* Dramatization
* Dramatization
Published on:

handcuffs-921290_640Undocumented immigrants in the United States often have second thoughts when it comes to reporting crimes. To encourage immigrants to cooperate with the authorities, Congress initiated the U-visa program, which provides legal status to victims of crimes such as, but not limited to, sexual assault, theft, and domestic violence, upon the condition that they cooperate with law enforcement officials in criminal investigations.

The only problem is that the ease of applying for a U-visa usually varies between states. This issue is what prompted the New York City Police Department to propose a rule with new deadlines to expedite the visa application process—it’s a move that some immigrant activists hope will bring about change in the system.

Visa Process Starts at the Local PD

Although the decision of who gets approved for a U-visa lies within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, immigrants often have to apply at the local level, starting with the police department. Police play a critical role in the U-visa application process, as a law enforcement official has the authority to sign a form that certifies an immigrant was the victim of a serious crime and provided crucial help in the subsequent criminal investigation.

Immigration lawyer C.J. Wang said that certification is simply proof that the victim was a cooperative asset during the investigation. She noted that the NYPD has been usually slow to sign off on application forms, forcing immigrant advocates like her to spend countless hours paper chasing, making a dozen phone calls, and going to police headquarters to find the person responsible for certifying these forms.

Immigration lawyer, Zoey Jones, of the Brooklyn Defender Services, echoed this sentiment, adding that waiting times for certification can last as long as a year and even more. Timely certification is important, she said, because these delays can lead to the deportation of an undocumented immigrant.

The NYPD has yet to comment on the issue. In its latest proposal, the department plans to set a 45-day deadline to sign off on certification requests, as well as a 90-day deadline to address appeals for rejected requests. A local group of immigration activists, however, is pushing for a 30-day deadline instead, in order to expedite U-visa applications to the federal government.

Potential Model for Other Government Agencies

Still, others express optimism for the proposed rule. Debora Weissman, a law professor at the University of North Carolina, believes the proposal has the potential to “be a model for other law enforcement agencies.”

After conducting a nationwide study of U-visa policies, Weisman observed a wide range of policies and regulations between states and no standardization. In fact, some police departments refuse outright to sign certification requests, perhaps in the mistaken belief that they could be granting citizenship status to an immigrant.

If you or–anyone you know—were a victim of a crime and want to know your rights as an immigrant, get in touch with the immigration attorneys of Lyttle Law Firm. Call us at 512-215-5225 for a consult and discussion on how we can help you.

Published on:

gavel-1017953_640After facing criticism for his recent executive order on immigration, President Obama faces a new challenge over his plan to protect the rights of undocumented immigrants, this time coming from the United States Supreme Court. The SC announced it would review an objection by a New Orleans federal appeals court, which ruled that the administration’s executive orders had overstepped the legal authority of the Office of The President.

Protection for Immigrants

In November 2014, the Obama administration announced its plans of providing paths to citizenship to more than 5 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, effectively protecting them from deportation. Obama’s executive order offers legal status to immigrants who have been in the country for at least 5 years, as well as immigrants who are parents of U.S. citizens. The policy would also eliminate the 30-year age limit that currently only allows undocumented immigrants brought in as children to stay in the U.S.

Before these plans could take effect, however, Republican-run states objected to the executive order, with former-House Speaker John Boehner calling the order a part of Obama’s “legacy of lawlessness.” Boehner pointed out the President was acting more like a king instead of working with Congress to solve the immigration issue.

Decision to be Announced in the Middle of Presidential Election Season

At present, the appeals court process brings the challenge to the Supreme Court, which will now have to decide on the executive order’s constitutionality. The SC will review the challenge in April, and will likely to announce a decision sometime this summer, right in the middle of heated presidential campaigns that have stirred public opinion on immigration policy.

Republican candidate Donald Trump said he would build a wall on the border, while fellow GOP candidate Marco Rubio is facing criticism for his unclear stance on helping undocumented immigrants. Meanwhile, Democratic candidates Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have voiced support for a clear path to citizenship, although it remains to be seen whether such a plan will be approved by a GOP-controlled Congress, which has proven to be a thorn on the side of the Obama administration.

Is the Order a Case of Too Little Too Late?

