OC Immigration Attorney

United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agreed to a joint motion to terminate proceedings for an Orange County client living in Laguna Niguel. The client is in removal proceedings in Los Angeles; however, she has been married to a US citizen for the last five years. The couple has an 18 month old son as well.

Due to an administrative error by USCIS, the couple’s adjustment of status was denied in 2008 and the wife was placed in removal proceedings. This occurred before the couple hired The Nunez Firm. The husband filed a visa petition for his wife and it was approved in June 2010. Based on the approved I-130 visa petition, we requested that the removal proceedings be terminated to allow the couple to adjust her status out of court.

The ICE attorney agreed and we filed a joint motion to terminate in October. We just received the court order approving termination. Now, the couple can handle the case through USCIS rather than driving to Los Angeles for immigration court.

If you are in removal proceedings in Los Angeles or San Diego, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a free consultation. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will discuss your case with you and help you determine your options and likelihood of success.

We received great news that a joint I-751 was approved for a married couple from Irvine. The couple has been married for three years now. We filed the I-751 in January 2010. There was a long delay; however, we finally received the approval after our interview earlier this month.

The couple does not have any children, and we were concerned that USCIS might take issue with the fact that the husband lives primarily out of the house due to his work. The husband is a caregiver to an elderly person. He spends 5 nights per week staying with his patient/client. On the weekend, he spends time with his wife.

We provided evidence to show that the couple shares auto insurance, bank accounts and life insurance, and we explained to the officer why the living situation is not the “normal” situation for married couples. The officer was very understanding and agreed that the marriage was entered in good faith marriage despite the unorthodox living arrangement.

The couple is very happy that the process is over and they can move forward with their lives together. If you are planning to file an I-751 petition to remove conditions, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a free consultation. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will meet with you to discuss your case.

We recently received good news that an I-485 adjustment of status was approved for a married client. She and her US citizen husband live in Santa Ana together. They married earlier this year after dating for several months. She is originally from Mexico and she entered using a nonimmigrant visa many years ago. Although her status expired several years ago and she remained in the US illegally for several years, she was permitted to adjust status to lawful permanent resident based on her marriage to a US citizen.

The interview went smoothly. The USCIS officer asked several questions about the couple’s relationship and how they met, but I had prepared them well regarding what to expect. The only major issue was the fact that the wife had been convicted of petty theft several years ago. We provided the officer with the court documents showing that the crimes was not serious enough to bar her adjustment of status, and the officer agreed.

The couple is very happy that they will be able to live and work together in the United States. In two years, they will file the I-751 to remove the conditions on her permanent residence.

If you are considering the adjustment of status process, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a free consultation. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will personally meet with you to discuss your case and the options available to you.

I just found out that my client’s N-400 was approved after a lengthy process with USCIS. My client has been a lawful permanent resident since 1998; however, she lived primarily in her home country until June 2006. She visited the United States once per year during that time. She resides in Irvine in Orange County, California.

We filed for naturalization in June 2010 based on 8 CFR 316.5(c)(1)(ii), which states that if a naturalization applicant disrupts her permanent resident status by leaving the United States for over one year, she can reapply for naturalization 4 years and one day after returning to the United States.

In our case, my client was out of the United States for under one year. USCIS argued that the 4 year and one day rule only applied to applicants that were out of the country for over one year. They argued that the rule did not apply to my client because she was out of the country for less than one year.

I pointed out to them that their interpretation of 8 CFR 316.5(c)(1)(ii) clearly violated the spirit of the regulation. Essentially, USCIS was saying that my client was in a worse position because she did not stay out of the country for more than one year. I pointed out that their interpretation resulted in a ridiculous outcome, and that the US Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that “Nothing is better settled than that statutes should receive a sensible construction such as will effectuate the legislative intention, and, if possible, so as to avoid an unjust or an absurd conclusion.” Lau Ow Bew v. United States, 144 U.S. 47, 59 (1892).

