OC Immigration Attorney

Residents of Fremont, a small city in Nebraska, voted Monday to banish illegal aliens from jobs and rental homes. The law would bar landlords from renting to those in the country illegally.

Opponents of the new law argued that the City of Fremont simply could not afford the new law. They said that paying to defend such a local law, which is all but certain to be challenged in court, would require a significant cut in Fremont city services, or a stiff tax increase, or both.

However advocates argued that federal authorities had failed to enforce their own immigration restriction and that they had to take care of such matters themselves. They complained that illegal immigrants were causing an increase in crime, taking jobs that would once have gone to longtime residents, and changing the character of their quiet city, some 30 miles of farm fields from Omaha.

Shortly after the results were announced, officials from the A.C.L.U. Nebraska pledged to file a lawsuit as quickly as possible; claiming that if this law goes into effect it will cause discrimination and racial profiling against Latinos and others who appear to be foreign born, including U.S. citizens.

Fremont’s Hispanic population, practically nonexistent two decades ago, has grown to about 2,000 people, according to some estimates. Moreover, no one knows how many illegal immigrants live in Fremont.

In recent years, many towns and cities across the nation considered adopting laws restricting illegal immigrants. However, in most cases, political leaders and town councils have been the ones to pass the provisions and not the voters. Additionally, the laws have proven politically-tangled: measures in some towns are still being fought in court, while some other cities have dropped the issue.

Client from Costa Mesa just had her green card approved based on her marriage to her US Citizen husband. The client is originally from Central America and entered on a student visa several years ago. While living in Orange County and studying, she met her husband and the couple married two years later. He petitioned for her to become a lawful permanent resident with a green card. This week, the I-130 visa petition and I-485 were approved after an interview with a USCIS officer in Santa Ana. Now, the couple is living in Costa Mesa, California. They are very excited and they hope to start a family in the next year. I am so happy for them.

Generally if an alien marries a US Citizen in good faith and not for immigration purposes, s/he is eligible to become a lawful permanent resident. The alien must have entered the United States legally in order to adjust status and obtain a green card. If the alien entered the United States legally, s/he can generally become a lawful permanent resident under INA 245 without leaving the United States. Exceptions include a significant criminal record, entry as a K-1 visaholder (through a different relationship), or entry as a foreign national crewman among others. The petitioner must be financially able to sponsor the beneficiary spouse, which means the petitioning spouse’s income must meet a certain level. If the petitioner’s income does not qualify, a joint sponsor must be available.

The adjustment of status process can be complicated in some cases, and it is best to consult with an experienced immigration attorney before proceeding. The Nunez Firm has helped countless couples petition and obtain green cards after marriage. Contact The Nunez Firm today to schedule a free and confidential consultation. Managing Attorney Jay Nunez will personally discuss your situation and help you determine if adjustment of status is the right option for you.

In Sarasota, Florida, two residents were sentenced on June 17 following an investigation by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ICE, the FBI and the Manatee County Sheriff’s Office MCSO.

Erisbel Artiles, 31, a Cuban national residing in Hialeah, Fla., was sentenced to 121 months in federal prison for hostage taking. And his mother, Lazara Z. Moreira-Penin, 54, also a Cuban national residing in Hialeah, was sentenced to one year in prison for conspiracy to transport illegal aliens.

After a Guatemalan citizen illegally present in the United States contacted MCSO deputies and reported that an alien smuggler was holding his 30-year-old brother for more unpaid smuggling fee, MCSO requested the assistance of ICE Sarasota office.

As a result of the cooperation and ability to work together that existed in Florida between state, local and federal law enforcement, they recovered the hostage victim without incident.

Eventually the victim was delivered at a gas station where ICE agents along with MCSO officers arrested Moreira-Penin. Artiles was arrested in Miami at a later date.

The investigation was conducted by ICE’s Office of Homeland Security Investigations in Sarasota, the Manatee County Sheriff’s Office, the Miami Violent Crimes Task Force and the Southwest Florida Violent Crimes Task Force consisting of the Bradenton Police Department, the Sarasota Police Department, and the Sarasota FBI Office. The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Donald L. Hansen.

The 14th amendment, which was adopted after the Civil War, defines who is a citizen of the U.S. The law states that any person born or naturalized in the U.S. is a citizen and that no state shall make or enforce any law denying that right.

