Beach-Oswald Immigration Law Assoc.
In This Issue ...
Recent Successes
Recent Grants by USCIS
DHS Detaining Vulnerable Children in Adult Prisons
Going Paperless!
Consular Non-reviewability
Immigration Reform
The State of the U.S. Psyche
Immigrants' Impact on the DC-VA-MD Area


Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter

View our videos on YouTube


Visit our blog


View our profile on LinkedIn


Find us on Yelp

clients choice award

super lawyer


AILA 2013

Quick Links
Join Our List

Join Our Mailing List
Issue 6
June 2013
flag passport

Beach-Oswald Immigration Law Associates, PC are Washington, DC immigration attorneys. Our law firm is devoted exclusively to immigration law. We have an AV rating (highest possible rating for lawyers for legal acumen and ethical standards). Practicing law since 1981.  

 

We have Washington, DC, Maryland (MD), Virginia (VA) and Pennsylvania (PA) licensed attorneys. Our immigration lawyers excel in excellence and provide you with the latest news on our immigration law blog and monthly immigration newsletter since 2008.


Grants by the BIA, Immigration Court, and Federal District Court
success
Mr. A, a native of Cameroon, who came to the U.S. some 13 years ago, finally gained lawful immigration status.  While represented by another attorney, Mr. A was ordered deported in 2002.  In September 2012, through BOILA's assistance, Mr. A's wife was granted asylum by the Baltimore Immigration Court.  After receiving an approved I-730, Asylee Relative Petition, BOILA filed a motion to reopen Mr. A's case before the BIA.  BOILA's motion to reopen and terminate was recently granted, allowing Mr. A to remain in the U.S. with his asylee wife and three U.S. citizen children. BOILA warmly congratulates Mr. A and his family.

In a similar case, Mr. N, also a native citizen of Cameroon, had his removal proceedings reopened and terminated.  After BOILA previously assisted Mr. N's wife in her efforts to be granted asylum, BOILA filed a motion to reopen Mr. N's 2004 order of removal.  Based on his marriage to his asylee wife and the compelling humanitarian considerations in the event of his removal, the BIA reopened and terminated his removal proceedings.  Mr. N will now be able to apply for his permanent residency in the US.

Ms. H, a native of Gabon, also had her prior order of deportation reopened and terminated by the BIA.  Ms. H came to the U.S. twenty years ago and was denied asylum by the Baltimore Immigration Court.  BOILA filed an I-212 waiver as well as an I-130 petition based on her marriage to her US citizen husband, which were both approved by USCIS.  Based on the approval of the petitions and the exceptional hardship that her husband would suffer in the event of her removal to Gabon, Ms. H's motion was granted by the BIA and she is now eligible to seek permanent residency.   

Ms. A, a citizen of Cameroon, had her prior removal order reopened, giving her a new chance to seek asylum in the United States.  BOILA filed a motion to reopen her case with the BIA based on new evidence that her family members in Cameroon have been targeted by the government as a result of her political opposition activities in the United States.  BOILA is hopeful that she will now be able to establish her eligibility for asylum.

Ms. N, also a citizen of Cameroon, had her removal proceedings remanded to the Arlington Immigration Court by the BIA.  The BIA granted BOILA's appeal, finding that the immigration judge in Arlington has jurisdiction to review her eligibility for asylum based on changed country conditions.  The immigration judge had previously denied her claim for asylum and when her case was previously remanded, the judge refused to consider evidence of changed country conditions warranting a new hearing.  Ms. N will now be able to present new evidence and testimony of her eligibility for asylum.

Mr. T, a citizen of Cameroon, was granted asylum by the Baltimore Immigration Court.  Mr. T, an active member of the SCNC, fled Cameroon as a result of political persecution by the Cameroonian government.  He first applied for asylum in 2003 and while represented by former attorneys, he was denied asylum.   His case was appealed and remanded twice and BOILA assisted him in his recent proceedings, which was the third time his case was before the Baltimore Immigration Court.   BOILA is pleased that his struggles to be granted asylum are now behind him.

