Home » Posts tagged 'Immigration Law' (Page 2)
Tag Archives: Immigration Law
Differences Between a Certificate of Citizenship and a Certificate of Naturalization
Naturalization is one way in which a person born in a country outside the United States can acquire U.S. citizenship. A foreign born individual can become a naturalized citizen by marrying a U.S. citizen and being a lawful permanent resident for three years, being a lawful permanent resident for five years through means other than marriage, by having qualifying military service, or by being a qualifying child of a U.S. citizen. A person can also become a U.S. citizen by acquiring derivative citizenship.
Once a person becomes naturalized, he or she receives a certificate of naturalization to show that the person has become a U.S. citizen after meeting the necessary requirements. A certificate of naturalization should not be confused with a certificate of citizenship.
A certificate of citizenship is given to a foreign born individual who acquires derived citizenship through a U.S. citizen parent or parents, whether the parent is a birth parent or an adoptive parent. The child who obtains this kind of derivative citizenship usually must be under the age of 18. A certificate of citizenship is used as proof of citizenship, but does not confer citizenship status.
After a person becomes a naturalized citizen, the status cannot be revoked or the certificate of naturalization cancelled, without a hearing before a federal judge. On the other hand, a certificate of citizenship can be revoked without a hearing as an administrative matter if the underlying derivative citizenship is shown to be fraudulent or invalid. For example, a person lies about being the natural or adopted child of a U.S. citizen, and provides fraudulent documents to prove this, and is issued a certificate of citizenship based on this information. The certificate of citizenship can be cancelled as soon as it is discovered that the person provided false information.
The cancellation of the certificate of citizenship does not cancel or revoke a person’s otherwise valid citizenship. If the person can prove derivative U.S. citizenship another way, he or she may do so.
This administrative procedure for cancelling a person’s certificate of citizenship is not applicable to naturalized citizens. The process of revoking a person’s naturalization is more complicated. There are some situations in which an immigrant’s naturalization can be revoked, and the immigrant can lose his or her status as a U.S. citizen. This usually happens if there is a problem with the person’s initial qualification for naturalization. If the person did not meet the criteria for citizenship, whether fraudulently or through a mistake, the person’s citizenship through naturalization can be revoked.
However, the United States Supreme Court has held that if the basis of revoking a person’s naturalization is misstatements on a person’s naturalization application, the misstatements have to be material. The government has the burden of proving that the misstatement was material to the granting of citizenship. Therefore, minor misstatements cannot be the basis of stripping someone of U.S. citizenship.
Contact an Experienced Immigration Attorney
For more information on how an experienced immigration attorney can assist you in a proceeding to revoke your naturalization, contact our multi-lingual staff to speak to an experienced immigration attorney from Strassburg, Gilmore & Wei, LLP, in Pasadena, California.
New Countries Added to the Travel Ban List
The federal government extended its travel ban to immigrants of three additional countries over the weekend. The countries added to the original list of countries are Venezuela, North Korea, and Chad. Sudan, which was on the original travel ban list, has since been removed from the list. The addition of these countries to the travel list will mean tight restrictions for immigrants from these countries trying to enter the United States.
The reasoning for adding these countries to the travel list has been reported to be a failure by the governments of these countries to cooperate with the United States in terms of providing information on potential travelers. Specifically, the information that the U.S. government seeks from foreign governments about potential travelers has to do with the traveler’s criminal past or ties to terrorist organizations. The government uses this information to screen travelers before granting them permission to enter or remain in the United States.
Having a criminal record may affect a person’s ability to enter into the United States, even if the person is only planning on temporarily visiting the country. If a person has numerous misdemeanors, or has been previously convicted of what is referred to as a crime of moral turpitude, or of trafficking controlled substances, the person is not likely to gain admission into the country. Depending on what kind of criminal record a person has, he may be able to obtain a waiver from the United States embassy or consulate in their country in order to travel to the United States.
