This column is as much a warning to prospective victims as it is a source of basic immigration law information – especially for the 12- 15 million individuals living in the U.S. without immigration status.  Why a warning?  Because no matter the intelligence level of the prospective victim, the combination of his vulnerable state and the scammer’s profit motive, leads to the formation of the perfect storm in which the undocumented individual gets swindled.  The swindlers are neighborhood “notaries” or consultants, as well as even a few established attorneys.  Compared to the honest attorney who will conduct a consultation and advise the undocumented individual that no options to legalize his status exist at this time (and without a change in the law), the swindler will invent fictitious avenues toward legal status.

And the fictitious avenues sometimes will present as genuine, since after the swindled client plops down his $5,000 or $10,000 retainer, some type of approval notice may get issued by either the U.S. Department of Homeland Security/Citizenship and Immigration Services or the U.S. Department of Labor.  As the con progresses, and the swindled client further convinces himself that a bona fide service is being provided, he avoids asking and/or getting real answers to questions like:  A) “ok, yes, we have an approval on this stage of the case, but what is my end game?” or B) “when will I be issued my employment authorization, or green card?”   In the context of the scamming lawyer/consultant – client relationship, the answers to those questions – which should have been asked from the start of the relationship – are:  A) none and B) never.

An important step an undocumented, or any type of immigration law client can take to avoid getting scammed is by requesting that the attorney or service provider put in writing exactly which services are being provided and which goals are sought to be achieved.  Although a lawyer can never ethically guarantee a result in any given case, he/she certainly can confirm in writing what the client qualifies to be considered for under present law, and that such goals are viable or achievable under present law.   As to the fictitious avenues referenced above, the only way the swindled client will eventually achieve an end game, such as obtain employment authorization or green card is IF the law changes.

My guess is very few, if any, of the clients presented with fictitious avenues, would be otherwise willing to fork over tens of thousands of dollars to initiate a process if they knew the process they were initiating will only yield a result if the law changes.  It’s the “if the law changes” part that I have seen the swindling attorney purposely forget to include in his discussion with potential victims who are all too ready and willing to put money in the swindler’s pocket.

For most of the undocumented population, it’s a waiting game – a wait for some type of change in the law to allow a genuine avenue to legalize their status.  In the meantime, below is a summary of options at legalization or adjusting status for the undocumented or visa overstay under present law:

1. )  Visa Overstays May Be Able to Adjust Status if: they are the spouse of a U.S. Citizen, a parent of an adult (over 21) U.S. citizen, or child (under 21) of a U.S. Citizen.  This class of immigrant may have the option to adjust status in the U.S. without having to return to their home country for any step in the process, notwithstanding unauthorized employment or overstaying their authorized period of stay in the U.S. (does not include those entering as “crewman”, or K-1 fiancés who did not marry their petitioner).  Spouses of U.S. citizens, parents of adult U.S. citizens, and under 21 children of U.S. citizens are known as “Immediate Relatives” in immigration law talk and do not require additional legal qualification for eligibility to adjust status in the U.S. such as coverage under INA Section 245(i) – see below – to adjust status in the U.S.

Other types of non-“Immediate Relative” family based immigration applicants or employment based applicants who are visa overstays may be able to adjust their status in the U.S. but only if they were included in some sort of family or employment based immigration filing submitted prior to April 30, 2001, or January 14, 1998 - pursuant to Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act –see below.

2)  Entered Without Inspection (EWI): If you are the spouse of a U.S. Citizen, a parent of an adult (over 21) U.S. citizen, or child (under 21) of a U.S. Citizen who entered without being inspected by an immigration official (e.g. no visa), the option to adjust status in the U.S. only exists if you were previously included in some sort of family or employment based immigration filing submitted pursuant to Section 245(i) – see below.

Other types of non-“Immediate Relative” family-based or employment-based applicants who entered without visas (EWI) may be able to adjust their status in the U.S. but only if they were included in some sort of family or employment based immigration filing submitted prior to April 30, 2001, or January 14, 1998 – pursuant to Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

3) EWI’s or Visa Overstays with an employer willing to facilitate a green card process, and they are a professional and/or have some special skills that may be scarce in the U.S. labor market, an employment based immigration filing may be an option if they are grandfathered under Section 245(i). Word of warning though: most candidates for this option may very well be waiting 5 years – give or take – before any type of immigration benefit, such as an employment authorization is in sight.