However, in Oklahoma, a group of lawmakers, led by Rep. Randy Terrill, R-Moore, have stated that they are thinking of filing a bill in the next session that is similar to the controversial Arizona immigration law and goes a step further:  preventing children from becoming citizens at birth if both parents are illegal immigrants.

The state of Arizona, which already has the law that makes it a crime to be in that state illegally and requires law enforcement officers to check documents of people they reasonably suspect to be there illegally, already stated plans to introduce a law denying citizenship to children of illegal immigrants. Actually, a challenge to birthright citizenship has been proposed in Congress as recently as 2009.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association, Immigration Policy Center and legal scholars cite judicial rulings and precedent, executive branch interpretations, congressional law and Supreme Court rulings in arguing to uphold birthright citizenship. They all say altering the amendment or its interpretation would create a subclass of citizens and lead to discrimination.

But the reform activists argue that the amendment was to grant citizenship to former slaves, not illegal immigrants.

According to Carol Helm, the founder of the Tulsa group Immigration Reform for Oklahoma Now, who supports the challenge, added: that since birth certificates are state-issued papers, it should also be controlled by the state; and that the myth of a U.S. born baby can serve as an anchor to allow illegal immigrants to remain in the country is lingering and encouraging people to do so.

If Oklahoma were to pass legislation restricting citizenship, it likely would be challenged in the federal courts.

Immigration law today regarding U.S.-born child does not change the immigration status of a parent, and a child cannot legally petition for a parent until age 21.

Additionally, an illegal immigrant must return to their home country pending a petition, which may trigger a 10-year ban from re-entering the country. The process involves eligibility based on congressional quotas and sponsor relationships.

On March 12, while Leslie Cocche stood at the Fort Lauderdale Tri-Rail station awaiting the train to Miami, where she attends College, a U.S. Border Patrol agent suddenly began questioning her, and eventually discovered that the 18-year-old Peruvian was in the country illegally. Cocche then was arrested, handcuffed and handed over for deportation proceedings.

In contrast to the controversial Arizona state law that would allow police officers to request immigration papers from individuals, federal immigration agents are allowed to demand documents from any foreign national at any time.

Even after Homeland Security said that immigration authorities would focus on removing convicted foreign criminals, apparently the situation has not changed much.

Officials of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Homeland Security agency in charge of deportations, acknowledge that deportations of noncriminal immigration-law violators are continuing, but say the agency now views them as “low-priority.”

However, figures from Oct. 1 to June 7 show that the number of criminal and noncriminal removals are almost even. The number of noncriminal removals still exceeds that of criminal deportations, but only by 257 people.

According to Cheryl Little, executive director of the Miami-based Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, the ICE definition of criminal includes people found guilty of minor violations, such as expired driver’s license and illegal entry into the United States.

The Cocche case is particularly galling to immigrant rights advocates because she is in the country not by choice but because her parents brought her here when she was a child and legislation repeatedly introduced in Congress as the DREAM Act would grant young undocumented students green cards.

The U.S. Border Patrol’s assistant chief patrol agent for the Miami Sector, stated that she was found to be illegally in the US, arrested and placed in removal proceedings. Subsequently, her sister and parents were placed in deportation proceedings as well.

Cocche was detained for 11 days and eventually released with the promise that she and her family would report later to immigration court in Miami.

If they lose their case they could all be deported.

We just found out that a green card and adjustment of status were approved for a client in Newport Beach. She is originally from the Netherlands, and she married her husband in 2009, after dating for several years. They currently live in Newport Beach in Orange County, California. Shortly after the wedding in 2009, they came to The Nunez Firm looking for legal representation in the green card and adjustment of status process.

The wife originally entered the United States on an employment-based visa in 2006. While working in Irvine, she met her husband, and they married in 2009. We filed the necessary forms and all the necessary evidence earlier this year. I attended the adjustment of status interview with the couple, and we recently received the approval notice. Because the marriage is less than two years old, she will need to file for the removal of conditions in two years. Once the two year deadline is drawing to a close, she will file an I-751 jointlywith her husband along with evidence proving their marriage is bona fide and valid. If all goes well, the conditions will be removed. She will be eligible to naturalize as a US citizen (if she wishes to do so) three years from now.

