Berry Appleman And Paul Hastings
Berry Appleman & Leiden (BAL) announced that on February 17, 2009, it is joining forces with the corporate immigration group of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP to form BAL Global Corporate Immigration (for the entire press release, see here). The combined forces of BAL and Paul Hastings continues the trend of consolidation of large firms practicing immigration law. The downturn in the economy will likely increase the need for several other mid-sized immigration law firms to consider merging to better navigate the competitive immigration landscape.
We welcome readers to share their opinion and ideas with us by writing to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Employer Sanctions For Experts
ILW.COM is pleased to present a new 3-part telephone seminar "Employer
Sanctions For Experts" with speakers: Angelo Paparelli, Michael Dougherty,
Bonnie Gibson, Douglas D. Hauer, John Quill, Batya Schwartz Ehrens and Other
Speakers To Be Announced. The curriculum is as follows:
FIRST Phone Session on January 28: E-Verify Update
++Strategic Considerations for Federal Contractors and Subs
++Does mandatory E-Verify violate IIRIRA and other laws?
++Compliance strategies for Multi-State Employers
++USCIS Ombudsman's E-Verify Recommendations
++Successor-in-interest E-Verify problems in mergers,
acquisitions and corporate reorganizations.
++E-Verify issues for STEM students and traveling Adjustment of Status applicants
++Dealing with TNCs (Tentative Non-Confirmations)
SECOND Phone Session on February 25: I-9 Update
++Key Changes in the New I-9 Form and New DHS Regulation
++E-Verify Mandates That Change the I-9 Process
++Paper-Based versus Electronic I-9s - Pros and Cons
++Employer Self-Audits and Attorney Audits - Practical and Legal
++Employer Compliance Policies and Raid-Readiness Precautions
++Constructive Knowledge: Beyond No-Match Concerns
THIRD Phone Session on March 25: Anticipating and Addressing
the Government's Fraud Detection and Enforcement Strategies
++The battle over Agency Policy: USCIS Headquarters Versus the
AAO and the Service Centers
++Dealing with Extralegal Agency Initiatives: The Rogue RFE and
the Rewriting of Legislative History in H-1B and L-1 Cases
++Constitutional, Statutory and Criminal Law Strategies for Raids,
Lawsuits and Indictments
++DOL H-1B Audit Defense: Best Practices in an Era of Heightened
++Greeting the USCIS FDNS Field Examiner or Contractor at the
Don't wait to register. Tuesday, January 27th is the deadline! For more info, including speaker bios, detailed curriculum, and
registration information, please see: Online: http://www.ilw.com/seminars/200903.shtm
Fax form: http://www.ilw.com/seminars/200903.pdf
Bloggings on Dysfunctional Government
Angelo A. Paparelli writes "The end of one presidency and the start of another often spark strange behaviors in Washington, especially when spiked with the catnip of immigration."
Immigrants Of The Day: Thomas Francis Meagher of Ireland, Anthony Joseph Celebrezze Sr. of Italy, and Fernando Alvaro Lamas of Argentina
Kevin R. Johnson celebrates the achievements of these notable immigrants.
To submit an Article for consideration, write to email@example.com.
Supremes Grant Cert On Standard Of Review For Pending Stay Of Removals
The Supreme Court granted cert limited to the following question: "whether the decision of a court of appeals to stay an alien's removal pending consideration of the alien's petition for review is governed by the standard set forth in section 242(f)(2) of the immigration and nationality act, 8 USC 1252(f)(2), or instead by the traditional test for stays and preliminary injunctive relief."
President Obama Says Exec Branch Should Adoption Presumption Of Disclosure
President Obama issued a memo to all heads of executive departments and agencies stating, "all agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government."