One category of traveler who will always face obstacles when coming into the United States is anyone connected to a terrorist organization. There are many organizations in many countries that are regarded as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. A person’s suspected connections to these groups increases the background checks that must be performed before letting the person travel to the United States. There are no waivers available for a person who is denied entry into the United States on the basis of connection to a terrorist group.
The effects of the revised travel ban are yet to be seen, and therefore, it is hard to tell whether there will be additional legal challenges to the addition of the new countries, or to the government’s reasoning for adding them. The United States Supreme Court is yet to make a final ruling on the constitutionality of the travel ban.
Contact an Experienced Immigration Attorney
If you are in the United States, have been convicted of crimes in the United States or in another country, it can interfere with your ability to remain in the United States, and you need to contact an immigration attorney before filing to change your status. Similarly, if your family member or loved one is seeking entry into the United States but has a criminal record, you need to contact an experienced immigration attorney to discuss how the convictions could affect the person’s entry into the country.
For more information, contact our multi-lingual staff to speak to experienced immigration attorney Nathan Wei from Strassburg, Gilmore & Wei, LLP, in Pasadena, California.
What Happens Now That the DACA Program is Being Phased Out?
News of the elimination of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, also known as DACA, has caused widespread disappointment, and in some cases fear, among the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who were offered protection from deportation under the program. Under DACA, undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children by their parents, and who registered with the federal government were able to work and attend school without fear of deportation.
DACA will officially begin to be scaled back in March of 2018. Therefore, DACA recipients whose permits are due to expire have one opportunity to renew them by October 2017. No new applications for DACA work authorization will be accepted. In addition, no applications for advance parole will be granted, allowing a DACA recipient to leave the country and legally return despite his or her undocumented status.
Until the program is phased out, DACA recipients are still entitled to the benefits and protections they receive under the program. This means that an employer cannot fire a DACA recipient on the basis of his or her immigration status if the DACA’s recipient work permit is valid. Similarly, a DACA recipient cannot be kicked out of school on this basis.
The end of DACA will mean that DACA recipients can more easily be deported. This is a fear among DACA recipients, that the information they provided in order to gain DACA protection could not be used against them. DACA recipients may also be encouraged to self-deport, that is, voluntarily leave the United States before their permits expire.
However, depending on the circumstances, a DACA recipient may have other legal options to stay in the country despite the end of DACA. If a DACA recipient has another legal avenue for changing his or her immigration status to avoid deportation, this would be the best time to take advantage of that avenue. While it is a good idea to prepare and have a plan ready in case of deportation, it is also important for DACA recipients to speak to an experienced immigration attorney before self-deporting. Speaking to an attorney can help a DACA recipient evaluate his or her legal rights under the law before taking drastic action.
There may be further changes coming that could affect DACA recipients. The University of California system has filed a lawsuit in federal court arguing that the abrupt end of DACA violates the due process rights of the undocumented immigrants who were granted certain rights under the program. Depending on how the court rules on this issue, DACA recipients may be able to retain some of their rights for a while longer. There is also pressure for congress to pass the DREAM Act, which would provide many of the same benefits as the DACA program.
Contact an Experienced Immigration Attorney
If you were registered under DACA and need legal assistance to understand how the program’s termination will affect you, or how you can continue working and going to school, contact our multi-lingual staff to speak to an experienced immigration attorney from Strassburg, Gilmore & Wei, LLP today.
California Law Protecting Victims and Witnesses of Crimes
We have previously discussed the worrying presence of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers at courthouses for the purpose of identifying and arresting people who are in the country unlawfully. Earlier this year, the chief justice of the California Supreme Court wrote a letter to federal officials asking them to reconsider the tactic in light of the effect it was having on victims and witness who were too scared of deportation to help with criminal investigations.
