Beach-Oswald Immigration Lawyers

A-V Rated                                      
29 Years of Experience   
Volume 6, Issue 6
June 30, 2011 
July 4th Fireworks
Greetings!

 

Beach-Oswald Immigration Law Associates is committed to providing you with this newsletter to keep you up-to-date with information regarding immigration law and other issues that affect you. Read on for our June 30, 2011 e-newsletter edition!   

In This Issue ...
Recent Successes ...
New Trends in Immigration...
The Changing Face of Marriage and Families in Immigration Law...
NSEERS Registration is Terminated...
18-Month Extension and Re-designation of Haiti for Temporary Protected Status...
H-1B Visa FY 2012 Cap Count Update...
Pulitzer Winner Discloses Illegal Immigration Past...
Judge Blocks Parts of Georgia Immigration Law...
OSC files OCAHO Suit Against Farmland Foods, Inc...
Seen and (Mostly) Unseen: The True Costs of E-Verify...

Our Successes Last Month  

 

Ms. C- HIB was approved on premium processing so that client can consular process in to work for the company

 

Ms and Mr B- Parents after being 20 years in country from Peru have an approved petition

 

Mr. E - World Bank adjustment petition approved for child

 

Ms. E - I-600 approval Orphan petition approval

 

Ms. K- Naturalization approval 

 

Mr. B- Naturalization approval

 

Mr. W- complex denials of I-130 approved and adjusted in Baltimore court

 

Mr. Y- UDC asylum grant from IJ in Arlington court

 

Ms. F- UDC asylum court grant from IJ in Arlington court

 

 Ms. A- recommended approval of asylum at the asylum office

 

Mr. N- UDC asylum court grant

 

Ms. D- approval based on marriage to USC

 

Mr. F- adjustment in immigration after several long years of I-130 denials

 

Ms. F- approval of adjustment after being in US over 10 years and filing Cancellation of Removal  

 

Mr. T- SCNC grant of asylum in court

 

Mr. A- Board of Immigration Appeals remand on denial of I-130

 

New Trends in Immigration

 

The Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics and the Congressional Research Service have released new studies highlighting important numbers and demographic trends in Immigration to the United States.

 

Full details of the studies are available at:

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2010.pdf 

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/lpr_fr_2010.pdf, and

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R41753.pdf.

 

Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics - Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2010

  • As of January 2010, 10.8 million unauthorized immigrants reside in the United States.  Although this number is down from the 11.8 million in 2007, this number has grown by 27% since 2000.  The Department of Homeland Security attributes the decline of unauthorized immigrants between 2007 and 2010 to the economic recession in the United States.
  • The largest amount of unauthorized immigrants, 6.6 million, came from Mexico.  Other leading sources including El Salvador with 620,000, Guatemala with 500,000, Honduras with 330,000, and the Philippines with 280,000.
  • The leading states of residence for unauthorized immigrants were California (2.6 million), Texas (1.8 million), and Florida (760,000).
  • 62% of these unauthorized immigrants entered the United States during either the 1980s or 1990s.

Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics - U.S. Legal Permanent Residents: 2010

  • In 2010, 1,042,625 individuals became Lawful Permanent Residents (LPR) of the United States.  This represents a 7.8% drop from 2009.  The Department of Homeland Security attributes this drop in the pending adjustment of status applications and not a decline in the number of applications received.
  • 54% of LPRs in 2010 were a result of adjustment of status.  46% were from new arrivals.
  • The leading countries of birth of new LPRs were Mexico - 13%, China - 7%, and India - 7%.
  • 66% of the total LPR flow in 2010 was from family-sponsored immigrants (immediate relatives of US citizens and family preference classes of admission).  14% came from employment-based preference.  13% came from refugees and asylum seekers.  4.8% came from the diversity lottery program.
  • Asia accounted for 41% as the region of birth for new LPRs.  North America was second with 32%.
  • California was the leading state of residence of new LPRs, with 20% of new LRPs residing in California.

Congressional Research Service - Asylum and "Credible Fear" Issues in US Immigration Policy

  • Approximately 30% of all asylum cases in recent years that worked through USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) and EOIR (Department of Justice Executive Office of Immigration Review) have been approved.
Affirmative Asylum Cases Filed and Approved by USCIS, FY1996 - FY2009



The study noted a 79% decrease in affirmative asylum applications filed since the enactment of IIRAIRA of 1996 (Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act)

Defensive Asylum Cases Filed and Approved by EOIR


The study noted a 53% decrease in Defensive Asylum cases since the enactment of IIRAIRA of 1996 (Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act).  However, the number of applications approved has risen by 99% since 1996.

