It never fails. Whenever a new immigration provision is presented to Congress for consideration, or is proposed by the President or some other official in the Executive Branch, the media takes the ball and runs with it. It’s either presented as something it is not, or simply misunderstood to be something it’s not. Either way, the US audience, ranging from the general American John Q. Public demographic to the vulnerable 12 million undocumented demographic, gets excited, in different ways, and for different reasons. Notably, this provision will impact only limited number of prospective applicants, applicants who are ineligible to “adjust” status/ undergo all permanent residence processing in the U.S. and who are willing to visit a U.S. consular post in their home country for their “green card” interview.

The latest news has to do with an Obama administration initiative for processing “waivers of inadmissibility” and it proposes to streamline processing of certain applicants for permanent residence who under current law, must leave the US for an extended period for their final green card/ interview, and appear before a US consular officer in their home country. Instead of facing a 3 months or so wait to receive a decision on their waiver application while outside the US, the new proposal will allow for a wait as little as a few days outside the US, since the 3 months of processing is now being proposed to take place before the applicant’s departure.

And what is being decided in this period is an “I-601 waiver” application to excuse, or “waive”, the individual’s previous period of unlawful presence in the U.S. and consequent 3 or 10 year bars to reentry, where cases are approved only if the applicant can demonstrate that his denied reentry will pose extreme hardship for his U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse or parent. Of course, there’s no guarantee all applicants for a waiver will be approved under this proposed program, but this new procedure will no doubt be of great comfort to families by letting them know ahead of time if the main obstacle (3 year bar) to their loved one’s reentry has been removed – and repeat, before the applicant leaves the US for their interview in their home country. Thus, if the applicant’s waiver application is denied, that decision will be known before any trip outside the US takes place. The applicant will then know there is no reason for the applicant to appear for their interview before a US consular officer in their home country, since he will know he will indeed be subject to a bar to reentry that has NOT been waived.

Again, this new provision is only at the proposal stage, and a final, working rule has yet to be implemented. In the meantime, no waiver filings will be decided in the US as proposed above. If implemented though, the rule will not impact applicants currently outside the U.S., who will continue to be subject to ordinary processing procedures now in place. Further, since this processing change is being presented as an act of Executive/Administrative “rulemaking” and not legislation, there is no need for congressional approval. All developments regarding implementation of this provision will continue to be reported on here.

PUBLISHED January 12, 2012 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM”
Copyright © 2012, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois

President Obama has always made it known that he favors the enactment of some form of comprehensive immigration reform to allow for a “path to citizenship” for at least some of the approximately 12 million living in the U.S. without legal immigration status. During his term, it’s been a Republican Congress that’s been the main obstacle to getting any type of immigration reform initiative passed, whether it be the DREAM Act, or more comprehensive reform proposals. If you are wondering how the Republican candidates for President would approach the issue – below are direct quotes attributed to each of them, along with my own peanut gallery assessment:

Mitt Romney
“My view is, people who have come here illegally, we welcome you to apply but you must get at the back of the line, because there are millions of people who are in line right now that want to come here legally. I want those to come here legally. Those that are here illegally have to get in line with everybody else.” [Republican Debate, December 15, 2011]

RH – What line are you talking about Mr. Romney? The vast majority of undocumented individuals currently have no avenue toward legal status in the first place, and thus have no line to get into! This sounds good, but has no basis in reality. Maybe, like most politicians, he is just saying what he thinks the public wants to hear just to get elected, and once elected will do whatever suits his political agenda and survival. After Iowa, it looks like BS and nice sound bytes take you places though. Slick guys finish first?

“If I were elected and Congress were to pass the DREAM Act, would I veto it? The answer is yes.” [Washington Post, December 31, 2011]

RH – Same assessment as above. Sounds tough, and that’s what Romney thinks he has to sound like on immigration issues. Any reasoning he would cite, like in the first quote, would likely have no basis in reality. Nevertheless, slick guys appear to finish first.

