On July 29, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security published a long awaited rule that will help a family member of a U.S. citizen and legal resident that has an order of deportation and never left.
In the past where a family member, a spouse, or child of a U.S. citizen, had an order of deportation and never left, the only way to become a legal resident was to make a motion to reopen the case (very difficult) or have an interview at the U.S. consulate. At the interview they would be told that they couldn’t be granted legal status unless they obtained two waivers. One waiver is for accruing more than 180 days of unlawful presence in the United States. The punishment for this activity is a bar to entry for either 3 or 10 years. The other is for the deportation order.
There has been a provisional waiver program (I-601A) in existence since 2013, which allows the beneficiary of the application to remain in the U.S. while a decision is made on the waiver application. Without this waiver, the applicant would have to wait in their home country for many months, perhaps years until a decision is made. Now, with this new waiver, the applicant has to return to his home country, but generally remains there for only 3 weeks.
A major drawback to the original 601A waiver was that it only could be used for the spouse and children of a U.S. citizen. Eligibility for the provisional waiver program will be enlarged to include all family-based and other intending immigrants who would be found inadmissible due to unlawful presence. And the qualifying relatives who will suffer the necessary extreme hardship will include both U.S. citizens and lawful permanent resident aliens (LPRs). In addition, the final regulation makes other important changes. The rule will go into effect on August 29, 2016, on which date the agency will also publish a new Form I-601A.
THE ORDER OF DEPORTATION PROBLEM
A major problem in the immigrant community is that there are many people that have been ordered to depart or granted Voluntary Departure but never left.
When the person departs the United States while a final order is outstanding, he or she executes that order. And the execution of the order makes the person inadmissible for a period of five or ten years (20 years in some situations).
There is “waiver” for the deportation called Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the United States After Deportation or Removal (Form I-212 ). In the past you would have to apply for this waiver after you left the U.S. creating an additional delay and longer separation of families.
The new regulation allows persons who have been ordered removed to apply for a “waiver” of this ground of inadmissibility before it becomes active because of their departure. This is done by filing the Form I-212 with the USCIS in the jurisdiction where the person was ordered removed. Before going to the consular interview. Once approved, the individual's order of removal, deportation, or exclusion would no longer bar him or her from obtaining an immigrant visa abroad. Once the approval is received, the person would then be eligible to apply for the provisional waiver (I-601A) – as discussed above.
Understand persons who were ordered deported and left and then reentered without inspection on or after April 1, 1997 triggers a separate ground of inadmissibility called the “permanent bar. This ground may not be cured through the provisional waiver process; instead the person must reside abroad for ten years and then obtain a waiver by filing a Form I-212.
Also understand that this waiver has no affect on other bars to admissibility, such as criminal case, which requires a different waiver.
These two waivers are a godsend to many families living in fear of deportation. Now they can really come out of the shadows.
For more information go to apsanlaw.com.
Great News -- You can get legal status if you entered Illegally and
Married a U.S. Citizen or a Green Card Holder.
Even if you were ordered deported!!!
You can be granted a waiver for your unlawful status
BEFORE you leave for the consular interview and return in about 3 weeks.
Our Office had over 200 cases approved during 2015
In the U.S. there are spouses and children of U.S. citizens (immediate relatives) and legal residents who are in the United States are not eligible to apply for lawful permanent resident (LPR) status while in the United States due to their illegal entry. Under prior law, these immediate relatives must travel abroad to obtain an immigrant visa from the Department of State (DOS) to return to the United States to request admission as an LPR (Lawful Permanent Resident), and, must request from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) a waiver of inadmissibility as a result of their unlawful presence in the United States.
Without such a waiver the applicant would not be able to return to the U.S. for a period of not less than 3 years. In other words, under the prior regulations, these immediate relatives and spouse and child of a Lawful Permanent resident cannot apply for the waiver in the United Sates and would not receive their Green Card until after their immigrant visa interviews abroad. As a result of their unlawful presence in the U.S., these relatives had to remain outside of the United States, separated from their spouses, parents, or children, while USCIS adjudicates their waiver applications. In some cases, waiver application processing took well over one year, prolonging the separation of these immediate relatives from their U.S. citizen spouses, parents, and children.
The new provisional unlawful presence waiver (I-601A) process facilitates the issuance of immigrant visa for immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and spouse and children of Lawful Permanent Residents, who are otherwise admissible to the United States except for the 3-year and 10-year unlawful presence bars, which are triggered upon departure from the United States.
The waiver process allows eligible immediate relatives to apply for a provisional unlawful presence waiver while they are still in the United States and before they leave to attend their immigrant visa interview abroad.
Once abroad the process take only 3 weeks. You may remain in your country for up to 4 weeks to visit family and take care of business.
Entering the U.S. is simple and about 30 days later you receive the Green Card in the mail.
