A transcript of the oral arguments debating the Arizona immigration law is now available.

Federal courts have blocked four key parts of Arizona’s “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,” known as SB 1070.  At issue is whether states have any authority to step in to enforce immigration matters or whether that is the exclusive role of the federal government.

Arizona has argued that illegal immigration is creating economic hardships and safety concerns for its residents, and that the federal government has failed to control the problem.  The Obama administration has argued that immigration matters are federal matters best left to the appropriate agencies as opposed to individual states creating laws.

The four Arizona provisions being challenged are:

(1)  A requirement that local police officers check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws, if “reasonable suspicion” exists that the person is in the United States illegally.

(2) A provision authorizing police to arrest immigrants without warrant where “probable cause” exists that they committed any public offense making them removable from the country.

(3) A section making it a state crime for “unauthorized immigrants” to fail to carry registration papers and other government identification.

(4) A ban on those not authorized for employment in the United States to apply, solicit or perform work.  That would include immigrants standing in a parking lot who “gesture or nod” their willingness to be employed.

After the oral arguments on April 25, 2012, a ruling in the case is expected in late June.

Sources: CNN, MSNBC, LA Times

The USCIS’ notice of intent to change this process was issued in the Federal Register on January 9, 2012.  A full copy of the USCIS’ proposed change can be found in the Federal Register Notice (FR Doc. 2012-140 filed on 1/6/12, Publication Date: 1/9/12).

What is the Proposed Change?

The proposed change would create a more streamlined and efficient process for waiver applicants whose sole inadmissibility ground is unlawful presence, while simultaneously minimizing family separation.  If the waiver determination, with respect to unlawful presence, were made in advance of the immigrant visa interview and the applicant otherwise were eligible for the immigrant visa, the consular officer could simply issue the immigrant visa at the time of the visa interview. The new process thus will reduce the movement of the case back and forth between the Department of State and USCIS, which significantly prolongs the overall process and increases the time that U.S. citizens are separated from their immediate family members.  Additionally, the new process would reduce U.S. Government costs associated with the movement of cases, and provide a more efficient visa process overall.

What is the Purpose for the Proposed Change in the Current Regulation?

The proposed process is intended to reduce the time that U.S. citizens are separated from immediate relatives who are required to remain outside the United States for immigrant visa application processing and during the adjudication of waivers of inadmissibility.

Who Would Benefit from the Proposed Change?

USCIS intends to limit consideration for the provisional waiver to aliens who qualify for classification as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, who have a U.S. citizen spouse or parent who would suffer extreme hardship if the waiver were denied, and for whom the sole basis for inadmissibility is the three- or ten-year unlawful presence bar under section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) or (II) of the INA.  Aliens who require waivers for one or more additional grounds of inadmissibility, such as fraud or willful misrepresentation (section 212(i) waiver) or certain criminal offenses (section 212(h) waiver), in conjunction with their immigrant visa applications must continue to file a Form I-601 while outside of the United States in accordance with the existing process.

Would the Alien Need to Depart the United States Even if the Waiver Is Granted?

Yes.  This process would not alter the requirement that an alien depart from the United States to apply for an immigrant visa.  An alien who receives a provisional waiver under section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) of the INA for the three- or ten-year bar under section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) or (II) of the INA would not gain the benefit of such waiver unless he or she departs from the United States.  The departure from the United States would have to take place to activate the provisional waiver under section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) of the Act.

Which Aliens Would Not Benefit from the Proposed Change?

Aliens who would not be eligible for this provisional waiver adjudication process and aliens who are denied provisional approval of their waiver requests would continue to follow current agency processes for filing and adjudication of waiver requests.  Aliens who fall under any other family- or employment-based or other visa category or whose section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) waiver eligibility would be based on extreme hardship to a lawful permanent resident alien relative would not be considered for provisional waivers.  Aliens who are subject to other grounds of inadmissibility or removal also would not be considered for provisional waivers.  Further, aliens with waiver applications under section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) of the Act currently pending in either administrative or judicial proceedings would not qualify for this new process.

When Will the Proposed Change be Effective?

USCIS plans to effectuate this proposal through the regulatory process.  USCIS will issue a proposed rulemaking that will explain the proposal in further detail and that will invite comment from all interested parties.

As of the date of this post, THERE IS NO CHANGE in the current law.

For full text of the USCIS’ notice of intent to change the process, click here to read the Federal Register notice.

