|
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!
|
|
WIN $50.00
TO GO TOWARD YOUR RETAINER IF YOU ARE THE FIRST PERSON TO SOLVE OUR CHRISTMAS CROSSWORD!
| |
Match the numbers of the clues below to the crossword, using the word bank. The horizontal words in the crossword are marked with red numbers, and the vertical ones are marked with black numbers.
Christmas is a traditional holiday celebrated by the majority of Americans. To get into the Christmas spirit, families put up Christmas ___19___ and decorate them with ___10___. They put ___1___ on top of their trees and ___9___ underneath them. Then they gather in groups and walk around their neighborhoods singing ___13____. On Christmas ___12___, all the ___5___ go to bed early because they know that ___4___ Claus, otherwise known as ___11___, will be coming that night. They leave cookies and ___15___ out for him by the ___17___. They've been trying to be ___6___ all year because they know that they will get ___2___ instead of presents if they have been ___21___. Meanwhile, the ___8___ at the North ___7___ have been making toys for the children all year long. They wrap them and put them into Santa's ___16___ ___14___. Then Santa climbs in and his flying ___3___ take him away into the night. He lands on the rooftop of every house and comes down the ___18___. He leaves presents and the flies off bellowing, "Merry Christmas to ___20___ and to all a good night."
Word bank:
all, carols, children, chimney, coal, elves, eve, fireplace, milk, naughty, nice, ornaments, pole, presents, red, reindeer, Saint Nicholas, Santa, sleigh, stars, trees
|
|
24 NEW IMMIGRATION JUDGES APPOINTED NATIONWIDE | |
On November 5, 2010, 23 of the 24 new immigration judges were sworn in after a long hiring process (Honorable Immigration Judge Andrea H. Sloan was unable to attend the swearing-in ceremony). This multi-step process first began in December 2009, and the 23 newly appointed judges passed through the following steps to qualify:
- Initial screening.
- Referral of 1,782 candidate applications to the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge by the Executive Office for Immigration Review's (EOIR) human resources section.
- Screening of application by four panels of assistant chief immigration judges for the following criteria:
- The ability to demonstrate the appropriate temperament to serve as a judge.
- Knowledge of immigration laws and procedures.
- Substantial litigation experience.
- Experience handling complex legal issues.
- Experience conducting administrative hearings.
- Knowledge of judicial practices and procedures.
- Interviewing of the most highly recommended candidates.
- Referral for a second interview, followed by an interview by a panel of senior Department of Justice officials of the top candidates.
- Final selections made by Attorney General Eric Holder.
Below, is a list of the 24 new immigration judges (IJ) and the courts in which they will preside:
- Honorable IJ Silvia R. Arellano - Florence, Arizona
- Honorable IJ Jerry A. Beatmann Sr. - Oakdale, Louisiana
- Honorable IJ Jesse B. Christensen - New York, New York
- Honorable IJ Steven J. Connelly - Batavia, New York
- Honorable IJ Philip J. Costa - Los Angeles, California
- Honorable IJ V. Stuart Couch - Charlotte, North Carolina
- Honorable IJ Thomas G. Crossan Jr. - Pearsall, Texas
- Honorable IJ Leo A. Finston - Newark, New Jersey
- Honorable IJ Saul Greenstein - Houston, Texas
- Honorable IJ Amy C. Hoogasian - San Francisco, California
- Honorable IJ Stuart F. Karden - Orlando, Florida
- Honorable IJ F. James Loprest Jr. - New York, New York
- Honorable IJ Lisa Luis - Houston, Texas
- Honorable IJ Joren Lyons - San Francisco, California
- Honorable IJ H. Kevin Mart - Miami, Florida
- Honorable IJ Sheila McNulty - Chicago, Illinois
- Honorable IJ Maureen S. O'Sullivan - Los Angeles, California
- Honorable IJ Daniel J. Santander - Pearsall, Texas
- Honorable IJ Alice Segal - New York, New York
- Honorable IJ Andrea H. Sloan - Portland, Oregon
- Honorable IJ Dan Trimble - Lumpkin, Georgia
- Honorable IJ Eileen R. Trujillo - Denver, Colorado
- Honorable IJ Clarence M. Wagner Jr. - Honolulu, Hawaii
- Honorable IJ Virna A. Wright - New York, New York
Information for this article was taken directly from this EOIR website.