Because of concerns such as these, and the issues surrounding sanctuary city status, California lawmakers passed a law that is aimed at protecting victims and witnesses. Under this law, that is currently awaiting the governor’s signature, police officers in California will not arrest a victim or a witness based solely on an actual or suspected immigration violation.
There is an exception under this new California law for the arrest of a victim or witness if there is a warrant for arrest presented to the police officers. A warrant will be honored even when it is issued by a federal court as part of a federal investigation or case. There may be a warrant issued for the arrest of a person who is a victim or a witness based on their immigration status, or based on the person’s involvement in another criminal case.
Currently under California law, the only victims and witnesses who are protected from arrest and deportation are victims and witnesses of hate crimes. This new law would expand this protection to victims or witnesses of all crimes.
Undocumented immigrants should also remember that depending on a person’s involvement and participation in a federal criminal investigation, he or she may be eligible for a visa that would help him or her stay in the country legally and assist with the investigation.
Federal officials have stated that a person’s status as a victim or a witness alone is not enough to stop the person from getting deported. The law the California legislature has approved will not stop a person’s deportation, it simply slows down the process. California law will not make changes to federal immigration law, and so a person can still be picked up in courthouses by federal agents whether the person is a victim, witness, or a person charged with a crime. The California law would simply block local police officers from taking action to assist with the deportation of victims and witnesses.
If the governor signs the law and does not veto it, it is expected to take effect in January of 2018. There are additional proposed laws aimed at assisting undocumented immigrants, such as a law that would make California a sanctuary state. The success of these laws would be greatly beneficial to many undocumented immigrants who live peacefully in California without committing criminal offenses.
Contact an Experienced Immigration Attorney
For more information on the protection from deportation available to victims and witnesses of crimes, or for legal assistance with your immigration issues, contact our multi-lingual staff to speak to experienced immigration attorney Nathan Wei from Strassburg, Gilmore & Wei, LLP, in Pasadena, California for a consultation.
English Language Requirements for Naturalization
We have previously discussed a proposed immigration law that would favor English speaking immigrants seeking to immigrate to the United States over those who do not. This proposal has been met with resistance because there are many immigrants to the United States who bring value, but who may not be able to communicate fluently in English.
How important is the English requirement to an immigrant seeking admission to the United States? Currently, temporary visitors to the United States are not required to be fluent English speakers. On the other hand, when an immigrant applies for naturalization, then there is an English requirement to be met as part of the naturalization test.
There are two tests that a person wishing to become a United States citizen has to pass as part of the naturalization test – an English test and a civics test. Although the English test is mandatory for applicants under the age of 50, there are special accommodations that can be made for applicants who cannot speak English because of medical reasons or a disability. A person claiming a medical condition or disability exception to the rule has to prove the medical condition and disability.
For certain applicants over the age of 50, the English test is not mandatory. If an applicant is 50 or more years of age, has lived in the United States for 20 years or more as a permanent resident; or, if 55 years old and has lived in the country for 15 years as a permanent resident, the English test is not mandatory.
Because the English language is waived in these circumstances, applicants may take the civics test using an interpreter provided by the applicant. The interpreter is required to be fluent in both English and the native language of the applicant. This is one more useful accommodation that is designed to assist immigrants in becoming citizens.
Even with the English requirement, the government does not require fluency in order for an applicant to become a citizen. The applicant has to read, write, and understand English words in their ordinary conversational use. The English test is relatively straight forward in this regard.
There is no requirement for a person who is applying for asylum or lawful permanent residency to fluently speak English or pass an English test. There are interviews involved with making these applications, but interpreters may be used.
While it is important to learn English while living in an English speaking country such as the United States, not being able to speak the language fluently is not a barrier to seeking lawful permanent residence status or applying for citizenship. Therefore, if you meet the other legal requirements for changing your immigration status, you should make the appropriate application.