And even if the Supreme Court’s decision is in favor of Obama’s executive order, it may not be around for long as his administration only has one year left before the next administration takes over, and it will be up to the next president to decide whether such a policy will remain in place.

The Supreme Court goes further into detail with the questions surrounding the case on the official Supreme Court of the United States blog (SCOTUSblog).

To learn more about how this latest setback to the Obama immigrant policy affects your rights as an immigrant, get in touch with the immigration lawyers of Lyttle Law Firm today. Call us at 512-215-5225 for a consult and discussion on how we can help you.

Published on:

silhouette-820479_640The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently warned officials in Sedgwick County, Kansas that their attempts to block undocumented immigrants from accessing the WIC program could lead to them losing federal grant money for their health department. USDA officials are requesting the county to stop any efforts to ask health clinic clients about their citizenship or immigration status.

In October last year, the Sedgwick County Commission requested the Kansas State Government to prevent undocumented immigrants from accessing the benefits of the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) nutritional program, even if it currently has no eligibility requirement around immigrant status.

Furthermore, commissioners ordered county staff that same month to create a new form to be filled out by everyone who uses the county health department. The form contains questions about people’s immigration status.

Information Only, Not Denial             

Proponents of the initiative reason out that the purpose of the form was to collect information on the people served by the county health department, not to block anyone from its services. This has prompted officials from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to issue a warning, saying that such questions could place federal grant money for Sedgwick County in jeopardy.

Jeanette Montano, a regional WIC official for the Food and Nutrition Service, said the county should not be inquiring on the citizenship status of WIC clients, as it has nothing to do with their eligibility for the program. She added that if the county asks any kind of additional information (not outlined in the program) in any form from the WIC’s clients, they would be out of compliance and risk facing legal action.

WIC Eligibility

Expecting and new mothers are eligible for the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) nutritional program, which offers checks for items that include baby formula, milk, cheese, cereal, and eggs to clients based on their income and residency.

Sedgwick County Commissioner Jim Howell said the USDA was making unproven assumptions on the form’s motives and effects, adding that taking federal money for such programs limits their ability to do things that seem to make perfect sense to them.

Civil Rights Consequences

Observers point out that the county’s attempts to seek information on WIC clients’ immigration status could be a violation of Civil Rights Restoration Act, exposing them to legal action and blocked access to federal money.

A letter written by counselor Eric Yost, which contained a draft of the form county commissioners had planned to be ready by January 1, was sent to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment last month. He urged them to take action against the county’s attempts to make arbitrary assessment on the community’s needs, despite the fact that the WIC program makes no consideration on citizenship.

To learn more about how this initiative and others like it affect your rights as an immigrant, get in touch with the immigration lawyers of Lyttle Law Firm today. Call us at 512-215-5225 for a consult and discussion on how we can help you.

Published on:

car-1030820_640In September of 2015, the United States Department of Homeland Security announced that it would begin enforcing the controversial Real ID act for air travel beginning 2016. The new regulation would require travelers to present secondary identification for licenses issued in four U.S. states.

Just recently, however, the DHS has increased the number of states that issue licenses they will no longer accept after January 22, 2018.

These are:

  1. Alaska
  2. California
  3. Illinois
  4. Minnesota
  5. Missouri
  6. New Jersey
  7. New Mexico
  8. South Carolina
  9. Washington State
  10. Puerto Rico
  11. Guam
  12. S. Virgin Islands

If you have a driver’s license from any of these states, you may find yourself prohibited from flying. For more information on the status of other states, you may check the DHS website.

What Is Happening?

Following an endorsement from the 9/11 Commission, the United States Congress passed the Real ID Act in 2005 in response to the purported ease of acquiring fake IDs and its association with terrorist threats, and calls for the creation of improved and more secure driver’s licenses called Real IDs. Drawing controversy since day one, the Real ID Act has compelled more than a dozen states to pass state legislation banning observance of the law. Privacy advocates and civil rights groups have also voiced strong opposition to the Real ID Act’s requirements for sharing data with the authorities.

But why the negative reaction?

For starters, the law mandates stricter guidelines for issuing IDs, requiring applicants to provide proof of legal immigration status, identification, and Social Security number to obtain a driver’s license. It also requires that licenses contain a machine-readable magnetic strip or chip to allow unobstructed access by authorities to the license owner’s personal information.

