ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Advanced search

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW


Chinese Immig. Daily


Connect to us

Make us Homepage


Immigration Daily

The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free

Immigration LLC.

Immigration Daily June 29, 2009
Previous Issues
The unmatched news resource for legal professionals. Free! Join 17,000+ readers



With President Obama affirming his support for CIR at a meeting with a bipartisan, bicameral group of legislators at the White House yesterday, heres our look at the map of the legislative landscape ahead, from now to the statute.

The primary question is House-first, or Senate-first? The general rule that the Democratic leadership appears to be following for all major legislation is to go Senate first, partly because Senate cloture votes are the hardest legislative votes to win, and also because there is a better chance of getting bills to skew in a more liberal direction if the more liberal chamber (the House) were to go last. However, as we see with the Climate Change bill, Speaker Pelosi is willing to go House first where issues she deems of importance are involved.

The main reason given by the House Democratic leadership for moving Senate-first on immigration is that an immigration benefits bill would involve the loss of so many Blue Dog Democrats as to be a lost cause on the House floor. We dont buy this line of argument. As we see it, Speaker Pelosi and her team have sufficient votes to move pretty much any bill she wants on pretty much any subject. However, her power is not unlimited, and she must prioritize her battles. Which she has. On her priority list, climate change, health care reform and the budget are ahead of immigration. The House Democratic leadership will arm-twist Blue Dogs, rural Dems, conservative Dems, and every other species of Democrat on those three issues to get the votes needed. However, immigrants must wait their turn in line (if any political capital remains at that point to strong-arm recalcitrant Democrats).

All of the above is to some degree academic now, since pretty much the entire Democratic leadership in both chambers have come out solidly for CIR in the last few days. Leaders of both chambers have strongly suggested that they have the votes, and, given sufficient Presidential prodding, will make the time, for CIR. Unlike the other Top Three priorities, immigration reform is only controversial, not complicated. Climate change, health care reform and the Presidents budget are both controversial AND complicated, needing oodles more time from legislators.

The only fly in the ointment at this stage is Rahm Emmanuel, the wet-hen-in-chief, who is still suggesting that the votes for CIR are not there. Well, without the White Houses active help, the votes will not be there. Just as the President is on the phone with lawmakers for climate change, just as he is holding townhall meeting after townhall meeting for healthcare, he will have to take to the airwaves for immigration too. It is, after all, on his agenda, and will be, as he well knows, for his political interests. CIR also happens to be terrific for the country, by the by.

We believe that we will see the Senate-first approach for immigration. We also believe that considerable horse-trading will be necessary to secure the votes needed. The results are likely to be something that, on first glance, will appear ugly to most. The true beauty of the new statute will only reveal itself over time, and perhaps the first to see it will be the bar, albeit even this will have to await enactment. We encourage the immigration bar to get behind those working in the trenches on CIR, and urge them god speed.

We welcome readers to share their opinion and ideas with us by writing to


Inventory Closeout For Removal Book

Relief From Removal: A Definitive Manual For Winning Cases by Jill Sheldon of CLINIC is now available for an attractive Inventory Closeout price, only $99 including taxes and shipping and handling. This book features:

  • Chapter 1: Removal proceedings
  • Chapter 2: Grounds of deportability
  • Chapter 3: Grounds of inadmissibility
  • Chapter 4: Contesting removability
  • Chapter 5: Adjustment of status
  • Chapter 6: Waivers of inadmissibility and deportability in Removal proceedings
  • Chapter 7: Section 212(c) and Cancellation of Removal for lawful Permanent Residents
  • Chapter 8: Cancellation and Suspension for Non-Permanent Resident Aliens
  • Chapter 9: Asylum, Withholding of Removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture
  • Chapter 10: Voluntary departure
  • Chapter 11: Naturalization as a defense to Removal
  • Chapter 12: Administrative review of Removal Orders
  • Chapter 13: Judicial review of Removal Orders
  • CD-ROM has 600+ important documents including: key BIA & Federal cases, selected USCIS/ICE memos and DOS cables, forms from USCIS & EOIR, relevant regulatory sections from 8 CFR & 42 CFR, significant statutory provisions from the INA, 18 USC & 28 USC, Links to informative internet resources, etc
For more info on this book, and to order, see here (fax version, see here).


