marquez illustrates how a Fourth Amendment violation can be introduced in removal proceedings. Yanez, a citizen of El Salvador, attempted to halt removal proceedings that were brought against her by stating that her Fourth Amendment rights were violated during an investigation that was conducted by agents from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Agents from ICE were investigating the Bontempos, owners of Annapolis Painting Services. The Bontempos were housing immigrants in their premises and ICE agents began to stage an investigation on the Bontempos’ property.

After securing a search warrant, the ICE agents entered the Botempos’ property at 5 A.M. on June 30, 2008. Yanez and her partner, Jose Umana Ruiz, were awakened by yells signaling the arrival of the agents on the Botempos’ premises. Officers entered the bedroom of Yanez and Umana as part of their investigation. After going through the area and conducting a thorough search, the ICE agents warned Yanez not to move to a different location before she received a letter from the Department of Homeland Security. On July 10, 2008, Yanez received a notice to appear from the DHS.

During the removal proceedings initiated against Yanez, she filed a motion to terminate the entire operation and suppress the evidence that was brought against her. Yanez argued that her Fourth Amendment rights were egregiously violated by the ICE agents when they initiated the investigations at 5 A.M. instead of the 6 A.M. time period stipulated on their warrant. Yanez also stated that the ICE agents used excessive force during their investigation. While the court did find the nighttime execution of a daytime warrant could be construed as a violation of Fourth Amendment rights, the violation was deemed not egregious given the nature of the circumstances. The court proceeded to reject Yanez’s other claims and denied her petition to terminate the removal proceedings.

Cases involving the complexities of immigration law require the knowledge of a capable team of lawyers. 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:

Lawmakers Explore Immigration Reform Issues from an Economic PerspectiveThere are a number of conflicting points of view whenever the subject of immigration reform rears its head. President Obama’s attempts to implement extensive immigration reform have resulted in a great deal of controversy. Conservatives rallied to block the executive order that Obama’s administration had crafted. Obama’s plans would have granted legal status to millions of immigrants if there wasn’t such a strong sense of opposition from varied camps. Undocumented immigrants and their supporters may feel a sense of defeat as far as the question of reform is concerned but it is important to be aware of the fact that immigration reform isn’t an issue that’s dead in the water. Several lawmakers are invested in the topic of reform for as long as its extent is mapped out in a measured manner.

Business owners and purveyors of the American economy in particular are keen on increasing the caps on the amount of skilled undocumented immigrant workers who are allowed to enter and reside in the United States. Tech companies in particular are eyeing immigrants with a professional skill set that is geared towards the fields of mathematics and science and technology. Some of the supporters who back immigration reform are spurred by productivity requirements. The increased influx of immigrants with the skills that various industries require could have positive effects on the state of the American economy.

Spurred by economic concerns, lawmakers are eyeing the possibility of passing a number of bills that could increase the number of skilled immigrant workers who are allowed to work in the United States. There is still some amount of opposition surrounding this move. People who take a decidedly conservative stance when it comes to reform issues see a piecemeal vetting of each bill to have a greater chance of being passed over a comprehensive approach towards introducing immigration reform. This gradual approach comes with other specifics. The focus of reform should be directed towards highly skilled workers and entrepreneurs. The preference afforded to immigrant workers who fall under this category does not extend to unskilled immigrant workers. Low skilled immigrant workers are not seen to have as positive an effect as their more educated counterparts do.

Cases involving the complexities of immigration law require the knowledge of a capable team of lawyers. 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:

Focus on High – Skilled Immigrant Workers Brings Up Reform IssuesThe different perspectives surrounding the subject of immigration have prevented an extensive degree of reform from being implemented. Democrats and Republicans have clashed over immigration concerns but one area where they do reach some form of agreement stems from the value that highly skilled immigrant workers possess. Both parties see highly skilled immigrant workers to be a positive force for the economy of the United States. In spite of this shared view, there is still a split when it comes to ensuring that highly skilled immigrant workers get to operate within the country. The slow amount of progress could be attributed to the hierarchy of priorities that each camp holds in regard. While Democrats are keen on establishing a clear cut path to giving skilled immigrant workers legal status, Republicans find border concerns to take precedence over everything else.

The scope of the implementation of immigration reform is something that Democrats and Republicans disagree in. The former favors a comprehensive approach towards instituting reform while the latter prefers to engage the issue through a series of measured steps. In terms of implementation, scope is a big issue. However, both parties do find some kind of middle ground when it comes to ensuring that the best workers and talents get to stay within the United States. This sense of agreement could be seen as a path towards implementing more extensive immigration reform and resolving the ideological split that both parties have as far as the future of immigrants are concerned.