Contact an Experienced Immigration Attorney
If you are an immigrant who is eligible to apply for lawful permanent residence or citizenship, contact our multi-lingual staff to speak to an experienced immigration attorney from Strassburg, Gilmore & Wei, LLP, in Pasadena, California. We can help you through the application process, especially if you have any potential immigration issues that may limit the success of your application.
Non U.S. Citizen Immigrants and Public Assistance
Non U.S. citizens living in the United States are sometimes unsure of their rights when it comes to applying for and receiving public aid assistance. Part of the uncertainty comes from a fear that if a non U.S. citizen accepts public aid, it could affect the person’s chances at adjusting status later on and applying for citizenship. Others also fear being labeled a burden on the U.S. government.
When people talk about public assistance, they are usually referring to food assistance through either Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, which is also referred to as food stamps); public housing; and, medical insurance through the Medicaid program.
Not every non U.S. citizen living in the United States qualifies for public assistance. For example, undocumented immigrants are generally not eligible to receive public assistance. Immigrants who are in the United States on temporary visas, such as student visas or tourist visas, are also not eligible for assistance. Non U.S. citizens who hold these temporary visas should not accept public aid, even if it is offered by an organization. It could lead to a revocation of their visas.
U.S. citizen children of undocumented immigrants may be eligible for benefits even if their parents are not. When this happens, the parents may later be penalized for accepting public aid on behalf of their children if the parents try and legalize their status. Accepting public aid is seen as the parent’s inability to financially provide for the children.
In some states there are special programs that do allow public assistance for undocumented immigrants in certain cases. For example in California, undocumented immigrants under the age of nineteen are eligible for medical care under California’s full-scope Medi-Cal program. Under such programs, undocumented children can receive full medical care, and not just emergency medical care as it was in the past.
Legal permanent residents, immigrants who have been granted asylum, or others who have immigrant visas to the United States are generally eligible to receive aid regardless of age if they meet the other economic factors. Public aid programs usually cut off eligibility based on household size and income.
Recent media reporting on proposed rule changes that seek to change immigration in the United States have indicated that under the proposed system, immigrants currently in the United States who receive public assistance would be targeted for deportation. Because these changes are not yet law, if a non U.S. citizen qualifies for public aid and needs it because of financial hardship, he or she should still be able to apply for the assistance. However, it may be wise to consult an attorney as to the implications of the application, especially since there is some uncertainty now as to how that application may affect the person’s chances of permanent status later on.
Contact Us for Legal Assistance
For more information on what benefits you may be entitled to as an immigrant living in the United States, and how applying for those benefits can affect you later, contact our multi-lingual staff to speak to an experienced immigration attorney from Strassburg, Gilmore & Wei, LLP, in Pasadena, California.
Proposed Legislation to Move to a Merit Based Immigration System
In a move to change the way the immigration system currently works in the United States, there is a proposed legislation that would move immigration towards a more merit or skill based immigration system. If this law were to pass, it would drastically change the way some family members are able to immigrate to the United States.
Under the current immigration system, a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident can apply for his or her family members to immigrate to the U.S. and live as permanent residents with a path to citizenship. U.S. citizens can sponsor certain family members that lawful permanent residents cannot. Under the current system, immediate and extended family members can immigrate to the U.S. as long as a qualifying family member who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident sponsors their applications.
Under the proposed legislation, immigration based on family ties would be sharply restricted, with only spouses and minor children being allowed to immigrate through an application based on their relationship to a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. This would mean that a U.S. resident’s parents, adult children, and siblings would be restricted to immigration through a merit based system.
A merit based system would focus on an immigrant’s ability to work in the U.S. and in skilled positions. Similar merit based systems are used in other countries, such as Canada and Australia; however, it is not clear how closely the proposed system will resemble the systems used in those countries.
One issue of major concern is the proposal to give English speakers preference in the merits based system. This could affect a lot of immigrants who may have otherwise been able to immigrate to the U.S., especially if this policy is used to restrict applicants who do not speak English fluently. A merit based system would also look at a person’s education and job experience and rank him or her based on that, giving preference to more educated professionals than people with less education or job experience.