Fortunately, the federal government is unable to force compliance among states, which is why the requirement of driver’s licenses by airport security is seen as a move to encourage people in states complying with the Real ID Act to get these new licenses.

Real ID Act’s Effect on Immigration Policies

In line with the Real ID Act, DMV officials will have the power to make sweeping judgments on a person’s legal status in the United States, giving state agencies that issue licenses the ability to enforce immigration law despite having little expertise on the sensitive matter. The law ultimately places several bureaucratic hurdles for immigrant driver’s license applicant, and those that do manage to get the licenses become easier to identify should they commit criminal offenses that qualify them for removal.

DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson said that states still have until the next two years to issue Real IDs before the new mandate finally takes effect. Johnson notes that the Real ID Act was designed to ensure the safety of the American public in a post 9/11 world where security is more important the ever.

To learn more about how the Real ID Act affects your—or someone else you know—status as an immigrant, get in touch with Lyttle Law Firm today. Call us at 512-215-5225.

Published on:

border-62866_640Amidst the increasing number of immigrants trying to cross the U.S. and Mexico border from the south, the Obama administration recently launched a campaign to crack down on undocumented Central American immigrants who have managed to evade deportation. This comes after the government’s announcement that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was working on plans to detain migrants from Central America, many of whom are women and children.

According to immigrant activists and lawyers, the operation was first noticed in Texas and Georgia. Representatives from both border states’ immigration and customs department declined to offer a statement, saying only that the Homeland Security agency does not discuss current operations with the media.

As of press time, there has been no word yet as to how many immigrants had been detained.

Families That Will Be Affected

If the raids spread across the U.S., they would mark the first time the government has undertaken an operation of this magnitude, specifically targeted towards Central American migrants.

Michelle Mendez, an attorney with the immigrant rights group, Catholic Legal Immigration Network Inc., expects the raids to escalate at the national level, affecting immigrant families across the country. The DHS, however, has stated that families entering the United States unlawfully are not exempt from the immigration laws individual immigrants have to observe.

A DHS official said that the repatriation of migrants issued with orders for removal, including minors and families, to their home countries is part of a larger government effort to solve the issue of a rising number of immigrants arriving at the country’s southern border.

According to Atlanta-based immigration lawyer, Charles Kuck, the ICE had taken an immigrant family (a mother and three children) in Georgia under the pretense of finding a ‘criminal.’ Officials had asked to enter the family’s house to check if he was there. Kuck said that they don’t where the family was taken.

Targets

Immigrations advocates and lawyers believe that the Central American immigrants most likely to be targeted are those that missed court dates to evade their deportation because they did not have an attorney. Lawyer rights are not granted to individuals who entered the country through unlawful means.

In protest of the campaign, over 150 national  and local civil rights groups, as well as religious, women’s, and children’s groups had sent a letter to President Obama, asking that the raids be stopped.

The last time a large-scale operation of this kind targeting a specific segment of the population, occurred more than 10 years ago, when former President George W. Bush announced an immigrant crackdown the led to high-profile raids of meatpacking plants and other work facilities to detain undocumented workers.

The number of individuals and families trying to cross U.S. borders had spiked due to severe gang violence in El Salvador and Honduras, a problem compounded further by drought.

If you or anyone you know is facing unlawful detainment for being immigrants at the hands of government officials, call the immigration lawyers of Lyttle Law Firm right away. Learn more about your rights by visiting our website or calling our office at 512-215-5225.

Published on:

street-238458_640In a monumental agreement that comes at a time of increased rhetoric over immigration, Mexico and five other countries in Central America have agreed to assist thousands of stranded Cuban immigrants make their way to the U.S.

A group of more than 8,000 Cubans had been stranded in Costa Rica several weeks after Nicaragua closed its borders to immigrants. In response, a coalition of Central American countries has agreed to help the Cubans fly to El Salvador and make the journey to Mexico on buses, after which they’ll have a chance to cross the border into the States.

Key Questions About the Deal

The concept of trying to get 8,000 immigrants to cross into the U.S. has naturally drawn several questions from people our side of the border.

