OC Immigration Attorney

Huge increases in deportations of people after they were arrested for breaking traffic or immigration laws or driving drunk helped the Obama administration set a record last year for the number of criminal immigrants forced to leave the country, documents show.

The U.S. deported nearly 393,000 people in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, half of whom were considered criminals. Of those, 27,635 had been arrested for drunken driving, more than double the 10,851 deported after drunken driving arrests in 2008, the last full year of the Bush administration, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement data provided to the Associated Press.

An additional 13,028 were deported last year after being arrested on less serious traffic law violations, nearly three times the 4,527 traffic offenders deported two years earlier, according to the data.

The spike in the numbers of people deported for traffic offenses as well as a 78 percent increase in people deported for immigration-related offenses renewed skepticism about the administration’s claims that it is focusing on the most dangerous criminals.

President Obama regularly says his administration is enforcing immigration laws more wisely than his predecessor by focusing on arresting the “worst of the worst.” He promised in his 2008 presidential campaign to focus immigration enforcement on dangerous criminals.

If you or a loved one are in deportation or removal proceedings in immigration court, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a free consultation. Managing partner Jay Nunez will personally meet with you and help you understand your situation.

The blanket L petition program allows a petitioning employer to seek continuing approval of itself, its parent, and its branches, subsidiaries, and affiliates as qualifying organizations and, later, classification under INA Section 101(a)(15)(L) of any number of aliens employed by itself, its parent, or some of its branches, subsidiaries, and affiliates. The program is generally restricted to relatively large international employers who are engaged in commercial trade or services. The petitioning employer must document that it meets certain criteria to file the blanket L petition and to document the relationship between the qualifying organizations which will be included in the blanket L petition.

The blanket L petition does not ensure approval of individual employee beneficiaries. Whether an alien beneficiary of the blanket L petition qualify for L classification is later determined by the appropriate consulate with jurisdiction over the beneficiary or the USCIS or CBP officer if the alien is visa-exempt or applying for change of status.

The L-1 Visa Reform Act modifies the eligibility requirements for L-1 intracompany transferees covered by a blanket L petition and requires that the L-1 beneficiary of a blanket L petition have been employed abroad by the L entity for a period of 12 months. The Act eliminates the 6 month exception that had been the law for blanket L petition beneficiaries since 2001.

A blanket L petition is an extensive and time-consuming process and requires substantial evidence including but not limited to SEC filings, annual reports, corporate organizational charts. All of the organizations, parents, subsidiaries and affiliates listed in the blanket L petition must be engaged in commercial trade or services. The petitioning employer must have an office in the United States that has been doing business for at least one year. The L petitioner must have at least three or more organizations included in the blanket L petition. The blanket L petition has other requirement that must be met as well.

If you are considering a blanket L petition, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a free consultation.

It’s no secret that applying for residence in the United States can be a complicated process. Even when all the paperwork is in, there’s still a long wait involved in most cases. The wait is determined by a complicated equation that balances the demand and supply of employment and family-unification visas the U.S. grants. As a result, some applicants have been waiting in line for more than 10 years, others for more than 20 years, according to the State Department’s most recent count.

“The question is how long do you expect people wait to reunite family members, individuals with their spouses?” asks Madeleine Sumption, a policy analyst with the Migration Policy Institute.

According to Sumption, the long waiting lines for green cards is one more problem that congressional inaction on immigration reform has caused. Lawmakers have two choices to address the long waiting line: either increase the number of visas available or reduce the number of people eligible.

While, there are no limits on visas for immediate relatives (spouses, minor children and parents) of U.S. citizens, there are long waits for other family members, including spouses and young children of legal permanent residents; unmarried adult sons and daughters of citizens; and siblings of citizens. In some cases, people have died waiting to be given a visa number.

Meanwhile, on the employment-based visa front, Sumption says that a vast majority of the people on the waiting list are already in the U.S. on temporary work visas. That means those workers are vulnerable to exploitation by their employers—they are tied to their employers, have little leverage to seek new opportunities, and have no room to engage in the entrepreneurship our economy values, said Sumption.

Here is a graph that shows the wait times for different types of US visas.

Jennifer was born in Chattanooga, but was yanked out of the only life she knew when her mother took her to Guatemala last year. Work in Chattanooga was scarce because of the recession, her mother Inocenta Garcia said, even more so because she was in the country illegally.

Jennifer is one of untold numbers of children in the crosshairs of a vitriolic immigration debate: children born and raised in America — and thereby U.S. citizens by law — but forced to move to other countries when their parents are deported or pressured to leave.

Opponents of illegal immigration say that’s fair; the parents knew the risks when they crossed the border without permission in the first place. In their view, Jennifer is exactly where she belongs.

The discourse is so heated and the issue so divisive that some Americans patrol the border with Mexico on their own time, with their own weapons.

And states like Georgia, Alabama and Arizona have passed some of the toughest laws in the country to deter illegal immigration.

An L-1B alien beneficiary with specialized knowledge should possess a type of specialized or advanced knowledge that is different from that generally found in the particular industry. The knowledge need not be proprietary or unique. Where the alien has specialized knowledge of the company product, the knowledge must be advanced. Note, the advanced knowledge of the beneficiary need not be narrowly held throughout the company. There is no test of the U.S. labor market in determining whether an alien possesses specialized knowledge. Only an examination of the knowledge possessed by the alien is necessary.

A common specialized knowledge theme is that the knowledge the beneficiary possesses, whether it is knowledge of a company product or process, would be difficult to impart to another individual without significant inconvenience to the employer petitioner. The knowledge should be complex to some degree and not generally known. The petitioning employer bears the burden of proof in establishing through the submission of relevant evidence that the alien’s specialized knowledge is distinguished by some uncommon qualification and not generally known by practitioners in the alien’s industry. A petitioning employer’s claim that the alien possesses an advanced level of knowledge must be supported by evidence showing that the knowledge in question is above and beyond elementary knowledge possessed by others.

