Join Our List
|
| Washington, DC |  | |
2011 to 2014
|
|
|
| Issue: #7 | October/November 2014 |
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.
Thank you all for your confidence and support as we have been listed again for Washington DC Super Lawyers 2011-2014, and Washington Post Best Lawyer, representing the top 5% of lawyers in the area as listed by the Washington Post 2014!
Please complete a Client Data Form prior to your consultation. We have forms in English, French, Spanish, Korean, Arabic and Russian. If you require a form in another language, please call us at (202) 331-3074.
The above picture was taken of the Beach-Oswald Immigration Law Associates staff on its annual Fall Retreat. This year we were excited to attend Cirque du Soilel, Amaluna at the National Harbor!
Read on!
|
|
Recent Grants and Successes by BOILA!
|
BOILA is proud to announce that Mr. M, a native and citizen of Sweden, was granted approval of his I-601 waiver of inadmissibility application along with his application for adjustment of status to become a permanent resident. BOILA was successful in showing that if Mr. M's waiver application, which was required because of his past criminal convictions, was not approved his US citizen spouse would suffer extreme hardship. USCIS previously denied Mr. M's waiver of inadmissibility application that he filed on his own in 2009. As a result of BOILA's efforts, Mr. M can now join his spouse in the US since they have lived apart for the past 8 years.
Mr. C, a native and citizen of El Salvador, was granted sole legal and physical custody of his minor daughter in the D.C. Superior Court, Family Division. The minor child was an unaccompanied minor traveling from El Salvador to reunite with her father in the United States after her mother had passed away leaving her with no adult supervision. The D.C. Superior Court, Family Division recognized that the minor child was constructively abandoned by her mother through death and granted sole legal and physical custody to her father, Mr. C, as well as completing the Special Immigrant Juvenile Status predicate order.
Ms. G, a native and citizen of Poland, was granted approval of her I-751 Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence based on a waiver of the joint filing requirement with BOILA's help in showing that although she entered the marriage in good faith, the marriage was dissolved. Through BOILA's efforts, Ms. G has recently obtained her unconditional permanent residence card.
Ms. O, a native and citizen of The Gambia, was granted approval of the I-130 Petition for Alien Relative which was filed by her US citizen spouse. When Ms. O first retained BOILA, her I-130 Petition had been pending for over one year. Through BOILA's efforts, Ms. O's I-130 Petition was finally approved despite the fact that she had been previously placed in removal proceedings and was ordered removed from the US. BOILA looks forward to filing a motion to reopen Ms. O's case with the Board of Immigration Appeals to enable Ms. O to adjust her status to that of a permanent resident.
Mr. O, a native and citizen of Nigeria and former asylee,was granted approval of his N-400 Application for Naturalization and has now become a United States citizen.
Ms. F¸ a native and citizen of Nigeria, was granted approval of her I-751 Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence based on a waiver of the joint filing requirement with BOILA's help in showing that Ms. F was an abused spouse of a US citizen. Through BOILA's efforts, Ms. F's removal proceedings were administratively closed and she has recently obtained her unconditional permanent residence card. BOILA looks forward to assisting Ms. F in becoming a US citizen in the near future.
Mr. N and his wife, who are citizens of Nigeria, were granted approval of their I-485 Applications to Adjust Status or Register Permanent Residence, which had been pending since 2008 - for 6 years! BOILA filed a writ of mandamus petition in Federal District Court against USCIS due to the long delay in adjudicating Mr. N's application. BOILA was successful in obtaining a favorable decision for Mr. N and his wife.
Mr. A, a native and citizen of Ghana, was granted approval of his I-751 Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence based on a waiver of the joint filing requirement with BOILA's help in showing that he entered the marriage in good faith, but the marriage was dissolved. Through BOILA's efforts, Mr. A has recently obtained his unconditional permanent residence card. BOILA is currently in the process of requesting that Mr. A's removal proceedings be terminated and BOILA is anticipating a favorable outcome.