Ms. M, a native of Cameroon, was granted asylum by the Arlington Immigration Court.  Ms. M is a member of the UFDC, an opposition political party in Cameroon, seeking democracy and transparency.  As a result of her political opinion, she was arrested, detained and tortured on three separate occasions.  Based on the wealth of evidence supporting her claim, Ms. M's application for asylum was granted by Stipulation with the government.

Ms. G, a citizen of Zambia, was granted asylum by the Baltimore Immigration Court.  BOILA previously assisted Ms. G on her BIA appeal, allowing her case to be reheard before the Immigration Court.  In her new proceedings, Ms. G established that based on her and her family's history of political opposition with the MDC and the persecution they endured by the Zambian government, she was entitled to asylum.   

Ms. N, a citizen of Cameroon, was granted asylum by the Arlington Immigration Court by Stipulation with the government.    Ms. N suffered especially severe torture in Cameroon as a result of her political opinion and membership with the SCNC.  Based on the severity of her torture, BOILA negotiated with the Office of Chief Counsel, and DHS stipulated to a grant of asylum.

Ms. K, a citizen of Ghana, was granted conditional permanent residency by the Baltimore Immigration Court.  Ms. K entered the U.S. in 1999.  After being placed in removal proceedings, BOILA assisted Ms. K's US citizen spouse in filing an I-130 petition on her behalf, which was approved by USCIS.  Based on her marriage to her US citizen husband, the Immigration Court granted her conditional permanent residency.

Ms. O will be able to seek naturalization in the near future, as the District Court for the District of Columbia granted BOILA's writ of mandamus, compelling USCIS to process Mr. O's application for naturalization.  Ms. O originally filed for naturalization in 2009 but USCIS has failed to perform its obligation to adjudicate her petition.   With no other recourse, Ms. O hired BOILA to file a lawsuit against USCIS for failing to perform its duty.   Based on the Court's decision, USCIS approved and granted her her naturalization.

 

Grants by USCIS
usa flag Ms. G, a citizen of the Ivory Coast was granted asylum by the Arlington Asylum Office. Despite the existence of changed conditions, with BOILA's assistance, Ms. G established that she suffered past persecution on account of her political opinion and her work with the government and that she was entitled to asylum.

BATUPE, Juliet was granted her I-140 and has filed for adjustment as an EB2

Ms. L, a citizen of Peru, was granted a U visa.  BOILA presented substantial evidence that Ms. L was a victim of substantial physical and mental abuse because she was physically and sexually assaulted by her boyfriend and that she was helpful in the criminal investigation and prosecution of her offender.

Ms. S a native of Mexico was granted relief under DACA.   Ms. S entered the US on in 1986 when she was only 2 years old and she has never left the country. She graduated high school in the U.S. and went on to obtain a Bachelor degree. Through the grant, she is now finally able to obtain work authorization and not live in fear of her removal from the United States. She is one of several DACA grants this month.

Ms O, a citizen of Nigeria, was granted her  green card, after waiting for many years. BOILA successfully assisted Mr. O in getting an I-601 waiver approved, waiving his inadmissibility for having committed fraud in order to obtain an immigration benefit. Based on the approved I-601, Ms. O was eligible for his adjustment of status.

Mr. Y, a citizen of Cameroon, was granted permanent residence and a I-602 Waiver.  BOILA had previously assisted Mr. Y in his efforts to be granted asylum.

Mr. O, a native of Nigeria, was granted lawful permanent residence based on his bona fide marriage to his US citizen wife.

Mr. F, a citizen of Cameroon, was granted his permanent residency based on his derivative asylee status.  BOILA had previously assisted Mr. F's father in his efforts to be granted asylum.

Mr. E, a citizen of the Ivory Coast, was granted his permanent residency.  BOILA assisted Mr. E and his US citizen wife in getting their I-130 petition approved and in subsequently getting Mr. E's removal proceedings terminated.