The United States economy stands to benefit a great deal by increasing the number of highly skilled immigrant workers in the country. By increasing the number of green cards afforded to highly skilled immigrant workers, more foreign entrepreneurs will be allowed to set up shop in U.S. soil. This scenario would drive up the amount of job opportunities made available to U.S. residents.

Experts have been quick to note that a decline in business startups poses considerable problems for the U.S. economy. A clear cut path towards securing the talents of high – skill immigrants can be an effective solution to this issue. The key thing is for both parties to push past their ideological difference of opinion to see the potent power of the argument from an economic perspective.

Cases involving the complexities of immigration law require the knowledge of a capable team of lawyers. 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:

Justice Department Penalizes Employer for Discriminatory Employment Practices against ImmigrantsThere are a number of issues regarding employment opportunities that beset immigrants residing in the United States. Even after an immigrant has been granted a work authorized permit, there is a chance that he might still encounter some form of employment discrimination. Under the Immigration and Nationality act, employers are prohibited from discriminating against work authorized non-US citizens. In spite of this fact, some instances of employer discrimination come to the surface. Recently, the Justice Department settled a case involving farm labor contractor company, Luis Esparza Services Inc. The company was found guilty of discriminating against individuals because of their citizenship status.

Luis Esparza Services Inc. imposed additional documentary requirements to work authorized immigrants as part of their employment procedures. The company did not require U.S. citizens to provide these documents. Under the immigration and Nationality act, employers are prohibited from imposing additional documentary requirements on immigrants due to their citizenship status. The employment verification procedures of the company were found to be discriminatory. As a result, the settlement agreement that the company signed forced them to pay the largest civil penalty that the US Justice Department has secured under the discrimination clause of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

As part of the settlement agreement, Luis Esparza Services inc. is required to pay civil penalties amounting to $320,000. The company is also required to compensate a worker who lost wages due to their discriminatory employment verification procedures. The Justice Department has required the company to change its employment procedures. An exhaustive review of previous employment procedures that were carried about by the company is also in the offing.

The settlement agreement comes as a major victory for immigrants and their supporters. With this, the Justice Department has exhibited a clear sense of commitment when it comes to resolving discriminatory employment procedures. The Immigration and Nationality act protects work authorized immigrants from unscrupulous employer recruitment processes. Hiring and firing an individual on the grounds of citizenship status is prohibited by the Immigration and Nationality Act. Some other prohibitions include employer intimidation and recruiting non-US citizens in exchange for an additional fee.

Cases involving the complexities of immigration law require the knowledge of a capable team of lawyers. If you or someone you know needs legal counsel regarding discriminatory employment practices and other 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:

Injunction Continues to Block Obama’s Immigration Reform ProgramThere has been a considerable push for extensive immigration reform from undocumented immigrants and their supporters. President Obama’s administration has attempted to address some of these issues through the Deferred Action for Parental Accountability. Under the President’s proposed policy, a deferred action status would be granted to qualified undocumented immigrants who have been residing in the United States since 2010. Obama’s proposal would effectively prevent several immigrants from being deported and avail of work opportunities if it comes to pass. The proposal has come under fire from several conservative sectors and in February 2015, a Texas judge approved a temporary injunction that prevented the program from coming into effect. Now, a federal appeals court has denied the administration’s request to lift the temporary injunction.

The absence of legal action would have guaranteed that the President’s proposals would have come into effect this month. Now, the temporary injunction filed by a Federal District Court Judge in Texas has been upheld by the two judges on a panel of the United States Court of Appeals. The grounds for this ruling were based on the fact that the appeals court did not find enough evidence that would indicate a severe setback for the administration if the injunction remained in place. The appeals court also found that the lawsuit that was filed by several States against Obama’s administration did have sufficient legal basis. The representatives who filed the lawsuit against the Deferred Action for Parental Accountability cited constitutional violations and statutory overreach as reasons to scrap the program.

The ruling comes as a big blow to Obama’s administration. While the injunction stands, further delays on Obama’s Deferred Action for Parental Accountability program are to be expected. The chances of seeing the Deferred Action for Parental Accountability program to be passed within the President’s term has decreased. Critics who oppose Obama’s proposals see this ruling as a clear victory. The states who filed the lawsuit that blocked the program from being passed claim that the President attempted to execute drastic changes to immigration policy without Congressional consent. Future developments on this issue will yield tremendous consequences on immigrants residing in the US.