Mr. I, a native and citizen of Nigeria, was granted approval of the I-130 Petition filed by his US citizen spouse. Through BOILA's efforts, Mr. I's removal proceedings were administratively closed. BOILA looks forward to having Mr. I's case before the Immigration Court reopened to allow him to adjust his status to that of a permanent resident.
Mr. S, a native and citizen of Cameroon, who had a final deportation order since 2003, was granted approval of the I-130 Petition for Alien Relative which was filed by his US citizen wife. BOILA intends on filing a motion to reopen Mr. S's case based on extreme hardship to Mr. S's US citizen spouse and child if he is deported, which, if granted, will enable Ms. S to adjust his status to that of a permanent resident.
Mr. F, a native and citizen of Cameroon, who is presently in removal proceedings, was granted approvalof the I-130 Petition for Alien Relative that was filed by his US Citizen daughter. In light of the I-130 approval, BOILA has requested that Mr. F's removal proceedings be terminated to allow him to adjust his status to a permanent resident.
Mr. G, a native and citizen of the Central African Republic (CAR) wasgranted approval of his N-400 Application for Naturalization and has now become a United States citizen. BOILA was successful in assisting Mr. G in obtaining naturalization despite the fact that he had multiple criminal charges for driving under the influence and other criminal charges.
Ms. K, a native and citizen of Cameroon, was granted approval of the I-130 Petition for Alien Relative filed by her US citizen spouse and has received her conditional permanent residence card.
Ms. B, a native and citizen of Ghana, was granted approval of her N-400 Application for Naturalization and has now become a United States citizen. BOILA was successful in showing that Ms. B was not required to meet the marital union requirement for naturalization because her permanent residence was granted as an abused spouse under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).
Ms. N, a native and citizen of Cameroon,was granted approval of her N-400 Application for Naturalization and has now become a United States citizen. Through several inquiries, BOILA was successful in pressuring USCIS to schedule Ms. N for her swearing in ceremony.
|
|
Obama Moves to Implement Immigration Reform Focusing on Family Unity
|  President Obama will, as soon as next week, announce his move to implement a broad overhaul of the immigration enforcement system with the central goal of ensuring family unity. Some of the intended changes President Obama will include are providing parents of U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident children to obtain legal employment documents to allow them to work without fear of deportation, and extending immigration protections to undocumented migrants who came to the United States as children. It is clear his goal is to keep families together.
While these initiatives are a step in the right direction toward immigration reform, it is clear that President Obama will take on these reforms through an executive action, or without the now Republican dominated congressional approval. Thus, Congress may attempt to prevent these reforms.
Read the full New York Times article here... |
|
U.S. Supreme Court to Decide on Consular Limited Review
| 
On October 2, 2014 the United States Supreme Court granted cert to review a case from the 9th Circuit providing an opportunity for The Supreme Court to reexamine the nonreviewability of consular decisions.
The facts of Din v. Kerry are as follows. In September of 2006 Fauzia Din, a United States Citizen married Kanishka Berashk, a citizen and resident of Afghanistan. In October of the same year, Din filed a visa petition on behalf of her husband, Berashk. Nearly two years later, USCIS notified Din that the visa petition had been approved and the National Visa Center scheduled a visa interview for Berashk at the Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan on September 9, 2008.
At the interview Berashk truthfully answered all questions and informed the interviewing officer that he had previously worked as a payroll clerk for the Afghan Ministry of Social Welfare during the Taliban regime and that he currently worked as a clerk for the Afghan Ministry of Education for the new government that was established after the United States invasion. At the conclusion of the interview the interviewing officer informed Berashk that he would receive his visa within two to six weeks.
Nearly 9 months later, in June 2009, Berashk and Din were informed that the visa had been denied, and he was ineligible for a waiver. Upon further requests to understand exactly why the visa was denied, Bershak was notified that his visa had been denied under section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, a section that lists a wide variety of conduct that holds an alien inadmissible due to "terrorist activities." Bershack was further informed that due to national security reasons it was not possible for a more detailed explanation into the reasons of the denial.