Top 10 Source Countries of Asylum Seekers, FY 2009



Top 10Source Countries of Asylum Cases Approved by USCIS and EOIR



There have been several disparities by USCIS regional asylum offices and EOIR immigration courts.  For example, one study (Refugee Roulette of the November 2007 Stanford Law Review) noted that the approval rate of asylum claimants from China spanned from 0% to 90% between 1999 and 2005.  For the EOIR, the Immigration Court in Atlanta approved 7% of the cases from China, while the Court in Orlando approved 76%.  Similar trends were also seen for Colombian asylum seekers.

This disparity has also been recognized by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).  According to the GAO Study, U.S. Asylum System: Significant Variation Existed in Asylum Outcomes across Immigration Courts and Judges, "affirmative applicants in San Francisco were still 12 times more likely than those in Atlanta to be granted asylum."  The GAO study also noted that asylum seekers with legal representation were three times more likely to obtain asylum than those without legal representation.

 

A study from Syracuse University highlighted the discrepancies of judge to judge disparities.

 

 

From 2000 to 2010, 411,972 of the 10.3 million Lawful Permanent Residents (approximately 4%) were asylum adjustments.

The Changing Face of Marriage and Families in Immigration Law    

 

By William Shwayri - law intern at Beach-Oswald Immigration Law Associates


Defense of Marriage ActLawmakers voted late Friday, June 24, 2011 to legalize same-sex marriage, making New York the largest state where gay and lesbian couples can wed, and giving the national gay-rights movement new momentum from the state where it was born. The same-sex marriage bill was approved on a 33 to 29 vote. The Senate galleries were so packed with supporters and opponents that the fire marshals closed them off.

 

In February of 2011, the Obama Administration decided it would not defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA").  DOMA, passed in 1996, which recognized marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman.  In a letter to Congress written in late February, Attorney General Holder noted that both he and President Obama believed that DOMA was unconstitutional and stated "The President and I have concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation should be subjected to a strict legal test to block unfair discrimination."

 

The Obama's Administration refusal to defend DOMA is already causing waves in the realm of immigration law. Most recently has been the case of Paul Dorman.  Dorman, an Irishman who entered the United States in 1996 overstayed his visa but entered in a civil union with a New Jersey man in 2009.  New Jersey is one of a handful of states that allows for civil unions between gay and lesbian couples.  Dorman attempted to stop his deportation by a cancellation of removal.  Cancellation of removal requires a qualifying United States or permanent resident relative and Dorman argued that his civil union with the New Jersey man met this criteria.  The Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") ruled that Dorman should be deported because although he is in a civil union with an U.S. citizen, DOMA bars same-sex marriages.  Therefore, the BIA held Dorman did not have the necessary qualifying U.S. or permanent resident spouse for cancellation of removal.

 

Last month, Holder put a halt on the deportation, citing the potential unconstitutionality of DOMA, and a further determination if Dorman would be eligible to remain in the United States if DOMA did not exist.  In Matter of Dorman, Holder noted that a further examination was needed to determine if "whether absent the requirements of DOMA, respondent's [Dorman] same sex-partnership or civil union would qualify him to be considered a spouse under the Immigration and Nationality Act."

 

Although advocates of same-sex unions are hailing this as a victory, the implications of this decision remain to be seen.  The case has been sent for further proceedings to the BIA and Immigration Judge to answer Holder's decision for more fact finding. A 6/6/11 letter from Juan P. Osuna, Director, EOIR, responding to a 4/6/11 letter from AILA and other organizations, stating that until the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is repealed or struck down EOIR will continue to apply DOMA as interpreted in the immigration context.

 

This is not the first time courts have struggled to define what constitutes a proper relationship to halt a cancellation of removal.  Three decades ago in Palmer v. Reddy, controversy existed as to the eligibility of step-children to qualify for cancellation of removal.  Although decisions prior to 1980 required a step-child to be part of a "close family unit," courts now look at this issue "without further qualification."

 

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.  

  

If you have any comments on these articles that you wish to share, please email them to dbeach@beach-oswald.com.

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 2011.
Quick Links
AVVO 10.0 Rating for Beach-Oswald

 

 Visit our blog 

 

Find us on Facebook 

 

Follow us on Twitter 

  

View our videos on YouTube 

 

June 30, 2011

Beach Waves 
 
Join Our Mailing List

NSEERS Terminated

NSEERS Registration is Terminated

In late April, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that it was ending the NSEERS ( National Security Entry-Exit Registration System) which was a special registration process for male foreign nationals from certain countries who are over age 16 and who entered the US as non-immigrants prior to September 10, 2001. This program was implemented in 2002 as a national security measure following  September 11, attacks in an effort to track the arrival and departure of individuals from the Middle Eastern countries. These registrants went through secondary inspection on each arrival to the US and were required to register upon departure at one of the 100 plus designated ports of departure.

