Many News Items Of Interest
Today's issue of Immigration Daily brings you many items of interest.
Please scroll down to find the item of interest to you, and click to access
the original document(s).
- Multi-jurisdictional practice is always a hot topic for immigration lawyers, and today's featured article by David Nachman discusses some developments in this area.
- BCIS and BICE seek comments from the public, and we hope those of our readers who are affected by the forms referred to in the comment request, will respond to the government's invitation with their comments.
- Rep. Tancredo offers his opinion on immigration.
- We also have 5 Letters to the Editor
New Seminar Announcement
ILW.COM is pleased to announce a new seminar series "Creme de la Creme: Extraordinary, Outstanding, Multinational and Exceptional"
For more info on this phone seminar series, including detailed curriculum, speaker bios, and registration information, please see: http://www.ilw.com/seminars/june2003.shtm. For the fax version, please see: http://www.ilw.com/seminars/june2003.pdf.
Crossing The Conrad Border: Customary Federal Practice Or Ethical Quicksand For Business Immigration Practitioners?
David Nachman, Esq. writes "While the legal requirements to obtain a Conrad waiver appear to be well-defined, prudent business immigration attorneys must reconcile the ethical issues that inherently arise in connection with the pursuit of a Conrad waiver in foreign jurisdictions."
Keep on top of the latest in immigration law! Attend ILW.COM seminars! You can attend ILW.COM phone seminars from the convenience of your office! For more info on the seminars currently available, please click here: http://www.ilw.com/seminars/
Immigration Law News
BCIS Invites Comments
The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS) issued comment requests for the following applications: application for advance permission to return to unrelinqushed domicile, Form I-191; interagency record of
individual requesting change/adjustment to or from A or G status or requesting A, G or NATO dependent employment authorization, Form I-566; 30-day notice of information collection under review: immigration bond, Form I-352; 60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review; Application to Preserve Residence for Naturalization, Form N-470.
BCIS Issues I-134 Comment Report
The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS) requested emergency review and approval of this information collection so that it may continue to be utilized after its expiration of June 30, 2003.
BICE Issues I-823 Comment Request
The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (BICE) issued a comment request for the application --alternative inspection services, Form 1-823.
Rep. Tancredo Says Immigration And Guest Worker Program Cannot Be Same Thing
Rep. Tancredo (R-CO) during a debate in Congress said, "So [the undocumented] can come into this country one of two ways legally, if we have a guest worker program or through immigration; but they cannot be the same thing. People cannot come in here and expect to become a citizen through this guest worker program."
7th Circuit Says Petition For Review Must Be Filed Within 30 Days, Not 31 Days
In Sankarapillai v. Ashcroft, No. 03-2040 (7th Cir. Jun. 4, 2003), the court said that the 30-day deadline for filing a petition for review of a final order of removal was a jurisdictional requirement, and that therefore, this petition for review, filed by counsel, 31 days after the Board of Immigration Appeal's (BIA) order, was untimely.
No Past Persecution Where Chinese Petitioner Never Physically Harmed, Arrested, Or Threatened
In Wang v. DOJ, No. 02-4261 (2nd Cir. Jun. 3, 2003), the court said that "although the incidents which Petitioner [a chinese student demonstration participant] recounts may be regrettable and were no doubt demoralizing, he was never physically harmed, arrested, or threatened with further investigation."
No Collateral Challenge On Constitutionality Of An Underlying State Conviction That Forms Basis For BIA Order Of Removal
In Drakes v. INS, No. 02-2886 (3rd Cir. Jun. 3, 2003), the court said that there was no collateral challenge on a prior state conviction where the conviction served as a predicate for an order of removal. The court also said that Petitioner closed the door on review of his state convictions by failing to timely pursue a remedy through direct appeal, state post-conviction review, or a habeas petition. The court also said that removal of an alien who violates the immigration laws does not constitute punishment but rather, is a civil action necessary to enforce the country's immigration laws.
Lack Of Documentary Evidence Is Unnecessary Where Oral And Written Testimony Offered Is Otherwise Sufficient
In Vera-Villegas v. INS, No. 01-70398 (9th Cir. Jun. 4, 2003), the court said that lack of documentary evidence was not an adequate basis for rejecting a Petitioner's application for suspension of deportation if the oral and written testimony offered was otherwise sufficient. The court also said that "when a substantial number of individuals are willing to step forward and swear under oath that an undocumented immigrant has lived in their community for a particular period of time, the collective weight fo their declaration cannot be dismissed without a reasoned and persuasive explanation."
Security Checks Delay Resettlement Of 20,000 Refugees
The New York Times reports "More than 20,000 refugees approved for resettlement in the US remain stranded in desolate camps in Africa, Asia and the Middle East as officials here continue to struggle to reduce the backlog of required security clearances, State Department officials say."
Alleged Sniper Associate Is Sentenced For Passport And Immigration Violations
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports "An alleged associate of one of the Washington-area sniper suspects was sentenced Tuesday to 15 months in prison on immigration and passport charges."
Attorney listings on ILW.COM are searched 200,000 times/year! Each attorney listed is searched an average of once each day! Just one new client will pay for the entire year's fee! Click here for more info: http://www.ilw.com/membership/
Immigration Software - Case Management System
Do you know what it really costs you to prepare and process one immigration application? Factor in your forms program, your staff, their benefits, other software, sending documents back and forth, and you're spending hundreds of dollars per application. Your practice is a business - run it like one. Don't spend more than you need to process applications and diminish your profitability. We can help you determine how much it's really costing you to process your applications, and how you can reduce those costs while providing faster, more accurate processing to your clients. We'll customize a VisaPrep system for you that will allow you to better manage your costs and serve your clients with a higher level of service. VisaPrep is the only automated immigration application preparation and management system proven through five years of use on thousands of matters. Call VisaPrep at 866-VISA-PREP (866-847-2773) or send an e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to find out how to make your practice more profitable.