Mrs. A, a native of Nigeria, was granted her permanent residency based on her bona fide marriage to her US citizen husband after having been denied on same petition 3 times before.  

Mr. C, a citizen of Cameroon is now the beneficiary of an approved I-130 petition, filed on his behalf by his US citizen wife. His removal proceedings were terminated.   BOILA is looking forward to helping him seek his permanent residency

Mr. V, a citizen of Jamaica, was granted an extension of  I-751, waiving the joint filing requirement for his permanent green card. BOILA assisted Mr. V in submitting sufficient evidence that he married his US citizen wife in good faith and that he was entitled to his permanent residency.

Mr T- on his grant of Mandamus in US District Court resulting in a grant of I-130.

BOILA Congratulates our Naturalization Grants

Victoria Fekumo, Sidoine Djimbou, Salome Forcha, Ibrahim Waziri, Yawavi Tchassim, Priscilla Igwacho and Alain Mouassami

Department of Homeland Security Detaining Vulnerable Children in Adult Prisons
prison  The Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") apprehends thousands of children each year. These children include asylum applicants, survivors of human trafficking, those who entered the U.S. lawfully at a young age and overstayed their visas, as well as young children who entered the U.S. unlawfully to reunite with their family members.  

For many years, the issue of detaining children has been scrutinized. In 1985, in the landmark case of Flores v. Reno, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Immigration & Naturalization Services (INS) challenging the way the agency processed, apprehended, detained, and released children in its custody.  The case established the national policy regarding the detention, release, and treatment of children in INS custody. In 1997, a California federal court approved the Flores agreement, and many of the agreement's provisions have been codified at 8 CFR �� 236.3, 1236.3.

Under the Flores agreement, a juvenile is defined as a person under the age of 18 who is not emancipated by a state court or convicted and incarcerated due to a conviction for a criminal offense as an adult.  The agreement also requires that juveniles be held in the least restrictive setting appropriate for their age and that special needs are considered to ensure their protection and well-being. Additionally, juveniles must be released from custody without unnecessary delay to a parent, legal guardian, adult relative, individual specifically designated by the parent, licensed program, or an adult who seeks custody who DHS deems appropriate. Under the Flores agreement and INS policy, it is unlawful to detain juveniles with an unrelated adult for more than 24 hours. The Flores agreement applies to all children apprehended by DHS.

In 2003, the laws pertaining to the detention of children changed.  Prior to 2003, children were detained and prosecuted solely by INS. However, now, DHS must first determine if the child is "unaccompanied" before they assign the child's care and custody to a federal agency. Children who are declared "unaccompanied" are transferred to the care and custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement ("ORR").  ORR contracts with child welfare agencies around the country where children receive legal and social services, and have access to education, health care, and other services.  These shelters have specific procedures to ensure compliance with the law. Children who are not "unaccompanied" remain in DHS custody. DHS can only legally detain children if they are held in child-appropriate facilities.

In 2010, the National Immigrant Justice Center ("NIJC") grew suspicious of DHS and filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the agency seeking information about children being detained under their control. Eventually, DHS provided the data being asked for. According to this data, DHS detained children under the age of 18 for a combined total of 36,598 days in 30 adult detention facilities around the country. More than 1,300 of these children were detained in violation of the Flores agreement. Moreover, the data DHS provided likely underreports how many children were actually affected, because the terms of the legal settlement limited the scope of their data to only 30 of the approximately 250 adult detention facilities which DHS had contracts with.

