New USCIS Policy Grants Reprieve to Immediate Relatives of USCs in the Military

New USCIS Policy Grants Reprieve to Immediate Relatives of USCs in the Military

On Friday, November 15^th, 2013, USCIS released a policy memorandum announcing a change in policy that positively affects undocumented children, spouses, and parents of active duty, reserves, and former service members.  The impact of this change is profound because this “parole in place” (PIP) immigration benefit for undocumented immediate relatives of service members provides a pathway for these individuals to obtain lawful permanent residence without having to leave the U.S.    A person who leaves the US after being here for more than a year unlawfully will trigger a 10 year bar; a person who is here more than six months unlawfully who then leaves, will trigger a 3 year bar.   This PIP policy provides a tremendous benefit to such applicants.

The new policy only applies to spouses, parents and minor, unmarried children of US citizen members of the US military (current and past).    Though the benefits of this PIP policy do not yet extend to family members of permanent residents, those who are permanent residents should consider naturalization as a first step to assisting their undocumented children, spouse, and parents in applying for this new immigration benefit.   For those who can qualify under this policy, the benefits will be very significant.

Please contact Chapman Law Firm to discuss this policy change and how it may positively affect your family.

Gerry Chapman

Luis Gutierrez blisters Congress for inaction!!!

Luis Gutierrez blisters Congress for inaction!!!

 

A few days ago, the House Judiciary Committee had a hearing on the benefits of an entry-exit tracking system at our various ports of entry.

 

In response, Mr. Gutierrez had this to say.  

 

Do not miss it – he blistered everyone on the Committee and the Republican party for doing nothing in terms of effective legislation:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGoPZRyE_tY&list=PLC0669E828ECDAC27&index=1

 

 

Gerard M. Chapman

Chapman Law Firm

P. O. Box 1477

Greensboro, NC 27402

403-A North Elm Street

Greensboro, NC 27401

Phone: (336) 334-0034

Fax: (336) 334-0036

E-mail: gerrychapman@chapman-immig.com

Website: www.chapman-immig.com

Playing Not To Lose in DC – Recipe for Disaster

Playing Not To Lose in DC – Recipe for Disaster

 

Speaker Boehner has generated another uproar with his comments that the House never will engage in the conference committee process with the Senate over S. 744, the comprehensive immigration reform bill passed by the Senate in June.   Some say it means the death of immigration reform this year; others say it’s the end for another year, or even longer.    After some reflection, others have recognized that he only has repeated what he has been saying for a good while: it’s going to be piece by piece.

 

Nothing wrong with that at all.   What is disturbing is that the various House bills have been sitting in committee for months, and no one is doing anything at all to make them move.

 

Boehner and his colleagues told us that Obamacare, the shutdown and the debt ceiling have taken up everyone’s time completely.   Not buying that – plenty of House members to work on other issues, just like Congress has done in other times.  Now he says “we’re trying to nail down our principles.”   Not buying that either.

 

Here is what is going on:  the Republicans do not want to give Obama anything that he can claim as another win.  Ever.  

 

In athletic jargon, The Republicans are playing not to lose.   And what does that get a football or basketball team?  A loss.   If you play to win, you have a decent or better chance to win; if you play not to lose, you get tight, make mistakes, and your chances of losing go way up.  

 

Wake up!   The Obamacare rollout fiasco has given the Republicans tremendous leverage is they want to use it.   They want the separate path to citizenship to go away? Demand it and it’s their  win!   If they throw away this opportunity to drive the immigration reform agenda, they will be playing not to lose, and will be giving the momentum back to the Democrats.   This is a golden opportunity for the Republicans to step forward and do something that is true to their long-standing ideals:  pass  legislation that will help small businesses.   Those businesses depend on essential, undocumented labor much more than large companies.  Small businesses create more jobs than the Fortune 500 companies ever will.   Small businesses can make smart, nimble decisions that will keep them on the cutting edge of what the markets demand, and that is their strength.     Their unfair disadvantage is the way the immigration system is stacked against them.