We carry advertisements for Help Wanted: Attorney, Help Wanted: Paralegal, Help Wanted: Other, Positions Sought, Products & Services Offered, etc.
For information on advertising in the classifieds please click here
For a listing of current immigration events please click here
For services/products of use in your law practice please click here
Letters to the Editor
I would like to respond to Immigration Daily's comment piece from today. While we
have all heard the statistics (no one really knows how many illegal aliens are here), we are certainly in agreement that
there are millions of people here without
legal authority. Several people, myself included, have asked the question
as to what happens after the next amnesty.
So far I have not seen a response to that question. So again I ask, what
will deter the next wave of illegals after the
ones who are here are given permanent residence? We did the amnesty thing
in 1986 and were assured by
the pro-immigration forces, as well as the government that this would take
care of the problem of knowing who was
here and would "bring people out of the shadows". Obviously that didn't
work since we have more illegals now than we
did then, at least according to the estimates given. What will be different
about this one? I am not trying to be
argumentative, I seriously want to understand why people believe that
rewarding people for breaking the law is a
Can anyone honestly say that we will then have the illegal problem solved
or will that it be necessary to do an amnesty
every ten years or so? If that is the case there is no reason to spend
money trying to protect our borders because everyone
who gets in illegally will eventually be rewarded with a green card. It is
only the people who go through the legal channels
who run the risk of not getting their permanent residence.
Is there anyone out there who will address my question seriously?
I do agree that it is ridiculous to keep nuclear families apart for years,
if a husband or wife is a permanent resident
there should be some mechanism in place to have their immediate families be
with them while they work their
way through the maze that is BCIS.
Your 1 in 30 figure could also be interpreted as a very good reason not to legalize illegal aliens. Legalization encourages even more illegal immigration as shown by the very figures you use. The 1986 amnesty and successive mini-amnesties such as 245(i) and TPS resulted in even more people violating our immigration laws in the following years. Remember, too, that "legalizing" the millions of illegal immigrants already here also means providing immigration benefits for their millions of relatives who are not here. If you think we have problems with our legal immigration system now, wait until that backlog hits.
On the fiscal side, consider that many of these illegal aliens, who are working poor, would become eligible for welfare benefits they cannot now receive were they to be "legalized". Recent reports on the effect of Bush's tax cuts suggest that those of us earning less than $338,000 a year, or who earn more than $28,000 (the middle class in other words), will be bearing the brunt of taxes and consequently of paying for social programs to support these workers.
As for whether we, as a country, could do without 1-in-30 of us, the answer is simple: these are not "us" but people who have abused our laws and our hospitality. While massive deportation may not be practical, it is also not necessary: more intensive enforcement, particularly against employers, would have much the same effect.
Despite your having to defend your math regarding how many illegal aliens are living among us, you make a good point that legalization seems the only practical alternative to doing nothing. The various estimates of these clandestine residents are on a par with the old arguments of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I think most of us can agree there are about a jillion and proceed from there. What I find troubling is that this seems always offered as "part of the solution." Without a comprehensive plan that meets the needs of sensible border control, legalization will again be an invitation to another round in the future, just as it was in 1986.
I completely agree with Mr. Manuel Felix and understand his frustration. How can someone who has broken the immigration laws of the US be rewarded with an amnesty like 245(i) and someone such as Mr. Felix be forced to depart the US by having run out of time awaiting his green card to be processed despite not ever having been in the U.S. illegally? You have some excellent information acknowledging that AILA goes out of there way to lobby Congress to pass such laws for no other reason than fees for their members. The pre-245(i) deadline cases filed number in the hundreds of thousands hence the huge backlogs we see today. Without the ability to process cases for illegals, many of these lawyers have had to close their doors. What a shame, less lawyers seeking to profit on illegal aliens at the expense of those that abide by the law. Have you know shame AILA?
Manuel Felix's letter makes a good point. It is deplorable that illegal aliens would benefit under the Bush administration's proposals, while legal workers who are contributing to the US and their US employers in high to mid-level positions get the shaft. Which brings to mind my last letter to the Editor, wherein I commented on the Immigration Daily editorial that appeared in the June 2, 2003 edition of Immigration Daily, entitled "Why the law should be broken".
While it does not appear that Mr. Felix is using his sad predicament as an argument against reinstituting 245(i), or even an general amnesty, his point is well taken that it is lamentable that the Bush administration is blindly concentrating their efforts in the immigration arena on illegal immigration reform, aimed mostly at Hispanics who they believe will reward them with votes, instead of focusing on the bigger picture, that of total immigration reform. As I have said before in letters to the editor, we need solution, not rampage and division. To paraphrase the above-mentioned Immigration Daily commentary, "The ball is in Congress' court." Let's hope they don't drop it ... again.
David D. Murray, Esq.
Newport Beach, CA
An Important disclaimer! The information provided on this page is not legal advice.
Transmission of this information is not intended to create, and receipt by you does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Readers must not act upon any information without first seeking advice from a
qualified attorney. Send Correspondence and articles to email@example.com. Letters and articles may be edited and may be published and otherwise used in any medium. Opinions expressed in letters and articles do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.