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 May 2012 e-newsletter edition!
|
|
|
Mr. Robert Leon Oswald, 10/31/1932 - 05/25/2012
It is with chagrin and deep sorrow that we announce the passing of BOILA Senior Partner Mr. Robert Leon Oswald. Mr. Oswald was a strong fighter for human rights and improved the lives of many of his clients throughout his years as an immigration attorney. He was loved by all his staff and by many of his clients. Mr. Oswald always had a way of brightening the atmosphere around him and bringing laughter into the room.
Mr. Oswald was born in Glendale, California. He was survived by his wife Danielle Beach, his one son Scott Oswald, and his step children Adriane Evers and Philippe Evers.
Mr. Oswald served four (4) years in the United States Air Force. He received his Bachelor's degree with honors from the University of Maryland in 1960. He was awarded a J.D. degree from the George Washington University in 1964. He was also voted the "Outstanding Law Student" by his fellow students that same year. He became the Chief of Staff to House Representative William S. Mailiard of San Francisco from 1966 to 1969. Mr. Oswald was appointed as Congressional Relations Officer for the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1970. He was also nominated and confirmed as Secretary to the Interstate Commerce Commission from 1970 to 1978. Mr. Robert L. Oswald was also elected Chairman of the DC Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) from 1989 to 1990.
Mr. Oswald was admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court. He was also a member of the DC and Pennsylvania Bar Associations, and a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA).
|
|
WASHINGTON DC 2012 SUPER LAWYER
We would like to thank all of our clients and fellow attorneys who nominated Ms. Beach-Oswald for the Super Lawyer title. Ms. Beach-Oswald's nomination was featured in the Washington Post and the Super Lawyers Annual List.
|
|
RECENT SUCCESSES
Mr. A, a native of Ethiopia, had his removal proceedings terminated by the Board of Immigration Appeals after extensive negotiations with ICE Office of Chief Counsel to join in our motion to reopen. BOILA has previously secured Mr. A's release from ICE custody after filing an I-130 petition on behalf of his US citizen wife, who was 8 months pregnant. At the time of Mr. A's release from detention. Through BOILA's help, Mr. A's prior order of deportation was terminated and Mr. A is now in the process of securing his green card through BOILA's ongoing representation.
Mr. TC, a native of Cameroon, was granted asylum by the Arlington Immigration Court. Mr. TC was a member of the UDC, a political opposition party, in Cameroon, which resulted in his repeated arrests, detention and torture by the Cameroonian government.
Ms. M, also a native of Cameroon, was granted asylum by the Arlington Asylum Office. Ms. M was a member of the MDIR and UFDC and through BOILA's assistance, she presented credible testimony and documentation to demonstrate that she was arrested on three separate occasions by the Cameroon government as a result of her political opposition activity and that her life remained in danger if she were to return to her country.
Mr. L, a native citizen of China, was granted asylum by the Newark, New Jersey Immigration Court. Despite the fact that he had not suffered harm in the past, with BOILA's assistance, Mr. L presented compelling evidence and witness testimony that he would face future persecution by the Chinese government as a result of his Falun Gong activities.
Ms. T's case was remanded by the Board of Immigration Appeals, after our oral argument before the 4th Circuit was successful. This vacated the immigration judge's prior denial of asylum. BOILA had submitted a joint motion with ICE Office of Chief Counsel, arguing that her case merited issuance of a new decision by the immigration judge. BOILA had previously presented oral arguments before the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit that the immigration judge had abused her discretion by engaging in improper speculation and failing to properly consider her corroborating evidence.
Ms. A, a native of Cameroon, was finally granted asylum by the Arlington Immigration Court. While represented by prior counsel, Ms. A had initially been denied asylum and ordered deported in 2005. BOILA had filed a successful motion to reopen with the BIA based on changed country conditions in Ms. A's country of removal. In her reopened removal proceedings, Ms. A presented compelling evidence that her family members had been targeted and harmed as a result of Ms. A's political activism with the SCNC in the United States. BOILA is now helping her file I-730 petitions so she can finally once again be reunited with her children who she has not seen for nearly 10 years.
Mr. N, a native of Cameroon and also a member of the SCNC, had his case remanded by the BIA. The BIA agreed with BOILA's legal arguments on appeals, finding that the immigration judge abused his discretion and applied incorrect legal standards when denying Mr. N's application for asylum. He will now have another chance to prove his eligibility for relief from removal from the US.