Din and Berashk, through pro bono counsel, continued to make a number of inquiries into the reasons behind his visa denial, however these inquiries were never answered. Thus Din initiated action against the State Department to get a solid answer. The District Court Judge dismissed her complaint citing the doctrine of consular nonreviewability, and she appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
The doctrine of consular nonreviewability is a longstanding doctrine that was further accepted in 1972 when the Supreme Court ruled in, Kleindienst v. Mandel that without exception Congress has plenary and sole power to make rules for the admission of aliens and may exclude those who possess those characteristics. Accordingly, federal courts are generally without power to review the actions of consular officials.
In a split decision the 9th Circuit ruled that there is a limited exception to the doctrine of consular nonreviewability which is applicable to Din and ordered the State Department to provide Ms. Din with a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for denying her husband's immigrant visa.
The 9th Circuit emphasized that the limited exception to the doctrine of consular nonreviewability is when the denial of a visa implicates the constitutional rights of an American citizen. In such cases federal courts may exercise a highly constrained review solely to determine whether a consular official acted on the basis of a facially legitimate reason. And since the 9th Circuit had previously recognized that a citizen has a protected liberty interest in marriage that entitles the citizen to review of the denial of a spouse's visa, Din and her husband fit within the limited exception.
Therefore, the 9th Circuit delved into whether the reason provided by the consular officials for the denial of Din's husband's visa was facially legitimate and bona fide. The Court began by stating that the State Department offered no reason at all for denying Berashk's visa but merely pointed to a statute that also did not provide a particular reason for denial. The cited to statute exceeds 1,000 words and contains ten subsections identifying different categories of aliens who may be inadmissible for terrorism reasons. Additionally, some of the subsections allow an alien to present evidence to rebut the cited reason for inadmissibility, however without knowing the applicable subsection this rebuttal is impossible. Thus merely citing to the statute did not provide any clarity to the specific reason for Berashk's visa denial.
The 9th Circuit ultimately held that because Din has a constitutionally protected due process right to limited judicial review of her husband's visa denial, the United States Government has deprived her of that basic right by refusing to provide either her or her husband with a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for denying his visa.
This is an opportunity for The Supreme Court to reexamine the limited reviewability of consular decisions that have the negative consequences of undermining the due process rights of United State citizens. The Supreme Court should emphasize that the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights should be upheld and exalted, while the powers of big government entities should be checked.
Read the 9th Circuit Decision Here...
|
|
Errors on Electronic I-94 Cards
| 
Since April 2013, for entries by sea or air, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has provided an Electronic I-94. The I-94 card is an important document proving that a person has legally entered the United States and in employment cases, is authorized to work for a U.S. employer until the expiration of the card.
Over the last several months, CBP has frequently issued I-94 cards with misspelled names, inaccurate dates, and wrong visa information. Due to these general errors, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has been issuing visa petition approval notices without I-94 cards attached.
A foreign national employee's visa status and duration of stay is updated on an I-94 card upon reentry into the United States from an international trip abroad.
Employers should always:
- Obtain updated copies of I-94 cards for all employees every time an employee's status is changed or extended by USCIS, and each time an employee reenters the United States from abroad.
- Verify that an employee's name, visa category, and duration of stay are correct and keep copies for proper record keeping.
- Send copies of updated I-94 cards to immigration counsel.
If the I-94 information is incorrect or missing, the employee will encounter issues upon reentry into the United States. The employer may be exposed to liability for unauthorized employment and problems may arise when the employee travels or extends his or her visa. As such, having an accurate paper copy of the valid I-94 card is crucial.
Employers with additional questions about I-94 cards, I-797 approval notices, and other issues, should contact Beach-Oswald for assistance.
|
| Lack of Transparency at Artesia Detention Center | 
In June of this year, the Department of Homeland Security opened a federal immigration detention center in an isolated New Mexico desert town, Artesia. This facility was built during this summer in response to the surge of women and children migrants from Central America, in particular Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. Although it was constructed as a temporary solution to respond to the wave of undocumented immigrants, it appears it may stay open until next summer.