DHS cannot continue to disregard the law and detain these vulnerable children in adult prisons. As members of our communities, we must come together and pressure Congress to hold DHS accountable and to ensure that they cease their unlawful practices. Congress must make amendments to the current law to ensure that there are safekeeping provisions to protect these vulnerable children who are being detained in the immigration system. Congress should also amend the law to require DHS to immediately transfer all children it apprehends, both accompanied and unaccompanied, into the care and custody of ORR. Congress should also add a provision requiring DHS to submit an annual report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, reflecting the number of children apprehended and the length of time those children were detained in DHS custody.  Lastly, Congress should amend the law to provide appointed counsel to all children in immigration proceedings. These amendments are necessary to ensure DHS is following the law and ensuring the protection of children being detained through the immigration system.
Going Paperless!
Going paperless
New Arrival/Departure-Record I-94 Process for Foreign Visitors 

The most significant white I-94 card stapled to the visa of passports for nonimmigrant foreign nationals in land and seaports around the United States is a familiar image to many travelers.  This form is used to prove admission to the United States and determines the length of time one many stay. The United States Customs and Border Protection recently announced its implementation of a new automated I-94 entry process, effective April 30, 2013 where the I-94 becomes paperless.  What does this change mean for travelers and governmental processes?

The US Department of Homeland Security cites that this new measure will, "streamline the entry process for travelers, facilitate security and reduce federal costs, saving the agency an estimated $15.5 million a year". This will decrease the usual paperwork substantially both for travelers and immigration officers. While some people are under the impression that this signifies a complete change and may worry about the unavailability of these forms for reference, that is not the case. Travelers requesting the document as evidence of admission for an immigration matter, proof of status, applying for a driver's license in some states, work authorization, personal record or any other reason will be able to have the hard copy. The printed copy will be available on www.cbp.gov/I94 to retrieve their electronically submitted data.  Moreover, officers will continue to issue the usual admission stamp on passports, accompanied by a note detailing the nonimmigrant's status and time authorization of the visit.

In recent years with the green revolution and our efforts at becoming more environmentally friendly, traveler information is gradually being accumulated through electronic databases so the paperless I-94 is not a new idea.  Post 9/11 initiatives have already aimed at accumulating more data on the population; so much of the traveler's identities have been in the government's data system for quite some time. 

As with every new measure the paperless I-94 initiative will necessitate some time to be fully adjusted and applied throughout the United States.  Travelers will have to:
*    Find access to the Internet.
*    Enter certain passport information in order to access the electronic I-94.  
*    Companies and employers will have to learn to accept the hard copy printouts of the electronic I-94 data. 

However, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will still require the hard copy I-94 from applicants even if the visitor does not receive the copy upon entry.  Other government agencies such as the Social Security Administration will also require a paper copy to ascertain whether a foreign national may receive certain benefits.

Ultimately, even though initially some slight complications may emerge on all fronts:  travelers, companies, and government agencies will have to adjust to the new change as a better alternative.  So many facets of our everyday lives are becoming automated and a development such as a paperless I-94 is inevitable.  The economic and practical benefits substantially outweigh the initial costs of adjusting to the change.
To view the implementation schedule at various ports, please see the following link: http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/id_visa/i-94_instructions/i94_rollout.xml

 
Consular Non-reviewability: Consular's Office Decision to Deny, Rarely Reversed
FLAG  

The "Doctrine of Consular Non-reviewability" may be a concept unfamiliar to many yet it is very important for anyone outside the country desiring to enter the United States with a visa. When an individual is not on U.S. soil, he must go through the U.S. Department of State and visit a consulate abroad in their home country in order to attain a visa.

 

The problem confronting visa applicants is that no system of external oversight exists within a consulate for visa issuance decisions. This essentially enables the consulate office to express bias and employ inconsistent standards. Consular processing is required when the intending immigrant is not physically located in the United States and therefore has to request a visa in order to legally enter the country. It is disconcerting since this doctrine allows a consulate to issue a denial without an explicit set of evidence present to explain the outcome. This leaves visa applicants helpless without any chance for appeal or external review.

 

A recent case in Afghanistan brought attention to the issue regarding a couple, Fauzia Din, a U.S. citizen and her fianc�e, Kanishka Berashk. Mr. Berashk did have an approved visa petition from USCIS based on marriage yet while waiting for his visa interview, the situation changed. Unfortunately, his visa application was denied and the only justification given was denial based on Section 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which includes several terrorism-related grounds for excluding non-U.S. citizens from the country[1]. The "terrorism-related grounds" were based on Mr. Berashk's job as a payroll clerk, performing low-level administrative duties at the Afghan Ministry of Social Welfare.  