“As President, [I] will also work to establish a policy that staples a green card to the diploma of every eligible student visa holder who graduates from one of our universities with an advanced degree in math, science, or engineering. As President, a first step that [I] will take is to raise the ceiling on the number of visas issued to holders of advanced degrees in Math, Science, and engineering who have job offers in those fields from US companies.” [Believe in America, September 6, 2011]

RH – Great idea, and sounds great.

Newt Gingrich
“I do not believe that the American people are going to tolerate going after somebody who has been here 25 years, who has a family, has children and grandchildren, belongs to a local church. What I proposed is very standard things. Control the border by January 1, 2014. Make English the official language of government. Go to a much better visa program that’s much…that makes it more desirable to visit the U.S. legally. Go to a better deportation program to move people out who shouldn’t be here.” [CBS News, December 18, 2011]

RH – Congratulations Newt. You may win the award for the most honest of this bunch. Your answer is practical and real. Be careful though, honesty may not get you too far in this race. The tougher, “law and order” talk seems to be what most of the other politicians think will win the day.

“Let me start and just say I think that we ought to have an H-1 visa that goes with every graduate degree in math, science and engineering so that people stay here.” [Republican Debate, November 22, 2011]

RH- Great idea! Sounds great.

Ron Paul
“Somebody who’s been here and it’s their country I think there should be a program to bring them into the fold…but I want it to be done systematically. I think we need more efficiency at our borders, and allow the people to come in, especially for people who can take care of themselves. But you ask about what we do with 11 million and I would say you have to work out a program of assimilation, but you can’t just say borders don’t count and people should be rewarded for breaking the law.” [Univision, October 2, 2011]

RH- same commentary as for Newt. Its honest, real talk. Not as sexy as law and order though.

“End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.” [Ron Paul 2012]

RH- whether you agree with his stance or not, he is honest and truly believes what he is saying, particularly regarding the attractiveness of US citizenship for all children born here. His blunt commentaries appear to be getting him places.

Voted “yes” on H.R. 3736, a bill that increased the number of highly skilled workers from 65,000 to 115,000 by the year 2000. [U.S. House of Representatives, September 24, 1998]

RH- consistent with earlier commentary, he is honest and realistic on this issue as well. What planet he lives on other issues, such as foreign policy, is a whole other question.

Rick Perry
“Amnesty is not on the table period. There will be no amnesty in the United States. We’re a country of law and the idea that we’re going to tell people that somehow or another that that’s all forgiven is not going to happen.” [ABC News, November 29, 2011]

“But I do think that there is a way. That after we secure that border that you can have a process in place for individual who are law- abiding citizens who have done only one thing, as Newt says, 25 years ago or whatever that period of time was, that you can put something in place that basically continues to keep those families together.” [Republican Debate, November 22, 2011]

RH – Amnesty…a word loaded with toxicity in the immigration debate. However Rick, there is already a de facto amnesty in place now, as the US government is looking the other way for the millions in the U.S. without status. True to his inner character, Rick comes off like he wants it both ways and talks from both sides. He is not brave like Newt and some of the others – who says it like it is. Too slick for his own good it seems.

“But if you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than they’ve been brought there by no fault of their own, I don’t think you have a heart. We need to be educating these children, because they will become a drag on our society. I think that’s what Texans wanted to do.” [Republican Debate, September 22, 2011]

RH – sounds a little braver, but he tends toward back pedaling whenever one of his controversial positions, such as this, are taken issue with. After Iowa, he seems to be on his way out anyway.

“We need highly technical, trained engineers and biomedical scientists. And a lot of times, you can’t get those people because they can’t get an H-1B visa, for instance.” [CNBC, September 29, 2011]

RH- True!

