Putro v. Lynch, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decided this case on July 07, 2016. This case clarified application of a joint filing exemption for an alien seeking to obtain unconditional lawful permanent resident status as a result of her marriage to a U.S. citizen, when applying as a widow after the death of her/his US citizen husband (USCIS Petition I-751).

Vera Putro, a citizen of Latvia, married a U.S. citizen in 2004 and based on that marriage gained conditional permanent residency. Her residency did not become unconditional, however, because her husband passed away before they could petition jointly to remove the conditions. Putro petitioned on her own to have the conditions removed. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services construed the petition as a request for a discretionary waiver of the joint-petition requirement, denied the waiver, and ordered Putro removed.

Decision: The Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit decided that in fact, Putro did not need a waiver because her husband’s death during the conditional period exempted her from the joint-filing requirement. In mistakenly evaluating her petition as a request for a waiver, the agency erroneously placed on Putro the burden of proving that the marriage was bona fide.

The Court of Appeals granted petition and remanded the case to Immigration Judge for determination under the proper standard. 

Finally, after 8 years the petitioner might have her petition for unconditional permanent resident status approved (it's not approved yet, merely was remanded for another review and decision following the correct standard of proof by the same IJ immigration judge). When the I751 is approved, she will become eligible to apply for USA citizenship as well (because it's been over five years since the grant of her conditional residence in 2006).

********************************
To read in Russian - please scroll down. По-русски смотрите внизу страницы.
*******************************

Facts: Ms. Putro first entered the U.S. on a 4-month, foreign exchange student visa in 1999 and overstayed. In November 2004 she married Michael Zalesky, a U.S. citizen. Putro was granted conditional legal permanent residence (“LPR”) status as the spouse of a U.S. citizen in July 2006, see 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(1); 8 C.F.R. § 216.1. Four months later, in November, Zalesky died. Zalesky’s untimely death complicated Putro’s immigration status. To gain unconditional LPR status, Putro and Zalesky had to jointly petition the agency for removal of the conditions within the 90-day period before the second anniversary of her obtaining conditional permanent residency (i.e., between mid-April and mid-July of 2008). See 8 U.S.C. § 1186(c)(1)(A), (d)(2); 8 C.F.R. § 216.4(a)(1). Of course filing a joint petition was no longer possible, so in June 2008 Putro filed a Form I-751 Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence, checking the box specifying that she sought a waiver of the joint-filing requirement because her spouse had died.

USCIS had denied her I-751 petition filed as a waiver for failure to prove a good faith marriage.

She reapplied in Immigration court removal proceedings, and was denied again. The IJ immigration judge denied Putro’s application for the waiver of the joint-filing requirement and concluded that she was removable. The IJ found that Putro had failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that she and Zalesky had a bona fide marriage. Her testimony and that of her witnesses, he said, was “unpersuasive.” The government, in contrast, had presented “reliable” evidence that family members and Armstrong had told investigators that the marriage was a fraud.

Putro appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, but it upheld the IJ’s ruling and dismissed her appeal.

On petition for review, Putro argued that the IJ had misapplied the standard of proof, and at oral argument we ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing on how this case is affected by the decision in Matter of Rose, and particularly the portion of the decision in which the Board states:
[T]he death of a petitioning spouse during the 2-year conditional period excuses the general requirement that a petition to remove the conditional basis of an alien spouse’s status must be “joint.” Thus, a separate waiver under section 216(c)(4) of the Act is not required if the surviving spouse timely files an I-751 petition requesting removal of the conditional basis of his or her status and appears for a personal interview. 25 I. & N. Dec. 181, 182 (BIA 2010).
We agree with Putro that the IJ mishandled her petition to remove conditions on her status by construing it as a request for a waiver of the joint-filing requirement rather than recognizing that she qualified for an exemption of that requirement. Because Zalesky died within the two-year conditional period and Putro timely petitioned to remove her conditional status, she should have been excused from the joint-filing requirement. Matter of Rose, 25 I. & N. Dec. at 182.

This conclusion was applied in the only federal appellate decision (an unpublished one) to address the issue. See Zerrouk v. U.S. Att’y. Gen., 553 F. App’x. 957, 959 (11th Cir. 2014) (recognizing exemption of “joint” filing requirement for alien whose spouse dies within two-year conditional period, but concluding that substantial evidence supported determination that marriage was not bona fide).
Moreover, the discretionary waiver does not even apply to Putro, because that waiver requires that the marriage be “terminated (other than through the death of the spouse).” 8 U.S.C. § 1186(c)(4)(B). That requires divorce or annulment, see Memorandum from Donald Neufeld, Acting Assoc. Director, USCIS, to Directors, I-751 Filed Prior to Termination of Marriage (Apr. 3, 2009). Though Putro separated from her husband before his death, they never divorced, and the marriage was terminated by his death.