 

In the ensuing years, DHS and the Department of State increased surveillance measures, thus the program became obsolete. This program generated a lot of controversy on discrimination of Muslim men. While  many foreign nationals especially those from the Middle East continue to be referred to secondary inspection this is no longer an automatic process. This move is applauded as progress. 

 

Ocean Waves

18-Month Extension and Re-designation of Haiti for Temporary Protected Status    

This notice announces that the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) is both extending the existing designation of Haiti for temporary protected status (TPS) for 18 months from July 23, 2011 through January 22, 2013, and redesignating Haiti for TPS for 18 months, effective July 23, 2011 through January 22, 2013.

 

The extension allows current eligible TPS beneficiaries to retain their TPS through January 22, 2013. The redesignation of Haiti allows additional individuals who have been continuously residing in the United States since January 12, 2011, to obtain TPS, if eligible, including certain Haitians who arrived in the United States following the January 12, 2010 earthquake in Haiti.

 

Under the redesignation, individuals who currently do not have TPS, or a TPS application pending, may apply for TPS from May 19, 2011 through November 15, 2011. In addition to demonstrating continuous residence in the United States since January 12, 2011, initial applicants for TPS under this redesignation must demonstrate that they have been continuously physically present in the United States since July 23, 2011, the effective date of the redesignation of Haiti.

 
H-1B Visa Cap Season

H-1B Visa FY 2012 Cap Season    

H-1B Cap Count (Updated 6/15/11)

USCIS updated its count of FY2012 cap-subject H-1B petitions and advanced degree cap-exempt petitions receipted. As of 6/13/11, approximately 15,200 H-1B cap-subject petitions were receipted. USCIS has receipted 10,200 H-1B petitions for aliens with advanced degrees


The H-1B Program


U.S. businesses use the H-1B program to employ foreign workers in specialty occupations that require theoretical or technical expertise in specialized fields, such as scientists, engineers, or computer programmers.

 

Get the latest H-1B Cap Count on our website here. 

 

Pulitzer Winner Discloses Illegal Immigration Past

Jose Vargas
Jose Antonio Vargas, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist for the Washington Post, has written an article admitting his status as an undocumented immigrant in the US. Photograph: AP Photo

Pulitzer winner's disclosure prompts U.S. media to reflect on ethical implications of immigration coverage.

 

"Vargas' very public announcement that he was secretly unauthorized to live and work as a journalist in the U.S. has certainly prompted responses from all corners." Joseph Vavrus, June 24, 2011.

 

Judge Blocks Parts of Ga. Immigration Law
A federal judge on June 27 blocked parts of Georgia's law cracking down on illegal immigration from taking effect until a legal challenge is resolved. Judge Thomas Thrash granted a request to block parts of the law that penalize people who knowingly and willingly transport or harbor illegal immigrants while committing another crime. He also blocked provisions that authorize officers to verify the immigration status of someone who can't provide proper identification. Thrash wrote that under parts of the law, the state is enforcing immigration law that should be left to the federal government.
AP, June 27, 2011

 

OSC files OCAHO Suit Against Farmland Foods, Inc.

"The Justice Department today filed a lawsuit against Farmland Foods Inc., a major producer of pork products in the United States, alleging that it engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination by imposing unnecessary documentary requirements on non-U.S. citizens when establishing their authority to work in the United States.

Farmland Foods, a subsidiary of Smithfield Foods Inc., is headquartered in Kansas City, Mo. The department's investigation revealed that Farmland required all newly hired non-U.S. citizens and some foreign-born U.S. citizens at its Monmouth plant in Illinois to present specific and, in some cases, extra work authorization documents beyond those required by federal law.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) requires employers to treat all authorized workers in the same manner during the hiring process, regardless of their citizenship status. Farmland imposed different and greater requirements on non-U.S. citizens and foreign-born U.S. citizens as compared to applicants who were native-born U.S. citizens." DOJ, June 27, 2011.

 

Seen and (Mostly) Unseen: The True Costs of E-Verify
"This brief seeks to arm policymakers and the public with a better understanding of the true costs of E-Verify. It explains the system's known costs, such as lost tax revenue and monetary burdens on small businesses, and estimates the cost of additional fiscal burdens- to individuals verified through the system, to employers utilizing the system, and to the federal government in running the system-that have been absent from much of the dialogue surrounding it.

In particular, we focus on the added costs that do not get scored in government revenue estimates, such as the high legal costs to employers to defend their use of the program, the "jobs tax" that will be needlessly applied to American workers, and the increased burdens on federal agencies from new mandates. All of these numbers add up to one simple conclusion: Mandating E-Verify without legalizing all workers is too expensive, especially in these fragile economic times." CAP, June 27, 2011.