The general adjustment of status process is as follows: Once the couple marries in the United States, the US citizen files an I-130 visa petition along with the I-485 adjustment of status application. Along with these forms, the couple should include an I-864, G-325A form for both petitioner and beneficiary, proof of US citizenship for petitioner, certified copy of the marriage certificate, and proof that all previous marriages have been terminated. Other forms and evidence may be required depending on the specific facts of the case. Once the forms and evidence are filed, an interview will be scheduled for the petitioner and beneficiary. The couple is allowed to bring an attorney with them to the interview. If all goes well at the interview, the alien spouse will be granted conditional permanent resident status for two years.

Although obtaining a green card based on a marriage to a US citizen is a common process, it can quickly become complicated, delayed and problematic if not done correctly. It is important to consult with an experienced immigration attorney before beginning the process. Failing to provide the correct evidence and forms to the US Citizenship and Immigration Services can result in extensive delays and denials.

The Nunez Firm offers free consultations in order to discuss your immigration situation and explain your immigration options. During your consultation, managing attorney Jay Nunez will personally discuss your case with you in a confidential setting.

A wedding at Taylor Park in St. Albans, Vermont, had all the trappings of a wonderful experience. But, unfortunately the wedding day was marred by overzealous border agents.

According to the bride, not every detail turned out the way it should have. The hair stylist and her husband, who’s African-American, said they became victims of racial profiling on their wedding night, claiming a handful of border patrol officers rudely interrupted their reception demanding to see immigration status papers from the groom and some of their guests.

It was about 9 p.m. when five to six cars of border patrol agents swarmed their party. The groom said he confronted the agents and asked them to leave, but they refused.

Mark Henry, of the U.S. Border Patrol’s Swanton sector, said the agency got a call that night from a “concerned individual” about a “suspicious incident” on Main Street. He said three officers showed up to check it out, which is standard protocol.

Henry said the officers talked to a couple men standing outside the party; however they never checked anyone’s identification or asked to see any papers. Henry said the officers told the party-goers to make sure they had designated drivers, and then left.

The groom, a 28-year-old soccer player with the Vermont Voltage who has lived in Vermont for about 10 years, denied that happened and said he’s appalled.

He claims that because of  the border patrols interruption, his wedding ceremony went south automatically. Everybody left the party. Including most of their guest who came from out of state, which are leaving with a very sour taste of how people are treated in Vermont.
The couple said they had about 70 guests, some of whom were black.

Border patrol officials made no comments on whether there’s an internal investigation into the allegation.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton this week told an Ecuador television reporter that President Obama is courting lawmakers’ support for immigration reform and wants it to happen this year.

According to Clinton, Obama is working very hard to get that support and she knows he wants to do it in the next few months. However, Clinton also told NTN24 reporter Gabriella Baer, that she can’t say exactly when, but fairly soon.  When asked if it would be this year, Clinton answered that President Obama wanted it to be this year.

Moreover, Clinton visited Ecuador this week to mend relations with the country’s left-wing president, Rafael Correa. During Tuesday’s interview, which was released Friday, Clinton also suggested that the Obama administration has tried to repair relations with Venezuela’s socialist president Hugo Chavez — an ally of Correa’s — without much success so far.

“When President Obama came in and we went to the Summit of the Americas, our goal was to turn the page on the past eight years,” Clinton said. “And we would like to turn that page, but we can only work with countries willing to work with us.”

When asked if relations between the U.S. and Ecuador could be affected if the Andean country deepens its ties with Venezuela and Iran, Clinton said that they don’t want it to and that they hope it doesn’t.

In their studio apartment in Queens, after nearly 17 years of marriage, Shari Feldman, 51, and Inderjit Singh, 45, seem like a pair of old shoes — a little the worse for wear but comfortable with each other’s creases.

Yet three petitions and five marriage interviews have failed to convince federal immigration authorities that the couple’s union is not a fraud to get a green card for Mr. Singh, a car service driver from India.

Last year, after they reapplied with a new immigration lawyer, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services refused to interview them again, claiming the conflicting answers they gave four years ago to questions like what Mr. Singh wore at their 1993 wedding and whether he had taken Ms. Feldman out to eat on her last birthday was the reason.

Even though this couple may be an extreme case, they are not alone. As immigration authorities have stepped up efforts to uncover fake marriages among hundreds of thousands of petitions by United States citizens seeking green cards for their foreign spouses, cases of longtime couples cast into limbo have multiplied.