Ultimately, USCIS changed their position and approved the case. My client was very pleased that she would not need to wait another year to naturalize.

If you are considering naturalization, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a free consultation. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will meet with you to discuss your  case and likelihood for success during a free and confidential consultation.

We just received the good news that our client’s I-751 was approved. He was married to his wife for a couple years and obtained conditional resident status through his marriage. The couple lived together and had a child together; however, she was physically and emotionally abusive on several occasions, and the couple divorced.

We filed the I-751 to remove the conditions on his permanent residence after the divorce was final. Because he was no longer married to his ex-wife, we could not file a joint petition to remove the conditions. Therefore, we filed the I-751 as a non-joint petition and asked the government to approve the case based on the good faith marriage exception/waiver.

We included substantial amounts of evidence to show the couple’s marriage was entered into in good faith and not to circumvent the immigration laws of the United States.

USCIS was satisfied that we met the burden of proof, and they approved the case approximately 5 months after filing.

The client was very pleased with the outcome, and is happy that he will be able to stay in the United States as a permanent resident indefinitely. He plans to naturalize as soon as he is eligible.

If you are a conditional resident and need to file the I-751 petition, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a free consultation with managing attorney Jay Nunez.

New Application and Petition Fees Go Into Effect on Nov. 23, 2010
WASHINGTON – U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) reminds customers that its new fee schedule goes into effect Nov. 23, 2010.  Applications or petitions postmarked or otherwise filed on or after this date must include the new fee, or they will be rejected.

USCIS published the new fee schedule in the Federal Register on Sept. 24, following a comprehensive review of public comments received after publication of the proposed rule this summer.

The new fee schedule increases application and petition fees by an average of about 10 percent but does not increase the naturalization application fee.

Final Rule: Schedule of Fees

The following schedule lists the adjusted fees that will take effect on November 23, 2010, alongside the existing fees in effect until that date:

Form No.Application/Petition Description             Existing Fees (effective through Nov. 22, 2010                 Adjusted Fees (effective beginning Nov. 23, 2010)

I-90       Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card$290$365
I-102    Application for Replacement/Initial Nonimmigrant Arrival-Departure Document$320$330
I-129/129      CWPetition for a Nonimmigrant Worker$320$325
I-129F        Petition for Alien Fiancé(e)$455$340
I-130        Petition for Alien Relative$355$420
I-131       Application for Travel Document$305$360
I-140     Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker$475$580
I-191     Application for Advance Permission to Return to Unrelinquished Domicile$545$585
I-192     Application for Advance Permission to Enter as Nonimmigrant$545$585
I-193    Application for Waiver of Passport and/or Visa$545$585
I-212    Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the U.S. after Deportation or Removal$545$585
I-290B   Notice of Appeal or Motion$585$630
I-360    Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant$375$405
I-485     Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status$930$985
I-526    Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur$1,435$1,500
I-539    Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status$300$290
I-600/600A
I-800/800A      Petition to Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative/Application for Advance Processing of Orphan Petition$670$720
I-601     Application for Waiver of Ground of Excludability$545$585
I-612     Application for Waiver of the Foreign Residence Requirement$545$585
I-687    Application for Status as a Temporary Resident under Sections 245A or 210 of the Immigration and Nationality Act$710$1,130
I-690   Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility$185$200
I-694    Notice of Appeal of Decision under Sections 245A or 210 of the Immigration and Nationality Act$545$755
I-698   Application to Adjust Status from Temporary to Permanent Resident (Under Section 245A of Public Law 99-603)$1,370$1,020
I-751   Petition to Remove the Conditions of Residence$465$505
I-765    Application for Employment Authorization$340$380
I-817    Application for Family Unity Benefits$440$435
I-824    Application for Action on an Approved Application or Petition$340$405
I-829    Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions$2,850$3,750
I-881     Application for Suspension of Deportation or Special Rule Cancellation of Removal (Pursuant to Section 203 of Public Law 105–110)$285$285
I-907    Request for Premium Processing Service$1,000$1,225
Civil Surgeon Designation$0$615
I-924     Application for Regional Center under the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program$0$6,230
N-300   Application to File Declaration of Intention$235$250
N-336    Request for Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings$605$650
N-400     Application for Naturalization$595$595
N-470    Application to Preserve Residence for Naturalization Purposes$305$330
N-565    Application for Replacement Naturalization/Citizenship Document$380$345
N-600/600K     Application for Certification of Citizenship/ Application for Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate under Section 322$460$600
Immigrant Visa DHS Domestic Processing$0$165