Cases involving the complexities of immigration law require the knowledge of a capable team of lawyers. 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:

passengers-519008_1280Every year, immigrants enter the United States in search of asylum. A number of immigration cases involve individuals who are fleeing from some form of persecution that they would be subjected to in their countries of origin. A great deal of controversy hounds the methods that the U.S. government uses to deal with these cases. Recently, different sectors have expressed concern over the decision of President Obama’s administration to detain families who are fleeing from violence in Central America. The government’s policy of detaining these immigrant families for an indefinite period of time has been called out for being unjust and inhumane.

Organizations have noted that the policy of detaining undocumented immigrants exposes them to a great deal of trauma The Human Rights Watch has linked cases of suicide and depression among detained immigrant families to the harrowing experience of being held in federal detention facilities. People who support the plight of these immigrants are looking for solutions to the government’s detention policies. Negotiations have been initiated in the federal court in an attempt to address the issue but a concrete ruling will not come to pass until after the case’s May 24 deadline has been reached.

One of the main concerns that immigrant families want to resolve involves the future of detained immigrant women and their children after they have been processed by the administration’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement office. Immigrant supporters want the detention centers to be shuttered. In response, officials of ICE have issued statements that point towards an attempt to improve the conditions that detained immigrant families are exposed to in these centers. ICE representatives have expressed that detained immigrants will be given greater access to their lawyers and case review processes will be renewed within 90 and 60 day intervals. The case review process attempts to discern whether the decision to detain the undocumented immigrant in question is justifiable.

In spite of these statements, immigrants and their supporters still feel that the proposals lack a substantial amount of weight. Some Human Rights Watch officials are interpreting these proposals to be a tactic that fails to directly address the need for extensive immigration reform. As far as issues of immigration reform are concerned, eliminating the detention centers completely is the only decision that can satisfy the palpable sense of unease and dissatisfaction that undocumented immigrants experience.

Detaining undocumented immigrants is just one of the reform issues that President Obama’s administration is grappling with. The backlog of immigration related cases continues to increase at a pace that is too great for the U.S. legal system to address effectively. With all of these issues coming to a head, the need for immigration reform takes on a pressing sense of importance. Cases involving the complexities of immigration law and the detention of undocumented immigrants require the knowledge of a capable team of lawyers. 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:

Board of Immigration Appeals Allows Legal Permanent Residents Access to Deportation WaiversThere are a number of issues that immigrants residing in the United States continue to be challenged with. Even after obtaining lawful permanent residency, immigrants can still be subjected to removal proceedings. The United States lawful permanent residency status allows immigrants to live and work within the U.S. permanently but it does not prevent them from being deported back to their country of origin should they fail to meet certain conditions of this status. There have been numerous cases of legal permanent residents being deported as a result of being convicted of certain crimes. Recently, the Board of Immigration Appeals has amended their position in deporting legal permanent residents who have had criminal records provided that they are able to prove that their removal from U.S. territory would cause problems for their family members who are residing in the country.

The Board of Immigration Appeals has decided to allow legal permanent residents who are facing removal proceedings to avail of a waiver for deportation if they are able to prove that their family members would experience hardship as a result of their removal from the U.S. For years, many legal permanent residents could not apply for a waiver for deportation. Cases involving deportation inevitably resulted in a legal permanent resident’s separation from the family community that they were able to establish over the duration of their stay in the U.S.

The Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision to reverse their stance on waiving removal proceedings stem from a lack of consensus with 9 courts of appeals when it comes to carrying out immigration rulings. 9 courts of appeals have found that there are immigrants who need to be protected from deportation, especially if the removal proceedings would subject an immigrant’s legal U.S. resident family members to problems. More often than not, the verdict of deportation carries long term consequences for legal permanent residents.

The case of Mr. Hanif is a clear example of a situation that many immigrants have been exposed to. Mr. Hanif stayed in the U.S. for more than 25 years when the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him. The Department of Homeland Security found a criminal conviction that resulted in Mr. Hanif’s incarceration for a period of 4 months to be sufficient grounds for his deportation. Given the intractable stance of the Board of Immigration Appeals at the time, Mr. Hanif was not able to secure a waiver for deportation. Now, a shift in the interpretation of immigration law will allow immigrants who share similar conditions with Mr. Hanif to access a benefit that he and many others before him were never able to experience.

The shifts in the interpretation of immigration law and the complexities of removal proceedings require the knowledge of a capable team of lawyers. 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.