Bloggings On The H-1B Visa
Anthony F. Siliato and Scott R. Malyk write "What is needed is recognition not only by Secretary Clinton but, more importantly, by members of Congress that the reason the H-1B cap has not yet been reached is a direct result of market conditions."

Bloggings on Dysfunctional Government
Angelo A. Paparelli writes "Have companies and families all of a sudden become less qualified en masse for immigration benefits than in prior years?"

To submit an Article for consideration, write to


DOJ Announces 3 Attorneys Convicted Of Asylum Fraud
Acting US Attorney Lawrence G. Brown announced that a federal jury returned verdicts today convicting three attorneys and two interpreters of a long-running scheme to defraud the INS and its successor agency, CIS, by filing hundreds of false asylum claims from early 2000 through late 2004.


Help Wanted: Immigration Attorneys
The Murthy Law Firm is seeking immigration attorneys with at least three years of experience in business immigration law, with or without litigation experience. Our practice is dynamic and fast-paced. We have high standards with regard to integrity, work ethic, and quality. Successful candidates will have the ability to work both as members of a team and as team leaders. They will join over a dozen high-caliber colleagues and have quality support in the way of legal and administrative staff, as well as technology. They will bring in-depth understanding and knowledge of the breadth of immigration procedures, and are expected to supervise paralegals and support staff. Good writing and analytical skills are required, as well as experience dealing with complex immigration law cases. Litigation experience a plus. Interested candidates may visit for details regarding the unique benefits of working at the Murthy Law Firm. Resume + cover letter should be forwarded to All communication will be treated in confidence. Salary and benefits are commensurate with experience and abilities. We are an equal opportunity employer. Final interviews of candidates are at our office in Owings Mills, MD, a few minutes from downtown Baltimore, Maryland.

Help Wanted: Immigration Attorney
Small immigration law firm in Northern Virginia seeks associate with 2+ years of experience in litigation before administrative tribunals. Good writing skills. Send resume at Must be fluent in Korean. Salary commensurate to experience. Good benefits.

Help Wanted: Immigration Paralegal
Small immigration law firm in Northern Virginia seeks immigration legal assistant with 2+ years of experience in business immigration law. Send resume at Must be fluent in Korean. Salary commensurate to experience. Good benefits.

Case Management Technology
Offering enterprise-level software and unparalleled US-based support, ImmigrationTracker is the most flexible and dependable immigration management solution on the market today. Designed by immigration attorneys and paralegals, ImmigrationTracker is often praised for its ease of use, intuitive features, and built-in immigration knowledge. As one of our customers noted, "If we had two years and unlimited funds to design our ideal immigration management system, Tracker would be it." Phil Curtis, Chin & Curtis. Find out for yourself why Tracker is the choice of: 83% of practicing Past Presidents of the AILA (American Immigration Lawyers Association, through June 2007); 86% of the 25 largest immigration law firms (IndUS Business Journal 2006); 75% of the AmLaw 200 (largest US law firms, American Lawyer Media, 2006); 3x as many globally ranked immigration attorneys as compared with other software vendors (Chambers Global and the International Who's Who of Business Immigration Lawyers, 2007). Schedule your private demo: Call 1-888-466-8757 ext. 278 or email

Credential Evaluation
Foreign credential evaluations. Specializing in difficult cases. Excellent approval rates after Denials and RFE's. 1.800.771.4723 No charge detailed analysis of RFE's, Denials, and NOIDs, as well as 3 year degrees, AMIETE, Chartered Accountancy, ICAI, ICWAI, or any difficult education evaluations. All 3-year degrees are at risk. For no charge 48 hour analysis, our clients say it best: "... At last we succeeded. My I140 was approved today. I really appreciate you on this. Your evaluation did magic (3 year degree, EB2)" .... "I gave up after the denial for my Chartered Accountancy degree but I got an approval after your evaluation and the professor's letter. I am forever grateful ..." "Everyone said I could not get the EB2 approval with a 3 year degree after getting denied. But I did. You did. You gave my attorney excellent information and we were approved." See our case studies at Sheila Danzig Director, Career Consultants International, TheDegreePeople, 1.800.771.4723.

Expert Witness Services
Muslim World Expert Dr. Shaul M. Gabbay is pleased to offer expert testimony on immigrants from Muslim countries/societies, including the former Soviet Union (USSR). I have testified in 150+ Immigration Court cases nationwide (asylum, cancellation of removal) and to USCIS (asylum interviews, hardship waivers) with very high success rates. For more info, including detailed biography + testimonials from lawyers who have worked with me in the past, see: Please contact me with any additional questions: Dr. Shaul M. Gabbay, Muslim World Expert, Josef Korbel School of International Studies, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado,, (303) 871-2560. For countries outside of my expertise, I may be able to recommend an expert in that area.