BiometricsCapturing, Processing, and Storing Biometric Information$80$85

In front of The Clairmont Apartments, representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union and the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition denounced a raid by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in October that resulted in the detention of more than 20 undocumented immigrants.

Apparently, immigrant representatives and witnesses say agents broke into the apartments and arrested men and women at gunpoint, forcing them to leave their children behind.
Moreover, immigrant representatives know of no criminal charges filed against the people who agents rounded up. Additionally, they claim that warrants were not presented before agents entered the apartments by force. One source says they were taken to a detention facility in Ft. Payne, Ala., despite the fact that Davidson County has a facility that participates in 287 (g), a federal program that allows local law enforcement to screen and detain undocumented immigrants.

Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time Hispanics have had trouble at the Clairmont Apartments. In 1999, a Scene investigation discovered a private security company was beating, harassing and often extorting Hispanic residents of the Clairmont, then known as Ivy Wood.

Last month, the National Day Laborer Organization Network (NDLON), the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic of Cardozo Law filed an injunction in federal court to require the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency to turn over critical documents on the ability for communities to opt-out of the Secure Communities (S-Comm) program that enlists local police to become what ICE describes as a force multiplier for immigration enforcement.

According to NDLON Execute Director, they are asking the courts to take action to prevent the agency’s misinformation from continuing to trample the democratic process.

Until now, San Francisco and Santa Clara in California, and Arlington in Virginia, have formally requested to opt-out of S-Comm. The emergency injunction is being filed before those municipalities who have voted to opt-out are scheduled to meet with ICE in November. The lack of information and mixed messages from the agency, however, is causing confusion, leaving local law enforcement frustrated about an issue that groups say is undermining community safety. The injunction specifically seeks to prevent ICE from withholding documents on the opt-out policy to allow local communities to have the information necessary to make determination regarding the S-Comm program. The documents requested should have already been turned over Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) law suit filed last April, which ICE has only partially complied with.

Furthermore, attorneys and advocates claim that in spite of the widespread confusion about the opt-out process, ICE is moving full speed ahead, and if the information about it is released years down the road, it will not do any good for local communities who need to understand the program and make decisions about it now.
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Janet Napolitano has backed off of earlier claims that local communities are able to opt out of the program. Following the FOIA law suit, ICE issued a seven-page document defending the highly criticized program but describing for the first time an opt-out process for local jurisdictions to be removed from the S-Comm deployment plan. Shortly thereafter, Napolitano confirmed the opt-out option. After the Washington Post broke a story in which a high-level ICE source claimed no such option existed, however according to  Napolitano , her department doesn’t consider Secure Communities an opt in/opt out program.

Moreover, advocates who have reviewed the initial S-Comm documents from the FOIA case, reveal a pattern of dishonesty. Information about the nascent program has been scarce, and the development of operational details has been shrouded in secrecy. S-Comm, which currently operates in approximately 600 jurisdictions across the country, functions like the controversial 287(g) program and Arizona’s SB1070, making state and local police central to the enforcement of federal immigration law. The program automatically runs fingerprints through immigration databases for all people arrested and targets them for detention and deportation even if their criminal charges are minor, eventually dismissed, or the result of an unlawful arrest.