Rick Santorum
“The idea people who are here 20 or 25 years and came here illegally only committed one illegal act, well, you can’t be here and commit one illegal act because almost everything you’re doing while you’re here is doing things against the law…So we say, we should let that happen. We shouldn’t break up families. We should let them all come…This is false compassion.” [CNN, December 6, 2011]

RH – Honest and practical. No waffling, so it seems.

“First off, I’m actually for a system that allows for people to come here, if they come here on a student visa or they come here on a visa that — you know, where they’re getting some sort of higher education or they’re learning some great skills that are good and necessary for the country — my feeling is, you know, if they graduate and do well, we should — you know, we should have — actually give folks the opportunity to have a green card and to stay here and work.” [Fox News, November 29, 2011]

RH – Sounds good. Is good.

Michele Bachmann
“Well, I don’t agree that you would make 11 million workers legal, because that, in effect, is amnesty. And I also don’t agree that you would give the DREAM Act on a federal level.” [Republican Debate, November 22, 2011]

RH – She sure is honest, and she does not waffle. Is she crazy? Is there any practicality to her approach? Those are separate questions. My take on the practicality of deporting 11 million people – including placing them in removal proceedings and providing “due process”? – HA, Good luck federal government! Anyway, after IOWA, all of her talk, and my commentary, is perhaps moot.

“We think about the United States and what’s in the best interests of the United States. If we can utilize these workers, like Steve jobs wanted to, then we need to offer those visas. That will help the United States. But I don’t agree that we should make 11 million workers who are here illegally legal.” [Republican Debate, November 22, 2011]

RH – Practical and smart on the visas for professionals and skilled workers. Not so much on the other issue.

Jon Huntsman
“I think you have to take a very practical approach to having them [undocumented immigrants] wait in line. There have to be certain requirements. Language requirements. English as an official language for example. Paying back taxes, if that is applicable. There needs to be some steps along the way that would suggest that they have paid whatever price and penalty in order to come out of the shadows and to gain citizenship in this country. You have to create a system whereby you can move towards citizenship. You can’t wish people away. You can’t just use rhetoric that says we’ll ship people back.” [Think Progress, September 19, 2011]

RH – Honest and practical, except for that “line” comment.

“I believe immigration is a human as well as an economic issue, and that children of illegal immigrants shouldn’t be punished for the sins of their parents.” [CBS News, September 23, 2011]

RH – Honest and practical.

“We can’t process people. The H1B visa process is broken. We need to bring in brain power to this country to shore up our economic might. We need to bring in foreign capital to raise real estate prices as well.” [Republican Debate, September 12, 2011]

RH – Smart, practical and honest!

PUBLISHED January 4, 2012 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM”
Copyright © 2012, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois

Watching presidential debates is not one of my favorite things to do, mainly because I have a hard time believing a single word coming out of any of the participants’ mouths.  The posturing is so obvious, with each candidate trying their hardest to get their sound bites in, and say the things their “people” tell them they need to say.  So it was by accident – while looking for enjoyable garbage to watch on the Dumb Box (my mother’s affectionate term for the television), that I happened upon the debate involving Republican candidates for President last week.  At the moment I tuned in, the one topic I have more than a little familiarity with was being argued, U.S. immigration policy.  So I gave it a listen, curious to hear if any honest conversation was going on, or if it was going to be the usual festival of scare tactics, half-truths and snake oil pitches all too common in political arena immigration discussions.

What I heard: mainly the familiar cries for anything but the incumbent’s policies.  “We have to enforce the border”.  “We can’t have an amnesty….or have any talk about a path to citizenship, without first securing our borders…” (with hand stomping on podium……and praying for applause).  But, the question these politicians have a hard time answering, and do not want to answer is “what does securing the border mean?”  By repeating the “secure the border” cry in trancelike fashion, the politician seeks to avoid the next, elephant in the middle of the room, question of what do we do with the 12 million undocumented who are already here.  Of course these candidates will also do their best to avoid talking about how Barack Obama has facilitated record numbers of deportations during his term and has successfully amped up our border strength with advanced technologies and increased manpower.

