Archives 2018

USCIS Celebrates Constitution Week With 260 Naturalization Ceremonies

USCIS Celebrates Constitution Week With 260 Naturalization Ceremonies

Attorney Advertising: prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

myattorneyusa.com is owned and operated by The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC (Grinberg & Segal). The content of myattorneyusa.com is copyrighted. Grinberg & Segal is a NYC immigration law firm that consists of highly experienced immigration lawyers licensed to practice state law in New York and New Jersey and U.S. federal law worldwide. Grinberg & Segal’s New York-based immigration, deportation and removal lawyers represent immigrant clients in all fifty states and before U.S. Consulates anywhere in the world. Grinberg and Segal’s immigration lawyers are highly skilled and experienced in all areas of immigration law and related federal litigation including Writs of Mandamus and Habeas Corpus as well as APA Action in Federal District Courts, Petitions For Review in U.S. Circuit Courts and all administrative appeals Before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of the Executive Office for Immigration Review; Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as well as before Immigration Courts nationwide.

(Why?)

Published at Sun, 16 Sep 2018 23:02:00 +0000


Three Sisters Convicted in Family-Sponsored Immigration Fraud Case

Three Sisters Convicted in Family-Sponsored Immigration Fraud Case

On September 21, 2018, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that it had assisted in the investigation of three individuals in upstate New York in a visa fraud case [PDF version]. The investigation led to the convictions of all three individuals.

The three individuals who were charged and ultimately convicted were Dalia Lita, Elina Rahman (E. Rahman), and Lubna Rahman (L. Rahman). The three individuals are sisters.

The USCIS detected fraud in the immigrant visa petitions involving the sisters and notified investigators of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The case was then referred to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for criminal prosecution.

In 2001, Lita filed petitions for her two sisters, E. Rahman and L. Rahman. The evidence at trial established that Lita was aware that the petitions she filed on behalf of her sisters “contained false statements meant to conceal their true identities and prior, illegal residence in the [United States].” After the petitions were approved, E. Rahman and L. Rahman applied for immigrant visas “knowing that their applications also contained the same false statements.” E. and L. Rahman ultimately obtained immigrant visas based on their fraud.

The three sisters face serious penalties as a result of their convictions. The USCIS notes that they may each be sentenced to a maximum term of imprisonment of five years with a maximum term of post-imprisonment supervised release of three years. Furthermore, they may each be ordered to pay a fine of up to $250,000. Sentencing will occur on January 14, 2019. The judge presiding over the case, Senior U.S. District Judge Thomas J. McAvoy, will consider numerous factors in deciding on sentences.

The case was investigated by Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and successfully prosecuted by Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Jason W. White.

On our site, we often discuss the severe immigration penalties that may stem from fraud. Aliens who procure or attempt to procure visas or other immigration benefits through fraud may face removal from the United States and ineligibility to obtain future benefits. However, this case highlights that certain forms of immigration fraud may also implicate U.S. criminal laws. Criminal sanctions may adhere in addition to civil immigration penalties. If an alien is facing immigration charges relating to fraud, or is seeking a waiver of inadmissibility due to immigration fraud, he or she should consult with an experienced immigration attorney. If an alien is criminally charged with offenses relating to immigration fraud, he or she will need to retain an experienced criminal defense attorney. If the individual already has an immigration attorney, that attorney may assist him or her in finding criminal counsel.

(Why?)

Published at Wed, 26 Sep 2018 18:41:00 +0000


USCIS Publishes Draft of Proposed New Public Charge Rules

USCIS Publishes Draft of Proposed New Public Charge Rules

On September 22, 2018, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that, in the near future, it will publish an extremely consequential proposed rule revising the definition of “public charge” under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). We have uploaded the DHS news release [PDF version] and the draft rule [PDF version] for your convenience.

The most prevalent public charge provision in the INA is found at section 212(a)(4) of the INA. This provision renders an alien who does not establish that he or she is not likely to become a public charge inadmissible. It is mainly relevant in the context of family-sponsored immigrant visa and adjustment of status applications. You may read a detailed walkthrough of the current public charge rules here [see article]. In addition, there is a public charge deportability provision found at section 237(a)(5) of the INA. However, as we discuss in our full article, the public charge deportability provision has been construed narrowly and is seldom invoked [see article].

Before discussing the draft rule, it is important to remember that the rule has not yet been published in the Federal Register. Once the proposal is published in the Federal Register, it will be open to public comment for 60 days. After the 60 day notice and comment period, DHS will consider the comments and work on drafting a final rule for publication in the Federal Register, at which point the rule will take effect. It is likely that any new public charge rules would not take effect for several months, at the earliest.

While we expect that the proposed rule that the DHS intends to publish “in the coming weeks” will be substantially similar to the draft rule, the DHS may make alterations before publication. For that reason, we will summarize the key points of the draft rule here and write a longer post once the DHS publishes a proposed rule for public comment in the Federal Register.

Under the current public charge rules, a consideration of whether an alien is likely to be a public charge is most relevant in the family immigration context. Nearly all family-sponsored immigrant visa or adjustment of status applicants require an affidavit of support in order to have their applications approved. Under current rules, a properly submitted affidavit of support that comports with all of the legal requirements is generally sufficient to overcome the presumption of public charge.