Republicans Focus on Guest Workers in Immigration Debate
President Obama told a bipartisan group of lawmakers on Thursday that Congress should begin debating a comprehensive immigration plan by year's end or early next year ...

An Immigration Compromise?
The economic crisis seems to have pushed the immigration debate to the wayside--even though lifting restrictions on foreign workers could arguably be a big stimulus in itself.

Fairness Sought In Immigration Debate
As President Barack Obama and lawmakers in Washington began the discussion on immigration reform Thursday, Greensboro faith leaders also gathered to urge fairness and a humane approach.

Obama Should Not Pursue Immigration Reform This Year
America needs to reform its immigration policies. But not this year.


Readers can share professional announcements (up to 100-words at no charge), email: To announce your event, see here

Immigration Event
Lawscribe invites you to register for a free 1 hour MCLE Ethics webinar: "Legal Outsourcing, The Ethical Implications", July 15, 2009 11:00-12:00 PM PDT. Join us for a Webinar on July 15. Space is limited. Reserve your Webinar seat now at:


Readers can share comments, email: (up to 300-words). Past correspondence is available in our archives

Dear Editor:
I do not intend to engage in any further argument with Honza Prchal's letters. Reasonable people can respectfully disagree over what measures are best in order to combat discrimination, which both of our letters obviously regard as evil. However, since Mr. Prchal's letter mentions the American consulate in Sao Paulo, I will relate an experience I had with that post only three or four years ago. My client had been easily approved for H-1B classification by USCIS and was expecting routine approval for his visa in Sao Paulo. There was no question of any issue arising that could have disqualified him for an H-1B visa. Nevertheless, at his interview, he was told that his visa would be denied for lack of evidence of "non-immigrant intent", i. e. intention to return ultimately to Brazil. As every US consular officer and immigration lawyer knows, ''non-immigrant intent" is not required for an H-1B visa. When I contacted the consulate, they denied that anyone has said this to the client, and blamed the "misunderstanding" on his English, which he spoke fluently, Still, the visa was not issued. Finally, an American executive from the sponsor, who was a native English speaker, made the trip to Sao Paulo to stop by the consulate to find out what was going on. When he arrived, the officer in charge asked him why his company had hired a foreigner instead of an American, even though the company was under no legal obligation to offer the position to an American. Eventually, after many phone calls and intervention from Washington, the visa was issued, but it is hard to imagine how the parties involved could have received worse treatment even in Guangzhou. Is it asking too much for consular officers, wherever they are, simply to follow the law, which is already complex and restrictive enough?

Roger Algase, Esq.
New York, NY

Dear Editor:
The temporary worker red card solution won't work and can be used to virtually enslave foreign workers by confining them at specific employers who can abuse and underpay them. The most sensible immigration reform is by abolishing all family immigration and change it into merits and skills based system altogether. We can't continue to accept elderly, sick, disabled, uneducated and non English speaking relatives of US citizens or residents for the sake that they have familial ties with their Americans' sponsors. They will like to come here to collect public welfare and become public burden. Foreign parents of US citizens or residents can be sponsored for long term temporary resident visas instead renewable each year as long as the sponsors can show the proof the government their parents have current medical insurance and willing to pay their living expenses without taking up any employments. Siblings of US citizens should apply based on their merits. And we must make sure that all immigrants are English proficient, of good moral characters, self sufficient and educated, in their productive age and have jobs offered in the US or have means to self support themselves by showing any willing sponsors or personal emergency funds and most importantly they should accept our concept of democracy, equal rights and separation of religion and state. If they want and dream to establish mini theocracy here, they should stay home then for good, because we already have enough extremists, bigots and fanatics of our own.

Robert Yang

Dear Editor:
I think the 500 students should be pleased they were allowed to attend public schools in the US (see 06/25/09 ID comment). And no one is calling for a ban on their attendance in college. That being said, in-state tuition rates must be reserved for the children of citizens only. Students with no legal presence in the US, along with students from other states, should pay out of state rates.

Brad Botwin

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 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.

Publisher:  Sam Udani    Legal Editor:  Michele Kim                        ISSN:   1930-062X