 

All the talk about “finding our principles” is nothing more than a stall technique; the Republicans know what their principles are, they just are terrified to act on them, because they fear another loss to Obama.  Sometimes people, even politicians, have to show some courage, instead of acting on fear.

 

How about it?

 

Gerard M. Chapman

Chapman Law Firm

P. O. Box 1477

Greensboro, NC 27402

403-A North Elm Street

Greensboro, NC 27401

Phone: (336) 334-0034

Fax: (336) 334-0036

E-mail: gerrychapman@chapman-immig.com

Website: www.chapman-immig.com

Dr. King and the value of work; how he would have supported immigration reform

Dr. King and the value of work; how he would have supported immigration reform

 

Commentators see many parallels between the civil rights struggle and the need for immigration reform.  One link occurred nearly 50 years ago, when Martin Luther King, Jr., gave his “American Dream” sermon at Ebeneezer Baptist Church.    He based it on the Declaration of Independence,  which holds that all men are created equal, and that they have God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.   He taught that segregation is morally wrong because it denies this universal truth.  As a result, we are charged to respect the dignity and worth of every man.  He said that our view of work reflects how we treat each other, and that because there is dignity and spiritual value, or should be, in every kind of work, that value should be recognized.

 

Matthew Fox, an Episcopal priest, made the same point as Dr. King in his 1994 book “The  Reinvention of Work”.    He said that all workers who provide necessary goods and services for others to use in the journey of life are ministers to their brothers and sisters.  

 

Studies show that if people stop working, they are more likely to fall into depression than those who continue working or begin volunteering regularly after retirement.   Those who quit work abruptly are more like to die earlier than those who continue working.     In positive, supportive settings, work gives us strong feelings of self-esteem and worth, while in negative and destructive settings, it can destroy our self-worth and our health.  

 

Under the grading system used by Dr. King and Rev. Fox, our immigration system is a total  failure.   The system denies temporary visas to workers who perform manual labor, if the job is year-round.   It artificially limits H-1B visas for high skill workers to 65,000 per year, a number so low that every year the annual allotment is gone within 5 days after the April 1 filing season opens.  Most employment based green card categories are badly backlogged, chaining workers to their jobs for years.    The system hurts children who excel in high school by shutting them out of college (which also hurts our economy).  It labels people as criminals for being here without permission, when their only reason for entering the US was to do an honest day’s work.  It lets politicians claim that we cannot have reform until we have total border security, a goal they know is unreachable.  That claim rings hollow when the government is and has been deporting more people each year (400,000) than ever before.

 

Our system limits temporary visas for high skill workers arbitrarily, instead of basing annual numbers on prior year’s usage, or some other such formula.   For manual laborers, it is immoral for our system to brand them as bad people for doing jobs that Americans will not or cannot do.   When we do this, we deny them the dignity that the Declaration promises, and that Dr. King and Rev. Fox cared about so much.

 

In late October, over 600 members of the BBB (Bibles, Badges and Business) Coalition lobbied in Washington for common sense reform.  Representative Fred Upton (R. Mich) now confirms that between 120-140 Republican colleagues in the House will vote for immigration reform.   The Pew Center reports that as of May, 75% of Americans think that our immigration system needs major change, and 35% believe it should be completely rebuilt.  

 

Workable, responsive legislation will require Congress to be creative, to use good faith, and to compromise.   The best interests of this country require them to do no less.  As Rep. Upton said, “Doing nothing is not acceptable.”  It is time to bring immigration reform to a full debate and to end this national insanity.  The longer we allow the system to abuse workers, their employers and families, the longer we sin by omission.  