However, one candidate, Newt Gingrich, had the nerve to talk truth about immigration, and touch on the 12 million dollar question – suggesting a “humane” immigration policy and confessing he would not remove all illegal immigrants that are currently in the country:

“I do not believe that the people of the United States are going to take people who have been here a quarter century, who have children and grandchildren, who are members of the community, who may have done something 25 years ago, separate them from their families, and expel them,”

Now that took nerve.  Here in the midst of a gathering of the Republican’s best and brightest, Newt Gingrich took a risk and said what every other candidate deep down truly believes.  Of course our society will not be removing all of our undocumented.  That fact alone is evident in the practice of the various administrations in office over the past generation, no matter the party affiliation.  Newt’s statement nevertheless drew the predictable chorus of accusations that he is “soft” on immigration, and that irresponsible statements like his show he will be inclined toward creating policy that encourages more illegal immigration since the law breakers of the past will now be rewarded with green cards.

Let’s forget about the fact that for more than the past generation our society has implemented a de facto amnesty anyway, where we look the other way when it comes to our undocumented  immigrants who are not committing crimes, but instead are committed to cleaning up our homes, taking care of our elderly or installing our new dry wall.  No one at the Republican debate acknowledged that fact, and that our de facto amnesty is already a significant “magnet” to encourage people to come here based on the predominant motivation at play – that life in the U.S. without status is better than the futureless, hopeless life that awaits back in an opportunity-less and/or corrupt homeland.

Maybe Gingrich is already looking ahead and plotting a strategy for the November, 2012 general election.  Or maybe he was just having a moment of unavoidable arrogant clarity.  Whatever the case, it seems that notwithstanding the immediate schoolyard name-calling his immigration remarks prompted from his opponents, Gingrich stated an indisputable reality:   the undocumented population with deep roots in the U.S. and who are otherwise law-abiding, are not going home voluntarily, and further, face almost no chance of ever being deported.  Mitt knows it.  Rick knows it.  Herman knows it.  And even Michelle knows it.

PUBLISHED November 28, 2011 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM”
Copyright © 2011, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois

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:  October 15, 2011

As in years past, millions of people from all over world will submit entries to have a chance at one of 50,000 diversity immigrant visas and obtain “green card” status in the US.  Excluded from eligibility are natives of Bangladesh (new), Brazil, Canada, China (mainland born), Colombia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, South Korea, United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) and Vietnam. That is because these are considered to be “high admission” nations, and the basis of Congress establishing the visa lottery statute was to provide immigration opportunities for individuals from other, non-high-admission countries. The determination of which countries are “high admission” is made year to year.

The entry period for the 2013 visa lottery began at noon (EDT) on October 4, 2011 and continues through noon (EDT) November 5, 2011. Individuals who are picked will ultimately be eligible to enter the US (or adjust their status, if they are already in the US and are otherwise eligible) during the 2013 fiscal year which runs from October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2013. There is no fee to enter the visa lottery, and entrants will learn of the success or failure of their effort starting May 1, 2012.

Some features: (FYI, anything and everything you need to know about the visa lottery and entry instructions can be found at www.dvlottery.state.gov Accordingly, beware of websites or companies charging exorbitant fees to “consult or offer special “inside” assistance with the process!)

All entries are electronic and like in years past, among other requirements, applicants must submit photos conforming to detailed specifications.

All winners will be chosen randomly by computer and entrants will be able to find out the status of their entry by visiting a specific page on the Department of State website starting May 1, 2012. No email notification will be sent either. Like in years past, applicants are reminded to be on the look-out for scam artists using email and the Internet to take advantage of unsuspecting applicants.

Other noteworthy features of the DV 2013 Green Card lottery:

• There is no requirement that the application be signed.

• There is no initial application fee.

