Jason T. – Orlando, FL

The immigration service was trying to deport me for a crime I pleaded guilty to 23 years ago. I found The Pappas Group and they were able to get my removal cancelled and I was able to stay in the country. I recommend them to anyone who is involved in deporation proceedings.

Soni S. – Kissimmee, FL

I hired The Pappas Group to represent me in removal proceedings after the USCIS denied by application for asylum. Pappas and his associates were thoroughly prepared at trial and convinced the Immigration Judge that I would be persecuted were I returned to my country of origin. My asylum was granted and, with the help of Pappas, I later applied for and received my green card.

Mohammed K. – Orlando, FL 

I am a professional golfer and am trying to get on the PGA tour. Pappas helped me get a temporary visa for me to compete in professional, non-PGA, tours in America until I qualify for the PGA tour. They did the work quickly and efficiently and I have referred them to other Korean Golfer friends of mine.

Phong L. – Tampa, FL

I hired The Pappas Group to represent me in removal proceedings before the Immigration Court. They prepared very thoroughly for the trial and were able to prevent my deportation under the Convention Against Torture. I have already referred two of my friends to them and will continue to recommend The Pappas Group in the future.

Sanjay R. – Miami, FL

The IRS initially denied my application for asylum and referred my case to the Immigration Court. I hired The Pappas Group and they retained an expert witness who testified about the conditions in my home country and what I was likely to face were I returned there. The Judge ruled in my favor and I was granted asylum. The Pappas Group did an excellent job for me I am forever thankful.

Mikhail V. – Orlando, FL

I hired The Pappas Group because I needed a work visa that would allow me to start up and operate a branch of my Vietnamese business in America. Pappas explained all of my options and helped me assemble and present the required information to the USCIS. I had no idea how much work was involved in this process and am sure I couldn’t have gotten my L-1 visa without the able assistance and guidance of the excellent professionals at The Pappas Group. If you have an immigration issue, I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend them.

Phu N. – Orlando, FL

Utah’s Immigration Solution Not a National Model
Legislation Fails To Live Up To State’s Best Intentions

Washington D.C. – Late Friday night, the Utah Legislature passed three immigration-related bills that await Governor Herbert’s signature or veto.

Utah’s policy discussions were guided by the principles of a much-lauded Utah Compact, which brought together leaders from political parties, business, labor, and faith-based organizations for a thoughtful dialogue about immigration policy. The Compact was a welcome relief from the angry vitriol that has often dominated the debate and was well-regarded as a rational, solution-based conversation about the complexity of effective immigration reform. It recognizes that the current unauthorized immigrant population is made up of workers, taxpayers, and consumers, and that enforcement strategies must be coupled with reform of our legal system of immigration in order to meet legitimate labor force needs.

Unfortunately, the Utah state legislature was not able to realize the Compact’s aspirations.

The three bills represent one state’s attempt to provide solutions that go beyond the enforcement-only approach of Arizona’s SB1070 and similar copycats being considered in other states. It is noteworthy that Utah’s legislature acknowledged that immigration is a complex issue, and that a realistic solution involves more than asking people for their papers and deporting those who lack legal status. However, what these well-intentioned Utah legislators have created is an aggressive Arizona-style enforcement program with no counter-balance. The provisions intended to create legal work status and visas are clearly at odds with the Constitution and cannot be implemented by state action alone.

The first measure (HB 497) is an SB1070-inspired immigration-enforcement bill that is scheduled to go into effect in early May, but will almost assuredly be challenged in court. The second bill (HB 466) authorizes the Governor of Utah to enter into a pilot program with the Mexican state of Nuevo Leon to facilitate applications for migrant workers to come to Utah through the normal federal process. 

The third bill (HB 116) would create Utah’s own “guest worker program,” to take effect on July 1, 2013, or six months after the federal government grants Utah an unprecedented “waiver” allowing the state to create its own guestworker program. However, the creation and issuance of visas are clearly the sole purview of the federal government, and no “waiver” for states currently exists.

In light of the heavy handed approach to enforcement and the fact that a state-administered guest worker program is clearly outside the authority of the state, what was passed by the Utah legislature is not a model for future state legislation.