Source: FR Doc. 2012-140

According to an ICE press release from December 29, 2011, this measure is to “ensure that individuals being held by state or local law enforcement on immigration detainers are properly notified about their potential removal from the country and are made aware of their rights.”

The toll-free hotline number is (855) 448-6903.  Those immigration detainees who believe they are U.S. citizen (either by derivation from parents or acquired citizenship at birth) or victims of crime(s), can call the toll-free number to speak with an ICE personnel.  The hotline will be staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week by ICE personnel at the Law Enforcement Support Center.  Translation services will be available in several languages from 7 A.M. until midnight (Eastern) seven days a week.  ICE personnel will collect information from the individual and refer it to the relevant ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) Field Office for immediate action.

ICE has also issued a new detainer form to ensure that detainees are not held longer than 48 hours while awaiting their immigration fate.  An immigration detainer is a notice that Department of Homeland Security issues to federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to inform them that ICE intends to assume custody of an individual in that agency’s custody and to request that the agency notify ICE as soon as possible prior to the time when agency would otherwise release the individual.

This new ICE initiative comes as a result of recent unlawful deportations of United States citizens.  Some of these individuals, including a 15-year-old girl from Texas, were arrested and detained under the Secured Communities Program, which sought to locate, detain, and deport undocumented immigrants.

Source: ICE, NY Times, MSNBC, Huffington Post Online

To our former and current clients, thank you for your partnership in our success.  We truly love working with every one of our clients and they are our greatest reward.  Our success is possibly because of our clients.

To our colleagues and business partners who help our business grow every year, thank you for your support throughout the year with our inquiries and questions.  Having people we can rely on is very important and we are fortunate to be able to rely on an incredible group of colleagues and business service providers.

Finally, we wish to thank the readers of our blog, regardless of whether you know us or not.  The fact that you take the time to read our blog means a lot to us, and we hope that the information you find here throughout the year is useful, thoughtful, and meaningful.

We wish you a very happy holiday season and best wishes for a healthy and prosperous new year!

Sincerely,

Ruchi Thaker and Irwin Berowitz

It is always advisable to check the priority date(s) before filing an application for permanent residency to ensure that your case will be adjudicated in a timely manner.

It is always advisable to check the priority date(s) before filing an application for permanent residency to ensure that your case will be adjudicated in a timely manner.

Ruchi Thaker

visit superlawyers.com

We are proud to announce that Ms. Ruchi Thaker, a partner at Thaker Berowitz LLP, has  been named as a “Rising Star” attorney in the Super Lawyers magazine.

Super Lawyers magazine names attorneys in each state who received the highest point totals, as chosen by their peers and through the independent research.  Rising Stars names the state’s top up-and-coming attorneys.

This is a distinct honor, because no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are named to the “Rising Star” list.

We congratulate Ms. Thaker for her dedication to the legal profession and more importantly, her dedication to her clients!

Click here to read about how attorneys are selected as “Rising Stars” by the magazine.

At Thaker Berowitz LLP, our attorneys provide top-notch legal services in the field of immigration law.  This recent recognition of Ms. Thaker as a “Rising Star” is testament to our continued dedication to our clients and to our profession.

The judge upheld a section that requires state and local law enforcement officials to try to verify a person’s immigration status during routine traffic stops or arrests, if “a reasonable suspicion” exists that the person is in the country illegally.  She also ruled that a section of the law that criminalized the “willful failure” of a person in the country illegally to carry federal immigration papers did not pre-empt federal law.

Other sections of the Alabama’s tough immigration law upheld by the federal judge include:

1.  Nullification of any contracts entered into by an illegal immigrant;

2.  Prohibition of any transaction between an illegal immigrant and any division of the state;

3.  Requirement that elementary and secondary schools determine the immigration status of incoming students.

The federal judge’s ruling is expected to be appealed through several different lawsuits, including one from the Obama Administration.

Vowing to crack down on illegal immigration, Republicans passed the immigration bill in the State Legislature in the 2010 elections.  Governor Robert Bentley signed it into law in June 2011.

Sources: MSNBC.com and nytimes.com

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) specifically warns immigrants that notaries public, “immigration consultants,” or other such businesses cannot provide immigration legal advice or prepare legal documents on behalf of clients – although many claim the authority to do so.

Click here to read the article concerning the complaint filed against four New Jersey businesses.

Source: njtoday.net