Ms. Z was granted political asylum by the Baltimore Immigration Court, despite filing for asylum five years after her date of entry into the US. While represented by prior counsel many years ago, her initial application for asylum was denied. After coming to BOILA, she had her case reopened by the BIA based on evidence of ineffective assistance provided by her prior attorney. In her recent removal proceedings, BOILA presented substantial evidence to demonstrate that recent events in her country of removal, combined with convincing witness testimony regarding Ms. Z's psychological trauma, warranted that she be granted political asylum in the US.
Mr. T's efforts to obtain lawful immigration status are finally over and he was granted withholding of removal by the Baltimore Immigration Court. Mr. T had initially come to the US in 2004 and while represented by prior counsel, was denied asylum. After BOILA's filed two separate successful appeals with the BIA on his behalf, he was recently granted withholding of removal, and DHS waived appeal, allowing him to remain living and working in the United States.
Mr. D, a native of Liberia was granted permanent residence. Mr. D, who has lived in the US since he was 9 years old, was previously denied his green card on two separate occasions by USCIS on the basis that he could not establish he qualified for grandfathering under an old amnesty provision. With BOILA's assistance and legal arguments, he presented alternate evidence to establish he deserved permanent residence in the US.
Through BOILA's representation and after much scrutiny by USCIS, Mrs. L, a native of Nigeria, was granted her conditional permanent residence based on spousal abuse from her US citizen husband.
Ms. F, a native of Cameroon whose husband was granted political asylum, had her I-730 asylee derivative petition finally approved, despite USCIS prior denials of the petition. BOILA submitted convincing legal arguments and evidence in a motion to reconsider to overcome USCIS' concerns regarding the validity of the couple's marriage.
|
THE STARTUP ACT 2.0 SIGNALS THAT CONGRESS IS FINALLY THINKING ABOUT THE POSITIVE IMPACT IMMIGRATION HAS ON THE ECONOMY
On May 22, 2012 Senators Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), and Mark Warner (D-Va.) introduced the Startup Act 2.0 to members of Congress. The Startup Act 2.0 would create two new types of visas: (1) one for foreign students who obtain graduate degrees in the STEM fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics and (2) a visa for immigrants who start successful companies and create jobs in the United States. Both categories carve out a pathway towards permanent residence and eventually U.S. citizenship. In order for an immigrant to qualify under the second category of visa geared towards, he or she must launch a business that has at least two unrelated full-time employees and their business must raise a capital of at least $100,000. Additionally, the Startup Act 2.0 will eliminate caps on the number of work-based visas given to each foreign nation in the hopes of creating an easier path for skilled immigrants to bring their talent and ideas to the U.S.
The Startup Act 2.0 also seeks to aid the creation of startups. The Act provides tax credits for new business and provides incentives for investment in new business. It will also use federal funds to help universities bring their research to the marketplace.
This new bill comes on the heels of several studies indicating the increased role of immigrant entrepreneurs and job creation. One study published by the Kauffman Foundation, based on Census data and the U.S Labor Department's current population survey, show that the number of small business is growing significantly. Hispanics, according to the study, are leading the charge and creating new businesses at a faster rate than any other ethnic group and at a rate that exceeds their population growth. In fact, immigrants created about 28% of all new businesses last year and were twice as likely to start new business than U.S. born citizens.
The Startup Act 2.0 is a good starting point to begin a much-needed overhaul of the employment-based visa system. However, the bill may not go far enough in encouraging entrepreneurship. The bill focuses on the STEM fields, however a good portion of the businesses created by immigrants are not in the STEM fields. With the majority of American graduates majoring in non-STEM fields, it may be best to include more types of small businesses in this bill. The key here is job creation. While the future of this bill remains to be seen, what is certain is that Congress is finally realizing the significant roles immigrants play in the economy, not just as job seekers but as job creators.
image source
|
|
ALABAMA REFUSES TO ALEVIATE DRACONIAN IMMIGRATION LAW
On May 9th, the Alabama Senate voted 20-14 against repealing one of the most harsh immigration laws in the country. Senator Billy Beasley (D) pushed for the repeal of the law at the same time that debates were under way about reforming this law.
Although the repeal was denied, there is still hope that the law will be reformed. Beasley gave a detailed explanation of the proposed reforms listed in a substitute bill to the Alabama senators. The senators are expected to vote on this substitute bill next week.
Meanwhile, the draconian immigration law in place has had various negative impacts on the local population. The arrest of two foreign automobile company officials is one of many such examples. The farmers have been hit the hardest, as this immigration law has cracked down upon the illegal field hands who pick tomatoes and blueberries. Without the illegal labor force, the tomatoes and blueberries were left to rot, as the illegal workers were the only ones willing to perform these tasks.