To read the biographies of these newly-appointed immigration judges, please click here. |
|
WHY IS IT TAKING SO LONG TO GET A RECEIPT NOTICE?
| |
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) has recently inquired with the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) as to why it has been taking so long to get Receipt Notices for applications lately. The Service has responded by stating the reasons for the delays and ways of dealing with these technical issues.
When applications are mailed to lockboxes, the first step they go through is being scanned into the USCIS electronic system. Most of the applications and petitions that go through the scanning machine are accepted, but about 20% of them cannot be registered by the machine and must be processed and receipted manually. This is the primary reason for the delays.
If you are encountering problems with a Lockbox, the easiest way to resolve them is to contact USCIS by sending an email to lockboxsupport@dhs.gov. In that email, you should clearly explain what the problem is with your case and provide basic information such as the petitioner's and beneficiary's or applicant's names and dates of birth, in addition to the receipt number of the application (if known). If you do not get a response to your email in five days, then you can email the AILA liaison at lockboxliaison@aila.org with the same information that you provided in your initial email, and the liaison will contact USCIS on your behalf.
Also, with the holidays just around the corner, many of the USCIS personnel are taking time off to spend with their families. As a result, there are fewer people to process applications, and this slows the process down even further.
The full article referenced here can be found at AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 10110930 (posted Nov. 8, 2010. For more general information, please click here. |
| BUSINESS OWNERS IN VIRGINIA GO TO PRISON FOR HARBORING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS | |
Bao Ping Wang and Trang Lu were caught harboring and employing between 6 to 24 illegal immigrants during the time period of 2006-2009. They are now facing the harsh consequences of breaking the law.
Wang and Lu owned two food distribution companies: SeaLands Food and Hi-Tech Trucking. They employed aliens who were both legal and illegal to work for their companies, and provided them with shelter and food. When caught, Wang pled guilty to harboring illegal aliens, and Lu pled to misprision of a felony. The consequences for their actions are as follows:
- 18 months in prison;
- 2 years of probation;
- They must forfeit the $1,225,428 that was gained through illegal means;
- They must pay a $100,000 fine;
- Wang must pay an additional $4,000;
- Lu must pay an additional $5,000;
- Wang will be deported from the U.S. after he serves his sentence;
- Lu will have to comply with DHS and Social Security programs for screening employees to determine their legal eligibility for job positions.
As can be seen, the consequences for breaking immigration laws are very severe. If you are a business owner, you must be sure that your employees are authorized to work in the United States. If you are an immigrant and don't have work authorization, schedule an appointment with one of the lawyers and BOILA PC to determine what your options are for obtaining authorization to work in order to financially support yourself.
To read the full article, please click here.
|
|
SUPREME COURT HEARS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASE | |
The case is Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting (09-115). A ruling is expected by June.
Justices hear case over punishing businesses that hire illegal workers
By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer
A proposed Arizona law would punish businesses that hire illegal aliens. A proposed Arizona law would punish businesses that hire illegal aliens.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
*The high court hears arguments on an illegal immigration law aimed at employers *Justices' comments indicated the court might lean toward the state's position *This is separate from a law that would boost local police's role in immigration enforcement would among other things, give police authority to check a person's immigration status if officers have a "reasonable suspicion" that the individual is in the country illegally.
Newly appointed Justice Elena Kagan has withdrawn from the E-Verify case because of her earlier involvement in the appeal process while serving as solicitor general in the Obama administration. She has recused herself in about two dozen current and pending cases so far, leaving the possibility of a split 4-4 high court. When that happens, the lower court ruling prevails but no precedent is set.
The Supreme Court offered tenuous support Wednesday for an Arizona law that would punish businesses hiring illegal aliens, a law that opponents, including the Obama administration, say steps on traditional federal oversight over immigration matters.
It is the first high court challenge to a variety of recent state laws cracking down on illegal immigrants, an issue that has become a political lightning rod.
The outcome could serve as a judicial warm-up for a separate high-profile challenge to a more controversial Arizona immigration reform law working its way through lower courts. That statute would, among other things, give local police a greater role in arresting suspected illegal immigrants.
With only eight justices hearing the spirited hour oral of oral arguments, the very real possibility of a 4-4 tie could leave all or parts of the Arizona business-sanctions law intact.
A variety of worst-case scenarios were offered from the bench over the legislation and its impact.