The error was significant because it had the effect of shifting the burden of proof that Putro’s marriage to Zalesky was bona fide. Because the IJ thought that Putro needed a waiver, he placed the burden of proof on her and ultimately found that she failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that she had a bona fide marriage. Had the burden of proof properly been applied, the government would have had to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the marriage was not bona fide. See Matter of Rose, 25 I. & N. Dec. at 185; 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(3)(D); cf. Lara v. Lynch, 789 F.3d 800, 804 (7th Cir. 2015) (noncitizen applying for discretionary waiver of joint filing petition bears burden of proving that marriage at time of inception was bona fide). Moreover, unlike a grant of the waiver—which is discretionary—the agency “shall” remove the conditional basis of the petitioner’s status as long as he or she meets the petitioning requirements and the government cannot disprove that the marriage is bona fide. See 8 U.S.C. § 1186(a)(3)(B).

This case must be remanded to the agency so that the IJ can evaluate her petition under the proper standard of proof. See Matter of Rose, 25 I. & N. Dec., at 184–85. Accordingly, we GRANT the petition and REMAND the case for determination under the proper standard.

Read the text of the decision of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals here. 
Or you can download file here.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D07-07/C:14-2430:J:Williams:aut:T:fnOp:N:1788032:S:0

Вкратце по-русски:

Вера Путро, гражданка Латвии, приехала в США в 1999 году по летней программе по обмену студентов,  J1 summer work-travel program. Она осталась в США нелегально, и через много лет вышла замуж за американского гражданина. Ее первая условная грин карта была утверждена без особых проблем в 2006. Через 4 месяца после этого ее американский муж умер от передозировки наркотиков. В 2008 Вера подала петицию на постоянную грин карту сама, без участия мужа (так как он к тому времени уже не мог поставить свою подпись по причине своей смерти). По фактам дела не понятно, но скорее всего Вера не проконсультировалась со знающим адвокатом перед подачей петиции, и подавала петицию либо сама, либо при помощи кого-то, кто не является экспертом в этой области права.

В результате, Вера получила отказ от USCIS и ее дело передали на депортацию с иммиграционный суд. 

Судья также приняла решения отказать Вере в виде на жительстве (постоянной грин карте) и приказала ей выехать из США (депортация).

Вера подала аппеляцию в следующую инстанцию, и там тоже получила отказ и указание покинуть страну.

В конце концов через 8 лет после начала этой эпопеи (дело тянется с 2008 г), Аппеляционный Суд 7 Округа США принял решение в пользу Веры. Но это еще не конец пути. Суд передал ее дело на повторное рассмотрение в суд нижестоящей инстанции с указаниями пересмотреть дело еще раз, и принять решение на основании ПРАВИЛЬНОЙ ИНТЕРПРЕТАЦИИ ЗАКОНА. Как оказалось, все предыдущие суды просто напросто неверно трактовали закон и неправильно применяли закон к Вериной ситуации. Вот такая простая ошибка стоила человеку 8 лет ее жизни и многих тысях долларов, потраченных на адвокатов и судебные разбирательства.

В конце концов, если ее петицию утвердят (пока еще только передали на повторное рассмотрение), то Вера сможет сразу же подать заявление на американское гражданство (так как прошло более 5 лет), если она докажет, что соответствует всем требованиям закона о гражданстве.

​Текст судебного решения на английском тут: 

имми

06-23-2016 Breaking news: U.S. Supreme Court, split 4-4, blocks Obama immigration plan. The DAPA and expanded DACA programs will NOT become the law. Only original DACA deferred action program still stands.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling said only the following:

"“The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court.”

The court did not issue a ruling on the merits of the main legal question. Therefore, its action set no legal precedent to bind future presidents. The decision indicates that any major immigration policy change that would address the long-term situation of the estimated 11 million people in the country illegally would have to be enacted by Congress.

Please note that today’s Supreme Court decision doesn’t impact the original DACA deferred action from 2012. Current DACA program is not affected by the Supreme Court’s decision. However, it's possible that the next President could end the DACA program.

DACA beneficiaries must continue renewing their status and work permits 120 days in advance before the expiration date.

Those who qualify and were waiting to apply because they were not 15 years old yet or for any other reason (lack of money to pay the fee or missing a document), can apply for the first time as well when you are ready if you were under 31 years of age on June 15, 2012. 
Note: The Obama Administration and USCIS is expected to announce the expansion of the I-601A provisional hardship waiver program in the near future. It could be helpful to many immigrants.