 

Best regards,

 

Gerry Chapman

Gerard M. Chapman

Chapman Law Firm

P. O. Box 1477

Greensboro, NC 27402

403-A North Elm Street

Greensboro, NC 27401

Phone: (336) 334-0034

Fax: (336) 334-0036

E-mail: gerrychapman@chapman-immig.com

Website: www.chapman-immig.com

B-1/Visa Waiver entries after Infosys $34 Million fine

B-1/Visa Waiver entries after Infosys after $34 Million fine

 
On October 30, the US Attorney’s office in Dallas, TX, and ICE in Dallas, announced at $34 Million settlement with Infosys, the IT consulting giant, for visa fraud and I-9 document violations.   This was the largest immigration fine ever imposed by the US government in history.   Those who claim that this administration is not serious about enforcement, should think again.   This company is very substantial, but $34 Million is a huge fine.

In that case, Infosys was accused of using the B-1 visa process in place of the H-1B visa category, in order to bring IT workers to the US, assign them to long term projects at significantly below market wages, and increase its profits as a result.   (These workers applied for B-1 visas because they were from India, which does not enjoy Visa Waiver privileges, as many other countries do.)  Infosys continues to deny the allegations, but it appears that the settlement was reached so that Infosys and its officers would not be charged criminally.   Infosys supplied these workers to a large number of third parties in the US, none of which appear to have been charged.
 
Under current B-1 rules (that also apply to visa waiver entries), foreign nationals can enter the US for brief periods to attend business meetings with colleagues, to conduct business negotiations, to meet with potential customers and solicit contracts for work to be done outside the US, etc.    They cannot engage in work that others would be paid to do.

In addition, we regularly assist US companies who are bringing employees to the US from related companies outside the US, where those foreign nationals are involved in a joint project between the two companies.   This kind of visit also is proper under the B-1/visa waiver system.   However, in this kind of situation, we recommend that the foreign employee have an “entry letter,” sometimes called a “back pocket letter,” to present if the employee is taken into Secondary Inspection at the time he or she arrives at the airport in the US.   At the very least, the foreign company employee needs to be prepared to answer a number of specific questions that can control the decision of the CBP officer, and can determine whether the foreign company employee is allowed to enter the US, and if so, for how long.

It is more than a little unfortunate that the Infosys case arose at this time, especially when we are hoping to see Congress enact immigration reform.  Whether the Infosys case will stop that debate is outside the scope of this note.   Two things are clear, however:  first, the B-1/visa waiver rules are still in place, which means that proper business visits are still allowed under those rules.   Second, CBP is going to be more vigilant than before in considering requests to enter on the B-1/visa waiver.   Where foreign employees are coming to the US, it is critical to prepare these employees for the  discussion with CBP that is certain to occur, and, in many cases, to give the employee a proper entry/back pocket letter for use if the discussion becomes difficult or unpleasant.

If we can assist you with this kind of entry, a support letter or other immigration issues, please let us know.

 

Gerry Chapman
 
Gerard M. Chapman
Chapman Law Firm
P. O. Box 1477
Greensboro, NC 27402
403-A North Elm Street
Greensboro, NC 27401
Phone: (336) 334-0034
Fax: (336) 334-0036
E-mail: gerrychapman@chapman-immig.com
Website: www.chapman-immig.com

USC put into deportation; retaliation by ICE after receiving proof of citizenship