For starters:

  1. Why are thousands of Cubans making their way to the U.S.?

    While it may seem that the group of 8,000 Cubans is an unusually large number of people trying to immigrate to America, experts say it’s consistent with a trend that first surfaced after the Obama administration decided to fix relations between the U.S. and the island nation.

    A Pew Research Center report that cites U.S. Customs and Border Protection data shows that over 43,000 Cubans entered the U.S. in 2015, an increase of more than 75% compared to the previous year.

  2. What caused the spike in Cuban immigrants?

    According to Marc Rosenblum of the Migration Policy Institute, the spike in Cuban immigrants can be traced to the following factors:

    • A 2009 decision by the Obama administration to relax traveling restrictions and sending money to Cuba
    • Cuba’s 2013 decision to relax departure restrictions on Cubans leaving the country
    • A landmark decision by the Obama administration to restore relations with Cuba

    According to Rosenblum, some Cubans believe that relations may once again sour in the near future, which is why many are leaving while things are good.

  3. Don’t Cuban immigrants cross the border by boat?

    It’s no secret that most Cuban immigrants have crossed into the United States by boat, but that’s changed. While the U.S. Coast Guard says more Cubans are trying to enter Florida by raft, according to Rosenblum, even more are crossing the border by land.

  4. What will U.S. immigration officials do now?

    Cuba is unique because it enjoys special privileges under The Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966, a federal law that allows Cuban immigrants, even those that arrive illegally, to receive a green card 366 days after being admitted into the United States.

    Cuba is the only country to boast of such a privilege.

    Immigrants from other countries have to go through a stringent screening process when claiming asylum. Cubans on the other hand, are automatically assumed to be refugees fleeing from government persecution.

    The U.S. government announced last December that the administration has no plans on changing the current migration agreement with Cuba.

If you have friends or family from Cuba trying to make their way into the United States and need legal assistance, seek expert advice from the skilled immigration lawyers of Lyttle Law Firm. Call our offices at 512-215-5225 or visit our website to schedule an appointment.

Published on:

columns-756619_640The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently recommended a review of a removal order against Martin Mendoza-Sanchez, citing his strong eligibility for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture, an international convention to which the United States belongs.

In his appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, Mendoza-Sanchez contends his removal to Mexico would lead to his torture and death—falling well within the mandate of the Convention. That appeal however, was rejected.

Mendoza’s Immigration and Criminal Offenses

Mendoza-Sanchez first immigrated to the United States in 1983 at the age of 18, eventually becoming a legal permanent resident. Along the way, however, he was involved in the illegal drug trade, dealing cocaine he said had been obtained through members of La Linea, a drug cartel known for their violent tactics and dealings with corrupt Mexican police offers.

In 2010, an Indiana court convicted Mendoza-Sanchez for drug dealing charges, meting him with a 12-year prison sentence. In prison, a fellow inmate and a member of the La Linea cartel—whom Mendoza-Sanchez knew as “Pelon”—assaulted him at the prison cafeteria, breaking his teeth and threatening that several cartel members, who had been arrested, believe that he had snitched. The La Linea had also reportedly vowed to kill him if he crossed the border back to Mexico. For though he was sentenced to 12 years, Mendoza-Sanchez had been released after serving 5.

Facing removal proceedings after his prison term, Mendoza-Sanchez was now at risk for removal to Mexico due to his drug conviction. He didn’t appeal his removability, but requested a deferral of removal under the CAT in fear of his life. During his immigration hearing, Mendoza-Sanchez gave evidence of La Linea’s nationwide reach in Mexico, pointing out that several of the country’s law enforcement agencies were allegedly infiltrated by the drug cartels.

Immigration Ruling

While the judge called him a “credible witness,” he ultimately ruled that Mendoza-Sanchez failed to establish enough eligibility to qualify for deferral of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals concurred with the decision, citing how Mendoza-Sanchez did not present enough evidence to prove a public official in Mexico would agree to, or knowingly ignore, such an action against the petitioner.