Aliens in removal (deportation) proceedings
Aliens in removal proceedings are allowed to participate in this new provisional unlawful presence waiver process if their removal proceedings are administratively closed and have not been re-calendared at the time of filing the Form I-601A. Aliens whose removal proceedings are terminated or dismissed are covered in the general population of aliens who are eligible to apply for a provisional unlawful presence waiver.
Aliens who have already been ordered deported or removed.
If you have been ordered Deported or Removed, you will also qualify. However you will need to apply for 2 different waivers, one for being ordered deported (i-212) and the other for having remained in the U.S. illegally.(I-601A) Interesting to note that Apsan Law Offices, LLC, had over 200 cases approved last year.
Release Date: July 29, 2016
Rule to Extend Process to All Individuals Who Are Statutorily Eligible for the Waiver
WASHINGTON—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced a final rule expanding the existing provisional waiver process to allow certain individuals who are family members of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (LPRs), and who are statutorily eligible for immigrant visas, to more easily navigate the immigration process. The provisional waiver process promotes family unity by reducing the time that eligible individuals are separated from their family members while they complete immigration processing abroad, while also improving administrative efficiency.
This final rule builds on a process established in 2013 to support family unity. Under that process, certain immediate relatives of U.S. citizens can apply for provisional waivers of the unlawful presence ground of inadmissibility, based on the extreme hardship their U.S. citizen spouses or parents would suffer if the waiver were not granted. The rule announced today, which goes into effect on Aug. 29, 2016, expands eligibility for the provisional waiver process to all individuals who are statutorily eligible for the waiver of the unlawful presence ground of inadmissibility. USCIS expects to update its Policy Manual to provide guidance on how USCIS makes “extreme hardship” determinations in the coming weeks.
Until now, only immediate relatives of U.S. citizens were eligible to seek such provisional waivers before departing the United States for the processing of their immigrant visas. Those eligible for the provisional waiver process under the 2013 rule are only a subset of those eligible for the waiver under the statute. This regulation expands eligibility for the process to all individuals who are statutorily eligible for the waiver.
To qualify for a provisional waiver, applicants must establish that their U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouses or parents would experience “extreme hardship” if the applicants are not allowed to return to the United States.
The final rule also makes changes to Form I-601A, Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver. These changes will go into effect along with the final rule. The updated form will be posted on USCIS’ website at uscis.gov/i-601a on August 29, 2016.
Applicants should not submit a request for a provisional waiver under the expanded guidelines until the final rule takes effect on Aug. 29, 2016. If you do so before that date, USCIS may deny the application.
For more information on this program, please visit www.apsanlaw.com or www.drmoises.com (in portuguese)or follow us on YouTube, and Facebook.
“If voting achieved anything, they would make it illegal,” the rebel and anarchist Emma Goldman, who knew something about freedom and liberty (having been deprived of both a few times), once sardonically remarked.
Well, Emma, on June 23rd, 2016, Brexit, the shorthand for the British referendum to leave the European Union, by a stunning vote of 52% to 48%, achieved something important, historic: the first breach in the EU prison walls. Cheers, Britain! Hip! Hip! Hooray!
Like the Soviet bloc of countries who high-tailed it to freedom when the Berlin Wall collapsed overnight in 1989, many of the other 27 EU member countries may (indeed, should) soon take their cue and flee this political and economic prison.
The “United States of Europe” aka the European Union, was an immaculate misconception, a unicorn, a blue sky daydream become a nightmare. The original European kumbaya idea was open borders, free flowing trade, finance, goods & services, eventually a common currency and no more European wars. Welcome to Paradise.
This politico-economic union consisted of 6 original founding signees in 1960 (trivia quiz: name them*). Since the demise of the Soviet Union it had become a bubbling gumbo of 28 countries (trivia quiz 2: name them**) with different cultures, histories, languages and currencies (at least until the Euro was instituted in 1999). What could possibly go wrong among that happy family of nations?
Brussels, the capital of bland, became the bureaucratic ground zero of this continental concoction, along with the accompanying sense that national sovereignty and identity was silently slipping away from the member countries as Brussels technocrats and commissioners, for the benefit of private corporate and financial interests, engineered a continent-wide deindustrialization and jobs drought. Whatever era of good feeling there still was lasted until the Euro gobbled up the national currencies in 1999 and the insatiable economic monster neoliberal Globalization began to debt bomb the entire world.
The EU, in effect, has morphed over the years into the European branch of the international criminal enterprise of banksters, corporate cannibals, aiding and abetting bureaucrats and crooked politicians that represent the true nature and essence of Globalization. Gluttonous greed!