The law would also eliminate the diversity visa lottery program and reduce the number of refugees the U.S. accepts annually.
The proposed law has already met criticism, including concerns that it could dramatically affect the country’s economy. The law would cut down immigration numbers by half, and because immigrants contribute significantly to the economy, there will definitely be an economic impact to the law’s passage.
The proposed legislation is in its early stages and is not yet the law. If you are a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident seeking to sponsor your parents or siblings for residency in the U.S., you can still do that under the current law. Unfortunately, applications for these groups of relatives may take a long time to be processed, and especially in the case of sibling applications, could take years to finalize.
Contact Us for Legal Assistance
If you are a U.S. resident and would like more information on how you can sponsor an application for a parent or a sibling or another eligible relative, contact our multi-lingual staff to speak to an experienced immigration attorney from Strassburg, Gilmore & Wei, LLP, in Pasadena, California.
Consequences for Overstaying on a Non-Immigrant Visa
Most people who visit the United States do so after applying for and being granted a temporary or non-immigrant visa. Although these visitors enter the country legally, they may then sometimes overstay their visas, and remain in the country in violation of immigration laws.
When non-immigrant visas are granted, they usually have a set date on which they expire, and at that point the person travelling on the visa can no longer use the visa to enter the country. When a traveler uses the visa to travel to the United States, the traveler is required to leave on a set date, if the traveler fails to leave, he or she is said to overstay the visa.
Most people who overstay do so because they were not able to get their visas renewed because it meant leaving the country, they found employment or better opportunities, or because they face hardship by returning to their home country. Asylum applications are not always processed in a short period of time, and so for some people, it is easier to get a non-immigrant visa and then fail to return home at the expiration of the visa. Unfortunately, overstaying a visa is as illegal as crossing the border without a valid visa.
A person who overstays a visa can face some of the same consequences as a person who entered the country illegally. For example, if the person leaves the country, he or she can be banned from reentering the country for three to 10 years. The three-year ban applies if the person was in the country unlawfully for 180 days, but less than a year, before voluntarily leaving the country. If a person overstays a visa for more than a year before leaving voluntarily, then the 10-year ban applies if he or she tries to return. If a person overstays and gets deported, he or she becomes permanently ineligible for reentry.
In some cases, a person who has overstayed may be able to apply for an adjustment of status while in the United States. This is an option that is available to people who overstay their visas, but not to people who entered the country illegally without a visa. Most people applying for an adjustment of status do so because they marry an American citizen and wish to apply for a green card.
In most cases, a person who has overstayed a visa and later applies for a green card is required to leave the country to complete the process, but because of the reentry bans, most people would prefer to file for an adjustment of status and avoid leaving the country. To find out if an adjustment of status is possible in your case, you need to talk to an experienced immigration attorney.
Let Us Help You
If you were granted a non-immigrant visa to travel to the United States as a student, tourist, or an employee, and overstayed beyond the time allowed, you may be limited in your options to legalize your status. For more information on how an experienced immigration attorney can assist you, contact our multi-lingual staff to speak to an experienced immigration attorney from Strassburg, Gilmore & Wei, LLP, in Pasadena, California.
A Criminal History can Affect Your Immigration Chances
When you are an immigrant seeking legal permanent residency or citizenship in the United States, there are many issues and questions that may come up when you are in the process of submitting your application. One issue that may be particularly worrisome is how a criminal record can affect a person’s application for legal permanent residency or U.S. citizenship.
Generally, having a criminal history can affect your application and does lower your chances of being approved for either permanent residency or citizenship. This usually depends on the nature of your crime, and in some cases how long ago the conviction was entered. In addition, as we have noted before, if a person already has permanent residency, being convicted of a crime can lead to the revocation of that status and the beginning of deportation proceedings.