Hope for Mendoza-Sanchez

After Mendoza-Sanchez filed his opening, the government responded by filing a motion requesting the Seventh Circuit to remand the case to the Board for review of Mendoza’s eligibility for deferral of removal under the provisions of the CAT. The motion, however, does not confess error, but recommends remand to allow the Board to conduct another, more in-depth, investigation of the evidence presented by Mendoza, providing a more comprehensive explanation regarding the issues presented in his request for deferral of removal.

The Seventh Circuit believes Mendoza-Sanchez has a strong case for deferral of removal. For now, they can only recommend that the Board of Immigration Appeals review the case, with the hope that the Board will be more mindful of the points and analysis presented in their 8-page opinion.

If you or anyone you know is facing a similar situation, fearing for your/their safety upon deportation, please contact the immigration lawyers of Lyttle Law Firm. Learn about your rights by calling our offices at 512-215-5225 or by visiting our website.

Published on:

law-1063249_640In a significant victory for immigration activists in the United States, the en banc First Circuit Court has ruled that the federal government cannot use a mandatory” immigration detention law to indefinitely hold undocumented immigrants for prior criminal charges.

Praising the decision of the federal appeals court in Boston, the American Civil Liberties Union notes the ruling effectively allows more than a hundred wrongly detained immigrants to challenge their imprisonment in Massachusetts’ jails.

The ruling comes thanks to the two habeas petitions filed by Leiticia Castaneda and Clayton Gordon, immigrants held without bond because of separate drug charges incurred in 2008. Citing those offenses, immigration officials detained Casteneda and Gordon, even if their priors were from 5 years ago. The plaintiffs were denied bail under mandatory-detention provisions, supposedly designed to capture what the federal government refers to as “criminal aliens.

With federal judges in Massachusetts each ruling that Casteneda and Gordon legally had the right to bond proceedings, the First Circuit immediately got to work and reviewed their cases.

Prior to rehearing the case en back, the First Circuit had already ruled (3-0) in 2014 that Congress had not intended the mandatory-detention provision to apply to immigrants like Castaneda and Gordon, who have records of criminal charges that long predate their civil immigration detention.

Importance of Bail Hearings

A 3-3 split decision ended in favor of the immigrants.

Writing on behalf of the majority, Judge David Barron highlighted that bail hearings were critical legal proceedings, given how they can “stretch on for months or even years.”

Joining the 62-page opinion were judges Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson and Juan Torruella, who took the liberty of parsing the language and history of the mandatory-detention law, determining that Congress had designed it to be limited.

Judge Torruella, however, outright voiced his uneasiness over mandatory-detention provisions found in Title 8, Section 1226(c), calling the indefinite holding of an individual and withholding access to bond or bail a violation of due process.

Reactions and Dissents

ACLU attorney Adriana Lafaille said the timing of the majority’s ruling couldn’t be better, as it means her client and those facing the same problem can be home with their families for the holidays. Castaneda’s lawyer Greg Romanovsky likewise lauded the decision, noting that it finally highlights the concerns many people have with the constitutionality of the mandatory detention law.

Lead dissenting Judge William Kayatta, however, defended the provision, calling it a necessary step to prevent certain immigrants from escaping deportation proceedings. In the 41-page dissent, he, together with Judges Jeffrey Howard and Sandra Lynch, believes that Congress had reason to regard this “group of aliens” as posing a flight risk because of their criminal history, making it likely the ICE will deport them upon identification.

If you’re facing a similar case, learn more about how this major decision affects your status and rights by seeking expert legal advice from the skilled immigration lawyers of Lyttle Law Firm. Call our offices at 512-215-5225 or visit our website.

Published on:

prison-482619_640Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter recently changed his policy on the kind of information the city shares with federal authorities on detained immigrants. The policy change, however, will last only for two weeks, what with Mayor-elect Jim Kenney promising to reverse the change immediately after being sworn into office on January 4. A spokesperson from the Kenney camp says the Mayor-elect decision hasn’t changed, this after discussing the policy change for more than six weeks.

Mayor Nutter changed an executive order issued in 2014, which prohibited the Philadelphia Police Department and prison system from abiding with requests from the Federal Government to hold undocumented immigrants who would otherwise have been released pending trial or after serving sentences.