While states are reasonably frustrated with the lack of federal leadership on immigration, a 50-state patchwork of varying immigration laws is not a solution to the nation’s immigration problems. Despite a laudable effort by a conservative state to engage in a more sensible debate, this latest chapter of state-based initiatives once again demonstrates that Congress and the Administration must heed the call for workable, fair immigration reform, or face continued turmoil and misplaced legislation at the state level. 

On Monday, March 7, 2011 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) requested feedback on its policy to resume deportations/removals to Haiti. The deadline for comments is March 11 to email your comments to ICE.

The National Immigration Project/NLG objects to this decision to deport Haitians, to ICE’s focus on so-called “criminal aliens,” and to ICE’s seeking comments after it has already begun to send people back. ICE’s policy has already led to one death and the deportation of 27 Haitians into a humanitarian crisis. We also object to the short and non-transparent comment process that is occurring after ICE has already implemented a policy.

Please take the following steps by this Friday:

1) Review the policy here http://www.ice.gov/news/library/policies/

2) Email ICE your personal or organizational comments to vog.shdnull@stnemmocycilopitiah

In other words, the burden continues to be on the government to prove that the detainee is a flight risk or a danger to the community.

Here’s a recent article from the Associated Press:

Federal authorities say a six-day sweep of South Florida has netted 19 illegal immigrants with criminal records.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement says the operation that ended Thursday also caught four fugitives with final orders of deportation and one person who previously had been deported.

All 24 people were arrested for being in violation of immigration law. All are being held by ICE pending removal from the United States.

ICE says the operation targeted illegal immigrants with convictions for drug trafficking offenses, violent crimes and sex offenses.

Don’t wait until ICE arrests you. Find out your rights and options today by calling an experienced immigration lawyer.

On Feb. 11, Qi Gen Guo, was encountered by ICE after his arrest by Pennsylvania State Police (PSP). On Feb. 14, Guo, who was subject to a final order of removal, was released to ICE custody and was detained at the Clinton County Correctional Facility to effectuate his removal from the United States to the People’s Republic of China.

On Feb. 23, the 47-year-old was transferred to the Lock Haven Hospital emergency room where he died. An autopsy has been scheduled to determine the official cause of death.

Consistent with ICE protocol, the appropriate state health and local law enforcement agencies have been informed. ICE has also notified the Chinese consulate and Guo’s next of kin.

Qi Gen Guo is the sixth detainee to pass away in ICE custody in fiscal year 2011.

Despite the USCIS’s intensified scrutiny of marriage petitions marriage continues to be the avenue most frequently used by foreign nations to gain U.S. permanent residence.

If you are married to a United States’ Citizen or Permanent Resident you may qualify for an immigrant visa based on marriage.

Marriages Where Immigrant is Outside the United States

Generally, a foreign resident who is married to a U.S. citizen must remain in her home country until the green card is approved.

K-1 visa

If an alien is engaged to a U.S. citzen, an application for a K-1 Visa (fiance visa) may be filed that will allow him or her to enter the United States before getting married and applying for the green card.

The K-1 visa requires that the alien fiance actually get married and file for adjustment of status within 90 days of arriving in the country. 

K-3 visa

If an alien is married to a U.S. citzen and the marriage took place outside of the U.S., an application for a K-3 visa may be filed to allow the alien to enter the United States and apply for the green card.

The K-3 visa requires that the alien spouse of a U.S. citizen file for adjustment of status within 2 years of arriving in the country. 

Filing Procedure

The U.S. Citizen submits a visa petition (the marriage petition) estabishing that the marriage is legitimate and not entered into just to get a green card. 

The foreign spouse should file an application for adjustment of status at the same time the citizen files the visa petition.

The foreign spouse should be issued an Employment Authorization Card (EAD) within 90 days of filing for adjustment of status.

Later, a marriage interview will be scheduled at a local immigration office.

Burden of Proof

The citizen and the foreign spouse must prove that the marriage is bona fide.  

If the citizen and foreign spouse have been married less than 2 years at the time the spouse becomes a permanent resident, a conditional 2 year green card will be issued.

The spouses must file a joint petition to remove the condition within 90 days immediately preceding the end of the 2 year conditional term.