If your company is considering the L-1 visa petition process, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a consultation. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will discuss your situation and help determine if the L-1 or another type of employment-based visa is the best option available.

On Monday, President Barack Obama will make a luncheon speech at the National Conference of La Raza’s (NCLR) annual conference in Washington, DC.  While most of the political class is mesmerized by the debt ceiling negotiations, millions of Latinos will be focused on what the president says — or doesn’t say — about comprehensive immigration reform.

The fact that he’s speaking at the NCLR conference has special meaning for Latinos and their allies.  In July of 2008, at the NCLR annual conference in San Diego, candidate Obama famously promised to make immigration reform a priority during the first year of his presidency.

In the 2008 election, Latino voters came out in record numbers to support Candidate Obama, and many Latino voters are impatiently waiting to see if President Obama will follow through on the promises he made to Latinos in 2008.

Recent polling by Latino Decisions shows that immigration is the number one issue for Latinos, topping the economy and jobs by 51 percent to 35 percent (education came in third at 18 percent).   In recent Gallup polling, Obama’s approval ratings hover at around 50 percent from a community that previously had him at  high 70s approval rating early in his presidency.  Moreover, three successive 2011 tracking polls by Latino Decisions shows that less than 50 percent of Latino voters are certain to vote for Obama in 2012 (he won 67 percent in 2008).

The National Association of Immigration Judges believes that establishment of an independent agency or Article I court (like the tax or bankruptcy courts) rather than the current placement of the courts within the Department of Justice, is an essential reform. Only with this independence will the immigration courts be able to obtain the resources needed to ensure that each and every asylum case gets the in-depth scrutiny that both the applicant and the people of the United States deserve it receive.

Asylum adjudications are emotionally charged and legally complex. If a genuine refugee is erroneously denied relief, she may face torture or death in her home country. Because someone fleeing persecution may not be able to obtain documents, many cases are decided on testimony alone.

The immigration courts are a crucial checkpoint where fraudulent asylum claims can be ferreted out. Credibility determinations made at this juncture are given great deference by reviewing courts. As important as their role is, immigration courts are often the forgotten piece of this system, with funding a mere afterthought. Drastically under-resourced, the average pending caseload of an immigration judge is 1,200 cases. Judges struggle with one judicial law clerk for every four judges, instead of the three clerks that most federal district court judges have, although they handle one third the number of cases.

Dana Leigh Marks, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, July 12, 2011. She has served as an immigration judge in San Francisco since 1987.

A undocumented alien’s plight lodged itself in producer Paul Junger Witt’s heart, pushing him for 25 years to bring the dramatized story to life onscreen.

“A Better Life,” the result, is the rare Hollywood film that focuses on a Latino family in the United States and, rarer still, takes an intimate view of the price paid by illegal immigrants making their bid for the American dream.

The movie, opening Friday, is intended to be apolitical regarding the immigration issue, Witt said, but he wants it to spark more than ticket sales.

“I think people on both sides can politicize it and that’s not unhealthy, because it will promote dialogue and discussion. This issue isn’t going away,” he said. “If that’s one of the results of this film coming out, so be it. It needs to be talked about.”

Witt is a veteran Hollywood producer with credits including “The Golden Girls” and films such as “Insomnia” and “Three Kings.”

We finally received the approval notice for an I-130 visa petition that was filed by a husband for his wife. The couple married two years ago, but the wife was already in deportation proceedings at the time of marriage.

In general, there is a prohibition against approval of visa petition filed on behalf of an alien by a United States Citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse if the marriage creating the relationship occurred on or after November 10, 1986, and while the alien was in deportation or removal proceedings. An exemption is available under 8 CFR 245.1(c)(9). The burden is on petitioner to show through clear and convincing evidence that: the marriage was entered into in good faith; and the marriage was not entered into for the purposes of obtaining lawful permanent residence.

Generally, it is very difficult to persuade USCIS that a marriage entered into while in removal proceedings is worthy of approval. I firmly believed that this couple’s marriage was entered into in good faith. I would not have accepted their case if I was not convinced.

We provided a great deal of evidence to USCIS to show that the marriage was entered into in good faith. In late 2010 we were interviewed by USCIS regarding the I-130. The officer separated my clients and asked them 47 identical questions. I wrote down every question and every answer. The couple answered 45 of the questions identically. The other two questions pertained to the husband’s estranged family. The husband had not spoken to certain members of his family for many years; therefore, his wife’s knowledge of those family members was limited.

After a 3 hour interview, USCIS requested more evidence. We provided it within a week, yet we did not receive a decision on the I-130 for over 8 months. I wrote to the officer 3 times requesting a decision. Finally, we attended an infopass appointment and the infopass officer looked into the matter more extensively. Within a few days, we received an approval.

The couple is very happy now that they know the I-130 was approved. We will still need to adjust status in the immigration court, but with an approved I-130, there should not be too many issues with adjusting status in immigration court.

If you are considering applying for a marriage based green card, 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.

Plaintiffs-Appellants appeal the judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of New York (Marrero, J.), dismissing their complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs-Appellants argue that the Child Status Protection Act, and in particular 8 U.S.C. § 1153(h)(3), entitles Duo Cen, an alien who aged out of eligibility for an immigrant visa as a derivative beneficiary to his grandfather’s 1994 petition, to retain the 1994 priority date for his mother’s 2008 family-sponsored petition for Duo Cen. We disagree. Section 1153(h)(3) does not entitle an alien to retain the priority date of an aged-out family preference petition if the aged-out family preference petition cannot be “converted to [an] appropriate category. Affirmed.