Published 10/22/13 by The Courthouse News Service

  SAN DIEGO (CN) - Immigration officials imprisoned a U.S. citizen for seven months and when she sued for the abuse tried to revoke her citizenship in retaliation, the woman claims in court.
     Sharon Arlanza Yost sued the United States in Federal Court.
     Yost, 33, claims she "automatically acquired U.S. citizenship on April 28, 1993," through her mother, a Filipina who became a U.S. citizen in 1989 after marrying a native-born U.S. citizen, a member of the U.S. Navy who was stationed in the Philippines.
     She claims Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested her on May 14, 2011, and imprisoned her until Dec. 7 that year, "based on their purported, but baseless, belief that plaintiff was a noncitizen subject to deportation from the United States."
     Yost claims she showed ICE agents "documentary evidence" that she is a U.S. citizen: that she had been was lawfully admitted as a permanent resident when she was 11 years and naturalized when she turned 13. But ICE "imprisoned her for almost seven months" anyway.
     While she sat in prison, Yost claims, ICE failed to investigate her claims to citizenship in violation of its own guidelines that require it to conduct an "immediate and careful investigation and analysis" of such claims.
     Nine days after ICE released her, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services "issued a Certificate of Citizenship confirming that Ms. Yost had acquired U.S. citizenship on April 28, 1993 - more than 18 years before she was arrested and detained by ICE," the complaint states.
     Yost hired an attorney and sought compensation under the Federal Tort Claims Act for her 208 days of unjust incarceration.
     Then ICE retaliated, she says: "Following the filing of that administrative complaint, DHS officers re-reviewed Ms. Yost's citizenship status and issued a notice of intent for administrative cancellation of citizenship under 8 U.S.C. § 1453. Presumably, as there is no other reasoned explanation and no valid legal basis for the notice, DHS issued this notice in response to, and in retaliation for, Ms. Yost's filing of a complaint under the FTCA [Federal Tort Claims Act]. That process is ongoing and is not at in issue in this action. However, even if DHS were to cancel Ms. Yost's citizenship certificate, such cancellation 'affect[s] only the document and not the citizenship status of the person in whose name the documents was issued,'" the complaint states, citing 8 U.S.C. § 1453.
     Yost seeks damages for negligence, false imprisonment, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. She also wants a trial by judge and the "right to conform the pleadings to the proof and evidence presented at trial."
     She is represented by Trina Realmuto with the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild of Boston.
     The ICE Office of Public Affairs responded to a request for comment with what appeared to be a form letter that did not directly address any of the allegations in Yost's lawsuit. 

Immigration Reform and the Federal Prison Population

Immigration Reform and the Federal Prison Population

 

Last night (October 21) I attended a dinner for the Federal Bar Association, and the keynote speaker was US District Judge Tom Schroeder of Winston-Salem.  His main point was that we are on an unsustainable path regarding incarceration rates, and the statistics he gave were sobering, to say the least.  Among them:

 

About ½ of all federal inmates today are Hispanic

4 out of 5 of the Hispanic inmates are there due to non-drug related crimes

Most of those 80% are prosecuted for re-entry violations

It costs some $29,000 per year to house an inmate in federal custody

Federal correction expenses represent the second fastest growing part of the federal budget.

 

He also had a lot of other statistics about unwed mothers and fatherless children, but what struck me was the fact that, if immigration reform is passed, we could quickly erase 40% of the federal Hispanic jail population.

 

It is folly to make it a crime to re-enter the US in order to work and support a person’s family.  That is why the vast majority of the undocumented population is in the US:  working, saving some money, paying taxes, staying out of trouble, and raising their families.   In 1942 Congress recognized that it was vital to US national security to create a visa program (the Bracero Program) to allow essential Mexican workers to enter the US and staff our agricultural industry, our manufacturing industries and other industries that required manual labor.  US-born workers were overseas, fighting in World War II.   The economy, and the war effort, would have crashed without those essential workers.  The Bracero program lasted some 22 years, until Congress revamped the entire immigration system in 1965; unfortunately Congress left out a visa for those workers.

 

Fast forward to today:  it is vital to US national security to create a visa program (the RPI and W visa, as contained in S. 744) to allow undocumented workers to remain here, and for future essential workers to enter the US, so that they can staff our agricultural industry, our manufacturing industries and other industries that require manual labor. 

 

The difference between now and 1942 is that the threat to US security (and world security) was much more visible – the Axis powers.   But it is no less real today, where few if any US workers want to take hard yet important jobs on which our economy depends.   Work that is hard and dirty is no less important or honorable than work done in an air conditioned office.    We simply need to recognize that all work is valuable and reform our immigration laws to acknowledge that fact.

 

Gerry Chapman