If the citizen has died or the spouses are divorced, or the spouse has been subjected to extreme cruelty or has been battered by the U.S. citizen spouse, the foreign spouse may apply for a waiver of the joint filing requirement.

Exceptions to the One Year Rule

There are two exceptions to the 1 year rule:

1. Existence of changed circumstances in your home country which materially affect your Eligibility for Asylum; and
2. Extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing.

If you meet one of the exceptions, you still need to have filed the application within a reasonable time given the exception.

Change in Country Conditions

In some cases an individual will not apply for asylum within one year of his arrival in the U.S. because he doesn’t fear returning to this home country.

But sometime after the one year period expires, conditions in his home country worsen causing him to fear going back.

If you can prove that the conditions in your country changed materially after you had already been in the U.S. for one year, you will not be denied asylum because of a violation of the one year rule.

You will, however, still have had to applied for asylum with a reasonable time after the conditions in your home country had changed.

Changes in Circumstances

Sometimes an individual comes to the United States and does not file for asylum within the 1 year period.

Later, the individual gets involved in political activism in the United States (often an attempt to change conditions in his home country).

This activism is a change in circumstances which may constitute an exception to the one year filing rule.

Again, the applicant must file for asylum within a reasonable time after his circumstances changed.

This exception to the one year rule also applies in cases where the United States has changed its immigration laws thereby making it possible for the applicant to apply for asylum where that possibility had not existed during the one year period.

Asylum regulations provide that;

1. The applicant has the burden of proving the existence of extraordinary circumstances;
2. The circumstances cannot have been intentionally caused by the person;
3. The circumstances must have been directly related to the late filing; and
4. The delay in filing the application must be reasonable in light of those circumstances.

It is no longer required that any serious physical or mental disability preventing the person from timely filing be “of significant duration.”

Calculation of One Year Period

The one-year filing deadline is calculated from the date of the applicant’s last arrival in the United States.

An application is considered to have been filed on the date it is received by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). 

If the application was mailed within the one-year period but was not received by USCIS within that period, the mailing date will be considered the filing date if the applicant provides clear and convincing documentary evidence that the application was mailed within the required time period.

Because of the high incidence of fraud, USCIS officials carefully scrutinize all marriage applications (and their related adjustment of status applications) to ensure that the marriage is bona fide and not entered into merely for immigration purposes.

Here are our tips for preparing and filing a successful marriage application:

1. Tell the truth – We have seen cases where people have entered into perfectly legitimate marriages, but because they provided false information on their applications did not obtain a green card. Fraud is prevalent is this area of immigration law and USCIS assumes that any incorrect information included in a marriage application is the product of fraud. Absent a compelling excuse for why the wrong information was included in the application USCIS will deny the petition.
2. Disclose everything - This one is a corollary to number 1, above. If you had an arrest when you were 16 years old and you fail to disclose it on the application – even though that arrest may not have precluded you from obtaining a green card – USCIS will deny your application. Again, USCIS assumes that omissions are lies and governs itself accordingly. This is just one of the many reasons you should have an experienced immigration lawyer prepare your marriage application. He will ensure that there are no omissions or incorrect statements included in the application which may be used by USCIS as a pretext for denying your green card.
3. Packaging counts - USCIS handles thousands of marriage applications every month, most of which are incomplete and disorganized. This means more work for the USCIS official assigned to evaluate your application. You only have one chance to make a first impression and the intitial application is it. At PG we package all of our marriage applications optimally to ensure approval. Consider the plight of the overworked and underpaid USCIS official who has just trudged his way through his 20th shoddily prepared and incomplete marriage application.  Now, he picks up the 21st application and it’s in perfect order, it contains no errors or misinformation, and it is well-documented. Which application do you think he is more likely to grant?
4. Document everything – One of the most frequently cited reasons for denying a marriage application is the absence of adequate documentary disclosures. A winning application will contain the following documents: 

A.  Birth certificate of the petitioning spouse officially translated into English

B.  Birth certificate of the foreign national officially translated into English

C.  Court certified divorce documents showing the termination of all prior marriages of both spouses

D.  Birth certificates of all children of the married couple officially translated into English

E.  Court certified copies of all criminal records, if any, of the foreign national

F.  A propertly prepared and documented Affidavit of Support