4) EWI’s or Visa Overstays who are Battered Spouses or Children of U.S. citizens or residents:   whether you entered with or without a visa, or overstayed your visa, individuals who were the targets of their U.S. citizen or resident spouse’s or parent’s physical abuse or extreme mental abuse are eligible to be considered for US residence, and without having to depart the US for processing in their home country.  No 245(i) grandfathering is required for this type of immigration benefit.

5)  EWI’s or Visa Overstays who are the victims of certain types of crimes:   whether you entered with or without a visa, or overstayed your visa,  victims of certain types of crimes may be eligible for temporary status (U visa), including employment authorization, and eventually U.S. resident status.  Victims of the following types of crime will be eligible for consideration for U visa status, and eventually U.S. residence:  abduction, blackmail, domestic violence, extortion, false imprisonment, felonious assault, incest, involuntary servitude, kidnapping, manslaughter, murder, obstruction of justice, perjury, prostitution, rape, sexual assault, torture, trafficking, unlawful criminal restraint and, witness tampering – among others.  No 245(i) grandfathering is required for this type of immigration benefit.

What is Section 245(i) of the Immigration Nationality Act? Section 245(i) allows for certain otherwise ineligible visa overstay/undocumented immigrants to undergo all steps in the U.S. immigration process in the U.S. and without having to return to a U.S. consular post in their home country (aka “245(i)grandfathering”). To be “grandfathered” under Section 245(i), the applicant must have been:

a.  included in some sort of family or employmentbased immigration filing submitted prior to April 30, 2001, and they were physically present in the U.S. on December 21, 2000 OR

b.  included in some sort of family or employment based immigration filing submitted prior to January 14, 1998 (with no physical presence requirement)

Relief in Removal Proceedings: If the visa overstay or undocumented immigrant gets arrested by immigration authorities and placed in removal proceedings, options to remain in the U.S. and even be awarded permanent residence by the Immigration Court indeed are available.  Most notably, relief known as “Cancellation of Removal” allows those without status to be considered for a green card by the Immigration Court if: 1) they have been present in the U.S. for more than 10 years or more prior to being placed in removal proceedings. 2) they are of good moral character and 3) their U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse, parent or child will suffer “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” if they were forced to return to their home country.

For those who fear return to their home country due to persecution they might face on account of their race religion, political belief or “social group”, asylum-related relief (and eventually green card issuance) may be available from the Immigration Court.

Getting back to the discussion regarding the immigration law consultation: Sometimes the most valuable piece of information the client will pay for in the course of an immigration law consultation is that no option to legalize his status truly exists under the present law, and that for the time being, he should put his wallet away.

PUBLISHED November 9, 2011 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM”
Copyright © 2011, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois

Published: June 4, 2009

Just over 4 months after the outgoing Attorney General declared that foreign nationals do not have the right to effective representation in removal proceedings, the Obama Administration’s new Attorney General, Eric Holder, has undone that act. Attorney General Holder’s action to vacate the earlier decisions in the cases of Matter of Compean, Matter of Bangaly and Matter of J-E-C, restores more than a decade of jurisprudence establishing that foreign nationals are constitutionally entitled to “effective assistance of counsel,” and that a claim of ineffective counsel is not merely subject to discretionary “administrative grace.”

Although the Attorney General upheld the underlying decisions denying the requests to reopen these particular cases, he did confirm that a right to effective assistance of counsel in removal proceedings is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. He also directed formal rule-making to take place to establish procedures and a legal framework by which Motions to Reopen based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are to be evaluated, These rules, according to the Attorney General, are to be consistent with constitutional principles and the substantial body of case law that has evolved on the issue up to this point.

PUBLISHED June 4, 2009 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM”
Copyright © 2009, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois

US lawful permanent residents renewing their Permanent Resident Cards by way of direct mailing of Form I-90 (as opposed to online filing) should pay attention to two important changes.