Green card through spouse petitions by 20,507 citizens were denied in the last fiscal year, or 7.2 % of the total; of these, only 506 were for fraud, and the rest were for reasons like discrepancies in the couples’ answers or not showing up for an interview.

One Florida pair spent two years struggling for recognition of their seven-year marriage, and in the end had to prove their love to an immigration court to halt the wife’s deportation back to Peru.

Another case in Oregon, took four years and two federal lawsuits to force the agency to accept the marriage of an American woman and her Algerian husband, despite the birth of two children; it emerged in legal discovery that government investigators had collected hundreds of pages of information on the wife and her associates.

Immigration officials, who claim they cannot discuss individual cases, acknowledge that mistakes are sometimes made. However, they point out that the burden of proof is on the couple, and that the duration of a marriage can cut two ways.

Barbara Felska, a veteran in the Stokes unit, the New York office that quizzes spouses separately, then compares their answers to determine whether their relationship is real, questions on how some couples could be married for 8, 10 years without knowing about the spouse’s medical condition or if the spouse has a high blood pressure.

The predicament of Ms. Feldman and Mr. Singh reflects what legal scholars see as a growing tension in national values between the protection of marriage from government intrusion, and the regulation of marriage through immigration laws.

The couple has appealed, but they worry that Mr. Singh will meanwhile be deported.

Mr. Singh entered the country illegally in 1992 but could be granted a spousal green card — a fast track to citizenship — under the more forgiving immigration laws governing those who wed citizens before May 2001.

The couple says they wish that federal officials would just go up to their fifth-floor apartment to see how they manage on her Supplemental Security Income disability payments and his meager wages.

In other states, the immigration service often uses such home inspections; a practice that many complain violates privacy rights without guaranteeing better decisions. But in New York, so-called unannounced bed checks are considered off limits for the Stokes unit.

Under the settlement, if a couple’s first interview raises suspicions of fraud, immigration agency must give applicants a chance to hire an immigration lawyer before a second interview; it must let them explain discrepancies; and it must record the sessions for possible appeal.

In the Queens couple’s most recent petition, their lawyer asked for extra patience from the Stokes examiner, saying Mr. Singh had memory problems because he had been hit on the head with a gun during robberies of the candy store where he used to work.

However, officials denied the request for a new interview and instead repeated the long list of the couple’s mismatched answers in 2006, starting with accounts of their first meeting, in a local park in the summer of 1993. Which according to Ms. Feldman it was a “music night” and according to Mr. Singh there was no special event — perhaps, she later said, because the music was over by the time they met. She said she had taken his phone number but refused to provide hers; he said they had exchanged numbers.

“But if the government does not separate them, they could have the last laugh. “We look around and everybody’s marriage is falling apart,” said Ms. Feldman, whose mother has been married four times. “We’re so matched we can’t even figure it out.”

Cancellation of Removal for non-lawful permanent residents is a form of relief from removal for aliens currently in the United States illegally. Cancellation of removal allows aliens to stay in the U.S. and avoid separation from their families if they meet certain requirements and warrant a favorable exercise of discretion. However, only a certain number of grants may be issued per fiscal year.

The Immigration and Nationality Act limits the number of aliens whose removal may be canceled and who may adjust status to 4,000 per fiscal year. The numerical cap applies only to non-LPR cancellation cases, and does not effect lawful permanent resident cancellations. INA 240A(e)(1)

Conditional grants of cancellation pending the availability (under the numerical cap) are not permitted for persons after FY 1998. 8 C.F.R. §1240.21(c)(1). Immigration judges must reserve their decision on potentially approvable cases until an approval is numerically available. Judges do not have to reserve their decision if they are certain the applicant is ineligible.

If the alien applies for and is granted another form of relief, such as asylum or withholding, the cancellation application shall be denied as a matter of discretion. 8 C.F.R. §1240.21(c)(2). Persons previously granted conditional cancellation (prior to fiscal year 1998) maintain their conditional status until the numerical limitation is available. They may travel during the conditional period. 8 C.F.R. §§1240.21(b)(3), (5).

If you are considering cancellation of removal, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a free consultation. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will personally discuss your situation with you and help you decide if cancellation of removal is right for you.