По-русски:

Верховный Суд США принял решение оставить в силе запрет на иммиграционную реформу администрации Обамы. Только первая иммиграционная реформа от 15 июня 2012 остается в силе (действие этого решения суда на нее не распространяется). Помните, что следующий Президент вправе отменить полностью программу DACA, так как она была введена в силу через акт исполнительной власти, а не Конгрессом.

На практике это означает, что те, кто подпадает под действие закона от 15 июня 2012, могут продолжать подавать в иммиграционную службу США как первичное заявление на статус DACA deferred action, так и заявление на продление статуса и разрешение на работу, work permit, когда им исполнится 15 лет, и если им не было 31 года на 15 июня 2012.

Read here. 

It’s a common problem: some unauthorized immigrants in USA are eligible to become legal residents using already existing laws and regulations. In many cases, they just don’t know about their eligibility and how to apply due to a lack of resources and information. They also find it difficult to navigate the complex immigration process by themselves.

A UCLA study found that individuals in removal (deportation) proceedings who had a lawyer were 15 (!) times more likely to apply for relief from removal than those without lawyers, and 5.5 times more likely to be granted or approved some sort of legal status that permitted them to stay in the United States.

Unlike criminal defendants, however, unauthorized immigrants don’t have a constitutional right to a government-funded lawyer (no "free lawyers" or public defenders in immigration court proceedings).

According to the UCLA study, only 37 percent of all immigrants, and 14 percent of detained immigrants, are represented by lawyers. Children also go unrepresented in immigration court.

Many immigrants often erroneously consider themselves qualified to "do it yourself", or consult unauthorized "immigration consultants" or "Notarios", who are not lawyers, while others can't afford a lawyer.​

It's advisable not to file any immigration petitions and applications with USCIS without first consulting a qualified immigration attorney. If you have been referred for removal to immigration court, you must retain an attorney to represent you in the court. 

По-русски:

Одна из очень распространенных проблем среди иммигрантов и незаконных иммигрантов (так называемых "нелегалов") в США, это то, что многие даже не подозревают, что имеют право подать заявление на какие-то иммиграционные бенефиты, включая грин карту (вид на жительство). А если и знают об этом, то не понимают все тонкости системы, и не знают как и когда можно подать такое заявление, как подать правильно, как получить положительное решение а не отказ.

Некоторые считают себя достаточно компетентными подать свои заявления самостоятельно, или используют услуги так называемых "консультантов", которые оперируют нелегально и без лицензии, и не являются адвокатами. У некторых просто нет средств.

К сожалению, в иммиграционной системе и суде в США нет права на бесплатного иммиграционного адвоката (даже в суде, и даже детям). Либо вы нанимаете защиту и платите за их услуги, либо иногда можно получить помощь по сниженным расценкам или бесплатно в местных организациях (но там строгий отбор и они берут небольшой процент дел), либо вы сами представляете свои интересы в иммиграционной суде и органах госбезопасности США.

По статистике, только 37% всех иммигрантов в США имеют адвоката или законного представителя, и только 14% иммигрантов находящихся в заключении имеют своего адвоката. Это пугающая статистика, учитывая, что многие и по-английски толком говорить не могут, не то что грамотно составить заявление.

Возраст также не имеет значения. Маленьким детям суд не обязан предоствлять защитника. Как сказал один иммиграционный судья, " я могу все прекрасно объяснить и 3-х летнему ребенку, так что ему не нужен адвокат в моем суде..."

Рекомендуется не подавать никакие заявления в иммиграционные органы без предварительной консультации с адвокатом, не говоря уже о суде.

Read more here.

Per Federal Register notice published on May 4, 2016, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is planning to raise filing fees for most types of immigration filings and applications.
. 
Examples of commonly used forms that would see fee increases:

Petition Type Current Fee Proposed Fee

I-129 Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker $ 325 $ 460
I-130 Petition for Alien Relative $ 420 $ 535
I-131 Application for Travel Document $ 360 $ 575
I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker $ 580 $ 700
I-485 Application to Adjust Status $ 985 $1140 plus biometrics
I-539 Application to Extend or Change Nonimmigrant Status $ 290 $ 370
I-765 Application for Employment Authorization $ 380 $ 410
N-400 Application for Naturalization $ 595 $ 640 plus biometrics fee.

***Reduced Fee for Some Naturalization Applications. 
The proposed rule sets forth potential changes to the fee requirements for naturalization applications for families that meet designated income limitations. Under current regulations, a naturalization applicant can request a fee waiver for both the N-400 application ($595) and the corresponding biometrics ($85). The proposed rule would leave the fee waiver in place, and also create a NEW option allowing for a 50 percent fee reduction for non-military naturalization applicants who have incomes greater than the 150 percent of poverty line, but not more than 200 percent of the poverty guidelines. 
Comment Opportunity for Public Ends July 5, 2016.