For more information, click here. |
|
MAN DENIED CITIZENSHIP HAS NO COUNTRY TO CALL HOME
Abdo Hazim, originally from Yemen,has been living in the United States since he was nine years old. He arrived in 1990, at which time he had obtained US citizenship through his fatherand gave up his Yemeni citizenship. In 2011, the Department of State informed Hazim that he had been issued his citizenship in error, as his father hadn't satisfied one of the requirements necessary for transmission of citizenship to Hazim.
Hazim's father had only resided in the US for a little over eight years before Hazim's birth, falling short of the ten year requirement. As a result of this, Hazim was stripped of his citizenship and had his passport revoked. Although the Department of State stated that the mistake was a bureaucratic one and not Hazim's fault, Hazim is the one who has to live with the consequences of the mistake. He is in immigration limbo and may eventually be deported, though where he would be deported to is uncertain. He is now a citizen of the world, as he no longer has citizenship in any particular country.
Hazim's story is similar to that of Mehran Nasseri, an Iranian refugee who also found himself in immigration limbo. Nasseri had no choice but to live in Charles de Gaulle Airport for seventeen years, surviving off of food given to him by airport staff. We hope that Hazim's cases will not be as tragic as Nasseri's, but it is unknown how long Hazim will be inembroiled in bureaucratic misfortune. In an exceptional case such as this, it is difficult to see the justice in the State Department's decision to punish a man for a mistake that he did not make.
For more information, click here. |
Additional Areas Added to OPT - STEM Eligibility for 17 Month Extension 
The Department of Homeland Security has included additional degrees to the list of Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) codes. According to the DHS interim final rule (IFR) of April 2008, nonimmigrant students who graduate with a science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) degree, are also eligible to apply for the 17 month extension of optional practical training.
The following additions are listed for the STEM-Designated Degree Program:
* Agroecology and Sustainable Agriculture
* Animal Sciences, Other.
* Food Science and Technology
* Plant Sciences, Other.
* Soil Science, Other.
* Natural Resources/ Conservation, General.
* Environmental Studies
* Natural Resources Conservation and Research, Other.
* Water, wetlands, and Marine Resources Management.
* Urban Forestry
* Wildlife, Fish and Wildlands Science and Management.
* Architectural and Building Sciences/Technology.
* Computer and Information Sciences, Other.
* Computer Programming, Other.
* Computer Software and Media Applications, Other.
* Computer/Information Technology Services Administration and Management, Other.
* Education/ Instructional Technology
* Educational Evaluation and Research.
* Chemical Engineering, Other
* Civil Engineering, Other
* Computer Engineering, Other.
* Electrical, Electronics and Communications Engineering, Other.
* Engineering, Other.
* Electrical and Electronic Engineering Technologies/ Technicians, Other.
* Electromechanical and Instrumentation and Maintenance Technologies/ Technicians, Other.
* Environmental Control Technologies/ Technician
* Industrial Production Technologies/ Technicians, Other.
* Quality Control and Safety Technologies Safety Technologies/ Technicians, Other.
* Mechanical Engineering Related Technologies/ Technicians, Other.
* Mining and Petroleum Technologies/ Technicians, Other.
* Engineering-Related Technologies, Other.
* Computer Engineering Technologies/ Technicians, Other.
* Drafting/Design Engineering Technologies/Technicians, Other.
* Engineering-Related Fields, Other.
* Engineering Technologies and Engineering-Related Fields, Other
* Biochemistry, Biophysics and Molecular Biology, Other
* Botany/Plant Biology, Other.
* Cell/ Cellular Biology and Anatomical Sciences, Other/
* Microbiological Sciences and Immunology, Other.
* Zoology/ Animal Biology, Other.
* Genetics, Other
* Physiology, Pathology and Related Sciences, Other.
* Pharmacology and Toxicology, Other.
* Biomathematics, Bioinformatics, and Computational Biology, Other.
* Ecology, Evolution, Systematics, and Population Biology, Other.
* Neurobiology and Neurosciences, Other
* Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Other.
* Mathematics, Other.
* Applied Mathematics, Other
* Statistics, Other.
* Mathematics and Statistics, Other.
* Air Sciences/ Airpower Studies.
* Air and Space Operational Art and Science.
* Naval Science and Operational Studies.
* Intelligence, Command Control and Information Operations, Other.
* Military Applied Sciences, Other.
* Military System and Maintenance Technology, Other.