 

This charge may seem absurd, yet since Afghanistan was controlled by the Taliban at one point many Afghani citizens have faced similar accusations from U.S. government officials. The U.S. Department of State under the doctrine of consular non-reviewability is not responsible for justifying its lack of action or rejection of a visa application. Din filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government to adjudicate her husband's visa application but the complaint was dismissed due to the protections of consular denials from judicial review.

 

It is pertinent that an applicant and his attorney be fully aware of the exact explanation of a denial for a visa application. Without this knowledge, there is no opportunity to dispute incorrect information. Currently, consular non-reviewability does not allow for the needed transparency. The U.S. Department of State consistently defends this doctrine in the hopes of "protecting our borders". It is of course appropriate that the United States has this far-reaching authority in order to keep the country secure by deciding who should be permitted to enter the borders. Yet, there are also regulations in place, which define the limitations of this authority, and they must be followed. Decisions must be evaluated, regardless if they are being made under the roof of a consulate. A highly criticized doctrine such as this must be amended because the justification for maintaining the status quo is simply too weak and the complaints against it continue to rise.



[1] http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/05/23/10-16772.

 

Immigration Reform
Naturalization No system of external oversight for visa issuance decisions
The "Doctrine of Consular Non-reviewability" may be a concept unfamiliar to many yet it is very important for anyone outside the country desiring to enter the United States with a visa. When an individual is not on U.S. soil, he must go through the U.S. Department of State and visit a consulate abroad in their home country in order to attain a visa.

The problem confronting visa applicants is that no system of external oversight exists within a consulate for visa issuance decisions. This essentially enables the consulate office to express bias and employ inconsistent standards. Consular processing is required when the intending immigrant is not physically located in the United States and therefore has to request a visa in order to legally enter the country. It is disconcerting since this doctrine allows a consulate to issue a denial without an explicit set of evidence present to explain the outcome. This leaves visa applicants helpless without any chance for appeal or external review.

A recent case in Afghanistan brought attention to the issue regarding a couple, Fauzia Din, a U.S. citizen and her fianc�e, Kanishka Berashk. Mr. Berashk did have an approved visa petition from USCIS based on marriage yet while waiting for his visa interview, the situation changed. Unfortunately, his visa application was denied and the only justification given was denial based on Section 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which includes several terrorism-related grounds for excluding non-U.S. citizens from the country[1]. The "terrorism-related grounds" were based on Mr. Berashk's job as a payroll clerk, performing low-level administrative duties at the Afghan Ministry of Social Welfare. This charge may seem absurd, yet since Afghanistan was controlled by the Taliban at one point many Afghani citizens have faced similar accusations from U.S. government officials. The U.S. Department of State under the doctrine of consular non-reviewability is not responsible for justifying its lack of action or rejection of a visa application. Din filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government to adjudicate her husband's visa application but the complaint was dismissed due to the protections of consular denials from judicial review.

It is pertinent that an applicant and his attorney be fully aware of the exact explanation of a denial for a visa application. Without this knowledge, there is no opportunity to dispute incorrect information. Currently, consular non-reviewability does not allow for the needed transparency. The U.S. Department of State consistently defends this doctrine in the hopes of "protecting our borders". It is of course appropriate that the United States has this far-reaching authority in order to keep the country secure by deciding who should be permitted to enter the borders. Yet, there are also regulations in place, which define the limitations of this authority, and they must be followed. Decisions must be evaluated, regardless if they are being made under the roof of a consulate. A highly criticized doctrine such as this must be amended because the justification for maintaining the status quo is simply too weak and the complaints against it continue to rise.
------------------

[1] http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/05/23/10-16772.pdf.

 

Immigration Reform and
The State of the U.S. Psyche
By: Parand Kashanig

The Washington Post published an article last week discussing immigration reform and U.S. strength and security. The article, written by Robert Kagan, gave an in-depth analysis on the debate over immigration policies, and discussed the current Senate bill in light of these considerations.

Kagan discussed how immigration debates can tell us a lot about our country and our national psyche.  He explains how when Americans feel secure about their nation, they take a more accepting approach to immigration policies. For example, they are willing to go out and compete in the global market and are open to exploring new ideas and experiences. Conversely, when Americans feel insecure, they are very harsh and restrictive when it comes to immigration policies. They fear the unknown and consequently, they tend to shield themselves from the world's challenges.

Throughout this country's history, there has been a correlation between national insecurity and the desire to limit immigration. As Kagan explains, in the 1850's, Americans feared that U.S. democracy was in danger of being subverted by the wave of Irish and German Catholics. Similarly, in the 1900's, Americans supported Asian exclusion for fear that Japanese immigrants were am advance guard for the coming invasion by the "yellow peril."  Then in the 1920's, during World War I, the country experienced the most severe crackdown on immigration laws. Americans began shutting themselves off from the world, including shutting down American borders to the world's vulnerable refugees.

As such, it is no surprise that in today's immigration debate, opponents of reform express a pessimistic mood, arguing about both the loss of jobs to immigrant workers and the threat of terrorism. On the other hand, proponents of immigration reform take an optimistic view of the U.S. capacity to absorb and benefit from immigration. These views occur repeatedly on discussions regarding the current Senate bill.

The article explains how one of the most important parts of the Senate bill is that it shifts our immigration policy in a direction that strengthens U.S. competitiveness. The country's current immigration policies are heavily weighed in favor of family unification. However, as the law stands, family unification includes not only immediate family, but it reaches to extended family as well, which has led to "chain migration." The Senate bill would create a more "merit-based" system, which would expand the H1-B visa program for highly skilled immigrant workers. As President Obama and many others have pointed out, thousands of foreign students come to this country to receive excellent educations, they learn invaluable skills and are then forced to go back to their home countries and compete in markets against the Untied States. Why would we not keep those graduates here, so that our country and economy could benefit? This Senate bill addresses this very problem by expanding the H1-B visa program.

The article concludes by discussing how the new Senate bill gives Congress an opportunity to do something to strengthen the United States, both at home and abroad. The fact that Americans in both parties are beginning to favor immigration reform shows that the national psyche is shifting from one of insecurity and fear, to a nation of strength, security, and optimism. Hopefully, we can use this bi-partisan cooperation to pass an immigration bill that would address some of the most challenging problems facing our nation.

 

Benefited Not Burdened: Immigrants' Impact on the DC-VA-MD Area
 

Immigrants, both authorized and unauthorized, contribute greatly to the economies of the District of Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland. With close to 1.8 million immigrants in the DC-VA-MD[1] area, immigrants are helping to revitalize the economy through entrepreneurship, consumer spending, and by contributing to the tax base.

 

Economic activity, consumer spending, and job creation are extremely important as the nation recovers from the economic crisis. The DC-VA-MD area is on a path to recovery, due in large part to the immigrant population and their economic activity. It is not just authorized immigrants who are leading the economy's revitalization, but also unauthorized immigrants are playing a significant role. If unauthorized immigrants were removed from the DC-VA-MD area, the area would lose $27.6 billion in economic activity, $12.3 billion in gross state product, and 141,585 jobs. Immigrants also contribute greatly to the area's tax base. In the Washington, DC metropolitan area alone, immigrants contributed $9.8 billion in taxes in 2000. And in Maryland, immigrants contributed $4.0 billion in federal, state, and local taxes in 2000. And with an ever increasing immigrant population, taxes paid by immigrants will continue to rise. Due to the immigrant population and their activities in the DC-VA-MD area, the area has been greatly benefited and it will continue to benefit from the presence of immigrants if permitted.

 

Furthermore, immigrants who call the District, Virginia, and Maryland home are well educated and highly skilled. Accordingly, immigrants greatly benefit the area's economy and they are helping contribute to the economy's revitalization. In the District, 51.5% of foreign born naturalized citizens and 47.2% of non-citizens hold a bachelor's or higher degree, which is only slightly less than Census Bureau's 2011 estimates for the whole of the District, at 52.5%. Thus, immigrants residing in the District are just as educated as non-immigrants and are therefore they are able to significantly contribute to the District's tax base and economic activity.

 

In Maryland and Virginia, the rate of immigrants who hold Bachelor's or higher degrees is significantly higher than the estimates for the whole of these two states. Immigrants here are more educated that the domestic born population. In Virginia, 40.7% of all immigrants have a bachelor's or higher degree, while only a little more than one third of Virginia's entire population has a bachelor's or higher degree. Thus, immigrants make up 16.6% of all bachelor's or higher degrees held in Virginia.  Similarly, 40.3% of all immigrants in Maryland have a bachelor's or higher degree, while the state rate of bachelor's or higher degree is 36.9%. Therefore, almost one fifth of all bachelor's or higher degrees in Maryland are held by immigrants.  

While statistically, the DC-VA-MD area has a higher rate of bachelor's or higher degrees compared to the national average, which only hit 30% this year, immigrants contribute greatly to this higher than average rate. And with such a significant percentage of immigrants holding Bachelor's or higher degrees, these states' economies can't help but be benefited.

 

With a highly educated immigrant work force, immigrants are playing an important role in areas that greatly impact society and the economy. In Maryland, the sciences and healthcare are greatly benefited by the local immigrant population. A 2006 study found that over one-quarter of all scientists, that over one-fifth of all healthcare providers, and that one-fifth of mathematicians and computer specialists working in Maryland are foreign born. Thus, the District, Virginia, and Maryland can ill afford to lose their immigrants as they play a vital role in maintaining a stable economy in the area.

 

Additionally, the DC-VA-MD area has one of the largest immigrant communities in the country; only California, the Tri-State area, Texas, Hawaii, and Florida have larger immigrant populations. Immigrants in the DC-VA-MD area do not only benefit the area's economy, but also they greatly influence politics and government affairs. Many of the immigrants in the DC-VA-MD area are naturalized U.S. citizens. While only a third of the immigrants living in the District have become naturalized U.S. citizens, nearly half of all immigrants in Virginia and Maryland have obtained this status. As naturalized U.S. citizens, these immigrants have obtained the right to vote. Thus, many immigrants in the District, Virginia, and Maryland are helping influence and shape the area's and the nation's political landscape. And as seen in the last election, naturalized U.S. citizens are overwhelmingly using their right to vote now, more than ever before.

 

All immigrants, both authorized and unauthorized, are extremely important to the DC-VA-MD area. They are playing a role in revitalizing the economy, they are greatly contributing to the tax base and they are helping shape the nation's politics. With a highly educated and skilled immigrant population, DC-VA-MD immigrants will only continue to see success as they help boost the area's economy and make breakthroughs in their chosen fields. And with the number of immigrants residing in the DC-VA-MD area that are eligible to vote, immigrants are also shaping the political community and influencing political change. The DC-VA-MD area needs immigrants to remain a strong, economically vibrant, and racially diverse community.



[1] Immigrants in the District make up 13.5% of the population, or 83,599 people. In Maryland, 13.9% of the population is part of the immigrant population, or 811,701 people. And in Virginia, immigrants make up 11.1% of the population, or 900,243 people.

 

FREE
Consult
Beach-Oswald Immigration Law Associates will be happy to answer all of your immigration related questions during a scheduled in-office or telephonic consultation. During your consultation, one of the partners of the firm will review your problem at length, and will explain in detail what resolutions are available to you. Click here now.

Disclaimer: This newsletter is not intended to establish an attorney-client relationship. All information contained in this newsletter is generalized. Any reliance on information contained herein is taken at your own risk.