In addition to moving European manufacturing to the poverty lands of the Far East, throwing homegrown workers to the wolves and essentially breaking the historic Social Contract, the EU Brigands - the sociopathic European banksters of Frankfurt, Paris and primarily the City of London (not to mention Wall Street!) - peddled their poisoned financial products freely across Europe while a reunified powerhouse Germany not surprisingly threw its considerable financial and industrial weight around refighting World War 2 by checkbook across Europe and this time getting a different result.
“Shut up and drink your dose of austerity! You owe us money!” EU elites nobody elected, the IMF, ECB, Deutsche Bank and the gnomes of Brussels (with Goldman Sachs, Chase, B of A and their pals lurking in the wings), declared from on high after their debt bombs exploded across Europe in the 2008 economic crash they helped cause.
Consequently, the gen pop of the member nations have become nothing more than collateral damage in the war of the 1% against taxes, labor, living wages, pensions, health and human services, infrastructure maintenance, education, a functioning and fair manufacturing and industrial base and the commonwealth in general.
An unintended consequence of this piracy was a wave of migration across those open borders from the poorer member countries of the southern and eastern tiers to the bright lights and big cities of the richer members, Britain, France, Germany and Holland. The disgruntled Brits referred to it as the invasion of the Polish plumbers!
(More recently, the EU has experienced a tidal wave of migrants and desperate refugees from the deadly destructive wars unleashed on the Islamic world by Rogue Nation USA and its NATO sidekicks. NATO being another essentially European organization, dancing to America’s militaristic tunes and dedicated to weapons-buying and war-mongering, whose sell-by date has long expired and should be nixed, or rather, Nexited.)
Turns out that Welcome to Paradise was merely a tantalizing sales pitch and cover story for what has become the massive looting of the European continent’s national identities, assets and treasures. And it’s not against the law because the plunderers themselves wrote the laws.
Of all the EU member countries, Britain had enough financial common sense to retain the pound sterling and was never in the chokehold the banksters had on the Euro countries when the 2008 financial crash occurred. However, the Brits were not spared the thin gruel of austerity.
One of the prime movers and architects of this grotesque and heartless neoliberal economic philosophy was UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Another UK PM, who sold out to Globalization, was the repulsive and rapacious huckster Tony Blair. The ruling Tory Party and Prime Minister David Cameron, the Oxford twit, instituted their own crushing austerity program on national industries and community services in 2009. Indeed, the very idea of a Brexit referendum was a cynical political ploy of Cameron, who imagined it would be a slam dunk victory for remaining in the EU. He resigned in tears the day after his humiliating defeat.
So what now?
For the moment there is the inevitable sore loser lamenting by the have mores in the UK that their golden goose has been cooked by the British have nots and the nostalgic little Englanders, whose Brexit votes carried the day.
There is also a bit of buyers’ remorse from some Brexit voters susceptible to the “It’s The End Of The World” fear campaign immediately mounted by the Brussels Brigade.
It should also not be forgotten that just last year, the cadaver formerly known as Greece, voted 3-1 against the evil austerity program imposed on it by Brussels and the European finance ministers and banksters for its failure to repay the impossible debts these same banksters had hamstrung the Greek people with. In cruel revenge for this popular NO vote (“OXI”), the EU Capos, led by the smug and censorious German PM, Angela Merkel, simply ignored the referendum vote, knee-capped Alexei Tsipras, the Greek Prime Minster, and slammed the hapless country with an even more crippling austerity masquerading as a financial bailout, which was, in fact, merely the banksters paying themselves back from one account to another for their dirty business.
There is no doubt the Eurocrats will fight to maintain their diabolical dictatorial grip on the power and purse of Europe, the world’s largest single market. Their business plan of plunder, looting, thievery and fraud is deeply embedded like deathwatch beetles in the EU structure. They and their co-conspirators around the world still own the propaganda megaphone and the rigged wheel of fortune. But despite what the greedheads of Globalization believe, “too much is never enough” is not a law of nature.
Speaking during the first Battle of Britain, Winston Churchill declared: “Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.” He was not referring to a handful of debt-collecting greedy banksters and bureaucrats.
The Brexit Batallions have won the current Battle of Britain. It remains to be seen who will emerge as their Churchill.
Trivia Quiz Answers:
*Belgium, France, West Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands
** Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom (!)
In the Pre-Renascence era, the practice of medicine became an accepted and recognized profession. Many doctors realized that midwives and healers were taking a big chunk of their bread and butter. Midwives were draining doctors financially as the two classes were small and competed. The doctors, though competitors amongst themselves, decided that they should become united. They decided fight and act for their survival as doctors. So they went to the Catholic Church and accused the midwives and healers of being witches that had pacts with the Devil. Their movement worked. Doctor succeeded in putting the midwives out of business. The profession called medicine flourished.