Help Wanted: Immigration Paralegal
St. Louis, MO - Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP seeks an experienced paralegal
to assist in case management and preparation of a wide range of employment-based immigrant and non-immigrant petitions, PERM applications and Adjustment of Status applications. Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP is one of
the nation's largest law firms, with 335 attorneys in eight offices with experience in more than 45 practice areas, and represents clients in a full range of corporate, transaction and litigation matters. Please send resume with salary requirement to Lisa K Lange at: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Eurasia Translations, Inc. has been proud to serve immigration attorneys and individuals since 1993 with the translation of personal documents, academic credentials, criminal clearance letters, etc. Our customers can rest assured that all of our translations are prepared in accordance with USCIS requirements and are accompanied by a notarized certificate of accuracy. For more information, please call 888-887-1884 or visit our website. For a free quote, please complete http://eurasia-usa.com/turntime_rate/turntime_form.html or fax your document at 818-907-9763.
Immigration Still A Minefield
Illegal immigration again emerges as a major issue now that Barack Obama is president.
'Nanny' Issue Still Vexes Candidates
Immigration status and tax questions involving nannies and in-home caretakers have for years dogged candidates for top government jobs.
A Day After He Takes Oath, Immigration Activists Send Message to Obama
The target, however, was out of the ordinary. The purifying smoke was targeted at the headquarters for ICE, the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, charged with enforcing the nationís immigration laws.
More Immigration Will Test U.S. Economy, Unity
This clearly signals Obama's desire to maintain high immigration levels, a position which will hurt all Americans economically, and further divide this nation.
Readers can share their professional announcements (100-words or fewer at no charge), email: email@example.com. Readers interested in learning about featuring your event or conference in Immigration Daily, see here. To feature your newsletter in Immigration Daily, see here.
CIS Ombudsman Teleconference
Have you signed up for the CIS Ombudsman's January teleconference on "Motions to Reopen: How Are They Working for You?" Wednesday, January 28, 2-3 pm EST? To participate in this call, please RSVP to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Readers are welcome to share their comments, email: email@example.com (300-words or fewer preferred). Many letters to the Editor refer to past correspondence, available in our archives.
While we welcome discussion and evaluation of our performance, Alan Lee's article "Grading The Various Governmental Bodies For Their Work On Immigration In 2008," (1/12/09 ID), relies on old generalizations about the quality of the Board of Immigration Appeals' work. Observers who have looked closely at the Board's recent work have acknowledged the greater amount of analysis and detail in the Boardís decisions than at any time in the past few years. As an example, affirmances without opinion were merely six percent of Board decisions in fiscal year 2008. It is also important to note that the federal courts nationwide affirm almost 90 percent of the Board's decisions that are appealed into federal court, which we think speaks well for the performance of our work. Additionally, the five new Board Members recently hired as a whole bring with them varied experiences. In fact, two of the five new Board Members have worked in private practice. EOIR considers all applicants based on the totality of their professional record and background, and we are proud of the diverse background of the recently invested Board Members. Aside from their professional credentials, the five new Board Members all possess the single most important qualification for their positions judicial temperament.
Kevin A. Ohlson, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review
Jim Roberts' (01/22/09 ID) letter is factually, legally wrong in at least four respects: 1. The idea that U.S. jurisdiction over a person depends on that person's subjective state of mind - "complete allegiance" - is a myth that has no legal or factual basis except in the minds of those who quote or misquote legal phrases selectively and out of context. 2. In fact, the U.S. has jurisdiction over every person who is in this country and who does not have diplomatic immunity. If it were otherwise, U.S. citizens would be the only people who could be prosecuted for crimes in this country. Everyone else could break the law with impunity. 3. Congress cannot amend the Constitution by statute or overrule court decisions. This is a simple, basic fact resulting from the constitutional separation of powers, and the fact that some people refuse to recognize it is irrelevant. 4. The Supreme Court, like the rest of us, is not infallible. However, the idea that the court misunderstands the 14th Amendment and that the only people who understand it correctly are those who oppose birthright citizenship is both arrogant and laughable.
Sid Lachter, Esq.