Firstly, I-90 applicants are now instructed to file their supporting documentation when submitting their application, as opposed to only presenting it when appearing for their post-filing biometrics appointment – as was the procedure previously in place.

Second, all I-90 applications are now to be filed with the following US CIS lockbox:

USCIS
P.O. Box 21262
Phoenix , AZ 85036

or if by courier/express mail:

USCIS
ATTN: I-90
1820 Skyharbor Circle S , Floor 1
Phoenix , AZ 85034

PUBLISHED April 29, 2009 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM”
Copyright © 2009, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois

Published: January 20, 2009

So, you have made the decision that being in the U.S. without legal status is better than being in your home country with all the legal status in the world. And you continue to hope that President Obama can advance his goal of comprehensive immigration reform and that your particular circumstances will be covered by some prospective legislation. While we await such legislation, are there measures the overstay / undocumented foreign national can take to “legalize” their status and obtain U.S. lawful permanent residence (a.k.a. obtain a green card)?

For the Visa Overstay

With the exception of individuals who entered the U.S. on a K (fiancé) or “Crewman” visa, visa overstays are generally eligible to apply for “Adjustment of Status” and undergo permanent residence processing in the U.S. (without having to return to their home country) under the following circumstances:

1. You marry a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident who becomes a U.S. citizen,
2. you are under 21 years old and you are the child, or step child (as long as step relationship was established prior to your 18th birthday) of a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident who becomes a U.S. citizen, or
3. you are the parent of an over 21 year old adult U.S. citizen.

Additionally, if you were the subject of any type of family preference or employment/labor based immigration application submitted prior to April 30, 2001, or in some cases, January 14, 1998 (pursuant to INA Section 245(i)), you will be able to eventually complete all permanent processing in the U.S. via Adjustment of Status, upon visa availability.

For the visa overstay seeking permanent resident processing in the U.S. by way of a new job offer, things are much more complicated. First, you must be “grandfathered” under INA Section 245(i) – which means you or one of your parents must have been the subject of some sort of family or employment/labor based immigration filing submitted prior to April 30, 2001 or January 14, 1998. Then, you must find an employer to file paperwork on your behalf; this employer will likely be required to demonstrate the unavailability of U.S. workers to fill the position at issue (there are a few exceptions for some professions, such as Registered Nurses and Physical Therapists). From there, you will be looking at a wait of at least a few years toward even an employment authorization. So, employment based avenues are indeed viable for the overstay, just challenging in terms of logistics and time.

For the Foreign National Who Entered the U.S. “Without Inspection” or “EWI”

Simply put, you must be covered by INA Section 245(i) as described above. If you are covered by Section 245(i), the avenues available are identical to those available for the visa overstay. If you are not covered by 245(i), then all you are left with is waiting for immigration reform, or taking a chance at a visa processing at a U.S. consular post in your home country.

The most common EWI risk-taking scenario involves the EWI who marries a U.S. citizen and, as opposed to waiting for immigration reform, he elects to undergo immigration processing at a U.S. consular post in his home country. In order for the EWI to be granted the immigrant visa to reenter the U.S., he must be granted a “waiver of inadmissibility”. You see, those who are in the U.S. without status and depart, generally face a multi-year (up to 10 years) bar to reentry, unless U.S. Department of Homeland Security grants a waiver (plain English – forgiveness) based on the extreme hardship the U.S. citizen spouse and/or parent may face in the event the foreign national is denied a visa. The grant of a waiver is anything but certain, and the result depends entirely on an immigration officer’s assessment of whether the level of hardship presented is “extreme” enough. Furthermore, the parties will never know the answer in advance of the foreign national departing and appearing at the U.S. consular post.

In Removal Proceedings

If you are unlucky enough to be placed in removal proceedings, most of the above rules continue to apply, and your fight to remain in the U.S. will depend on whether you fit into any of the above classifications. BIG EXCEPTION: For those who:

1. have been in the U.S. for more than 10 years – either as an overstay or EWI ,
2. have a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse, child or parent,
3. are of good moral character and
4. can demonstrate that their forced departure will cause “exceptional and extremely unusual” hardships to one or more of their U.S. family members, a defense to removal (known as Cancellation of Removal) and a green card, may be within reach.