The problem arises in that it appears that the conditions within this detention center are inhumane and the women and children detainees are suffering life-threatening consequences. The center, made up of trailers, holds around 500 inmates, all women and children. Artesia is renowned for hearings where judges set high bonds ranging from $20,000 to $30,000 for the purpose of dissuading detainees to drop their asylum claims and accept deportation orders. These court hearings are typically held via video conference and most of the early cases were heard by judges in Arlington, Virginia. The isolated area of Artesia does not offer proper legal services; rather there is a pro bono project crew and groups of immigration attorneys fly in each week from around the country. This pro bono project is a recent development. Children are suffering from chicken pox outbreaks and schooling was only recently provided in October even though federal law mandates it for detained children.
Recently immigrant rights groups filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to urge the release of documents regarding the use of the expedited removal process against families with children. These groups allege that there is a lack of transparency as far as the government keeping the detention and deportation of these families secret. The government has an obligation to provide due process, respecting the legal rights of a person and that does not appear to be happening for these detainees.
This is particularly troublesome as the population of women and children within Artesia is among the most sensitive and greatest in need. The U.S. government's recent lack of transparency sends a strong message to the world that it is abandoning its obligations to provide detained families with opportunities to reasonably present their claims.
|
|
Temporary Protected Status Extensions for Honduras, Nicaragua, Sudan & South Sudan
| 
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has extended the designation of Honduras and Nicaragua for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 18 months, from January 6, 2015 through July 5, 2016.
Additionally, DHS has extended the designation of Sudan and South Sudan for 18 months, from November 3, 2014 through May 2, 2016.
|
|
2016 Diversity Lottery Registration Open until November 3, 2014
| 
Registration for the 2016 Diversity Visa Program opened on the first day of the new fiscal year on October 1, 2014.
Registration closes at 12:00 noon eastern standard time on Monday, November 3, 2014. Applicants who are nationals of countries that have historically low rates of migration to the United States are now able to register using the electronic diversity visa entry form, E-DV.
See Diversity Visa Registration Instructions Here...
|
|
Health & Human Services Proposes $9 Million Project to Provide Representation to Unaccompanied Children Migrants
|  Health & Human Services (HHS) is proposing a 9 million dollar project that will provide direct legal representation to nearly 2,600 unaccompanied children migrants throughout their immigration proceedings. HHS will work directly with the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice to determine how best to prioritize the 2,600 slots to the most vulnerable populations.
To implement this Departmental priority, the Office of Refugee and Resettlement is awarding $4,261,268 of supplemental funds in the 2014 Fiscal Year to provide direct representation to 1,222 unaccompanied children migrants, and will provide the remaining funds to the project for the 2015 Fiscal Year. The initial program will specifically address legal services to post-release unaccompanied minor children in the major U.S. cities of Los Angeles, Houston, Miami, Baltimore, Arlington, Dallas, Memphis, New Orleans and Phoenix.
A supplemental award of $2,226,513 in the 2014 Fiscal Year will be given to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in Washington, DC to help assist in immigration proceedings for the expansive numbers of unaccompanied minor migrants that have entered the United States. Additionally, the U.S. Committee of Refugees and Immigrants in Arlington, Virginia will also receive a supplemental award of $2,034,755. These supplemental award funds will support activities of these two organizations from September 30, 2014 through September 29, 2015. |
| USCIS Expands Definition of 'Mother' & 'Parent' to Include Assisted Reproduction |  United States Citizenship and Immigration Services issued a new policy (PA-2014-009) clarifying and expanding the definition of "mother" and "parent" under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The new definition now includes gestational mothers using assisted reproductive technology regardless of whether they are the genetic mothers.
|
| Second Circuit Elaborates on how to Determine Membership in a Particular Social Group for Asylum Claims | 
The Second Circuit in Paloka v. Holder held that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) must perform an evidence based inquiry as to whether the relevant society recognizes a proposed social group and whether the claimed group is defined by characteristics that provide a clear benchmark for determining who falls within the group when assessing a claim of membership in a particular social group.