* Military Technologies and Applied Sciences, Other.
* Behavioral Sciences.
* Human Biology
* Computational Science
* Human Computer Interaction
* Sustainability Studies
* Astronomy and Astrophysics, Other.
* Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology, Other.
* Chemistry, Other.
* Geological and Earth Sciences/Geosciences, Other.
* Physics, Other
* Materials Sciences, Other.
* Physical Sciences, Other
* Nuclear and Industrial Radiological Technologies/Technicians, Other
* Physical Science Technologies/Technicians, Other
* Research and Experimental Psychology, Other.
* Cyber/Computer Forensics and Counterterrorism.
* Archeology
* Econometrics and Quantitative Economics.
* Aeronautics/ Aviation/ Aerospace Science and Technology, General.
* Cytotechnology/Cytotechnologist
* Clinical Laboratory Science/Medical Technology/ Technologist.
* Clinical and Industrial Drug Development.
* Pharmacoeconomics/Pharmaceutical Economics.
* Industrial and Physical Pharmacy and Cosmetic Sciences.
* Pharmaceutical Sciences.
* Environmental Health.
* Health/Medical Physics.
* Veterinary Anatomy
* Veterinary Physiology
* Veterinary Microbiology and Immunobiology
* Veterinary Pathology and Pathobiology
* Veterinary Toxicology and Pharmacology
* Veterinary Preventive Medicine Epidemiology and Public Health
* Veterinary Infectious Diseases
* Management Science and Quantitative Methods, Other.
For a full list of all designated degree programs, click here.
For image source or to apply for a high school STEM internship, click here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Family Category Processing Times:
1st: 6/22/05
2A: 1/1/10
2B: 4/15/04
3rd: 4/1/02
4th: 1/08/01
Employment Category Processing Times:
1st: Current
2nd: Current
3rd: 6/8/06
Unskilled: 6/8/06
4th: Current
Religious: Current
5th: Current
Targetet Employment Areas/Regional Centers: Current
5th Pilot Programs: Current | |
|
|
| |
Effective May 11, 2012, USCIS e-Request will undergo two system updates:
| |
information obtained directly from the USCIS website |
|
Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly: Advance Parole No Longer Considered a "Departure" Under INA §212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) |
For years, U.S.C.I.S. officials have taken the position that a departure under a grant of advance parole is a departure for purposes of Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") §§212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I), (II), two bars which do not allow a non-citizen to apply for re-admission into the United States for three or ten years, respectively. However, in Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, 25 I & N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012), the Board of Immigration Appeals held that a non-citizen who departs the United States on a grant of advance parole does not trigger the three and ten year bars for purposes of INA §§ 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I), (II). In its decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals notes that advance parole is a distinct discretionary benefit for which "the alien must demonstrate his eligibility and worthiness." 25 I & N Dec. 771, 778 (BIA 2012). The Board of Immigration Appeals explicitly rejects DHS's long-standing argument that a grant of advance parole does not authorize the non-citizen to actually depart from the United States. 25, I & N Dec. at 778. DHS's stance was articulated in two memorandums: (1) the Memorandum from Donald Neufeld, Acting Assoc., Dir., Domestic Operations Directorate, et al., to USCIS Field Leadership, at 16, 17 (May 6, 2009), reprinted in 86 Interpreter Releases, No. 20 May 18, 2009, app. I at 1393, 1394 ("Neufield Memo") and (2) the Memorandum fro Paul W. Virture, Acting Exec. Assoc. Comm'r, INS Office of Programs to INS Officials, at 3-4 (Nov. 26, 1997), reprinted in 74 Interpreter Releases, NO. 46, Dec. 8, 1997, app. III at 1842, 1844 ("Virtue Memo"). The Board of Immigration Appeals points out that advance parole is usually a humanitarian measure and by granting such a benefit, DHS is essentially telling the non-citizen that he can leave the U.S without abandoning any pending applications for immigration benefits and that he will be paroled or allowed back into the U.S. Id. Once the non-citizen returns or fulfills the purpose of his advance parole, he returns to the same immigration status he had prior to his departure. Id at 773. The purpose of INA §§212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I), (II) is to strengthen the consequences for immigration violations by making it more difficult for non-citizens who leave the country to be readmitted. Id. at 776. These sections essentially put non-citizens on notice of the harsh consequences of leaving the country after violating immigration laws. However, in cases where DHS grants advance parole, due to the explicit permission given, there is no longer any notice needed because DHS is giving legitimacy to the alien's departure. The Board of Immigration Appeals was careful to limit its decision in this case. The Board of Immigration Appeals reasons that §§212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I),(II) is different from other sections because the departure alone creates the condition of inadmissibility. However, advance parole may be considered a "departure" for other purposes. This decision is considered a clarification of the Board of Immigration Appeals's decisions in Lemus I, 24 I & N Dec. 373 (BIA 2007) and Lemus II, 25 I & N Dec. 734 (BIA 2012), two decisions that previously defined the scope of the term "departure". What remains to be seen is how DHS responds to this new decision. Will this decision make it more difficult for non-citizens to get advance parole? Is there any possibility that individuals will now be able to adjust based on their entry on advance parole, even though they previously had entered the U.S. unlawfully and would not be able to adjust if not for the grant of advance parole?