Certainly #4 is not an easy standard to satisfy, but at the very least, those who are threshold eligible will have their day in court and a chance for thorough due process. (Note: visa overstays and EWI’s may also have other forms of relief available in removal proceedings, such as political asylum.)

The above discussion is certainly not exhaustive, but it does cover the most common scenarios facing foreign national visa overstays or EWI’s. For the most reliable and conclusive feedback in your particular set of circumstances, it is advisable to seek reputable legal counsel.

PUBLISHED January 20, 2009 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM”
Copyright © 2009, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois

After ordering the review of almost 20 immigration courts and conducting extensive field research and interviews, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales announced that the Department of Justice will be implementing several new measures aimed at improving the quality and functioning of our nation’s immigration court system (where deportation/removal proceedings are conducted). Upon revealing the new reforms he stated, “I am secure in the knowledge that our immigration judges and Board [of Immigration Appeals] members stand ready to serve their country in discharging their demanding responsibilities to apply the rule of law and protect the Constitution. But there is room for improvement, and I believe these new measures will assist them greatly in their important work.”

The first two of the 22 measures are aimed at developing ways to efficiently and fairly review the performance of individual immigration judges as well as members of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Most notably, newly appointed immigration judges and Board members are to be given a trial 2 year employment period, during which time their adjudication skills and courtroom demeanor will be assessed.

Also, immigration judges and Board members appointed after December 31, 2006 will be required to pass a written examination which will cover key areas of immigration law, and EOIR’s director will review and propose measures to be taken to improve the training of immigration judges, Board members and EOIR staff.

Recognizing that occasionally, an immigration judge or Board member may conduct him or herself poorly, the reforms aim to create a standard procedure for Board members and government attorneys to report court decisions where a judge’s inappropriate conduct might be on display, and track such cases to see if a pattern is developing. A Code of Conduct will be drafted which will pertain to, and be available to immigration judges and Board members. The Director of the EOIR will also create a standardized system to help ensure timely responses to complaints and conduct an analysis of the discovery of disparities that may arise in immigration court decisions in asylum cases.

The reforms also acknowledge the need for immigration judges and Board members to have the resources necessary to maintain order in their courtroom. Accordingly, the Director of the EOIR will review and revise existing rules regarding their powers to impose sanctions as well as draft and propose a new statute providing for a judges ability to sparingly impose a civil money penalty for conduct held to be in contempt of an immigration judge’s authority, including litigant and private counsel misconduct.

Regarding the previously implemented reforms by the Department that helped to streamline the procedures for hearing appeals that were designed to reduce the backlog of cases waiting to be heard, the measures propose a few adjustments. In hopes of further decreasing this backlog, the Director of the EOIR will propose a measure aimed at increasing the use of one-member written opinions for correct decisions, but ones that may need further explanation or clarification due to a judges temperament. This same measure would only allow for three-member written opinions in instances of extremely complex cases.

As with most government departments, the EOIR will seek a budget increase to start in 2008 due to the continuing increase in caseloads. Additionally, the Director of EOIR hopes to decrease the growing caseload by adding 4 permanent members to the Board as well as to continue to use temporary Board members. The position of Assistant Chief Immigration Judge will also be assigned regionally on a trial basis and upon completion of a set amount of time, will be examined to determine the if position has helped with efficiency.

Also contained in the reforms is the creation of a practice manual for counsel and litigants addressing the “best practices for the immigration Courts” and will be available online; the incorporation of a digital recording system in court rooms to replace the current tape recording system; improving the timeliness of transcriptions of oral decision; the creation of a plan to better ensure the selection of proficient interpreters for court; the development of steps which an immigration judge or Board member can take in order to report immigration fraud and abuse; and the improvement and expansion of the EOIR’s pro bono programs.

The Department of Justice hopes that these measures will improve the quality of service provided by the immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals. However, only time will tell if these measures go far enough to make a significant impact on the immigration court system.

