On November 8, 2018, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld federal DACA program established in 2012. Therefore, DACA law is still a valid law. The 9th Circuit decision preserves the status quo for the moment and will require the administration to continue accepting DACA renewal applications.
​
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Trump’s decision to phase out the Obama-era DACA program, which allows roughly 700,000 undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children to obtain work permits and protects them from deportation, was likely “arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”

​Read more here. 

On October 1, 2018, for the first time in history, Immigration Judges were assigned a quota and ordered to complete 700 cases per year (3 cases per day), and will be penalized if over 15% of their decisions are overturned on appeal.

In addition, AG has limited their authority to grant continuances or to administratively close cases where applicants are eligible to apply for an immigration benefit under immigration law.

The American Bar Association has stated that “such quotas have serious implications for decisional independence.” Instead the ABA recommends establishing the immigration courts as Article 1 courts, independent of any executive agency and less susceptible to political currents. 

What do the performance review standards require?

Under the new standards, which are set to go into effect on Oct. 1, 2018, to receive a “satisfactory” review an immigration judge must:

• Complete 700 cases per year, and
• Maintain a remand rate (from the Board of Immigration Appeals and circuit courts) of fewer than 15 percent per year.

Additionally, for a “satisfactory” review an immigration judge must meet at least half of the following benchmarks:

• Issue decisions within three days of completing a merits hearing in 85 percent of non-status detained removal decisions
• Issue decisions within 10 days of completing a merits hearing in 85 percent of non-status non-detained removal decisions (unless completion is prohibited by statute, such as cancellation caps)
• Decide motions within 20 days of receipt in 85 percent of their cases
• Make bond decisions on the day of the hearing in 90 percent of cases
• Complete individual hearings on the initial scheduled hearing date in 95 percent of the cases (unless the Department of Homeland Security does not produce a detained respondent), and
• Issue decisions in 100 percent of cases on the day of the initial hearing in credible fear and reasonable fear reviews (unless DHS does not produce a detained respondent).

Immigration judges are part of the executive branch of government within the Department of Justice reporting to the Attorney General. 

Case completion goals of 700 per year translates into completing – issuing a removal order or granting relief such as asylum, cancellation or adjustment – nearly three cases per day, and it does not account for the hours an immigration judge must spend conducting master calendar hearings, bond hearings, attending trainings and reviewing case files. It is hard to imagine how a judge could ever give fair consideration to three cases per day, while simultaneously preparing for upcoming hearings, writing decisions on complex cases and responding to motions (within newly proscribed time limits.) 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled to partially uphold President's third attempt on a travel ban, so called Muslim Ban or Travel Ban 3.0.

Ruling on the injunction issued by the District Court in Hawaii that temporarily blocked the enforcement of the new ban, the Ninth Circuit held that the travel ban could go into effect, except with regard to people with a “bona fide relationship” with close family or with an entity in the U.S., such as an employer or a university. This standard was borrowed from the Supreme Court’s June 2017 decision on a previous travel ban.

Individuals from six countries (Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen) may be banned from entry, unless they have a bona fide relationship with a U.S. family member or entity.

The Ninth Circuit decided that in addition to parents, spouses, and children living in the U.S., bona fide relationships could extend to grandparents, grandchildren, cousins, aunts, uncles, and brothers- or sisters-in-law. Entity relationships must be “formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course,” including universities, businesses, and other institutions.

The travel bans on North Korea and Venezuela were not included in the original suit brought before the Hawaii District Court. Travel of immigrants or nonimmigrants from North Korea and Venezuela remains suspended (all travel for North Korea and entry in tourist or business visitor status remains suspended for officials of certain Venezuelan government agencies and their immediate family members).

​The court ruling is here.

​

Affirming the district court's summary judgment, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that under INA §244(f)(4), a Temporary Protected Status (TPS) recipient is deemed to be in lawful status as a nonimmigrant—and has thereby satisfied the requirements for becoming a nonimmigrant, including inspection and admission--for purposes of adjustment of status under INA §245(a).

The 9th Circuit court of appeals decision means that a person in TPS status (even the person who came to the U.S. without a visa, EWI) is eligible to obtain lawful permanent residence through adjustment of status application. 

The court's decision published on March 31, 2017 is here. 

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the defendant had no Fifth Amendment due process right to hire counsel in the expedited removal proceeding under 8 U.S.C. § 1225, and that he cannot demonstrate prejudice from the failure to notify him of the right to withdraw his application for admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(4).

As a result, the panel concluded that the defendant’s 2012 expedited removal could be used as a predicate for his illegal reentry conviction, and affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment and the subsequent judgment and sentence as well as the revocation of his supervised release. 

"We find that Peralta had no Fifth Amendment due process right to hire counsel in the expedited removal proceeding and that he was not prejudiced by the government’s failure to inform him of the possibility of withdrawal relief."

"When we refer to the “right to counsel” in this case, we mean the right of an alien to hire counsel at no expense to the government. We do not refer to a right to government-appointed counsel."

The decision was published on Feb 7, 2017 and can be found here.

In Russian:

Апелляционный суд 9-го федерального округа опубликовал решение 7 февраля 2017, где решил, что обвиняемый не имеет конституционного права на адвоката когда он находится в иммиграционном процессе "ускоренной депортации" из США, так называемая expedited removal.

Суд уточнил, что это решение распространяется на тех, кто находится под ускоренной депортацией, не пробыл в США более двух лет, и здесь имеется в виду право нанять адвоката за свой счет (так как в иммиграционном праве США не существует права на бесплатного защитника, как, например, в уголовном процессе). В иммиграционном суде США в процессе, который не является "ускоренной депортацией", у обвиняемого обычно есть конституционное право нанять адвоката за свой счет. Решение суда тут.

On February 9, 2017, the 9th circuit court of appeals ruled that President's travel ban (aka Muslim Ban) will remain blocked and unenforceable, and the temporary injunction granted by the federal district judge will remain in place (Washington v. Trump, No. C17-0141-JLR, 2017 WL 462040 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017).  

The ruling means that citizens and nationals of seven Muslim majority countries will continue to be able to travel to the U.S. (on any non-immigrant or immigrant visa), and refugees will be admitted to the United States of America, despite president's January 27th executive order (Executive Order 13769, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States”. 82 Fed. Reg. 8,977).

Text of the court order (29 pages) is here.

9 февраля 2017, апелляционный суд 9-го федерального округа вынес решение, и поддержал федерального судью, который запретил выполнение некоторых положений указа президента от 27 января 2017 (так называемый Muslim Ban).

Таким образом, запрет на въезд граждан семи мусульманских стран не действителен (и они могут приезжать в США как и раньше, до попытки президента запретить их въезд).

Въезд беженцев в США также разрешен (запрет на въезд беженцев считается недействителен, и все государственные агенства обязаны следовать решению суда)..

Следующий этап - президент уже объявил сегодня на твиттере - правительство и президент подадут апелляцию в Верховный Суд США, который в настоящий момент имеет только 8 судей (нужно 9 для кворума). Решение 4-4 оставит в силе решение нижестоящего суда. Кандидат на 9-ую должность судьи Верховного Суда уже есть, но пока не утвержден. Продолжение следует....

Текст решения суда (29 страниц) тут: 
https://www.scribd.com/document/338916954/Washington-vs-Trump#

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: 

Brussels, 29 October 2015.

Big victory for Dutch lawyers and their clients, and also for any other European lawyers who practice law in the Netherlands.

The District Court of The Hague has ruled that surveillance of lawyers by intelligence agencies constitutes an infringement of fundamental rights and orders the State to stop all surveillance of lawyers’ communications. 

Dutch court upholds lower court ruling banning surveillance of lawyers’ communications after successful CCBE intervention. The Dutch State may appeal the ruling within four weeks.

On 27 October 2015, a Dutch Court of Appeal upheld The Hague District court’s ruling in the Prakken d’Oliveira case which ordered the Dutch State to stop all surveillance of lawyers’ communications until it provided for independent oversight.

In its ruling, the Dutch Court of Appeal dismissed all the grounds of appeal alleged by the Dutch State. The Court indicates that according to case law of the European Court of Human Rights surveillance activities must be subject to review by an independent body with the power to prevent or terminate potential infringements of professional secrecy. The current Dutch surveillance regime does not meet the requirements for such independent control and, therefore, conflicts with the right to privacy (article 8 ECHR) and the right to a fair trial (article 6 ECHR). The Court stresses that information obtained from tapping lawyers may not be shared with prosecutors until an independent review has taken place regarding the legality of that information and the way it was obtained. Even the possibility that information is shared with the public prosecutor can result to people refraining from contacting a lawyer. According to the court, that is a violation of the right to a fair trial and undermines the rationale behind professional secrecy. The Court also ruled that the protection of client confidentiality is not limited to communications with Dutch lawyers but extends to communications with all European lawyers rendering services in The Netherlands as referred to in Directive 77/249/EC.

As a result of these findings the Court of Appeal confirmed the lower court’s ruling.

In welcoming the decision, CCBE President Maria Ślązak commented: “the trust between lawyer and client is, at root, an assurance of due process and the rule of law. It is therefore essential that the confidentiality of lawyer-client communications is always respected. Surveillance measures that could undermine this principle have always to be subject to review by an independent body with the power to prevent and/or terminate the infringement. The fact that this has been reaffirmed by the Dutch Court of Appeal is reassuring and an important step to bring Dutch surveillance policy in line with the right to a fair trial.”

**************
Background: in May 2015 the CCBE successfully intervened before The Hague District Court in a challenge brought against the Dutch State by the law firm Prakken d'Oliveira and the Dutch Association of Criminal Defence Lawyers (NVSA). The Court was questioned on the legality of eavesdropping by domestic intelligence agencies on lawyers’ calls and communications. In its verdict delivered on July 1st, the court recognised that the ability to communicate confidentially with a lawyer is a fundamental right which is currently being breached under Dutch surveillance policy. The court therefore ordered the Dutch government to stop all interception of communications between clients and their lawyers under the current regime within six months. In response, the Dutch State fast-tracked an appeal against the judgement. In turn, on 25 August, the CCBE challenged the grounds of the appeal.

Transcript of the judgement (in Dutch): http://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2015:2881
Transcript of the previous judgement (in Dutch):http://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2015:7436 
CCBE wins case against the Dutch State on surveillance of lawyers (press release, 02/07/2015):http://www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/NTCdocument/EN_pr_0415pdf1_1435843144.pdf 
CCBE takes mass surveillance to court (press release, 27/05/2015):http://www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/NTCdocument/EN_pr_0315pdf1_1432724578.pdf 
CCBE Statement on mass electronic surveillance by government bodies (including of European lawyers’ data):http://www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/NTCdocument/EN_14142013_CCBE_Sta1_1382086457.pdf
Dutch Intelligence Service (AIVD) taps Prakken d'Oliveira lawyers:http://www.prakkendoliveira.nl/en/news/dutch-intelligence-service-aivd-taps-prakken-doliveira-lawyers/

*******************
About the CCBE:

The CCBE represents the bars and law societies of 32 member countries and 13 further associate and observer countries, and through them more than 1 million European lawyers.

Founded in 1960, the CCBE is recognised as the voice of the European legal profession by the EU institutions, and acts as the liaison between the EU and Europe's national bars and law societies. The CCBE has regular institutional contacts with those European Commission officials, and members and staff of the European Parliament, who deal with issues affecting the legal profession. The CCBE is an international non-profit-making association incorporated in Belgium.

Twenty-six states (the “states”) are challenging the government’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program (“DAPA”) as violative of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the Take Care Clause of the Constitution. 

The district court determined that the states are likely to succeed on their procedural APA claim, so it temporarily enjoined implementation of the program. Texas v. United States, Civ. No. B-14-254, 2015 WL 648579 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 16, 2015). 

The United States appealed the preliminary injunction and moved for a stay of the injunction pending resolution of the merits of that appeal. Because the government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its appeal of the injunction, we deny the motion for stay and the request to narrow the scope of the injunction. Read full text of the decision here. 

First, the Court of Appeals rejected the Obama administration's argument that the 26 states challenging DACA and DAPA lack standing. The panel found that the burden on Texas in having to issue drivers licenses to DAPA status immigrants was "real and concrete."

Second, the court rejected the Obama administration's main argument, which is that the actions are truly discretionary and thus "committed to agency discretion by law." The court said that the executive actions didn't allow for any real exercise of discretion by agency employees, rather they simply were blanket changes to the immigration laws.

There are other provisions in Obama’s executive action on immigration, which will be considered by a different panel of judges of the Fifth Circuit the week of July 6, 2015. That panel could decide to lift the injunction. 

The injunction could remain in place for the rest of President Obama’s term in office – unless it is lifted by the courts.

As a practical matter, the injunction prevents the government from processing DAPA and extended DACA applications. Only original 2012 DACA is still in effect.

It appears that DAPA and extended DACA may never become law.

Read the court opinion here.

Almost daily, I hear from some of our callers: "I don't need legal consultation, I don't want to hire an attorney. I have only one or two very simple (or quick, or easy) questions, and I want an attorney to answer my questions right now and free of charge because my questions are so simple, quick, and easy!"

I will try to explain why this request doesn't make any sense and how to get proper legal advice.

U.S. immigration law is very complex and constantly changing. There have been no major immigration reforms or amnesties in the past few years (which requires a law to be approved by Congress and signed by the President). However, there have been significant changes introduced by our current and former administrations and the executive branch of the government: executive actions; executive orders of the President; USCIS and DHS memorandums and policy guidance; official and unofficial practice advisories; and changes through our judicial branch (federal and immigration courts), such as, the decisions by the BIA, AAO, Courts of Appeals, US Supreme Court, and even by federal district court judges (for example, an injunction by a federal judge can place on hold an executive order of the President of the United States).

U.S. immigration law is federal in nature and is the same in all states. However, it may apply differently to your situation depending on your background, your place of residence or domicile, US embassy in the country where you apply for a visa, etc.

An experienced immigration attorney may be able to guide you and advise you about specifics, loopholes, various options, and can spot possible problems before they happen, even if it seems to you that your case is pretty straightforward and you have only "one quick question". A seemingly simple or quick question not always can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no" answer. You may not realize it, but a situation may have a lot of hidden issues or variables depending on your venue, court jurisdiction, your factual circumstances, your arrest and criminal record, your family situation and status, prior legal assistance, prior legal actions and applications filed, or even timing, etc.

You can find a lot of useful immigration-related INFORMATION on our Blog. We compiled useful information and links: USCIS forms and fees, case status inquiry, processing times, AR-11 Change of Address, Department of State and NVC, and much more here. Hope you find this information helpful!

To ask basic questions about USCIS immigration forms, filing fees or to inquire about status of your pending case, you can contact USCIS, Department of Homeland Security, by calling their 800 Customer Service Hotline (number is on their website), or send an e-request via a webportal at USCIS website. Case status can be checked online, as well. Immigration courts, U.S. embassies and consulates and National Visa Center each have their own hotlines, call centers or other ways to contact them.

To receive a case-specific legal advice you should talk to a lawyer. Before a lawyer can advise you, we usually email you our confidential immigration questionnaire, and ask you to complete and return it to us. In some cases, we can ask you to email us copies of your immigration forms, paperwork, personal documents. When an attorney reviews your answers to our questionnaire and your documents, it helps her to get to know you, your situation, and decide what legal and/or visa options you shall consider, what are your best chances of obtaining certain visas and immigration benefits, how and when can you bring your family to USA, are you eligible for permanent residency or a green card in the United States, are you eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship, how can your children become U.S. citizens, etc.

It's important that you provide truthful, accurate and complete answers to our questions because an attorney's advice to you is based on information you provide to an attorney. It could be dangerous to give misleading, incomplete or incorrect answers to an attorney.

An attorney or a lawyer is often called "a counselor in law". It means that an attorney counsels and advises you, helps you to understand your situation better, anticipates any possible future issues or complications, offers guidance, and a long-term strategy and planning for yourself and your family.

Legal advice is never a simple "yes" or "no" answer, it's never "use this form"  or "this is the link where you can find all information and all answers you need". Legal advice or consultation is like going to see a doctor. A doctor will ask you questions, take your vitals and administer necessary tests, then she will be able to diagnose you and offer you an appropriate treatment plan. The same is true about work of a good and ethical attorney. An attorney will have to ask you a number of questions, review your documents and paperwork, and only then she will be able to advise you, and offer you guidance and counsel.

In order to avoid mistakes and future complications, it's smart to consult an attorney before starting any legal, immigrant or visa process. Consultation with knowledgeable and ethical attorney should serve as a preventative measure and a way to establish a roadmap and plan your future.

In over twelve years of practice as an immigration attorney in the United States, I have come across of many unfortunate individuals who got themselves into trouble after reading and following wrong advice on internet forums, listening to their friends, co-workers, relatives and neighbors advice, or paying to complete their "paperwork" to an unlicensed "immigration consultant", or "notario", or "tax preparer", or somebody else who speaks their native language in their immigrant community but has no proper training and is not a licensed attorney. In some of these cases, individual's chances of living in USA legally can be permanently destroyed. Some people can become permanently banned from the United States, no matter how many close family members (wife, kids, parents) and other ties they have in USA. Immigration law is very complex and unforgiving, and non-compliance, fraud or misrepresentation could bring consequences more severe than penalties in an average criminal case. Where a convicted criminal can usually expect to be released from prison after a number of months or years and be reunited with his family, a person who was deported and permanently banned from USA may never be able to reunite with his family and loved ones in the United States. Lack of knowledge or bad advice is not an excuse in immigration law. "Simple mistakes" in immigration law context could be costly and often irreversible.

Do yourself a favor and consult a knowledgeable immigration attorney before filing any applications or petitions with the USCIS Department of Homeland Security, or before submitting any visa applications online. You can also schedule a consultation to seek a second opinion, if not sure that your current or former attorney's advice is correct as applies to you. When you have questions or need legal advice you can email us to schedule a consultation. We will be glad to help you.