"What Arizona says has occurred here is that the (federal) scheme in place has not been enforced, and Arizona and other states are in serious trouble financially, and for other reasons, because of unrestrained immigration," said Justice Antonin Scalia. He called the Arizona law a "massive measure" of regulation.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested the law is mainly punitive in its intent, not purely regulatory, since companies violating the illegal hiring provisions would not be subject to financial penalties, but instead would have their licenses suspended.
She questioned the "anomaly that Arizona cannot impose a fine even in a modest amount, but it can revoke someone's license to do business."
Arizona passed the Legal Arizona Workers Act in 2007, allowing the state to suspend the licenses of businesses that "intentionally or knowingly" violate work-eligibility verification requirements. Companies would be required under that law to use E-Verify, a federal database to check the documentation of current and prospective employees. That database had been created by Congress as a voluntary, discretionary resource.
In its lawsuit, the Chamber of Commerce argues federal law prohibits Arizona and other states from making E-Verify use mandatory. It has been supported by a variety of civil rights and immigration rights groups. The state argues its broad licensing authority gives it the right to monitor businesses within its jurisdiction.
The Obama administration recommended a judicial review, and is siding with businesses and civil rights groups.
A 1986 federal act significantly limited state power to separately regulate the hiring and employment of "unauthorized" workers. An exception was made for local "licensing and similar laws." Under the law, employees are required to review documentation to confirm someone's right to work in the United States, including checking the familiar I-9 immigration form. Civil and criminal penalties were strengthened, but businesses making a "good faith" effort to comply with I-9 procedures were generally immune from prosecution.
The oral arguments centered on two fundamental questions: is the Arizona scheme a "licensing" law, and whether the E-Verify system could be made mandatory by states. An eventual ruling by the justices could split on the dual questions.
Carter Phillips, attorney for the plaintiffs, called the Arizona law a "death penalty" to businesses who could lose their licenses even for inadvertently hiring illegal workers. He pointedly said this is not a "licensing" law.
"States and municipalities issue all sorts of licenses," said a skeptical Justice Samuel Alito, using the home of the Supreme Court to offer a hypothetical. "If the District of Columbia were, after having enacted this (business license) requirement some years ago, were to pass a new ordinance saying, 'If you knowingly hire an illegal alien, your general business license can be forfeited,' would that cease to be a licensing law?" He hinted it would not.
Chief Justice John Roberts went further.
"It seems to me that whatever wiggle room or ambiguity there may be in saying whether this is a license or not, Congress swept pretty broadly. It said, not just licensing laws, but licensing and 'similar' laws."
The swing vote in the dispute may lie with Justice Anthony Kennedy, who asked tough questions on both sides but appeared to offer a greater measure of support for the Arizona law. On the "licensing" question he was clear: "I see no limitation on what the state can decide is a license in any jurisprudential principle that you cited," he told Phillips.
On the other side, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer questioned the practical impact of the law, especially on those who are not hired by a business fearful of employing an illegal.
Breyer said the federal law offers a "careful balance" between avoiding discrimination and ensuring verification in the workplace. He noted separate $1,000 federal fines for businesses that knowingly discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity or other factors - and for lax hiring of undocumented workers.
"So Arizona comes along and says: I'll tell you what, if you discriminate, you know what happens to you? Nothing," said Breyer. "But if you hire an illegal immigrant, your business is dead. That's just one thing they do. Now, how can you reconcile that intent to prevent discrimination against people because of their appearance or accent with Arizona's law? If you are a businessman, every incentive under that law is to call close questions against hiring this person. Under the federal law every incentive is there to look at it carefully."
Gov. Jan Brewer, who attended the arguments, predicted a favorable outcome.
"The bottom line is that we believe that if the government isn't going to do the job then Arizona is going to do the job," she told reporters on the Supreme Court plaza. "We are faced with a crisis. And with regard to today's hearing, certainly we do issue licenses, and if we giveth, we can taketh away. And that's what we're hoping and banking on the Supreme Court's (upcoming) decision."