In a ruling handed down this past week, Federal Judge Richard H. Kyle, of the U.S. District Court of Minnesota, condemned the INS for unlawfully failing to adjust the status of 22,000 asylees waiting to become permanent residents. Calling the INS’ (now CIS) mismanagement of these cases, a “national embarrassment,” Judge Kyle ordered the government to immediately begin to adjust the status of thousands of immigrants who have been granted asylum and have had their applications for permanent residence pending for as long as 5 or more years.

Hailed as a major victory for asylees in the U.S., the ruling may signify a new chapter in U.S. immigration law and set a higher standard for CIS’ accountability to the public.

As a matter of law, an asylee (an individual granted asylum in the US after proving that they were persecuted in their home country on account of their race, religion, political belief or social group) becomes eligible to apply to adjust their status to that of a permanent resident 1 year after being granted asylum. Federal law, however, limits the number of asylees eligible to actually be granted resident status to 10,000 per fiscal year. Although the number of asylees applying for residence each year outnumbers the supply of available visas and a certain amount of delay is clearly unavoidable, the waiting period faced by this class of plaintiffs was deemed completely unwarranted and unreasonable.

Due to counting discrepancies, disorganization and a rash of other administrative shortcomings on the part of the INS, asylees applying for permanent resident status have been known to wait 5 + years for their applications to be finally approved and be issued their alien registration card (“green card”).

The ruling came as a result of a national class action suit filed on behalf of more than 150,000 asylees in the U.S. by the American Immigration Law Foundation in Washington, D.C., the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute in Boston and other organizations.

Judge Kyle also criticized the INS’ delays in processing work permits for the asylees in question. According to the ruling, the INS’ improperly required these asylees to reapply for their work permits every year–a procedure that comes with a filing fee of $120.00. These delays have resulted in unnecessary paperwork and extraneous fees when the law states that asylees are to be automatically granted their work permits and those permits are to remain valid as long as the asylee remains in that status.

Update on New Immigration Legislation

As of this writing, there is no news to report regarding significant developments in Congress’ discussion on the enactment of any major immigration legislation.

The actions of government agencies or courts of law are mostly noticed only when something goes wrong or when negative, sensational consequences follow. Whether we will realize it or not, we generally expect government officials and judges to make the right decisions with justice in mind and where everybody lives happily ever after. When it comes to the U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, one of the most under-funded and unattended-to federal agencies and the favorite kicking dog of many a politician, the negative sensational story is generally all we hear. But just yesterday, I became aware of a nice story about the INS, where compassion and justice were at the root of a decision to grant asylum to an autistic child from Pakistan and allow the child to remain in the U.S. permanently.

Like most modern nations, the U.S. grants individuals escaping persecution from their home government the right to live freely and without fear within its borders. The concept of granting asylum, or “refugee” status, to such an individual first evolved out of the need to protect those fleeing their countries because of political beliefs that were generally opposed to an oppressive, dictatorial regime. U.S. law today states in general that if a person fears persecution in their home country due to their race, religion, political belief or “social group”, the individual will be accorded protection and permanent residence in the U.S.

In recent years, the term “social group” has been the subject of much litigation and controversy. Protection under U.S. asylum/refugee law has been sought by members from a wide range of “social groups” claiming persecution by either their home government or groups their home government cannot or will not control. In recent years, among those successful in their efforts in being classified, as a protected “social group” have been women of various African nationalities escaping forced female genital mutilation as well as homosexuals from Brazil and Turkey. And just yesterday, INS’ Chicago Asylum Office announced it would be granting the asylum application of a Pakistani child whose claim is based on his affliction with autism, a serious mental illness often marked by abnormal behavior such as involuntary acts of physical self-abuse, involuntary verbal utterances and hallucinations.