Under the draft rule, the DHS would instead determine whether an applicant is likely to become a public charge based on the “totality of the circumstances.” This would require adjustment of status applicants to file a new Form I-944, Declaration of Self-Sufficiency, along with the Form I-485 adjustment of status application. The rule would also introduce new procedures for evaluating whether a nonimmigrant seeking change of status or extension of status has already become or has been a public charge during his or her stay and/or whether the petitioner is likely to become a public charge in the future, except in categories exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility. Significantly, the rule would also revise implementing regulations for section 213 of the INA, which allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to accept a public charge bond from certain individuals seeking adjustment of status.

Receipt of certain benefits would be weighed as “highly negative factors” against finding that an alien is not likely to be a public charge. Under current rules [see section], receipt of the following three means-tested public benefits are considered adverse factors in public charge determinations:

Supplemental security income (SSI);
Cash temporary assistance for needy families (TANF), but not including supplemental cash benefits or any non-cash benefits provided under TANF; and
State and local cash assistance programs that provide for income maintenance.

The draft rule would also include the receipt of the following benefits significant adverse factors in public charge determinations in addition to the three that are already considered:

Medicaid (with limited exceptions for Medicaid benefits paid for an “emergency medical condition,” and for certain disability services related to education);
Medicare Part D Low Income Subsidy;
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or “food stamps”);
Institutionalization for long-term care at government expense;
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program;
Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance; and
Public Housing.

The draft rule requests public comments on whether the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) should also be included in a final rule. However, CHIP is not currently among the public benefit programs in the draft rule.

The draft rule includes a 36-month rule under which the receipt of the public benefits listed above (exempting CHIP, at least in the draft rule) within 36 months of an application would be a heavily weighted negative factor in the public charge context. Prior receipt of such benefits — i.e., prior to 36 months before submission of the application — would still be a negative factor but not a heavily weighted one. Other factors that would be considered would include how much the alien received in benefits, how many individual benefits he or she received, and the duration for which he or she received benefits, along with other factors.

In another important point, the draft rule would not count as negative factors any public benefits that were not covered under the previous public charge regulations and which were received before January 1, 2019. However, any such benefits received after that date would count as negative factors.

The draft public charge rule will constitute, if implemented, one of the most significant changes in immigration law in recent years. The provisions in the rule are categorically unfavorable to aliens seeking immigrant visas, adjustment of status, change of nonimmigrant status, and extension of nonimmigrant stay, and who are not otherwise exempt from the public charge provisions. Its consequence would be especially felt in the family immigration context, where many applicants for immigrant visas or adjustment of status may have a significantly higher bar for establishing eligibility to become lawful permanent residents. Furthermore, the rule's expansion of public benefits that would be encompassed under the public charge regulations would potentially imperil many immigrant visa and adjustment of status applications.

In one final note before we conclude, the draft rule proposes no change to how the DHS interprets section 237(a)(5) of the INA — the public charge deportability provision. That means that section 237(a)(5) should continue to be an uncommonly charged deportability ground. Please see our full article on section 237(a)(5) for more information [see article].

As we noted earlier, it is too early to tell what the ultimate outcome of this draft rule will be. It is possible that the Final Rule — if any is published — will be significantly watered down from the draft rule that we have discussed in this article. Furthermore, it is uncertain when the DHS will publish a proposed rule and start the 60-day comment period, much less when DHS would publish a Final Rule, assuming it ultimately does so.

Those with questions about how the proposed rule may affect them should consult with an experienced immigration attorney for a case-specific consultation. Furthermore, an experienced attorney may provide up-to-date guidance based on developments in the process toward the draft becoming a Final Rule. It is important to reiterate that family-sponsored immigrant visa applications and adjustment of status applications will, for the time being, continue to be adjudicated under the current public charge rules, not the draft rule or future proposed rule in the Federal Register. You may read about the current rules in our main article on the subject [see article].

(Why?)

Published at Tue, 02 Oct 2018 13:20:00 +0000


Tips for Getting a Job After Law School

Tips for Getting a Job After Law School

Finding a job is tough, especially after you graduate from grad school or law school with little experience. In this video, I’ll give you several tips on how to find a job after law school and how to make yourself the most ideal candidate.

TIME STAMPS:
+ The Job Market – 1:17
+ Forget about the “Dream Job” – 2:31
+ Use Job Websites – 5:42
+ Use Recruiters – 6:35
+ Apply to 4 Jobs a Day – 7:23
+ Craft Each Cover Letter – 9:33

SONG:
+ Tokyo Sunset by Erik Lund
Song: Erik Lund – Tokyo Sunset (Vlog No Copyright Music)
Music promoted by Vlog No Copyright Music.
Video Link: https://youtu.be/-jpnNRB5eTU

CONNECT WITH ME:
+ Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/limegreenelf
+ Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/limegreenelf
+ Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/limegreenelf

WHO AM I?
+ My name is Brittany and I’m a lawyer living life in New York. I love showing you guys what my life is like here in New York and what delicious places there are to eat and what fun things there are to do. Your support means the world to me 🙂

Experience NYC through my lens.

+ Graphics by Hannah Lee (www.hannahbrealee.com)

#lifeasalawyer