​

The denial rates vary from 0% in San Marino, Liechtenstein, and Andorra to 96% in Republic of Palau, 63% Syria, 34% Ukraine, 13% Belarus, and 10% Russia.

Please note that this applies only to applications for B-1 and B-2 visitor or tourist visa.

If you have questions or need help applying for your visitor or tourist visa to the United States, please email an attorney to schedule a consultation.

По-русски: статистика отказов в выдаче гостевой или туристической визы в США в 2015 году.
​Это относится только к визе B1 | B2.
Украина - 34% заявлений отказано.
Россия - 10% заявлений отказано.
Беларусь - 13% заявлений отказано.
Грузия - более 50% отказано.
Франция - 16% отказано.
Казахстан - 12.7% отказано.
Молдова - 42% отказано.
Узбекистан - 50% отказано.
Таджикистан - 44.44% отказано. 

Interesting and detailed statistics for the last fiscal year 2015 can be found here: 
https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/Non-Immigrant-Statistics/RefusalRates/FY15.pdf

On Thursday, April 28, 2016, federal prosecutors in Los Angeles announced felony charges against a Russian citizen Ms. Chernykh, 26, her sister, Tatiana Farook, 31, and Ms. Farook’s husband, Syed Raheel Farook, 31, the brother of the San Bernardino gunman.

All pleaded not guilty and will be released on bond. A trial is set for June 21, 2016.

Law enforcement officials stressed they did not believe that any of the three had advance knowledge of the November 2015 San Bernardino attack, or took steps to conceal evidence afterward.

The indictment represents an unusually tough stance for the government in a marriage fraud case. Five criminal charges are leveled at Ms. Mariya Chernykh, including fraudulent use of immigration documents and lying to federal agents, with combined maximum prison terms of up to 30 years.

​Syed Raheel Farook, a U.S. Navy veteran who worked as a computer technician aboard an aircraft carrier, and his Russian born wife, are also charged in one of those counts, conspiracy to make false statements under oath on government documents, and face a maximum sentence of five years.

​Read more here.

​ On April 18, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of United States v. Texas, the challenge to President Obama’s DAPA and DACA expansion programs.

It is estimated that, if approved, the Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA program) would grant work authorization to over 4 million undocumented parents of the US citizen children, and the expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals  (DACA program) would grant work permits to millions of undocumented persons who entered the United States as children. Original DACA is still in place.

The State of Texas has argued that it has “standing” to bring the lawsuit because the DAPA and DACA programs would increase the number of applicants for drivers licenses in Texas. At least 4 of the Justices (Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer) seem inclined to rule that this is not a sufficient ground to grant the state standing to sue in court to halt the federal programs. 

During the oral arguments, it appeared that the U.S. Supreme Court eight Justices split 4-4 on this case.
If the vote comes to 4-4, the injunction will sta, and the DAPA and expanded DACA programs will not become the law. 

If a single Justice (Roberts, Kennedy, Alito and/or Thomas) joins the other four Justices who appear ready to dismiss the lawsuit and overrule the injunction, the government will be permitted to implement both programs DAPA and expanded DACA). A decision by the Supreme Court is expected in June 2016.

On April 14, 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced fraud charges and an asset freeze against a Vermont-based ski resort and related businesses allegedly misusing millions of dollars raised through investments solicited under the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program.

The SEC’s case was unsealed today in federal court in Miami, and the court has appointed a receiver over the companies to prevent any further spending of investor assets.

The SEC alleges that Ariel Quiros of Miami, William Stenger of Newport, Vt., and their companies made false statements and omitted key information while raising more than $350 million from investors to construct ski resort facilities and a biomedical research facility in Vermont. Investors were told they were investing in one of several projects connected to Jay Peak Inc., a ski resort operated by Quiros and Stenger, and their money would only be used to finance that specific project. 

Instead, in Ponzi-like fashion, money from investors in later projects was misappropriated to fund deficits in earlier projects. 

More than $200 million was allegedly used for other-than-stated purposes, including $50 million spent on Quiros’s personal expenses and in other ways never disclosed to investors.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Quiros improperly tapped investor funds for such things as the purchase of a luxury condominium, payment of his income taxes and other taxes unrelated to the investments, and acquisition of an unrelated ski resort.

“The alleged fraud ran the gamut from false statements to deceptive financial transactions to outright theft,” said Andrew Ceresney, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “As alleged in our complaint, the defendants diverted millions of EB-5 investor dollars to their own pockets, leaving little money for construction of the research facility investors were told would be built and thereby putting the investors’ funds and their immigration petitions in jeopardy.”