The asylum request rested on the premise that the child was widely seen in his native Pakistan as a freak of nature, afflicted with an evil spirit or demon, rather than as a human being suffering from some disease that could be treated. Like others who suffer from such severe mental disorders in Pakistan, he was often the victim of physical beatings and emotional abuse by the public. In essence, his membership in the “social group” of the severely mentally ill placed him in a vulnerable position, as far as both his basic human rights and physical health were concerned, and with no one to turn to for protection. Unfortunately, as reflected in the recent ruling, Pakistani society at large saw the boy as someone to be avoided (and to be locked up and warehoused) as opposed to a human being deserving of medical treatment and with potential to contribute to society in one way or another.

Congratulations to the young asylum applicant, and congratulations to the INS and their local Asylum Office.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9^th Circuit, which has jurisdiction over cases filed in California – among other west coast states, generally can be expected to issue decisions providing aliens with the most protection in the face of imminent deportation by the U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service. Consistent with that trend, a Filipino asylum seeker, whose claim was based on his fear of persecution back home as a result of his “whistleblowing” and anti-corruption activities as a law enforcement official in the Philippines, was recently granted a reprieve by the 9^th Circuit. With this decision, the Court of Appeals paved the way toward the applicant receiving lawful permanent residence in the U.S.

Prior to entering the U.S. as a tourist in 1991, the applicant worked as a policeman and customs officer in the Philippines. During his tenure in these positions, he uncovered and spoke out against corruption at many levels of government. As a result, his corrupt superiors, who ultimately maintained their authority, transferred him to different positions in an effort to minimize his impact. Not unexpectedly, according to the applicant, his bold stance brought on death threats from several directions, including Marcos loyalists, the New Peoples Army, and even the Philippine military and police force.

After obtaining a visa and successfully escaping to the U.S., our former government official applied for asylum. His case was denied by the INS at the initial stage, and the denial was subsequently upheld by the Immigration Judge in deportation proceedings and more recently, by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA ruled against the applicant because a) when appearing before the Immigration Judge, he chose not to testify and instead rested on the contents of his written application (an option offered to him by the Immigration Judge), and b) even if her were to testify, the threats that are the basis of his fear of returning to Philippines do not adequately establish a case for political persecution as required under the law.

While I find it generally inadvisable for an asylum applicant who is before the Immigration Judge to opt not to testify and merely swear to the facts as set forth in their application, such a choice is entirely acceptable under INS regulations. And pursuant to the clear language of the applicable regulations, the 9^th Circuit found improper and in violation of the law, the BIA ruling summarily rejecting his claim due to his failure to testify.

As to the substance of the applicant’s claim of persecution, the 9^th Circuit similarly rejected earlier findings and concluded that the applicant’s “whistleblowing” acts while in the government do indeed constitute the exercise of political opinion and therefore meet the legal requirements under asylum law. More specifically, the court concluded that whistleblowing will not always add up to the exercise of political opinion, however, “where the whistle blows against corrupt government officials, it may constitute political activity sufficient to form the basis of persecution on account of political opinion”. In support of its conclusion, the court found the “alleged corruption (to be) inextricably intertwined with governmental operation (and) the exposure and prosecution of such an abuse of public trust is necessarily political.”

Clearly the 9^th Circuit went out its way not to prejudge the filing or take anything for granted, as is the general tendency of courts reviewing cases of asylum seekers fleeing a democratic nation with significant diplomatic ties to the U.S.

For more details on this interesting case, see the federal appeals court’s opinion published at 205 F.3d 1177 (9^th Cir. 2000).

Make no mistake about it, for every vulnerable person in this world, there is always going to be a predator to take advantage of them, especially in the world of the visa overstay or undocumented alien. Who is doing the scamming? How can it be stopped? How can one avoid being scammed? How can the scammer be held accountable? Based on some of the experiences shared with me by several scam victims or targeted victims, I offer the following thoughts:

Who is doing the scamming? From what I have gathered from victims who have consulted with me, it appears there are at least 1 or 2 Filipinos, between 45-60 years of age, who are preying on unsuspecting northside (of Chicago) Filipinos seeking to improve their immigration status in one way or another.

The scam victim is typically presented with convincing looking and authentic immigration forms and a boastful explanation of the scam artist’s connection and/or inside knowledge of U.S. immigration law. The victim is usually told that by filing these forms some immigration benefit will follow such as the issuance of an employment authorization document or even a Alien Registration Card (“green card”).