Convictions for some crimes result in a person being temporarily ineligible for U.S. citizenship for a period of time, while others result in permanent ineligibility. If a person is convicted of murder or a crime that is considered an aggravated felony, the person is permanently banned from becoming a U.S. citizen. On the other hand, convictions for less serious crimes may result in a temporary ban of three to five years, after which time the person can apply for citizenship.
Being granted citizenship is still a matter of discretion on the part of the government, this means that even if you were only convicted of a crime that results in temporary ineligibility, you may still be denied citizenship based on your background.
Lawful permanent resident applicants who have been convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude and crimes involving the trafficking of a controlled substance are ineligible to receive a green card. There are other criminal offenses that can bar an applicant from receiving permanent residency. In some cases, applicants who are closely related to a person with a conviction for trafficking controlled substances are also considered ineligible for permanent residency if they received financial support that was from the proceeds of the trafficking.
Immigrants seeking either permanent residency or citizenship should remember that they are required to disclose all their criminal history, even convictions for crimes in other countries. Failing to make the appropriate disclosures, and then signing the application saying you provided accurate information could result in more legal troubles for the applicant.
If your criminal convictions were in another country and a result of political prosecution, you may be eligible for a purely political offense exception from ineligibility. It is important to discuss this kind of criminal history with an attorney. Applicants should remember that for immigration purposes, guilty pleas and other forms of criminal dispositions can count as convictions.
Contact Us for Legal Assistance
If you have been convicted of crimes in the United States or in another country and are thinking about applying for permanent residency or U.S. citizenship, you need to contact an experienced immigration attorney to discuss how the convictions could affect your application. Contact our multi-lingual staff to speak to experienced immigration attorney Nathan Wei from Strassburg, Gilmore & Wei, LLP, in Pasadena, California.
The Supreme Court to Rule on the Travel Ban
The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear a case involving the implementation of the travel ban proposed by the Trump Administration earlier this year. The travel ban was originally supposed to exclude people seeking to enter the United States from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, from entering the country. This included visitors on travel visas, workers, students, and even those who had previously been vetted by the government and given permission to enter the United States. Refugees from all countries were to be banned from entry for a period of time.
While the Supreme Court will hear the full case later this year, it allowed the travel ban to go into effect restricting the entry of some people, but allowing those with “bona fide relationships” to the United States to be allowed entry. The problem that is developing with this ruling is that there was no exhaustive definition of what made up those bona fide relationships.
The Supreme Court did give some examples of the kinds of relationships that would meet the definition, but the rules that are developing are more restrictive than most people expected. In the examples of bona fide relationships, the Supreme Court listed close family members, students, and workers who have an offer of employment.
The new guidelines that have been issued by the administration following the court’s ruling have restricted close family members to people who belong to a traditional nuclear family, as well as some in-laws. This has excluded grandparents, cousins, and others who may otherwise have been close family members. Fiancées were later added to the list of those who would be allowed to travel to the country despite the ban. For people wanting to come into the United States with a bona fide relationship with an entity, the relationship has to be formal and long established, not a relationship created to avoid the travel ban.
Refugees will still remain largely restricted from entering the United States, but those with bona fide relationships will likely be allowed entry. For example, if a father already entered the United States as a refugee, his wife and children will not likely be affected by the ban. On the other hand, a family of refugees whose only tie is to an aid agency is unlikely to be allowed entry under current rules.
The new rules have cleared up some of the confusion that came with the implementation of the first travel ban. Therefore, those with legal permanent residence in the United States should not have any issues coming into the country, as well as those with student or work visas that were previously granted and are still valid.
Contact Us for Legal Assistance
More legal challenges are expected as the government begins to implement the new rules related to the travel ban. If you are concerned or confused about how the partial implementation of the travel ban will affect you or your family members in the six countries, contact our multi-lingual staff to speak to an experienced immigration attorney from Strassburg, Gilmore & Wei, LLP today.
Immigration Lawyer.Blog 