The SEC’s complaint charges Quiros, Stenger, Jay Peak, and a company owned by Quiros called Q Resorts Inc. as well as seven limited partnerships and their general partner companies with violating the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Four other companies are named as relief defendants in the SEC’s complaint for the purpose of recovering investor funds transferred into their accounts. The SEC seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions, financial penalties, and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus interest. The agency also seeks conduct-based injunctive relief against Quiros and Stenger along with an officer-and-director bar against Quiros.

Read more here.

UPDATE: On April 20, 2016, over the objections of Gov. Pete Ricketts, Nebraska Legislature overrode Governor's veto. Nebraska passed a bill that will allow young immigrants who entered the United States illegally, and later obtained federal DACA deferred action status, to apply for professional and commercial licenses in Nebraska.

The Legislature voted 31-13 to override Ricketts' veto. Thirty votes were needed to override.

Last year, Nebraska DREAmers won another victory when the legislature again overrode Gov. Ricketts’ veto of a bill that would allow DACA recipients to apply for driver’s licenses.

*************************************************

On April 15, 2016, Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts vetoed a bill that would have allowed young immigrants brought to this country illegally as children to get professional and commercial licenses.

Legislative Bill 947 would have made it possible for those immigrants to obtain the licenses and credentials needed to enter a host of occupations, including teaching and tattooing.

Governor's action sets up a second clash with the Legislature over the same group of young people - DACA grantees.

Last year, the governor vetoed a similar bill that provides driver’s licenses to young people in the federal DACA program, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. The Legislature overrode that veto.

This year, lawmakers passed LB 947 on a 33-11 vote, three more than the number needed for a veto override.

It remains to be seen if Nebraska Legislature will override Governor's bill again.
​
It should be noted that some DACA grantees can take the next step and apply for permanent residency (aka green card), and therefore, become lawful permanent residents. If a DACA grantee obtains a federal advance parole (travel document), travels abroad and returns to USA on advance parole, he or she might be able to apply for a green card, provided they are otherwise eligible.

Human trafficking survivor's story, as told by an Indonesian woman trafficked to USA in 2001 under false pretences and forced into prostitution.

​In Russian: История молодой девушки, в 2001 году попавшей в рабство как проститутка в США. Хотя эта история на английском, и о девушке из Индонезии, а не из России - это очень дельная статья и ее полезно почитать, так как наши русские, украинские и другие бывшие советские женщины, девушки, дети и даже мужчины попадаются в ловушку работорговцев точно также, по такой же схеме.
И в 21 веке торговля людьми процветает во многих странах первого мира.
Как это обычно происходит:
Человеку из-за границы обещается временная работа в США или другой стране, заработок от 3 до 5 тысяч долларов в месяц, отличная и несложная работа, хорошие условия проживания и возможность подучить английский, человек оплачивает за услуги по поиску работы немаленькую сумму (от 500 до 3 тыс долл и более).
В итоге по приезде у девушек отбирают паспорт, деньги, подсаживают на наркотик, заявляют что она им "должна" 100 тысяч, 300 тысяч и более, угрожают расправой и ей и ее родителям и детям, оставшимся на родине, и угрозами вынуждают заниматься проституцией, или работать бесплатно на фабрике, на ферме и т.п.
Не верьте слишком заманчивым предложениям о работе за границей, нередко это ловушка. Проверьте все досконально перед тем как ехать за границу на работу. Убедитесь, что это легитимная работа и ваш работодатель имеет вебсайт, адрес, поговорите с кем-то кто там уже работал.
Если вам предложили работу в Чикаго, а вы летите до Майами -- то это уже повод задуматься как вы будете добираться до Чикаго (по карте посмотрите расстояние - 1900 километров или 1300 миль). В США расстояния огромные, и есть множество аэропортов. Не верьте, если вам говорят, что "не было билетов" в ближайший аэропорт.
Ни в коем случае не отдавайте свой паспорт никому по приезде в США (даже, если у вас просят показать или подержать или на время). Паспорт у вас проверят в аэропорту на паспортном контроле и сразу отдадут вам. Затем, если вы приехали на работу, в отделе кадров при устройстве на работу у вас попросят показать паспорт, сделаю копию визы и сразу же вернут его вам.
Я сталкивалась с "турагенствами" в странах бывшего СССР, которыми заправляли работорговцы, местные граждане, имеющие судимости и выдворенные из США, Англии, Франции из-за работорговли. И вернувшись на родину, они как ни в чем не бывало, продолжали заниматься своим грязным делом.
Имейте при себе контактные телефоны друзей и знакомых, заучите их наизусть. Выучите фразы на английском как просить о помощи в полиции, у прохожих, как объяснить, что вам нужен переводчик и помощь.
Если у вас отобрали паспорт в аэропорту по приезде - не верьте, что вам вернут паспорт "как только так сразу". Убегайте и идите в полицию, в любом аэропорту есть видео камеры и много полиции, за вами побоятся погнаться когда вокруг камеры. Не уходите из аэропорта с теми, кто у вас отобрал паспорт по прилете "на работу". Как говорится better be safe than sorry.
Как и в этой истории - нередко полиция отказывается вмешиваться. Надо быть готовым, что и ваше посольство и консульство и церковь реально ничем не помогут.
​Как и в истории этой девушки, я знаю случаи клиентов, где помощь пришла от простых американцев, а не от "своих", не от "своей" церкви или посольства, а от хороших людей, с которыми случайно свела судьба. Помните, что хороших людей всегда больше в любой стране.
Следует иметь в виду, что в США есть специальная категория виз для людей попавших в сексуальное рабство или в работорговлю, T visa (Т виза). Есть и другая виза, более широкого профиля, для жертв некоторых преступлений, U visa (Ю виза).