• Applicants must have either a high school education or its equivalent, OR two years of experience working in a “skilled” position (details on what types of positions qualify are included on the visa lottery website noted above).

• There is a limitation on one application per individual. Qualifying individuals in the same household may submit individual applications.

• Applicants can be living in the U.S. or abroad.

• Those picked as winners are eligible to have their spouse and children under 21 years of age join in on receiving the same green card benefits. Siblings and parents of winners do not stand to derive immigration benefits.

For every detail featured in this column, there are at least 10 that I did not discuss. The application is not rocket science, and again, individuals should not be tricked into thinking they need to pay an exorbitant fee to have their application processed. Nor should anyone be tricked into thinking that payment of a fee to a “professional” increases their chances of being picked. As stated, complete details on the 2013 DV visa lottery program can be accessed at www.dvlottery.state.gov.

 
PUBLISHED October 15, 2011 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM” Copyright © 2011, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois

It is not uncommon for newly approved green card holders to want to leave the U.S., and for an extended period. Whether they spent many years in the U.S. waiting for approval of their permanent resident status or they recently arrived from their homeland on an immigrant visa, the new green card holder will often seek to embark on a new path, or continue on a previously started one, outside the U.S.

Individuals granted lawful permanent residence status in the U.S. and issued an Alien Registration Card (aka “green card”) are expected by the U.S. government to be living in the U.S. That being said, U.S. residents are allowed great flexibility in departing the U.S. for extended periods, and sometimes for as long as two years. But inevitably, problems arise when the extended visits outside the U.S. are frequent and successive, or get really extended.

In general, a lawful permanent resident is allowed to travel outside the U.S. for a period of up to one year without any special documentation other than his green card. If the lawful permanent resident applies for a Re-Entry Permit prior to departing, he will be eligible to depart the U.S. for up to 2 years – just so long as he is in possession of the permit prior to reentering. It is also important to note that while applicants for Re-Entry Permits must be present in the U.S. when applying (FORM I-131), they are indeed allowed to depart the U.S. before the document is actually issued. However, an applicant for Re-Entry Permit should be sure to wait to have their biometrics fingerprints taken following the submission of their application and before departing the U.S. – an appointment that usually gets scheduled within 4 to 6 weeks of filing.

CAUTION!

If a permanent resident makes extended visits outside the U.S. in successive years, he takes the chance that his green card will be taken from him upon trying to reenter. For example, a permanent resident who leaves the U.S. for 11 months in 2010, 11 months in 2009 and 11 months in 2008, is likely to be greeted quite nastily by the U.S. immigration inspector when he tries to reenter the U.S. in 2011 after his yearly 11 month “visit” outside the U.S. That is because it is the job of the inspector to determine if the green card holder is really living in the U.S. or only a visitor to the U.S., but just enjoys the convenience of a green card. This permanent resident will likely be stripped of his green card after his 2011 trip, and if not, definitely after his 11 month trip in 2012.

Another important consideration is whether the lawful permanent resident intends on applying for U.S. citizenship. For intending applicants for U.S. citizenship, departures of 6 months or more during their qualifying 5 year period of permanent residence (or 3 years for those married to US citizens) will generally have a negative impact on their eligibility. There are exceptions of course, particularly if the permanent resident might be assigned to work abroad for a multinational corporation that has a U.S. branch or subsidiary. (See Form N-470, Application to Preserve Residence for Naturalization Purposes.)

What if a permanent resident departs the U.S. for more than 1 year, without a reentry permit, or for more than 2 years, even with a reentry permit?

U.S. law recognizes that circumstances may arise so as to justify such an extended trip and allow the permanent resident to reenter the U.S. as a “Returning Resident”. When the permanent resident’s trip outside the U.S. becomes extended due to unforeseeable circumstances beyond their control that arose following departure, such as the unexpected medical condition of an immediate family member overseas or perhaps their own unexpected illness, then the U.S. Embassy will entertain the resident’s application for a Returning Resident visa. With such a visa the permanent resident will retain their status despite the extended departure and be allowed reentry, but not after having a U.S. consular officer thoroughly scrutinize all details surrounding the applicant’s claim of “unforeseeable circumstances”.