I agree in principle with Robert Yang's (01/23/09 ID) letter to the
effect that unjust laws need to be changed, but we should also read
the laws carefully to see if they are just or unjust before we rush to
change them. As my letters, with greatly appreciated support from
David D. Murray's letter (01/23/09 ID), have made clear, there is no
law, court decision, or constitutional provision restricting US
citizenship by birth in the US to members of a particular race or
making it dependent on parents' citizenship, as long as the parents
are not foreign diplomats. Nor has any such restriction existed in the
past 100 years, with the sole exception applying to certain Native
Americans, now also long since abolished by statute, as Mr. Murray's
letter points out. Therefore, much as certain people might wish that
our laws restricted US citizenship by birth in the US by race or by
parents' legal status, there are no such restrictions (other than the
diplomatic exception mentioned). Anyone who claims that such
restrictions exist is under a heavy burden to show that his or her
argument is made in good faith. With all due respect, Mr. Apuzzo's and
Mr. Robert's letters have failed to meet that burden. Those who agree
with their letters' views are the ones who would have to attempt to
change our laws, and our Constitution, to suit their own narrow
purposes. As we are now in the 21st Century, not the 18th 19th, or
early 20th, I am sure that any such attempts would fail miserably.
Roger Algase, Esq.
New York, NY
I would like to throw my two cents regarding ID's comment (01/22/09 ID). Is it possible to approach immigration reform in the context of what is best for the U.S., instead of what is the political advantage ?
In response to the ID letters of (01/23/09), in 1949, Justice Robert
Jackson wrote: "There is danger that, if the court does not temper its
doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the
constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact." Whatever
justifications for liberal birthright citizenship that existed under the
14th Amd. years ago have long since been minimized today when the great
need for US is reduced entry because of excessive numbers, resource
depletion and security concerns. While I support the restrictive
position, the letters are also biased on the more numbers end, contrary
to D. Murray's letter's claim of "unbiased legal research". Why don't
we see such enthusiasm for enforcing our borders and entry laws? Which
position is more self serving and which is best for America? R. Algase's
letter's position is not so much "the law" as it was the one of many
possible interpretations at that time, years ago. It is the
Constitution that is the law. Most countries have abandoned birthright
citizenship. A new interpretation, clarification or even a revised
amendment is clearly needed today as R. Yang states is at times needed.
"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" should clearly mean citizen
parents and not subject to biased and/or speculative arguments. Little
wonder that CA is becoming Northern Mexico with such letter advocates as
D. Murray supporting children of illegals as citizens (who may have just
crossed the border hours earlier) and R. Gittleson shamelessly
promoting the disastrous CIR, all for motives that give little
indication of concern for Constitution or Country.
Here is a modest proposal for clearing up a significant portion of the undocumented aliens in the U.S. (a) move the Registry date forward to 1994. Registry has been on the books for many years. My guess is that there are 2-3 million aliens who would qualify (b) create about 1,000,000 new employment based visas. The reason the vast majority of labor certification beneficiaries were applied for by U.S. employers is that they are in the US already working. They have already been through the LC process and their I-140 petitions have already been approved. Their employers still need them. All they are waiting for is a visa number. (c) create about 3-4 million new family based visas. As with the labor cert beneficiaries, the majority of family members who have been applied for (except in the F4 category) are already here. Unify the families (d) Repass 245(i) to allow the untold thousands of aliens who entered without inspection and have utterly no way to adjust their status in the US and don't dare return to a consulate for an visa interview because of the 3/10 bar, to stay with their families (e) to fund this, charge a 245(i) type fee for filing adjustment applications under the new allocations (f) If these aliens were made legal, ICE would be able to focus its resources more effectively (g) if visas were issued to aliens who are already here and who already have a substantial legal connection to the US, the pool of "undocumented" would shrink enormously. Then, before the backlogs start building up again, a moratorium could be imposed on all preference filings until CIR is enacted and Congress can decide what types of aliens are to be admitted under our new priorities and policies.
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. Copyright 1995-2008 American Immigration LLC, ILW.COM. Send correspondence and articles to firstname.lastname@example.org. Letters and articles may be edited and may be published and otherwise used in any medium. The views expressed in letters and articles do not necessarily represent the views of ILW.COM.