#humantrafficking #humantraffickingsurvivor #survivor #работорговля #торговлялюдьми #sextrafficking #Tvisa #Uvisa

Статья по-английски тут: 
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35846207

 On February 18, 2016, ILRC updated their PRACTICE ADVISORY: FROM ADVANCE PAROLE TO A GREEN CARD FOR DACA RECIPIENTS.

It can be useful not only for DACA grantees, but also for TPS grantees; people considering adjustment of status, but who are ineligible because of their EWI/illegal entry to USA; people with criminal convictions; and those with removal (deportation) orders, or pending removal proceedings.

The advisory explains who is eligible to apply for Advance Parole (travel document), who can safely travel outside of USA, about risks of being denied admission to USA, and why this document is so important.The advisory is available for download as a PDF file here:

http://www.adminrelief.org/resources/item.592261-Practice_Advisory_From_Advance_Parole_to_a_Green_Card_for_DACA_Recipients

​

 Applicants representing new (not previously registered) enterprises must schedule their E-visa interviews at the U.S. Consulate in Toronto. The U.S. Consulate General in Toronto, Canada is the dedicated post for first-time E-visa applications which require pre-screening of new or renewal applications.
Dependents of E-visa holders and employees of previously registered companies can schedule their appointments in Calgary, Montreal, Ottawa, and Vancouver, in addition to Toronto.
Appointment availability is prioritized for Canadian citizens and Canadian permanent residents/landed immigrants who are citizens of treaty-trader countries. Citizens of the UK must demonstrate that they are residents of a UK territory in Europe and maintain domicile there. Limited appointments are available for applicants who are not Canadian citizens or residents; such applicants must choose the “Non-Canada Resident” category when scheduling an appointment.

First-time applicants are required to submit a collection of documents concurrent with the making of the online visa appointment. Please carefully review the relevant tabs for a detailed listing of the required documents. Once you have gathered all documentation pertaining to your E-visa application, you may schedule an appointment online at the U.S. Visa Service website. Before an appointment can be scheduled, you must pay the required, non-refundable visa fees for the principal applicant and any eligible family members.
​
New cases and renewals must email the supporting documentation listed below to [email protected] immediately after booking the online appointment, indicating on the subject line the consulate where they intend to interview. The E-visa unit may contact the applicants or their legal representatives to request any additional documents needed to establish qualifications for the E-visa. It is the responsibility of the applicants or their legal representatives to submit required documents in a timely fashion.

The E-visa application processing fee of $205 is paid during the online application process. If the E-visa is issued, a reciprocity fee may be charged, depending on the applicant’s citizenship. Reciprocity fees by country can be found at the State Department website.
More information is here.
​

Очень интересный и познавательный сборник статей о праве Германии по-русски можно загрузить тут по этому линку.

Как адвокату мне это проект очень понравился.

В августе 2015 г. Германо-Российская ассоциация юристов опубликовала «Сборник статей о праве Германии» на русском языке. Эта публикация состоит из 31 статьи, в которых представлены самые разные аспекты правовой системы Германии. Сборник адресован юристам и предпринимателям.
«Сборник статей о праве Германии», насчитывающий 503 страниц, и его можно найти и загрузить как файл бесплатно в свободном доступе на сайте Германо-Российской ассоциации юристов тут.