It is also important to note that permanent residents with very extended departures who do not have the type of excuse required for Returning Resident eligibility may still avail of a new immigrant visa by being re-petitioned by some U.S. family member or employer. And these days, those that are the spouses or under 21 year old children of U.S. citizens or parents of adult U.S. citizen will generally wait less than 1 year for such a new petition process to yield a new immigrant visa.

Lastly, permanent residents who are issued their status on a 2 year conditional basis will have many other special factors to consider in planning extended trips outside the U.S. and may therefore be far more restricted in their travel options.

PUBLISHED January 26, 2011 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM”
Copyright © 2011, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois

This past week the U.S. Department of Homeland Security/Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) announced the merger of the Employment Authorization Document (EAD) and Advance Parole Travel Document (AP) for certain applicants for adjustment of status applicants. Previously, CIS issued separate documents authorizing employment and international travel for eligible applicants for adjustment of status, and their issuance and renewal required two separate applications. Now, however, a single document will be issued to eligible, pending adjustment of status applicants to prove their ability to work lawfully in the U.S. as well as facilitate a return trip back into the U.S. following international travel. The document will be issued for a period of 1 or 2 years, depending on the how long the applicant’s adjustment of status application is expected to remain pending.

As a reminder, AP’s and EAD’s are available to foreign nationals undergoing permanent residence processing in the U.S. by way of the filing of Form I-485. To be eligible to file Form I-485, an applicant must be the beneficiary of a qualifying family-based, or employment-based visa petition, and where a visa is immediately available in the applicant’s particular visa category. However, applicants who are out of status for 180 days or more, at the time of the filing of their I-485 Adjustment of Status application are strongly advised NOT to travel internationally while awaiting their permanent residence processing – and even if they are issued an advance parole. For these types of out of status applicants, a 3 or 10 year bar to readmission will kick in upon their departure, leading to the likely denial of their I-485 application and non-issuance of their green card.

Lastly, as long as they are valid, EAD’s and AP’s that are not in a single document will continue to be honored for purposes of proving employment authorization or to facilitate reentry following international travel. Further, separate EAD’s and AP’s will continue to be issued to applicants under certain circumstances.

PUBLISHED February 15, 2011 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM”
Copyright © 2011, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois

With the DREAM Act out of the picture for now, the 15 million undocumented/out of status immigrants living in the U.S. are left wondering, what options for living legally in the U.S. are left? Of course leaving the U.S. is not an option for the vast majority of these immigrants – contrary to what the anti-legalization camp see as their next logical step. These individuals have already decided that life in the U.S. in an undocumented status is better than life as a legal resident in their home country. The option most of this population will pursue is to simply wait. At some point, our nation and the U.S. Congress will come to realize that wide scale deportations are not going to happen, and that a path to legalization is the only solution. In the meantime, as stated, for most it’s a waiting game, although the following options at legalization or adjusting status for the undocumented or visa overstay continue to be viable:

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.

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 employment based 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.

PUBLISHED January 26, 2011 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM”
Copyright © 2011, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois

On October 28, 2009, President Obama signed into law important immigration provisions to address the unjust consequences of slow Citizenship and Immigration Services processing, particularly relating to widows and widowers of U.S. citizens. The law also includes ameliorative provisions relating to other types of family relationships and petitions; the death of a petitioning US family member or principal beneficiary will no longer necessarily deal a fatal blow to a pending case. With regard to this latter category of petitioners, however, significant questions have now been answered.