On the other hand, the practice of law follows an adversarial system that lawsuits truly like paper wars. Of course, a civilized “white shoe” war. Be that as it may, lawyers are not only hostile to each other when they are handling cases against each other, but also when they are on the same side. Suppose two lawyers practice immigration law. They are competitors. Nothing wrong about that. Fair competition is healthy. However, the share of information amongst lawyers is much harder. For example, exchange of information amongst doctors who have been united essentially since the Middle-Ages. Science is passed from one doctor to another with pleasure. Back to the example of the two immigration lawyers. These two immigration lawyers most likely will bad mouth each other, steal clients from each other and use any ethical (sometimes unethical) and legal means in order to undermine the other colleague.
I used the particular example of immigration lawyers intentionally. Most are familiar with the infamous notaries that practice immigration law and divorces without a degree or a license of any kind. Sometimes they are called “notarios” a Spanish word that only adds to confuse potential immigration clients especially from Latin America because a “notario” in Latin America is the equivalent of a lawyer, but a notary in the United States is a mere certifier (or verifier) of signatures. Therefore, the unauthorized practice of law (“UPL”) and the “notario” business is thriving. Meanwhile, the legal profession is being hurt. To the lawyer the “notario” is the witch that should be hunted. Needless to say, I am not suggesting that lawyers should unite and burn all “notarios” at the stake as in the Middle-Ages.
However, lawyers tend to be ultra-formalistic. If they do meet to discuss problems related to unauthorized practice law or “notarios” they speak in lengths, relate to the statistics of the harm being done by notario fraud, speak of Ethics and morals. However, in the end, little is accomplished. Most lawyers are too busy to care. Others do not care. In addition, law form small political groups that hate each other and care more about the pedigree of the speaker than about what is being spoken. For example, a lawyer is a partner in a big law firm will speak about a theme and be praised for it. Most lawyers will agree with him whatever the subject because he has achieved some type of professional recognition and due to his knowledge. In the end, few actions will be taken.
Recently, in New Jersey, the crime of unauthorized practice of law was approved to become a crime of a higher degree. This accomplished absolutely nothing. This will not deter anyone. A practice can only be deterred if it is enforced. To be enforced, a law needs incentives. The incentives are mostly pecuniary. The law hits the offender where it hurts: the pockets. For example, laws which the punishment is tied up with steep fines and revocation of licenses tend to be enforced. These laws generate income to the municipality or the state and the goal of the law is generally accomplished. Otherwise, the law is on the books and is rarely enforced. For example, the use of air fresheners dangling from the rearview mirror is a civil infraction due to obstruction, but almost nobody knows about it because the fine is merely $50. Parking tickets generate more money than that. I have seldom met anyone who never received a parking ticket. The law works because the court makes money. There are quotas for tickets given. Some may criticize it, but the law is enforced.
The unauthorized practice of law under N.J.S.A. 2C:21-22 does not have any type of punishment via fines. It is just a crime of the third degree. It does not even address jail, though it address restitution if the client was “harmed.” It is the textbook example of a law gone bad, written bad, and not enforceable. Of course, in extreme cases it has been generally associated with egregious cases of fraud. However, the routine UPL will not be punished and will continue to hurt lawyers financially. Lawyers who devoted years of their lives in law school, passing the bar exam and the developing their craft. I know for a fact that some “notarios” charge more than lawyers and have more clients than some lawyers would wish to have. Thus, the legal profession needs to heal itself from this wound, which is truly more like a chronic illness which has the cure but the patient refuses to take the medicine.
Most attorneys I know are able to solve complex problems, but on a personal level are powerless to solve their own problems. They lose objectivity. I think that uniting lawyers against what harms their profession is pretty much like that lawyer who solves everyone’s problems, but his/her own. There is much talk and no action. There is a fervent hope that the class (as a whole) will unite and act to protect itself. There is a wish that the law profession regains their once reputable and admired position. Until the sixties, attorneys were seen as highly reputable and above suspicion. It was a profession that one could be proud of. Nowadays, the bar (no pun intended) has become much lower. This is, in part, because lawyer are letting the work which only trusted to be done by them slip away and be done by others without a single credential. The problem is not that there too many lawyers.
Moreover, the legal profession is one of the few that self regulates against itself, not pro. It also over-self regulates. For example, it is always finding a way to punish attorney advertisement or the way attorneys displays their recognition awards. However, the self-regulating authorities have done nothing to criminalize the advertisement of “notarios” who blatantly practice law without having a license and therefore are outside their jurisdiction to regulate. Talk about a loophole. That is more like a rabbit hole. I can firmly debate that if there is a profession that has sabotaged itself the once majestic occupation of being a lawyer. The legal profession should understand that, in our modern age, it devours itself like a self-cannibal. The profession must unite and protect itself not in appearance, but in existence. There lays two crucial distinctions that may mean the beginning or the end of some activity that, more often than not, brings justice to someone.
109 Monroe Street Newark, New Jersey 07105Phone: 973.732.7300