If asked, the city will now comply with requests from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) to provide information on immigrants and their date of release on the following conditions:

  • The federal government has determined that an undocumented immigrant has engaged or is suspected of espionage or terrorism
  • The immigrant was convicted for being part of a “criminal street gang”
  • The immigrant was convicted for a first-degree felony involving drug charges, illegal possession of a firearm, or violence

As with Nutter 2014 executive order, the city will only hold immigrants after the ICE has obtained a federal detention order.

Puzzling Reversal

The change is especially unfortunate, given how Mayor Nutter won praise from immigration activists in 2014 for making Philadelphia a “sanctuary city,” refusing to follow ICE hold orders, which mandated that immigrants be detained without an order from a federal judge.

Mayor-elect Kenney was then a member of the City Council and a supporter of immigration-aid groups, pushing Nutter to make the executive order.

At a City Hall news conference attended by disgruntled immigrant activists and reporters, Mayor Nutter emphasized how the policy change was a narrow adjustment made as a promise to President Obama Department of Homeland Security secretary Jeh Johnson, who requested the mayor review his executive order.

Secretary Johnson voiced his support for Nutter’s policy change, releasing a statement that said it was “good for the public safety” and was important to “prevent dangerous, removable criminals from being released to the streets.”

Reaction from Immigration Activists

Supporters of immigrant groups, however, say that the new federal program differs little from the old one. Erika Almiron, director of Juntos, a Philadelphia-based group serving Latino immigrants, expressed confusion over how Nutter could see anything new in the dragnet program that indiscriminately affects the local community. Almiron also asked Nutter what he had to gain with the reversal, having only two weeks left as mayor.

The mayor again said it was about keeping a promise to the White House.

To learn more about how such policy changes affect you or anyone you know facing the same issue, please get in touch with the immigration lawyers of Lyttle Law Firm. Learn about your rights by calling our offices at 512-215-5225 or by visiting our website.

Published on:

handcuffs-964722_640After a group of 16 immigrant inmates in Dallas County, Texas recently filed a lawsuit for alleged long immigration holds after posting bail, county officials are fighting back, saying that suit lacks a viable claim and should therefore be dismissed.

Acting as representative plaintiff, Arturo Mercado sued Dallas County and its sheriff, Lupe Valdez, in Federal Court last October 26, pointing out that under the law, they should only have been detained for 48 hours on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement holds after posting bail, not several days or months.

In the lawsuit, the group says that the practice of holding immigrants for extended periods defeats the entire purpose of posting bail, making it a “futile exercise for those with immigration holds,” as it prevents immediate release. The immigrant group also claims the county violated their Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

In response, Sheriff Valdez and Dallas County filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit last December 18, arguing that the inmates’ claims of civil rights do not have a viable claim and that Valdez is protected by qualified immunity.

As for the plaintiffs’ claim of no due process, the county points out that the immigration holds don’t actually meet the criteria of “shocking the conscience” to a point that it “violates the decencies of civilized conduct.”

The county also refutes claims of Fourth Amendment (unreasonable seizures) violations. In their 28-page motion, the county says that in this instance, the plaintiffs’ alleged improper pretrial detention can be considered as ‘seizures,’ and are therefore part of ‘specific protections of the Fourth Amendment.’ This effectively invalidates a separate claim for lack of due process.

Furthermore, Dallas County disputes the immigrant group’s claim that they were held after posting bail due to immigration detainers in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

In its motion, the county states that the plaintiffs failed to identify any facts and legal authority to prove that Sheriff Valdez or Dallas County had the authority to allow the immigrant inmates to post bonds in relation to the criminal charges filed against them. The county urges the court to take note that only the presiding judge has the authority to set bonds for individuals with pending state criminal charges against them.

The county goes on to say that even if federal officials issued federal detainers without probable cause, the plaintiffs would be unable to make claims of any sort, as there is no allegation that the detainers were invalid in the first place.

The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit a month after Sheriff Valdez decided Dallas County would disregard ICE hold requests for inmates with minor offenses. This change in policy would result in Valdez coming under fire from Texas Gov. Greg Abbott for implementing “sanctuary-city policies” the state would not tolerate.

If you or anyone you know is faced with a similar situation and wants to be appraised of their rights, don’t hesitate to get in touch with the immigration lawyers of Lyttle Law Firm. Visit our website or call our offices at 512-215-5225 to schedule a consultation.