|
|
Another Facet of Distrust Between Moscow and Washington
 | | |
A long history of disagreement and distrust in Missile Defense politics exists between Russia and the US. On May 3, 2012, Russia's top military officer, Chief of General Staff Nikolai Makarov, threatened to carry out a pre-emptive strike on US-led NATO missile defense facilities in Eastern Europe if Washington carries out its controversial plan to build a missile shield in the region. Old tensions between Russia and the US seem to have been revived. Is this the beginning of a new Cold War, or just another segment in a long chain of "muscle flexing" acts between Russia and the US?
In past years, Russia has opposed the missile shield program. It considers the program to be a serious threat to its national security and disapproves of NATO forces continuing to build military bases in Europe. The US government called Russia's reaction "unjustified" and defended the program by citing increased threats to Europe from the Caucasus and the Middle East. An important political figure, Alexander Vershbow - NATO's Deputy Secretary General and former Ambassador to the Russian Federation - stressed at the Moscow Conference that the missile shield program is not meant to be hostile to Russia. He also added the US and NATO respect and take seriously the Russian government's concerns.
As expected, the Russian government rejected Mr. Versbow's statement, saying that no clear evidence of threat from the Caucasus or the Middle East has been demonstrated. Recently re-elected President Putin continued to emphasize that the missile shield poses risks to Russia's security, especially at its western borders. However, other nearby countries, such as Romania, have sided with the US, calling Russia's reaction a "demonstration of force" and "propaganda." Yet, it is also true that NATO and the US have been trying to establish control over the Eurasian continent by building their military bases in the less wealthy countries. Some examples of their attempts at extending control are the failed European Inspector Site Project in Poland, the Transit Center in Manas, Kyrgyzstan, and a primarily US Air Force operated military installation near Bishek that has been long criticized by Moscow.
It is hard to believe that either side in the conflict cares about the opposing side's concerns. There simply exists a courteous exchange of "semi-threats" between Moscow and Washington as the two sides compete to be the key player in the region. All these talks in recent weeks from Russian generals and NATO's officials clearly prove that the dispute will remain high on the agenda for President Putin and the presidential candidates in the US.
image source
|
|
Obama Cracks Down on Employers While there is a Decline in Illegals Crossing the Border to US | | |
The Obama administration has cracked down on employers who hire illegal immigrants with an unprecedented force. In the course of the first five months of this year, ICE has swooped in and arrested over one hundred employers and/or charged them a cumulative total of $5 million in fines. So far, under the Obama administration there have been 7,500 raids - compared to virtually none under the Bush administration. This is rather ironic, in light of President Obama's previous promises to reform the immigration laws and make them more humane.
Unlike President Obama, President Bush rounded up illegal immigrants and deported them. Often the deportees would simply recross the border into the United States. However there has now been a huge decline in those crossing the border from Mexico in particular. Some attribute it to President Obama's crackdown on incentives for employers to hire illegals. Employers have much less incentive to hire a cheap labor force when they know there is a high possibility that they might get heavily fined and/or arrested as a result. It seems much more likely, however that the reasons for the decline in illegals crossing the border are mostly economic since the job prospects are now dismal for them in light of our economic downturn. Also, by doing this, President Obama is affecting our agricultural output since as in Georgia many crops are now unable to be recolted as the cost for US workers is unaffordable and US workers do not want these jobs.
The consequence of Mr. Obama's actions will reflect upon everybody, not just the illegal immigrants and their employers. The illegals work in the fields and in gardens, picking produce and performing other labor-intensive tasks that Americans don't want to do. The US economy is still very much crippled and, with no one to work in the fields, it will become even more so. Thus, the Obama administration is not helping to strengthen the nation by deporting the illegals and supposedly giving Americans back their jobs - it is only hurting our economy and ability to grow in the future.
|
|
|