Silvana Paloka was a citizen and national of Albania and sought asylum in the United States. Paloka claimed that she she was targeted for persecution on account of her membership in one of several alternatively claimed social groups, including "unmarried women," "young women in Albania," and "unmarried young women in Albania." The Immigration Judge (IJ) initially denied the relief holding that the proposed particular social groups were too broad and that Paloka was not targeted on account of her membership in the proposed particular social groups. The BIA affirmed this decision finding further that the proposed particular social groups "were not defined with sufficient particularity to be cognizable particular social groups."
The Second Circuit determined that the BIA and the IJ erred in their analysis because they did not comply with the recent BIA precedent that clarified the proper interpretation of the phrase "particular social group." The criteria needed for identification of a particular social group are that it is (1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question. The criteria of particularity and social distinction have long caused confusion for the circuit courts when applied.
To provide clarification, the BIA explained what social distinction and particularity meant in the recently decided cases of M-E-V-G- and W-G-R-. In these two cases the BIA explained that 'social distinction' meant whether the proposed group was perceived as a group by society. Further, the BIA stressed that 'particularity' required that the group be defined by characteristics that provide a clear benchmark for determining who falls within the group. The BIA emphasized that the determinations of whether a group was 'socially distinct' and 'particular' focuses primarily on how the society in which the group exists views the group rather than on how the persecutors view the group.
The Second Circuit found that the Immigration Judge and the BIA did not adhere to these new descriptions of 'social distinction' and 'particularity,' and vacated and remanded the case for reconsideration.
|
|
Visa Bulletin for December 2014
|
FAMILY SPONSORED PREFERENCES:
|
Family Sponsored
|
All Areas Except Those Listed
|
China - Mainland Born
|
India
|
Mexico
|
Philippines
| | F1 | 22 JUN 07 | 22 JUN 07 | 22 JUN 07 | 15 AUG 94 | 15 DEC 04 | | F2A | 22 MAR 13 | 22 MAR 13 | 22 MAR 13 | 01 JAN 13 | 22 MAR 13 | | F2B | 22 FEB 08 | 22 FEB 08 | 22 FEB 08 | 01 OCT 94 | 15 JAN 04 | | F3 | 15 DEC 03 | 15 DEC 03 | 15 DEC 03 | 15 NOV 93 | 22 JUN 93 | | F4 | 22 FEB 02 | 22 FEB 02 | 22 FEB 02 | 01 MAR 97 | 01 JUN 91 |
EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCES:
|
Employment Based
|
All Areas Except Those Listed
|
China-Mainland Born
|
India
|
Mexico
|
Philippines
| | 1st | Current | Current | Current | Current | Current | | 2nd | Current | 01 JAN 10 | 15 FEB 05 | Current | Current | | 3rd | 01 NOV 12 | 01 JUN 10 | 01 DEC 03 | 01 NOV 12 | 01 NOV 12 | | Other Workers | 01 NOV 12 | 22 JUL 05 | 01 DEC 03 | 01 NOV 12 | 01 NOV 12
| | 4th | Current | Current | Current | Current | Current | | Certain Religious Workers | Current | Current | Current | Current | Current | | 5th Targeted Employment Areas/Regional Centers and Pilot Programs | Current | Current | Current | Current | Current |
DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT (DV) CATEGORY FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER:
| Region | All DV Areas Except Those Listed | | Africa | 17,000 | Except:
Egypt: 7,500
Ethiopia: 9,000
| | Asia | 3,200 |
| | Europe | 11,600 | | North America (Bahamas) | 3 | | Oceania | 650 | | South America, and the Caribbean | 725 |
|
|
|
|
|