А вот тут можно почитать детальное объяснение как определяется адвокатский гонорар, стоимость юридической консультации и услуги адвоката в Германии. Работа немецких адвокатов отличается от американских адвокатов во многом, в частности, они строже регулируются государством, и размеры гонорара ограничены по закону. Подробная информация на вебсайте немецкого русскоговорящего адвоката по этому линку.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is warning about fake diploma sites that sell worthless high school diplomas. These “diploma mills” claim their diplomas can be used to enroll in college, apply for a job, get a promotion or enlist in the military. Don’t believe them.
Here are signs of a high school diploma scam:

• They want you to pay just for a diploma. Real education programs may charge for classes or testing, but they usually do not charge just for a diploma.
• You can earn the diploma from home immediately. If you can earn the diploma without taking any classes or tests, it’s likely a scam.
• They claim to be affiliated with the federal government. Individual states -- not the federal government -- regulate high school diploma programs.

Want more information? Read the FTC’s High School Diploma Scams page. It will help you tell the difference between legitimate programs and diploma scams.
For information on how to recognize and avoid immigration scams, please visit uscis.gov/avoidscams.

A record number of U.S. citizens and green card holders, renounced their citizenship or gave up their green cards in 2015. Last year, it was 4,279 people.

​It's most likely due to newer, more strict tax policies. U.S. citizens can be required to pay taxes regardless of which country they live in for periods of time. But the law also allowed the U.S. government to go after foreign bank accounts, which prompted many foreign banks to drop their U.S. customers.
"An increasing number of Americans appear to believe that having a U.S. passport or long-term residency isn't worth the hassle and cost of complying with U.S. tax laws."

Read more here. 

Unfortunately, attorneys like this give legal profession a bad name. A licensed immigration attorney in New York was arrested for allegedly falsifying and submitting fraudulent and forged affidavits of support, form I-864. This attorney is being accused in submitting fraudulent and forged affidavits of support using real tax documents, paystubs, employment letters of people, who never agreed to sponsor his clients. This scheme is illegal and unethical.

According to the Complaint unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:

"Between October 2012 and April 2015, Gnoleba Seri, 49, a licensed immigration attorney working in New York, New York, and Brooklyn, New York, engaged in a scheme to use personal information contained in legitimate immigration documents for fraudulent purposes.  In his role as an immigration attorney, Mr. Seri submitted falsified and forged I-864 Forms (affidavits of support for those seeking immigrant visas) in support of his clients’ applications for immigration visas and for legal permanent resident status.  Specifically, Mr. Seri would receive legitimate I-864 Forms, tax information, pay stubs, and W-2 forms from individuals sponsoring his clients, and then fraudulently submitted these documents in applications for other clients.  That is, Seri submitted I-864 Forms that listed individuals as financial sponsors who had never met the people they were purportedly agreeing to sponsor.  Those I-864 Forms included the sponsors’ real names, identifying information, and financial information, as well as forged signatures.  These fraudulent and forged I-864 Forms all listed Seri as the preparer, and many of them were notarized by him."
​
Mr. Seri was charged with one count of visa fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison; one count of aggravated identity theft, which carries a mandatory consecutive minimum sentence of two years in prison; and one count of mail fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

USCIS January 15th 2016 press release can be found here.

November 25, 2015 marked the 25th anniversary of the H-1B work visa to the United States.

Smithsonian museum is offering an H1B work visa exhibit online which mostly includes art and reflections on life in the USA of those living in the US on H1B work visa and their dependants on H4 visa. 

Read more here.

The Smithsonian exhibit can be viewed at this link.

One of the paintings, named "H1B indentured servitude," is here.

In the very first days of the January 2016, ICE (Immigration & Customs Enforcement) started raids, targeting undocumented immigrants. 

This document is an excellent overview of your rights:

What to do in the event of an ICE raid (at your work, home, in the mall or other public place). What questions you must answer and when you shall remain silent. 

Know your RIGHTS. Read and download a pdf file here. You can save or memorize your local and state free legal services or community organizations contact numbers, or your attorney's number, and carry their contact numbers. You can print out the card on page 8 and carry it with you, as well.

https://www.justice4all.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Know-your-rights-in-case-of-raids-English.pdf

DHS may soon deny boarding flights within the U.S. to passengers with some states' driver's licenses.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security said it will be making a decision this week.

Ten years ago, the U.S. government passed the Real ID Act, issuing stricter standards for state-issued IDs, including driver's licenses. Fewer than half (22) of the states have complied with the law.

22 states comply with the law:

These states, along with Washington, D.C., already have issued drivers' licenses that comply with the Real ID Act: Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Five states are noncompliant:

Five states that have been deemed noncompliant, have not been granted an extension and do not have extensions under review: Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico and Washington.

But even if you live in those states, DHS hasn't issued its schedule for enforcement yet. If and when it does, there still will be 120 days notice before the TSA no longer accepts their states' IDs. And those states could still appeal DHS' decision not to grant a waiver extension, the DHS spokeswoman said.