Widows and Widowers of U.S. Citizens Benefit from New Liberal Provisions

Consistent with recent Department of Homeland Security policy, the new legislation effectively eliminates what was known as the “Widow Penalty.” Under previous law, foreign nationals who were the widows or widowers of U.S. citizens only qualified for an initial grant of U.S. residence if they were married for at least two years prior to their spouse’s death. Now, a foreign national spouse is eligible to seek U.S. permanent residence (by completing Form I-360), no matter how long they were married at the time of the U.S. citizen’s death, and regardless of whether their spouse ever initiated the U.S. immigration process or obtained approval of an I-130 petition. The law applies retroactively as well as to surviving spouses who were overseas at the time of their U.S. citizen spouse’s death. Thus spouses of deceased U.S. citizens who were ineligible due to the short term of the marriage can now benefit from U.S. immigration benefits, including foreign spouses who have never set foot into the U.S. — no matter how long ago they were widowed. Also, upon the death of a U.S. citizen, their surviving widows/widowers who were previously the subject of an I-130 petition now have their cases automatically converted/considered as I-360 widow/widower petition – and again, regardless of how long the couple was married at time of their U.S. citizen spouse’s death.

NOTE: 2 year Deadline!!!

Foreign nationals whose U.S. citizen spouses died before the enactment of the new law must apply for U.S. immigration benefits within two years of the enactment date before October 28, 2011. Otherwise, foreign nationals whose U.S. citizen spouse dies following the enactment of this law, must file for U.S. residence within two years of their spouse’s death.

Other Family Based Petitions Where Petitioner Dies Before Petition Approval

Basic immigration law says that if a family based U.S. citizen or resident petitioner dies, so does the petition. In the past, only if the petition was approved prior to the petitioner’s death, could the foreign family member seek to have the petition reinstated by way of a humanitarian reinstatement request. Now, under the new law, if any family based preference I-130 petition on file was unprocessed by the time of the petitioner’s death, CIS now has authority to continue the processing and approve the petition, as long as such continued processing is not determined to be “against the public interest.” This new provision only applies to beneficiaries of family based petitions who resided in the U.S. at the time of their petitioning relative’s death.

Further, as to I-130 petitions that were approved prior to the petitioner’s death, but before the availability of visa numbers in any of the family based preferences, the humanitarian reinstatement process must still be initiated and the request must be approved to preserve the viability of the petition to facilitate an immigration benefit. HOWEVER, based on recently released guidance, it looks like the bar to getting a case reinstated on humanitarian grounds just got lower (again, only for beneficiaries in the U.S. at time of the petitioner’s death) –with the applicable language reading: “While there are no other rules or precedents on how to apply this discretionary authority, reinstatement may be appropriate when revocation is not consistent with the “furtherance of justice, especially in light of the goal of family unity that is underlying premise of our nation’s immigration system.”

For surviving beneficiaries residing abroad, the usual humanitarian reinstatement process and tougher adjudicative standard will be at play, where the following factors will be taken into account and assessed:

• Impact of revocation on the family unit in the U.S., especially on the U.S. citizen or LPR relatives or other relatives living in the U.S. lawfully.
• Beneficiaries advanced age or poor health,
• Beneficiary’s having resided in the U.S. lawfully for a lengthy period,
• Beneficiary’s ties to his or her home country and
• Significant delay in processing the case after approval of the petition AND after a visa number has become available.

Other foreign national family members of a deceased who reside in the U.S. who were previously ineligible for U.S. immigration benefits, but have new eligibility based on the above law include:

• Derivative (spouse and children under 21 years) family members of a Deceased Principal Beneficiary of an Employment Based Immigration Petition (I-140)
• Certain T and U visa family members
• Certain Asylees/Refugees relative petition beneficiaries.

Like the federal statute at issue, the recently released guidance is quite complicated, and likely each person’s situation will require a careful individual assessment and analysis to determine exactly what benefits are available and which processes and standards govern.

PUBLISHED January 13, 2011 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM”
Copyright © 2011, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois