Beach-Oswald is a full-service law firm, concentrating on immigration law. We have special expertise in work visas, family based visas, visa waivers, green cards through family and employment and asylum. We have staff members who speak many different languages to assist you.
We succeed when others don't!
|
United They Fall, Separated They Stand |
Americans have long seen George Washington, first president of the United States, as a defender of political liberty and independence, and founder of this nation. He merits, however, to also be acknowledged as a proponent of individual religious liberty. Writing November 27, 1783 to the Reformed German Congregation in New York he pointed out that "the establishment of Civil and Religious Liberty was the motive which induced me to the field". He thus saw civil and religious liberty as of parallel importance, as he indicated in another letter, to two United Dutch Reformed Churches, November 10, 1783. Rather than discoursing about a plethora of philosophical ideas, like Jefferson or Madison did, he simply demonstrated allegiance to a few fundamental principles. In this short paper we briefly refer to seven of these principles, which have a direct or indirect bearing on immigration rights.
- Religious liberty is a right. He did not see religious liberty as gift from government, or a privilege to be granted. He saw it as a natural and inherent right (see letter to Hebrew Congregation, Newport, RI, Aug. 17, 1790).
- Religious liberty does not mean opposition between church and state, but cooperation. He said: "While just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support" (reply to Synod of Dutch Reformed Church in North America, Oct. 9, 1789). He felt, as expressed in his Farewell Address, that national morality could not prevail without religion, and religion prospered best when free from government control or establishment.
- There is the need for the greatest possible accommodation of conscience. He wrote that "conscientious scruples of all men" are to "be treated with great delicacy and tenderness" and the law should always "be as extensively accommodated to them" as the essential interests of the nation allow (undated reply to Quakers' Yearly Meeting, PA, NJ, DE, Western MD, VA, Sept. 28, 1789).
- He stood for respect and impartiality regarding all religions. George Washington saw himself as a symbol of consensus and unity of the nation, including religion. He wanted reason to triumph over bigotry and superstition. At a time when anti-Catholicism and anti-Semitism were active, he instructed (September 14, 1775) Col Benedict Arnold, in charge of the expedition to Canada, "to avoid all disrespect to or contempt for the religion [Catholicism] of the country or its ceremonies." Furthermore, Arnold was to "protect and support the free exercise of the religion" of Canada. Anti-Semitism was not part of Washington's make up. He wrote to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, August 17, 1790: "May the children of the stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants, while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid". To the Methodist Bishop of New York he wrote (May 29, 1789): "I shall always strive to prove a faithful and impartial patron of genuine vital religion".
- He believed that religion was a private matter, between God and man. Washington kept his own religion as a private undertaking and believed that "people remain responsible only to their Maker for the religion, or modes of faith, which they may prefer to profess" (reply to Quakers' Address, September 28, 1789).
- He wanted to see peaceful inter-church relations and disliked interreligious strife. He felt that the dwelling together in peace and charity distinguished denominational relations in U S from all former ages and other nations (reply to Protestant Episcopal Church Convention, NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD, VA, NC, Aug.19, 1789). He saw the existing harmony between the clergy of various denominations as "the pride of our Country" (letter to clergy of various denominations around Philadelphia, March 3, 1797).
- Washington saw the right to religious liberty as involving responsibility. He believed Freedom of religion requires the response of good citizenship and the support of one's country (letter of reply to Hebrews of Newport, Aug. 17, 1790). He disliked phony religiosity. He wanted to see religion authenticated through worthy citizenship (see reply to Catholic Address, March 15, 1790). There is a problem here: What is "worthy citizenship"? The answer must be somewhat subjective. It seems clear that Washington gave more importance to acts than simply to ideology.
George Washington saw Christianity as the moral backbone of the nation, but he did not see the United States as a "Christian nation" in a constitutional or legal sense. At this time, when Islam is much in the news, it is both interesting and significant to note that Washington signed a Treaty with Tripoli (Barbary States), a Muslim nation. This Treaty states that "the government of the Unites States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion;..it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Musselmen...."
The American experience in church-state relations is the reverse of politics and many other domains: "Divided we stand; united we fall."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
By Contributing Author Dr. Bert B. Beach Secretary General Emeritus, International Religious Liberty Association |
SOCIAL GROUP BASED ASYLUM FOR FORMER GANG MEMBERS: RAMOS V. HOLDER |
According to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (the Refugee Convention), Article 1A(2), the term refugee is applied to a person who, owing to a well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of his country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. Those individuals who seek asylum because of their membership to a particular social group have faced the most difficulty in achieving refugee protection in the courts. Nevertheless, the Seventh Circuit in Ramos v. Holder[1]has recently made it easier for those individuals who are former members of gangs to gain asylum by holding that former gang membership can be the basis of a particular social group.
Ramos involved a Salvadoran man who joined the Mara Salvatrucha in El Salvador at the age of 14. He remained a gang member until coming to the U.S. at the age of 23. Once in the U.S., he became a born-again Christian and feared that if he returned to El Salvador, the gang would kill him for refusing to rejoin. The Seventh Circuit distinguished between current criminal activity and the situation of a former gang member. The Court noted that current gang membership is not the basis for a particular social group because the term "particular social groups" surely was not intended for the protection of members of the criminal class in this country[2] and the trait of current gang membership is not one that a person "cannot change." On the other hand, former gang membership is similar to a line of other cases in which courts have held that former membership in a group can form a particular social group because former membership in a group is immutable.
In addition, the Seventh Circuit states Congress did not intend to bar former gang members from constituting a particular social group. To bar all former gang members from being eligible for asylum would be perverse since someone like Ramos would not quit a gang if he thought he would be sent back to El Salvador and forced to rejoin the gang. Thus, the court, in referring to "the external criterion," essentially found that gang members are socially distinct. Therefore, within the Seventh Circuit, former gang membership may form a particular social group if the former membership is immutable and the group of former gang members is socially distinct. As with all cases where there is a nexus to persecution, asylum officers should evaluate whether the applicant can reasonably internally relocate and whether the government is unwilling or unable to protect the applicant.
[1] 589 F.3d 426 (7th Cir. 2009).
[2] Ramos v. Holder, 589 F.3d 429 (citing Bastanipour v. INS, 980 F.2d 1129 (7th Cir. 1992)). |
PROTECTION OF VICTIMS OF SERIOUS CRIME - U VISA
|
The ultimate goal of the U VISA is to provide for the protection of the victims of serious crimes and assist in the prosecution of the perpetrators by encouraging voluntary cooperation with law enforcement to resolve investigations. The following questions and answers discuss the eligibility requirements and procedural requirements for applying and obtaining a U visa.
Why a U Visa?
Many victims of certain crimes fail to disclose his or her injury to law enforcement for fear of revealing his or her unlawful status in the US. The U visa is a great tool for law enforcement and affords an opportunity for victimized undocumented immigrants to obtain legal status in the United States.
Who will qualify for a U Visa?
- The U visa is available to immigrants who are victims of criminal activities.
-
- In some cases, the victim's family members can also stay in the US, regardless of their current immigration status, as long as the applicant is a victim of a crime.
- To qualify for the derivative U visa, the petitioner must submit evidence to prove that there is a "qualifying family member" relationship between the petitioner and the family member.
What are the eligibility requirements?
The individual:
- suffered substantial physical or mental abuse as a result of having been a victim of a qualifying criminal activity
- possesses information about the criminal activity
- has been helpful, is being helpful, or is likely to be helpful in the investigation or prosecution of the crime
- the criminal activity must have violated the laws of the United States or occurred in the United States.
How long does the U Visa last?
- Once granted, the U visa lasts for four years.
- If a victim is granted a U visa, he or she can adjust his or her status to become a lawful permanent resident (LPR) after three years from the date of receipt of the U visa.
What is the definition of a victim?
A victim is one who has suffered a direct and proximate harm as a result of a qualifying criminal activity. Most likely, the person who has suffered from one of the statutorily listed crimes will be considered a victim if the assertion can be supported by evidence such as police reports.
What qualifies as an eligible criminal activity?
The eligible criminal activity is based on whether the crime is explicitly listed under the statute, 8 C.F.R.§ 214.14, and whether a charging law enforcement agency is willing to certify the crime as a violation of either the state or the federal law.
Is it necessary for the victim's assistance to result in prosecution or arrest?
No. The victim must only possess reliable information relating to the criminal activity and provide proof that he or she possesses specific facts about the qualifying crime. This requires that the victim assist in either or both of the criminal investigation and prosecution.
Where does the location of the occurred criminal activity have to take place?
The qualifying criminal activity must have occurred in the United States or its territories or possessions. However, an application will not be denied solely based on the lack of territorial determination of the criminal activity.
What is the overview of the application process?
A completed application is divided into two parts: the forms and the necessary supporting evidence. The application must include the forms, the evidence of the crime, and all the other required documents.
Are there filing fees for a U Visa?
There is no filing fee for the application regardless of the petitioner's income, but filing fees for supplementary forms are required.
What if a U Visa petitioner is facing removal proceedings or has received a final order of removal while waiting for the approval of the U visa petition?
If a U visa petitioner is in pending removal proceedings, he or she could request that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Counsel apply his or her discretion by filing a joint motion to terminate proceedings with the Immigration Judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals, while the petition for U Visa is pending with USCIS.
|
RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION IS WIDESPREAD |
Nigeria
The numbers are staggering: 12,000 people killed in a cycle of violence between Christians and Muslims stretching back more than a decade. The location: Nigeria, the most populous nation in Africa, lying on the continent's fault line between the largely Muslim north and predominantly Christian south. In the most recent outbreak of killing in Nigeria's Jos State several months ago, 500 men, women and children were hacked to death with machetes and then dumped into wells. That's just one example of the level of religious persecution around the world, according to a new report from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.
Egypt
According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, more than two out of three people around the world live in countries with high or very high restrictions on religion. For example, Egypt not only imprisons members of the Baha'i faith and members of minority Muslim sects, but also has some fired from their jobs, kicked out of universities and barred from having bank accounts, driver's licenses, even birth certificates. Furthermore, Coptic Christians in Egypt continue to be persecuted by Muslim extremists. The International Coptic Federation reports that kidnapping of Christian girls by Muslim extremists continues, and Egyptian authorities are doing little to stop it. It is believed that more than 300 Coptic girls have been kidnapped. In another incident of religious persecution, a new Coptic Christian church in a poor district of Cairo was forcibly closed by Egyptian authorities July 15, just three weeks after it opened. In a "spectacular show of force," police and soldiers sealed off the new Church of St. Bishoi, posting an armed guard and sealing doors and windows with wax.
Iran
Furthermore, Iranian authorities have detained more than 45 Baha'is in the last four months, and as many as 60 Baha'is are imprisoned in Iran on the basis of their religion beliefs, the State Department said. Tehran's constitution declares the "official religion of Iran is Islam and the doctrine followed is that of Ja'fari Shi'ism." The government severely restricts freedom of religion, particularly efforts by Christians to evangelize. Since conversion of a Muslim to another faith is considered apostasy under Shari'a law, non-Muslims who proselytize followers of Islam put their own lives at risk. Iran's theocratic government has also pressured evangelical Christian groups to compile and submit membership lists for their congregations, but this demand has been resisted in the past.
Azerbaijan & Kyrgyzstan
Furthermore, recent legislation in Azerbaijan requires churches and religious communities to register with the government for permission to practice their religion. The government is touting the bill on religion as an anti-terrorism measure, saying that the new statutes would make it easier for law-enforcement authorities to contain Islamic radicals. In addition, officials say that the pending legislation is needed to help thwart what some portray as a second social scourge - evangelical Christians. President Bakeiv in Kyrgyzstan recently issued a Religion Law in 2009, which bans the distribution of religious books, audiotapes, or any other similar material and prohibits any religious activity to take place if it is not registered with the government. It also criminalizes "proselytism" and requires that a religious organization have at least 200 adult members who are citizens of the Kyrgyz republic in order to qualify for official registration. Two members of one Christian group, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they felt compelled to keep proselytizing. "We respect the authority of government because the Bible tells us to do what the government says," one of them said. "We will listen and obey, but they cannot shut our mouths. We will continue to share our beliefs."
Morocco
Overall, the North African country has a history of religious tolerance. Morocco's constitution provides for freedom to practice one's religion, but Article 220 of the Moroccan Penal Code criminalizes any attempt to induce a Muslim to convert to another religion. Nonetheless, in March 2010, approximately 40 foreigners were deported from Morocco on grounds that they were attempting to convert Moroccan citizens to Christianity, without even so much as a chance to plead their cases in court. Furthermore, the Moroccan government announced on March 29, 2010, it had expelled five female Christians for attempting to "proselytize" in the Islamic country, although sources said they were foreign visitors merely attending a Bible study with fellow Christians. The accused women were five of 23 tourists, expatriates and Moroccans arrested in Casablanca during what the Interior Ministry called a "proselytizing" meeting involving Moroccan citizens. Police seized numerous pieces of evangelistic "propaganda," including Arabic books and videos. Earlier this month, a Shiite school was closed after accusations that it was attempting to convert students, and rights groups claim that about a dozen people have been arrested on suspicion they had converted to Shiite Islam.
Uzbekistan
Most recently, Uzbekistan's police raided one of the biggest Protestant churches in Tashkent during its May 16, 2010 worship service. Many religious believers in Uzbekistan have been given long prison sentences over recent years to punish them for their religious activity. The government maintains extremely strict controls over all religious groups, requiring all to be officially registered. The registration process is lengthy and difficult, and the majority of applications are denied. Groups that meet without being registered are illegal, and face fines, confiscation of property, imprisonment, and other methods of persecution. Out of 2,228 registered religious organizations, fewer than 180 are Christian. Unregistered groups are often accused of extremism and prosecuted under the applicable laws. Furthermore, the vast majority of people are Muslim, and the government provides Islam some official support, through financial aid to Muslim schools and other assistance. |
|
The information contained on this email is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The transmission of information to or from this email does not create an attorney-client relationship between the sender and receiver. We take our privacy policy seriously and will never sell, rent or share our email list. View our Privacy Policy here. To schedule a consultation with one of our immigration lawyers, please click here. |
|
|
June 2010 |  |
|
Quote of the Month |
|
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us."
~Ralph Waldo Emerson |
Border Security is NOT Immigration Reform |
|
President Obama has been conferring with the Republicans in Senate and has come to the decision that he will send 1,200 National Guard troops to increase security at the US-Mexico border. Furthermore, he will also request $500,000,000 in order to have more personnel and technology down at the border. His reason for doing so is to decrease drug trafficking, crimes, and violence at the border.
While drug trafficking is an important issue that needs to be addressed, it is not an immigration issue. Immigration reform needs to be addressed as well. While the President is focusing on the border, he is neglecting the millions of immigrants who are in need of a better immigration system. |
US Citizen Shot Near US-Mexico Border |
|
Esequiel Hernandez, an 18-year-old high school sophomore and US citizen, was shot dead by US Marines near the Mexico-US border. He was herding goats and was not doing anything wrong. Esequiel was carrying a .22-caliber rifle with him in order to protect his goats from wild dogs, coyotes, and other predators. He did not know that he was being watched by marines who were camouflaged nearby, watching for drug traffickers illegally crossing the border.
What happened next is a tragedy. It is speculated that Esequiel mistook the hidden marines for wild dogs who were going to attack the goats, and so he fired two shots in the direction of the marines. Minutes later, Esequiel was dead. He had been shot by the marines.
As this story has shown, marines are in no position to be guarding the border. As former judge Jake Brisbin has stated, "The idea that military men should enforce civil law is insanity. They are not taught to fire a warning shot. They are not taught to preserve life. They are trained to take it." And take Esequiel's life is exactly what they did. It is sad that a tragedy like this needs to take place in order to bring attention to our inadequate immigration system, and it is high time that President Obama addressed immigration reform.
To read the full story on Esequiel Hernandez, please visit: http://www.chron.com/
disp/story
.mpl/ent/5876001.html
|
Obama Deporting MORE Immigrants than Bush |
|
According to the chart posted on AmericasVoiceOnline.org (image above), deportations have highly increased under President Obama. In 2010, the Obama Administration will be deporting 400,000 illegal immigrants - a new record high. The greater majority of these immigrants - 70% to be precise - do not have a criminal history. It is rather ironic that, while President Obama is constantly promising immigration reform, he has been cracking down on immigrants harder than any other US president has ever done before him. It is high time that the President started living up to his promises and improving lives for immigrants, as opposed to ruining them.
To view the chart, and for more information, please go to:
http://americasvoiceonline.
org/pages/deportations
|
GREEN CARD - GREEN AGAIN |
USCIS has announced that the Green Card will be green again. Green cards were initially green; then they became pink, and then they became a light yellow-brown color. In addition to becoming green again, the green card will also include biometric data, such as embedded radio frequency identification technology and a laser engraved fingerprint. The card itself is going to have a much more appealing design as well. It will have:
· a color shifting image of an eagle
· a holographic image
· the statue of liberty in the background
· and images of all the US presidents on the back side.
If you need to apply for a green card, come and meet with the lawyers at BOILA and before you know it, you will be looking at the brand new green card with your name printed on it.
To read the full article, please visit http://www.uscis.gov/
portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5
af9bb95919f3
5e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=79bd3893c48882
10VgnVCM1000000
82ca60aRCRD&
vgnextchannel=68439c77
55cb9010VgnVCM1000
0045f3d6a1RCRD |
|
Immigration Consequences of the Plea Agreements - Padilla v. Kentucky
|
|
"Immigration law can be complex and it is a legal specialty of its own." Justice Alito, US Supreme Court in Padilla v. Kentucky, Slip Opinion, Decided March 31, 2010
The case, Padilla v. Kentucky, involved a Vietnam War veteran who has resided lawfully in the U.S. for over 40 years. His lawyer told him not to worry about the immigration consequences of pleading guilty to a crime, but that advice was wrong. In fact, the guilty plea made Mr. Padilla subject to mandatory deportation from the United States. The Court held that criminal defense lawyers must advise their noncitizen clients about the risk of deportation if they accept a guilty plea.
The Court recognized that current immigration laws impose harsh and mandatory deportation consequences onto criminal convictions, and that Congress eliminated from these laws the Attorney General's discretionary authority to cancel removal. The Court said, "These changes to our immigration law have dramatically raised the stakes of a noncitizen's criminal conviction. The importance of accurate legal advice for noncitizens accused of crimes has never been more important."
Although defense attorneys are under no obligation to advise defendants about the immigration consequences of a guilty plea, an attorney who does provide such advice "has a duty to avoid doing so incompetently." However, because any defendant faced with deportation can allege that his defense counsel's advice prejudiced their plea decision, courts must find prejudice only when a rational defendant would have insisted on going to trial. According to the court, because going to trial might have exposed Padilla to a longer sentence than he would have received after pleading guilty, Padilla could not rationally have chosen to forgo a guilty plea and proceed to trial.
Today's decision also reminds us that ultimately, the increased criminalization of immigration law and lack of flexibility has resulted in harsh results. Congress should do its part to restore immigration judges' discretion to consider the particular circumstances in a person's case, thus affording each person facing deportation an individualized and fair opportunity to be heard.
|
|
|