Four states' waiver extensions are pending review:

These states applied for waiver extensions, and DHS is still reviewing their requests. All of these states were previously granted waivers that are set to expire on January 10, 2016: Alaska, California, New Jersey and South Carolina.

19 states have been granted waiver extensions:

Except for New Hampshire, all of these states' waiver extensions are set to expire on October 10, 2016. New Hampshire's extension lasts through June 1, 2016: Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas and Virginia.

Read here.

*************
UPDATE 01-13-2016:

On January 8, 2016, the DHS Secretary made an announcement:

"Effective January 22, 2018, air travelers with a driver’s license or identification card issued by a state that does not meet the requirements of the REAL ID Act (unless that state has been granted an extension to comply with the Act) must present an alternative form of identification acceptable to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in order to board a commercial domestic flight."
Read more here.

If you are scheduled to attend an interview in one of the USCIS field offices in the United States (most commonly, an adjustment of status or "green card" interview), and if you don't speak and/or understand English fluently, it would be wise to bring an interpreter with you.

An interpreter should be someone who is sufficiently fluent in both languages and who is competent to interpret from one language to another (English and your native language) -- not like the guy in the picture who only pretends to interpret. 

An interpreter doesn't have to be a certified or professional interpreter.

Most important qualifications of an interpreter are the following: 

an interpreter is someone who is impartial and unbiased, not prejudiced, not interested in the outcome of your interview, who is not your attorney or a lawyer, or other legal representative, or your attorney's paralegal, who is over 18 years of age, and who is not a witness in your case. 

Some derivative beneficiaries may not be allowed to serve as an interpreter (for example, a spouse or a child), unless there is a "good cause" to excuse this restriction..

Before an interpreter is allowed to serve as an interpreter, a USCIS officer will have to make a determination and have him sign a Form G-1256. 

Please keep in mind that an interpreter may hear or learn some personal and confidential things about you during the interview, and you might consider a professional impartial interpreter rather than a friend, a relative, a co-worker or an acquaintance if only because of confidentiality considerations.

Your attorney, paralegal or other legal representative can't be allowed to interpret during the interview, under the USCIS guidance (because they are not impartial to the outcome of the interview and have your interests in mind).

Please keep in mind that USCIS has no obligation to provide a "free interpreter" during the interview with some exceptions (for example, if it's an asylum interview). An applicant has right to have an interpreter present, but the government doesn't have to provide an interpreter for you. If you don't speak and understand English fluently, you should plan in advance and be ready to hire and bring with you a qualified interpreter.

On November 25, 2015, USCIS published this helpful draft of a new memo. This document provides detailed guidance as to who can and can't be an interpreter in USCIS office.

The U.S. State Department said Thursday, November 19, 2015, that it is ending the practice of adding new pages to existing passport books.

Starting Jan. 1, 2016, US citizens running out of space for new visas in their 28-page passports will have to pay $110 for a new passport of either 28 or 52 pages. Until the end of 2015, they can still pay $82 to have an extra 24 pages stitched in. The prices are slightly lower for minors.

The US State Department said the decision to stop adding pages was made for security reasons.

Anyone applying to renew a passport will get the old one back. Though the passport will be canceled, any valid and unexpired visas in the old book will still be valid, and can be used for travel.

Currently, more than 124 million U.S. passports are in circulation, up from 14 million in 1991. About 38 percent of American citizens have passports.

As reported here. 

Secretary of Homeland Security has suspended certain regulatory requirements for F-1 nonimmigrant Nepalese students who are experiencing severe economic hardship as a direct result of the April earthquake in Nepal. This relief applies only to students whose country of citizenship is Nepal and who were lawfully present in the United States in F-1 status on April 25, 2015, and enrolled in an institution certified by ICE’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP).

This suspension will enable eligible F-1 students to obtain employment authorization (EAD or work permit), work an increased number of hours during the school term, and if necessary, reduce their course load while continuing to maintain their F-1 student status. 

The suspension of the regulatory requirements will remain in effect through Dec. 24, 2016. Students must apply for relief by Dec. 21, 2015.

As of Sept. 19, 2015, more than 9,000 F-1 students from Nepal were enrolled in courses at U. S. schools.

See the announcement here. 

Recent update from USCIS:

If you are applying for U.S. citizenship through a process known as naturalization (filing a USCIS form N-400), you can now use a credit card to pay the Form N-400, Application for Naturalization fee. 

Most applicants must pay a $680 fee, which includes biometrics fee.

To pay with your credit card, you must file a Form G-1450, Authorization for Credit Card Transaction. 

At this time, USCIS accepts payments by credit card ONLY for one application, Form N-400, application for naturalization. This can change in the future. You should always review the form's instructions online before filing.

Here is the form: http://www.uscis.gov/g-1450 and instructions how to pay with a credit card.