This case could serve as a bellwether to how the court will view a larger, more controversial state immigration law from Arizona. Much of that statute was tossed out by a federal judge in August and is currently pending at a federal appeals court. It would among other things, give police authority to check a person's immigration status if officers have a "reasonable suspicion" that the individual is in the country illegally. |
|
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. Copyright 2010. |
|
|
| December 2010 |  | |
|
| QUOTE OF THE MONTH | |
"Happy, happy Christmas, that can win us back to the delusions of our childish days; that can recall to the old man the pleasures of his youth; that can transport the sailor and the traveller, thousands of miles away, back to his own fire-side and his quiet home!"
|
| CHINESE MAN FACES 18 MONTHS IN PRISON FOR ILLEGAL SMUGGLING | | |
Yong Xiang Yan was sentenced to 18 months in a federal prison on November 9. His crime was conspiring to smuggle in honey originating in China to avoid paying anti-dumping duties. To make matters worse, some of the honey was tainted with antibiotics.
Before he was caught engaging in illegal activity, Yan was the president of Changge City Jixiang Bee Product Co. Ltd. This honey-producing company is located in Henan, China, and the honey produced there was tainted with Norfloxacin and Ciprofloxacin.
Yan admitted to conspiring with 9 other individuals from the U.S., Germany, and China to illegally import honey from his company into the U.S. This honey was claimed to be produced in the Philipines, in order to avoid paying duties on it when it entered the U.S. He also admitted to authorizing 21 additional shipments through the Philippines and Thailand. The total sum of duties that he had avoided paying in this manner is $3,953,515.
As a consequence of his crime, Yan will be have to pay the $3,953,515 in restitution. Also, after he has served 18 months in federal prison, he will be put into deportation proceedings.
To read the full article, please click here. |
|
ICE DETAINEES PASS AWAY IN CHICAGO AND LOUISIANA | | |
Two Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainees, Antonio Gomez-Hernandez and John Sterling passed away within the same week. They were the first ICE detainees to pass away during the 2011 fiscal year, which began on October 1st, 2010.
Gomez-Hernandez was 66 years old and a Mexican national. He was being held in ICE custody for less than one day before he began complaining of severe chest pain and was rushed off to Loyola University Medical Center in Maywood, Illinois. Immediately upon arrival, he had to undergo emergency surgery, as his liver was failing he was internally bleeding in the abdomen.
His relatives in the U.S. were notified of his condition, and were allowed to come and visit him as he remained in critical condition. They were there on November 5 prior to the time of Gomez-Hernandez's death.
John Sterling was 54 years old and a Jamaican national. He was held in ICE custody for nearly 10 months before he was taken to the Rapides Regional Medical Center in Alexandria, Louisiana. At first, he was believed to have anorexia, as he had rapidly lost weight and had a noticeable mass in his upper abdomen. Upon further testing, medics determined that he had T-cell lymphoma, which is a cancer of the white blood cells.
He passed away on November 6 or organ failure that resulted from T-cell lymphoma. Sterling did not have any immediate relatives in the U.S., but his distant relatives were notified of his death.
In compliance with ICE protocol, both the Mexican and Jamaican consulates were notified of Gomez-Hernandez and Sterling's conditions, and were kept updated of the progress of their medical conditions up to the time of their deaths. ICE also informed all the appropriate state health and local law enforcement agencies of these two men's deaths.
To read the full article about Gomez-Hernandez, please click here.
To read the full article about Sterling, please click here. |
|
| | |
Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Whiting (Sup. Ct. oral arg. on Wed.)
"Plain English Issue: An Arizona law requires state employers to check the immigration status of job applicants through a federal computer database, although the federal law creating the database makes its use voluntary. Arizona also revokes the business license of state companies that hire undocumented workers. Are these provisions pre-empted by federal immigration laws?" ScotusBlog, including links to briefs.
Jeb Bush bashes SB 1070
"Bush is a staunch conservative - speaking out against SB 1070 in that crowd is a big-time no-no. So, such statements coming from a right-winger (who may want to be president?) like him are a bit shocking...but there's a twist." James King, Dec. 6, 2010
NY Gov. pardons 6 facing deportation
"Gov. David A. Paterson announced pardons on Monday for six immigrants facing deportation because of old criminal convictions, including a financial administrator at the City University of New York." NYT, Dec. 6, 2010.
Congressman seeks humanitarian visa for soldier's wife
"Congressman Luis Gutierrez is asking for a humanitarian visa for the family of a National Guard soldier from Chicago. The soldier's wife and infant son are stranded in Mexico - while the soldier is to be deployed in Afghanistan." WBBM, Dec. 6, 2010. |
|
|