One story I heard even involved the registration for some supposed amnesty (complete fiction) that requires an immediate and costly filing. No doubt, the scammers are shamelessly sinking to the lowest of levels, as the victims are being charged fees ranging from $500 to $10,000, not including the purported filing fees.

Despite news of the arrest of 1 or 2 of these scam artists in the past year or so, it appears that the same culprits, and perhaps some yet to be caught veterans, are still at it. And do not be fooled by the traditionally trustworthy forum or context through which you meet the thief, because our disgusting culprits are lining up their prey in church and are being introduced to their victims through the victim’s friends and acquaintances.

After the promised immigration benefit never arrives, the scam artist will blame the result on a change in policy by the U.S. immigration service (“INS”), or more often, they will simply be impossible to reach, e.g. disconnected telephone, ignoring the knocks on the door of disgruntled victims appearing at the scam artists home for an explanation.

How does she get away with it? And just as important, how does she sleep at night after blatantly stealing from the pockets of her own countrymen? The answer to the first question is simple. The victims are understandably afraid and/or embarrassed to come forward. They fear being prosecuted themselves or even deported, and the nice, innocent looking, scam lady knows it.

I know at one point, however, one of our culprits was indeed successfully prosecuted, but unfortunately, she was never forced to serve jail time. She only was required to pay a fine and provide restitution to a complaining witness or two. And if you’re guessing that she came out of it all with a significant profit, you are right. Moreover, and not surprising, this somewhat well publicized prosecution has not deterred our unscrupulous scam artists currently preying the Filipino neighborhood.

How can they be stopped? DO NOT GIVE THEM YOUR MONEY.

If it sounds too good to be true, it is. Do not fall for their promises.

In every case I was consulted on, I have been forced to give the victim the sad news that they have been scammed, and that the promised immigration benefit will not be coming. Even worse, though, some of the filings that these thieves are submitting can lead to the victim being placed in removal (deportation) proceedings, although the filing may initially yield the issuance of an employment authorization. Be assured though, if no basis to file the application existed in the first place (such as approved family or employment immigration petition, with current visa availability) the INS’ deportation section will likely catch up with the applicant and he/she will find themselves in proceedings before an immigration judge.

So, I repeat, DO NOT GIVE THEM YOUR MONEY.

For those who have been scammed, have been targeted by a scammer, or just plain want to know their immigration law options, see a reputable attorney.

Ask your friend, family member or clergyman for a recommendation, and make sure the attorney is licensed. If there is any doubt, ask to see their license.

For a nominal fee (ranging from $20.00 to $150.00 dollars), the attorney should be able to listen to your problem and tell you what, if any, options exist under the law. If an option exists and you decide to pursue it, make sure the lawyer puts in writing the services he will be performing and the amount you are being charged for this service. IF the lawyer misrepresents himself, fails to perform the services promised, or commits an act against the interest of their client, they can be sued in a court of law. And for acts such as those being committed by our scam artist, they can lose their license to practice law. The scam artist has practically nothing to lose and she knows it. Clearly, a consultation with an honest and reputable attorney is a small price to pay if it will allow one to avoid being scammed for thousands.

Additionally, attorneys are required to keep all conversations with clients in the strictest of confidence. That is, unless otherwise instructed by the client, attorneys must keep secret from the world all information provided by their client, including information relating to their lawful or unlawful immigration status. So whatever gets disclosed to the attorney in their office, will not leave that office.

How can our culprits be held accountable? It will not be easy. Unless we have victims who are ready to step forward and report these scam artists to the authorities, (such as local police) our scammer will be free to roam the neighborhood. Short of more victims stepping forward to complain and press for the scammer to be incarcerated, the next best thing is for the public do their best to be informed and act prudently. This way the culprits’ market will dry up and hopefully, these seemingly nice old ladies will go on to more honorable pursuits.

My final thought: When your scam artist requires cash, and gives you a convoluted explanation (and/or looks at you funny) after you ask for a receipt or a written agreement, think twice.